Lying and language

[Tyrel]

In an ongoing debate over the “Live Action” exposure of the corruption in “Planned Parenthood”, Catholic philosophers have been divided over the issue of whether lying, or 'signifying falsely, is ever morally acceptable. On the Pro side are philosophers such as Peter Kreeft and Janet E. Smith (who wrote this article).

A response was written by Alexander Pruss (an amazing philosopher) in company with Christopher Tollefsen, in which they defend the position that the Church teaches that it is never morally permissible for a person to commit and intend false signification.

Her response then came more recently.

However, she notes something that I haven’t found, and I’m wondering if anyone can help me find it. She says the following:
“The only magisterial statements that support the condemnation of all lying are Innocent XI’s condemnations of mental reservation.”

Can anyone direct me to these statements?

Thanks.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I think it is referring to the decree of Innocent XI “Various Errors on Moral Subjects”

Denzinger has the relevant portion thus (as condemned):

1176 If anyone swears, either alone or in the presence of others, whether questioned or of his own will, whether for sake of recreation or for some other purpose, that he did not do something, which in fact he did, understanding within himself something else which he did not do, or another way than that by which he did it, or some other added truth, in fact does not lie and is no perjurer.

1177 A just reason for using these ambiguous words exists, as often as it is necessary or useful to guard the well-being of the body, honor, property, or for any other act of virtue, so that the concealing of the truth is then regarded as expedient and zealous.

VC

 

[Tyrel]

Excellent, thanks a lot.