Lying and use of fake papers during war

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sayanz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookcat said:
Yes I see the one there is from “IntraText” and is the first edition… The Catechism has been revised since then according to the Latin Typical edition.

It now reads:

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
Click to expand...
If we look at the same Vatican website and we search the Latin version of the CCC, instead of the English one, we can see that it states:

**2483 **Mendacium est directissima contra veritatem offensa. Mentiri est contra veritatem loqui vel agere ad inducendum in errorem. Mendacium, relationem hominis ad veritatem et ad proximum laedens, fundamentali nocet relationi hominis eiusque verbi ad Dominum

The bolded part is consistent with the revised English translation and it does not have any reference to people having the right to know the truth
 
Cristiano said:
If we look at the same Vatican website and we search the Latin version of the CCC, instead of the English one, we can see that it states:

**2483 **Mendacium est directissima contra veritatem offensa. Mentiri est contra veritatem loqui vel agere ad inducendum in errorem. Mendacium, relationem hominis ad veritatem et ad proximum laedens, fundamentali nocet relationi hominis eiusque verbi ad Dominum

The bolded part is consistent with the revised English translation and it does not have any reference to people having the right to know the truth
Click to expand...
Right the English was changed according to the Latin Typical edition text.
 
As far as I’m concerned, the current English translation on the offical Vatican website has retained the “right to know” verbiage for years. If the Vatican is wrong, then send the private messages to the Vatican instead of to me. Until then, there obviously is something legitimate to the “right to know” verbiage.
 
Bookcat said:
Yes I see the one there is from “IntraText” and is the first edition… The Catechism has been revised since then according to the Latin Typical edition.

It now reads:

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
Click to expand...
I clicked on the link that Norseman {?} had provided to quote the CCC. I can concede that it appears that 2483 no longer contains “the right to know” statement; however, as you have pointed out, 2489 continues to use it. As you have pointed out in several other posts on this topic, 2489 indicates that silence or discreet language can be utilized to avoid telling the truth which might cause harm. Some would call “mental reservation” a form of discreet language. I would call it lying. However, regardless whether you call it mental reservation or lying, it all boils down to communicating an untruth because the receiver of the message is being purposefully sent either partial truth meant to lead him/her away from the actual truth or no truth meant to accomplish the same. The intent, either way, is to prevent the receiver from obtaining the truth without attempting to do so via silence. A rose by another name… Anyway, in the end, you can call it mental reservation or discreet language. I, personally, will continue to call it lying… I believe that to be a more honest name for it. Peace.
 
Norseman82 said:
As far as I’m concerned, the current English translation on the offical Vatican website has retained the “right to know” verbiage for years. If the Vatican is wrong, then send the private messages to the Vatican instead of to me. Until then, there obviously is something legitimate to the “right to know” verbiage.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that the Vatican was wrong, years ago, by releasing to print the edition where the “right to know verbiage” was removed because considered incorrect? Are you saying that legitimacy comes from poor translations, just because they exist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top