E
e_c
Guest
The first version of the CCC was WRONG (at least for the reasons I stated), which is why it was changed. Sadly enough, the first version remains on the Vatican’s website. The Latin has the changes.
- Status
T
Tim_D
Guest
This is false.
According to the article that I linked, “the change in definition does not mean the original formulation was wrong.”
The fact that the “first version remains on the Vatican’s website” suggest that the definition is valid just as the entry concerning the death penalty being changed from the first edition to the second does not make the first edition “wrong.”
E
e_c
Guest
It does not suggest one may “intend and tell a direct lie” in any way. You are making that up, or you are reading the outdated CCC - which is the English version on vatican.vaI don’t see how you can read OM as saying this.
He is saying you don’t have to answer somebody who has no right to the truth.
Personally I might go further.
- You may therefore keep silent.
- If that is a giveaway you may reply with an indirection (answer something he didn’t ask).
- if that will not do you may reply ambiguously even if you know it is likely they will hear the answer they want to hear even if it is not in reality the case.
The CCC does seem to say we may intend to deceive someone who has no right to the knowledge they seek.
That suggests it is OK to intend and tell a direct lie under such conditions.
And this is not called “lying” by the Church’s definition (which is that lying is always immoral).
Lying is a perversion of the faculty of communication. Perverting a faculty is intrinsically evil. The first published draft of the CCC was WRONG-O. This is why it was changed. Changing it, of course, does not necessarily mean it was wrong (because of the nature of a catechism, whose authority is found in the whole), but if it wasn’t wrong, why was it changed? DOH!
E
e_c
Guest
No, what it suggests is that it is the Vatican website…
You are right to say a change in a catechism does not mean the first version was wrong. It also does not mean the new version is wrong. Where does that leave us? Orphans? Read the other 99% of the Tradition. It backs up the changes in the Editio Typica (which is the official version, by the way).
T
thistle
Guest
You may use mental reservation.
In the case of example that is used in many many threads if you were hiding Jews in your house and the Nazis came to your door and asked if there were any Jews in the house you could answer by saying out loud “There are no Jews in this house.” This can be immediately continued by silently saying in your mind “that you are entitled to know about.”
Such an answer is not sinful.
E
e_c
Guest
This seems to be a narrow mental reservation, on your account. There is no reasonable access of the one being communicated with to your internal utterance… Therefore, you are only communicating the first part. So it’s a lie. So it’s sinful.
Those same words could possibly work, supposing by “house” you mean “family,” and there are no Jews in your family.
E
e_c
Guest
The old one without the changes. And, if my memory serves, the “Protestant” version of the teaching on lying on Cdl. Ratzinger’s account.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Christ came to us undercover. If “cop” means one who has authority then Christ is our greatest undercover cop.
Did Christ lie? Jesus referred to himself over 75 times in the gospel as “the Son of Man” (Mat 16:13). Was Christ deceiving those who had a right to know that He was God? Was Christ trying “to gain some advantage”? Of course not, what He said was true, not the whole truth but all the truth that the listeners could bear to know at the time.
Read Fr. Serpa closely. The choice his undercover agent faces is to tell the truth or withhold the truth. He does not teach that anyone may ever lie.
C
Cimachol
Guest
I disagree. I believe Fr. Serpa meant the obvious - that when an undercover cop is asked if he is a cop, he may morally state that he is not. To only be able to give evasive “truths” would prevent him from being able to do his (or her) job effectively, as criminals would (and sometimes do) ask very direct questions and not accept anything other than an unambiguous answer as a response. Therefore, if speaking a falsehood is always immoral, no Catholic could accept such a position in good conscience.
O
o_mlly
Guest
If Father Serpa did not write that undercover police may lie then your erroneous beliefs that undercover police may do so are merely your beliefs, not his. Why not ask an apologist on CA? Perhaps, the good father himself will clarify for you.
E
e_c
Guest
Thistle,
There are two kinds of mental reservation: broad, and narrow. One is permissible, the other is not, as it is just a certain kind of lie.
The resources I have provided will give you more than enough to get a hold of this distinction.
C
Cimachol
Guest
I have trouble accepting the idea that if I am understanding correctly what others mean by mental reservation, that it is really any different from lying, if lying is defined as any deliberate deception whatsoever. If I tell you, “My competitor would charge you $500 a year for this service, while I will only charge $100,” while silently thinking to myself, “$100 per month, that is,” I am lying to you. I am deliberately saying certain words that, if understood as I intend them to be understood, will cause you to believe something that isn’t true.
There is a reason courts require a person to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – it’s to discourage people from pulling such shenanigans.
In the above scenario, of course, I am using a deceptive tactic to deprive you of information that you do have a right to – the cost of a service you are considering buying. The question, then, isn’t whether I’m clever enough with words to say something that might technically be true but which I have good reason to believe will be understood in a way that misleads you. The question is whether I might ever be justified in deliberately causing another to believe something that isn’t true.
Jimmy Akin notes that the Pope formerly known as Cardinal Bergoglio willfully used deception to save lives, for what it’s worth.
One thing I notice in the current catechism is that it still contains a qualifying phrase:
“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” (Italics added.) What does it mean to “lead someone into error”? If someone is intent on committing murder, aren’t they already in error? By speaking against the truth for the moment, could it be argued that I am placing an obstacle in his already erroneous path?
I saw this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
There is a reason courts require a person to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – it’s to discourage people from pulling such shenanigans.
In the above scenario, of course, I am using a deceptive tactic to deprive you of information that you do have a right to – the cost of a service you are considering buying. The question, then, isn’t whether I’m clever enough with words to say something that might technically be true but which I have good reason to believe will be understood in a way that misleads you. The question is whether I might ever be justified in deliberately causing another to believe something that isn’t true.
Jimmy Akin notes that the Pope formerly known as Cardinal Bergoglio willfully used deception to save lives, for what it’s worth.
One thing I notice in the current catechism is that it still contains a qualifying phrase:
“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” (Italics added.) What does it mean to “lead someone into error”? If someone is intent on committing murder, aren’t they already in error? By speaking against the truth for the moment, could it be argued that I am placing an obstacle in his already erroneous path?
I saw this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
(Emphasis added.)
C
Cimachol
Guest
They no longer have the “Ask An Apologist” forum, from what I understand. However, I believe Father Serpa takes his work seriously, and the original question in the link I posted was directly concerned with the use of lying and deception involved in undercover police work. Father Serpa’s reply was that such work is permissible for Catholics, and he made no qualifying statements to suggest that they needed to avoid any “lies” (assuming the general definition of any deliberately false statement for any reason) or deception. If that were an issue, I’m sure he would have addressed it, given that this was the point of the original question. But, if you desire further clarification from Father Serpa, I would encourage you to reach out to him.
E
e_c
Guest
There is more than one kind of mental reservation. There is the kind which is narrow, and there is the kind which is broad. The former is a certain kind of lie, the latter is deceptive truth-telling. It seems your sales example would fall into the former category, given that the only ways it could be understood as a complete thought are with respect to the antecedent “per year” or in an absolute respect ($100 one time). Both are false, so the true qualifier is entirely hidden. Now, if your competitor charged more frequently, you might be able to say he charges “more,” because by the word “more” is sometimes legitimately meant “more frequently.” (This does not mean you would be justified in doing so, which is a separate issue.)
Make sense?
I understand why people get A) confused and B) bent out of shape over this issue, but it is just one of those hard realities that is hard because of our broken nature. The resources I’ve provided can be of more help.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
This is intentional deception, one knows the hearer only hears the first part and that meaning is singular, clear and false.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Not having a right to know is a legitimising condition in the draft Catechism not the final version as E_C noted below.
C
Cimachol
Guest
This was more than a draft – it was a published edition of the Catechism that later revised.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I think conscience is the key even though it may be objectively erroneous.
Here we are attempting to inform ourselves of what it objectively means to immorally deceive (ie lie).
However I know I am very bad at formulating valid off the cuff mental reservations. Therefore when the soldier or crim comes achallenging my conscience tells me I have to tell an outright untruth. I dont know exactly how to justify that objectively, and it seems on balance the CCC says my conscience is erroneous if I do so. Nevertheless it still tells me to do so. But given that even the Church has difficulty formulating a single coherent definition of lying that works for all cases then perhaps my conscience may not be so clearly erroneous afterall. So maybe just venial if not clear.
.- Status