B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Of course, I am single finger tapping and thought the diff was trivial enough to slide.
It does not invalidate my point.
- Status
It does not invalidate my point.
E
e_c
Guest
Uttering a falsehood is not identical with lying.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..
P
PelagiathePenit
Guest
Is this another one of those arguments promoting cruelty because at least it is honest as if it is somehow honorable to air every opinion that comes to mind? Honesty is the greatest virtue, so is kindness.
C
Cimachol
Guest
I am not convinced that it’s even a venial sin in such cases. I’ll through another article worth reading into the mix, from Catholic Answers: catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-lying-ever-right. Peter Kreeft offered some interesting discussion on the subject here: catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/why-live-action-did-right-and-why-we-all-should-know-that.htmlI 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.
At the very least, it seems to me that those who are convinced that every utterance of a known falsehood, with the intent that the falsehood be believed, is a lie and therefore immoral should at least understand that this is clearly not an opinion universally held within the Church.
C
Cimachol
Guest
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that anyone should express every opinion they might have. No one I know defines keeping one’s opinion to oneself as lying.
C
Cimachol
Guest
Janet E. Smith discusses the Catechism-revision issue a bit in this article: firstthings.com/article/2011/06/fig-leaves-and-falsehoods
As her article suggests as a possibility, I am inclined to think that the fact that the first edition was published as it was suggests that the definition of the word “lie” remains less than 100 percent clear within the Church.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Agreed, the very fact that even the CCC oscillated and eventually decided not to mainstream the “you dont have a right to know camp” means it is a very worthy and still viable a view within the bosom of Church teaching still.
That alone is enough for Catholics to “lie”, under that condition, in certain conscience which may even be correct conscience…and not even a venial sin as you say.
E
e_c
Guest
What exactly makes you think that? That everything coming out of Rome at any time is always properly vetted by the appropriate offices, and that those offices always have competent holders?
That’s not part of the Faith…
The Editio Typica is the standard. That’s the real CCC.
All the other sources which I’ve provided (and more could be provided) do not admit of the so-called “lie of necessity.” It is a perversion of a faculty, and as such is intrinsically evil. (One of my sources also addresses Smith’s creative tap-dance routine around the issue.)
C
Cimachol
Guest
I think it’s a bit unfair to dismiss Smith’s argument as a “creative tap-dance routine around the issue.” She disagrees with you; that doesn’t mean she’s trying to avoid the issue. Fortunately Edward Feser is a bit more respectful in the aforementioned blog post, noting that “it is only fair to acknowledge that the fact that the less strict minority view made it into the first edition of the Catechism at all only lends support to Smith’s claim that the Church has not officially condemned that view, and regards it as at least defensible and within the bounds of orthodoxy.”
T
Tim_D
Guest
By your view point, then, the Church has been wrong for most of her history in regard to capital punishment because the current edition of the catechism severely limits the conditions by which it may be applied in contrast to constant and traditional teaching of the Church.
As has been pointed out already, the discrepancies between the first and second edition of the catechism in dealing with the topic of lying suggests that the topic is not fully settled within the Church. As the author of the previous article that I linked stated, we know that it is not right to speak the truth to men who will then do evil to one who is innocent; the issue is that no one can quite explain in a technical sense why.
We ought, also, ask the question, is it preferable to speak the plain truth to murderers and thus make ourself complicit in their sin? Do we not also become a murderer by betraying innocent life? If we are not permitted to do evil so that good may come of it, are we then permitted to do good, knowing that evil will come of it? It is an affront to a well-formed conscience and an absurdity to a heart that seeks Justice to suppose that men of good will must act in cooperation with evil men in order to avoid sin. St. Raymund is absolutely correct when he says "… *if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, *nor will he sin."
E
e_c
Guest
Perhaps it is unfair. But I also don’t think it is a realistic view that the ordinary magisterium has taught on this topic, given the enormous amount of repetition throughout the centuries up until now with the current CCC. But that’s how it goes sometimes - just like with the Immaculate Conception, for example. Wasn’t it already taught? Sort of… But not enough to warrant the official label of “heterodox.”
Capital punishment is not definitively taught to be restricted in the way you suggest it is (nor is that even a conceptual possibility, as it would involve a condemnation of God’s own law as revealed in the OT), and we may have legitimate disagreements about its application, as Cdl. Ratzinger taught in 2004. See #3: ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm
As to your second point, I have provided my own explanation and a number of other explanations of why lying is not allowed even in these difficult situations. Indiscreet speech is being supported by nobody.
Your point about prudence in revealing the truth is granted and contested by nobody. Yes, there is that saying of St. Raymund of Capua (following Augustine) - the question is why and how one’s conscience inclines one to say a thing. On its face, such a justification would ruin all of Christian ethics (as we see happening with “conscience-based ethics” today)… One’s conscience simply telling one to do what is normally wrong does not thereby justify the action. It seems that what the conscience must do in these cases is somehow convict one that what he is saying is the truth. In any event, Augustine and Raymund stand alone in this, as far as I am aware.
I’ve argued my case, which I firmly believe is the Church’s own ordinary magisterial teaching (given the historical and universal pedigree), as confirmed by the present edition of the CCC. There is no universal catechism, no classic morals handbook, and no Doctor or Father who says one may lie out of necessity (Raymund and Augustine notwithstanding). It is in fact just the opposite, and in no way is it clear how any position taken that one may sometimes tell a falsehood to deceive could ever be anything but a reversal of this perennial teaching of the Church.
To lie is to pervert the communicative faculty and is therefore always an affront to the Designer of that faculty. It is always wrong. Broad mental reservations can be justified, as they are not lies, though one must be respectful of what knowledge should and should not be withheld. Narrow mental reservations are just a special kind of lie and are always sinful, even if only mildly. There is a distinction to make with games of deceit, as the normal rules of language/communication do not apply.
The resources I have provided should help to clear any difficulty.
This is what I can contribute.
Peace,
-e_c
E
e_c
Guest
As I understand your question, yes. If I know, for example, that going to Mass on Sunday will get me ridiculed (which would be sin), I should still do it. If I know that the government will use my taxes to fund an unjust war, I should still pay taxes (in every normal case). To give occasion to sin or to give remote material cooperation to sin is not always wrong and in some cases remains obligatory.
I do not think I will post again in this thread. My position is quite clear, and if anyone would like to discuss it further with me then PM me.
T
Tim_D
Guest
He is saying that he is the arbitrator of what is and isn’t magisterial teaching.
"…properly vetted by the appropriate offices…those offices always have competent holders?"
I wonder how we can trust anything coming from Rome without knowing who vetted the statement and whether or not they are competent?
Notice, too, how the whole subject of whether it is legitimate to speak a statement at variance with the mind went from men seeking to murder an innocent individual to being ridiculed for going to Mass. No one has ever died from being ridiculed by many have met their end through murder.
I am still waiting for an answer to my question: If we are not permitted to do evil so that good may come of it, are we then permitted to do good, knowing that evil will come of it?
B
Bradski
Guest
I wouldn’t think so. Off the top of my head I can imagine being able to go back in time and shouting: ‘Look out Adolf, behind you!’
There’d be a difference in actively killing him or standing back and letting him die. But to actually save him? A bridge too far I’d say.
E
e_c
Guest
You seem to have an assumption that if a document comes out of Rome, it is totally and clearly a legitimate magisterial document, which is not at all “de fide” and these days especially is problematic. The original draft of the CCC had errors, which is why there were changes made - it is how the process works with the editio typica of documents, when they are finally codified in the acta. Whatever the case, the CCC was corrected. Clearly, there was more vetting and reflection, and that proved fatal to the “right to know” clause.
To the first: no. And that is an inappropriate criticism.He is saying that he is the arbitrator of what is and isn’t magisterial teaching.
"…properly vetted by the appropriate offices…those offices always have competent holders?"
I wonder how we can trust anything coming from Rome without knowing who vetted the statement and whether or not they are competent?
Notice, too, how the whole subject of whether it is legitimate to speak a statement at variance with the mind went from men seeking to murder an innocent individual to being ridiculed for going to Mass. No one has ever died from being ridiculed by many have met their end through murder.
I am still waiting for an answer to my question: If we are not permitted to do evil so that good may come of it, are we then permitted to do good, knowing that evil will come of it?
To the second: YES. A thousand times, especially now. (This would be affirmed, by the way, in the document “Pastor Bonus”.)
To the third: I attempted to answer your question as I understood it, which was in terms of scandal and material cooperation.
To the fourth: If you mean, “can we lie,” I believe I have made my position entirely clear. Lying is always a sin. We may never sin - this is precisely what sin consists in! Offending God is NEVER worth whatever we gain in this life, for ourselves or for others. God’s own design is better - and sometimes the difficulty in abandoning to that design is enormous, but therein lies great merit and glory… “Heroic virtue” is the path to sainthood.
This is all I have to say in this thread. I will not reply further. PM me to continue if you would like.
-e_c
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Did you get out of the wrong side of bed today
.Its interesting that on the same day I get accused in two different threads of, on the one hand, accepting everything from Rome as infallible and on the other hand, not intellectually assenting to a minor instruction from a Congregation that allegedly says as a matter of doctrine that the laity may not preach after the Gospel.
My small point here was that seriously wrong statements unlikely remain in a universal public Catechism for three years without good reason, nor do such things drop from a clear blue sky as a random error that nobody noticed…but more likely represent a variant but not mainstream Catholic view…which Magisterial authority finally decided not to give prominence to…though it may in the future. Nor do revisions or new Catechisms mean the obsoleted ones were “wrong”…as GrannyM believes.
If you had good references/commentary why it was changed by those who did so that would seem helpful
Either way nothing to get too upset about I would have thought.
- Status