What is a "mental reservation," and why is it (seemingly) moral?

[Mattapoisett64]

I’ve never quite understood the concept of “mental reservation.” The idea of saying something thst isn’t quite true but covering yourself with some thought is something I can’t distinguish from a so-called “white lie.”

What technically is a “mental reservation,” how does it work, and why is it ethical?

 

[didymus]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article:

Mental Reservation, the name applied to a doctrine which has grown out of the common Catholic teaching about Lying (q.v.) and which is its complement. According to the common Catholic teaching it is never allowable to tell a lie, not even to save human life. A lie is something intrinsically evil, and as evil may not be done that good may come of it, we are never allowed to tell a lie.

. . . . .

The doctrine was broached tentatively and with great diffidence by St. Raymund of Pennafort, the first writer on casuistry. In his “Summa” (1235) St. Raymund quotes the saying of St. Augustine that a man must not slay his own soul by lying in order to preserve the life of another, and that it would be a most perilous doctrine to admit that we may do a less evil to prevent another doing a greater. And most doctors teach this, he says, though he allows that others teach that a lie should be told when a man’s life is at stake. Then he adds: "I believe, as at present advised, that when one is asked by murderers bent on taking the life of someone hiding in the house whether he is in, no answer should be given; and if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to the other’s silence. Or he may use an equivocal expression, and say `He is not at home’, or something like that. And this can be defended by a great number of instances found in the Old Testament. Or he may say simply that he is not there, and if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin.

The last bit is confusing since it is an outright lie rather than a mental reservation. And as for it being impermissible to tell a lie even to save a human life, that’s just stupid. I would go with the Jewish doctrine of pikuah nefesh.

One example of mental reservation – when someone asks me about rumors or gossip I usually say, “I wouldn’t know” or, “I couldn’t say.”

 

[Eucharisted]

Where a lie could be spoken, silence is golden.

 

[Brendan]

In Catholic theology, lying is more than just speaking that which in untrue.

The ‘truth’ belongs to those to whom have a right to the knowledge. That is why being silent when asked something that the person has no right to know is not a lie of ommission.

If a responsed is forced, mental reservation may be used in conjunction with silence to address the wrong of forced response.

For example, say you are hiding a number of Jews in WWII and a Nazi comes to your house and asked “Are there any Jews here”

This person has no just right to the knowledge, and silence would normally be the correct response. But the Nazi would most likely process the silence as a response in the affirmative. In effect, your response of silence transmitts the truth that the person has no right to know.

So a response of “There are no Jews here” with the mental note of “… on the porch with us” does not violate the prohibition against lying as the person has no just right to the knowledge.

 

[dakotagirl]

In Catholic theology, lying is more than just speaking that which in untrue.

The ‘truth’ belongs to those to whom have a right to the knowledge. That is why being silent when asked something that the person has no right to know is not a lie of ommission.

If a responsed is forced, mental reservation may be used in conjunction with silence to address the wrong of forced response.

For example, say you are hiding a number of Jews in WWII and a Nazi comes to your house and asked “Are there any Jews here”

This person has no just right to the knowledge, and silence would normally be the correct response. But the Nazi would most likely process the silence as a response in the affirmative. In effect, your response of silence transmitts the truth that the person has no right to know.

So a response of “There are no Jews here” with the mental note of “… on the porch with us” does not violate the prohibition against lying as the person has no just right to the knowledge.

Best answer

 

[didymus]

In Catholic theology, lying is more than just speaking that which in untrue.

The ‘truth’ belongs to those to whom have a right to the knowledge. That is why being silent when asked something that the person has no right to know is not a lie of ommission.

We’ve been thru this discussion before though not in awhile and the Catechism did say that we don not owe the truth to a person who has no right to the truth.
But if I recall right someone said that the most recent edition of the Catechism deleted that proviso.

For example, say you are hiding a number of Jews in WWII and a Nazi comes to your house and asked “Are there any Jews here”

This person has no just right to the knowledge, and silence would normally be the correct response. But the Nazi would most likely process the silence as a response in the affirmative. In effect, your response of silence transmitts the truth that the person has no right to know.

So a response of “There are no Jews here” with the mental note of “… on the porch with us” does not violate the prohibition against lying as the person has no just right to the knowledge.

In a situation like this even worrying about telling a lie being a sin is silly. Telling the truth is murder.

 

[Brendan]

We’ve been thru this discussion before though not in awhile and the Catechism did say that we don not owe the truth to a person who has no right to the truth.
But if I recall right someone said that the most recent edition of the Catechism deleted that proviso.

The Cathecism does not present itself as articulating the fullness of Catholic Moral Theology. Just because a proviso was removed does not mean that it is no longer applicable to Catholic teaching. Only that the editors no longer felt is was necessary to be in that particular body of work

 

[DL82]

In a situation like this even worrying about telling a lie being a sin is silly. Telling the truth is murder.

Not so - to allow someone else to do something sinful is no sin.

I think the best example of ‘mental reservation’ I have heard comes from the story of St Athanasius, when he had been accused of heresy and was being pursued by his enemies. Being pursued up the Nile in a rowing boat, he took off his vestments and pretended to be a fisherman in the reeds. When the soldiers passed by looking for him, St Athanasius cried out to them ‘he is not far off’.

 

[elts1956]

Not so - to allow someone else to do something sinful is no sin.

I think the best example of ‘mental reservation’ I have heard comes from the story of St Athanasius, when he had been accused of heresy and was being pursued by his enemies. Being pursued up the Nile in a rowing boat, he took off his vestments and pretended to be a fisherman in the reeds. When the soldiers passed by looking for him, St Athanasius cried out to them ‘he is not far off’.

Not to invite an argument, but I think you are mistaken here. We are responsible for our own sins of omission as well as the ones we actively commit. Are you saying in the instance stated, that of protecting Jews, it is okay to tell the truth and betray them to someone who would harm them??

 

[Michael_David]

What did St. Peter do when asked if he knew Jesus? Didn’t he ‘deny’ Christ 3 times before the cock crowed?

According to this thread so far… St. Peter told an ‘outright’ LIE! (To save his own hide of course).

So, how does this fit into what we mere lay-people are suppose to do… and by who’s standards?

(And what did Judas do with his betrayal? Either directly or ‘implied’?)

 

[ready]

The concept of mental reservation was correctly explained to me by a Franciscan priest who said that if a trouble maker (or anyone else with no right to know your business) asks you a question, like “how are you?” you may use a mental reservation with them. When the bad person asks how you are, you say “fine” when you are actually feeling miserably. Why is this permitted and why is it a mental reservation? Because to the bad person you are actually saying I am fine to you! To your mother or any non-trouble maker you may feel free to get into your deepest feelings and say “I’m doing miserably, I’m afraid.”

 

[elts1956]

What did St. Peter do when asked if he knew Jesus? Didn’t he ‘deny’ Christ 3 times before the cock crowed?

According to this thread so far… St. Peter told an ‘outright’ LIE! (To save his own hide of course).

So, how does this fit into what we mere lay-people are suppose to do… and by who’s standards?

(And what did Judas do with his betrayal? Either directly or ‘implied’?)

And what if Peter had said "I do not know the man, “well”? Mental Reservation?

 

[Michael_David]

And what if Peter had said "I do not know the man, “well”? Mental Reservation?

If those thoughts were going through St. Peters mind when he said what he said… why did he later go and repent?

Also, Christ used different words here: like deny for lie. Does this have more to do with the ‘ultimate’ Truth then with how one feels at the moment? I believe we are not to lie to God… man is a different story… where is the oath?

And… how ‘in-tune’ are we with the workings of God for us and this world at any given time in our life? “Now we see dimly, later, face to face”. Can we really know the TRUTH? So, if not here in this life (as St. Paul said), when does it become a lie?

Perhaps we are just ‘babbling’… not knowing the Truth, so we haven’t grasped the Truth yet, to know what is a lie? Any of our babbling could be a lie… or the Truth.

So here, the lie becomes defiance toward God’s Plan for us. As how could St. Peter have led the new Church if he too were alongside Christ on a cross? Deny here, not lie!

And so, isn’t Satan the ‘lier’? Can Satan tell the Truth? Even while in defiance of God’s Plan for us? According to Christ… not a word is Truth. Some may be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but it is not ‘Truth’, only a ‘lie’…

I see the mental reservation coming in when dealing with others whose path is not my path… supposedly both leading to salvation. Here, St. Peter comes in, his Path was different then the one’s asking him if he knew Christ. St. Peter denied Christ (with his lie) but followed his path ordained by God and Christ to start and lead the New Church… to feed the sheep.

So, a lie is contrary to the Truth; a mental reservation is related to one’s path… and how sure one is that it is the right path. Would we do as St. Peter did? Deny yet follow that path!

 

[elts1956]

If those thoughts were going through St. Peters mind when he said what he said… why did he later go and repent?

Also, Christ used different words here: like deny for lie. Does this have more to do with the ‘ultimate’ Truth then with how one feels at the moment? I believe we are not to lie to God… man is a different story… where is the oath?

And… how ‘in-tune’ are we with the workings of God for us and this world at any given time in our life? “Now we see dimly, later, face to face”. Can we really know the TRUTH? So, if not here in this life (as St. Paul said), when does it become a lie?

Perhaps we are just ‘babbling’… not knowing the Truth, so we haven’t grasped the Truth yet, to know what is a lie? Any of our babbling could be a lie… or the Truth.

So here, the lie becomes defiance toward God’s Plan for us. As how could St. Peter have led the new Church if he too were alongside Christ on a cross? Deny here, not lie!

And so, isn’t Satan the ‘lier’? Can Satan tell the Truth? Even while in defiance of God’s Plan for us? According to Christ… not a word is Truth. Some may be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but it is not ‘Truth’, only a ‘lie’…

I see the mental reservation coming in when dealing with others whose path is not my path… supposedly both leading to salvation. Here, St. Peter comes in, his Path was different then the one’s asking him if he knew Christ. St. Peter denied Christ (with his lie) but followed his path ordained by God and Christ to start and lead the New Church… to feed the sheep.

So, a lie is contrary to the Truth; a mental reservation is related to one’s path… and how sure one is that it is the right path. Would we do as St. Peter did? Deny yet follow that path!

I said “if”, not that he did. Just curious. Would that have been a mental reservation?

 

[Michael_David]

I said “if”, not that he did. Just curious. Would that have been a mental reservation?

Going back to St. Peter: when Christ called him out of the boat to walk on the water, he did for a second, then (lack of 100% of Faith) mental reservation set in and he started to sink.

If one has 100% Faith… there is no mental reservation!

St. Peter knew what Christ wanted him to do (lead the Church)… and he did end up doing that in spite of the ‘denial’, or shall we say because of it.

I see Faith and Belief tied directly to mental reservation; the more of one side one has, the less of the other.

A bit like the disciples able to do miracles when Christ sent them out to do so… they believed (had ‘full’ Faith)… and if we are also Christ’s disciples, even some 2000 years later, why is it we cannot do the same? Has so much ‘dilution’ happened with us ‘Modern Man’ (looking at those in Christ’s time as ‘primitive’) that we have more Religious mental reservation, and too little Faith and Belief???

Where is our allegiance? God or man? Yes, we have learned to do a lot of things, and learned a lot about many things… perhaps since we feel we can do all these achievements on our own, we are slowly picking up Pride and shoving Faith under the rug. In the ‘primitive days’ the ‘unlearned’ and ‘ignorant’ were doing miracles, while the learned and educated where not… could there be a correlation here? Faith doesn’t take being learned and smart… just ‘simple’ Belief… no mental reservations.

 

[elts1956]

Going back to St. Peter: when Christ called him out of the boat to walk on the water, he did for a second, then (lack of 100% of Faith) mental reservation set in and he started to sink.

If one has 100% Faith… there is no mental reservation!

St. Peter knew what Christ wanted him to do (lead the Church)… and he did end up doing that in spite of the ‘denial’, or shall we say because of it.

I see Faith and Belief tied directly to mental reservation; the more of one side one has, the less of the other.

A bit like the disciples able to do miracles when Christ sent them out to do so… they believed (had ‘full’ Faith)… and if we are also Christ’s disciples, even some 2000 years later, why is it we cannot do the same? Has so much ‘dilution’ happened with us ‘Modern Man’ (looking at those in Christ’s time as ‘primitive’) that we have more Religious mental reservation, and too little Faith and Belief???

Where is our allegiance? God or man? Yes, we have learned to do a lot of things, and learned a lot about many things… perhaps since we feel we can do all these achievements on our own, we are slowly picking up Pride and shoving Faith under the rug. In the ‘primitive days’ the ‘unlearned’ and ‘ignorant’ were doing miracles, while the learned and educated where not… could there be a correlation here? Faith doesn’t take being learned and smart… just ‘simple’ Belief… no mental reservations.