When are you owed the truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adgloriam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adgloriam

Guest
CCC 2469 “Men could not live with one another if there were not mutual confidence that they were being truthful to one another.” The virtue of truth gives another his just due.(…)"
Click to expand...
CCC 2489 " (…) and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known (…)"
Click to expand...
The part “common good” being completely subjective lifts any need to be truthful - one might invoke any reason, like:“telling the truth was gonna be uncomfortable for me, I don’t owe the truth.”

Thus allowing for complete cynicism in social relations up to the point of everything becoming absurd and deprived of truthfulness. How can you know exactly when you were owed the truth?
 
Last edited:
Well, the simple answer is, one is always owed the truth. That being said, I think one is owed the truth if the outcome of a situation/event can have harmful repercussions and can lead one to sin, loss of faith, or loss of personally precious possessions, material or spiritual.
The flip side of the question is that the speaker is always responsible for the truth. Maybe this is best understood by Jesus calling Satan himself, “the Father of Lies.”
My two cents.
 
joeybaggz said:
one is always owed the truth
Click to expand...
However, is everything your business?
I.e. Is my business competitor entitled to know my super-sekrit cookie recipe, even if they. directly ask?
 
Last edited:
joeybaggz said:
I think one is owed the truth if the outcome of a situation/event can have harmful repercussions (…) or loss of personally precious possessions, material or spiritual.
Click to expand...
No one is gonna care about you! (can you blame them? or is it your fault?)
 
Scarlet; No, of course not. Your competitor has no right to your business secrets. Your neighbor has no right to know the intimate actions between you and your husband, Etc. Etc. My reply is only addressed to those situations where two parties have a reasonable right to truth as it relates to a specific subject of mutual benefit, not harm.
 
Last edited:
adgloriam said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
I think one is owed the truth if the outcome of a situation/event can have harmful repercussions (…) or loss of personally precious possessions, material or spiritual.
Click to expand...
No one is gonna care about you! (can you blame them? or is it your fault?)
Click to expand...
I believe the OP was in reference to the concept of truth, not necessarily its application in particular circumstances. As to the concept of the common good and an obligation to tell the truth, I’ve always gone by the concept that “you can never say the wrong thing, when you say nothing.”

The statement you highlighted was in respose to the idea of my owing the truth to another. You took it in the opposite manner I meant it. If, as the OP might have meant it as someone owing me the truth, from a moral standpoint, my statement stands. Man owes the truth to other men. If that concept is neither observed or obeyed, there can never be trust between human beings. And trust is the basis of keeping society safe. I am owed the truth when going through a red light on the highway, the truth being that I must trust the other driver to "truthfully’ obey the red light that states he must stop his vehicle and observe my right to proceed in safety. Granted that is an extension of the definition of truth, but without it, society would devolve into total chaos.
 
Last edited:
It wouldn’t be untruthful to say “that is private information”.
 
adgloriam said:
The part “common good” being completely subjective lifts any need to be truthful
Click to expand...
The CCC uses the word “discretion”. That would imply some use of reasoning.

Intent is also important. The CCC says to avoid things like “duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy”. Those things are not really subjective.
adgloriam said:
. How can you know exactly when you were owed the truth?
Click to expand...
To be blunt, you aren’t owed anything. The CCC doesn’t even mention being owed the truth. The CCC teaches about us owing others the truth, not us being owed the truth. Do you see the difference? Can you see why the CCC doesn’t mention being owed the truth?
 
Last edited:
The Archangel Raphael gave instructions in this regard.
Tobit 12:7-11
It is good to guard the secret of a king, but gloriously to reveal the works of God. Do good, and evil will not overtake you. Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is
better to give alms than to treasure up gold. For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity[a] and of righteousness will have fulness of life; but those who commit sin are the enemies of their own lives. Raph′ael Discloses His Identity “I will not conceal anything from you. I have said, ‘It is good to guard
the secret of a king, but gloriously to reveal the works of God.’
Click to expand...
Clearly, there are some worldly things that are best kept in confidence. What God does is glorious and is to be praised.
 
Melissa said:
It wouldn’t be untruthful to say “that is private information”.
Click to expand...
Melissa, it would be untruthful to say “it’s none of your business”, but I have to admit, your response is much kinder.
 
The receiver is not the one who decides what is owed. That’s the difference.
 
Not quite. A robber robbing your house is not owed the truth to the combination of your safe.

Nazi’s looking for Jews aren’t owed the truth that they are in your attic.
 
Edward_H said:
Not quite. A robber robbing your house is not owed the truth to the combination of your safe.
Nazi’s looking for Jews aren’t owed the truth that they are in your attic.
Click to expand...
I reiterate my above statement: My reply is only addressed to those situations where two parties have a reasonable right to truth as it relates to a specific subject of mutual benefit, not harm. Might want to read a poster’s entire response to a thread??? Maybe???
 
Well, forgive me for the hasty read.
I forgive you for the lack of verbal temperance and decorum.

I’m not fond of trendy terms such as “reasonable right” “mutual benefit” “not harm” and other such vague terms. They won’t take you very far.

What I do recommend is your reading Veritatis Splendor, or if you don’t have time reading CCC 1750+.

What you’ll see is a more rigorous set of principles centered on: the intention of the act, the object of the act itself, and the circumstances of the act.

This reading will straighten out the matter for you and clean up the loose language.
 
In his farewell address, President George Washington addressed the importance of religion in American life. He alludes to courtroom testimony, in particular, and says that taking an oath would be meaningless if there wasn’t some assurance that a witness was committed to stating the truth. His words are much more eloquent than mine, here.

The recent series by Ken Burns about the Vietnam War, and the historical retrospective of Oliver Stone about the ‘real’ history of the United States since World War I, both bring out, beyond all doubt, that from President Eisenhower and all presidents since, each president has lied to the American people, namely about Vietnam. None of them thought the war was winnable, but they committed the lives of a couple million American service personnel for a “show” of opposition to communism.

The issue of truth thus affects us at the highest levels of our civil society.

At the local level, it’s a common theme in TV cop shows, that witnesses lie to give their friend an alibi, etc. They sidestep the truth out of loyalty to a person, instead of loyalty to God’s will.

Some people evade the truth by not answering the question they were asked. So it goes.
 
Last edited:
CCC 2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.
 
Two PMs I sent adgloriam, which I am posting at his request:

You’re confusing two issues. The Church teaches that certain categories of actions, such as lying, are intrinsically evil, therefore they may never be done regardless of time, place, or circumstance.

That’s a separate question from when the truth should be revealed. The obligation to tell the truth, like all positive obligations, is subject to prudence, so it will often be best to remain silent, or even to use an equivocation (since such a statement is still per se true). But that doesn’t change the fact that lying (making a statement that is unequivocally false in order to cause others to believe it) is never permissible. This is how the Church has always balanced the duty to tell the truth with the requirements of discretion.

…

As a general rule, the virtue of veracity requires people to speak in a manner that will be understood correctly by others. A just cause is required to justify the use of equivocation.

The virtues of justice and religion also sometimes directly impose an obligation to speak the truth. This would be (in the case of justice) when one is bound by office or subpoena to inform someone of certain facts, and (in the case of religion) when one is speaking under oath. To use equivocation in these circumstances requires a very grave cause (e.g. to preserve the seal of confession).

Many virtues sometimes indirectly impose an obligation to speak the truth, when doing so is necessary to fulfill other obligations (e.g. when charity requires that one warn another person of some danger). In these cases, the obligation to tell the truth will be binding to the same extent that the main obligation is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top