Skip to main content

The Truth about Mental Reservations Part 4: Conclusion

 +
JMJ

 

In post 3 I ended which some questions that I wanted to understand.

  1. Who has a right to an unambiguous answer? Examples include:
    1. when a pastor questions parties preparing for marriage, 
    2. when a person who is about to be inducted into office is asked about his freedom from disqualifications, 
    3. when a witness in court is interrogated about matters on which he can testify,
    4. when one party to a contract seeks from the other necessary knowledge about the contract; 
  2. What rights could be injured? Examples include:
    1. against the common good,
    2. in favor of a private good).
  3. When are you bound to keep the truth from a questioner?
    1. those who are questioned about secrets which sacramental or professional confidence forbids them to disclose (e.g., confessors, doctors, lawyers, statesmen, and secretaries) should deny knowledge, or, if hard-pressed, even the facts. .
    2.     The answer, "I do not know" or "No," in these cases simply means: "I have no personal or communicable  knowledge." 
    3. In war time a government has the right to censor the news in order to keep information from the enemy
    4. A reason of charity might also make it obligatory to disguise the truth by mental reservation (e.g., when a clear reply given to the question of a sick person would only weaken a slender hope of saving his life, or when exact information given to a gunman would enable him to overtake an intended victim);

 Finally, for a recap, I have concluded that the use of mental reservations or ambiguities are governed by the following key "tests:

  • Answer NO to the following questions:
    • Does the questioner have a right to an unambiguous answer? ✅
    • Would the use of a mental reservation injure the rights of another? ✅
    • Is there no other lawful means available (ie. evasion or silence)? ✅
  • Answer YES to the following questions:
    • Is it necessary to secure some good or avoid an evil of a magnitude that compensates for the deception that may be caused? ✅
    • Are you bound to keep the truth from the questioner?✅

If you answer correctly, you can employ a mental reservation.  However, in this day and age, I think further research is needed to under who has a right to an unambiguous answer.  For example, does a police officer have a right to a clear answer when they pull you over for speeding?

Something to ponder.

P^3




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 9 - The Novus-Ordo, Requiems and Holy Thursday

 + JMJ I am not a 'cradle' Traditional Catholic. In fact, one of my earliest 'church memories' is of the pews in my family's first parish.  Specifically, how they tasted. I remember a lot of people standing up around me as I got as much of the pew in my mouth as possible.   At that moment as I reached the sweet spot, an older lady caught my eye and I got the impression she was less that impressed that I had achieved the maximally effective amount of pew in my 4 year-old mouth. Looking back, I realised that the parish of my youth was a haven for Conservative Catholics. The Pastor had succeeded in isolating the parish from much of the madness of the 1970's. The result of a conservative parish with doctrinally sound teaching, catechesis and confessions was a parish packed to capacity. The downside, as I heard decades later, was that when a young member of that parish moved into another parish, he found a completely different Church from the one in which he had grow...

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...

Catholic World Report: Does Traditionis Custodes pass Liturgical History 101 ?

+ JMJ Legislation cannot change historical facts. Nor can an act of legal positivism determine what is or is not part of the lex orandi of the Church. The Catholic World Report has published an interesting article on TC and I've highlighted a couple of passages that caught my eye. I think the key thing is that the "Blind Suicidal Obedience is a thing of the past". Let us truly hope so!  This is something that has been a key question for decades amongst Traditional Catholics. As the author mentioned, I am Catholic, sub-species Traditional Catholic  😎 .  For further reading here's a link to my series on True Obedience (link) . P^3   Source: CatholicWorldReport    Corruption of the liturgy?: This theory, sometimes called “ antiquarianism [Tradical: Condemned by Pius XIII] ”, denigrates all liturgical forms growing up in the life of the Church from the fall of the Roman Empire through to the Renaissance – approximately 1,000 years – denying th...