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

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too th...

Communique about Avrille Dominicans - SSPX.org

+ JMJ Having completed the review of the 'Avrille' perspective, this communique from the French District Superior is perfectly timed. I believe that the 'resistance' has lost rationality and further argumentation simply results in their holding on to their false ideal all the more firmly. Pray much ... First, for them to acquiesce to the grace of humility in order to obtain a clear perspective on the principles involved. Second, that we may remain faithful to the Church, and Her Dogmas, Doctrines and Principles. Lest we become that which against we strove ... P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org

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

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...

Magisterium and Levels of Assent

+ JMJ Understanding the levels of assent to be given to the teachings of the Church is a critical success factor in walking the knife's edge during this crisis of the Church.  The levels of assent are generally associated with the theological grades of certainty, which are not surprisingly mirrored by the censures for contravening the teachings of the various levels.