FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Letting Someone Else Take the Blame
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(08-24-2015, 12:55 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like with mental reservations one can willfully tell unTruths freely. All one'd have to do is mentally add "in Opposite-Land" -- where every day is Opposite Day, of course -- to anything one says. "So, where is your grandson? We want to do horrible things to him!" "He isn't here. He took a bus to Greenland. With Scooby-Doo and Scrappy and one very full picnic basket. [in Opposite Land]."

Obviously, it could be taken to the extreme. That's the usual charge of being Jesuitical. Probably lots of good jokes about that.

Let's clarify. There's a lie, then there's a deception. Those are distinct things. To lie is to communicate in words something which is known to be false, and present it as true. The essence of the lie here is the untrue statement. To deceive is much broader, and includes words, gestures, and other circumstances. The essence of the deception is the false judgment of the other person.

One may never lie, but one may, for just reasons, permit the deception of another.

Yes, a mental reservation could be used to intentionally and unjustly deceive, but the moral doctrine is not falsified by its abuse. As they say, the exception proves (i.e. tests) the law. That is why mental reservation is divided into broad mental reservations, and narrow mental reservations.

A broad mental reservation is words said or communicated that limit the meaning of what is said (they say something) but also give a reasonable clue as to the intended meaning. This is no lie, because what is said really has two meanings, one of which is true.

The example of "He's not home" when someone calls for a family member who does not want to answer is a perfect example. Everyone knows the phrase "He's not home" generally means not strictly that the person is actually out of the house, but unavailable. It can also have the strict sense of the words too. When one says "He's not home right now" both sense could be taken, but generally the conventional one (not available) would be understood.

A strict or narrow mental reservation is to use words tho limit the meaning of what is said, but which have really only one sense. Thus, if that sense is not true, there is no difference from a lie.

Strict mental reservations are lies and forbidden. Broad mental reservations are pemitted for a just reason, and really the only way to balance the need to always say the truth, yet, not to be forced to reveal the naked truth to one who is not owed such information.

To one who is owed such information as a matter of office, one could not even use a broad mental reservation. For instance, a minor child could not use a broad mental reservation toward his parents.

There's a balance here, and the doctrine isn't meant to create legalists, but accurately reflect the truth of God's law, without making certain lies allowable. If we went down that road, it would open the door to trying to measure whether one lie met certain criteria for permissiveness ... which would undermine the Natural Law itself.
This reminds me of a story I heard about a woman who hid the murderer of her own son, helped him to escape from the police and stayed all legal proceedings against him. Her son appeared to her from the grave and thanked her. He said that her conduct had caused hem to be released from what would have been many years in Purgatory.
 
(08-26-2015, 12:29 AM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]This reminds me of a story I heard about a woman who hid the murderer of her own son, helped him to escape from the police and stayed all legal proceedings against him. Her son appeared to her from the grave and thanked her. He said that her conduct had caused hem to be released from what would have been many years in Purgatory.

I don't like this story at all (and am guessing that that's all it is:  a story, not one rooted in Truth). This woman aided and abetted a murderer, becoming an accessory after the fact, obstructs Justice, sics a murderer on the rest of society -- and is to be lauded? Not in my world.
(08-26-2015, 06:00 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2015, 12:29 AM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]This reminds me of a story I heard about a woman who hid the murderer of her own son, helped him to escape from the police and stayed all legal proceedings against him. Her son appeared to her from the grave and thanked her. He said that her conduct had caused hem to be released from what would have been many years in Purgatory.

I don't like this story at all (and am guessing that that's all it is:  a story, not one rooted in Truth). This woman aided and abetted a murderer, becoming an accessory after the fact, obstructs Justice, sics a murderer on the rest of society -- and is to be lauded? Not in my world.

I would tend to agree with Vox here.

To hide a criminal from just punishment or assist in his escape would be a form of participating in his sin.

A public injustice like a murder does harm not only to the victim and his family, but also to society as a whole. Society has a right to execute justice to repair that debt.

I could imagine a possible scenario where there might be some excusing cause, but it is unlikely every occur outside of my imagination.
Why would protecting the killer free the son from purgatory? The story doesn't even make sense!
(08-26-2015, 06:00 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2015, 12:29 AM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]This reminds me of a story I heard about a woman who hid the murderer of her own son, helped him to escape from the police and stayed all legal proceedings against him. Her son appeared to her from the grave and thanked her. He said that her conduct had caused hem to be released from what would have been many years in Purgatory.

I don't like this story at all (and am guessing that that's all it is:  a story, not one rooted in Truth). This woman aided and abetted a murderer, becoming an accessory after the fact, obstructs Justice, sics a murderer on the rest of society -- and is to be lauded? Not in my world.

St Francis de Sales said that it really happened in Padua.
(08-26-2015, 09:33 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Why would protecting the killer free the son from purgatory? The story doesn't even make sense!
The killer was teh killer of her son. It had been an accident that happened while young people were playig with guns.
(08-26-2015, 11:15 PM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2015, 09:33 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Why would protecting the killer free the son from purgatory? The story doesn't even make sense!
The killer was teh killer of her son. It had been an accident that happened while young people were playig with guns.

Then he wasn't really a "killer" in the sense of a murderer, with evil intent. Phrasing it as you did made it seem otherwise, and if it had been so that this mother helped a murderer escape Justice, then that'd have been a serious problem.

I'm wondering why she just didn't tell the cops and Court that it had been an accident. This story is still weird.
(08-27-2015, 01:14 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2015, 11:15 PM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-26-2015, 09:33 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: [ -> ]Why would protecting the killer free the son from purgatory? The story doesn't even make sense!
The killer was teh killer of her son. It had been an accident that happened while young people were playig with guns.

Then he wasn't really a "killer" in the sense of a murderer, with evil intent. Phrasing it as you did made it seem otherwise, and if it had been so that this mother helped a murderer escape Justice, then that'd have been a serious problem.

I'm wondering why she just didn't tell the cops and Court that it had been an accident. This story is still weird.
She didn't tell the cops because she knew what was likely to happen. This was Padua a few hundred years ago not USA 2015.
Pages: 1 2