How SOME Catholic Bishops Also Teach by Example: --- Other Versions of "The Truth"

In response to some queries, I will now let the rest of you in on a lesser-known "dirty little secret" about clerical "white lies." Hopefully, this ultramontane tradition loop-hole won't blow anyone's mind or shake their faith. Indeed, desperate parts of the Catholic Magisterium can and do lie big-time (as we know they often do regarding sexual abuse by clergy) and with the ecclesiastical approbation of moral theologians no less.

This is how they do it with a straight face and clear conscience. This cute little maneuver is how bishops protect their "virtue of veracity", much like laity might "take the Fifth" (invoke the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution) against self incrimination... It's how shameless guys like Boston's infamous Burnie Law can put their hands on a Holy Bible and swear under oath to Almighty God and contrive fecal substance of "non-historical genre" ...

There's a 16th century RCC doctrine (man-made law which differs from Almighty God's dogma) and theological "loop hole" which they want to think permits them to pretend that they are not lying to you by telling themselves that they "really" mean the statement in another way which is in fact true. However, there is no possible way you could be expected to guess or discern this "true" or "secret" meaning! So they are actually being hypocritical in pretending to themselves that they are not lying.

This time-honored club prescription can be found in older moral theology book commentaries (but NOT in canon law). In essence, it is the withholding of information or of communicating only a portion of the truth about a particular matter based on the proposition that another person or other persons are not entitled to the information being withheld. This bold faced rationalization supposedly "to prevent scandal" (actually to avoid embarrassment and/or law suits) is called "strict mental reservation" (telling the "truth", or part of it, in an ambiguous way that the questioner doesn't gain any useful information). It's actually an ecclesiastical form of mental masturbation.

This term is theologically known as "amphibology," or an "rhetorical equivocation". In the secular world, this is called "prevarication", “to stray from or evade the truth, to equivocate.” (The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language,” Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin Co.) Here in New York we call such trained circumlocution "double talk"; their evasive quibble is known as "pussy footing around".

A legitimate mental reservation is to reserve in one’s mind the real meaning of what is said, but allow the listener a reasonable clue that such reservation is being made. If a prudent person can gather the intended meaning from the circumstances, then it is a broad mental reservation (which is very much unlike misinformation.) Broad mental reservations are not only permissible but may be obligatory. Perhaps this is why our esteemed teachers and "'elder brethren", the Jews, will usually answer a tuff question with another question. Holy Prudence dictates when to use this. However, a strict mental reservation provides no reasonable clue to the real meaning of what is said. Actually strict mental reservations are thinly-veiled lies.

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Catholic Doctrine on Lying -- 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. However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all creeds and of none, both ancient and modern, have frankly accepted this position. They admit the doctrine of the lie of necessity, and maintain that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity it is justice that should prevail. The common Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of mental reservation as a means by which the claims of both justice and veracity can be satisfied...."

“… the addition of a modifying phrase in the mind of a speaker that restricts the meaning of spoken words. The dilemma between the absolute prohibition of lying and the duty to keep a secret gave rise eventually to the doctrine of mental reservation. Some taught the permissibility of strict mental reservation, in which one mentally added a qualification to which the audience had no access. This teaching was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. [which means nothing to the Novus Ordo modernists - editor.]

However, broad mental reservation, involving the use of equivocal language that was intended to deceive, yet that had a secondary meaning available to the audience, was permitted by virtually all Catholic writers. This teaching has all but disappeared from contemporary moral theology because the conflict between the duty to speak the truth and to preserve secrets is approached differently.” -- (The Encyclopedia of Catholicism)

Here's how they slither & wrangle out of their loop-holes: "....In the strict mental reservation the speaker mentally adds some qualification to the words which he utters, and the words together with the mental qualification make a true assertion in accordance with fact. On the other hand, in a wide mental reservation, the qualification comes from the ambiguity of the words themselves, or from the circumstances of time, place, or person in which they are uttered...."

Their modern day RC catechism lends support to this theory... (Supposedly they "revised" "corrected," and/or "reinterpreted," these in the 1997 version when others caught on to their self-contradiction hypocrisy.)

"The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity." -- (CCC No. 2484)

"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. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know [edited out] it." -- (CCC No.2489)

Contrariwise, this is what our Traditional Old Roman Catholic "Catechism of St. Pope Pius X" conversely teaches on the Eighth Commandment and LYING (FORBIDDEN!!!)

This is why whenever one takes an oath of naturalized citizenship, or as a US Senator or officer in the National Guard, one does so without any "mental reservation." (Too bad it does not appear in the Oath of Office" for the President of the United States.) And what a pity that a cock still doesn't crow thrice again like the first time a Bishop ever lied (Matt. 26:34.) Personally, I think that these evasive legal wranglings should fall under our Patriot Act instead of the sham of "moral theology". But regardless of how one cuts this cheese, it always stinks because lying is always sinful and intrinsically evil!

But don't worry -- like many of our bishops, I'm sure they also keep their fingers crossed, even if just when "fibbing".

See also:
"Lying--Moral Choice in Public and Private Life" by Sissela Bok
"The Science of Historical Theology" by Rev. Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.
"Moral Theology" by Heribert Jone (pgs. 248-250) TAN Books

Eighth Commandment: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor!" (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20.)

“Lips that tell the truth abide firm forever; the tongue that lies lasts only for a moment. Lips that lie are abhorrent to Yahweh; dear to Him those who speak the truth.” (Proverbs 12:19, 19:22.)

There will be no healing and forgiveness -- without justice;
there will be no justice -- without the full truth;
no truth -- without full accountability!