Author Topic: How to avoid lying? (Read 9121 times)

SimpleMan · « **Reply #30 on:** March 15, 2025, 01:03:39 AM »

But, in the section 2400 of the Moral Theology, "broad mental reservation" is not justified unless there are serious reasons for it. Here again is the key quote:

Quote

Quote

[Broad Mental] Reservation is not justified, unless it is necessary in order to secure some good or avoid some evil, whether spiritual or temporal, whether for self or for another, and the end compensates by its importance for the deception that may be caused. Apart from such necessity mental reservation is, to say the least, a departure from the virtue of Christian sincerity or simplicity, which pertains to truthfulness and which forbids one to conceal the truth from others when there is no good reason for concealment (Matt, v. 37). Moreover, the friendly relations of mankind would be impaired if it were lawful to speak equivocally even when trifling things are discussed or when there is no reason to be secretive.

In the OP scenario, he did not need to lie. He should not, therefore, use mental reservation in cases like that. He should have just told the customer something truthful, even if the customer would not have been happy with the answer.

The issue here has nothing to do with "eggs" or "grocery stores" or demanding "customers." It has to do with always telling the truth, except in the very rare cases outlined in the Moral Theology. Please, if you do not believe me, talk to a good priest. Hopefully he will tell you what the Catholic Church teaches.

The OP was experiencing pangs of conscience about what he did, and rightly so. This indicates that his conscience is well-formed and that he is docile to the movements of his conscience. Please don't give him reasons to doubt what his conscience was telling him.

And the use of "mental reservation" is a very complex topic. It is more likely to be misused than used correctly by your average Catholic. It is best to just commit to always tell the truth, especially if it hurts you a little.

--------------------

My reply:

These cases are not necessarily "very rare". It is fairly common for people to be asked awkward or impertinent questions, for which a truthful answer cannot easily be given. As to "serious" reasons, I'm not sure how "serious" the reasons have to be, nor does the quote which you furnished use this word. Using your reasoning, you would always have to disclose the exact whereabouts of your boss when he does not want to be bothered and has said "tell them I'm out", nor could you soften someone's fishing for compliments on their ghastly attire with a throwaway phrase such as "you look fine", or "that's certainly a interesting outfit".

As a rule, yes, generally you should tell the whole and entire truth. However, in the real world, that's sometimes simply not possible, and cases come up where you have to be creative in how you speak, not lying, but using words that admit of multiple meanings. I don't think any traditional Catholic priest would say otherwise.

And granted, it was a serious case, but I read in the journal The Casuist (posted on this forum some time back) of the hypothetical case of an unmarried woman who had fallen pregnant (back in the time when this would have been socially disgraceful), and someone speaking for her made up an outlandish tale about the woman having been seriously ill and in hospital (I think that was the scenario) for several months. (Or it may have been something more fanciful than that, something about having to work on a project at a business out of town, I'd have to look it up.) The author maintained that this was an acceptable thing to say, something about "not all falsehoods are lies" or something like that. I really had a hard time getting my head around that, but it was written well before our present era, and it had an imprimatur, so I'm not going to challenge it.

To my mind, replying that "there are no eggs" fulfilled the conditions listed in your quote. If the OP continues to be troubled by what, in the end, was not grave matter, he should consult his confessor, but I think his confessor would tell him the same thing.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #31 on:** March 15, 2025, 01:20:20 AM »

Found it:

(there was a long section that diverged far away from the immediate question, so I skipped that and will simply provide the pertinent section below)

If anyone wishes to look up the entire entry, it can be found here beginning on page 44:

https://archive.org/details/CasuistV3

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #32 on:** March 15, 2025, 10:47:06 AM »

Go to confession.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #33 on:** March 15, 2025, 11:20:20 AM »

We really need to have a traditional Catholic priest actively participating in this forum, to address questions such as this, but I think he would just echo what several posters, as well as myself, have been saying here. I know of at least one such priest, but he does not regularly post to the forum.

One fruit of the chaos of the past 60 years is that laymen have had to educate themselves in the same principles that priests use in assessing matters of casuistry. We have the same reference sources that they do.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #34 on:** March 15, 2025, 04:58:14 PM »

Go to Confession.

SimpleMan · « **Reply #35 on:** March 15, 2025, 09:02:59 PM »

I'm just going to repost the entire article here from The Casuist, and allow the reader to draw his own conclusion.

Actually, Woywod here makes a distinction of those who are entitled to know the truth, versus those who are not entitled to know the truth, which introduces a new aspect to the discussion. No way could a cock-and-bull story about a pregnant girl having been working in New York for a time, then tiring of it and returning home, giving made-up details about her time there, by any stretch of the imagination be called a "mental reservation", either strict or broad.

This notwithstanding, moralists admit the concept of broad mental reservation, and determining when it is licit to use one is a matter that has to be decided on an individual-case basis. Faithful Catholics of good will, and yes, even different priests, could make varying judgments about an individual scenario.