mythran - I am not talking about the actions of jews, we all know they would carry fake papers. What I am talking about is the supposed actions of priests(who filled baptismal certificates when in fact no baptism had occurred). That was what I recall Fr. Pacwa saying. That is what I want your thoughts on. Meaning, would you approve of priests filling out/signing fake certificates in order to save the lives of jews? In other words, lie.
I was not speaking about the formal element of a lie. We do not judge the internal forum anyways. And, intent is not on the side of fr. oconnor as well. But, there is a material element, which consists in what comes out of the mouth- Mathew 15:18
Recall the parable of the two sons matthew 21:28. What was the father's wish of his two sons in this parable? Who did the will of the father? And, last I checked, "repentance", which is attributed to the first son, is a good thing. Here, the formal element is not exalted. The material element is.
.
Supplying baptismal docuмents for these purposes doesn't strike me as honest.
.
On to more relevant issues, since-- as TKGS and I have both pointed out-- your objection was confined to the principle rather than the application. Saying that we don't judge the internal forum is just stating the obvious; even
The Church doesn't judge the internal forum. It makes little difference for this conversation or any other moral conversation, since all that means is that it is not
us but God who, at judgment, will decide the degree of guilt for each person's actions. No surprise there, and it doesn't interfere with the discussion.
.
What makes the material and formal distinction relevant
especially when it comes to lying is in the plethora of different ways that an untruth may not be a
lie. Again, this is
not a Novus Ordo innovation, you can find this in any reputable moral theology manual in publication prior to Vatican II. Intent is what
makes a lie, so to speak. And when we say "intent" we don't mean 'benevolence,' as though you can lie lawfully just because you have an altruistic
motive for doing so. Intent, specifically in this instance, is the intent
to deceive. Which really has nothing to do (per se) with the actual words used. Of course, someone who intends to lie will typically strategize their word selection to
be deceptive, but someone who has the intent to deceive is not "saved" from the moral guilt of deception if they happen to still impart the truth to their listener (as may often be the case in instances of mental reservation, especially if someone is already suspicious). This is true no matter how many instances of scripture you think imply the opposite. It's the very
basics of moral theology, and the very basics of
lying, to boot. Go look up some moral theologians and revisit the topic afterward, because as it stands, you don't really have much of a grasp at all on the relevant issues
.
These questions aren't the sorts of questions you'll find clear answers to in scripture. This is
literally what moral theology is
for.
Topic: Telling lies with Fr. O connor EWTN 8th commandment (Read 2220 times)