So, I was just watching(passing time) an ewtn segment with fr. oconnor.  He did a long segment on the 8th commandmant.  And, he actually taught(after teaching that you can never tell a lie blah blah state the truth and then wittle away/deny it V2 MO) that you can tell a lie.  And, you guessed it.  He taught that you(catholics) can tell a lie to the nαzιs when you are hiding Jєωs.  And, he taught that you can tell a lie to the nαzιs because the nαzιs "do not have a right to the truth".  He said that you can say to the the gestapo when they knock on the door looking for Jєωs, that "I have no idea where any Jєωs are".  And, that you can say that when what you really mean is(mental reservation) "i have no idea where Jєωs are for you".  Because, "you gestapo do not have a right to the truth".  Shameful.  

Apparently, A lie is only denying the truth to those who have a right to it.  And, there are according to fr. oconnor, there are people on earth who do not have a right to the truth, and the nαzιs are among those people.

When did this nonsense/false teaching enter the church?  And, by nonsense/false teaching I mean that some people do not have a right to the truth.  And, that we are justified in judging who has a right to the truth and who does not.  When did this false teaching come about?  Because, it is not catholic teaching.  The truth is that either that "the Jєωs are in the building", or that such catholics are willing to die for the concealment of such knowledge.  Those are the two catholic responses.  And, until man has breathed his last breath.  All men have a right to such truth.  

As to my last paragraph, I am referring to a particular date.  Because, I know when this entered the church.  This teaching entered the church when clergy separated theology and philosophy from the simple.  The simple can detect this type of thing, but when this conversation is relegated to the arena of the complex, the simple generally do not participate.  And, that is the problem.  

It was a controversy among preconciliar theologians. I wouldn't treat it as blatantly false. It may not be true but it was a tolerated controversy.
.
The idea is that there are some truths that people actually DON'T have a right to. A proposition that very well may be true. Does a citizen have a right to know state's secrets, for instance?  If I were to stop Donald Trump on the street and ask if he's planning on bombing North Korea, is he *morally obliged* to answer me?  Examples like this could me multiplied indefinitely. Especially with children.
.
Now, whether or not a lacking right to some truth is controvertible with actually saying "no" when the truth is "yes", is another question, of course. But that there are truths to which someone has no right is, I think, quite true.

What Fr. O'Connor was giving was a more current example of equivocation.

Equivocation has been used in both man's law and church law.

It's not a matter of someone being entitled to the truth but they must be entitled to the information.
An invader is not entitled to any information on the country he is invading.

In the late 1500's and early 1600's when the Jesuits were hunted in England, Father Southwell
at his trial gave testimony when equivocation is used both in civil law and church law even giving examples of when
Christ used equivocation in scripture.

Here is some of his testimony from the autobiography of a Jesuit in the book Hunted Priest.  Read pages 155-158

 https://books.google.com/books?id=bCdtbsfDKHkC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=father+southwell+equivocation&source=bl&ots=-GAKnCN2SI&sig=OL7f3ywNmiyCvGjC1CI5hg5EHjc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz_N7U1eLWAhXEyFQKHcEbAh4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=father%20southwell%20equivocation&f=false

Miserimini - I don't think this is equivocation.  Because, Fr. oconnor said you may say you "have no idea".  When in fact you do.  Because, an idea is - any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.

We know this because for the right person you do "have an idea", just not for nαzιs.  That makes it problematic.  

Christ said, when you are brought before princes and judges, do not think about what you will say.  Because, it is the holy ghost who will speak for you.  

So, I was just watching(passing time) an ewtn segment with fr. oconnor.  He did a long segment on the 8th commandmant.  And, he actually taught(after teaching that you can never tell a lie blah blah state the truth and then wittle away/deny it V2 MO) that you can tell a lie.  And, you guessed it.  He taught that you(catholics) can tell a lie to the nαzιs when you are hiding Jєωs.  And, he taught that you can tell a lie to the nαzιs because the nαzιs "do not have a right to the truth".  He said that you can say to the the gestapo when they knock on the door looking for Jєωs, that "I have no idea where any Jєωs are".  And, that you can say that when what you really mean is(mental reservation) "i have no idea where Jєωs are for you".  Because, "you gestapo do not have a right to the truth".  Shameful.  

Apparently, A lie is only denying the truth to those who have a right to it.  And, there are according to fr. oconnor, there are people on earth who do not have a right to the truth, and the nαzιs are among those people.

When did this nonsense/false teaching enter the church?  And, by nonsense/false teaching I mean that some people do not have a right to the truth.  And, that we are justified in judging who has a right to the truth and who does not.  When did this false teaching come about?  Because, it is not catholic teaching.  The truth is that either that "the Jєωs are in the building", or that such catholics are willing to die for the concealment of such knowledge.  Those are the two catholic responses.  And, until man has breathed his last breath.  All men have a right to such truth.  

As to my last paragraph, I am referring to a particular date.  Because, I know when this entered the church.  This teaching entered the church when clergy separated theology and philosophy from the simple.  The simple can detect this type of thing, but when this conversation is relegated to the arena of the complex, the simple generally do not participate.  And, that is the problem.  

What you have here is clear evidence that the conciliar church is teaching the doctrines of the Jєωs. Can it be any clearer that the values and morality of the Jєωs is the foundation of what he is saying? No fixed truth and moral law, morals and ethics which change according to circuмstance, and or course and always, a special exemption when it comes to the Jєωs.
A church which teaches the тαℓмυdic law in place of the Christian law cannot be the Catholic Church.

Pray for their conversion to Christianity.

tkgs -  we are not talking about someone answering who does not have an idea where any are.  We are talking about someone who is harboring Jєωs, knows they are harboring Jєωs, and knows that the nαzιs are asking a direct question if they are harboring any Jєωs.  And, fr. oconnor is saying you may say you have no idea where any Jєωs are, because nαzιs do not have a right to a truthful answer.  He made that explicitly clear in the program, and I made clear that he did.  That is my issue.  nαzιs do not have a right to a truthful answer, and therefore catholics are not obliged to speak the truth.  That was what he said.  Now(directed to mythrandylan), does that sound like the pre v2 controversy?  Because, that is what it is in the v2 church as we speak.  

And, as for the st athanasius example, that is not a comparison.  There is no sin in his response.  It was a truthful response.  

I think this conversation may need to focus on the right to inquiry vs the right to truth.  Not all have a right to inquiry, but all have a right to truth.  And, the rightful truth of a wrongful inquiry may be to put such a person in their place with a verbal correction of sorts(which would not be a lie).  However, are you willing to do that with a german automatic rifle pointed at you?  Would you do that for christ deniers?  Should a catholic do that to protect Christ deniers?  Lets talk about the morality of that.  I say, let Jєωs be their own patsies.  Let the Jєωs light their own candle.

Christ said render unto ceasar what is ceasars.  If fr. Fahey is correct and Jєωs are naturalists, then do they belong to God, who is spirit/supernatural?  Ceasar has a right to truth like any man, but maybe he even has a right to such inquiry as well.  Christ did participate in the census.  But, the Christ child did not remain in herods kingdom, and being that Christ is a supernaturalist you could say, herod did not even have a right to such inquiry.  God directed the wise men away from herod.  

tkgs - I am glad to see that you agree with me on my major point of contention.  But, language does matter, so don't associate me with you poor comparisons.  I have been very clear in the points I am trying to make, and my examples.  You on the other hand are justifying idiotic responses similar to Bill Clinton.  Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no.  

tkgs - I am not going to tell you what I would do.  But, I will tell you, God willing, I will not tell a lie.