| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Equivocation [lying]; (Newman etc.) | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Wednesday, 6. October 2010, 07:48 (876 Views) | |
| PJD | Wednesday, 6. October 2010, 07:48 Post #1 |
|
Equivocation (theological opinion): Almost all authors, Catholic and Protestant, admit, that when a just cause is present, there is some kind or other of verbal misleading, which is not sin. Even silence is in certain cases virtually such as misleading, according to the Proverb, "Silence gives consent." Another mode of verbal misleading is equivocation or a play upon words; and it is defended on the theory that to lie is to use words in a sense which they will not bear. But an equivocator uses them in a received sense, though there is another received sense, and therefore, according to this definition, he does not lie. Others say that all equivocations are, after all, a kind of lying,—faint lies or awkward lies, but still lies; and some of these disputants infer, that therefore we must not equivocate, and others that equivocation is but a half-measure, and that it is better to say at once that in certain cases untruths are not lies. Others will try to distinguish between evasions and equivocations; but though there are evasions which are clearly not equivocations, yet it is very difficult scientifically to draw the line between the one and the other. To these must be added the unscientific way of dealing with lies,—viz. that on a great or cruel occasion a man cannot help telling a lie, and he would not be a man, did he not tell it, but still it is very wrong, and he ought not to do it…..... This view cannot for a moment be defended, but, I suppose, it is very common. St. Augustine took another view, though with great misgiving; and, whether he is rightly interpreted or not, is the doctor of the great and common view that all untruths are lies, and that there can be no just cause of untruth. In these later times, this doctrine has been found difficult to work……… St. Alfonso, in another Treatise, quotes St. Thomas to the effect, that if from one cause two immediate effects follow, and, if the good effect of that cause is equal in value to the bad effect (bonus æquivalet malo), then nothing hinders the speaker's intending the good and only permitting the evil. From which it will follow that, since the evil to society from lying is very great, the just cause which is to make it allowable, must be very great also…… I say as follows:— I am very unwilling to say a word here on the subject of Lying and Equivocation. But I consider myself bound to speak….. I have no difficulty whatever in recognizing as allowable the method of silence. Evasion;—when, for instance, the speaker diverts the attention of the hearer to another subject; suggests an irrelevant fact or makes a remark, which confuses him and gives him something to think about; throws dust into his eyes; states some truth, from which he is quite sure his hearer will draw an illogical and untrue conclusion, and the like. The greatest school of evasion, I speak seriously, is the House of Commons; and necessarily so, from the nature of the case. And the hustings is another…… It is very difficult to draw the line between these evasions, and what are commonly called in English equivocations; and of this difficulty, again, I think, the scenes in the House of Commons supply us with illustrations. One special reason why religious men, after drawing out a theory, are unwilling to act upon it themselves, is this: that they practically acknowledge a broad distinction between their reason and their conscience; and that they feel the latter to be the safer guide, though the former may be the clearer, nay even though it be the truer. They would rather be in error with the sanction of their conscience, than be right with the mere judgment of their reason. …….in the case of exceptions to the rule of Veracity, that so very little external help is given us in drawing the line, as to when untruths are allowable and when not ……of this I am sure, that, if there is one thing more than another which prejudices Englishmen against the Catholic Church, it is the doctrine of great authorities on the subject of equivocation….. For myself, I can fancy myself thinking it was allowable in extreme cases for me to lie, but never to equivocate….I do not think it right to tell lies to children, even on this account, that they are sharper than we think them, and will soon find out what we are doing; and our example will be a very bad training for them. And so of equivocation: it is easy of imitation, and we ourselves shall be sure to get the worst of it in the end. (Source: extracts - Venerable John Henry Newman Sermon on” Lying and Equivocation”) Equivocation (additional note) If the intent is to deceive then sin is incurred; not only in the act itself [major] but is also as a major imperfection in the desire of the heart. Scripture is always open to interpretation. True interpretation is subject to Holy Mother Church but, where the Church has made no definitive judgements in regard to a difficulty, it is not unreasonable to submit an interpretation from a scriptural extraction. The choice here is the Letter of Saint James 5:12 viz. “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath. But let your speech be, yea, yea: no, no: that you fall not under judgment.” Now here we take the second sentence only. No more is required. (Source: Anon.[lost]) |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Wednesday, 6. October 2010, 09:37 Post #2 |
|
Have not noted any theological saints in Birmingham today; does this mean that at this special meeting,as it is not under any particular religious belief- lying cheating,punning,and silences are OK ? |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Wednesday, 6. October 2010, 18:44 Post #3 |
|
I would have thought that all forms of lying Tomais offends natural law and has consequences. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Wednesday, 6. October 2010, 21:20 Post #4 |
|
PJD. If you were hiding Jews during a German Occupation and the Gestapo or SS came to the door and they asked if you there were any Jews in the house would you haved said: "Yes, come in!"? |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 6. October 2010, 21:53 Post #5 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I bet a lot of fibs were told, by people who hid priests in priest holes. Those people had to choose between the sin of lying and the sin of betraying the priest, who was hiding to avoid execution for breaking an unjust law. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Eileenanne | Wednesday, 6. October 2010, 22:27 Post #6 |
|
Could it be argued that by lying they denied the priest his martyr's crown? Eileenanne |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Wednesday, 6. October 2010, 22:47 Post #7 |
|
So why do you think he was hiding? The crown was within his grasp if only he had remained in the open. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Wednesday, 6. October 2010, 23:30 Post #8 |
|
Afterthought - is hiding a kind of lying? |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 7. October 2010, 00:47 Post #9 |
![]()
Administrator
|
http://www.catholic-history.org.uk/postgate.htm
Hypothetical situation: Father Postgate spends a night in an inn on the moors. He is disguised as a tinker. A fellow guest asks him how long he has been a tinker. Should the good priest have said "I am not a tinker, I am travelling in disguise."? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 7. October 2010, 01:34 Post #10 |
|
Is the disguise itself anything other than a non-verbal lie? |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Thursday, 7. October 2010, 12:59 Post #11 |
|
Which, me being a politician and all that, only goes to show that rules are made to be broken... otherwise there wouldn't be any point in them!
|
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Thursday, 7. October 2010, 13:48 Post #12 |
|
"PJD. If you were hiding Jews during a German Occupation and the Gestapo or SS came to the door and they asked if you there were any Jews in the house would you haved said: "Yes, come in!"?" In my particular case Derek, I would not have said 'yes, come in!'. Reason being that, although my conscience would accept that a lie even in this particularly extraordinary occasion was still wrong; nevetheless in this instance it was venial. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Thursday, 7. October 2010, 16:15 Post #13 |
|
If in Penal Times the priests had not lied by going about openly how could they have constructively helped the Catholics?
Edited by Derekap, Thursday, 7. October 2010, 16:15.
|
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Thursday, 7. October 2010, 16:22 Post #14 |
|
"If in Penal Times the priests had not lied by going about openly how could they have constructively helped the Catholics?" I don't understand Derek why you think that hiding yourself is a lie. Didn't Jesus hide himself away from the Jews for example - as mentioned somewhere in the Gospel? PJD |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Thursday, 7. October 2010, 16:35 Post #15 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Derek asked about the priests who lied by going about openly. They did go about openly, but disguised their role. That was the lie. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:53 PM Jul 11