³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

"What is truth?"

Pontius Pilate

"...for lying she knew was a sin."

I think you'll find Will it's used more by politicians than any other group.

Here's a good example of a form of mental reservation - The Commission writes:
"Mental reservation is a concept developed and much discussed over the centuries, which permits a churchman knowingly to convey a misleading impression to another person without being guilty of lying"

One could easily conclude from this statement that mental reservation was designed only for "churchmen". That of course would be misleading and doubtless wasn't intended.

McCamel;

We expect politicians to lie. But I seem to be among the few at least here who is not in the least bit surprised when clerics lie too. So when you ask a cleric, does god exist and he says yes, is the part he is leaving out...if I can convince you he exists, he exists for you and that is all that matters because what I need from you is to come to church every week and put money in the plate so I can eat. I think the truly wealthy don't go to church very much, they just send a check. When they feel they need a cleric, the church comes to them. Sort of like god at a take out restaurant with free home delivery.

Of course the church has never been overly fond of the notion itself. the circumstances in which it was allowed were very limited - Nazis hunting for Jews etc.

But it can be fun. I remember holding out for a long time when I was younger for spilling milk cos my accuser kept referring to a "glass of milk" and I'd been using a cup. that was handy.

It should not be a new concept to most Orangemen and Free Masons. Obviously the founding fathers of these organisations were wise to the wiles of popery.
:-)

Initiation obligations in both institutions require the candidate to swear that he makes his oath without equivocation or mental reservation.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

It is still *dishonest*, and it is dishonesty that is the problem, rather than a pointless technicality. Essentially what it says about the liar is that not only are they a liar, but they are a *devious* liar, which is worse. 58:22 exemplifies that perfectly.

Yeah, but can I trust you when you say that H?

I fail to see how it is appropriate to use the word 'fun' on a thread concerning the deployment of a semantic,canonical"sleight of hand" in a feeble attempt to explain the cover up the sexual abuse of children. Let's not forget this abuse included the rape of children! The word fun seems, to me anyway, badly out of place.

I was once deceived by this technique myself. I was a governor at the time of my local primary school and we were appointing a new teacher. We wanted someone who would be able to help the Head take the kids to away football matches and athletics fixtures and all candidates were asked if they would be willing to do so. The successful applicant answered that he was indeed willing. It was only after the appointment had been made that we discovered that, while willing, he did not possess a driving licence and could not drive a vehicle of any description.

This was a Protestant teacher applying to a Protestant school - casuistry is not confined to prelates of the Roman Church.

Why are we even discussing this? Who cares what canon law has to say about the molestation of children or 'mental reservations'? These are matters for the criminal law of the state, not the internal rules of a particular church. Is our Republic a democracy or a theocracy? Is it a republic in the same sense as the Republic of Iran is a republic; where the office bearers of the state are subjugated to clerical overlords? There is no, and can be no justification for any citizen of this Republic supplanting the law of the state, with some version of "Catholic Sharia Law"!
Case in point; see ref. to section 58.22. Is this not a case of someone admitting to withholding evidence from a criminal investigation?

Brendan, spot on. And, Graham you can of course trust me. At least I exist :-)

mccamleyc thinks lying is fun. We're talking about child abuse and those who lied their way out of responsibility for that, and this man, who claims to be a catholic, is making jokes about the 'mental reservation' idea that facilitated that deception. Shame.

What best describes *mental reservation*

1 euphemism?

2 deception?

3 Lies?

4 spin?

Is it possible that any of the four categories could be used in such a way to bring good?
For instance Hitler was deceived at certain times by the secret service.
Or on the other hand a german soldier tells a half truth to protect a Jew going to the gas chamber.
Could it be that *mental reservation* is a double edged sword protecting evil and innocent alike.

I believe in empathy not morality. If it were a question of saving someone from the gas-chambers (or indeed anything even vaguely equivalent) I would tell an out-and-out down-right blatant lie without it costing me a first thought never mind a second one.

Mental reservation is an abject device used probably for little more than self-protection in the event of discovery by those whose sense of right and wrong, of proportion and balance, is so twisted and perverse that to name it morality debases language.

An action is neither moral nor immoral. Such labels belong only to the DECISION to take the action. Discuss.

"Ratzinger" (sic) when you start using your own name I'll take advice from you on deception.

"An action is neither moral nor immoral. Such labels belong only to the DECISION to take the action. Discuss."

Both decision and action should be labeled.
If one made a decision to murder and never accomplished it - would it be more or less moral?

j

Reason leads us to law and a penal code - reason, unadulterated by faith, can not possibly conceive of morality as anything other than a device by which the predatory strong cynically allay the instinctive wariness of those they would exploit, and with which the weak, sheltering themselves from the horrors of a hostile and meaningless existence, collude in their own deception.

Sorry, P - are you saying that religious faith is required for morality?

Please clarify.
-H

Absolutely not!

I am saying that, rationally speaking, the notion of morality can only be understood as a tool. It is an apparently multi-function tool whose understood purpose is perspective dependent: some might see it as an umbrella while to others it is rather more of a cosh.

Thinking of a behaviour as either moral or immoral is delusional - utility is the only rational consideration.

Well, not quite. There are certain behaviours, and to these behaviours our brains have evolved to attach moral labels that condition our reaction towards them and our propensity to exhibit them. The fact of this is certainly very explicable in an evolutionary rational context.

However, we can abstract from this brute fact several principles that we note our ethical behaviour to be based on, and we can rationally analyse certain behaviours to detect consonance or dissonance with these principles. So reason seems to serve us pretty well. Then we are left with scoring the base principles relative to one another, and *that* is a tricky matter, and you will get some disagreement.

But reason does seem to perform rather better than "faith" in these matters, do you not think?

Both reason and faith are dependant on the mind and how it works.
Can reason be anymore reliable than faith considering the diversity of mind set within the world populace.
That also assumes a humanist faith and not supernatural one.

****