Jimmy Akin Does a Fine Job…

of looking at the question of Jorge Bergoglio and the morality of lying.  A very judicious take.  Well done!

By the way, just so you know, my thought experiment on Ubergruppenfuehrer Todt was written and posted hours before I saw Jimmy’s comments.

  • Deacon Tom

    Mr. Shea:

    I find Jimmy Akin’s analysis much more charitable about those who might differ with you on this. Akin notes the general principle that just because something is in the Catechism does not give the matter the mark of infallibility, and that the central issue of “lying to save lives’ has not been infallibly addressed. Akin also notes there are reasonable arguments to be made that some “misrepresentations” by word or deed may not amount to the sin of lying. I am not defending Live Actions tactics or some general notion of “lying for Jesus.” I only point out that the issue is not as lock-tight as you have suggested in your boisterous condemnation of all who make arguments contrary to your position.

    A more difficult question is faced not with your “experiment” scenario but in situations that do not involve independently significant or wrongs (denying Jesus Christ seems pretty significant to me).
    Would you argue that Blessed Miguel Pro committed the sin of lying (by his actions at least, and maybe his words) when he used disguises to misrepresent his status so he could bring the Eucharist to the people of Mexico during the perseuction there in the 20th century?

    • chezami

      Deacon Tom:

      I have, many, many many times pointed out that not all deception is lying. So, for instance, disguises are not lying. But lying *is* lying and does not magically become “not lying” merely the declaration that the person you are lying to “has not right to the truth.” So when a LA agent says “I want an abortion” that is lying. Lying is “by its very nature” to be condemned according to Holy Church. It matters not one bit that this is not infallble. It remains authoritative.

      • deacontom60

        The bright line drawn by Mr. Shea between words and actions is not present in the language of the Catechism nor apparently shared by Mr. Akin. Please read his piece. The Catechism says “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. What is the difference in Blessed Pro, a priest, using a disguise as a doctor to gain access to a property to celebrate Mass or responding to the question: Are you a priest? “No.”? both his act and his speech were against the “truth” yes? What makes the disguise any less “lying” than answering “No” to the question? Also, how are either the disguise or the “No” calculated to lead “someone into error.?”

        • chezami

          And again, it is morally permissible to allow people to draw wrong conclusions. It is not perrmissible to lie. If I dress as a doctor (it’s a free country and I can dress as I please) and somebody concludes I am a doctor, I don’t have to correct them. It is you, not me, who is saying that Pro “lied.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X