Archbishop's Veracity Is Questioned--WaPo

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/18/AR2005121801000.html?referrer=email


By William McCall
Associated Press
Monday, December 19, 2005; Page A07

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Attorneys for alleged victims of sex abuse asked a federal judge to let them question a top-ranking Vatican official about a church doctrine that might permit him to lie under oath.

Attorneys for the victims said Friday they want to ask (Archbishop) Levada whether he would rely on the doctrine of "mental reservation" when answering questions at the deposition in San Francisco.

The Catholic Church teaches it is a sin to lie, but the doctrine of mental reservation allows for circumstances when it may be better to avoid the truth to serve a higher purpose.

Vatican attorney Jeffrey Lena said the archbishop's civil oath should be sufficient to ensure honest answers. "It's not necessary to inquire whether there is a personal philosophy that causes him to lie," Lena said. "We can just rely on the oath to tell the truth."


Yeah, right. Works every time.

[mcscajun]

1. Fine. Then let them add this to the civil oath:

"Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

That'll put a curl in the Archbishop's hair.

[LibDemAlways]

2. WTF? I had no idea there was a

loophole in the church's view of lying. I fail to see how lying about actions in a sex abuse scandal could "serve a higher purpose," though, unless saving one's ass qualifies - which I doubt.

Anyhow, if chimp hears about this, expect an announcement that Jeb has talked him into converting to Catholicism.

[yellowcanine]

3. "mental reservation"???? = fundy technique of "lying for Jesus" ???

Otherwise known to everyone else as just plain lying.

[pschoeb]

4. Here is the Doctrine

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

It would seem that this would violate this exception, as greater justice is the only reason for telling a lie, usually requiring that some very grave consequence(death) would happen to another if the truth were told. Since none of the priest who are accused, would be elligable for the death penalty, this seems a violation. Especially since most Catholic church fathers in a sense agree with the idea that "A sin is committed if mental reservations are used without just cause, or in cases when the questioner has a right to the naked truth." I would think that if this is not an example of when naked truth is needed, and anyone in the Catholic hierarchy supports this, and is not removed from office(thus showing tacit support by the Pope and the convocation of Cardinals), this would be grounds for considering Catholic testimony in court to be inherantly unreliable.

Only wide mental reservation is allowed, this seems to be an attempt at strict mental reservation, which was condemned by Pope Innocent XI.

[gratuitous]

5. If Levada even appears for his deposition

He'll be lying his ass off, of that you can be sure. And if "mental reservation" doesn't cover his lying, then his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination surely will be (and yes, I'm aware this is a civil matter). Either that, or he'll gin up some "diplomatic immunity" excuse and then skedaddle back to the Vatican on the next available flight.

It'd be real interesting to have Mr. Levada for one's Catholic confessor. When he gets to the penance part of expiating my sins, I'd ask if I couldn't just lie about having sinned at all, and then cover that teeny tiny lie with a couple of Our Fathers and a Hail Mary. Surely he'd see the merit in such a proposal, and Heaven's gates would swing wide to accommodate my entry when I shuffle off this mortal coil. No muss, no fuss, no atonement or reparation. Just lie about having committed any sin at all, work off THAT little lie, and all's well in the cosmos.