I’m not sure what the challenge with Solomon is – it is that his threat might have been a lie? I don’t see how its possible to know if he would have gone through with the execution of his command or not. I certainly hope not! I don’t see how his command could be a lie – it wasn’t a statement but an order. But that’s less clear, at least to me. What are folks saying?

The changes in the Catechism do present a problem, if only in that they’re so clearly disparate. Some sort of statement about the whys of those changes would go a long way.

I don’t have an answer to the error question. My default position is ‘don’t lie’, in the hopes that I’ll avoid running afoul of what error means. Not very helpful to answering the question, but it keeps me on the straight and narrow.

I don’t think implies that lying must be endorsed. I’m much more timid in stating that we obviously need to sort some things out intellectually in order to make sense of it. You certainly hit on one possible explanation with regard to Christ but I don’t know. I’m still interested in your thoughts on Solomon as well and the threat the split the baby in two. But bottom line, when objections like this are raised I do think we need to “run them to ground.”

The changes in the Catechism do leave me concerned. I would like to know why the changes. One can certainly assume that the changes are a “change of course” but I’m not confident of that. We can come up with other reasons for the change to include someone just doing sloppy work. However, at this point we don’t know. And being a retired Naval Officer, my instinct would be to follow the last given order and seek clarification.

Now, as to the Catechism’s definition for a lie. I think some exploration could be had in determining what exactly is meant by “in order to lead someone into error.” Does “error” mean simply having the wrong impression? Does it mean moral error of some sort? So,if you tell an untruth to set someone up for a surprise birthday party, is that alright because you are not leading them into “moral error?” Thoughts?

Thanks for the encouragement. I’m really at a loss at how this has blown into such a debate. The Catechism seems very clear to me, and makes the answers on the issue very easy. Or so I would have thought!

My off-the-cuff response would be an affirmation that Christ and lying are incompatible. I would speculate that perhaps Christ reconciles the universal call to salvation with this statement by opening the house of Israel to all, or that all people were somehow already tied to the house of Israel.

The danger of throwing out this kind of example is that it implies that if we can not find answer for it, then lying must somehow be endorsed by the example. Its a logical fallacy (informal I think, though I can’t consistently identify which fallacy was which).

Sadly, far too few care enough to think through the logic of a statement. Much easier to appeal to emotional issues and common opinion. What kills me is that the Catechism – now being put up for debate – was created to address this very problem. When folks had a question that was unclear, especially because of opinions and emotional issues, the Catechism would be a sure source of Catholic teaching.

I do appreciate you entering into the debate on Jimmy Akin’s Register page. The position you are championing needed both substance AND style. That being said, I think too much damage was already done with respect to the latter that it has made any possible discernment on that thread highly unlikely.

One poster has brought up the incident of Christ with the Canaanite woman (“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”) and Solomon’s judgment when dealing with the infant as example of “untruths” being used for good. Now obviously we know Christ is not or can never be a liar, so how would you answer that question?

(BTW, I am a retired Naval Officer so it looks like we have covered a lot of the same ground.)