tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post5256868718767957623..comments2024-02-26T09:30:54.111-06:00Comments on Domine, da mihi hanc aquam!: Hand kissing, Lying, Guilt, and the Translation BattlesFr. Philip Powell, OPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14970857401221305221noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-66745594623921063872009-11-30T07:08:59.079-06:002009-11-30T07:08:59.079-06:00Hugs are fine with me. Italians greet with pecks ...Hugs are fine with me. Italians greet with pecks on the cheek. I guess is depends on the priest but personally I have no problem with hugs. At UD, one little girl would run to me after Mass, hug my knees, and say, "Thank you for Mass, Father!" I was always happy to see her.Fr. Philip Powell, OPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14970857401221305221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-37237166041117288832009-11-30T03:33:59.704-06:002009-11-30T03:33:59.704-06:00on the topic of appropriately greeting a priest......on the topic of appropriately greeting a priest.....as a nurse and mom....kissing anyone's hands is just gross. I mean I don't KNOW WHERE those hands have been....really. (I cringe at shaking hands actually~~it's a nurse thing)<br /><br />but what about hugs? is it appropriate to greet a Priest with a hug?MightyMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02563721884001643857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-73254714658725910492009-11-23T09:12:31.466-06:002009-11-23T09:12:31.466-06:00Joe, I have read the new translations...a 2004 ver...Joe, I have read the new translations...a 2004 version...in the UK. The 2009 version is substantially the same. It isn't perfect but it's light years better than that 1970. <br /><br />Where and when did you read the new translation?Fr. Philip Powell, OPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14970857401221305221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-79902844660373595842009-11-23T07:52:50.469-06:002009-11-23T07:52:50.469-06:00No, please read the new liturgical translations --...No, please read the new liturgical translations -- the problem is simply that they are bad English, producing no sacral vibes whatsoever.Joehttp://josephsoleary.typepad.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-16959073321197383082009-11-22T20:39:48.531-06:002009-11-22T20:39:48.531-06:00I grew up in a very traditional Irish home (like m...I grew up in a very traditional Irish home (like my grandparents still spoke Gaelic) and we were always taught to kiss the priest's hands and ask for his blessing on the street or when he came to the house. This was always the same priest who would help out with harvest or help to butcher livestock. It led importantly to my own vocation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-89791584050057246892009-11-22T18:47:56.691-06:002009-11-22T18:47:56.691-06:00Father, you say: "The intent of the person in...Father, you say: "The intent of the person in my example is to deceive the Nazis."<br /><br />You state that as though it was an obvious conclusion. But I deny that it is necessarily so.<br /><br />To see why I deny it as something obvious, consider the circumstances. Suppose I am hiding Jews in my house, and wish to prevent their unjust capture and execution. Whatever I choose to say, or not say, my goal is to prevent this injustice. I intend that the words I use will further the goal of preventing a great injustice, by refusing to aid in that injustice.<br /><br />Suppose I say: "Yes, there are Jews hidden here." Plainly, conveying that information is sinful.<br /><br />Suppose I say: "". I.e. I say nothing, or some form of words that amount to not answering the question. In the circumstances, this could all too easily be taken as a particularly pointed silence, and immediately give cause for the Nazis to decide to search the house. In other words, saying nothing may actually convey information to the Nazis.<br /><br />OK, so if silence may give the information away, what <i><b>do</b></i> I say? What form of words do I choose that <i><b>will</b></i> deny to the Nazis any information about where the Jews are hiding?<br /><br />Given such a conundrum, it is easy to see why people came up with idea of saying something that may in fact be a material falsehood, but is a form of words that denies information to the Nazis. Because although the Nazis end up being deceived, that <i>wasn't</i> the intention -- the intention was to deny them information that would aid them in a great injustice. Deception may result, but it <i>wasn't</i> the intention.<br /><br />Hence why I say this is a classic example of double effect (with, alas, all the problems of getting people to properly understand double effect).<br /><br />Now there is no particular reason for you to listen to me -- for all you know, I may be just a weaselly commenter, and you a smart and sophisticated Dominican. But a look at Church history does not show the absolute clarity of teaching that would be necessary to support your conclusion.<br /><br />Example 1: John 7:8-10<br />Example 2: The praxis of pope-to-be-John-XXIII's aid in distributing misleading baptismal certificates to Jews.<br />Example 3: The careful analysis of the Venerable John Henry Newman (<a href="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia65/noteg.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>), where he does agree that there are some occasions in which a material falsehood is permitted.<br />Example 4: In Catechism <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#2489" rel="nofollow">#2489</a>, it is taught that "discreet language" may be used to hide information. That could hardly be so if things were to be viewed as you claim they absolutely must.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146312371165996392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-51113631215539686512009-11-22T15:44:09.080-06:002009-11-22T15:44:09.080-06:00Thanks for that clarification on lying Father. I d...Thanks for that clarification on lying Father. I don't how many times I've knocked heads over this one. The moment one allows lying in special circumstances into your system, you render the whole untrustworthy because the question of whether this is one of those special circumstances taints it all. While I can't recommend watching <i>Family Guy</i>, there is one scene that illustrates it nicely when Peter remarks that "Everything I say is a lie...except for that...and that...and that...and that..." It is one thing to fall. The moment you formally permit falling, you get trapped in a circle.<br /><br />Scott W.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-14872490368755706142009-11-22T11:13:16.881-06:002009-11-22T11:13:16.881-06:00Regarding kissing a priest's hands, I disagree...Regarding kissing a priest's hands, I disagree with nothing you've written Father, but I think this addiiton will be helpful, too. In addition to the custom in some cultures of kissing a priest's consecrated hands - the hands that transform bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ and may then hold them - there is another similar but distinct custom. When one kisses the Pope's hand or a bishop's hand, one is not kissing the hand at all. One is reverencing the episcopal or fisherman's (as the case may be) ring, as a sign of reverence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-3139176754666201692009-11-22T02:29:08.967-06:002009-11-22T02:29:08.967-06:00Anita, I'll give it a shot...stay tuned.
Paul...Anita, I'll give it a shot...stay tuned.<br /><br />Paul, re-read my post. I say quite plainly that object, will, and intention all go into the analysis. <br /><br />The intent of the person in my example is to deceive the Nazis. If his intent were to save the Jews, he could have found many other, non-sinful ways of doing this. However, caught off-guard, he lies. I would say that his culpability is near zero, but we don't want to say that he did not sin. That's a tragic slippery slope. Kant, e.g., would not allow him to lie. Period. Mill would tell him to go ahead and lie to save as many as possible. The danger for us in these examples is to fall into consequentialism.Fr. Philip Powell, OPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14970857401221305221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-48742089140397810262009-11-22T02:07:52.972-06:002009-11-22T02:07:52.972-06:00Father, can you explain the difference between lyi...Father, can you explain the difference between lying and equivocation? How do we cope with episodes in Scripture where Jesus appears at first blush to be saying things that are not true (e.g., John 7:1-10; Mark 13:32)?Anita Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11305092097247290243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18842286.post-10270164773715211332009-11-22T00:38:54.277-06:002009-11-22T00:38:54.277-06:00"Yes, it is a sin to lie to the Nazis and sav...<i>"Yes, it is a sin to lie to the Nazis and save the lives of the Jews you have hidden. Your guilt here is mitigated by duress."</i><br /><br />No, you've misanalyzed this. Augustine (as quoted in the Catechism #2482) says that: "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." From which it follows that speaking a falsehood is, by itself, not sufficient to qualify as a lie -- since there is an additional qualification given as also needed, the intention of deceiving. In the case of giving false information about the Jews, the intention is to make sure that the Jews are not unjustly killed. (A more thorough analysis of this would use the principle of double effect.)Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146312371165996392noreply@blogger.com