Attorneys want to question top Vatican official about a church doctrine

KRON ^ | December 16, 2005

[NYer]

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

Archbishop William Levada (leh-VAY'-duh) has agreed to be questioned during a January ninth deposition about his tenure as archbishop of Portland from 1986 to 1995. The San Francisco prelate is the Vatican's guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy.

Attorneys for the victims want to ask Levada whether he would rely on the so-called doctrine of "mental reservation" when answering questions at the deposition in San Francisco. Although the Catholic church teaches it's a sin to lie, the doctrine allows for circumstances where avoiding the truth might serve a higher purpose.

A Vatican attorney says the archbishop's civil oath should be sufficient to ensure honest answers.

[NYer]

I swear!

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

Let the lawyer ask the question. Then let the bish ask the lawyer about why he, the lawyer, does NOT raise his hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[markomalley]

Not surprising. There are not a few places in this country where they are putting the Catholic Church on trial, not individuals.

[Salvation]

Archbishop William Levada

                                        Archbishop William Joseph Levada
        Archbishop William Joseph Levada was born in Long Beach, California, on June 15, 1936, to Joseph Levada, Jr., and Lorraine Nunez Levada, both natives of Concord in the San Francisco Bay area.  Baptized at Holy Innocents Church in Long Beach, he attended St. Anthony's elementary school in that city for five years, finishing his elementary education at St. Mary's School in Houston, Texas, where his father had been temporarily transferred by his employer, Shell Chemical Corporation.  He received his high school education at St. Anthony's High School in Long Beach, graduating in June of 1954.

        William Levada entered the diocesan seminary to begin his college work at Our Lady Queen of Angels Seminary in San Fernando, completing the last two years of his philosophy course and Bachelor of Arts degree at St. John's Seminary in Camarillo.  After his graduation in 1958, he began his course of theological studies at the Gregorian University in Rome, with residence and seminary formation program at the North American College.

        William Levada was ordained a priest by the Most Reverend Martin J. O'Connor, Rector of the North American College, on December 20, 1961, coincidentally his father's sixty-first birthday.  After receiving his Licentiate in Sacred Theology in July of 1962, he returned to take up pastoral duties in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.  Father Levada spent his first year as an associate pastor in St. Louis of France Parish, in the San Gabriel Valley community of La Puente.  In the summer of 1963 he was transferred to St. Monica's Church in Santa Monica, where he served as associate pastor, high school religion teacher, and chaplain of the local Community College Newman Center.

        In the fall of 1967, Cardinal McIntyre, then Archbishop of Los Angeles, sent Father Levada to Rome to pursue a doctoral degree in theology at the Gregorian University. During this period of graduate studies, he also conducted seminars at the North American College for the undergraduate theology students, and served as an assistant on the North American College staff.  He earned the degree Doctor of Sacred Theology in June of 1971.

        In the fall of 1970 Father Levada was assigned to teach theology at St. John's Seminary (graduate and college departments), a teaching assignment he continued for the next six years.  After three years, while continuing teaching at the major seminary, Father Levada was named Director of Continuing Education for the Clergy in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and in 1975-76 also served as President of the Senate of Priests.

        In the fall of 1976, at the recommendation of the authorities of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Father Levada was assigned to work for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Holy See, a position he held for the next six years. On May 15, 1980, he was given the honorary title of Chaplain of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II.

        Monsignor Levada returned to California in the summer of 1982 to take up duties as Executive Director of the California Catholic Conference of Bishops, with offices located at the state capital in Sacramento.  He served for two years as coordinator of statewide Church efforts and liaison with government agencies.

        On March 29, 1983, Monsignor Levada was appointed Titular Bishop of Capri and Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, and received episcopal ordination at the hands of Cardinal Timothy Manning in St. Vibiana Cathedral, Los Angeles, on the Feast of the Ascension, May 12, 1983.  In February of 1984, he moved from Sacramento to Santa Barbara, where he was assigned as Episcopal Vicar for Santa Barbara County in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.  As a member of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops he has served on several
Conference committees: Committee of Doctrine, Committee for Pro-Life Activities, Committee for Pastoral Research and Practices, as well as the United States Catholic Conference
Communications Committee.

        Archbishop Mahony appointed him Moderator of the Curia and Chancellor of the Archdiocese in 1986.  On July 1, 1986, he was appointed eighth Archbishop of Portland in Oregon.  The installation Mass for Portland's eighth Archbishop took place in the University of Portland Chiles Center on the fifty-seventh anniversary of his parents' wedding  September 21, 1986.

During his nine years as Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, Archbishop Levada accomplished many things.  Some of those accomplishments include:  undertaking a successful $5,000,000 drive for a retirement fund and the St. John Vianney retirement residence for diocesan priests; being the only American Bishop on the Editorial Committee of the Holy See's Commission for the new Catechism of the Catholic Church; and overseeing the restoration of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in time for the 150th Anniversary celebration of the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon in 1996.

Click for Coat of Arms

        Archbishop William J. Levada was appointed Coadjutor Archbishop of San Francisco on August 17, 1995, and transferred to San Francisco on October 24, 1995.  He succeeded as Archbishop of San Francisco on December 27, 1995.

[RobbyS]

Allowing such a question would prejudice the archbishop's whole testimony before a judge or jury. It's a when did you stop beating your wife sort of thing! But you are right. If lawyers were required to affird that they believe in the validity of the questions they ask would disqualify them. They believe in nothing except process.

[bornacatholic]

Mental Reservation

The name applied to a doctrine which has grown out of the common Catholic teaching about lying and which is its complement.

The Catholic Doctrine on Lying

According to the common Catholic teaching it is never allowable to tell a lie, not even to save human life. A lie is something intrinsically evil, and as evil may not be done that good may come of it, we are never allowed to tell a lie. However, we are also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to tell a lie. Writers of all creeds and of none, both ancient and modern, have frankly accepted this position. They admit the doctrine of the lie of necessity, and maintain that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity it is justice that should prevail. The common Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of mental reservation as a means by which the claims of both justice and veracity can be satisfied.

The Doctrine of Wide Mental Reservation

The doctrine was broached tentatively and with great diffidence by St. Raymund of Pennafort, the first writer on casuistry. In his "Summa" (1235) St. Raymund quotes the saying of St. Augustine that a man must not slay his own soul by lying in order to preserve the life of another, and that it would be a most perilous doctrine to admit that we may do a less evil to prevent another doing a greater. And most doctors teach this, he says, though he allows that others teach that a lie should be told when a man's life is at stake. Then he adds:

I believe, as at present advised, that when one is asked by murderers bent on taking the life of someone hiding in the house whether he is in, no answer should be given; and if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to the other's silence. Or he may use an equivocal expression, and say 'He is not at home,' or something like that. And this can be defended by a great number of instances found in the Old Testament. Or he may say simply that he is not there, and if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin. Nor is St. Augustine really opposed to any of these methods. Such expressions as "He is not at home" were called equivocations, or amphibologies, and when there was good reason for using them their lawfulness was admitted by all. If the person inquired for was really at home, but did not wish to see the visitor, the meaning of the phrase "He is not at home" was restricted by the mind of the speaker to this sense, "He is not at home for you, or to see you." Hence equivocations and amphibologies came to be called mental restrictions or reservations. It was commonly admitted that an equivocal expression need not necessarily be used when the words of the speaker receive a special meaning from the circumstances in which he is placed, or from the position which he holds. Thus, if a confessor is asked about sins made known to him in confession, he should answer "I do not know," and such words as those when used by a priest mean "I do not know apart from confession," or "I do not know as man," or "I have no knowledge of the matter which I can communicate."

All Catholic writers were, and are, agreed that when there is good reason, such expressions as the above may be made use of, and that they are not lies. Those who hear them may understand them in a sense which is not true, but their self-deception may be permitted by the speaker for a good reason. If there is no good reason to the contrary, veracity requires all to speak frankly and openly in such a way as to be understood by those who are addressed. 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.

The Doctrine of Strict Mental Reservation

In the sixteenth century a further development of this commonly received doctrine began to be admitted even by some theologians of note. We shall probably not be far wrong if we attribute the change to the very difficult political circumstances of the time due to the wars of religion. Martin Aspilcueta, the "Doctor Navarrus," as he was called, was one of the first to develop the new doctrine. He was nearing the end of a long life, and was regarded as the foremost living authority on canon law and moral theology, when he was consulted on a case of conscience by the fathers of the Jesuit college at Valladolid. The case sent to him for solution was drawn up in these terms:

Titius, who privately said to a woman 'I take thee for my wife' without the intention of marrying her, answered the judge who asked him whether he had said those words that he did not say them, understanding mentally that he did not say them with the intention of marrying the woman. Navarrus was asked whether Titius told a lie, whether he had committed perjury, or whether he committed any sin at all. He drew up an elaborate opinion on the case and dedicated it to the reigning pontiff, Gregory XII. Navarrus maintained that Titius neither lied, nor committed perjury, nor any sin whatever, on the supposition that he had a good reason for answering as he did.

This theory became known as the doctrine of strict mental reservation, to distinguish it from wide mental reservation with which we have thus far been occupied. In the strict mental reservation the speaker mentally adds some qualification to the words which he utters, and the words together with the mental qualification make a true assertion in accordance with fact. On the other hand, in a wide mental reservation, the qualification comes from the ambiguity of the words themselves, or from the circumstances of time, place, or person in which they are uttered.

The opinion of Navarrus was received as probable by such contemporary theologians of different schools as Salon, Sayers, Suarez, and Lessius. The Jesuit theologian Sanchez formulated it in clear and distinct terms, and added the weight of his authority on the side of the defenders. Laymann, however, another Jesuit theologian of equal or greater weight, rejected the doctrine, as did Azor, S.J., the Dominican Soto, and others. Laymann shows at considerable length that such reservations are lies. For that man tells a lie who makes use of words which are false with the intention of deceiving another. And this is what is done when a strict mental reservation is made use of. The words uttered do not express the truth as known to the speaker. They are at variance with it and therefore they constitute a lie. The opinion of Navarrus was freely debated in the schools for some years, and was acted upon by some of the Catholic confessors of the Faith in England in the difficult circumstances in which they were frequently placed. It was, however, condemned as formulated by Sanchez by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679 (propositions 26, 27). After this condemnation by the Holy See no Catholic theologian has defended the lawfulness of strict mental reservations.

*Mental Reservation does not apply re moving queer clergy from one Diocese to another

[PAR35]

Attorneys for the victims want to ask Levada whether he would rely on the so-called doctrine of "mental reservation" when answering questions at the deposition in San Francisco.

How would they know if he was telling the truth when he answered that question.

(I know. They don't care what the answer is; they just want the jury to hear the question when they play the deposition.)

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

thanks for this post, interesting dilemma. In some ways it is analogous to killing in wartime.

The murderer looking for his next victim surely has no right to the knowledge he would make ill use of. If one could kill the muderer in self-defense then surely one could "lie" to him instead?

but one can easily see how such a "noble lying theory" could be misused so it's best to leave this as a gray area I would think. Yes, for sure the homos would be doing this constantly as any challenge to them would be considered by them as an act or "war" on them.

[NeoCaveman]

I never heard of this "mental reservation" thing before today.

[Salvation]

**so-called doctrine of "mental reservation"**

What in the heck is a doctrine of mental reservation?

Never heard of it before. (Am I just dumb, or did the journalists misuse the word, doctrine.

[Salvation]

I apologize for asking the question above. Sorry I didn't scroll down further. Thanks for your post.

[siunevada]

All Catholic writers were, and are, agreed that when there is good reason, such expressions as the above may be made use of, and that they are not lies.

So, he's safe in saying, "I don't believe in 'so-called' doctrines". (Hey, who could subscribe to something that isn't a real doctrine.)

[Rutles4Ever]

An instance of opting for 'mental reservation' would be such: You're hiding a family of Jews in your attic and the gestapo knocks on your door during a sweep, asking, "Are you hiding any Jews here?" The answer, "no", is not considered a lie because the inquisitor, the Nazi, is not ENTITLED to know that information.

Another instance of mental reservation occurs in the Gospels, themselves, when Jesus tells the disciples that He does not know the day or the time when the end will come, only God does. Of course Jesus knows. He IS God. But we're not entitled to that information any more than John and James were entitled to know who would sit at Jesus' right hand and judge the nations. Jesus merely chided them as "the Sons of Thunder" and warned them to think about what they were asking and what it would take to get there.

I'm actually impressed that this lawyer is taking "mental reservation" into account, because I certainly didn't hear about it until earlier this year...

[dangus]

I think the attorneys are simply publicizing this request to taint the jury pool. To infer the doctrine might imply would be to establish that the prosecution was conducting an unfounded, reprobate witch hunt against innocent parties. The prosecutors are probably hoping that the request fails, or that Lavada issues a proclamation of doctrine; the generality of which they use to make it look like Lavada is hedging his bets.

[Blzbba]

"Let the lawyer ask the question. Then let the bish ask the lawyer about why he, the lawyer, does NOT raise his hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."


The lawyer would simply reply: "Because I'm not the one on trial for buggering boys, forcing the parish to pay for the 'hush money' and subsequently declaring bankruptcy".


This "mental reservation" is a load. Follow the law of America.

Else, let everyone else claim "mental reservation" when it's convenient for them to do so.

[Campion]

The lawyer would simply reply: "Because I'm not the one on trial for buggering boys, forcing the parish to pay for the 'hush money' and subsequently declaring bankruptcy".

Are you an attorney? I ask because I think you would not get very far with that response. Lawyers are officers of the court, and they are not permitted to perjure themselves any more than a witness is.

(I have no idea what any of this has to do with mental reservation, however.)

[baa39]

Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2152, mental reservation would not allow lying under oath. Perjury is not excused by mental reservation.