Replies

There is also a gray area here, in that, theologically speaking, it could be argued that this panel is not "entitled to the truth" regarding Roberts' pos. on abortion. Like having a Nazi show up on your doorstep and asking for the Jews in your attic during WWII. In that case, the Nazi soldier would not be entitled to the truth, which would render unsinful the subsequent lie that "there are no Jews in my attack".

That said, it gets a little dicey because he took an oath to testify truthfully. Does the unentitlement to truth trump the oath? If the Nazi pulled out a Bible and told you to take an oath before God that you're not hiding Jews, is the oath immediately null and void under duress?

I'm looking for a silver lining, I admit. But there is a case to be made where there is an absence of justice, certain parties are not entitled to the truth...

If the Nazi pulled out a Bible and told you to take an oath before God that you're not hiding Jews, is the oath immediately null and void under duress?

That is a highly exteme situation. People have an obligation to protect their neighbors from immediate danger to their lives. Roberts does not have the obligation or even an entitlement to be Chief Justice. Lying is an unacceptable method of getting there - period.

There is also a gray area here, in that, theologically speaking, it could be argued that this panel is not "entitled to the truth" regarding Roberts' pos. on abortion. Like having a Nazi show up on your doorstep and asking for the Jews in your attic during WWII. In that case, the Nazi soldier would not be entitled to the truth, which would render unsinful the subsequent lie that "there are no Jews in my attack".

Such a lie is permissible because it is the lesser of two evils. Lie or allow an innocent person to be murdered.

The analogy fails here because Roberts can say that while he dutifully adheres to Catholic teaching, the Church teaches that he shouldn't impose particularly Catholic teachings on non-Catholics. Moreover, Church teachings require that his rulings not violate the natural law, a law written on the human heart which is not exclusive to Catholics, Christians or theists of any religion.

That said, it gets a little dicey because he took an oath to testify truthfully. Does the unentitlement to truth trump the oath?

It may be permissible to duck the question, although I don't see the issue as a loser at all. It would be a great opportunity to create a public debate regarding natural law and abortion.

But effectively saying that he won't be a slave to Church teaching is a very grave lie, if it is a lie, or woeful ignorance of Church teaching.

I'm looking for a silver lining, I admit.

I know. I want an orthodox Catholic in there too. But I'm not seeing it right now.