ARTICLE II: ON MENTAL RESTRICTION

512. • Mental restriction is an act of the mind diverting or restricting the words of some proposition to another sense than the natural and obvious one.

Mental restriction is 1° purely or strictly mental, if the sense of the speaker can in no way be perceived, and this is properly called mental; 2° broadly or improperly mental, if the sense of the proposition can be gathered from the adjuncts, for example from the mode of responding, from received usage, etc.

To mental restriction are reduced equivocations or amphibologies, which are expressions having a twofold sense, but one more obvious and the other literal.

513. Principles. - I. It is never licit to use purely or properly mental restriction, nor amphibology not perceptible in a human manner; a fortiori it is not licit to swear with the same, because it is simply a lie. This is clear also from propositions 26, 27, and 28 condemned by Innocent XI, pp. XV and XVI.¹

514. • II. Sometimes it is licit from a just cause to use broad restriction, that is, improperly mental restriction, and equivocal words, when the sense intended by the speaker can be understood. The reason is that this is not evil in itself, since the neighbor is not properly deceived, but his deception is only permitted from a just cause; on the other hand, for the good of society it is required that a means be present of licitly concealing a secret; but sometimes no other means is supplied besides equivocation or broad or improperly mental restriction. - I said: from a just cause; because if the use of such restrictions were permitted without a proportionate cause, no one could or would wish to believe another; and this would yield to the greatest damage of human society. - Thus the theologians most commonly. St. Alphonsus.¹ - Lacroix.² - Suarez, Lugo, Laymann, Sporer, Elbel, and innumerable others.

But it is licit to use a broad restriction of this sort even with an oath; although then a greater cause is required, since the divine testimony is not to be usurped without judgment, and indeed the greater in proportion as the words furnish greater occasion of erring. But outside judgment, or unless there is question of entering an onerous contract, it is only venial to swear in this way without just cause.³

515. You will resolve. - 1° He is not free from fault who uses a restriction even not purely mental, or an equivocation perceptible in some way, 1) if he does this without reason, but from the sole intention of deceiving, because it is an abuse of signs; 2) if the one questioning has the right of inquiring or commanding confession of the truth and uses that right legitimately, because regularly in a subject there corresponds to that right the obligation of confessing the truth without ambiguity.⁴ Add 3) if from this some damage of a neighbor would emerge which from the precept of charity we are bound to avert; 4) while onerous contracts are celebrated; in which case justice demands that naked words be uttered according to the mind of the contracting party.⁵

2° A confessor, questioned by a tyrant whether Titius confessed homicide, can and ought to respond: I do not know; because the confessor does not know this by communicable knowledge. Indeed even if the tyrant insisted and said: Do you not know this by communicable knowledge? He could still respond: I do not know. The reason is that the tyrant well knows that he does not have the right of questioning concerning this, nor does the confessor understand himself to know as a man, but as the vicar of God, and consequently by incommunicable knowledge.

3° A guilty man questioned by a judge not juridically, or not legitimately, can respond that he has not committed the crime, by understanding: one concerning which inquiry can be made, or which he is bound to confess.¹

4° All public persons questioned concerning things committed to their trust can use a restriction of this sort, as are secretaries, legates of princes, leaders of armies, magistrates, advocates, physicians, surgeons, midwives, and whoever has office and reason of concealing some truth. For if secrets committed to these persons were violated, most grave inconveniences would follow from this in society.

5° A servant by command of his master can deny that he is at home, although he is present; because such speech is generally received by usage for signifying that he is not at home insofar as he can be seen or visited. Yet attend to the custom of places.²