The Catholic Book Club discussion

7. How do you feel about the fact that Ystevan cloaks Serapia’s memories multiple times in an attempt to protect his people? Do you feel this is justified? Why or why not?

This question was provided by Corinna Turner.

This question is similar to question 5, although in a lesser way. Manipulating someone's memories is not so bad as killing them, but in my opinion it is also wrong.

Manuel wrote: "This question is similar to question 5, although in a lesser way. Manipulating someone's memories is not so bad as killing them, but in my opinion it is also wrong."

Here I disagree. There are times when it's necessary to manipulate a person's mind for their own good, and I'll take the case of someone who has joined a self-destructive cult. Here you have to counterprogram, and that happened in the 16th century when many people were drawn into Protestantism. It's legitimate in this case to counterprogram them to return them to the true faith.

Fonch wrote: "Here I disagree. There are times when it's necessary to manipulate a person's mind for their own good..."

But would you justify, even in the case you mention, to eliminate part of the memories of those persons "for their own good," by performing a kind of mental lobotomy on them?

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "Here I disagree. There are times when it's necessary to manipulate a person's mind for their own good..."

But would you justify, even in the case you mention, to eliminate part of th..."


I don't think so, but counterprogramming sessions are necessary. Therefore, a person would be manipulated against their will.
Also, and for example, my father doesn't want me to enter the neighbor's house, so he lies to me or scares me by saying there are slugs in that house. It's done for a good cause. Although I think ordering me not to enter the neighbor's house would be enough.

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "Here I disagree. There are times when it's necessary to manipulate a person's mind for their own good..."

But would you justify, even in the case you mention, to eliminate part of th..."

I'm mentioning this case because it's interesting, and the Professor and I were involved. The Professor knows there's a novel I love called "The Devil's Whisper" by Miyuki Miyabe, and I thought it was a wonderful novel, but the Professor didn't like the ending because the protagonist manipulated the murderer into confessing to his crime. Something good was being done for the criminal, but his free will was violated, and that's what the Professor didn't like. I think it's the perfect example for this case.

Fonch wrote: "Also, and for example, my father doesn't want me to enter the neighbor's house, so he lies to me or scares me by saying there are slugs in that house. It's done for a good cause. Although I think ordering me not to enter the neighbor's house would be enough."

There is a difference between education and manipulation. What you have said is an example. If a father lies to his son, he's manipulating, not educating. Although perhaps, if he just orders without (true) justification, that's not good education either. But it depends on the particular situation.

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "Also, and for example, my father doesn't want me to enter the neighbor's house, so he lies to me or scares me by saying there are slugs in that house. It's done for a good cause. Alth..."

I had scratched the neighbor's car, and my dad wanted to keep me out of trouble again. To add some context to the matter.

I tend to agree with Professor Manuel, but this question is tough. Most authors say that, while it's never licit to sin, there are authorities like St. Hilary of Poitiers who thought it would be licit to lie on some occasions. On the other hand, St. Thomas and St. Augustine were certain that it's never licit to lie, since it always implies falsehood.

But there's also that thing that acts like a sort of diversion. People like to cite when St. Athanasius was running from the Arians who wanted to kill him. He was standing at a harbor in wait for a ship. He tried to hide his face while an Arian or someone else asked if he knew where Athanasius was. He famously said: "He is not far from here."

There's also a St. John of the Cross anecdote. When St. Theresa called him to be a confessor at her monastery, the other nuns became scared of his reputation for austerity. No one wanted to have him as their confessor. One day, a nun unknowingly approached his confessional. She asked: "Calced or discalced?" He was a Discalced Carmelite. The saint covered his feet with his habit and said, "Calced." After this, he became everyone's favorite confessor.

Emmanuel wrote: "I tend to agree with Professor Manuel, but this question is tough. Most authors say that, while it's never licit to sin, there are authorities like St. Hilary of Poitiers who thought it would be li..."

But your examples deal with lies. What about deeper manipulation, such as what takes place in Elfling?

I understand you are at the beginning of the novel, so it may take you some time to answer this question.

Manuel wrote: "Emmanuel wrote: "I tend to agree with Professor Manuel, but this question is tough. Most authors say that, while it's never licit to sin, there are authorities like St. Hilary of Poitiers who thoug..."

Yes, I just wanted to add something to your discussion. I still have to reach that point in the book.

Manuel wrote: "7. How do you feel about the fact that Ystevan cloaks Serapia’s memories multiple times in an attempt to protect his people? Do you feel this is justified? Why or why not?

This question was provid..."

I don't view this as manipulation, but as self-defense. Manipulation to me implies either coercion or dishonesty to get someone to do what you want rather than what they want, in essence to override their will.

(view spoiler)[Here the Elves have learned through bitter experience that human knowledge of them and their homes can cause their destruction. To me then the question then is what are the limits of self-defense or the defense of your people? She is an innocent and has not threatened elves in any way, so there is no justification in killing her, yet she is still a threat. Like the neuralyzer in MIB, they block her memories, this seems to cause no other harm and seems to me to be a reasonable defense represented by mere human knowledge of the elven home. (hide spoiler)]

John wrote: "I don't view this as manipulation, but as self-defense. Manipulation to me implies either coercion or dishonesty to get someone to do what you want rather than what they want, in essence to override their will...."

I disagree. Manipulation is defined thus: skillful handling or control of something, either physically... or through clever, and sometimes devious, management of situations or people to gain an advantage.

I think removing memories of another person is manipulation. I'd protest if someone tried to do it to me, either for my own good or theirs. My memories are part of myself, they don't belong to others, to do with them what they wish.

(view spoiler)[You have acknowledge that Serapia was not a threat for the elves, at most indirectly. Rather than manipulate her, couldn't they have explained and got her agreement to keep their existence secret? In fact, at the end, that's what they do. (hide spoiler)]

Self-defense may be important, but not at the cost of the lives or other properties of innocent people. Some people in favor of abortion present it as self-defense by the mother. I don't agree.

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "I don't view this as manipulation, but as self-defense. Manipulation to me implies either coercion or dishonesty to get someone to do what you want rather than what they want, in essen..."

I think I understood your point. It may be tolerated or even accepted in elven society, but it is still a sort of violence against Serapia's integrity. We could argue that memory is a part of our nature; so, forcefully removing our memories (even through magic) is a sort of violence.

I was thinking of manipulation in terms of dishonest persuasion, as we usually see in political dramas. But it makes sense to include this sort of coercion too.

In this case, arguing about self-defense would be to return to that discussion about the ends justifying the means

Emmanuel wrote: "In this case, arguing about self-defense would be to return to that discussion about the ends justifying the means"

True!

Emmanuel wrote: "But there's also that thing that acts like a sort of diversion. People like to cite when St. Athanasius was running from the Arians who wanted to kill him. He was standing at a harbor in wait for a..."

I think the more difficult question is the one that runs: you are in a Nazi country and are hiding Jews in your attic. The Gestapo knocks on your door and asks if you are sheltering any Jews in the house; how do you answer. The only moral answer is "No, there are no Jews here." But is this a sin? IIRC the Jesuits say that a lie is withholding truth from someone entitled to the truth, and as the Gestapo agent intends evil he is not entitled to the truth, and thus the obligatory "no" is not a lie. I wonder if this is not too clever and intended to avoid calling into question the moral precept that one may not do evil so that good may result.

John wrote: "Emmanuel wrote: "But there's also that thing that acts like a sort of diversion. People like to cite when St. Athanasius was running from the Arians who wanted to kill him. He was standing at a har..."

What John writes is very interesting, and it brings us to the question of the lesser evil and also to an important exercise in casuistry. There are three types of lies: humorous, officious, and pernicious. The second type is sometimes sinful, and the third is always sinful. There's one case, and we see it in Heart of Darkness when Marlow tells a white lie to Kurtz's widow. He can't tell her that her husband went mad and became corrupt in Africa, or that he had a concubine; that's called a "white lie." Or when John Wayne says that the character played by Henry Fonda in Fort Apache is a great leader, he hides the fact that he was an ambitious man who sacrificed his men and underestimated the Apaches for his lust for glory, because that would further demoralize the army and the country. These are two cases that could also work. If they are sins, they are venial in any case.

John wrote: "Emmanuel wrote: "But there's also that thing that acts like a sort of diversion. People like to cite when St. Athanasius was running from the Arians who wanted to kill him. He was standing at a har..."

You can also give equivocal answers, that is, let's see if I can explain myself—tell the truth, but do it in a way that someone who intends to cause harm would understand the exact opposite. Or, for example, if a malicious person is mistaken about something, stay silent and don't say anything. You're not lying to them, you're just not telling them the truth.

I like to think there's always an answer that avoids a direct lie, e.g. "How can you imagine I, of all people, would hide a Jew here?"

I'm very wary of anything done "for your own good". No one but God can know what is truly for another's good, and God never overrides our freedom to choose.

However, the morality of the elvin world is clearly different from ours.