Hoffman puts his ignorance on display.  As soon as someone puts "Doctor of the Church" in quotes in a pejorative sense, the rest of his opinion should be ignored.  And he's way off the mark here ... betraying his ignorance of Catholic moral theology.  St. Alphonsus is not giving people an "out" but is merely describing (quite accurately) the difference in terms between a "proposal" and a "promise".  It's exactly what we tell our kids in the ice cream scenario.  When my wife and I say that we'll take them out for ice cream, we're not intending to bind ourselves or to make any kind of promise, but rather are making a proposal (just like St. Alphonsus' propositum) vs. a true promise.  Kids try to turn that into some kind of promise we're breaking, but we explain that it was a proposal and that we nowhere promised or bound ourselves to it, and that being a simple proposal we were free to change our minds.  Alas, Hoffman has the same mentality here as our young children clamoring for ice cream.

You see that a lot in this book. He draws a lot of extreme conclusions, such as his hyper-focus on usury. I've been meaning to go back and read it again, but the big issue for me is that he unsaints a lot of canonized saints such as St. Alphonsus or St. Pius X because they go against his views on morality.

I may disagree with what St. Alphonsus teaches about mental reservations, but I'm not going to doubt his authority or sanctity because of it.

Exactly this.  It's one thing to respectfully disagree with St. Alphonsus on one or another issue.  That's perfectly permitted.  But he crosses the line with his "Doctor of the Church" nonsense.  IMO, this book should be on the Index because of the harm it might do to Catholics.  Not to mention that he's totally wrong and basis his attacks on an obvious misreading of St. Alphonsus here.

I know that we often have this type of scenario with our kids.  We might say something like, "We'll go out for ice cream later."  But then things happen and we change our mind, and the kids would immediately chime in that we "promised" to go for ice cream.  We did no such thing, but were merely proposing something at the time, without any intention of binding ourselves to it.  That's precisely what this (out of context) passage reminds me of when it refers to a "simple proposition" as opposed to some kind of "promise".

 

Are you sure you’re not talking about my children? 😂

"At left is an excerpt from the Moral Theology of Alphonsus Liguori, in which, concerning oaths sworn by Catholics, this ‘Doctor of the Church,’ establishes escape clauses, whereby the obligation of Catholics to fulfill what they have sworn to do or uphold, need not be fulfilled: “Either of the opinions is probable, but the first is more probable: for the reason of the second opinion supposes it as certain that such an oath, made without the mind of binding one’s self, is a true oath. But it is a more probable, and common opinion, as Salm. c. 1 n. 19. with others as above, and even Viva on proposition 25. of Innocent XI. num. 13. (against Lessius in the mentioned num. 37.) assert that such an oath is not a true oath: both because it wants the necessary conditions to the nature of a promissory oath, such as is the intention of binding one’s self; and because an oath follows the nature of the promise which it confirms, as is certain ap Bus. n. 280. cuм Less. Bon. etc. But a promise made without such a mind is not, indeed, a promise but simply proposed; therefore, the promises being evanescent, the oath is also such, and is considered as made without the mind of swearing, which certainly, as we have seen, is null and void. But if no oath exists, there is no obligation of fulfilling that oath.”" (from "The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome" by Michael Hoffman)

.


Does this book have an Imprimatur? It sounds pretty anti-Catholic. Catholics are forbidden by Church law to read any work of a religious nature that doesn't have an Imprimatur.

The title sounds pretty fishy by itself, and the author's name "Michael Hoffman" sounds Newish to me.

Hoffman still refers to Bergolio as a Pope.

Ah, I see.  So Bergoglio is the Pope but St. Alphonsus a "Doctor of the Church".

And Pope St. Pius X is a "saint".

Respectfully, you are coping. He is talking about an oath, not a frivolous statement to one's children in the morning.

Did you even read what I wrote?  Are you incapable of basic reading comprehension?  It would appear so.

Nowhwere in the text cited did St. Alphonsus say "it is ok for Catholics to commit perjury".  He didn't say anything was OK or not OK.  You're a slanderer against a "Doctor of the Church."  Provide evidence that St. Alphonsus said it was OK to lie under oath or retract your slander.  And the fact that you nowhere denounced Hoffman's grave insult against a Doctor of the Church also speaks ill of you.  Unless you retract this statement and denounce this insult against a Doctor of the Church, you should be banned for heresy (yes, it's implicitly heretical to de-Doctorize) and Doctor of the Church.

If you were capable of simple reading comprehension, you'd see that St. Alphonsus is simply defining terms here, distinguishing between a "proposal" and an oath / promise (both terms).  Nor does his term "juramentum" refer to "perjury", as in an oath taken in court proceedings.

He's doing exactly what I said he was doing, defining terms, and my analogy with the children wanting ice cream perfectly describes the distinction.  Someone making a "proposal" without intending to bind himself is not making a "promise" or an "oath".  Unless you prove that St. Alphonsus believes that when you basically swear on a Bible to tell the whole truth in a court proceeding and lie, you're a disgusting slanderer and an idiot who simply can't read.

There's nothing more irksome than to see an idiot who cannot read or comprehend something, assert his incomprehension into a slander against the individual he misunderstood.  Initially I gave you the benefit of the doubt as being simply mistaken and misled by Hoffman, but now that you've doubled down even after the true meaning of this excerpt was explained to you, you've demonstrated your bad will.