"There is no middle way between the Truth and the lie." (St. Mark of
Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond
this comes from the evil one (Matthew 5:36-38).
And yet, it seems that we are surrounded by a culture which
constantly looks for the non-existent middle way :
o If a bishop says something you do not like, just say: "It is
his personal opinion".
o If an anathema by the Church does not suit you, just say: "It
was written originally in English" (which means that the alleged
official author could not have authored it; moreover, the proposal
was allegedly not voted as it should have been, etc).
o If a sorrowful epistle does not suit you, just say: "It was
not authored by Vl Philaret, but by Vl Gregory.
o If Vl Alipy or Vl Vitaly says something you do not like,
say: "They took advantage of his condition. He could not have said
it, somebody has probably had him sign this text".
o If a message from the MP does not suit you, say: "Pat. Alexi
did not mean it. The text of the declaration was slipped by a priest
who is against the union".
In other words, without claiming that the declaration is untrue
altogether, you just claim that it was in fact not authored by the
supposed author. You get a situation where the author did and yet did
not say the critical thing, and there you are with a middle between
the truth and lie. And nobody noticed the trick. It works.
It is like that horrible gesture which originated in the Anglo-Saxon
world, with two fingers from each hand drawing a quotation mark in
the air. It gives you a way of saying it without saying it and having
mentioned it without taking the responsibility. It is like saying "He
said it, but he did not mean it".
I think that this expression ("he did not mean it") says a lot about
the culture that produced it. No wonder that England is known
as "Perfidious Albion". I am not sure that you can translate the
expression right away into either French or Russian.
But, is this Christian, or is it from the evil one?