Is all accuracy a pleasure to affirm?

What are the problems, and how do you get across a hard truth like announcing an illness?

The starting point is to be honest with ourselves and question our true motives. When we hide the truth from someone close to us, let's ask ourselves whether we're not, after all, giving ourselves a clear conscience by telling ourselves it's to protect them. Indeed, it's sometimes to protect ourselves from fear (fear of the other person's reaction, fear of conflict, fear of what they'll think of us) that we may be led to lie. It can also be tempting to tell the other person what they want to hear.

What's more, not telling the truth is a way of keeping ourselves in line, and therefore running the speculative risk of a further shift and complication. To give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is also to expose ourselves to the very slight risk that the other person may discover it even more brutally, and thus lose the trust they had in us.

Consider the situation before deciding what to do

Ask yourself why you want to talk, and what you can expect from it: sometimes, if you sense that the person is not ready to listen, or is not in a position to understand because of cognitive difficulties, for example, it may not be wise to say things.

When the decision to tell the truth has been made, especially when this truth is going to be very hard to hear, take time to reflect and make sure the person is available: it's not a question of delivering the truth on the spot. Give your loved one time to ruminate and ask herself some questions.

By trying too hard to put things into perspective, the person passing on the bad news runs the risk of striking a chord with the recipient and provoking a withdrawal instead.

Be as clear and direct as possible, with all the necessary empathy, and avoid circumlocutions and euphemisms which risk confusing the message and giving the impression that you're not saying everything.

That's a very interesting point, because it's a very difficult one. Let's say it's both dangerous and wise.

It's dangerous because it's extremely complicated to implement. Indeed, what are the criteria on the basis of which we will say that a truth is good to tell or not?

Is there not then a risk of being lax about the truth?

Don't we then run the risk of implementing these statements according to circumstances and situations?

Why then should any truth be untruthful?

My immediate interest?

The interest of someone who has a child who would not be capable of receiving a revelation of this or that nature?

The point is to remind ourselves why the service of truth is structured for every human being and for society as a whole. Truth is fundamental to the stability of social life, democratic political life, economic life and so on. Without truth, all is chaos. It argues in favor of the existence of one or more public bodies charged with shedding light on events. Justice, as an institution, but the first, must maintain the context of truth in human relations. A free and responsible press also contributes to this.

We can see, then, that truth is at the service of life, and is inseparable from the great values of respect for others, conjugal life, personal property and the demands of social life, where society is supposed to safeguard its weakest members. (who, in turn, would be the first to suffer under a regime of institutionalized lies).

The only case in which it is not obligatory to tell the truth, i.e. to remain silent

(it's not always necessary to not to decide on the truth). It is when it is required to do everything in contract with the same desire for truth:

Each person's social and personal life. We can't allow the truth to be in contradiction with what wants to foster all your strength, like peace and life.

That's what's going to go wrong.

Christ himself was confronted with this question. He had entered the temple and was teaching, when the chief priests and elders of the people came up to him and asked, “By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?” He said to them, “I will also ask you one thing. If you answer me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. John's baptism, where did it come from? From heaven or from men? They echo among themselves, saying: if we answer: from heaven, he will say to us: why then did you not believe in him?” But if we answer: from men, we fear the people, for all hold John to be a prophet.

They say to Jesus, “We don't know. He clarifies for them: neither am I; I will not declare to you by what charisma I perform these actions.” The truth could not be given to someone who had not developed the necessary receptivity to accept it. The demand for truth could only rest on the condition of being faithful to that truth. There is only an apparent redundancy in the formula here. What we mean here is that no one can take these values separately from each other without falling into perversion.