My esteemed friend and colleague Steven Greydanus remarks:
The rubric “Lying for Jesus” seems unnecessarily glib and dismissive. Granted the gap between a straightforward self-defense rationale for deceptive falsehood and Live Action’s more complicated deception, I would object to a critic of the Church’s nuanced definition of stealing with respect to the owner’s “reasonable will” using the rubric “Stealing For Jesus.” Ditto self-defense / just-war theory and “Murder (or even Killing) For Jesus.”
I appreciate the concern about this and can only say that I honestly have no intention of being flip, glib, or dismissive here. Nor, by the way, was my mention of Screwtape the other day intended to somehow imply that those who disagree with me are in league with Old Scratch any more than Jesus means to say that Peter is satanic (Matthew 16:23). Rather, my point, as with Jesus’ words to Peter, is to warn that Satan is seductive and none of us, least of all me, immune from his wiles. We wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with powers and principalities, etc. So I am, in fact, trying to be exact with my language. I deeply believe that the seductive idea the devil dearly wants us to buy into is Lying for Jesus. I believe this for three reasons.
First: see if this scenario sounds familiar. There is a growing movement whose dangerous error is insinuating itself into society and bringing (spiritual) death to many innocent people. Fear and anger spread as decent Catholic folk find that God doesn’t seem to be answering their prayers to quell the menace. Finally, somebody says, “We need to take radical action and infiltrate the group in order to expose what they are doing. We are AT WAR! And precious souls are at risk if we don’t take radical action NOW! I’m not going to stand around quibbling about a few little lies while innocent lives are facing a horrible fate!”
That was the situation—in the fourth century—when the Priscillianist heretics were endangering, not bodies, but souls and leading them (as Catholics believed) to the everlasting fires of Hell. So as the heresy grew and Catholics got desperate, somebody proposed lying about their identity and purpose in order to infiltrate the group, expose the lies, and “lead people out of error”. Here is what St. Augustine did:
“I wrote a book Against Lying, the occasion of which work was this. In order to discover the Priscillianist heretics… it seemed to certain Catholics that they ought to pretend themselves Priscillianists, in order that they might penetrate their lurking places. In prohibition of which thing, I composed this book.” - St. Augustine
I call it Lying for Jesus because I cannot, for the life of me, see the slightest difference between Lila Rose lying to infiltrate Planned Parenthood and Augustine’s flock wanting to lie to infiltrate a heretical group.
Augustine knew (as we admit in *every* other situation where somebody walks up and lies about their identity, occupation and purpose) that this is lying, not “enhanced dialogic strategy” or whatever we want to call it. Indeed, propose to the average person in their simplicity the question, “Is it okay for undercover cops to lie about their identity?” and he will not say “Undercover cops aren’t lying about their identity.” He will say, “Undercover cops are lying about their identity for a good purpose.” So yeah. We’re talking about lying, just as discussions of waterboarding are discussions about torture and not about “enhanced interrogation”.
Second, I believe we are talking about lying because “lying” is the word that defenders of Live Action use to describe what they are defending. In other words, I am not unfairly putting the word “lying” into people’s mouths when they are actually saying something else. As I noted on Monday, Gerard Nadal makes that abundantly clear by stating frankly:
“If some modern-day SS were looking for our family with murderous intent, would any of us lie to save them? Or would we watch them all get slaughtered?
I’d lie; and if that so offended the majesty of God so as to cut me off from Him for all eternity, then He’s not the God I was raised to believe in.”
Likewise, Peter Kreeft says,
If lying is always wrong, then it is wrong to lie to a nuclear terrorist (the “ticking time bomb” scenario) to elicit from him where he hid the nuclear bomb that in one hour will kill millions if it is not found and defused. The most reasonable response to the “no lying” legalist here is “You gotta be kidding”—or something less kind than that. Thomas Aquinas said that even torture is sometimes justified; in emergency situations like that; if torture, then a fortiori lying.
So, once again, it is Drs. Kreeft and Nadal who use the word “lying”. I’m just quoting them. But (and this is my third point) they use it in the middle of long defenses of the proposition that Christians, in fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ, not only may but must concede that lying in order to defend the unborn is legitimate and that, if we don’t grant this, we are “morally stupid” according to Dr. Kreeft. In short, they are defending Lying for Jesus.
In addition, I would be remiss if I did not note, by the way, Dr. Kreeft’s argument is, with all due respect, a bad argument. For while Dr. Kreeft does cite Thomas on torture, he does not consult St. Thomas on lying, with the unfortunate effect of appearing to affirm St. Thomas’ teaching on torture [which the developed teaching of the Magisterium rejects as intrinsically immoral], while ignoring his teaching on lying, which the Magisterium—and the whole of the Catholic tradition—affirms: namely, that lying is, you guessed it, intrinsically immoral. Beyond this, Dr. Kreeft simply says, “Go with your intuition” and simply ignores what the Church says about lying. Now I’m quite happy to affirm along with Kreeft and Thomas that our natural moral intuitions are an important touchstone for forming our consciences. But I am astonished that Dr. Kreeft simply pays no attention to the fact that revelation exists to augment and purify our fallen human moral sense. After all, fallen human reason, unaided by revelation, says not “Love your enemy” but kill your enemy, preferably as slowly and painfully as possible if, like Ted Bundy (who nearly slaughtered my cousin—true story), you deem him to be a piece of human debris unfit to use up space. With a moral sense that badly in need of the help of revelation and grace, I cannot for the life of me understand why Dr. Kreeft makes no inquiry in to the Church’s teaching on the matter of lying but simply commends us to unaided moral instinct.
Now eventually, people are going to have to face three facts:
1) we really are talking about lying (as Augustine, and Drs. Kreeft and Nadal make extremely clear);
2) lying really is intrinsically immoral (as the Catechism makes extremely clear), and;
3) the tradition has always said this.
And, indeed, some are facing that fact. However, when we realize that the Catechism really is saying what it says about an error we have been attempting to defend, that is not the end of the discussion, for we are still faced with a choice. We can say, “Okay. I’m wrong. Lying is intrinsically immoral” (as I have had the unpleasant duty of doing) and proceed from that day forward forming our thinking in light of the Church’s teaching on that point. Or we can say, as someone recently wrote me, “If lying is always wrong, then what Lila Rose did was not lying.” That is, we can continue the attempt to justify something the Church condemns by calling it something else. If so, we begin a fresh effort generate euphemisms for lying, just as discussions about the intrinsic immorality of abortion turned to euphemisms (“fetal material”) and the discussion of torture did likewise (“enhanced interrogation”). There’s a sort of inevitability to it as the human urge to rationalize kicks in. It’s just the way things go in these kinds of discussions. But the fact remains that such an approach to moral analysis, applied liberally, will go a long way toward emptying our confessionals by euphemizing all manner of sin. (“If gluttony is a sin, then eating an entire chocolate cake is not gluttony but ‘celebration of creation’.” “If fornication is a sin, then having sex outside marriage is not fornication but ‘incarnational sexuality’.” “If gossip is a sin, then whispering about the pastor’s visits to that cute blond’s house is not gossip but ‘concern’.” “If vengefulness is a sin, then running that guy off the road was not vengefulness but ‘citizen justice’.”)
Nonetheless, the fact remains, when we are talking about marching up to somebody and giving a fake name, occupation and purpose, we are not talking about mere “legitimate deceit” like hiding the Jews well and saying, “Look for yourself!”. We are talking about lying, just as Drs. Kreeft and Nadal insist we are. And when I see the exact parallel between what Augustine is talking about and what enthusiasts for LA are talking about, I find it, as Augustine did, impossible to disagree with Drs. Nadal and Kreeft. Like them and Augustine, I describe the act as lying and the rationalizations for it as rationalizations for lying. Indeed, the irony of the situation, from my end, is that I honestly feel that I would be lying not to call it Lying for Jesus. (So there’s a moral conundrum to tax some Jesuit’s brain. :)) Given this, as well as the normative use of language about lying in all other situations where we are not making strained excuses for Live Action, I think the burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate that LA’s tactics are lying, but on the defender of LA to show that this is not lying—and I think the attempt is obviously doomed. Augustine certainly thought such actions to be lying and, frankly, so do all ordinary people, so far as I can tell, whenever anybody else walks up to them and gives them a false name, occupation and purpose. Bottom line: When even the defenders of LA like Drs. Nadal and Kreeft call it lying, it’s lying. And the Church says, “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”
That said, let me note something else. I got the Augustine quote from Joe Grabowski, a formidible Catholic thinker who posted it on his Facebook page. Somebody responded to him:
Do you equate investigating heretics with abortion?
I find that fascinating. For, of course, what that question signals is one of the essential differences between modernity and antiquity: the notion that the death of the body is of far graver import than the death of the soul. Augustine and his flock took it for granted that the Second Death was a far greater thing to fear than the first death. They believed Jesus when he said: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). So Augustine felt keenly (as his flock did) the danger posed by heretics and the urgent desire to protect people from them. On this score, it was as real a temptation to lie for a good end to the Priscillianists as lying to Planned Parenthood is for us.
We don’t feel that temptation when it comes to heresy. Priscillianists are, for us, some dusty footnote in the Catholic Encyclopedia. So we moderns can, with cool heads, say “Augustine’s right. You can’t lie in order to defeat heretics. The weapons of our warfare are truth, etc.” After all, heresy’s not *that* big a deal to us. So we don’t feel his flock’s sense of panicky urgency that something desperate has to be done NOW and if it means cutting moral corners to fight the threat of heresy, then so be it.
But, in our own time, we are saying exactly the same thing about lying to people at Planned Parenthood as some in Augustine’s flock said about lying to Priscillianists, because we worry much more about the first death than the second. Augustine looks across the ages at us with a similarly cool head and says, “You cannot lie for Jesus. You can’t do it to save bodies and you can’t do it to save souls.” He doesn’t attempt to pretend that the Priscillianists (or Planned Parenthood folks) can be lied to because “they aren’t entitled to the truth”. He doesn’t say lying to the Priscillianists is not leading them into error but back to the Faith, so it’s not really lying. He (and the entire Catholic moral tradition) says, “Do not lie.”
Moral: The notion that this stuff is new, as though grave dangers to body and soul began with the Holocaust or Planned Parenthood, is one of the many ways our culture demonstrates its innocence of history. There has, in fact, never been a time when people have not felt the temptation to lie for a good cause. And there has never been a time when the Church has not said, “You can’t do that.”
One final note: as I mentioned the other day, I think that, in the end, Lying for Jesus, like all consequentialist thinking, is a Faustian Bargain. This has everything to do with why the Church warns of intrinsically immoral acts. Many people seem to have the notion that when the Church says something is intrinsically immoral it is often just arbitrarily deciding that something is “wrong” as a child randomly decides that stepping on a sidewalk crack is “wrong”. That is, such folk don’t really believe lying is, you know, wrong wrong, like murder or rape. it’s just… church wrong because some theologian a long time ago had a weird scruple about it and we have to play along (until things get serious, in which case we need to brush aside the unrealistic theologians in their ivory towers and let gritty practical men take over and do the thing that needs done (which isn’t really, you know, wrong wrong and is, in desperate circumstances, actually the Right Thing to Do—so emphatically Right in fact that not to see this is to be, in Dr. Kreeft’s words, “morally stupid”.)
But, in fact, the reason the Church warns against intrinsic immorality is because, in the end, intrinsically immoral acts, in addition to being wrong, don’t work because an intrinsically immoral act is a Faustian Bargain proposed to us by the Seducer who said, “Hath God *really* said you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? What a strange arbitrary rule! And here you could have all this Wisdom and be like God if it weren’t for that absurd arbitrary rule that is hindering you from doing the good that so desperately needs to be done. Break free and find your true happiness!”
As our First Parents discovered, such Faustian Bargains never give us something in exchange for our soul. They always, in the end, give us nothing in exchange for our soul. The good thing we hope to gain by cutting corners turns to ashes and we are left with the devil’s laughter. It’s a lesson we could learn from a dozen Twilight Zone episodes if not from the Church. So, for instance, in these debates, we speak often of the legendary Lying Dutchman who is to be revered for lying to the Nazis. He is (we are told) the great trump card to the assertion that you cannot sin that good may come of it and the proof that, sometimes, you can “do the right thing” by sinning. Indeed, as we have seen some have attempted to make the same case that Pius XII “did the right thing” by allegedly forging baptismal certificates. In reality, he did not do this and, in fact, the Vatican urged clergy not do this for both moral and prudential reasons. Did this make Pius a Do Nothing Pharisee and prissy Legalist as critics of Lying for Jesus so frequently get labeled? On the contrary, he saved thousands. In the same way, Brandon Watson points out a neglected fact:
We don’t have to speculate in the abstract about what good and decent people do about lying in the Nazi-at-the-door scenario. We have accounts by these Amsterdam householders of the moral dilemmas they faced in this context, e.g., in the works of Corrie ten Boom; many of them were pious Dutch Calvinists, who were at least as strongly convinced that lying is wrong as Tollefsen. As such, they did not take the consequences automatically to justify them. Some of them refused outright to lie. Many lied but took themselves to be doing the right thing in a morally defective way, and they asked Christ for forgiveness for that defect and admired those rare souls who were able to face the same circumstances without having to stain themselves with a lie. Others did not know for sure whether they had done something that was strictly wrong, but stilled prayed to Christ to forgive them if they had. (All three of these would be legitimate options for Catholics in the same place.) And this was bound up in the very reasons why they were hiding Jews in the first place: it was the very same sterling characters that were often behind both their acceptance of the dangers of hiding Jews and their refusal merely to accept the rightness of a lie.
Did some embrace consequentialism and simply sign off on the notion that sometimes sinning is the “right thing to do”? To be sure. Consequentialism is as alive and well in Holland as it is here. But that’s the problem: for it can well be argued that, in the end, Hitler has had the last laugh in Holland), which has embraced consequentialism with a passion and, as a result, is now carrying out the work of euthanasia, abortion, and apostasy from the faith with a zeal of which Hitler would be proud. That’s the thing about intrinsic evil: it corrupts. Some Catholics will tend to say of venial sin (which lying in such a situation is, though rescuing Jews is not) not that it’s sin, but that it’s virtuous “in certain circumstances”. That, right there, is the germ of the cancer. The reality of our tradition is that “venial sin” does not mean “Go ahead and do it, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, if it’s for a good cause” but rather “This is the gateway drug to addiction to evil.” And, indeed, sweetened by the memory of very real valor, it becomes extremely difficult to taste the poison of consequentialism wrapped in (perfectly just) national pride over a glorious chapter in Dutch history. But the poison goes to work nonetheless. A once thriving Catholic culture adopts ends-justify-the-means thinking and, decades later, Holland is a spectacular living laboratory for demonstrating the corrosive power of this moral heresy. It ain’t 1941 any more and the festering cancer of consequentialism in Dutch culture is rank and killing bodies and souls at a good clip.
In a similar way, my concern is that the seductive logic of Lying for Jesus will likewise reap us the whirlwind in the long run, whatever the short term gain might be. For after the thrill of watching Planned Parenthood humiliated for nine days or so and the fun of watching the House talk about defunding them, then what? Then the bill dies in the Senate or gets vetoed by the Prez. They keep their Fed monies. But in addition to the Fed monies they get a special bonus courtesy of our consequentialism: Planned Parenthood can now send out howling fundraiser pleas to the pro-abortion faithful shrieking that those evil prolifers are lying and committing fraud, thereby generating increased donations and making them richer and more powerful than ever. End result: we embrace the festering cancer of consequentialism and get weaker; they get richer and more powerful: a perfect Faustian Bargain. The Catholic moral tradition—including its absolute prohibition on lying—is the cure for the cancer of consequentialism, the best way to defeat Murder Inc.—and the best prophylactic against the seduction of the Faustian Bargain.
Comments
Post a Comment
Mark, you’ve gotta stop posting your titles in the evenings before I go to bed and holding of the articles for morning. It’s maddening, I tell you, maddening!
Of course, maybe you’re just wanting to build anticipation…
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
I see you, Simcha, and Jennifer are all in this together! Conspiracy, eh?
“Let’s build a bridge out of him!”
“One, two, five!”
Mark, thank you.
Mark, does the Church actually teach that a person’s right to the truth is higher than his right to life? It was explained to me that a murderer forfeits his right to life by his act of murdering another. That is why capital punishment is moral. What you are saying is that this same person could not be “lied” to in order to prevent him from committing another murder. We can kill him but we can’t lie to him. This is the teaching of the Church?
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of Mark’s spectacular analysis on this issue. Because what we are seeing, before our very eyes, is a major shift in the pro-life movement. To wit:
There have always been people in the pro-life movement who used immoral means to obtain what they perceived to be good ends. For example, in the 80s there were groups like Randall Terry’s “Operation Rescue” that routinely broke justly-enacted and enforced civil laws, in order to make statements, raise awareness, stop abortion, etc. In the 80s and 90s there were also bombings of clinics by pro-life madmen. In the 80s, 90s, and 00s, there were abortion doctors murdered by the same types of characters.
In all of these cases, what was involved was someone or some group of people, who saw themselves as fighting the pro-life cause, embracing a vigilante-sort of justice and using illicit means to achieve their goals. BUT IT MUST BE NOTED: it was also always possible to write off these individuals/groups as “extremists”, “fundamentalists”, “wackos”, etc. In other words, it was always clear, to one degree or another, that “this is not what the pro-life movement stands for”, that these people were on the fringe.
Now, while it was once possible to write off immorality in the pro-life movement as belonging to the fringe, it has now become mainstream, because it is being cloaked in America’s favorite guilty pleasure: lying. (Further cloaked by another favorite pasttime: consequentialism.) Live Action (and its imitators) is a mainstream group; they are being greatly hailed by pro-lifers all around. And they are using the tools of evil to obtain perceived good ends.
So perhaps it can be said that there has always been a cancer in the “movement”, but it was also always possible to defend ourselves against it—UNTIL NOW, when immoral means are threatening to become part of “the new norm”, or as Mark has called it, The New Hotness.
And I don’t hesitate to say that it is “mainstream” now, because I see that it is poisoning an entire generation. There are many fine young men and women on college campuses right now who see the truth about abortion, are very eager to do something, and are also energized about what Lila Rose and others are doing. They see her as a heroine and—like many people on these pages, on Dr. Kreeft’s combox, and in other fora—they reject out-of-hand the notion that what she is doing is wrong, in the final analysis. They might even admit that what she is doing is morally evil, but they also maintain that such evil can be justified in these circumstances.
It is urgent that we help people to see the truth of this matter and so prevent this cancer from metastasizing in the mainstream. Mark has easily shown how this “Faustian Bargain” that is being transacted in our time is already having deleterious effects (see his final paragraph). I shudder to think what it will produce in the long run. Mark’s raising the example of Holland should be a salutary warning for us all.
As we approach the season of Lent, perhaps it falls to us to rethink our role in the fight against evil, particularly the battle against abortion. Our primary weapon must be the truth and we must cloak ourselves with the armor of Light. Could it be that our weariness over a 40-year battle has resulted in an idolatry of success? Our desire for results has led us to give in to temptations to do evil, or at least to support others in so doing.
Let’s not simply drive this “cancer” back to the fringe. Let’s eradicate it completely: first, through humble prayer and supplication; second, by holding high standards for ourselves, in dependence upon God’s grace; third, by exhorting others to do the same, primarily by a shining example, but also, when necessary, by our charitable words.
Somehow i missed Mark Shea’s column’s on undercover police activity.It is probaly alot more pervasive .He is very silent making his views known there.I thank God every day for Lila Rose and i ask Him to guide and protect her
Felix, perhaps you’d be willing to undertake the project for the good of the community of studying - through sources of Catholic Magisterial teaching and the opinions of reputable moral theologians - the matter of undercover police work? I’ve been searching myself for some time on that matter and just haven’t been able to come up with any strong, non-negotiable affirmative assertion from the Church that says such work is to be countenanced. Come let us reason together, then?
As to Mark’s point about the two-edged sword of this tactics, and Father Jerabek’s words above, I keep coming back to this passage (pointed out to me by a friend) in John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation, “Reconciliation and Penance” (from number 16):
Whenever the church speaks of situations of sin or when the condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world and also of those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of higher order. The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals.
A situation-or likewise an institution, a structure, society itself-is not in itself the subject of moral acts. Hence a situation cannot in itself be good or bad.
At the heart of every situation of sin are always to be found sinful people. So true is this that even when such a situation can be changed in its structural and institutional aspects by the force of law or-as unfortunately more often happens by the law of force, the change in fact proves to be incomplete, of short duration and ultimately vain and ineffective-not to say counterproductive if the people directly or indirectly responsible for that situation are not converted.
I think there is worthy matter for meditation there in the present discussion.
“Somehow i missed Mark Shea’s column’s on undercover police activity.It is probaly alot more pervasive”
*Face palm*
Lauretta: as private individuals, we are not permitted to intentionally kill anyone, ever. When the circumstances warrant, we may use a level of force proportionate to the situation (up to and including potentially lethal force) to defend ourselves, provided that killing is not part of our intention. See e.g. CCC 2263, which largely follows from St. Thomas’ treatment of the subject.
[Killing in the context of war, the death penalty, and police action require further treatment, as those in authority have God-given rights and responsibilities with respect to life that private individuals do not.]
In summary:
1. We are not allowed to murder (intentionally kill) anyone. (5th Commandment)
2. We are not allowed to lie to anyone. (8th Commandment)
Lauretta:
The problem with lying is not the harm it does to the ‘Nazi’ or whomever, but the harm it does to the liar. This harm is intrinsic, ie. every time we knowingly assert something untrue as true, we do violence to our own integrity. The degree of this harm may vary depending on the circumstances, but it is always harmful, never neutral or beneficial.
It is even harmful if the Nazi does not believe the lie; it is even harmful if we mistakenly tell the truth while *believing* it to be a lie.
Professor Tollefsen has been explaining this Integrity approach to lying in his responses to this issue:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2648
“We can kill him but we can’t lie to him.”
The point here is the moral quality of our own actions. If we defend our lives from unjust attack, there is a chance that the attacker will be injured or killed. Injury and death are clearly harmful to the attacker, but we are not culpable for these consequences if we acted only in defense. So, no we can’t kill him, but if he dies while trying to kill us, we may not be culpable.
Therefore: we can’t kill him, and we can’t lie.
Thanks again, Mark. Your articles on this subject only seem to get better.
Father Jerabek’s comments on the idolatry of effectiveness in the pro-life movement are good and helpful, but I think we need to be careful, as I think Mark has, to make the necessary distinctions. Mark has sometimes compared, mutatis mutandis, lying for the cause to violence for the cause. I don’t think you can compare lying for Jesus with peaceful civil disobedience of an unjust law (which Thomas says is no law at all).
I also very much liked Zac’s comment on lying first harming the liar. This is what “virtue ethics” helps us see, and it is a real blind spot in current ethical debate, even in the Church. It’s in line with Mark’s comments on the inability of us moderns to see the primacy of the spiritual and our tendency to reduce all moral reflection to positive laws or material consequences.
Now, I agree with the idea that ad populam arguments—ones that appeal to what the intuition tells the most people is true—is harmful and that we need moral authority in order to verify our intuitions. It is a weakness in Dr. Kreeft’s argument, which he sort of wryly points to at the end of his own argument, by pointing to his own imperfect moral discernment. Over on my blog, I equate it to Pinocchio. Thanks to our fallen natures and the unnoted white noise of media and culture, none of us are real live boys. All of us need our Jiminy Crickets. This is, for the most part, why the Magisterium and her teaching traditions are necessary. Otherwise, toss me a Bible, smack me in the sola scriptura, and call me Mabel.
We are also building something—-our epistemology, our collective moral knowledge is BUILDING toward a wholeness. (Hence, Papa B’s exhortation toward a hermeneutic of continuity—if we see life as a continual parricide, we lose the purpose of the fullness of time.) So we need the past and the present and the collection of moral voices in order to discern and to know.
Having said that I’m going to back pedal for a moment on the ad populam fallacy and use it myself as it comes to undercover police work and use popular intuition for a moment, and the often overlooked wisdom of popular culture.
Let’s think of movies that involve spies and undercover policework, shall we? The way the habit of lying, justified for catching the bad guys, begins to overtake the dissembler, deconstruct his own life, and create a moral murk that always ends in tragedy?
Donnie Brasco, Rush, Reservoir Dogs—Reservoir Dogs is my favorite one. Perfect picture of what we are trying to describe here. Near death brings the humanity and desire for authenticity to the surface—the intention to deceive in order to achieve the object of breaking up a bunch of criminals, amongst whom are true sociopathic torturers and murderers, dissolves. Do we really think the message there is that the hire good has been achieved?
It goes on—movies where the target becomes humanized and no matter how terrible their crimes, the deception starts to feel like nothing but betrayal—even as the habit of lying becomes more deeply ingrained in the good side, so that soon, we, along with the protagonist can no longer tell the good from the bad?
This is the popular intuition about undercover police work, as collected in a massive pool of collective wisdom—that it is something that we as a society sanction as a necessity, yet it seems that inevitably it leads to moral decay and ends in a moral defeat of all involved, making the distinction between good and evil all but gone?
To say nothing of the deepest irony of all—with the association between James O’Keefe and his supposed inspiration, GK Chesterton, when the obvious point from the word go was that O’Keefe is the type of character the well known Chesterton novel The Man Who Was Thursday SENDS UP, meaning that the well-meaning but callow and somewhat lost Mr. O’Keefe mistook satire for a morality play.
I’m happy to see Magisterial documents, analyses by moral theologians, but it seems to me, that we have here, at the very least, a situation of moral ambiguity about such activities, and that if we allow it under secular ethics it is not necessarily a recommendation for it in a movement that regularly tosses around the names of divinity very freely and comfortably.
If secular law—or positive law if you will—allows that something is permissible, it doesn’t mean that we have met the standards for either moral law or eternal law. Eternal law might be asking a bit much, but I’ll take moral.
And finally—the same document from JPII that Mr. Grabowski quotes above, also speaks about rupture with God creating division from our brothers; if there are alternatives—and surely there are, like authentic investigative journalism, insider testimonies, skillful documentaries—shouldn’t this division amongst brothers be taken as a sign that maybe we should stick with things that are less divisive?
If we can’t agree and find much moral ambiguity to discuss and argue what is the political opponent able to do with it?
I don’t begrudge the conversation one bit—it’s Providential and fruitful, but surely this many days controversy speaks to the inappropriateness of the tactics in as much as it provides ammunition to the foe and dissent amongst brothers?
Mark, thanks for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your grace under pressure, and I didn’t mean to put you in the hot seat with my comment!
Two thoughts. First, you write:
I can think of two enormous differences.
1. Falsely claiming to be a heretic is explicitly denying the Faith. Even if it turns out that you can lie (or at least speak falsely with intent to deceive) in order to save a life, whether your own or those of hiding Jews, one circumstance in which all parties to this controversy should be able to agree you can never lie even to save your skin is whether you are a Christian. On that count we must always be willing to tell the truth even unto martyrdom.
2. While it is true that the death of the soul is far worse than the death of the body, it is equally true that there is no actual murder of any soul, and thus no true analogy to self/defense rationales. However bad Priscillianism was, it led astray none but those who were willing; and whatever anyone might hope to accomplish by infiltrating the Priscillianists, it was not a course of action undertaken in the attempted defense of innocent, unwilling victims. LA hopes that by its actions innocent babies may live who would otherwise have died, and that is a very different thing.
Second, you write:
I’m not convinced this is the case. I can easily imagine Dr. Kreeft writing in the same vein that a starving man may steal in order to feed himself and his family, even though it would be more accurate to say that in appropriating what he needs he is not stealing at all—language that rigorists would consider to be the same sort of euphemistic sophistry that you consider defenders of LA to be engaging in. In fact, I myself carelessly used “lying” above in reference to lifesaving falsehoods even though my presumption was that it was not immoral. Sometimes we make do with the vocabulary we have because it’s easier, and while vocabulary is a useful reference point, it’s far from an infallible one.
Note that I’m not saying that you are wrong on the fundamental issue. I suspect you are, but I’m not convinced either way.
Mark, again, spot on! We cannot imitate the ‘father of lies’ in order to produce what we see as a moral good. You have an excellent, well reasoned, and correct understanding of this issue.
Home run, Mark.
Lauretta
Good luck….I have wood floors to oil. Although it is heartening to see a Catholic topic that draws more posts than sex, facing East, and the Latin Mass combined.
See 1 Corinthians 9, 19-23, and explain to me why St. Paul thought deception was sufficient cause to save souls, but that deception is immoral in the case of Lila Rose.
Well done—thanks for being willing to tackle this one. Honestly I never would have considered the morality of L.A.‘s work if you hadn’t posed the question. (And, I admit—being a Tollefsen fan, seeing him step up was an eye-opener as well.)
Ok we are talking about lying. Lying for Jesus. You got it. And that’s what Corrie tenBoom and her family did to save the Jews they were hiding. And that’s what Rahab did to save the two spies she was hiding. And you can bet I would do it to save my kids or any other innocent person. Stealing for Jesus? Oh yes the Church does encourage that. It’s called welfare.
@The Barrister,
St. Paul was speaking on a catechetical method called inculturation. Inculturation means immersing yourself in the culture you are evangelizing to better understand it and better preach to it. It is no more lying than the Incarnation was, by which Christ truly came to share our nature. Lying would be: “yep…me and you guys…we’re slaves…so…where’s the menu?” or “yep…me and you guys…we’re gentiles…so…umm…pass the pork…” No, St. Paul went among them and shared in their culture, shared their sufferings, became like them. He didn’t just pretend to be one, and they certainly knew who he was.
Ahh Mark, you anti-Conservative rascal, there you go again! Im on to you brother.
Janet Fernandez above me said it best. I need not add more.
“Stealing for Jesus? Oh yes the Church does encourage that. It’s called welfare.”
Tea Party? See previous entries on tribalism.
I sympathize with the tea party, but not to the length of undermining Catholic doctrine. Go read up on welfare in the Compendium of the Social Docrine of the Church.
In my many arguments with pro-abortionists, I was always exhausted by their fallacious argument that basically goes (whether they realize it or not), “Many pro-lifers are hypocrites, therefore abortion is morally acceptable”. Anyone can see this is bogus and cheap argumetation, but darned all if my fellow pro-lifers won’t do everything to try to make that argument plausible. That is to say, their opposition to abortion is ideological rather than deontological. To translate that into non-geek, that means, “We are the good guys, and rules are made for the bad guys. Therefore, we get to violate rules as long as we have a greater good in view”. I often make the joke that there are no moral relativists. When you meet someone denying absolute truths, that just means you haven’t discovered his hobbyhorse yet. When you do, watch him turn as dogmatic as any pope that ever lived. But we don’t get to pick and choose. Abortion is intrinsicly wrong. Lying is intrinsicly wrong. Ain’t no way around it.
The Corinthians analogy only works, if Live Action became workers at Planned Parenthood and simply withheld the fact that they work for Live Action. That would have been evangelization.
Did St. Paul become a Jew and then say: “aha I caught ya! Being all Jewish and whatnot. Attention World: I have video tapes of the Jews Being Jewish. We have conquered!”
That’s not how I remember it but maybe I should look at the passage again.
@Micah, the Incarnation is the equivalent, very apt
—was Jesus working “undercover” as a human being, in order to catch the sinful fallen world being, um, fallen and sinful, in order to expose them?
That’s not how I remember that story either.
Unless Live Action’s actors actually became pimps and prostitutes and lived their lives in order to empathize with their plight…is that what they did?
“The Corinthians analogy only works, if Live Action became workers at Planned Parenthood and simply withheld the fact that they work for Live Action. That would have been evangelization.”
Let’s not open THAT can of worms now, shall we?
Did someone in these comments actually claim Paul lied to make converts? And that he was encouraging us to use the same tactic in 1Co 9?
You have got to be kidding! That’s awfully cynical.
In response to Mr Greydanus, couldn’t one argue that posing as an abortive mother is posing as a heretic and therefore denying the Faith? I know some argue that the pro-abortion position constitutes heresy.
janetfernandez, the Rahab argument has been dealt with elsewhere. Our understanding of the moral law is not determined by what OT people did, even ones who were admirable for one reason or other. It’s determined by the Spirit of Christ under the guidance of the Magisterium.
Micah, you obviously missed the entire point. I am not against welfare, and I am not against lying to save a life.
I am not trying to be mean (I am about 80 pounds overweight myself!), but perhaps the writer should concentrate on gluttony.
Janet,
That was mean. Mean doesn’t cease to be mean when you include yourself in the insult. Mark isn’t saying that he is a perfect example of holy virtue. He’s saying that lying is sinful and we, as a pro-life community, should not embrace lying as an acceptable tactic for fighting against the culture of death. Now, if someone lies in the course of events they find themselves in, whether that be a situation of duress or a situation of convenience, I think Mark would be the first to say, repent, seek forgiveness and move on just as we would address any sinfulness. But Lila Rose’s actions constitute pre-meditated lying and that is what we as a pro-life community should not embrace. (BTW… I am not trying to judge the state of her soul as it is between her, Our Lord and her confessor the level of understanding, intention and culpability.)
Janet, I got your point, but you also showed a negative sentiment toward welfare, even if that wasn’t your point. I was just making a suggestion. By the way, I don’t think the massively bloated “give a man a fish” welfare state we have in America is what the Church intends, so I’ll got that far with you.
Mark,
I have a question for you. Your last article was titled “Last Comments on Lying for Jesus.”
Now, 5 days later the next article of yours that I read is again about the Live Action sting operation.
So, the sticky point is the “Last Comments” part of your previous title.
I really don’t think that you lied, but I am wondering how you would explain why it’s not really a lie, judging by the standard you use?
- The reality of our tradition is that “venial sin” does not mean “Go ahead and do it, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, if it’s for a good cause”
It seems to me that any time you tell yourself “sure it’s a sin, but I’d do it anyway” you risk going to Hell. How can you repent of a sin you would gladly do again?
Should have read: to determine the degree of understanding, intention and culpability.
Mark—with all due respect, and I mean that, I believe you are missing some key aspects of a point that the Magisterium has not yet made clear to the faithful.
The major problem here is that folks on both sides of the discussion find it very difficult to keep the Catechism’s defintion(s) of lying front and center as they discuss the issue. Just as there is a moral distinction between the words “killing” and “murder”, there is definitely a moral distinction between “telling falsehoods” and “lying” since “telling falsehoods” is only HALF the definition of lying. But most people probably haven’t thought out the linguistic difficulty when trying to articulate a position. Such a level of precision is typical of moral theologians but not typically needed in blogging or commentaries a la Kreeft and others. Using “lying” when one actually means something other than the intrinsically evil “speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving” is a mistake. But then again, so is only using HALF the definition—“speaking a falsehood”—to mean lying.
In your comments above, you say you can’t see *any* different between (so-called) “lying” in a PP sting and the Augustine/Priscillianist thing. But you also say: “the Priscillianist heretics were endangering, not bodies, but souls”.
EXACTLY. Big difference. Were the heretics killing innocent children on a regular basis? I’d say that’s rather important to note…
But, even if I agreed that there was *no* difference whatsoever, there is still a problem. While St. Augustine is certainly all coolness and wonderment and holy and brilliant and of great value, you already know his personal conduct or thinking is not *the* source of all Magisterial teaching. What we need on this question is a “tie-breaker” from the Magisterium rather than St. Augustine.
The saddest conclusion I draw from your commentary, however, is that, even though there are *two* sides to this discussion, I don’t think *you* think we’re actually all equally committed Catholics holding, as of now, *equally permissible* views on this issue, trying charitably to seek greater understanding alongside one another.
At least I can’t see how that approach squares with your describing the view that opposes yours as the “festering cancer of consequentialism.”
*Mark’s* “magisterium” may draw that conclusion, but the CHURCH’s Magisterium has yet to pronounce on it.
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Thanks for the great article. I can appreciate both sides to the argument. That some very learned people disagree on this makes it seem not so simple to resolve. One question I have is this. If lying is so universally morally wrong in every circumstance, why has the Church not formally spoken definitively on this, they way it has spoken on issues like abortion and euthanasia. Another question is, are we always acting immorally when we tell a joke that technically involves a lie, or when we talk about Santa Claus to kids? Just trying to look at all facets of this.
To much philosophy sometimes makes my brain stop working. I’d rather try a simple analogy, hoping it can shift a bit the line of reasoning. For that purpose, I’d like to ask: is it right to sound a false fire alarm in a college to make sure the kids and professors are prepared to deal with a real fire situation? I think it is not only right, but also indispensable. And, if the college fails in the test, shouldn’t it pay a fine and be inspected more often to see whether they are improving their readiness to act in a real fire situation? I think it is mandatory. It can save lives. Is it a lie? It is as much a lie as any test is a lie. So, changing the scenario from a college to an abortion provider (I know, it is almost a sacrilege…), I think that a false pimp with false prostitutes is the false fire alarm required to probe their readiness to act. After all, there is no other possible way to figure out the answer to a question but asking the question. And words only are not enough: the proper “phrasing” of the question requires that a real situation is simulated. Planet Parenthood should be thankful to Lila Rose, since she is providing the required auditory - which PP should be doing by themselves to make sure their employees are not breaking the law - for free.
All “bounded-by-laws” systems must be tested in this way, to make sure the system can answer properly to limit situations. If they fail, it is made clear that something needs change. It works in engineering, when you project a car, a house or a plane. The system must be able to handle wind, gravity, and other situations. Planet Parenthood shouldn’t provide unlawful services. So, lets pull the fire alarm!
@Kathy, by Mark’s standards (which have seemed to me to be those of the Church in this matter), his “speaking too soon” could be called, at worst, “imprudent speech.” He didn’t make an oath or even a promise to say no more. For all intents and purposes, he spoke truly based on his intention and suspicions about the future. The future went toward shaping his intention in a new way, i.e. he changed his mind.
*Mark’s* “magisterium” may draw that conclusion, but the CHURCH’s Magisterium has yet to pronounce on it.
Respectfully, this argument is the exact same thing we encountered in the Waterboarding debates. It’s an appeal to finer detail. It goes, “Well the Magisterium has not defined waterboarding as torture, therefore, we can’t forbid anyone doing it until the Church does so.” The problem with appeals to finer detail is that they are bad gifts that keep on giving. So, say the Church uncharacteristically actually defines waterboarding as torture. Is that the end of the argument? Nope, because our folk in favor of waterboarding will just say well there’s bad guy’s waterboarding technique, and then there’s our guy’s waterboarding technique, and since the Church hasn’t specifically defined what waterboarding is… and on and on into infinity.
I can be a little patient with an argument about whether something in a specific scenario constitutes a lie, but what most of what I have read, is attempts to establish the un-Catholic principle that it is ok to employ one intrinsic wrong to fight another intrinsic wrong. I have no patience for that.
Yes yes yes excellent piece. I saw one commenter stating that life is more important than truth (re the Nazi at the door scenario). I hope that he did not mean this.
Ok so it’s mean to point out an obvious sin?
If this is such a serious issue, one that can never be condoned under any circumstances, where are the documents from the Church condemning intelligence work, undercover work, witness protection programs, investigative journalism, etc.? The Church has expended a lot of energy over the last 20 years or so to stop the death penalty. Why has there not been much more time spent on stopping something like lying which is much worse—intrinsically evil and never justifiable—than capital punishment which is perfectly moral?
Also I understood that Pope John Paul II worked closely with President Reagan sharing intelligence, etc. to bring about 1989. Did the Pope not know that much of our national intelligence comes from immoral means? Why would he use such information if it was gotten immorally?
If one can’t infiltrate a heretical sect by pretending to be one of them when one is not a heretic, how can a priest be justified in pretending he is not a priest when he is one? Especially when it goes against canon law which requires a cleric to wear proper attire? A priest knows that he is a priest and if he chooses to not wear clerical attire to hide his identity, he is lying as much as one does with words. He is acting against that which is in his mind. Did the priests who did this end up on the path to moral decay because they lied every day of their lives?
I’m not trying to be argumentative(don’t ask my husband about that, please!) but I am truly trying to understand this from what I see being done about the issue in the history of the Church. We are reaching way back to Augustine and Thomas when these other issues such as capital punishment and war are being addressed quite frequently by the Magisterium. I don’t understand why if lying is worse than those other things. The Magisterium has no problem putting out documents on capital punishment which probably involves a lot fewer people than intelligence or undercover work but no one seems to be finding the pertinent documents addressing these issues. Capital punishment and intelligence work are both areas in the control of governments, so it can’t be the case that the Church doesn’t want to interfere with secular authority, so what is the reason for the lack of documents directly addressing these issues? It would seem to me to be a lack of pastoral care for people employed in law enforcement, military, etc. to not tell them that they are committing immoral acts and are risking their eternal life by such activities.
@janetfernandez: Please read Mark’s other articles on this topic. The Rahab argument has been address countless times now. Rahab was not praised for lying. To say such a thing would mean that the Church’s statement that lying is always wrong and to be condemned is simply nonsense, and that the original commandment not to lie is also nonsense. Be careful…
Mark’s views are in good company. Check out this passage from a Catholic News Agency article yesterday: (full article here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/live-action-president-responds-to-controversy-over-groups-tactics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+catholicnewsagency/dailynews+(CNA+Daily+News)&utm_content=Twitter)
“Among the Catholic intellectuals who agree with Live Action’s intentions, but not their tactics, is Professor Robert George of Princeton. George, one of the drafters of the strongly pro-life Manhattan Declaration, called attention to the apparent conflict between Live Action’s investigative practices, and the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, in a Feb. 15 essay entitled “Life and Truth” on the Mirror of Justice blog.
Professor George acknowledged that the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church appeared to justify lying to someone who did not have “the right to know the truth.” However, the passage in question was substantially revised under the direction of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in his preparation of the authoritative second edition.
“The firm teaching of the magisterium, reconfirmed in the Catechism,” Professor George recalled, “is that lying is intrinsically immoral, and is therefore impermissible even as a means of preventing grave injustices and other evils.”
Among the Catechism passages in question are paragraphs 2483 and 2485. The first teaches that “to lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error,” while the second upholds the judgment that “by its very nature, lying is to be condemned”
“I don’t see how it is possible to avoid the conclusion that this teaching requires of Catholics the submission of intellect and will that is known as ‘religious assent’,” George stated.
“Catholics certainly, but non-Catholic pro-lifers, too, should reject lying even in the greatest of good causes,” he concluded. “We must not forfeit our standing in the debate as the tellers of truth.”
George’s remarks agreed with the position of Professors Germain Grisez and William May, two U.S. moral theologians who helped Pope Benedict XVI revise the Catechism into its authoritative form prior to his election to the papacy. Both professors unequivocally told CNA on Feb. 11 that Live Action’s undercover actors could not present overt falsehood as truth for the sake of a good end.”
AMEN!
Great article, by the way. :)
@Scott W.—
Hi, Scott—the statement you quoted from me *isn’t* an argument. It’s an observation, and I’m sure an accurate one.
If it weren’t accurate, I don’t think all these people of good will would be posting comments on Shea’s piece. We’d just reference the Magisterial teaching that directly addresses “telling falsehoods *without* intending to deceive”...
If you’ve got such a teaching, just tell us and we can all “go home” to so speak. :-)
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
FanOfShea, I noticed you did not address Corrie ten Boom. I suppose she should have said “Yes that is a Jew, please take her to one of your lovely camps.” And Rahab was rewarded for hiding the spies. That’s what the whole put-a-red-cloth-in-the-window thing was about
Kathy16670—I think I love you LOL
Lauretta
You will be ignored because asking for the papal documents that oppose intelligence undercover work is not nice…..
and is brilliant by the way.
Hi, Scott—the statement you quoted from me *isn’t* an argument. It’s an observation, and I’m sure an accurate one.
Ok, it’s an observation. But it is an observation that implies a common and shop-worn argument. “The Magisterium hasn’t specifically defined x act as a case of y” is a bad one because it never ends. The most outrageous version of it I’ve ever encountered is when someone in favor of women’s ordination said sure, he accepts the Church’s teaching that ordination is reserved to males only, but guess what? since the Church hasn’t formally defined what maleness is, it’s still an open question. Sheeesh! Talk about recalcitrant wills.
Thank-you Deacon Jim. Excellent distinction. Just as someone above noted, stealing is intrinsically evil though Aquinas taught that a person dying of hunger may take food from another. But this is stealing and thus forbidden. Unless of course the definition of stealing is more than simply taking from another. (If the definition were that simple, then taxes would be stealing and immoral.)
The Catechism, as I understand, defines lying as “...speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” (CCC 2482) In the next point (CCC 2483), lying again is defined as “...to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” This seems to say no lying is ever permitted - or at least when one intends to lead one “into error.”
Though initially, the Catechism in 2483 made the distinction “...to someone who has the right to know.”
This is not to get into the problem of definition. The good Lord knows what cries that will elicit. I think it interesting, and possible, that given the two definitions the Church has given about lying, that the Church may allow some continued development on this issue. Indeed there may be room for deception in an appropriate circumstance (hiding Jews) just as there is room to take food when one is starving and it not be stealing.
“@janetfernandez: Please read Mark’s other articles on this topic. The Rahab argument has been address countless times now. Rahab was not praised for lying. To say such a thing would mean that the Church’s statement that lying is always wrong and to be condemned is simply nonsense, and that the original commandment not to lie is also nonsense. Be careful…”
The problem I have with that is that the Church teaches that for an act to be moral, all the components of a human act must be moral. The moral object (means), circumstances and intention (end)must all be good. If any one is evil then the act itself is evil.
If all lying is evil, then the lie of Rahab (the means) which was directed at the intention (end) of saving others would render the entire act evil. The entire act of Rahab is evil despite the end achieved. Why then would God praise this?
@Scott W.—
Why denigrate those who may well come to the table of dialogue on this issue with completely good-will intentions?
The “common and shop-worn argument” played out rather nicely (in terms of seeking and finding truth) when it came to the issue of *contraception* in the 1960s. The Church naturally got that one right—BUT there was a PROCESS that happened to clarify the point of the whether the “pill” WAS “contraception” in the same way that “contraception” had been considered by the Church up to that point.
We’re talking about “development of doctrine” here, Scott—common and shop-worn though it is. Sometimes people of good will actually participate in that…
God bless
Deacon Jim Russell
Deacon, what does telling falsehoods *without* intending to decive have to do with the methods of Live Action?
Wait.. I’ll go back to your earlier post and see if you answer my question before I ask it. :)
“EXACTLY. Big difference. Were the heretics killing innocent children on a regular basis? I’d say that’s rather important to note…”
Why is that important to note here? I’m confused.. What effect does this fact have on Mr. Shea’s arguments?
“Augustine is certainly all coolness and wonderment and holy and brilliant and of great value, you already know his personal conduct or thinking is not *the* source of all Magisterial teaching. What we need on this question is a “tie-breaker” from the Magisterium rather than St. Augustine.”
You are saying that, because Augustine’s conduct and thinking are not *the* source of all Magisterial teaching, we need someone other than him to “break the tie.” Am I right? If so, are you then requesting we find someone whose conduct and thinking *is* the source of all Magisterial teaching? There is no one single person who fits this desccription, aside from our Lord Himself. But anyway, why do we need someone other than Augustine?
Also, just because there is a disagreement here doesn’t mean there is any sort of tie. Again, the Magisterium has been very clear on this. Lying is telling a falsehood with the intention of deceiving someone. And LA has clearly done that.
“The saddest conclusion I draw from your commentary, however, is that, even though there are *two* sides to this discussion, I don’t think *you* think we’re actually all equally committed Catholics holding, as of now, *equally permissible* views on this issue, trying charitably to seek greater understanding alongside one another.”
That’s because they are not *equally permissible* views. Our host has done a bang-up job of showing that those in favor of LA’s methods are quite mistaken. LA clearly lied, and lying is clearly to be condemned.
I read the post about gluttony after my previous post. That comment was dismissed as uncharitable but isn’t it true? And I am speaking as one who has this problem. Gluttony is one of the seven capital sins, if I remember my catechism. What possible good purpose can over-eating serve? It is of no benefit to anyone, it harms the individual spiritually as well as physically, and takes food away from another who may need it. Since that has been one of the justifications (lack of food resources) for both contraception and abortion, does not the glutton contribute to those evils as well? If all of us merely ate that which was required for life, our food consumption, in the US at least, would probably be cut in half.
This is one of my complaints about this particular discussion. We are spending so much time on it, while we are, many of us, daily committing other sins that have no possible good outcomes. At least in the case of LA there is potential to stop some of the evil of PP. My over-eating and lack of patience, etc. etc. serve no good purpose whatsoever, but these types of things are totally being overlooked. I think we ought to be spending more time helping others to have healthy family lives and working on that in our own homes. That would end much of the “need” for abortion and sex trafficking, etc. These are very wounded people participating in these acts, and most of the wounds come from within the home. Let’s get to the core of a lot of these problems rather than looking at the secondary symptoms.
This is beating a dead horse already. Live Action did nothing wrong and I pray they continue their hard work until all babies in the womb are safe!
Satan is slick taking our focus off his work as we bicker amongst ourselves - as they say, the devil is in the details.
FOCUS PEOPLE!! FOCUS!!
@Kathy:
Joe covered it better than I could. Mark made a statement of general intention, and everyone allows that people could do this and later change their minds according to circumstances.
But just for hypothetical, let’s say Mark lied through his teeth and actually intended in his mind, “Watch me tell people that this is my last word, but muahaha! it really won’t be.” All this proves is that Mark would be a hypocrite, which is bad of course, but “Mark is a hypocrite, therefore, lying is morally acceptable” is a fallacious argument. Now, we may think that this argument is so silly that no one would ever try it, but we see it all. the. time. from pro-abortionsists. All the want to do is talk about the personal short-comings of pro-lifers as if that actually bears on the question on the rightness or wrongness of abortion as an act in and of itself.
I expect that from pro-abortionists; I didn’t expect it from Dr. Kreeft who basically gave us the “if your family was threatened and a lie could save them, you’d do it” speel we get from the torture apologists. If I say yes I’d lie to that scenario, all that proves is that I (and most of humanity) is weak when you dial up the temptation level to 11. Gee thanks. Why not just say my mom wears combat boots and be done with it?
Deacon,
Please ignore this section from me
***
“Augustine is certainly all coolness and wonderment and holy and brilliant and of great value, you already know his personal conduct or thinking is not *the* source of all Magisterial teaching. What we need on this question is a “tie-breaker” from the Magisterium rather than St. Augustine.”
You are saying that, because Augustine’s conduct and thinking are not *the* source of all Magisterial teaching, we need someone other than him to “break the tie.” Am I right? If so, are you then requesting we find someone whose conduct and thinking *is* the source of all Magisterial teaching? There is no one single person who fits this desccription, aside from our Lord Himself. But anyway, why do we need someone other than Augustine?
***
I misread what you had said there. You are saying that we need a pronouncement directly from the Magisterium. While that would be nice, I disagree that we *need* it. I’m not sure why you think we do. As I said before, LA clearly lied and lying is clearly to be condemned. I’m still confused about what you see is lacking here…
“This is beating a dead horse already. Live Action did nothing wrong and I pray they continue their hard work until all babies in the womb are safe!
Satan is slick taking our focus off his work as we bicker amongst ourselves - as they say, the devil is in the details.
FOCUS PEOPLE!! FOCUS!!”
RosalindaL, did you read the article at all? Or are you simply in favor of ignoring reason in favor of your “gut” on this topic?
Stealing isn’t a valid parallel to Lying for Jesus. The CCC defines: “The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.” The definition of theft is to take the private property of another against that other’s just will. If it is not just for me to hold onto all the food for myself while you starve, then I have no right to possess all that food as my private property. It is, in fact, not stealing for you to take it from me. So it’s not that stealing is sometimes justified, it’s that sometimes what appears to be stealing isn’t stealing, because “taking without permission” doesn’t always mean “stealing.” (When I was a kid and my brother stole a toy, it wasn’t stealing when I took it back, even if I did take it without his permission). Likewise, sometimes what appears to be lying isn’t lying, such as telling a truth with the intent to deceive (moral evasion) or telling a falsehood without the intent to deceive (i.e. telling a fable). However, lying with the intent to deceive, which is what Lila Rose did, is always lying. It is the definition of lying. Likewise, taking another’s private property against his reasonable will is always stealing.
I think Hugo is on to something. To have a practice fire alarm in a college is a good thing. There is no fire, but there could very easily - and at times, in other colleges - had been a real fire. It is prudent to suggest that this may be a real fire, so let’s all act as if it were real. Next time, it might be real.
LA could very easily have been real people and they are simply reenacting those once-real scenarios.
I once saw a large family pile out of a car with a very young child in the front seat on the lap of an adult. No child safety seat. I left a note on their windshield telling them that I have met with tragedy not having a child safety seat. Have I really? No. I was acting in the stead of someone who did have a tragedy. But that person didn’t witness this dangerous behavior, so I acted the part in his place. The message would have been lessened, I think, if I said “I know someone who…” I made it first person. That’s all I did. I wanted to shock them into safe behavior. I think that’s what LA did.
Maybe it’s because I’m an actor that these kinds of “scenarios” come so easily to me. Be aware that when we act, we do not pretend to be angry, lustful, greedy, etc. We really ARE angry, lustful, greedy; we take what we know about those emotional states and put them into the dialogue and characters we are called to play, at that moment. To not do that is bad acting. We need to play that character in the first person; as if it were really me. It’s not, but at different times, in different experiences, it was. I take my past self experiences and put them in the present. I make it first person.
FanOfShea,
People like that are a magisterium unto themselves. I just want to say that I know some people think Mark values his opinion too much and the opinions of others not enough, but I have never known him to not consider the teachings of the Church and for that, I give him a lot of credit.
“I think Hugo is on to something. To have a practice fire alarm in a college is a good thing. There is no fire, but there could very easily - and at times, in other colleges - had been a real fire. It is prudent to suggest that this may be a real fire, so let’s all act as if it were real. Next time, it might be real.
LA could very easily have been real people and they are simply reenacting those once-real scenarios.
I once saw a large family pile out of a car with a very young child in the front seat on the lap of an adult. No child safety seat. I left a note on their windshield telling them that I have met with tragedy not having a child safety seat. Have I really? No. I was acting in the stead of someone who did have a tragedy. But that person didn’t witness this dangerous behavior, so I acted the part in his place. The message would have been lessened, I think, if I said “I know someone who…” I made it first person. That’s all I did. I wanted to shock them into safe behavior. I think that’s what LA did.”
Fire drill - not a lie, as it is a standard, accepted practice that there are occasionally fire drills in many residences, and those setting the alarm have no reasonable expectation that those hearing the alarm will assume it is a real fire. Therefore, they can’t be said to be intending to deceive. Rather, they are intending to give practice. In fact, many people immediately think, “I wonder if it is a drill or a real fire this time…” Plenty of others just assume it’s a drill and don’t leave (which is dumb). A fire alarm can mean either a real fire or a fire drill. It is the equivalent of an ambiguous statement in spoken word.
The carseat story - it was lying. This is consequentialism again. “I wanted to get the message across to them really strongly, so I made up a story resembling a generic car tragedy story.” If it was true for you to say, “I had this tragedy happen to me,” and you said to to deceive them into thinking that someone who’s been through that saw their situation and wanted to help, then you told a falsehood with the intent to deceive. It’s consequentialism because you’re basing the morality on the intended consequences (“if I’m honest, they won’t care much, but if I make up a story, they’ll probably care more”). I’m not judging. You clearly had good intentions, but good intentions are not sufficient.
@FanOfShea—
You say LA “clearly lied” which just begs the question. People of good will are saying LA *clearly* did not lie. Who’s right? And who gets to “decide” who’s right?
Obviously those who have judged LA to have lied think it’s clear they did.
Yet, it remains true that the Magisterium has yet to make it clear that they did. Why? Because this is a highly nuanced moral question.
What is “clear” to everyone (I think) is that LA “spoke falsehood”. I don’t think *anyone* disputes that.
But that’s only HALF the defintion of “lying”. The debate is over the *other* half of the definition. Did LA intend to deceive?
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Deacon Russell,
Define deceive, please. According to this definition “be false to; be dishonest with; cause someone to believe an untruth” it seems that LA did intend to deceive, just like the lady above with the car seat. Her intention to deceive was also filled with the intention to do good therefore, her culpability (which is between her, her confessor and Our Lord) cannot be determined, but her intention to deceive cannot be dismissed because it was for a good reason.
Micah,
You prove my point though. The definition is what makes clear the nature of a thing. As stealing is not merely the taking of something, lying, at least in the Catechism of 1993, was defined in a way that clearly supports one side of the argument and when revised the other.
As someone noted above, George, Grisez and May state that the latter development is definitive. Though this may be so, it is not clear that that is. George, Grisez and May base this analysis on a specific interpretation of the moral object which has not been definitively defined and in fact is subject to great debate. To put this in perspective, this same analysis which defines all lying as morally wrong is used to define craniotomy as licit if the life of the mother is threatened. This rationale (one can take the life of an unborn child to save the life of the mother) was used to justify the actions of Sister McBride and and St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. Germain Grisez’s work was specifically cited (though I do not believe he has supported this citing of his work - haven’t seen anything one way or another.) This doesn’t refute George, Grisez et al, but I think again it puts things into perspective. In fact, in the article linked above, Prof. Janet Smith (no liberal dissenter from the Church) notes that the issue is not clearly settled.
Its just to say that as all taking is not stealing and perhaps, as the Church has taught in the past and perhaps may develop in the future, all deception is not lying.
@Micah:
No, the carseat story wasn’t lying; it really happened. Only it didn’t happen to me; I played the part of the guy it happened to. I know - without question - that he wouldn’t mind me acting his story to get his point across. He’s done exactly what I did, as himself, getting word out. All I did was personify him. And that’s exactly what I do when I act. The only real different was that this time I wasn’t getting paid. Sort of like performance art.
@Micah:
That is precisely what is at issue. Granted, you have on your side the fact that the Catechism, with St. Thomas and St. Augustine, defines lying that way. However, St. Jerome believed otherwise, apparently, and it remains possible that this definition needs to be further refined. The fact that a more qualified definition of lying appeared in the first edition of the Catechism and was edited out doesn’t resolve the matter either way, but at least it suggests that the question may still be an open question.
In the same way, the qualification of stealing as taking another’s property against his reasonable will is not the original, obvious, commonly accepted definition of that term, but one that grew out of prolonged moral thinking. The fact that this has become the accepted definition in Catholic moral discourse, while a similar development has not yet become accepted for lying, doesn’t mean that it won’t.
Perhaps all of this is good money after bad so to speak but let’s clarify this again:
Subjective morality and objective morality are two different things.
So the members of Live Action’s personal culpability or “sinfulness” are not at issue—the objective morality of a particular political tactic are.
Similarly, Mark’s personal virtue (nor St. Augustine’s for that matter, though I admire the chutzpah of entering that into the argument since no one here has been canonized but he has) are not at issue either. We are talking about rational points of objective morality for a given range of actions in achieving what everyone agrees is a virtuous end. That is a valid discussion even if the sanctity of the pro-Life platform is at issue, because the Catechism emphasizes in multiple ways that means are just as if not MORE important than ends.
So it is actually quite possible for all the people in Live Action contributing to this little scheme to be more virtuous than Mark. Perhaps, for all we know, some of them may even be more virtuous and holy than St. Augustine.
That doesn’t mean that the objective moral status of every action they take is above discussion, analysis, and even, dare I say it? Refutation?
This is the work that is done to build the epistemology of Catholic moral teaching. It means little in the scope of the Magisterium in one sense. In another it affects all of eternity, even if it goes unnoticed.
So let us reason together.
The only argument at hand here is quite simple—really all this smoke and mirrors—the question is: is what they did there a lie?
If it is not a lie than it means that they spoke a falsehood without an intention to deceive in that moment. You cannot argue it was for a larger cause and therefore it was not a lie, because that was saying it was spoken as a means to an end.
The question is, did they intend to make the receptionists believe that they were who they said they were? (I’m leaving alone what happened later in the editing room and what happened with all the evidence that showed employees doing the right thing, or the fact that it was all reported to the FBI before the release of the tapes. Just to keep it simple.)
If you have to answer yes—and I think you do, because how else would their scheme have worked?—then it was lying.
That doesn’t mean anything earth shattering. It just means, hey—not something we recommend, we can get behind, and maybe we should rethink the notion that we need deception to accomplish evangelization. And don’t be surprised if, by the law of what a disordered act MUST do by virtue of natural law, if some disorder and chaos or perhaps as JPII called it counter-productivity results.
We need a clear and simple argument that states that Live Action did not intend to make those they encountered believe that they were actually a pimp and prostitute in the moment that they spoke those words. I’m not sure what the form of that argument can take. But it cannot ever take the form of the larger goal, yes, even if that goal is a gazillion unborn lives (which is hypothetical because I have yet to hear anything about the abortion ill of PP stopping—in fact what I hear is that the private fundraising has already superseded the meager donation Title X provided to their preventative health care services).
You cannot. Justify. The Means. By the ends.
So you have to demonstrate, without a reasonable doubt, that they did not intend to deceive the employees of PP in the moment of presenting themselves and declaring themselves to be pimps and prostitutes.
I haven’t heard that argument yet.
It really is that simple.
Nit picking? Hardly. All of moral theology is nit picking by those statements. Then let’s just say, all that matters is if you have Jesus in your heart and then you are saved, and be done with it and move on to the Church of Sunshine and Flowers where all is permitted as long as you say, I’m doing it for Jesus.
I’ve heard people claim they were leaving their wives and children because God gave them the message they should. So you know. It’s all relative.
I’ve even heard people claim that they believed God willed them to terminate their pregnancy for a greater good.
It’s kind of how these things start.
@Charlotte—
I like your definition of “deceive” well enough. It’s usually the consequential effect of “telling falsehoods”. The real definition to be careful with here is “intention.” See CCC 1752…
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
@Jennifer—
You wrote:
****So you have to demonstrate, without a reasonable doubt, that they did not intend to deceive the employees of PP in the moment of presenting themselves and declaring themselves to be pimps and prostitutes. ***
Actually, I think it’s simpler—you have to demonstrate that it is *possible* that one does not have the “moral intention” to deceive the employees of PP in the moment of presenting themselves and declaring themselves to be pimps and prostitutes….
Steven,
So then, wouldn’t it be fair to say (going back to the original issue) that the pro-life Catholic community shouldn’t embrace this kind of action until the conclusion of moral discourse? I’ve heard stories of priests who told their faithful that it was OK to use the pill because the Vatican was “working on approving it” when the Vatican was really only researching it more fully and this sounds like a chance to avoid a similar situation. If you are saying we can’t know for sure whether or not this particular kind of deception in this particular circumstance is actually lying, then I think Mark’s original argument that we shouldn’t embrace it still holds.
Deacon Russell,
I don’t see how CCC1752 causes any problems with interpreting LA’s actions as lies. In fact, CCC1753 seems to come along and clear up any misunderstandings that CCC1752 might encourage, ie…a good intention can change the objective morality of an action. I agree with what Jennifer wrote… nobody here is talking about the personal culpability (of which intention would play a huge part) of the LA’s participants, but rather the morality of the action and whether or not the pro-life Catholic community should embrace it as it’s new modus operandi.
@ Charlotte (Matilda):
I think embracing or not embracing this kind of action is part of the moral discourse in question. Having room for disagreement doesn’t mean we all hold our breaths waiting for the Magisterium to settle the question. It doesn’t work like that. It means we do our best to inform our consciences and make the best decisions that we can, and out of the back and forth the issues become increasingly better defined, thereby paving the way for a Magisterial action. For Mark, supporting Lila Rose would violate his conscience. For others, not supporting her would do the same. Somebody is wrong, and we should each do our best to make the case for our points of view, and at some point the issues may become clearer, and the Magisterium may settle the matter one way or the other. But we can’t suspend following our consciences until such time as the Magisterium acts. It doesn’t work like that.
@Deacon Jim agreed. Possible and “likely” but I haven’t heard of another possibility other than deception in saying those words. As Tim says, the whole scheme falls apart without the deception.
Steven,
OK, I see your point now. A quick question though… for those that you say it would violate their conscience not to support her, what argument would they give? I really am curious. I am judging Mark’s argument based on the reasoning he gives in light of Church teaching. What would the other argument look like? Because so far, I haven’t seen any argument to the contrary that embraces Church teaching more than the author’s personal feelings.
I mean “likely” because I could say that it is possible, that they meant for them to take it as a joke. Given that they never gave them the chance to laugh at the heist and exposed them in the media without their consent, I’d have to say that is not “likely,” you dig?
How can anyone look at the LA methods and say there is any possibility that they did not *intend* to deceive Planned Parenthood? I don’t understand that at all… Please explain…
Could someone explain to me why it is being stated that the phrase about someone having no right to the truth has been removed from the Catechism? It may not be in the one paragraph but it is in para.2489 which I think would certainly justify the situation of the Europeans with the Nazis.
I think also that we need to look at what the Church is not saying as well as what she says. The lack of statements from the Magisterium on this topic of intelligence and undercover work, I think speaks in and of itself.
@Joe and Scott W
A quote from Mark in “Last Comments on Lying for Jesus:”
Using this same analogy (which I believe to be wrong,) one could argue “Mark went on the blogosphere, and, well, lied. People didn’t come to him demanding to know if he was going to keep the “flame” war going.”
You are supporting that there is “wiggle room” to firm up the definition of “lie” in some instances. Mark (as I understand him,) is saying that there is not.
What I can agree with from Mark:
@ janetfernandez ~ The feeling is mutual :-)
What if LA is not lying at all, they are *stealing* on behalf of the babies that can’t steal for themselves the food they need to survive? Seems the finer details are a curiosity of the soul that cannot be denied. Praise God for the Magisterium, Tradition, and Life! This discussion could be considered a Great book in 500 years; I would buy it if Shea, Greydanus, and Kreeft collaborated!
Lauretta
It was suggested according to a poster at Vox Nova that a de-chaired theologian, Charles Curran, opined in a book that Benedict removed it because he knew that some theologians would use the removed extension to parallel a faculty based analysis of sex so that if he left it there, it would open an unwanted road in that other area.
ps…so it was moved to 2489.
FanOfShea,
In fact, PP is the one deceiving, not Live Action. PP clinics are not supposed to cover up pimps and underage prostitutes, and it seems they might be doing it. How do you figure it out? You must provide a test. How do you test their response to a given situation? By enacting it. Is it lying? It is as much of a lie as any test can be. Are fire drills a lie? No. They are a test - change fire drills to any other test you like, and be sure that it works better when the test resembles the real situation as well as it can.
Did Live Action lie? No. They tested PP. They enacted a situation for which Planet Parenthood clinics are supposed to provide a given response (call the cops?) but they failed to provide the right response. Now PP knows their employees need more training about those situations. Live Action made them a favor, a free test - they should charge for it next time. Now PP should be thankful, but only if they care about having their employees following the laws. If they don’t, well, they will get mad instead of fixing the problem and will keep helping spreading prostitution. Planned Parenthood is the one supposed to follow the law in any situation, hypothetical or not. Are they providing clear instructions on how to proceed in different cases? Well, it doesn’t look like. Can we provide them those cases, to help them not breaking the law? Yes. It is a form of charity - helping the other to do the right thing. Do we need to tell them “hey, it is a test, what would you do if a pimp etc.?” No. We test whether they are ready or not by enacting the real situation. How I said before, it is as much of a lie as a test can be a lie.
Thanks, Bill, and how is the floor coming?
I love it when a person proposes that Our Lord was speaking hyperbolically when you point out a verse where He condemns certain actions. (This is pertinent to the discussion at hand. - St. John 8:44 & St. Matthew 5:37.)
Hugo, I very much appreciate your comments. Your last one is very good. I too saw it as an act of charity—if for no other reason the PP employees should be able to see that the response to these videos shows that public opinion is against what they are doing. And it is not just pro-life people who would have a problem with sex-traffickers getting a free ride from their organization. Hopefully someone is showing them that their attitude shows absolutely no respect or concern for the girls being used in such an abhorrent way.
Lauretta
Pretty good and cheaply. One can use half white vinegar and half vegetable oil in a spray bottle and then hands and knees rag scrubbing which is good exercise. Paint spots….rubbing alcohol.
@James
“As someone noted above, George, Grisez and May state that the latter development is definitive. Though this may be so, it is not clear that that is. George, Grisez and May base this analysis on a specific interpretation of the moral object which has not been definitively defined and in fact is subject to great debate. To put this in perspective, this same analysis which defines all lying as morally wrong is used to define craniotomy as licit if the life of the mother is threatened. This rationale (one can take the life of an unborn child to save the life of the mother) was used to justify the actions of Sister McBride and and St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. Germain Grisez’s work was specifically cited (though I do not believe he has supported this citing of his work - haven’t seen anything one way or another.) This doesn’t refute George, Grisez et al, but I think again it puts things into perspective. In fact, in the article linked above, Prof. Janet Smith (no liberal dissenter from the Church) notes that the issue is not clearly settled.”
Please explain. It seems more likely to me that a looser interpretation of things would “allow” for the actions of Sr. McBride, whereas a stricter interpretation, which I hold, would not allow it. What I am doing is calling a sin a sin. How would that line of thinking have permitted an abortion?
“Its just to say that as all taking is not stealing and perhaps, as the Church has taught in the past and perhaps may develop in the future, all deception is not lying.”
I never said all deception is lying. Actually, I specifically said that it would be moral to tell the truth with the intent to deceive, which is not a lie (defined as a falsehood with the intent to deceive).
@Katy
“No, the carseat story wasn’t lying; it really happened. Only it didn’t happen to me; I played the part of the guy it happened to.”
Claiming that it happened to you makes it a lie, unless you had no reasonable expectation that the other party would believe you (in which case, you couldn’t have been intending to deceive them). Did the other party know you were acting?
@Greydanus
“That is precisely what is at issue. Granted, you have on your side the fact that the Catechism, with St. Thomas and St. Augustine, defines lying that way. However, St. Jerome believed otherwise, apparently, and it remains possible that this definition needs to be further refined. The fact that a more qualified definition of lying appeared in the first edition of the Catechism and was edited out doesn’t resolve the matter either way, but at least it suggests that the question may still be an open question.”
I must have missed where Jerome had a different definition. Please provide it. (I’m being mean [I’ve always appreciated your contributions to the register], I really must have missed it in the conversation. I had a fever through most of this debate the last few days, so pardon me).
As for the Catechism, the first was not the official version, and can’t really be considered authoritative.
“In the same way, the qualification of stealing as taking another’s property against his reasonable will is not the original, obvious, commonly accepted definition of that term, but one that grew out of prolonged moral thinking. The fact that this has become the accepted definition in Catholic moral discourse, while a similar development has not yet become accepted for lying, doesn’t mean that it won’t.”
Shooting from the hip here (I’m not primarily into social doctrine): A change in the definition of stealing never occurred. A development in the understanding of private property, however, did, with the universal destination of goods. So while stealing was always defined as taking another’s private property against his will, the understanding of private property developed and the definition of stealing was clarified to be in accord with that. Clarification isn’t a change in meaning, it’s simply removing ambiguities previously unnoticed. In the definition of a lie, however, “a falsehood told with the intent to deceive,” what could be added that is a clarification and not a change? There are only two conditions and it seems to me that both of them are pretty clear. There isn’t a middle ground between truth and falsehood, so no clarification can be made there. Intent to deceive, likewise, is quite specific already.
Personally, I’d love if someone in a high position would send this as a dubium to the CDF. That would make my day.
By the way, can I just say we really need a way to separate paragraphs in this? Do all html tags work? It’s driving me nuts!
Mark—two points.
1) The question is whether using a sarcastic slogan “Lying for Jesus” (even if you think it is fair) is really the best way to advance a civil debate with your fellow Catholics who are hardly crazy liberal dissenters. What if the other side started calling you a “Pharisee for Jesus”? Equally not productive. Such slogans are unlikely to persuade and more likely to tear apart the Catholic community.
2) Your slippery slope argument just isn’t convincing. To argue that the Catechism’s defintion of lying is slightly too broad and should be tightened is NOT to say that there is no definition of lying, or that whether an intentional falsehood is wrong depends on a weighing of all the circustances, or that if a person feels telling an intentional falsehood is right then it’s OK. The Church’s definition of usury has narrowed over the years, for example, but that didn’t tear apart Catholic theology, as you seem to think that ANY modification of the Catechism’s definition of lying would do. I actually would suggest that an entirely inflexible approach, that refuses even to consider the possibility that the Catechism’s definition of lying (though still in flux in 1993) is now absolutely settled and on which no debate is allowed, could undermine Catholic morality significantly, making ordinary people wonder how a Church that claims to be committed to the Love of Christ Jesus could be so uncaring about its fellow man that it woudl tell its members that if they are hiding a Jew or other innocent person, it would be better to give up the person’s location by staying silent or telling the truth, than to utter the slightest falsehood to the officer. Not likely to bring many people today to the Lord.
@Charlotte—
You wrote:****I don’t see how CCC1752 causes any problems with interpreting LA’s actions as lies. In fact, CCC1753 seems to come along and clear up any misunderstandings that CCC1752 might encourage, ie…a good intention can change the objective morality of an action.****
I know you meant “canNOT change the objective morality…” CCC 1753 uses a perfect example as an illustration by referencing “lying”, because one object can be inspired by more than one intention. So, lying contains by *definition* the intention to deceive, which is intrinsically evil. So CCC 1753 refers to when lying is accompanied by *both* a good and an evil intention. It doesn’t address the question of when *telling falsehood* (half the definition of lying) is accompanied by only a *good* intention and not the intention to deceive.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
“Planned Parenthood can now send out howling fundraiser pleas to the pro-abortion faithful shrieking that those evil prolifers are lying and committing fraud”
As opposed to before when they sent out fundraiser pleas saying that prolifers were honest and truthful.
Shea, give it up. You’re only preaching to other professional catholics at this point, not the average hard working pro-lifer.
Lauretta: “I think also that we need to look at what the Church is not saying as well as what she says. The lack of statements from the Magisterium on this topic of intelligence and undercover work, I think speaks in and of itself.”
Fully agreed.
I also wonder if proponents of the absolutist position are now really going to take up the cause of demanding that all Catholic police officers stop participating in undercover police work, and that our government stop engaging in any undercover spy work or military misinformation in the war in Afghanistan. Some people will undoubtedly say that such work is allowed so long as those involved don’t utter an intentional falsehood, but that is simply not realistic, and no one shouldn’t pretend that it is, simply to let themselves sleep better at night.
Deacon Russell,
Actually I did intend the sentence the way it was written. I am not the best wordsmith, so forgive any confusion. I was using the idea that a good intention can change the objective morality of an action as an example of the misunderstanding that CCC1752 could inspire which is the reason CCC 1753 is needed to clarify.
How could LA’s actions (not just the story about the pimp and the prostitutes, but all of the action following too) not be interpreted as having the intention to deceive? Can you give me an example in which telling a falsehood would only be accompanied by a good intention and no intention to deceive at all? Thank you!
Three things:
1- The idea that anti-abortion is strictly about the killing of bodies and not the cause of damnation of souls is very shallow.
2- Going back to first principles. The kingdom of God is about Love Justice and Mercy. I think this is where you need to go. This is the reason stealing for your starving family is not a sin and why lying for the benefit of virtually everyone including the PP employee. Granted there is a danger to the lier just as there is to the soldier who kills in a just war.
3-
Read John 7:3-14 and explain to me how Jesus was not being deceptive.
I know this may be a bit nuanced, but isn’t there something to be said on eventually revealing the truth to a person, hence making a material lie not a formal lie? For instance, most my jokes involve telling falsehood. The person looks at me like, “what?” Then I say, “just kidding.” Then we both laugh. Did I lie to them? It was only a temporal deception on my part, regardless of its intention (in this incident, it was for laughs). Is that intrinsically wrong? Would not a lie have to have some permanent effect or intention of permanent deception?
So, going on to more serious matters, is an undercover cop really lying when he poses as a potential customer for drug dealers, but then reveals his identity as a cop and arrests the person? Or in the case of Live Action, did they really lie when they eventually revealed their identity? It seems to me that ultimately they did not try to deceive in the end, as they eventually revealed the truth.
*****It seems to me that ultimately they did not try to deceive in the end, as they eventually revealed the truth.*****
This is an interesting question that I hope others will address.
Much like Nathan telling the false story of the theft of the lamb to King David.
“To lead into error”
Situation # 1- An undercover police officer goes up to an average, random person on the street, and tries to sell marijuana to him. This “basically decent” person is tempted, and does indeed buy the marijuana from him.
Situation # 2 - An undercover police officer knows of a drug dealer, but doesn’t have the hard evidence to convict him, so he goes up to the drug dealer, and says he wants to buy, and the drug dealer sells to him.
I am not a theologian, just your average pew sitter. In my understanding of “leading into error,” situation # 1 clearly leads into error.
In situation # 2, the police officer has not “lead him into error,” but only allowed the error already engaged in to display itself.
So…from those (who with me) are in the “Lila Rose’s actions might not fit the definition of lying” camp, could you please respond as to whether my understanding is correct?
For those who are in the “Lila Rose’s actions are lying always and everywhere” camp, I already know what you would say, so you can take a break from typing! LOL
JamesD:
1. Very true.
2. Lying in order to entrap someone is, in itself, an offense against Love, Justice and Mercy all at once—regardless of your larger aims. It is not good for the soul of the liar, and it is probably not so good for the soul of the (now jobless) PP employee either, who is more likely to be embittered against Christians and pro-lifers as she searches for work in a hard economy.
3. The Vulgate reads “vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc ego non ascendo ad diem festum istum quia meum tempus nondum impletum est”; he says he’s not going to the festival *that day*, and he doesn’t. He remains behind in Galilee (verse 9) and goes up (in secret) later (verse 10). (The Festival of Booths—Sukkot—is a multi-day event.) This is what moral theology calls a broad mental reservation, rather than a lie, since it does not involve spoken falsehood.
If you are attempting to twist scripture in such a way as to make Our Lord lie you are, simply put, *BLASPHEMING*. Examine yourself. You are endangering your soul in an attempt to prove your point.
I think the undercover policework argument is a red herring. A police person (authorized by the state to perform such work, not in vigilanteism) has to fulfill certain criteria in order not to have the work be undone by entrapment (in other words to be licit under positive law). There are subjective and objective tests of a given case to determine whether the crime (which no crime has been committed by anyone in any of the videos—they are relaying confidentiality policies either correctly or incorrectly at worst is a breach in professional conduct). Whether or not if fails the subjective test (you can look up the criteria on line) would be subject to more evidence on the part of the police officer in this case, but it fails the objective test on several points. I have yet to see people cite or refer to actual transcripts and unedited video tapes and I have had this growing suspicion that this argument is entirely in the abstract for most people. A review of the transcripts shows that it fails to meet basic criteria for legality, were this a professional police sting. Our moral tradition (via Aquinas) teaches us that positive law is the bear minimum standard for interpersonal behavior. Leaving aside the fact that this is a vigilante sting, even if they were authorised police officers they don’t meet basic criteria. If you wish to refute this, I seriously suggest your read the full transcripts and view the full unedited videos and not just make a hypothetical case for how they MAY have not behaved according to your imagination. If you can make a case for the fact that they behaved as professional officers would—that is at the baseline of legal, secular ethics—-then maybe we’d have a discussion. Though I don’t think it is at all clear that undercover policework always fulfills Catholic moral law. As for undercover journalism I suggest consulting media law resources which explain the ethics of undercover journalism as well, and no, surprise, they failed to meet that criteria as well. Even if they had met those criteria, you’d then have to make the argument that they are authorized to perform such activities. I’d accept that New Media makes that a dated question, I suppose we are all authorized journalists if we have a computer at this point in history. But it does remind one why journalistic ethics exist in the first place.
We could be having this conversation completely outside of Catholic moral teaching and find that their tactics are ethically questionable at the very least so…the Catholic morality issue just sort of adds weight to the side of the argument which says these arguments are questionable.
“Much like Nathan telling the false story of the theft of the lamb to King David.”
No, it was a parable, and in both cases the speaker did not depend on the hearer taking them as literally true. Nathan did not depend on David believing there was a literal lamb in order to accomplish his end, and Jesus did not depend on his listeners believing that the story was about a specific real-life Samaritan in order to prove his point.
Live Action, however, did expect and depend upon the PP employee believing the untruth that the LA guy really was a pimp with an underage sex ring—otherwise their plan wouldn’t have worked. It doesn’t matter that LA’s *remote* intention was to uncover truth, if their *proximate* intention was to deceive. It seems that some people really don’t want to think about this.
Let us apply science to this issue, for science is the study of those things which claim to be true. The difference between lies and truth are that truth is testable and remains true no matter how often you test it. What are the results to the souls of those who regularly participate in undercover work? What psychological studies are out there about the harm being done to them? What does science tell us about how the brain handles things when we lie? If you think it isn’t harmful, examine the evidence before you. What does the evidence tell you?
One of the reasons lying is dangerous is that it allows us to rationalize our behavior. When we begin to rationalize our behavior, we remove a barrier to sin. We become capable of committing greater sins. One study I read stated that police officers engaged in undercover work were far more likely to go on to eventually commit real crimes in part because of the habitual rationalization required for them to do the work they did. They had to continue to justify telling lies to people who had come to trust and rely on them. Their work also led them to self-justification and holding themselves outside of the law - i.e. it’s not okay for most people to do this but it’s okay for me because I’m doing it to save lives.
Those who dismiss 1 Cor. 9, 19-23 as “inculturation” - you’re kidding, right? He’s clearly saying that he’s making people think he’s something he’s not, in order to connect with them.
Every actor who has ever uttered a line, every author who has written a novel or short story, every Congressional Budget Office staffer who has written a financial impact statement (okay, I threw that in for laughs) is a dam**d liar. Christ spoke in parables - stories that in and of themselves were untrue - in order to lead people to the truth. I’m not saying that all untruths are justifiable, nor should they be. But Mark and others should not be so dismissive in their efforts.
Perhaps we would be more open to Mark’s position but for the didactic figurative body slams he throws on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. Greydanus was right.
@Jennifer Pierce
My purpose was to find out if my understanding of the CCC position on “Leading into error,” was correct.
The undercover police work was hypothetical. I could have used any of 100 different hypothetical situations.
My question is NOT “Does Lila Rose’s actions equate police work?”
But
“What constitutes Leading Into Error?”
“For instance, most my jokes involve telling falsehood. The person looks at me like, “what?” Then I say, “just kidding.” Then we both laugh. Did I lie to them?”
If told with the intent that the other person believe you (until you rescind the statement), then it is a jocose lie, a venial sin. If you’re just saying it to be funny and there’s on reasonable expectation that they will take you seriously, then it’s just a joke.
“What constitutes Leading Into Error?”
Leading someone to believe something which is erroneous—i.e. false-to-facts.
@ MenTaLguY
Always and everywhere? No room for situations?
MenTaLguY
Thank you for your response.
Regarding #2, I do not consider the Live Action project entrapment. Entrapment defined as tempting someone into an action they do not wish to do. It is a revealing of what they are doing. Perhaps I am wrong about their motives but I am only addressing giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding #3; One of the reasons I posted that was to see if there was a possible clarification. I do not read Latin. I recently read that from the NAB and realized that it seems to indicate deception on the part of Jesus. The NAB says: 8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, because my time has not yet been fulfilled.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed on in Galilee. 10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, he himself also went up, not openly but (as it were) in secret.
So you can see where I thought that it indicates deception. The foot notes in the NAB indicate that there are earlier versions that seem to have modified the original text by adding a “not yet” to the text. I certainly am not trying to twist scripture.
“Those who dismiss 1 Cor. 9, 19-23 as “inculturation” - you’re kidding, right? He’s clearly saying that he’s making people think he’s something he’s not, in order to connect with them.”
You and I have had this conversation once before. It’s not even a case of “inculturation”—St. Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee; that was part of his own cultural background. This is even clearer in other passages where he writes about the same thing. Paul is saying that he observes the law when among observant Jews in order not to give unnecessary offence when he evangelizes them. If he were actually to lie and deny Christ, however, or refrain from preaching the gospel, that would undermine his whole project. How could he preach Christ while simultaneously denying Him?
(Remember also, that there were Jewish Christians in Palestine who continued to observe the law—hence the controversy between Paul and Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. So I suppose it’s possible that Paul is talking about his time among these Jewish Christians, though in context I’m pretty sure he’s talking about evangelization of non-Christian Jews in this case.)
“Christ spoke in parables - stories that in and of themselves were untrue - in order to lead people to the truth. I’m not saying that all untruths are justifiable, nor should they be.”
Unlike the statements made by LA’s “pimp”, they weren’t spoken with the intent that their audience would believe them to be literal truth when they were not. We shouldn’t blur the distinction between storytelling and lying.
Kathy: “Always and everywhere? No room for situations?”
Leading someone to believe something which is erroneous is always and everywhere leading them into error.
Blue is blue, even on Tuesdays.
JamesD:
re #2: We could say much the same about the lie in itself, without invoking entrapment specifically. (You’re correct that entrapment commonly means to entice someone into doing something they wouldn’t ordinarily be inclined to do. I could also have used ‘scandal’, which has no such qualification.)
re #3: Well, that is why the footnote is there. It was easy for me to think you seemed over-eager to reach a particular conclusion.
Still under deadline, but I just wanted to say thanks for the (mostly) civil conversation, folks. My three personal favorite contributions to the discussion are 1. Bill Bannon laboring to argue that Paul was a liar and James arguing that Jesus was a liar, so lying is really okay, whatever the Catechism says. 2. The lady calling me fat and 3. The lady calling me a liar because I changed my mind and wrote more on the subject. The latter two crack me up but the first is supremely Faustian. Particularly since one of the principal strategies of Jewish “anti-missionaries” (yes they do exist) is *precisely* to say that St. Paul was a liar and Christianity is found on lies by the liar Jesus. It’s beyond folly for Christians to talk this way. But some people will grasp at any straws to win an argument. Talk about a pyrrhic victory!
Okay. Back to work!
Oops! It’s the Barrister, not Bill Bannon, calling St. Paul a liar. My mistake!
The rug care advice was interesting and helpful, at least.
@Charlotte—
***Can you give me an example in which telling a falsehood would only be accompanied by a good intention and no intention to deceive at all? Thank you! ****
If the “ends” of the act of telling a falsehood are “deception” and, say, preserving the “secret” of a surprise party, and you tell your spouse your dinner date is for you two only, and, surprise, there is actually a party of dozens of well-wishers, I would say this is an example of telling a falsehood that doesn’t *intend* the end of deception but intends the preservation of the secret before the party. One “forsees” and “permits” the deception but does not morally intend it.
There’s is still much more to consider along the way, but my real hope is that people see that this is NOT a Magisterially resolved issue as yet. So people of good will may investigate the issue and come up with different and equally acceptable opinions, presuming those opinions don’t contradict the Magisterial teaching already on the books.
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
MenTaLguY:
I still further clarification brecause I don’t see the results or the intention of the lie being an offense against Love Justice and Mercy. The lie is an act of Love because it reveals to all what is being promoted (sex slavery) this leads to justice and mercy in the hopefull elimination of some sex slavery, and the recognition and repentence of those involved. In my own life bitterness has led to the realization that I need something (God). I did admit that there are dangers when getting close to the edge of right vs wrong (like the soldier). But that doesn’t mean that we can’t be called (by God) into these difficult situations. One must keep ther attention on God and not some immediate goal.
Regarding the note in the NAB; The note (as I read it) seems to say that the original text probably did not include the text that would eliminate the deception. Here it is:
4 [8] I am not going up: an early attested reading “not yet” seems a correction, since Jesus in the story does go up to the feast. “Go up,” in a play on words, refers not only to going up to Jerusalem but also to exaltation at the cross, resurrection, and ascension; cf John 3:14; 6:62; 20:17.
Now maybe they mean correction in the sense of getting it right but I doubt it since they don’t include it in the NAB translation.
Deacon Jim: there’s an easy test to see whether the principle of double effect applies: if the purported secondary effect doesn’t occur, would the desired ends still be achieved? It seems like if your spouse saw through the deception, that would put the secret of the surprise at risk. She’d know something was up.
One other thing, since people keep asking the “What about undercover cops?” question.
Briefly: I’m not much use here because 1) I haven’t seen any teaching on the matter, 2) I don’t know what the rules of engagement for cops are, and 3) I don’t know what is legitimate for the state to do vs. what the private individual can do (ie. agents of the state can legitimately arrest and jail people but I, as a private citizen, can’t lock people in my broom closet because that’s called “kidnapping”). Till that’s settled by wiser heads then mine, I remain mute. The problem is, people who appeal to the undercover cop simply *assume* it’s a given that since cops are allowed to lie by Catholic moral teaching, Lila Rose can too. This is problematic, since we haven’t really established that cops are allowed to lie by Catholic moral teaching, and the more I contemplate “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned” the more I doubt that case can be made. As to what cops, in fact, do: since when did the cops become the measure of all Catholic morality, even if they do lie (and even that has not been established)? What most of us know about undercover work comes from movies, not actual knowledge. And, by the way, if we are going to get our moral theology about lying from movies, may I suggest you watch Donnie Brasco, which shows just how corrosive lying, even for a good cause, can be to the soul?
Okay. Now I really gotta get back to work.
@MenTaLguY
So when Mark titled his last article “Last Comments on Lying for Jesus,” he was not only lying, but also leading into error? I disagree!
But that’s my point. Yes indeed, blue is blue, even on Tuesday.
I don’t think Mark was LYING or LEADING INTO ERROR, although by HIS definition (and yours,) he was.
@ Mark
If I am #3, you really should re-read what I wrote.
I’m saying you are NOT a lier, even though you’ve turned yourself inside out to prove that when you hold anything up to your strict interpretation of the CCC, it is indeed lying.
There is no obligation to tell the truth to any anyone whose authority we honestly and sincerely challenge. By what authority does someone (e.g. German soldiers looking for Jews)ask the question of their whereabouts? We would be obliged to lie to them, to save our neighbour.
Yes, burn incense before an idol of Roman empire. Your life is worth more than the scandal thereby occasioned.
A goodly portion of Islam today consists of descendants of Christians who converted in order to save their lives. They on, and await our invitation to return to their true roots.
JamesD: It seems like either way (Jesus is saying that he isn’t going up *that day*, or that Jesus is speaking ambiguously about his Passion, which is what he is referencing immediately before) we are dealing with a broad mental reservation, and not a lie.
Regarding the second interpretation—when Jesus says that he is hated and that his time has not yet come, he may well expect that he would be killed if he went up with them. Remember that these are the same group of people—his extended clan—that later try to throw him off a cliff in Luke 4:29.
(Not that the threat of death changes the nature of the speech act one way or the other in itself, but it does further suggest a connection between what he says about not going up to “this festival” with his Passion, alluded to immediately prior.)
Kathy, here is an explanation of entrapment that I found on a legal web site:
“- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.”
I think it is clear that the LA operation is not one of entrapment, at least the one video that I saw. The woman was quite helpful in dealing with every situation that was proposed.
Brent, I had those same thoughts about the temporary nature of a “lie” that is meant to test someone. Seems quite different than Mark’s scenario of a false apparition. That facade needs to be kept up indefinitely in order to accomplish its task of supposedly converting a non-believer. In the case of sting operations, however, the facade only needs to be maintained until the taping is over.
Concerning the issue of a person’s lies permanently harming his personality, I would posit that then, most actors should not be actors because that seems to have a quite permanent effect on many of them. From a study I read nurses also tend to enter into co-dependent relationships much more often than the public at large so maybe nursing should not be allowed either. Some policemen can tend to be bullies because of their positions of authority. Many high-placed executives as well. If we are going that route, there are very few occupations that cannot be said to have a potential permanent negative effect on their personality.
“Planned Parenthood can now send out howling fundraiser pleas to the pro-abortion faithful shrieking that those evil prolifers are lying and committing fraud, thereby generating increased donations and making them richer and more powerful than ever.”
This. Every time I’ve opened my Facebook over the past few days, I’ve seen more people who have never mentioned PP before talking about how they’re sending them donations and “standing by them in this difficult time.” It makes me feel like somebody friended me to PP when I wasn’t looking. And when I say anything bad about PP, I’m the bad guy. All this is doing is rallying their base.
@ Lauretta,
Thanks very much for the info. While I understand the implications of entrapment, I’m specifically wanting the Magisterial understanding of “Lead into error.” I believe (as you indicated,) that they are very much along the same lines, however, not the same thing.
I have enjoyed reading your comments, and agree with what you have said!
“So when Mark titled his last article “Last Comments on Lying for Jesus,” he was not only lying, but also leading into error? I disagree!
But that’s my point. Yes indeed, blue is blue, even on Tuesday.
I don’t think Mark was LYING or LEADING INTO ERROR, although by HIS definition (and yours,) he was.”
His definition and mine are the same: lying is stating falsehood with the intent to deceive (= lead into error).
Mark’s statement was made in good faith, anticipating future events that didn’t materialize. Both *intent* to deceive and falsehood (in terms of his expectations at the time the statement were made) were absent.
(n.b. Statements about the future are statements about our expectations. It *would* be a lie if he wrote that while he was already thinking about composing his next piece on the topic.)
In any case, the condition of statements about the future is not especially relevant: the particular statements under discussion with respect to Live Action’s sting were statements about (then-)present conditions.
Not that it helps any, but it doesn’t seem to be true that “the whole of the Catholic tradition…affirms… that lying is, you guessed it, intrinsically immoral.”
See e.g. Bl. John Henry Newman’s survey of the Catholic tradition through 1864 at the end of Apologia Pro Vita Sua. http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia/detail8.html
“Concerning the issue of a person’s lies permanently harming his personality, I would posit that then, most actors should not be actors because that seems to have a quite permanent effect on many of them.”
Once again, here the distinction between fiction and lies is being blurred. Fiction is entered into with the knowledge and participation of the reader/viewer/etc; it does not entail an intent to deceive by the author.
(But may God save the famous from the effects of fame…)
@ MenTaLguy
Oh, so sometimes on Tuesday blue is really turquoise?
Looks like you are looking for some “wiggle room” to firm up the definition of “lying” and “leading into error.”
Tom K.: Finally! A contribution of some substance. This does need to be discussed.
Same to you, Kathy!
Someone at some point said that because the second edition of the Catechism had changed the wording concerning lying, that that made it definitive. Wasn’t the Catechism amended after the second edition to incorporate into it Pope John Paul II’s thinking on capital punishment?
Tom K.: (Though I should note that it is not strictly a survey of Catholic tradition, as it spends quite a lot of time on Anglican thought as well. Casual readers should be careful about context.)
Kathy: That is the meaning of words.
Leading someone into error and leading them to believe something which is erroneous are synonymous acts. No difference, no distinction.
From this, intent to lead into error, and intent to lead someone to believe something which is erroneous are also identical.
Intent to achieve some thing is intent, whether or not that thing is achieved.
Conversely, a thing may be achieved without intent; the occurrence does not imply intent.
And it is on the intent to deceive rather than the act of deception that the definition of lie rests.
MenTaLguY
I get that. It just seems like Jesus is speaking to get the listener to think he is not going.
I made a Ceaser salad for my wife recently. She loved it. She then asked if there was anchovy in it. I replied ” Now why would you ask THAT?! I didn’t specificly lie but I decieved here into thinking I hadn’t put anchovy in. Either way I was being deceiptfull.
I have had it with this discussion. I am so totally turned off by Mark regarding this.
Mark,
I am sincerely trying to figure this out. I want the truth not to win an argument.
You remind me of the closing of the Muslim mind. The truth doesn’t matter if it is reasonable or not, It only depends on what Allah said. Because Allah transcends reason. This is obviously a difficult question. It seems to me that in order to find the truth it needs to be probed. I asked for someone to explain to me how Jesus wasn’t purposefully missleading his listeners based on the Gospel we hear at mass. It sure reads to me like that is what he is doing. The only things that would preclude this from being the meaning seems to me to be poor translation, John didn’t know that this would be intrinsically wrong, or, I am a poor reader. I asked for an explanation. MenTaLguY was kind enough to help me out with this. But to you everyone will do anything to win an arguement.
Forget it.
“I get that. It just seems like Jesus is speaking to get the listener to think he is not going.”
“I made a Ceaser salad for my wife recently. She loved it. She then asked if there was anchovy in it. I replied ” Now why would you ask THAT?! I didn’t specificly lie but I decieved here into thinking I hadn’t put anchovy in. Either way I was being deceiptfull.”
At very least, in neither case was that a lie. The definition of a lie rests on the intent to deceive, as I said, but also on the use of false statements (as I also said).
JamesD:
My apologies. I did not mean to offend you. I thought you were asking, not to find out, but rhetorically, as though it were a foregone conclusion that Jesus did, in fact, lie. That people do stoop to doing this is, I think, obvious given the Barrister’s shameful and grotesque claims that Paul is a liar. If you say that’s not what you are doing, I believe you.
Is everyone busy reading Newman’s work? Sure got quiet all of a sudden!
Dunno. Having a break in the discussion for everyone to cool off and noodle on things is probably a good thing anyhow.
@MenTaLguY
I have noticed that whenever you respond to someone, you do so with charity. My last post to you could be read with “snark” which is not how I intended it at all.
I’d like to re-phrase my point, not directed to anyone in particular.
As someone (Kreeft maybe?) so aptly coined, someone would have to be “morally stupid,” to think that Mark LIED when he titled his article.
However, what I keep hearing hear is “of course Lila Rose/Live Action lied…look at the CCC, it CLEARLY states
1) “utter falsehood”
2) “lead into error”
That’s the definition, and it fits the definition!
But then when that becomes the absolute litmus test, and you hold silly things up to it, they still fit the definition.
When Mark titled his article “Last Comments…” did he utter a falsehood? Yes
Did he lead into error (according to the definition given by Mark and those in agreement with him)? Yes
Did Mark really lie? No.
So can it honestly be said “these 2 statements from the Catechism can be applied to any situation, regardless of circumstances and always be true?”
Either the answer is yes, and Mark really did lie OR there is gray area here, and the litmus test needs some fine tuning to take into consideration other factors (i.e. predictions for the future, etc.)
Lauretta, you wrote, “The woman was quite helpful in dealing with every situation that was proposed.” In one of the videos I saw, the woman did appear to be helpful with some issues, but the standard that you cited is: “the person WAS not ready and willing to commit the crime BEFORE the government agents spoke with him.” Ignoring the fact that there were no government agents involved, and that in fact it has not been proven that any crime was committed, the video also does not show anything about the woman BEFORE the LA people spoke with her. Therefore, I can only speculate as to whether or not that particular woman was ready and willing to engage in wrongdoing before the LA persons spoke with her.
Kathy, CCC#2483 is not merely “utter falsehood” + “lead into error”, but “To lie is to speak or act against the truth IN ORDER TO lead someone into error.” Even if somebody uttered falsehood and lead you into error, did that person do so “in order to” lead you into error?
“I never said all deception is lying. Actually, I specifically said that it would be moral to tell the truth with the intent to deceive, which is not a lie (defined as a falsehood with the intent to deceive).”
Micah,
Then that seems to expand the definition of lying as not necessarily to include deception. So perhaps what Lila Rose did was fine.
BTW. As we continue to fiddle with what fairly clearly seems an unsettled area, Obama has announced that the govt. will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Attempts to limit abortion are uncommented on in the Catholic blogosphere and the family continues under attack. Again no comments on the Catholic blogosphere who should be motivating people to act. More camels swallowed as we strain gnats.
Tom, yes, I would agree.
However, there are different opinions on just exactley “lead into error” means.
I believe LA’s actions do not constitute “leading into error,” because PP was really and truely engaged in these activities. LA didn’t “tempt” them into something new, simply brought their deeds into the light.
Umm ... the Catechism states that one method of lying is to break one’s word… so if you want to be STRICT and SANCTIMONIOUS… (as most of the comments seem to) ... then Mark P. Shea broke his word by writing about this again after he titled the other one in such a way as to insinuate that it would be the last time he would write about it.
Janet: Don’t forget to call me a glutton too. :)
Seriously though, apart from such ocassional departures from reasoned discourse as above, I am pleased at the general quality of the discussion here. I’m still cranking toward deadline, but I wanted to say thanks to all y’all for keeping it generally sane and civil.
yes, la lied… they arent any piece of govt/fed/state/anything that gives them the “right” to lie, so regardless of our “laws” they are not to lie. . .
and speaking of our “laws”... is it right for police or army/navy/president to lie? no, it is not - but that isnt up to me… it is for me to know avbout…
sshould they tell us everything then? let me put this another way… should i tell my kids we (hubby and i) are going to bedromm now to xxx?
no way! i as the parent of overly sex-minded kids (theyre teens) should just wait til their asleep… as our “fathers” in the govt should never tell us what goes on behind closed doors…
we “parents” decide (ooh, that word!) what to tell or not to tell them… but we, the “kids”, do not get to tell “daddy” to tell us or else…? or else what? we wont live here? so, go… we wont vote for you? ok…so vote your way, and let it speak for you…
do i have to like it? no, and every chance i get ill say so… understandig, however, that the knowing implies doing…
each and every “lie” becomes us, whether or not we want it to… as human beings we should have been more careful of how we do things, as a nation, as (put your state), as citizens of our communities…
no, the decision wasnt ours and the govt going to keep on doing what they deem best for us…
Kathy: Thank you. I am not always sure that I am as charitable to everyone in these threads as I should be, but it is something I try to be conscious of. CCC 2478:
—-
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
—-
So, if the litmus test is uttering falsehood + leading into error (as such), then I’d definitely agree with you that it’d be absurd. I tend to be suspicious of litmus tests anyway (at best they are like rumble strips on the highway), but when we need to be specific about what a thing is, then we do need to resort to precise language.
But, to begin with, it’s difficult for me to see how the Catechism could be read to say that the fact of having lead someone into error, and not the *intent* to lead someone into error, is one of the two necessary components of a lie. I’ll reproduce the complete language from the Catechism below:
—-
2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: “You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.
2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.
2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.
—-
The Catechism reiterates the definition of lying more than once, and to begin with these definitions really need to be read in harmony with one another. But even taking the one in isolation which most closely matches your two bullet points, “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error,” while “leading” may or may not suggest intentionality, “in order to” positively indicates it.
On that basis, in good conscience I have to insist that a proper summary of the definition of a lie is at least an act which consists of both:
1) speaking or acting against the truth
2) *in order to* lead someone into error
Error, itself, can mean different things (e.g. wrongdoing), although in a theological context it typically refers to erroneous belief. In this case, this meaning is affirmed by the parallel definition, “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” To reconcile the two definitions, it is necessary to understand “leading someone into error” to be synonymous with deceiving them and vice-versa. Also, if there was any doubt with respect to the requirement of intentionality, “in order to lead someone into error” must be read in a way that is compatible with “with the intention of deceiving”, which is very explicit about intentionality.
Moving on, I am also concerned about the idea that Mark’s provisional statement about his future actions constituted a falsehood. If I say “Tomorrow, I am going to the beach,” when I fully expect to stay home, that would be a falsehood (I would be saying something false-to-facts about my intentions), but if I said “Tomorrow, I am going to the beach,” but I later change my mind, I can’t see how that would retroactively make my statement of intent a falsehood. It might no longer be true if I uttered it later, but later events have do not retroactively change the status of my earlier utterance.
If statements of intent don’t retroactively become falsehoods, then the only remaining way for it to be a falsehood is if Mark misrepresented his intent at the time. That would amount to assuming bad faith on Mark’s part, unless we have specific evidence at hand that the title of his essay didn’t correspond to his intent at the time. (Do we have that?)
Similarly, for the title to deceive us about his intent at the time, we would also need to make the assumption that his actual intent was something other than what he indicated in the title. Again, same problem.
In short:
1) The litmus test of uttering falsehood + leading into error (as such), without reference to intent, doesn’t adequately reflect my position, or Mark’s, or the Catechism’s.
2) Even /that/ erroneous litmus test requires an uncharitable assumption of bad faith by Mark, or possibly the assumption that unrealized statements of intent are falsehoods, for us to apply it in a way that we arrive at the conclusion that Mark lied.
“Posted by janetfernandez on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2011 6:47 PM (EST):Umm ... the Catechism states that one method of lying is to break one’s word… so if you want to be STRICT and SANCTIMONIOUS… (as most of the comments seem to) ... then Mark P. Shea broke his word by writing about this again after he titled the other one in such a way as to insinuate that it would be the last time he would write about it.”
he didnt lie, tho… he was firmly on the fence… after reading the comments, he (being same-minded) should let it go… being diff-minded he was required to say something about it…
and although the title of that article says “last” nowhere (not that i read, and stroke plays tricks sometimes) in the article itself does it say “i wnot write”...
Mr. Shea, if you are going to take the time to insert comments, would you please address the issue of Corrie tenBoom’s family? Should I throw out my copy of The Hiding Place, seeing as it’s about Christians continually and willfully lying and deceiving others? And yes most Americans are gluttons, but since it is such a common sin among Christians, no one actually wants to take it seriously.
Every actor who has ever uttered a line, every author who has written a novel or short story, every Congressional Budget Office staffer who has written a financial impact statement (okay, I threw that in for laughs) is a dam**d liar. Christ spoke in parables - stories that in and of themselves were untrue - in order to lead people to the truth.
Constructing arguments which don’t merely invite but attempt to compel us to conclude that Jesus Christ is a “dam**d liar” is an… infelicitous… way of defending the proposition that lying is compatible with Catholic teaching. I *think* this has to be the most desperate, not say blasphemous, attempt at rationalization I have yet encountered.
Janet:
I address the matter of Corrie ten Boom in the article. Did you read it?
I will have to admit I did not read it to the end. It was very long and I got bored. I will go back and find it.
Thanks, Janet.
Okay I think I found the brief reference, so now I will ask you: have you read The Hiding Place? They did NOT simply hide the Jews well, and then say “Look for yourself.” They were asked directly “Are there any Jews here?”, and they ............ LIED!
Mark: Perhaps Janet is arguing against the position that any false-to-facts statement is automatically a lie, by showing that it would make a liar of Christ.
Of course, in that case the position she is arguing against is not our position, and I would personally hesitate to use Christ to make a point like that even so, but… maybe that is the better assumption to make until she clarifies what she meant.
Argh, sorry, that was The Barrister who said that. Never mind, I’ve been reading this discussion for so long that everything is blurring together.
HAHA—Dude, this is like the first time I have disagreed with you, I actually love your work, but this is just plain wrong.
@James
I’m sorry I am not getting back to this until MUCH later in the thread. It’s been a busy day! But I have to address this (in case nobody else did):
“The problem I have with that is that the Church teaches that for an act to be moral, all the components of a human act must be moral. The moral object (means), circumstances and intention (end)must all be good. If any one is evil then the act itself is evil.”
No the Church does not teach this at all. If you’re going to make claims like this, please provide proof.
Mentalguy:
It’s the Barrister making the claim, not Janet. And no, he is trying to say Paul lied—for a good cause. He is also (confusedly) saying that actors and fiction writers are dam**d liars—again for a good cause. Then he is lumping Jesus in and saying, with great confusion, that because parables teach truth, they are good lies. He frankly doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
@Kathy16670
Again, this may have been addressed already, but if it hasn’t, it needs to be:
“Using this same analogy (which I believe to be wrong,) one could argue “Mark went on the blogosphere, and, well, lied. People didn’t come to him demanding to know if he was going to keep the “flame” war going.””
The analogy fails because Mark did not *intend* to deceive (which is absolutely necessary for a lie). His mind changed. There is no comparison.
FanOfShea, perhaps what James was referring to is from CCC#1755: “A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.”
lying- it dont become us… we are warned “not to judge”, tho, as GOD sometimes use these liars for good… and it is HE who judges, not us… those who lied in bible… they have to answer for those…
Mr. Shea, please tell us whether, in your estimation, the tenBoom family did wrong in not answering the Nazi’s truthfully.
Janet Fernandez:
The major thing here that people just aren’t getting: you have to have a right to the truth for it to be a lie. If I deprive you of the truth when you have no right to it, it isn’t a lie. So when the Nazis storm in and I provide them with a falsehood, I am not “lying” persay; I am simply denying that which they have no right to.
This is how we might also go about justifying police work, and the work behind the whole Planned Parenthood deal. We might get into an argument about whether or not they have a right to the truth. We can fight over that in terms of our squabbles. But this notion that misleading someone who does not have the right to the truth is a “lie” is incorrect, and is the source of much wailing in this argument.
Moral theologians have used this description of the Nazi scenario and explained it as such for decades.
drogah, we are on the same page, I am simply trying to get Mr. Shea to admit that what he is calling a lie, is not
Oh my goodness, MenTaLguY! I saw your response, and had to go brew myself a pot of coffee even before I tried to read it all - lol! Whew!
I think I’ll break it down point by point, just to make it easier on myself!
You quoted
This would be a general statement on how the day to day lives of Christians should be spent. I find nothing disagreeable about it. However (and I think you would agree,) it is not meant as “this is how you should act in every situation in your life.” Say you are being held up at the bank by murderous thugs. It would be ubsurd to think that the Catechism is saying:
“
Again, just plain silly.
I’m not saying the Catechism is wrong, simply that it is not intended to be applied in such a way.
Let’s forget the litmus test. I was saying it was “you sides” litmus test, and it doesn’t work. If you are saying “no, that isn’t really our litmus test,” I’ll take you at your word. (Besides, all this thinking is starting to hurt my head! LOL)
I have a few things to attend to. I’ll take a look at your next point shortly! Thanks!
Janet:
I don’t know the details of what Corrie ten Boom did and said, nor is it my place to sit in judgment of her. My interest is not in judging people, but in making clear what the act of lying is. As I made clear in previous blog entries (which I urge you to read if you want my full views), not all deception is lying and the Tradition does, in fact, make room for legitimate deception. If the Nazis come to the door and Corrie (having hidden her Jews well) says, “Look for yourself” she is not lying. If, in a panic and unable to think of anything else to say, she declares (in answer to a direct question), “There are no Jews in this house” when in fact there are Jews in the house, she is lying.
Now, if I were in her place and surprised by a life or death situation with no time to prepare, I would lie too. But that would not make the lie not a lie. It would make it a very venial sin. By the same token, committing the very venial sin of lying in such a situation does not make the magnificent act of heroism not a magnificent act of heroism.
Kathy: CCC 2478 is what I try to keep in mind when conducting these online discussions, is all; I thought it was pertinent. I’m sorry if I wasn’t adequately clear. But, if there are multiple ways to interpret my own statements, please consider favoring the one that is the least nonsensical. You can always ask for clarification.
@Tom,
Thank you for pointing that out. I actually misunderstood what James was saying. I thought he was also saying the consequences of an act must be considered evil if the act itself was. Sorry! :-/
Here’s the thing, though. Rahab was praised for her fear of God. She was not praised for lying. That’s all I’m saying. God praised her fear of her, but Rahab’s lie was a sin (which I sincerely doubt she was punished for).
Mark Shea, are you presuming your hypothetical irrational woman who blurts “There are no Jews in this house” has an evil intention when she speaks?
Or, Mark Shea, allow me to widen the question and ask, are you presuming your hypothetical irrational woman who blurts “There are no Jews in this house” has an intention to deceive when she speaks? Could it not be that she really doesn’t have an intention to deceive but the words “There are no Jews in this house” just come out of her irrational mouth anyway with no more intention than someone who says “um” or “ugh” or “duh”?
Tom: involuntary acts aren’t sin; relevance?
Sensible posting from over at InsideCatholic:
“I’ve liked a lot of what Dawn Eden has written, but I must say that her campaign against Christopher West and her taking the lead in criticizing Live Action here have led to the two most fruitless, counterproductive, intraCatholic fights I’ve ever seen. For someone who has been in the Church for, I believe, less than 3 years, that’s quite an accomplishment.
Maybe she should save her firepower for those farthest from the Church’s teachings rather than shooting friendly fire at faithful Catholics who are really quite close to her.”
Tom, the answer to your question would lie in the degree of editing that went on in the video. If what I watched had little editing, I would have to conclude from the ease and rapidity with which she answered the questions—including writing the name of an alternative abortionist—that she was quite comfortable with aiding in the crimes. She showed no hesitancy or uncertainty in what she was saying which would have happened if LA was proposing a new idea to her.
Tom:
Of course she intends to deceive. She’s not talking in her sleep. More precisely, she intends to deceive by an act we call “lying”. That’s why I say she has committed a venial sin. But, of course, the far more important fact is that her object is to save innocent lives. But that does not make lying “not lying”. Nor does her venial sin of lying make her object less noble.
It is important to make this clear because some folks, in the heat of passion, say absurd things like “So Corrie ten Boom is in hell for lying?” or “So it’s just as bad to lie as it is to slaughter innocent people?” Trying to save innocent life from powerful and malignant men is great and good and courageous. Lying in such a circumstance is a venial sin. But it *is* a sin (namely, the intrinsically immoral act of lying), not “not lying”.
Are we going to discuss Newman’s writing on this subject?
“Sensible posting from over at InsideCatholic:
“I’ve liked a lot of what Dawn Eden has written, but I must say that her campaign against Christopher West and her taking the lead in criticizing Live Action here have led to the two most fruitless, counterproductive, intraCatholic fights I’ve ever seen. For someone who has been in the Church for, I believe, less than 3 years, that’s quite an accomplishment.
Maybe she should save her firepower for those farthest from the Church’s teachings rather than shooting friendly fire at faithful Catholics who are really quite close to her.” “
How is that sensible? The majority of the posters on both sides of the fence (that I’ve seen) believe that this discussion is both good and necessary, and we are all hoping that all this buzz will prompt the Vatican to speak on the matter. This is an EXTREMELY important topic. For what is more important that right and wrong, truth and lies, sin and virtue? What.. you would have everyone just shut up and get along and pretend there is no issue here? I sure hope not.. and I’m thinking I can get a lot of AMENs from both sides on this!!
Lauretta, even if the video I watched had NO editing, it remains that NONE of the video content showed the woman “before the [LA agents] spoke with her”. And again, rather than “aiding in the crimes”, it has not been established that there was in fact any “crime” to be aided in (and that’s an essential requirement of aiding and abetting). I can only speculate, not “conclude”, as to her willingness apart from the seduction by the LA agents, which, mind you, has not been adjudicated as being proper in itself. And rather than “she showed no hesitancy or uncertainty”, I recall seeing a woman who was clearly hesitant to be overheard. It’s also questionable as to what she understood the LA people to be asking. As a juror, unless all of my concerns were addressed to my satisfaction, I would not find her guilty, and she would not be found guilty if even one juror did not find her guilty.
@ MenTaLguY
Just read what you said about # 2478. OK, I misunderstood your purpose in posting it.
(It was funny, though…wasn’t it?)
OK, next part…
You had mentioned above about the need for careful wording, to explain exactly what something is. I would agree. These statements are for everyday applications. I don’t think they are intended for the nuanced application of LA’s sting operation.
But, just as stealing is never morally acceptable, but yet a starving person taking food that is not his does not meet the qualifications of “stealing,” I would say that LA does not meet the qualifications for lying.
Monica Migliorino Miller states it better than I ever could…
I do not agree that Live Action was lying. They were acting. and, they were acting in defense of persons. This disapplies the consequentialist or proportionalist arguments. Not only that, but there needs to be more acting to expose the evil connections the public needs to see—such as the connection between the abortion industry and the sex trafficking industry. The persons in Live Action are representing the victims. When a person is killed we also are damaged. Shea’s Faustian Bargain does not apply because the actors never agreed to lie. They agreed to act. If the Planned Parenthood employees were decieved it was the unintended consequence. They were not infiltrating (like Shea’s Priscillian community infiltration example) because they were not joining the group of sex traffickers. They were acting for the purpose of recieving a recorded response as evidence. If a policeman shoots a bullet at an attacker to stop them the unintended action is that bullet injuring or killing the attacker. Outside of defense injuring or killing with a gun is immorral. Yet the policeman is not acting immorrally, but heroically. Consequentialism is not applied in this case—as far as I know. Live Action’s acting, recording and reporting to the public are together a defensive act to stop an attacker. It has reasonable probabability of stopping many killings. Exposure takes power away from organized evil. Deception of the employees is an unintended action as the bullet injuring or killing is unintended in the policeman defence example. If the policeman also hates criminals and also wanted to kill or injure the man, then there is immoral behavior by the policeman too. Who is judging if Live Action members have other motives and are thus lying too? I believe that they are acting heroically. The subject matter that is identifiable does not tell us that they lied. The evidence is permissable. The devil rather does not like this. Live Action, please act more without lying to get more recorded responses. Exposure causes damage to Satan. Judging the ones who are exposing him for any perceived thing is a more likely way to counteract exposure. Exposure is always worse for the devil because of his eternal condemnation. And exposing of the worst organized work of evil is what is helpful in the Church’s battle. We should focus more on this and stop judging. We know that Live Action was and is doing this. And they are doing the work of the saints.
Mark Shea, your retort of “she’s not talking in her sleep” does not adequately address the issue, and just because you say “she intends to deceive” doesn’t make it so—that is, outside of your hypothetical where you may say it’s whatever you assert. In reality, merely because a woman says something which is false does not necessitate an intent to deceive. And if she’s sufficiently distraught by the situation so as to temporarily lose touch with reality, she might even believe what she’s saying to be true. Thus I question whether she has an “intention to deceive one’s neighbor”. You even help make my point when you say, “some folks, in the heat of passion, say absurd things”. Indeed, they do, and sometimes they might not even know what they’re saying, much less have an intention to deceive. You also make the claim that “Lying [to save innocent life from powerful and malignant men] is a venial sin,” but I don’t know that it’s always venial rather than mortal (in some cases), because the circumstances, private intent, hardness of the heart, etc are not fully known to everyone, perhaps not even to the players themselves.
@MenTaLguY
Last point…
You said “Moving on, I am also concerned about the idea that Mark’s provisional statement about his future actions constituted a falsehood. “
To be clear, I am NOT saying Mark’s actions constituted a falsehood, lie, or anything else. I was simply saying that applying the “litmus test” of the “LA’s actions are lies always and everywhere” camp, would show even that statement to be a lie (when it clearly was not.)
Lauretta: “Are we going to discuss Newman’s writing on this subject?”
****************
I highly doubt it. I tried to raise that yesterday and quoted a paragraph from it, but to no avail. People have locked in their positions as to what tradition establishes, no one is budging or persuading anyone at this point, and people are naively hoping that the Vatican is going to weigh in to resolve this battle of the blogosphere. Which is why I stand by my posting of the statement that this is one of the most unproductive intraCatholic battles I’ve seen.
****************
As one of my favorite (and one of Mark’s favorite) bloggers Tom Kreitzberg said today on his Disputations blog, “if you don’t know anything about a controversy, or LiveAction, or methods, please don’t learn about it on my account; you’re probably just as well off watching the Lake McDonald Webcam at Glacier National Park for a few minutes, then going about your day.”
James Bohrer, all lying is also “acting”, as in the act of lying. Saying it’s “acting” doesn’t mean it’s not sinful. Acting can be sinful, even “acting in defense of persons”. The Church teaches, “A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means.”
@Lauretta,
I didn’t have the time today to read it. Maybe tomorrow?
What is a good point you’d like to discuss tomorrow?
@Alexander
“you’re probably just as well off watching the Lake McDonald Webcam at Glacier National Park for a few minutes, then going about your day.”
He’s probably right!
Lauretta,
I don’t know if anyone has answered your question directly.
Many people say “a killer forfeits his right to life,” but this is not Catholic teaching. Most of us recognize that John Cardinal O’Connor was one of the great leaders of the pro-life movement in its early years. Before he was archbishop of New York, he was one of the bishops of the military. He was squarely in the camp of anti-war and anti-death penalty.
John Paul II issued very clear rules on when and how the death penalty could be issued, and nowhere did he say that killers forfeit their right to life.
The principle is that you are *allowed* to use whatever is the most necessary force to stop an assailant, at the personal or societal level. If there are ways to stop the assailant that do not involve killing him, her or them, then those ways should be used. In a Just War, the war should be executed with as few deaths as possible (that’s why, in the height of Christendom, King’s Ransom and duelling were considered acceptable alternatives to fighting a war at all).
“Killers forfeit their right to life” is merely a political argument that some pro-lifers use as a justification for voting for politicians who are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty (a better argument is what Cardinal O’Connor said in 2004; since there’s no absolute ban on the death penalty, there’s no obligation to vote for a candidate who’s against it).
Kathy: I agree with the quoted portion of Monica’s statement. The question before us is what means of withholding the truth from those who are not entitled to it are permissible.
Silence is unquestionably permissible, Broad mental reservation is generally understood to be permissible, but narrow mental reservation has been explicitly condemned by the Church.
If even narrow mental reservation is forbidden in such a case, then how can an explicitly false statement be permissible?
Moreover, if lying is wrong *because* the function of speech is to communicate known truth to others, then how is communicating explicit untruth to someone (whether or not they are entitled to the /truth/) licit?
I would agree that the Catechism is not a rulebook, and that it is not especially concerned with application, but I don’t think the Catechism is laying out general guidelines which don’t obtain in special cases; I think it is concerned with communicating foundational truths.
Kathy: “To be clear, I am NOT saying Mark’s actions constituted a falsehood, lie, or anything else. I was simply saying that applying the “litmus test” of the “LA’s actions are lies always and everywhere” camp, would show even that statement to be a lie (when it clearly was not.)”
I’m saying your reasoning on that point doesn’t follow. In terms of the dual litmus test that you supplied, that wouldn’t show that his statement was a lie unless it was assumed that a) what he wrote was untrue regarding his intentions at the time he wrote it, or b) statements of intent are retroactively rendered untrue by future contingencies.
The most interesting quote in the Newman document, in my opinion, was the following (speaking directly of lying):
****
What I have been saying shows what different schools of opinion there are in the Church in the treatment of this difficult doctrine; and, by consequence, that a given individual, such as I am, cannot agree with all of them, and has a full right to follow which of them he will. The freedom of the Schools, indeed, is one of those rights of reason, which the Church is too wise really to interfere with. And this applies not to moral questions only, but to dogmatic also.
****
This is John Newman speaking, not some apostate.
(Fiction does not violate the nature of language, because it relies on a pre-existing understanding between author and audience. c.f. James Frey for a case where this understanding was violated.)
Here’s also what Newman said: “As to Johnson’s case of a murderer asking you which way a man had gone, I should have anticipated that, had such a difficulty happened to him, his first act would have been to knock the man down, and to call out for the police; and next, if he was worsted in the conflict, he would not have given the ruffian the information he asked, at whatever risk to himself. I THINK HE WOULD HAVE LET HIMSELF BE KILLED FIRST. I DO NOT THINK THAT HE WOULD HAVE TOLD A LIE.” And, “It seems to me very dangerous, be it ever allowable or not, to lie or equivocate in order to preserve some great temporal or spiritual benefit.”
@Tom Clarkson:
That does not negate what he said about the ability to disagree with this philosophy through the “rights of reason, which the Church is too wise really to interfere with. And this applies not to moral questions only, but to dogmatic also.” Deacon Jim Russell has been trying to say exactly this throughout the discourse.
Finally, his example is not at all similar to Oskar Schindler’s. It is doubtful to me that Newman, given the context of the entirety of that writing, would expect Oskar Schindler to “knock the [Gestapo] down,” die, and allow 1200 Jews to die with him.
At the very least, I am allowed, according to Newman, to use my own reason in this matter, regardless of the strength of your convictions or Shea’s. In fact, as a matter of informed conscience, I can even apply the reason of an informed conscience to matters of dogma. (I’m not saying this - Newman did.)
Not to mention that Newman is the guy who famously said that the Catholic Church “holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse.” Not too much help in the “lying for a good cause” department.
Whatever else he said, it is an unassailable fact that he would defend the rights of others to disagree with you based on “the rights of reason, which the Church is too wise really to interfere with.”
Tom R, indeed, nothing in the Catechism such as the teachings on lying “negates” that “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” In fact, that too is found in the Catechism. But it doesn’t mean it’s ok to simply pick and choose as we please. As you mention, it involves “informed” conscience, and that entails a duty to listen to what the Church teaches, and not merely to the portions or “school of thought” that pleases us.
MenTaLguY,
You’ll need to scroll up to this afternoon’s conversation to find it.
” a) what he wrote was untrue regarding his intentions at the time he wrote it, or b) statements of intent are retroactively rendered untrue by future contingencies.”
These are contingencies you are putting on the “litmus test” NOW. You did NOT this afternoon.
I’ll see if I can re-find them, and post them again.
Remember the blue is blue even on Tuesday discussion? That’s what I’m referring to.
Whatever else he said, it is an unassailable fact that he would defend the rights of others to disagree with you based on “the rights of reason, which the Church is too wise really to interfere with.”
That’s true, but hardly germane since nobody is saying that people have no right to disagree with me. They even have a right to disagree with the Lord God Almighty (in the sense that we have been granted free will by Him). What people do not have is right to be right to do so. We are entitled to our own opinions, not to our own facts. One of the fact we have to face is that, according the Church, “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”
Kathy: I’m honestly not sure we understand each other at all.
Earlier, as far as I understood, I was treating the issue of whether “lead into error” meant to lead someone into (novel) wrongdoing, or whether it meant to lead them into believing something false-to-facts. I took the latter position.
Later, we treated the issue of whether “untruth + lead into error” was an accurate representation of my position (I did not think it was, as it disregarded intentionality), and secondarily whether—if it had been—it would have yielded the result that you argued (I do not think it does, without additional assumptions that neither of us apparently hold).
Just now, I thought we were revisiting the secondary part of that, although it isn’t actually essential to the larger thread. I also do not see how it conflicts with the earlier discussion.
@Tom Clarkson
Now we’re getting somewhere. I have not “picked and chosen” as I’ve pleased. I have wrestled with this problem for quite some time. I think a good case for those who disagree with Mark’s absolutism on this issue can be made by careful analysis of the Catechism, which specifically delineates 4 sins to which Mark’s logic applies as a matter of dogma - Blasphemy, Perjury, Murder, and Adultery. Curiously, lying (and a host of other intrinsically disordered acts) are not among these, and are defined is separate sections of the catechism.
Thus, one can make the argument (as I believe Newman does), that lying cannot be called lying in the absence of circumstance (in fact, all three components must be considered in the case of lying - intent, actual act, and circumstance). That is why Newman continuously iterates the phrase “justa causa” in his work on this matter, and why he leaves it open to interpretation amongst reasoning Catholics, again, a point Deacon Russell has tried to make time and again in this discourse.
I’m not picking and choosing (although Newman goes a step further and says “full right to follow which of them he will.”)
Posted by MenTaLguY on Wenesday, Feb 23, 2011 1:39 PM (EST)
What constitutes Leading Into Error?”
Leading someone to believe something which is erroneous—i.e. false-to-facts.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted by Kathy16670 on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2011 1:45 PM (EST):
@ MenTaLguY
Always and everywhere? No room for situations?
Posted by MenTaLguY on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2011 1:55 PM (EST):
Kathy: “Always and everywhere? No room for situations?”
Leading someone to believe something which is erroneous is always and everywhere leading them into error.
Blue is blue, even on Tuesdays.
[Please note, you did not say it required ”intent to deceive” or “ a) what he wrote was untrue regarding his intentions at the time he wrote it, or b) statements of intent are retroactively rendered untrue by future contingencies.” These stipulations were added AFTER the fact.]
_________________________________________________________________________________
Posted by Kathy16670 on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2011 2:25 PM (EST):
@MenTaLguY
“Leading someone to believe something which is erroneous is always and everywhere leading them into error.
Blue is blue, even on Tuesdays.”
So when Mark titled his last article “Last Comments on Lying for Jesus,” he was not only lying, but also leading into error? I disagree!
But that’s my point. Yes indeed, blue is blue, even on Tuesday.
I don’t think Mark was LYING or LEADING INTO ERROR, although by HIS definition (and yours,) he was.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted by MenTaLguY on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2011 3:04 PM (EST):
“So when Mark titled his last article “Last Comments on Lying for Jesus,” he was not only lying, but also leading into error? I disagree!
But that’s my point. Yes indeed, blue is blue, even on Tuesday.
I don’t think Mark was LYING or LEADING INTO ERROR, although by HIS definition (and yours,) he was.”
His definition and mine are the same: lying is stating falsehood with the intent to deceive (= lead into error).
Mark’s statement was made in good faith, anticipating future events that didn’t materialize. Both *intent* to deceive and falsehood (in terms of his expectations at the time the statement were made) were absent.
(n.b. Statements about the future are statements about our expectations. It *would* be a lie if he wrote that while he was already thinking about composing his next piece on the topic.)
In any case, the condition of statements about the future is not especially relevant: the particular statements under discussion with respect to Live Action’s sting were statements about (then-)present conditions.
__________________________________________________
Posted by Kathy16670 on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2011 3:16 PM (EST):
@ MenTaLguy
“Always and everywhere? No room for situations?”
Leading someone to believe something which is erroneous is always and everywhere leading them into error.
Blue is blue, even on Tuesdays.
Oh, so sometimes on Tuesday blue is really turquoise?
Looks like you are looking for some “wiggle room” to firm up the definition of “lying” and “leading into error.”
All this is to say that it hinges on what was said at 1:55.
Kathy: “Always and everywhere? No room for situations?”
Leading someone to believe something which is erroneous is always and everywhere leading them into error.
Blue is blue, even on Tuesdays.
Then by YOUR definition (not mine,) Mark lied. This is the litmus test (of your side,) that makes everything look like a lie. It was after this that your stipulations were put around the circumstances that nuanced wheather Mark actually lied or not. I would liken that to the nuances that can be taken into account of LA’s sting operation.
MenTaLguY,
It’s late. I’m calling it a night!
God Bless
Mr. Shea,
If the first edition of the Catechism printed a definition of lying that would have COMPLETELY EXONERATED Lila Rose, then this topic is by no means a settled matter, and people, well-intentioned as they might be, need to stop being so dogmatic about it.
And if you keep calling it “lying for Jesus,” then I’m going to start calling it “legalism for Jesus.” This sort of rhetoric isn’t helping…
Regards.
What about this from Newman?
*********************
“if all killing be not murder, nor all taking from another stealing, why must all untruths be lies? Now I will say freely that I think it difficult to answer this question, whether it be urged by St. Clement or by Milton .... If I had my own way, I would oblige society, that is, its great men, its lawyers, its divines, its literature, publicly to acknowledge as such, those instances of untruth which are not lies, as for instance untruths in war; and then there could be no perplexity to the individual Catholic, for he would not be taking the law into his own hands.”
**********************
In other words, according to Newman, not all untruths are lies, and Mark’s repetitious use of his “Lying for Jesus” to refer to any untruth therefore is not only tedious but also would be wrong in Newman’s view.
*********************
Mark—I’m also curious about your quotation of Newman re the Church’s utter abhorrence of venial sins. Aren’t you the one who has repeatedly said that you would, in the Nazi/hiding Jew situation, commit the venial sin rather than turn in the Jews? Does not compute. If you really believe what you are saying, you would have the same abhorrence of the very thought of committing the sin of lying and would commit yourself to the best of your ability not to lie in that situation, no matter how many Jews might die. Is there any other venial sin that you would now say that you would willingly commit?
Kathy: “Always and everywhere? No room for situations?”
Leading someone to believe something which is erroneous is always and everywhere leading them into error.
[Please note, you did not say it required ”intent to deceive”]
It doesn’t. Obviously “lead into error” implies nothing certain about intent. I was treating the issue of whether “lead into error” was synonymous with “deceive” (= lead someone to believe something erroneous), because it seemed to me (rightly or wrongly) that you were arguing that another meaning obtained in this context.
“Lead into error” is an important component of the definition (warranting individual treatment), but it is not the entire definition. If I argued badly and confused you into thinking that “lead into error” was the definition of lying which I was offering at that point, then that is my fault.
A complete definition of lying, as I have said before and since, entails communicated untruth together with an /intent/ to “lead into error”. But before we could get to that point, I had to make sure it was clear what was meant by “lead into error” on its own, because it wasn’t clear to me that there was consensus on what that phrase meant on its own, before we could talk about intent to do it.
Solution: Live Action should just hire real pimps and prostitutes to make their videos.
Tom R, I note that I didn’t say you had “picked and chosen as you pleased” nor do I say whether you are “picking and choosing”. You did, however, pick and choose to cite the particular quote that you described as “the most interesting quote in the Newman document, in my opinion”. I won’t comment on your claim of “Mark’s absolutism” and “4 sins to which Mark’s logic applies” other than to say I’ll let Mark respond if he wishes. Also, you wrote, “one can make the argument (as I believe Newman does), that lying cannot be called lying in the absence of circumstance”. First, obviously, one can make an argument over anything. Second, it really doesn’t make sense to speak of “absence of circumstance” unless you’re referring to a specific kind of circumstance, as there is always circumstance of some sort. Third, even with what Newman calls “justa causa”, he does continue to call it lying but adds the word “material” as in “masterial lying” to distinguish it from lying or “formal lying”. Fourth, Newman proposed that there may be “circumstances” where he “thinks” he “should have a right to say an untruth, or that, under such circumstances, a lie would be material” rather than formal. Then he gives an example, saying, “A common type of this permissible denial, be it material lie or evasion, is at the moment supplied to me:—an artist asked a Prime Minister, who was sitting to him, ‘What news, my Lord, from France?’ He answered, ‘I do not know; I have not read the Papers.’” I don’t think most people would put the LA fabrications in the same category as obvious political humor, and I would also question whether what the Prime Minister said was even a falsehood at all, or if there was any intent to deceive rather than merely avoid. Fourth, Newman says we “have no supernatural means of determining when an untruth becomes a material, and not a formal lie. It seems to me very dangerous, be it ever allowable or not, to lie or equivocate in order to preserve some great temporal or spiritual benefit.”
Alexander, contrary to your claims, Mark Shea doesn’t say that all untruths are lies, and he doesn’t use “‘Lying for Jesus’ to refer to any [and every] untruth”.
Christine, although the earlier (reportedly unofficial) edition of the Catechism said this: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth”, it also said this: “2482 A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving,” just as it does today in the official edition. It even remains a question today whether the Planned Parenthood workers have a “right to know the truth”.
@ Mater:
What if LA actually did hire pimps and prostitutes and all of this is a moot argument? That would be hilarious!
Alexander, I thought I had seen someone mention Newman earlier! I wonder why there is such silence on his writing on this subject? Maybe because he is only a Blessed so his opinion has no merit.
JC, thanks for the comments. I agree with almost everything you said. I was merely quoting what cradle Catholics told me about one’s forfeiting of his life in my early years of Catholicism—before the capital punishment issue was a popular topic of discussion.
*********
Ah, I see we are getting into the discussion on Newman now after I was interrupted for a few hours. Here’s more Newman written after his statement that Mark quotes about telling one willing untruth:
“Almost all authors, Catholic and Protestant, admit, that when a just cause is present, there is some kind or other of verbal misleading, which is not sin. Even silence is in certain cases virtually such a misleading, according to the Proverb, ‘Silence gives consent.’ Again, silence is absolutely forbidden to a Catholic, as a mortal sin, under certain circumstances, e.g. to keep silence, instead of making a profession of faith.
Another mode of verbal misleading, and the most direct, is actually saying the thing that is not; and it is defended on the principle that such words are not a lie, when there is a ‘justa causa,’ as killing is not murder in the case of an executioner.
Another ground of certain authors for saying that an untruth is not a lie, where there is a just cause, is, that veracity is a kind of justice, and therefore, when we have no duty of justice to tell truth to another, it is no sin not to do so. Hence we may say the thing that is not, to children, to madmen, to men who ask impertinent questions, to those whom we hope to benefit by misleading.(NOTE this last phrase)
Another ground, taken in defending certain untruths, ex justa causa , as if not lies, is that veracity is for the sake of society, and that, if in no case whaever we might lawfully mislead others, we should actually be doing society great harm.”
He goes on to explain the position of various people, from the Greek Fathers to St. Alfonso(Liguori?)
*********
This writing of his is quite interesting and right to the point of the discussion. He mentions several people who hold to the licitness of telling untruths under certain conditions. It is well worth the read.
Annie, I’m not sure it would be “hilarious” if Lila Rose really was a pregnant 14-year old girl trying to get an abortion after having sex with her 31-year old boyfriend but telling us she’s really 20 years old and opposed to abortion.
I have an additional quick question. Why, do you suppose did the Holocaust cause such a flurry of activity among those in Rome and many bishops when the abortion issue has not seemed to bring about the same degree of activity?
Somehow I KNEW you would say, “I can’t judge the tenBooms”, etc. But do you realize you said exactly what Gerard Nadal said: I’d lie. And by the way, they had training sessions where experts would give them lessons to help them LIE to the Nazis without getting nervous, without looking guilty, etc. It was not anything like, they couldn’t think of anything else to say. The whole underground movement was extremely organized and hosts were well prepared (to lie and to lie convincingly) for those visits. Seriously, read The Hiding Place. Extremely inspirational. But I wish you would just admit you are wrong, instead of saying “a very venial sin” (which is nonsense) is also a “magnificent act of heroism”. Either the lie was a sin, or the lie was heroic, but not both.
Correction: In an earlier comment I said, I am simply trying to get Mr. Shae to admit that what he is calling a lie, is not’” I meant “...what he is calling a sin, is not”. (Sorry!)
Hello, Mark—
I posted this approach (below) to the “deceive-a-Nazi” thing in a Facebook thread with several friends with whom I’ve been having a good-natured discussion about the “issue”. I re-post it here as both a comment and an alternative approach to the view you espouse in your blog.
I *think* it’s pretty sound, but obviously would like other feedback from those who, so far, are thinking differently on this.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
While letting my 2-year-old son Isaac nap on my shoulder this afternoon, I believe I made some mental progress on the “issue”—it always helps to confer with intellectual giants, especially if they are asleep…
I am going to attempt a rational approach to the “deceive-a-Nazi” thing, and then extrapolate from that a rational approach to the “sting PP” thing. All attempts will, I hope, preserve the integrity of the positive teaching of the CCC on lying.
Building upon my earlier observations regarding the definition of lying *necessarily* including “intention to deceive,” and my earlier attempt to apply the CCC teachings on legitimate defense, I also want to bring into focus what the CCC says about *other* offenses against truth and respect for the truth (#2475-2492). Particularly, the CCC states that the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Also, in #2469, it states, “Truthfulness keeps to the just mean between what ought to be expressed and what ought to be kept secret: it entails honesty and discretion.”
There, my friends, is what I believe is the missing word from our vocabulary in this conversation: discretion. Hold that thought, as I reveal now Principle Number One and Principle Number Two.
Principle Number One: Speaking either too little truth OR too much truth can be a cooperation in evil.
Principle Number Two: When an unjust aggressor puts someone in a situation in which “speaking truth” would be a cooperation in evil, then “speaking falsehood” becomes an act of *discretion*, not deception.
Here’s what I’m thinking: Evil can and does twist truth around. The evil Nazi awaiting response from you regarding the whereabouts of the Jew in your attic is an unjust aggressor *forcing* you into a situation in which, if you speak truth, you cooperate in the evil (as a fact, not as an intention). Under NORMAL circumstances, “discretion” naturally means keeping *silent* about some truth. But, under *abnormal* circumstances, when truth-speaking will lead to a cooperation in evil, *falsehood-speaking* becomes an act with the intended “end” (what the will intends) of *discretion*, not deception.
(chew on that point for a bit, then continue)
You see, there is another aspect of the term “deception” that should be drawn out as well: Deception is *both* descriptive of a *tactic* AND a *state of being*. As a tactic, we already know deception is not intrinsically evil, for a whole bunch of reasons. As a “state of being” (the-one-who-is-deceived), we can surmise that this is objectively where the “intrinsic evil” of lying resides—the “de-formation” of a deceived person in relation to the truth.
Part of our confusion over the “issue” is in not speaking clearly enough about the tactic we call “deception” and the “state of being” we call “being deceived.”
Okay, so in the “deceive-a-Nazi” thing, here is what is going on: The Nazi forces me into the abnormal (and quite precarious) position of having truth itself twisted around. If I’m truthful, I end up cooperating in the evil directed by the Nazi toward the Jew in the attic. Along with all the “usual suspects” (the moral options of silence, equivocation, and the like), the option of “speaking falsehood” intrinsically is now *incapable* of functioning at the mere level of “deceptive tactic” that leads to “being-deceived”. Now, by virtue of my intending and willing to *protect* the truth, it functions as an act of *discretion*, thus preserving my “intention” from meaning “I intend the Nazi to be in a state of being deceived”. Instead, despite the act being virtually indistinguishable from “intrinsically evil lying,” I’m now acting in a manner that is ordered to the protection of truth and does not involve the *intention* to have a person deceived, because the act of “speaking falsehood” has become an act of *discretion* relative to my will and intention to choose an act ordered to the *protection* of the truth from an unjust aggressor.
The end result looks the same as a lie. Nazi is deceived by the tactic of deception by speaking falsehood, right? But not according to *intention*. The “end” that we’d call “being-deceived” is never willed by me, and the means—speaking falsehood—is an act of *discretion* accomplished through a morally permissible *tactic* of deception, so to speak, relative to the unjust aggressor.
I *think* that sums up things for the “deceive a Nazi” thing. And I *think* this approach applies the appropriate principles from the CCC without violating the positive and clear teaching against lying.
So what do all of *you* think???
Hi Deacon Jim,
You’re right that telling the truth would be material cooperation in evil. But the intrinsic harm of lying doesn’t relate to the circumstances, it relates to the fact that when you knowingly assert something untrue as true, you damage your integrity, or wholeness, or ‘simplicity’ as Aquinas calls it. “Simplicity is so called from its opposition to duplicity, whereby, to wit, a man shows one thing outwardly while having another in his heart:”
Integrity, simplicity, wholeness, is good for us. But it is harmed by the duplicity (doubleness) of asserting something untrue as true. Tollefsen has referred to it as false assertions against one’s mind.
I think in experience, it is similar to keeping a secret from those around you, a subtle dammage or burden.
Leaving aside love or respect for the truth, this harm to integrity is the reason why lying is intrinsically wrong, even in a situation like this:
Imagine that, while you are lying to the nazis, saying there are no Jews in your house, the Jews themselves have unbeknownst to you, snuck out the back and into a neighbouring house. You have made a false assertion against your own mind, even though in actual fact you have given true information to the Nazi.
For what its worth, I don’t think the lie does much harm to the liar who seeks to save another’s life. But this doesn’t mean we should pretend that lies are not harmful. That really would be extremely harmful.
Kind regards,
Zac
MenTaLguY,
“I’m not sure we understand each other at all.” On that point we can agree!
Let’s simplify things. Those who with Mark assert that LA’s actions equate lying always and everywhere we will call Group A. Those who believe LA’s actions do not/might not equate lying we will call Group B.
You said
Right. I was sincerely looking for a Group B response, as I already knew what Group A’s would be.
I was trying to show how the very broad and all encompassing “litmus test” of Group A was, well…too broad and all encompassing. You could take a picadillo (Mark’s title,) and PROVE it to be a lie (even though it isn’t,) with the faulty litmus test of Group A.
Right, it was at this point that I said rather uncharitably “maybe blue is really tourquise on Tuesdays.” Meaning it isn’t as cut and dry as earlier stated. The litmus test is faulty because it does not take circumstances into account.
To me our discussion felt like you were trying to prove to me why Mark didn’t really lie. I know he didn’t lie! I was showing how the Group A litmus test was faulty that would show something to be a lie when it isn’t.
So, to re-cap…we both agree 1)Mark didn’t lie, 2) Group A’s litmus test was faulty…there are more factors to take into concideration than just “stating falsehood,” and “leading into error.”
Thank you for the discussion MenTaLguY! I appreciate your good natured responses. I spent way too much time on the computer yesterday, and need to attend to things today. I’ll let you have the last word.
@Zac—
Thanks very much for the reply—the point you are raising, ultimately, is that “speaking falsehood” *in itself* must be intrinsically evil. Thus it could not be done.
But “speaking falsehood” is only *half* the definition of lying. And, “speaking falsehood” under other circumstances is obviously not intrinsically evil. Saying “2+2=5” “speaks falsehood” but is not a lie. The actor “speaking falsehood” as part of dialogue is not committing a lie.
By definition, “lying” *must* include “intention to deceive”. Therefore, “speaking falsehood,” by itself, is not “lying” and is not intrinsically evil.
Do you see the difference?
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
@Tom Clarkson
I apologize if I mischaracterized your remarks. However, am I not entitled to say what I think the most interesting point Newman makes is? I don’t see how that’s cherry picking.
As far as my argument about the 4 absolutes, I’ve done further research, and I’m just flat out WRONG about that, so Shea doesn’t have to refute it (I misread the CCC 1753 and 1756 - the list is exemplary, not inclusive).
However, I still believe, based on Newman’s writings, that reasonable men can disagree about what constitutes a material vs. a formal lie. Newman says that himself, as I pointed out earlier, and it is important to accept that. My study of this issue tells me that Shea is probably correct in his analysis of the PP sting, but he may be over-reaching when he applies it to developing an appropriate response to Gestapo interrogators.
Alexander asks:
Mark—I’m also curious about your quotation of Newman re the Church’s utter abhorrence of venial sins. Aren’t you the one who has repeatedly said that you would, in the Nazi/hiding Jew situation, commit the venial sin rather than turn in the Jews? Does not compute.
Confession that I am weak, imperfect, slow on my feet, and unable to anticipate every situation (often because I am too lazy to think about things when I have the leisure to do so and am therefore sinfully unprepared when reality springs them on me), is not an argument that my sinfulness is the measure of all things. The fact that I would likely commit a venial sin does not make the sin not a sin. It merely makes me a sinner, which is hardly controversial.
Deacon Jim, what is your reason for wanting to tell the Nazi a falsehood rather than what you ate for dinner, singing him a song or something else that is not a falsehood? Could it really be because you think he would be deceived into thinking the falsehood was the answer to his question but would not be deceived into thinking your review of dinner was the answer? Could that be the real reason? You can of course call it “discretion” or whatever dressy label you want, but why not call it lipstick on a pig?
Kathy: Thank you. My difficulty is that I largely agree with Mark, but I can’t agree with your characterization of “Group A’s” argument.
(I also don’t agree with the conclusions you draw from that characterization, but that isn’t really material to the discussion—I think there was more than a little pride in my nitpicking you on that point.)
I’m content to let you have the last word; I think a disinterested reader can weigh the content of our discussion for themselves.
Please pray for me,
God Bless
Tom R, of course you can share with us whatever you think the most interesting point is. I welcome it. Perhaps you misread what I said if you thought otherwise. When I said “it doesn’t mean it’s ok to simply pick and choose [from Church teaching] as we please”, I wasn’t accusing you of wrongdoing. I was only expressing a caution, for whoever might be reading. As to Mr. Shea possibly over-reaching and “absolutes”, I recall him saying something in one of his posts that he could be wrong. So with that in mind, I’m not sure he’s really making any absolutes. Again, I leave that to him to answer, if he hasn’t already. Perhaps if he were writing as Newman did, he might use phrases like “I think”. That said, reasonable men CAN disagree, but that doesn’t mean any of them are right. Some prefer the Catechism, which the Pope called a “sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion”, and “given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine”. Can we say the same about the Newman writing?
@Tom—
You wrote:
****Deacon Jim, what is your reason for wanting to tell the Nazi a falsehood rather than what you ate for dinner, singing him a song or something else that is not a falsehood? ****
The reason(s)? How about: Protection of the truth since “speaking truth” will constitute a cooperation in evil. It’s what the CCC calls “discretion”. The conscience-driven motive to protect truth may direct the will to “speak falsehood” without any intention to leave the Nazi in the “state-of-being-deceived”. Therefore that spoken falsehood could not be defined as “lying.” This does not mean that if both will and conscience conclude that equivocation or silence is the better course, that one should still “speak falsehood”. Rather, along with the other morally acceptable options, speaking falsehood can be chosen.
You wrote:
**** Could it really be because you think he would be deceived into thinking the falsehood was the answer to his question but would not be deceived into thinking your review of dinner was the answer? Could that be the real reason?*****
The situation I described was when one is being forced by an unjust aggressor into responding so that a truthful response is a cooperation in evil. What do you mean by “real reason”?
****You can of course call it “discretion” or whatever dressy label you want, but why not call it lipstick on a pig? *****
Here’s an idea—instead of merely using the “dressy label” of “lipstick on a pig,” why not instead try to fry up some bacon for me by demonstrating how and why my approach contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Then we’ll know whether we’re really dealing with pork, or not… :-)
God bless you
Deacon Jim Russell
Tom Clarkson
No, we cannot equate Newman’s writing with the CCC, nor can we equate Mark’s, Augustine’s, or my writings with the CCC. Goodness gracious - I hope I didn’t imply that!
However, I think we can say that well-principled, thoughtful members of the Roman Catholic Church can, and have disagreed on this issue, and that the disagreement, by itself, does not put us outside the Church. That is why I find the quote by Newman so interesting.
On the other hand, if I were to say something clearly against magisterial teaching, like “I’ll practice birth control, because I don’t believe the CCC on that issue”, I am in error to do so, because that specific case is so important as to be specifically proscribed in the CCC. Even if I were to come to an informed conscience decision that “birth control is alright given circumstance A” (I can’t imagine how I would logically get there - this is only a hypothetical), it would be my duty as a member of the RCC to keep my mouth shut, in order to prevent scandal.
Does that make sense to you, or is it just long winded? ;)
Deacon Jim, the reasons of “protecting the truth” and “discretion” are not sufficiently precise to exclude the many alternatives which someone else might also call by those same labels. Indeed, it doesn’t tell me why me I shouldn’t tell the Nazi “The moon is made of cheese” rather than “I saw Jews hiding out in barn but they ran away when I yelled at them.” If both are falsehoods, do you think they’re both equally appropriate answers to the Nazi? If not, why not? Again, could it really be because you think he would be more readily deceived by the barn story rather than the moon is made of cheese story? Saying it’s “discretion” and “protecting the truth” does not satisfactorily answer the question. Your mind has a real reason why you choose one answer over the other. What is it?
Mark
Thank you SO MUCH for keeping up on this subject.
I haven’t read the many dozens of comments so I apologize if my comments repeat what anyone else says.
But let me say this:
Truth is more important than human life.
I know that what’s under discussion is not metaphysical or divine truth. People might wonder how a little white lie can be destructive to a person. It’s a little hard to explain because I don’t have the correct verb off hand. But let us say that the human soul is something that “truths” or it needs to. The thoughts it produces, the data, sensations and interpretations it makes of all this information, has to be concordant with our reflection on them, our expression of them, both orally and otherwise (think theology of the body). And we our soul is not “truthing”, when we rationalize sin, when we put false interpretations on a situation (for selfish purposes or just through bad reasoning) our souls are not properly functioning. Now bad reasoning is the product of Original Sin and most of the time we don’t consciously look to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. But it’s a malfunction nonetheless.And when it’s a deliberate malfunction, it’s a sin.
And this is why IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO TRUTH OR NOT. The issue of “having the right to the truth” is to condemn evasive answers when a candid one is required by an authority figure. When you lie, you’re doing something bad to your own soul whether or not the person has the right to the truth.
The fact that we “truth” the very thing that makes us need God, makes us look for him *and are satisfied without him*. It’s the most important aspect of a human being. Pro-lifers end is saving lives, and that’s very important. Even more important than this is Truth itself, and thus, morally safeguarding that aspect of ourselves that leads to God.
I’m sure some Scholastic said something like this, I just don’t have the philosophical background and language to translate it.
But this brings me to another important issue that I really hope you can address in future columns (oh pretty pretty pretty please). Many Catholics who are otherwise faithful to the Magisterium don’t understand Catholic moral thinking, especially Thomistic type words like intrinsically evil,disordered, nature, essence, and those kinds of concepts essential to really understand what the Magisterium says. To people who are in the know, when the Church says “lying by its nature is to be condemned” it’s obvious: it’s never permissible, because the act itself, independent of ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS is evil. So when people try to bring up that there’s a definition of lying that includes something about the person having the right to information, and they think that that is an “out” to permit lying they show that THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE “LYING BY ITS NATURE IS TO BE CONDEMNED.” They don’t get it *at all*. An act is that is condemnable by nature is wrong NO MATTER WHO IS ON THE RECEIVING END. So if Rahab the harlot were a male gay prostitute and circumstances had forced Rahab to sleep with the enemy to save the lives of the Israelites ( as a ruse for example) that does not make Sodomy okay in that circumstance. Of course the Israelites would have still been grateful that someone would have put themselves on the line to save them. But whether sodomy is done with a gay partner, one’s spouse or the enemy, it’s never acceptable. It’s the same thing with any intrisincally immoral act—the intended victim or partner of the act does not change in anyway the morality of the act and thus its prohibition.
If the Church says that lying by its nature is to be condemned, then the definition of lying that includes the point about having the right to information MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THAT LIGHT, i.e. lying is intrinsically evil. That’s why, logically, the only possible interpretation of that definition is that evasive answers are not allowed in the face of legitimate authority.
I really hope you bring up the issue of philosophical language in the future. We sorely need an education on this.
It seems to me that, as a group, we are tending to fall into the error that is a core issue with our separated brethren. As I read to all of these comments, I see a lapse into the error of relying on a book to be our sole rule of faith. We have more than that as Catholics. We have a Magisterium, we have a living ongoing Tradition and we need to be looking at all of those when trying to discern an issue such as this.
The Popes, I am sure, are very aware of the methods of undercover policemen, government agents, those who protected the Jews and the people in Rwanda. I understand that John Paul II collaborated with Reagan using each other’s intelligence to formulate a plan for overthrowing the Communists. He used our US information gotten from deception and lies, according to some, to further a plan.
Has there been anything said or written from the Magisterium condemning or criticizing any of the things I have mentioned? All sorts of groups of people have audiences with the Pope. I’m sure at some point groups of policemen have met with him. Did he condemn or criticize any of their methods at any time?
We need to be looking at all of these things when trying to understand a situation. The written word is too easily misunderstood, especially in the case of the Catechism because it does not claim to be an exhaustive explanation of every aspect of our faith. It is a concise summary, which, while helpful, cannot be the sole determining factor when trying to decide on an issue such as this.
We have had many developments of understanding about various subjects over the history of the Church. The way in which we understood something at one point in history often needs to be redefined and modified to deal with the current situations.
Silence can speak volumes and we need to listen to that silence as well. If no bishop or priest, or Pope has spoken in condemnation of something that is presently occurring, then we might need to listen to that as well. As has been noted, this is a public issue now, Lila Rose has been doing what she is doing for a number of years. Has her bishop or the Vatican censored her? If not, then maybe we should not as well.
Truth is more important than human life.
I think this is a dangerous false dilemma. I don’t believe God forces us to choose between the two.
Tom R, of course it’s very easy for a person to think of himself as a “well-principled, thoughtful member of the Roman Catholic Church”. I see many people on Catholic forums who seem to consider themselves such. But I don’t know that any really are. Not a one. I don’t say that judgmentally but in the sense of who is the judge and what is the standard? “Well-principled” and “thoughtful” are not very precise terms. And as to being “in error”, you’d be in error no matter whether the subject is birth control or lying if in fact your belief is not correct. I mean, if lying is either always wrong or it’s not, and you choose wrongly on that, then you are “in error” whether it’s “specifically proscribed in the CCC” or not. But in fact there are people who insist that lyinh is specifically proscribed in the CCC, and point to the fact that CCC does say it’s intrinsically disordered. Also, if you “were to come to an informed conscience decision that birth control is alright given circumstance A”, that does not mean that your conscience would bind you to keeping your mouth shut. Many vocal persons in that area consider themselves and other like-minded persons to be “well-principled, thoughtful members of the Roman Catholic Church” and perhaps are speaking out as matter of conscience. Of course, as I don’t know anyone else’s conscience, I can only say “perhaps”.
Lauretta, yes, “we have a Magisterium, we have a living ongoing Tradition”, and the Church works to incorporate it when preparing the CCC. She’s not ignorant of what Newman wrote a hundred and fifty years ago, for example. You also keep mentioning undercover work, but it is erroneous to think that if the Pope doesn’t condemn undercover work that it means that lying is ok, because undercover work and lying are not the same thing. It’s also not necessarily a sin to use “information gotten from deception and lies”. The lie, the information we learn as a result, and using that information are three different things. Who turns a blind eye to what is learned from the work of liars? God works for good in everything. And why should the Pope lecture the police and not you and everyone else? Lying is not a problem special to any particular group. It’s a common, everyday issue for people in general.
Ah, Tom, then if we follow your thinking then we ought to be okay with using whatever information is gained from research using and killing embryos?
@Tom Clarkson
If you’ve met not a one on Catholic forums, then, in your eyes, I can neither be well principled or well intentioned, because I’m no better (and, I hope, no worse) than those people that you’ve met. I guess the rest of it is irrelevant at this point.
Thank you for the discussion.
I don’t believe God forces us to choose between the two.
Well let’s put it this way. Jesus says: those who try to gain their lives will lose it. Those who try to lose their lives will gain it.
In fact, we know that apostasy is something we must never commit under any circumstance. Even if your child is being tortured, like in the biblical story of the mother and her seven sons being tortured, you must not renounce your faith.
Tom R, I don’t say that I haven’t met one on these forums, only that I don’t know that any really are, as in it’s hard to know simply by reading posts. Someone can appear to be well-principled and thoughtful (whatever that means) online, but their online persona is not everything. For all I know, while typing, he could be screaming at his wife, “Go to hell, I’ll be with you when I finish this online discussion.” And in between posts, he could be looking at pornography. Would that be well-principled and thoughtful?
Note to Fr. Jerabek, I lifted your comment to Mark and put it on my blog.
@Kathy16670
Your comment directed at me above somehow got lost, but I didn’t mean that for you specifically just for anyone who was bringing up the police undercover analogy.
If I present myself to you with a speech act that contains information that I know to be false and wish you to believe that false information, AND that false information makes no demand on you to “fill in the blanks” that is a deliberate lie, and therefore illicit.
So whether or not undercover policework applies or not, and whether or not it can be done in a way that is fully licit, it may in fact involve several unavoidable venial sins.
That is why the civil sphere fights to keep a very high threshold on its use and on protecting others from being knowingly deceived and entrapped, regardless of their demonstrated guilt.
Tom Clarkson, I am aware of the Church teaching. I am taking the position that their acting was not lying. And, I gave an explanation for this position. You may respond to the explanation. Saying that they are lying is a judgment. Again, in defense of defense, it’s like saying that the policeman who stops an attacker by shooting him really intended to kill or injure the attacker. Are you saying that the policeman is using an evil means to a good end? But, why does consequentialism not apply in this case. After all, “it is never licit to do evil that good may come of it.” So, is the policeman acting immorally by shooting the attacker? Does the consequentialism model apply to him? I would like you to answer these last two questions before addressing Live Action’s actions again (for the purpose of our discussion).
that you cannot sin that good may come of it
More accurately, you may not sin that good may come of it. Some good may in fact happen out of our sin, but regardless, we are not allowed to do it. What ever happened to “let your yes be yes, and your no be no”?
James B, your comments seem very sensible to me when comparing it to other teaching of the Church. The intent of LA was to expose the truth about PP activities. The deception was an unintended by-product of their intent, just as the death of a baby is the unintended consequence of treating an ectopic pregnancy.
As noted by others, it seems as though these “tests” are something that has been done throughout Biblical history and at times involved someone proposing something that they had no intention of the person or group actually completing. Such as Solomon with the two women claiming to both be the mother of a baby.
@Lauretta,
“The deception was an unintended by-product of their intent, just as the death of a baby is the unintended consequence of treating an ectopic pregnancy.”
Please explain how PP’s being deceived was unintended by Live Action when Live Action specifically PLANNED and CHOSE to GO to PP and speak specific falsehoods TO PP regarding their identity and purpose. PP’s deception wasn’t accidental. It was part of Live Action’s plan. Live Action didn’t go on stage and act out a play and a passerby accidentally took their portrayals for real. Acts can have more than one intention. Live Action intended to save babies *and* intended to deceive PP. In fact, Live Actions plan to save babies was *based* on PP’s being deceived. Live Action could have just gone on stage and acted out a play in front of an audience who knew they were watching a play, instead of misrepresenting their identity and purpose to an unsuspecting PP worker.
James Bohrer, you say the incident with the policeman is “like” the LA incident, but it’s also unlike. Answering your questions, yes, most every police officer who shoots an attacker does intend to at least injure the person’s physical body, for it is only because the person is physically injured that shooting the attacker does anything. It’s not merely some foreseen but unintended consequence. Rather, they’re trained in methods of deliberate physical injury to stop the attacker. The physical injury is the means to the end. And it’s done to a supposedly guilty party. And no, the Church does not condemn such physical injury (even intentional execution), particularly if it’s “necessary”. On the other hand, I’ve already raised the question of whether the fabrications of LA are “necessary”, and if not, or if the fabrications are in fact lies, then it may be that the Church condemns those actions of LA. I also raise the question of viewing the PP worker as an “attacker”. With this in mind, you’re comparing necessary and intended physical injury against an imminent attacker which is not condemned with unnecessary injury to whatever it is that lies (or whatever they are) unnecessarily injure against someone who may not be an attacker or not imminently which is condemned. As such, your comparing apples and oranges. The policeman can act morally in physically injuring an imminent attacker intentionally, but that doesn’t necessitate that LA is acting morally.
Our moral guides have spoken and made clear our duty: if a an armed predator appears at one’s door in order to abduct a loved one(s), crack his head open with a fire-iron but don’t, under any circumstances, use verbal misdirection to dissuade him from his prey!
All together now:
“Ahoy! ahoy! the balls whistle free.
Ahoy! ahoy! o’er the bright blue sea,
We stand to our guns, to our guns all day.”
“We sail the ocean blue,
And our saucy ship’s a beauty;
We’re sober men and true,
And attentive to our duty;
Our saucy ship’s a beauty,
We’re attentive to our duty;
We’re sober men and true,
We sail the ocean blue!”
MarkC, do you know how many people are “misdirected” even if you tell them the truth and behave honestly? Remember, Jesus gave scandal above all.
“On the other hand, if I were to say something clearly against magisterial teaching, like “I’ll practice birth control, because I don’t believe the CCC on that issue”, I am in error to do so, because that specific case is so important as to be specifically proscribed in the CCC.”
Tom,
Though I do not believe the analogy works. There has been a clear and consistent condemnation of birth control in Church teaching. As some have pointed out, this has not been the case with what constitutes lying and were one may licitly deceive.
Further, if the first edition of the CCC stated that birth control was prohibted except “to protect the life of a woman whose life would be threatened by pregnancy” but this was then changed to eliminate this exception, one may be drawn to the thought that the teaching was not irreformable. Particularly if there was no clear teaching on contraception.
Hi Deacon Jim,
I see what you are saying. So for my definition of a lie: asserting untruth as truth… what you’re saying amounts to asserting untruth itself is not a lie…it only becomes a lie when you assert it as truth.
But if we stick to your definition and point: speaking falsehoods is not intrinsically harmful. It’s the intent to deceive that makes it intrinsically harmful.
I can see what you’re getting at with regards to discretion…it’s a little like turning it into a self-defense situation where you’re merely intending to defend the truth, and if the Nazi is deceived the responsibility falls on him for trying to unjustly ‘get’ the truth from you.
By analogy, your false statements become acts of force, which are merely directed at defending against the nazis unjust questions, which are analogous to physical attacks.
I think there are a couple of problems though…you may remain silent for the sake of discretion, which is neither asserting a falsehood, nor telling the truth. ie. if you literally do nothing, the nazis questions are not answered any more than if you speak a falsehood. So why not remain silent? The answer I think is that we all hope a falsehood will be more effective…it’s hard to believe you truly don’t want to deceive the nazi.
This is the other problem. A person’s intent can often be deduced from the precise qualities of their actions. That’s why even if you defend yourself physically and someone dies, you have to then account for your actions, in terms of how much force you used, how fearful you were, etc.
For your idea to work, it may require some kind of mental gymnastics that in themselves are suspicious, a bit like strict mental reservation.
I’m concerned that your method might come down to a harmful detachment of intentions from actions…or a self-delusion that the situation has become inverted.
Good luck with it anyhow, elucidation can only help.
Kind regards,
Zac
Tom, one might be drawn to the thought that the teaching on lying was not irreformable and think that there has not been clear and consistent definition and condemnation of lying.
Or one might be drawn to the thought that the temporary newfangled addition (which did not make it to the definitive Latin edition under Cardinal Ratzinger’s care) was rejected because it was not consistent with the otherwise clear and consistent historical teaching on lying. One might even look to see what definition and teaching about lying has in fact remained clear and consistent across all the editions of the Catechism (including the troubled edition), perhaps even looking at the old Baltimore Catechism as well. One might then discover that in all those publications (which go back to 1885 and up to the present), a lie has been defined as (knowingly) saying what is untrue with the intention of deceiving, and said to be always wrong and never allowed. As the Baltimore Catechism described it, “No reason, however good, will excuse the telling of a lie, because a lie is always bad in itself. It is never allowed.”
Or one might be drawn to shoveling the snow in the driveway.
Dr. Janet Smith has a new contribution to this issue:
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14539
Who would have thought it, Aquinas didn’t thing of everything ..
“Abstract: Aquinas holds that lying is wrong primarily because it violates the nature/purpose of enunciative speech, which is to represent truly the concepts that one has in one’s mind ... This paper raises the possibility that 1) enunciative speech has more purposes that that identified by Aquinas and 2) that some kinds of falsehoods build up rather than destroy society…”
Live Action says on their web site that what they do is with the intention of exposing threats to the defenseless. Is PP a threat to the defenseless? Yes. So, if Live Action’s intention is to expose PP, how did they go about it? By going to PP and speaking falsehoods about their identity and purpose to PP to elicit information from them. Now, if they intend to expose PP, how on earth can we conclude that it’s possible they don’t *intend* to deceive PP in the process? Are we to suppose someone from Live Action saying, “We intend to expose PP as a threat to the defenseless by going to them and speaking falsehoods to them, misrepresenting our identity and purpose, in the hope of eliciting information from them that exposes them, but our intention is not to deceive them. That just happens.”
Bob there is a problem with that—an obvious one.
“I don’t intend to lie to my wife, I intend to keep my marriage whole and keep my family together. So I tell her that I did not sleep with that woman who keeps calling our house in the middle of the night.”
“I don’t intend to cheat on the medical boards, I intend to work for free in the inner city and help the poor.”
And so on and so forth.
Tom Clarkson, Thank you for better addressing and responding to my explanation. Again, the position that I am defending is that Live Action did not lie. One can consent to performing an act in a particular setting and record the response from the target audience while having no intention to deceive. To address your response it comes to a question about “necessity” of the actions Live Action chose to defend children in the womb. Using the example of the policeman shooting the attacker (even though you claimed that it was “apples to oranges”, the moral principle still applies to the more complex case of Planned Parenthood as the attacker. We may use another scenario such as stealing the remote control from a man who is about to use it the next day to blow up a building full of people. This may be closer since Live Action is not using a gun and the attack that Live Action is trying to stop may not exactly be taking place at the same moment). The “necessity” question in the policeman’s case is simplistic. Even so, given a real situation there is a quantitative time period involved and there is a number of options available to the policeman. These two facts mean that “necessity” and “imminence” are judged subjectively. A bystander may say after the incident that the policeman could have tackled the man instead. And, that since he did not tackle him, he did something immoral according to Church teaching. The bystander is making a judgment. Live Action, like the policeman, became aware of an attack (large scale ongoing attack) on persons and chose to act. They saw that Planned Parenthood has a lot of defense to protect its ability to carry out its business of attacking and killing. Like the policeman who could have used something other than the gun (according to the bystander), Live Action could have used something other than a sort of undercover investigative journalism to decrease the attacker’s ability (to attempt to stop the attacker, slow them down, maim, cripple, defund, take away power source, etc.). You and I are bystanders. You are saying that they could have done something else. I am saying that I do not know that. I am saying from my bystanding experience that I know that killing is going on even as we speak and perhaps what they did was better than what I have done. I am saying from my bystander position that acting, recording responses and publishing them to evoke change appears like an effective defensive act worthy of the Magisterium’s consideration of fitting for the subjectively judged meaning of “imminence and necessity.” I don’t think they were lying. I think clever is a better word for it.. perhaps, “wise as serpents, docile as doves.” In summary, I am challenging your “apples vs oranges argument” stating that the factors applied to the question of an act of defense being moral as judged by the Magisterium (as you introduced) are applied generally to all situations of defense; that Live Actions more sophisticated circumstance, though not as simplistic as others, is also a situation of defense, that “imminence and necessity” (as you introduced) when examined closely are judged subjectively, and that Live Actions activity is worthy of consideration as being a moral act of defense (like the policeman as you suggested was permissable as moral by the Magisterium). As you know, you cannot just walk into an abortion clinic operating room and grab the doctor’s hands and say, “no” you cannot do that. There is a political and legal structure that must be broken. It is reasonable to say that it can be broken by exposure of its connection to sex trafficking. Persons standing in front of the door to block people walking in has been tried, and several other things. Planned Parenthood is an attacker. As a bystander wanting to stop the attack (assuming that you are someone who wants to stop the attack), what do you do? Do you just say “I’m not materially involved in the immorral act?” Or do you say “If I’m not part of the solution, I’m part of the problem?” Either way, if you do not tell me a better, more effective and peaceful (less harming) way than Live Action has done, since they have decided to do something about it and have been effective (they influenced the House to vote to defund Planned Parenthood among other things), then what good is it for you to criticize? What does it help, since “imminence and necessity” are judged subjectively?
Dr. Janet Smith appears to be entering into territory that is extremely dangerous. The Catechism’s teaching is very clear, based on the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas. The use of the internet to attempt to alter the Church’s teaching by appeal to sentiment, emotion and politics is absolutely disturbing.
James
You should perhaps consider expending some of that intellectual energy to address this singular problem. Abortion is legal in this country because Catholics have consistently voted for pro abortion presidential candidates and congressional candidates. There are politicians in Washington DC right now who vote for abortion on demand, support pro abortion Supreme Court appointees, yet suffer no sanction from their bishops for their public scandal. This is the problem which needs to be addressed. Using lies to expose improper behavior of PP (they murder babies every day - facilitating underage prostitution is far less serious!) is not the solution.
James Bohrer, unless you’re speaking rather loosely, the videos I saw did not establish that PP has a “connection to sex trafficking”. Maybe a connection to a couple of fakers pretending to be in the sex trafficking business for the deliberate purpose of trying to make PP look bad. Is that what you mean? Because one could use the same gotcha journalism to make most any group such as LA or priests look bad too. By the same standard we wouldn’t have to show any priests who behave well, just the juicy incidents when priests are caught acting badly. And then we could have people saying the Church has a connection to drug dealing, child porn, murder, rape, abortion and all the sins of mankind. Perhaps some people would think it’s news. Or why not make a video of your own perversions and put it online for everyone to watch? Are you beyond reproach? You wouldn’t have to lie or “act” to do that. You ask what to do. Doesn’t the Golden Rule say do unto others as you’d have them do unto you? And if “No reason, however good, will excuse the telling of a lie, because a lie is always bad in itself. It is never allowed,” that doesn’t instruct someone to lie, even if he doesn’t have something better at the moment, and it also doesn’t provide any excuse for “imminent necessity”. We know that God works for good in everything. We don’t have to sin for that to be true. You can call it “acting” if you want, but what you call something doesn’t change what it is. Like I said, every sin is an act. Calling it acting doesn’t make it any less sinful. Rather, if we’re using tricks to deny our sins, it can make it worse. Does the Church teach that “exposing PP” justifies sinful means? I don’t believe anyone really knows what all means LA is using, or their full and true intentions. We can paint it pretty or ugly in our minds as it suits us, but that doesn’t mean our paintings are reality. Likewise, whatever “apples and oranges” you think you’re challenging or any idea you might have as to whether you and I disagree or agree are sitting in a fruit basket in your head. You talk of it being “reasonable to say that [PP] can be broken” by some gotcha videos or “stealing the remote control”, and someone else can talk of PP actually benefiting from it. It’s not like you or I have some special ability to keep score, or know what caused/causes/will cause what. Some people exalt what little they know, and others see it as not amounting to a hill of beans.
Tom Clarkson—We all have sins and shortcomings and secrets. And when James or anyone else starts receiving federal funds to augment those activities, then YES it should all be public knowledge.
Janet, we all receive federal subsidies of some sort. No one lives without support from the rest of society. And who believes all the fuss over PP is really about money? For many, it’s just another hook to hang the coat of complaints upon.
Semantics
To Zac and Tom C—I’ll try to catch up and address your comments to me tomorrow—didn’t have time today!
Oh, and please *do* read Dr. Smith’s work. It’s wonderful to see someone with her capacity and reputation addressing this question and others that the Magisterium has never directly addressed regarding certain aspects of speaking falsehood. As revered as Augustine and Aquinas are, so are the Church Fathers and Scholastics who held less rigorous views on this question.
“Or one might be drawn to the thought that the temporary newfangled addition (which did not make it to the definitive Latin edition under Cardinal Ratzinger’s care) was rejected because it was not consistent with the otherwise clear and consistent historical teaching on lying.”
“Who would have thought it, Aquinas didn’t thing of everything ..
“Abstract: Aquinas holds that lying is wrong primarily because it violates the nature/purpose of enunciative speech, which is to represent truly the concepts that one has in one’s mind ... This paper raises the possibility that 1) enunciative speech has more purposes that that identified by Aquinas and 2) that some kinds of falsehoods build up rather than destroy society…”’
And again perhaps the matter is not as clear as it seems. Perhaps the Baltimore Catechism wouldn’t go into a more nuanced definition as was put in the first edition of the Catechism because it was trying to teach basic points that could be built upon on later.
Though my original point is that your analogy of the Catechism on lying to birth control didn’t (and it doesn’t) work.
With all the citing of Augustine and Aquinas going on, some may be forgetting the most relevant point—that Aquinas and Augustine, too, are *subordinate* to Magisterium just like we all are.
The Magisterium does not just “import” their thinking into official teaching without any qualifications whatsoever.
For example, Augustine’s teaching on marriage and sexuality has been instrumentally helpful in shaping the Magisterial teaching in that area, but I don’t believe the Magisterium has ever taught what Augustine taught on marital relations being *always* at least venially sinful, right?
So, regarding Augustine and the Priscillianists, and Aquinas’s work on truth and lying, it’s all well and good, very highly considered, and worth everyone’s attention, but it’s not the only possible approach to this particular question. Now, why doesn’t Shea make this clear in his blog? His view of the situation is not the *only* view the Magisterium permits on this issue.
I sure hope everyone understands that….
@Tom C:
You wrote:
****Deacon Jim, the reasons of “protecting the truth” and “discretion” are not sufficiently precise to exclude the many alternatives which someone else might also call by those same labels.****
Hmmm. The same goes for the labels “lying” and “deception.” Where does that leave us?
**** Indeed, it doesn’t tell me why me I shouldn’t tell the Nazi “The moon is made of cheese” rather than “I saw Jews hiding out in barn but they ran away when I yelled at them.” If both are falsehoods, do you think they’re both equally appropriate answers to the Nazi? If not, why not? Again, could it really be because you think he would be more readily deceived by the barn story rather than the moon is made of cheese story? *****
Actually it could be because I think that God, the common good, a specific Jew, and the *truth* would be better served if I use a falsehood to avoid cooperating in the evil intended by the Nazi.
**** Saying it’s “discretion” and “protecting the truth” does not satisfactorily answer the question. Your mind has a real reason why you choose one answer over the other. What is it? ****
The “real reason”?—- because my well-formed *conscience* believes what I stated just above….
God bless you
Deacon Jim Russell
@Zac—
Hi again. You wrote:
****I see what you are saying. So for my definition of a lie: asserting untruth as truth… what you’re saying amounts to asserting untruth itself is not a lie…it only becomes a lie when you assert it as truth.*****
I *think* that you are phrasing it well enough—to avoid any ambiguity, however, I’d just use (one of) the *Magisterial* definition(s) of lying as found in the CCC—“speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” The CCC states what lying is in two other ways as well. But this definition makes explicit the fact that a moral *intention* is necessarily a part of the “object” that defines lying.
****I can see what you’re getting at with regards to discretion…it’s a little like turning it into a self-defense situation where you’re merely intending to defend the truth, and if the Nazi is deceived the responsibility falls on him for trying to unjustly ‘get’ the truth from you.****
Yes; this kind of examples involves the “unjust aggressor” as referenced in the CCC section on legitimate defense. Further, this aggressors turns things upside down relative to truthfulness, by *demanding* truth from you in order to commit evil.
****By analogy, your false statements become acts of force, which are merely directed at defending against the nazis unjust questions, which are analogous to physical attacks. ****
Zac, I think you’ve got it pinned down pretty well and have understood what I hoped to convey. Thanks for sticking with it!
*****I think there are a couple of problems though…you may remain silent for the sake of discretion, which is neither asserting a falsehood, nor telling the truth. ie. if you literally do nothing, the nazis questions are not answered any more than if you speak a falsehood. So why not remain silent? The answer I think is that we all hope a falsehood will be more effective…it’s hard to believe you truly don’t want to deceive the nazi.*****
Silence is a legit option for some consciences, to be sure. Others may opt for “speaking falsehood.” But, if you were continue to follow my approach, you will note that “deception” can be at least a couple things—a “tactic” used legitimately as a form of defense, AND a “state of being”. So, if the “deceptive intent” involves legitimate defense then it does not necessarily involve the intrinsically evil intention of leaving another person in the “state-of-being-deceived”. Rather, this “state of being” is an *un*-intended effect of a legitimate deceptive tactic employed against an unjust aggressor—the tactic employed is simply “speaking falsehood.” And this approach is in keeping with all the positive teaching found in the CCC on this topic.
*****This is the other problem. A person’s intent can often be deduced from the precise qualities of their actions. That’s why even if you defend yourself physically and someone dies, you have to then account for your actions, in terms of how much force you used, how fearful you were, etc.*****
Certainly the job of one’s “conscience” and will is, in this issue, to avoid any impure or evil or unjust intentions whatsoever as one makes these moral choices—but my point is to illustrate that there *is* a possible pathway of “speaking falsehood” to *preserve* truth that is neither consequentialist nor a contradiction to any teaching in the CCC.
***For your idea to work, it may require some kind of mental gymnastics that in themselves are suspicious, a bit like strict mental reservation. ****
I don’t think so—I think it’s more in keeping with the immediacy of the “Nazi” situation, with the natural patterns of human thought, and with the fundamental “gut-check” of most people. In any case, there is no more or less time for a person to form the *bad* intention of lying as there is to form the *good* intention of protecthing the truth. But I think it *more* likely, when confronted by an evildoer seeking *your* “truth” for evil reasons, that I would first form an intention to *protect* that truth than to maliciously intend to leave the Nazi in a state of being deceived. The intention to leave the Nazin in the state of being deceived is *much* more likely to be present when a NON-altruistic reason exists to speak falsehood. I *intend* to leave a person “deceived” so that I can *gain* something selfish from that person. I think there’s more room for “premeditation” to lie…
*****I’m concerned that your method might come down to a harmful detachment of intentions from actions…or a self-delusion that the situation has become inverted.*****
Well, no, the only “detachment” being sought here involves helping people see that “speaking falsehood” is NOT inseparable from evil intent in this situation. Especially if the intention is *discretion* rather than *deception*.
Thanks, Zac—this has been helpful!
Deacon Jim Russell
JamesD, I have never made an “analogy of the Catechism on lying to birth control”. That was “Tom R”. And, as to things that “didn’t work”, your citing Dr. Smith’s paper is an example.
all lying - or “lying” - is done to prevent someone from knowing the truth…
our goal is to spread the good news… live in JESUS… not of the world…
speaking the truth may not be “good”... but seeking out the truth is good…
by hiding someone from the nazis, good came from it… eventually…
but by revealing someone hiding from the nazis, more good comes from it…
corrie ten boom was good… anne frank is better…
both sought to deceive the nazis… both fought it… but the ten booms were hiding others… and we have their words to prove it…
the franks were found… and we have others words to show us…
im not defending either one… the ten booms were christian and did what was right in their minds… the franks were jewish and did what was right in their minds… but the deception (lying) of both was discovered…
corrie ten boom was good… anne frank was better… read both…
lying is wrong… but GOD uses wrong to make right…
how many others refused to lie… and although we, as a people, dont know them, GOD knows…
Tom C,
Was not replying to you but to Tom R as you note (though I actually didn’t put any name on the post.) Similar names here and errors can happen. For example, I am James (not JamesD).
My point again was to Tom R. Referring to Dr. Smith was to point out how there is strong opinion contra the opinion that all falsehood is lying and even the interpretation of Aquinas may allow difference of opinion. This is in contrast to birth control.
@sleepyhead—
hi—you wrote:
****all lying - or “lying” - is done to prevent someone from knowing the truth… ****
Hmmmm, actually the CCC says that “preventing someone from knowing the truth” can be a form of *discretion* (as opposed to either deception or “lying”). The CCC also says that lying is done to “lead another into error”. That is because the moral good we call “discretion” is a form of preventing someone from knowing the truth.
Deacon Jim, your post was non-responsive to my questions to you. You are still dancing around it. Your statement that it’s better to “use a falsehood to avoid cooperating in evil” does not answer the question I asked you. My question did not provide the option to cooperate with evil, indeed only a choice between two falsehoods. Again, why shouldn’t I tell the Nazi (1) “The moon is made of cheese” rather than (2) “I saw Jews hiding out in the barn but they ran away when I yelled at them”? If both are falsehoods and neither cooperates with evil, do you think they’re both equally effective answers to the Nazi? If not, why not? Again, could it really be because you think he would be more willing to accept as truth the false barn story rather than the moon is made of cheese story? Again, your other response of “my well-formed *conscience* believes what I stated just above” is also not responsive to the question I asked you. “Use a falsehood” vs “cooperate in evil” are not the choices in the question I asked you, nor are those the only choices available to people. Is there some reason why you are not respecting the questions I’ve asked you? Do you prefer not to answer them? Do you so prefer to answer some other question instead? You expressed issues in distinguishing between “lying” and “deception” and asked “Where does that leave us?”. It leaves me with you not answering my questions.
@Tom C—
I didn’t answer your questions? We’ll see.
You wrote:
****Deacon Jim, your post was non-responsive to my questions to you. You are still dancing around it. Your statement that it’s better to “use a falsehood to avoid cooperating in evil” does not answer the question I asked you. My question did not provide the option to cooperate with evil, indeed only a choice between two falsehoods. Again, why shouldn’t I tell the Nazi (1) “The moon is made of cheese” rather than (2) “I saw Jews hiding out in the barn but they ran away when I yelled at them”? If both are falsehoods and neither cooperates with evil, do you think they’re both equally effective answers to the Nazi? If not, why not? *****
By admission, you are creating an *entirely* different scenario than was in my original analysis, which is what I *thought* we were discussing. I apparently missed the fact that you were changing the dynamics completely by saying there would be *no* cooperation in evil. My apologies. But….why do this? In any case, I’ll answer as best I can.
A Nazi looking for a Jew *without* cooperation in evil (meaning the Jew is in *no* danger from evil whatsoever)? Is that what you have in mind? If so, then why do *anything* but tell the Nazi where the Jew really is? There doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to do *anything* to withhold the truth from the Nazi in this case, so I don’t know how to answer your question *directly*. I wouldn’t choose a falsehood in that situation. In trying to answer your question, as I understand it, if there is no risk of cooperation in evil, then the choices seem to be “speak nonsense” or “tell a lie.”... And I would choose neither. I’d stick to truthfulness…
I can only imagine I’m not understanding your point. Help me out a bit!
***** Again, could it really be because you think he would be more willing to accept as truth the false barn story rather than the moon is made of cheese story?*****
Naturally it’s more reasonable to think a person will accept a believable falsehood over something nonsensical, but in the scenario *you* present, there’s no compelling reason not to speak the truth, is there?
**** Is there some reason why you are not respecting the questions I’ve asked you? Do you prefer not to answer them? Do you so prefer to answer some other question instead? You expressed issues in distinguishing between “lying” and “deception” and asked “Where does that leave us?”. It leaves me with you not answering my questions. ****
So far, I don’t understand your proposed scenario clearly enough, I suspect. The whole point of a “deceive-a-Nazi” scenario is to *introduce* the concept of truth-telling as a cooperation in evil. Take away the possibility of “cooperation in evil,” and you’ve more or less gutted the point of the scenario. Maybe you could try a different example to illustrate what you have in mind?
God bless
Deacon Jim Russell
@MarkC
Just had an opportunity to read Dr. Janet Smith’s article. Thank you for posting it. I found it very similar to Jeffrey Mirus’s. Excellent points made by both.
I especially agreed with how she treated “Justifiable Falsehoods” (ie cordiality, encouragement, reassurance, etc.)
She starts by explaining Aquinas’ definition of lie. Then how he is concerned how a lie can damage harmony in society. The following examples all fit Aquinas’ definition of lie.
This, of course is “just skimming the surface” of what she actually said. She treats this issue in great depth. But it does show how the idea of an extremely “broad and all encompassing” definition of a lie, designed to “protect harmony in society,” could, in fact need further “narrowing, and more exact defining for all situations,” to indeed protect harmony in society.”
As Dr. Smith puts it, “…all teachers of the faith should present the teaching of the final version of the Catechism as normative but that they are also free to note that many faithful philosophers and theologians believe that some falsehoods do not fall under the condemnation of lying. In fact, I think even more philosophers and theologians would express their views publicly if it were established that the Church has no settled teaching on the telling of falsehoods to evildoers to save the lives of the innocent. “ “…I would use the fact that philosophers and theologians who are faithful to the Church on all other matters disagree strongly on this matter to indicate that it is not a settled teaching.
Emphasis mine
Deacon Jim, no, when I spoke of the options with no cooperation in evil, I did not propose that the Nazi was not threatening the life of the hiding Jews. Rather, I very clearly proposed the options of the person being questioned. It is HE who has the options that I was speaking of. It is he who could choose to tell the story about the barn or the story about the moon. You responded as I exptected you would, “Naturally it’s more reasonable to think a person will accept a believable falsehood over something nonsensical.” You can call the falsehood about the moon “non-sensical” if that is part of your dance, but nonetheless it is a falsehood. Your claim was about telling a falsehood rather than cooperating in evil. And I am just touching on the surface with you about distinctions between falsehoods, so as to move to the central issue of why one would choose to tell the particular falsehood that one chooses to tell, namely, as you have now admitted, that the Nazi would believe the falsehood. In other words, one would choose it because one intends the Nazi to be deceived, to accept the falsehood as if it were the truth. That is called an intent to deceive, even if it’s part of a larger plan to hide the Nazi.
<quote>Posted by Kathy16670
Just had an opportunity to read Dr. Janet Smith’s article…
</quote>
evidence of how “lying” demeans us…
Kathy, you write that Dr. Smith “treats this issue in great depth”, but her own words are that her essay is “very tentative” and “preliminary thoughts” (as in perhaps not fully thought through), and NOT as establishing that Church teaching is not settled on the matter. In fact, she expressly states, “It is not my purpose to make that argument here”, and again, she reminds that “all teachers of the faith should present the teaching of the final version of the Catechism as normative”.
For what it’s worth, in the context of her essay and discussion of conventional falsehoods, it has been proposed that her essay be subtitled “You Can Do It”. Another subtitle that has been proposed is “Laetrile for Liars”, as it doesn’t have FDA approval and is not normative but fringe.
i say “good morning” to people… i dont ask “how are you” unless i want something in the way of response…
.....
i just shake their hands or say “hi”... no comment about how i feel about meeting them… i dont know them, nothing else fits…
.....
i brush off “stayed too late”... i shrug, smile, and (depending on how well i know them) merely say “im on time” or “the boss will forgive me” or simply smile…
.....
i think, therefore i am… i dont think my daughter has much talent - but who am i to say “you dont have talent”? or “i would do it this way” or “the teacher wants you to do this”... i, therefore, tell her “that is interesting!” ... in fact, her talent is increasing with practice… now i tell her “you are getting better all the time!”
.....
i tell my niece nothing about her daddy (he left when she wasnt born)... when she talks bad about her dad, i ask her, “when did you meet him?” i ask her “what do you mean he never paid child support?” i ask her to think about him in his life…
.....
my mom and dad both said such things to me growing up… bad things, i mean… but i look at her as though “she dont know how much we wanted to see grandma” when she complains about them not being there… i look at dad and think “he doesnt think about how much he wanted to share with us” when he complains about taking us boating…
.....
“it will never happen here” doesnt exist… we pray, instead, that the thief needed the things he took, and will feel badly… we pray the mother who died in a car will come to where she goes to heaven and the guy who shot her will be corrected by his own heart or by GOD… we pray to never hold them guilty, but to pray for GODs healing…
.....
i ask my husband such a question, and he lies to make me feel better… later i tell him “you are sweet to want me to feel better about i look… but another shirt/skirt/pants wouldnt have gotten me frowned at…”
.....
as i said, lying becomes a part of us if we do not “guard against the evil that comes out”...
@ Tom Clarkson,
You said
Her article is 12 pages long. For the sake of “com box” communication, I quoted a few paragraphs. (ie I skimmed the surface, while she treated it at length in her 12 page article.)
This is Dr. Smith’s sentence… “I would use the fact that philosophers and theologians who are faithful to the Church on all other matters disagree strongly on this matter to indicate that it is not a settled teaching.”
Now you can twist her words around to imply something they did not, but she said it was not the purpose of THIS paper to PROVE the “settled or unsettledness” of the teaching. It was the purpose of THIS paper to show the case for “what is generally held to be a lie might not in fact be a lie.”
Please read her sentence again.
Tom, your reference to her quote on the Catechism again really misses the mark. She said (in context,) the Catechism has the true definition for NORMAL circumstances, but it does not address highly nuanced situations were an evil doer is not entitled to the truth.
You said
You can spin it anyway you want, but the truth is that Catholic “worthies” are split on this issue. Those who you disagree with don’t deserve the label “fringe.”
Aquinas says that even jokes that employ a falsehood are “lies.” Augustine says that they are not. Is Augustine also “fringe?”
@Tom C—you wrote:
****Deacon Jim, no, when I spoke of the options with no cooperation in evil, I did not propose that the Nazi was not threatening the life of the hiding Jews. Rather, I very clearly proposed the options of the person being questioned. It is HE who has the options that I was speaking of. It is he who could choose to tell the story about the barn or the story about the moon. You responded as I exptected you would, “Naturally it’s more reasonable to think a person will accept a believable falsehood over something nonsensical.”*****
So you are proposing basically the same scenario I proposed? Then I think there may be a disconnect here. When dealing with an unjust aggressor, one doesn’t “merely” have the options as you’ve presented them. A right-thinking person responding to the aggressor has to consider self-defense and, in this case the defense of another innocent victim. Further, one must consider, as I pointed out, the use of *discretion*—keeping the truth from one who has no right to it.
**** You can call the falsehood about the moon “non-sensical” if that is part of your dance, but nonetheless it is a falsehood. Your claim was about telling a falsehood rather than cooperating in evil. ****
Part of my “dance”??? Well, moving on…NO, my claim was about telling a falsehood to an unjust aggressor rather than cooperating in evil.
**** And I am just touching on the surface with you about distinctions between falsehoods, so as to move to the central issue of why one would choose to tell the particular falsehood that one chooses to tell, namely, as you have now admitted, that the Nazi would believe the falsehood. In other words, one would choose it because one intends the Nazi to be deceived, to accept the falsehood as if it were the truth. That is called an intent to deceive, even if it’s part of a larger plan to hide the Nazi. ****
Well, unfortunately, that’s not what I asserted. I said that the *tactic* of deception, which is morally permissible when engaging an unjust aggressor, was used as legitimate defense against that aggressor *without* the intention to leave the aggressor in the “state of being deceived.” I said the intention of the person was actually *discretion* because the object of the act is to *protect* the truth rather than *offend* the truth according to what is meant by “deceiving” in the CCC defintion of “lying”.
I’ve already said in my analysis that the end result is virtually indistinguishable from “lying.” Obviously, if this were crystal clear, it might have been sewn up a looooong time ago. What I’m arguing, though, is that is the scenario we’ve discussed, one would have to work very hard *not* to have the intetion of *discretion*—it’s *natural* to have that intention when “speaking the falsehood” you use to deceive (yes deceive) the unjust aggressor. In this scenario, one intends the tactic for the purpose of *discretion*, without intending the “state of being deceived” of the Nazi.
Probably, in the end, it’s “I think it’s lying”, says you, and “I don’t think it’s lying,” says me. Both views are currently permissible since the Magisterium hasn’t pinned it down, either.
I think it’s good to discuss this issue—however, I don’t think it’s prudent to accuse either groups or individuals of “lying” when it’s clear the Magisterium does not make such an accusation (not saying you are, Tom). It really saddens me that people may actually be critical of one another over this. I pray that this won’t actually occur and that we can merely move forward without division.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
Kathy, I don’t have to “read her sentence again.” If you think there’s any disagreement with what I said, you can read my sentence again. Like I said, her essay (you can call it “this paper” if you prefer) does not establish (you can call it “prove” if you prefer) that Church teaching is not settled on the matter. That she, in her “very tentative” essay, “would use” this or that to “indicate” that something is not a settled teaching does not establish/prove that is not settled or that it is settled. You admit it yourself when you say, “she said it was not the purpose of this paper to prove the ‘settled or unsettledness’ of the teaching.” Do you like arguing with yourself? Similarly, I do not “miss the mark” when I point out that “she reminds that ‘all teachers of the faith should present the teaching of the final version of the Catechism as normative’.” If you don’t appreciate what I say, which is what she said, you’re always welcome to ask for a clarification. Then perhaps you won’t be arguing with yourself in your ignorance over what I said. Similarly, you said, “Those who you disagree with don’t deserve the label fringe.” But I didn’t say I agree or disagree with anyone, nor did I label any person as “fringe”. Rather, I share opinions. Even those which may be “fringe”. You can apologize if you want, but really, you owe it to yourself, whenever you finish punching yourself in the face.
@Tom C—
Er, uh, Tom….Church teaching is NOT settled on “the matter.”
There is nothing more clear in this whole debate than *that*, I’d think.
If it were settled, there would be no question as to how to apply the CCC in this situation.
Further, if it were settled, one would have to explain why the *CCC* (not me or anyone else) insists that the proper definition of “lying” requires something *more* than “speaking falsehood”.
The UNsettled issue being explored is—under what circumstances is speaking falsehood NOT lying and actually licit?
Deacon Jim, you wrote, “When dealing with an unjust aggressor, one doesn’t ‘merely’ have the options as you’ve presented them.” I didn’t say those were the only options in existence. Nor does anything you could write on this forum express all the options that people have. Like I said already, we were taking steps, as long as kept dancing. You keep mentioning “discretion”, but neither the barn story nor the moon story reveals where the Jews are hiding. And you can claim that it’s “*without* the intention to leave the aggressor in the state of being deceived”, but just because you claim it’s so doesn’t make it so. Who are to say what someone’s intentions are? Slapping a label of “discretion” on it doesn’t change what it is. If people lie to protect something, hide something, that doesn’t change the fact that they’re (also) lying. And you plainly couple “discretion” with saying what is false with the intention of deceiving, for you say “it’s *natural* to have that intention [of discretion] when ‘speaking the falsehood’ you use to deceive (yes deceive)”. Again, why are you using falsehood? Answer: “to deceive”. You wrote it yourself. And why are you using falsehood to deceive? Your answer: “discretion”. You wrote, “Probably, in the end, it’s ‘I think it’s lying’, says you.” No, I don’t say what it is. And I question the labels. For example, you say, “It really saddens me that people may actually be critical of one another over this.” Are you being critical of others over this?
Wow!
Glad I’m not trying to prove who can be nastier.
You’d win every time.
@Tom C
Tom, it has been fruitful discussing this with you thus far. Thank you for your responses and my hope is that you continue charitably pondering the various issues connected to the “speaking falsehood” question.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
Deacon Jim, you wrote, “Er, uh, Tom….Church teaching is NOT settled on ‘the matter.’” Er, uh, Deacon Jim, that is your opinion. Dr. Smith also has an opinion. As to me, I didn’t say whether it was or wasn’t settled. I said a very tentative essay by a one Dr. Smith does not establish that Church teaching is not settled on the matter. There is a difference between the statements, even if you don’t spot it right away. As I pointed out, “That she, in her ‘very tentative’ essay, ‘would use’ this or that to ‘indicate’ that something is not a settled teaching does not establish/prove that it’s not settled or that it is settled.” Notably, Dr. Smith herself speaks in the speculative in this regard when she says, “IF [note the word IF] it were established that the Church has no settled teaching…”. Such a speculation neither establishes nor even claims that the Church in fact lacks a settled teaching on that matter. Instead, her “very tentative” essay makes some points to “indicate” the possibility, and amidst her “preliminary thoughts”, she shares her belief/opinion that it’s not settled.
Kathy, sometimes the facts are nasty. But the truth will set you free.
Tom—
Dr. Smith’s fine essay on the topic isn’t terribly relevant to whether the teaching is “settled” or not.
In fact, my assertions regarding the matter did not utilize or discuss her work.
There is a much *easier* way to determine whether the Magisterium has actually addressed and *settled* the issue of how to characterize the morality of “speaking falsehood” with intentions *other* than “deceiving” or “leading another into error.”
Simply produce the Magisterial teaching. How about producing the Magisterial teaching that specifically “settles” the question of using spoken falsehood in a situation in which speaking *truth* would be a cooperation in evil…
If it’s settled, that should be easy enough to do, right?
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
Deacon Jim, if you don’t think Dr. Smith’s statements which reflect her education and the care she has taken to the address the issue are relevant, that too is your opinion. As to Magisterial documents, perhaps if you read them all with the correct mind and spirit, you might see it. Otherwise, we may be in error to claim it’s not there. Why do you think Dr. Smith said “IF”? If it’s “easy” to remove the IF, why didn’t Dr. Smith remove it? Instead, she shared her opinion/belief that it’s not settled. I think she exercised a lot of care in how she phrased her statements. You might do well to follow her example on it. Or maybe you can e-mail her and inform her of your wisdom.
Hi, Tom—
I note that you did *not*, to my knowledge, locate or produce any Magisterial document that “settles” the question. Perhaps you could at least cite the Magisterial document/text(s) that “settle” the question for you? (Reminder: the question *I* raised in my comment, please.)
In any case, Dr. Smith’s work is great. And if I were in her position, I, too, would have said “IF”; it is an expression of a prominent theologian who is writing a treatise in a manner of *total* submission to the Magisterium, which is most prudent and most expected.
I’ve concluded, along with her and others, that this “question” (which has been debated, mind you, by both the Church Fathers and Scholastics with *no* subsequent Magisterial clarification) remains “obviously” unsettled because no one can show me a Magisterial source that settles it.
Again, back to you—For you, what Magisterial teaching “settles” the question of speaking falsehood with intentions *other* than “deceiving” or “leading another into error”?
God bless you
Deacon Jim Russell
PS—thanks for the suggestion about e-mailing. I’d already done that, though…. :-)
@Tom C—(and anyone else for that matter)
Tom—something occurs to me that may help us at this point in our conversation.
Can you tell me this: Is “speaking TRUTH with the intention to deceive” a *lie*, or not?
Your answer to that will likely help a lot…
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
@Tom C—
Tom—sorry, but I kind of have to wrap up on this, so I’m going to complete my thought from my last comment so you can ponder it. I will check back here to see if you have more follow-up, but it’s getting pretty late in the game now, so to speak.
Okay, so, I presume you would of course respond that YES, “speaking TRUTH with the intention to deceive” is *obviously* a lie.
We would agree on that, of course. The point is that it beautifully illustrates just why this issue can (and should) be viewed as an “unsettled” question, relative to the Magisterium
Why? Because we have just identified a “species” of lying that actually does NOT meet any literal or rigorous view of the CCC definition of lying that *we* have been focusing on found in 2482 (though there are two other formulations in the CCC that “define” lying), which uses “speaking a falsehood.” The three definitions of the CCC for “lying” all refer either to “speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving,” “to speak or act against the *truth* in order to lead someone into error,” or “saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.”
None of these three actually *specify* the form of lying that is “speaking TRUTH with intention to deceive.”
Therefore it is *clear* that the CCC definitions of “lying” are excellent general formulations but necessarily must be viewed as having *limits* of application in the realm of “special cases.”
These definitions cannot be viewed as ironclad *absolute* definitions; if they are viewed that way, then speaking *truth* with intent to deceive *can’t* be a lie.
But we “know” it is.
So, what about the phrasing that pertains to the intent of deception or leading into error. Are there possible special cases to be considered there as well? Cases that fall *outside* the definition and that aren’t intrinsically evil? We’ve identified one case that is clearly outside the CCC definition(s) but is definitely a lie, right?
As I said, I’ll entertain any thoughts or comments you’d have, but I’m wrapping it up as much as possible…
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
Deacon Jim, the issue is also a matter of the quality of the question. Documents do not specifically answer many specific questions, but that doesn’t mean the issues involved are not answered by the teachings in the documents when read by a person of understanding. That raises the question of “settled” to whose satisfaction? Who is the authority who declares whether we can read documents and say it’s settled or not? Do we take a popular opinion poll? There are perhaps many things which you or someone else might insist are unsettled or settled which others might say are not. Besides, what does “settled” mean? If the Church never says another words on a subject, is that “settled”? How about if the Church simply “elaborates” on a subject without actually changing what she teaches. Is that “settled”? Also, as to your claim that “no one can show me”. Perhaps you have been shown but didn’t recognize what you saw, or perhaps someone can but simply hasn’t. When was it “settled” whether the falsehoods we’ve been talking about in the Nazi scenario or the Live Action cases have or don’t have “intentions of deceiving or leading another into error”? If it hasn’t, why jump to other questions about other intentions if the one at hand hasn’t even been “settled”? Is your question still about the same scenarios we’ve been talking about? Perhaps we might look at the scenarios we’ve been talking about and ask whether the statements told to the Nazi or Live Action are “insincere” or involve “guile”. And if so, does the Church have a Magisterial document with some statement on that subject? I’m sure you can find one, but I don’t expect it will “settle” things for you, even if it does for others.
Tom—did you notice that, when you asked me to respond directly to *your* questions, I did so as best I could. But, in the above comment, you are being non-responsive to the questions I have asked?
Surely there must be *some* Magisterial statement(s) that resolve, for *you* (not me) the questions at hand. You said if I read Magisterial teaching with the correct “mind and spirit” that I might “see it”—see…what? Show me what you see that I don’t see. That’s what I’ve asked for. What Magisterial teaching on “lying” raises in you the notion that these issues that I’ve asked about above are “settled?”
Is it safe to assume you’d call “speaking truth with intention to deceive” a lie? Just curious to see if I presumed correctly…
Thanks again for the time and the conversation.
God bless you,
Deaocn Jim Russell
Deacon Jim, you asked, “Is speaking TRUTH with the intention to deceive a *lie*, or not?” The CCC says a lie involves “saying what is false” / “speak or act against the truth”. Unless we’re in some weird world where speaking truth is actually saying what is false or speaking against itself, then no, it’s not a lie by the CCC standard. So I’m rather baffled that you would presume that I “would of course respond that YES” and that “We would agree on that, of course”. Even if I put down my copy of the CCC, I still don’t generally call “speaking truth with the intention of deceiving” lying. I checked some dictionaries, and though there are quite a few different definitions for “lie”, such as “an inaccurate or false statement” or “convey a false impression”, the truth is not a false statement and speaking the truth conveys the truth. Call it a lie? I might call it wrongful withholding of the truth if the person had a right to it. I’m not even sure I could call it a deception, since by conveying the truth, there is no deception. How does the truth deceive? Perhaps you meant to phrase it as “speak the truth with the intent of allowing the other person deceive himself.” If so, I would not call that a lie. However, if one were to speak the truth ignorantly THINKING it to be false and do so with the intention to deceive, I think that person might consider it a lie. The listener, however, wouldn’t be harmed by it, because he heard the truth (prescinding perhaps some unusual cases). I’d be unsure if that was a “lie” according to Church teaching, but unless I was the speaker, how would it even come to my attention? If I were the speaker and my conscience told me it was wrong, I don’t think it would matter what label I gave it. If subsequently I discovered that what I’d said was actually true, I might feel a bit relieved in that regard, but I’d still want to work on myself for having wanted to lie, even if in fact I hadn’t. On the matter of exceptions to the CCC wording, I don’t read the CCC statements as dogmatic that nothing else other than what the CCC statement literally says could ever possibly be a lie. I don’t think they’re intended to be read like that. I’m perhaps more hesitant to say “Oh, gee, though the CCC says this is a lie, they really didn’t mean it.” I’d err on the side of caution.
Deacon Jim, you wrote, “You said if I read Magisterial teaching with the correct “mind and spirit” that I might “see it”—see…what?” Actually, that’s what I was asking you. The first sentence of my post went to that: “the issue is also a matter of the quality of the question”. Your question asks about every falsehood under the sun with an intention other than two, not to mention an infinite set of circumstances. In my experience, I often find that people who are looking for answers are those who don’t really understand their questions, because if they did, they’d already know the answer or realize their question was atrocious. To me, question and answer are like two sides of the same coin. And again, back to “settled”, I don’t know what that means to you. It’s like “hot”. How hot is “hot”? To some degree, everything is unsettled, and to some degree, everything is settled.
Just because a teaching is “settled” does not mean there is not room for further elucidation, insights or even filling in gaps which are missing. We’ve seen this with recent Popes and teaching on Just War and Capitol Punishment (just to name two examples). That doesn’t mean the teaching heretofore has been defective or “unsettled” just that new insights allow for the development of doctrine. Aquinas lived before toothbrushes, microscopes and indoor plumbing. It is surprising he may not have the last, comprehensive word on enunciative speech?
Yes, Aquinas clearly taught that “speaking TRUTH with the intention to deceive” is a lie.
@ Cranky Tom C
I hope you have eaten your dinner, perhaps rested a bit, and are a bit more cheerful this evening!
As far as a settled matter, here are some quotes from another Catholic “worthy”…
Mark Shea
So, you can continue to say this is IS a settled matter, when it is not. And, you can continue to bash Dr. Smith with
But then you have to admit your side does the same.
Deacon Jim, back on your question about “speaking the truth with the intention to deceive”, I said, while going through some possibilities of what might to call it, that “I might call it wrongful withholding of the truth if the person had a right to it.” That could be the case if there were some other truth other than, of course, the truth that one is speaking, that one was wrongfully trying to conceal from the person. I’ll call this case #1.
I ignored the ludicrous possibility that one was trying to deceive in regard to precisely that which one was speaking truthfully. That might be called insanity, self-defeating, house divided, etc. I’ll call this case #2.
And then there’s the case of speaking the truth when there is some other truth, other than the truth one is speaking, that one intends to rightfully withhold from the person. But here, I’m not sure that one would have an “intent to deceive”, as I tend to interpret the phrase “intent to deceive” in the evil sense, as if the person had malice. Intead, if the person were speaking the truth with an intent to rightfully withhold another truth, then that’s an example of “honesty and discretion”, as the Catechism states in CCC#2469. Rather than call it a “lie”, the Catechism describes it as: “Truthfulness keeps to the just mean between what ought to be expressed and what ought to be kept secret: it entails honesty and discretion.” I’ll call this case #3.
So rather than “We’ve identified one case that is clearly outside the CCC definition(s) but is definitely a lie, right?”, we’ve instead described what might be called “wrongful withholding of the truth” (case #1), insanity (case #2), and “living in the truth” (case#3). None of these are called lies by anyone I know except perhaps you. Perhaps you had another case in mind.
Hi again Deacon Jim,
I’m afraid I still have reservations about this line of thought. By analogy: If I had a gun, and was faced by an unarmed attacker, I would not be permited to shoot him unless I genuinely feared for my life.
But if we separate the act of shooting from the intent to hit him, then we can say that I might be justified in shooting if I did so under the auspices of ‘firing a warning shot’, which is a legitimate category of gun use. If the bullet happens to strike the attacker, then this is an unfortunate but unintended side-effect of my firing a warning shot.
The obvious reply to this is that if the gun is pointing at the attacker, then it is not -by definition- a warning shot. Likewise I would argue that if your act of discretion amounts to speaking a falsehood as though it were true, then the intent to deceive is difficult to deny.
In other words, I’m afraid that ‘discretion through speaking falsehoods as though they were true’ is not a plausible category anymore than ‘firing warning shots directly *at* the attacker’.
I’ve (quickly) read through Dr Smith’s article, and I am not convinced by it. Some of the positive uses of falsehood (cordiality, encouragement, etc) appear to be officious lies, while others match Aquinas’ response to fiction and acting. Nor is it obvious in such cases that actual falsehoods are required…ie. the fact that people say “I’m so happy you could come” does not mean that we ought to endorse this manner of speech…I don’t see any reason to assume that such falsehoods are benign.
Yet it’s on the strength of these examples that Dr Smith turns to deceptive falsehoods for the purposes of thwarting evil. She follows the ‘no right to the truth’ line, using the previous examples in which falsehoods are spoken with a common understanding that they are false (fiction, acting), to suggest that people who unjustly demand to know the truth simply fail to realise the social context they are in.
So, if I am right in reading it this way, it’s like a person who goes to see a play and wrongly thinks that they are hearing truths spoken…or like someone who goes to a party, is told “so glad you could make it” and genuinely believes the host is gladdened by their presence.
But as I mentioned, there’s no reason to endorse the hosts’ ‘officious lie’ simply because it is considered socially acceptable. The key question ought to be ‘are you asserting this falsehood as the truth?’ which is bounnd up with the intent to deceive, as discussed in the shooting example.
Ultimately, the guts of Dr Smith’s response to Aquinas is in the section where she addresses ‘correspondence between mental truth and spoken word’. Here, she takes on the implication that asserting the untrue as true harms one’s integrity, or ‘the correspondence between mental truth and spoken word’, by arguing that what is ‘true’ about the different social contexts she describes, is our purpose or intent, rather than the content of our speech acts. In other words, when the host says “so glad you could make it”, the truth-value of his words is less important than the function of his statement, which is (allegedly) to cordially greet one’s guest.
Hence, by extension, the ‘truth’ in the Nazi case is one’s intent to protect the Jews, and this is ‘expressed’ through an assertion or statement that is false in terms of its content, but ‘true’ in terms of its underlying intent.
But…how can I put this…this line of argument really just side-steps Aquinas’ depiction of correspondence between mental truth and spoken word. It’s a completely alternative view, and it leaves me wondering about the truth-value of words themselves. What does it mean, then, to question the truth-value of a statement? I’m perplexed by this. It gives us the ability to protect people without lying…but it takes away the meaningful distinction between truth and falsehood.
Why not just say “yes, I am telling a falsehood, but I’m being true to my self, or my values, and this is more important to me.”?
What happens - in a completely different scenario - when someone says ‘I am God’ and we say “sorry, that’s not true” and they reply “it’s true in the sense that these words best express my appreciation for the divine spirit”. I mean, one might usually smile politely and move on…
Ultimately, it might just be equivocation: we see that it is wrong to lie to the nazis; we define lying as asserting a false statement as true, but then we argue that the phrase ‘there are no jews in my house’ is in fact true, because it is accords with my desire to protect them.
This is equivocation, because it rests on two different meanings or interpretations of the word ‘true’.
Do you follow me? Or have I misinterpreted Smith’s argument?
Regards,
Zac
Tom Clarkson, Ok, your last response proves that you ARE operating in the area of subjective judgment. And, you mentioned it; but, you did not actually address my point about “imminence and necessity.” You do not seem to think positively about Live Action; but, rather negatively, by way of an opinion. Therefore, do not tell me what the Magisterium or the Church in general says about Live Action’s work. However much you would like to say they lied and that it is definitive, you can’t, except in your own opinion. In the mean time, I will continue to maintain my position that in actions of defense both imminence and necessity are judged subjectively, that Live Action’s actions were actions of defense and that they did not lie.
Tom Clarkson, Sorry, I didn’t address something you said. The connection of Planned Parenthood to sex trafficking was established by numerous responses in the videos. There may not be a formal connection; but, arguably, there is a formal business connection because the one “business” uses services from the other which receives funding from public funds. This is shown in the videos and is likely the reason the lawmakers and public would defund and not support Planned Parenthood. I think this appears obvious.
Kathy, you wrote, “Yes, Aquinas clearly taught that ‘speaking TRUTH with the intention to deceive’ is a lie.” In the words of Aquinas, “the essential notion of a lie is taken from formal falsehood, from the fact namely, that a person intends to say what is false”. If one does not intend to say what is false, one lacks the essential notion of a lie. The mere desire to deceive belongs to the perfection of lying, but not to its species. In the words of Dr. Smith, speaking on the view of Aquinas, “For a person to have spoken a lie in the full sense, there must be [1] the deliberate telling of a falsehood (or the making of a statement thought to be a falsehood) and [2] the telling with the intent to deceive.”
I brought up a case of intending to say what is false though speaking the truth, fulfilling Aquinas “essential notion of a lie”, in my Feb 25, 2011 8:30 PM post saying, “if one were to speak the truth ignorantly THINKING it to be false and do so with the intention to deceive, I think that person might consider it a lie.” And I remarked that “I’d be unsure if that was a ‘lie’ according to Church teaching”, as referring to the statements in the Catechism, because the CCC statements do not specifically state whether the falsehood that is spoken is in reality or simply in the mind of the ignorant speaker.
And you wrote, “you can continue to say this is IS a settled matter, when it is not.” You’re so silly. I’ve no more said it’s a settled matter than say it’s an unsettled matter.
And you wrote, “And, you can continue to bash Dr. Smith with ‘her very tentative essay makes some points to indicate the possibility’”. Again, I can’t continue to bash Dr. Smith. One can’t continue what has never started. I state what she has said, respectful of the limitations she very carefully sought to express.
And you wrote, “you have to admit your side does the same”. I don’t imagine I’m on any side. I leave that to you.
James Bohrer, you wrote, “You do not seem to think positively about Live Action; but, rather negatively”. There are as many appearances of me as there are people. Each one is unique, just like you.
You wrote, “do not tell me what the Magisterium or the Church in general says about Live Action’s work. However much you would like to say they lied and that it is definitive…” I don’t say that.
You wrote, “The connection of Planned Parenthood to sex trafficking was established by numerous responses in the videos.” There were no sex traffickers in any video that I saw. There was someone reportedly from Live Action supposedly pretending to be a sex trafficker. As such, the videos no more established that Planned Parenthood has a connection to sex trafficking than they established that Live Action has a connection to sex trafficking.
I find it very interesting that moral arguments are being constructed not only to fit the Live Action videotaping, but now also to justify officious and daily lying for social intercourse. Since the Church condemns all telling of falsehoods for the purpose of deception (this IS settled teaching, ladies and gentlemen), we now are trying to redefine what is a falsehood. Strict mental reservation (where words are spoken which mean something totally different to us than the normal usage) is specifically condemned by the Church. Only broad mental reservation, where a word’s use is equivocal or ambiguous for a just reason, has been accepted.
The reason question is - shouldn’t we strive for charity in truth, instead of lies and falsehood, even if done for the best of intentions? The simple fact of the matter is that if language means anything, falsehoods should not be spoken with an intent to make the other person believe them to be true. If someone asks me if I thought his piano performance went well, but it was actually terrible, mental reservation can be used to avoid unnecessary offense. However, if I tell them ‘I thought it was great!’, and actually want them to think that is my honest belief, I am telling a lie and objectively committing a sin. To make it more complicated is to empty the Church’s teaching on the 8th Commandment of any meaning whatsoever.
Tom C—
I think you have done a great job of demonstrating that intention to deceive, by itself, cannot be considered lying, right? Not all acts of deception are “lying”, right?
For example, here is a spoken example of a *deception* that is not, by definition, “lying,” because the person speaks the truth with the intention to deceive.
A bank robber tells the banker “If you open the safe, I will not kill you.” So the banker opens the safe. Then the bank robber has his *accomplice* kill the banker. (or, alternatively, a more good-hearted bank robber just walks away with the cash, knowing he wasn’t going to kill the banker under *any* conditions).
Truth told, with deception as the intention. Not lying.
Either way you look at this example, it makes it clear that what is in the CCC as positive must be considered non-absolute, such that one cannot “woodenly” apply what’s there to conclude that *all* acts involving either speaking falsehood OR intention to deceive constitute lying.
@ ZAC—
Thanks, too, for your well-reasoned reply. I’m honestly beginning to think I have much more work to do on my initial analysis, because I had been viewing the “state of being deceived” as the “locus” of the intrinsic evil. I don’t believe that it is, after all.
For example, with the intrinsic evil of “contraception”, we often think of the “doing” of the act (the moral object) as simply being “using the pill to prevent conception.” And thus no one can ever “do” that act.
But in application we know this is *not* how the bishops have approached this. At least one exception exists, most notably in the case of rape. A woman who has been raped being treated by a hospital *can* employ any non-abortifacient contraception in that case, precisely to prevent conception. But…how?....if “contraception is intrinsically evil by virtue of its *object*—it can’t be done, right?
Apparently, the composition of the moral “object” of contraception involves much *more* than the mere act of “using something to prevent conception”. This HAS to be the case, or it renders the notion of “intrinsic evil” meaningless, seems to me.
Trying to keep this short. But, apply that same thinking to the “moral object” of lying and the “doing” of “speaking falsehood with the intention to deceive.”
Seems to me that, by analogy, special cases may well exist in which it could be permissible to, in its totality, “speak falsehood with the intention to deceive”, with that “object” and act being made morally permissible, not necessarily by mere intention, but by the circumstances that adhere to the moral object and make that moral object necessarily “distinct” from anything intrinsically evil.
God bless you
Deacon Jim Russell
@J Brown—
Hi again. You wrote:
****Since the Church condemns all telling of falsehoods for the purpose of deception (this IS settled teaching, ladies and gentlemen), we now are trying to redefine what is a falsehood.*****
Actually, this statement is, well, false, ironically. The Church does *not* condemn all falsehoods for the purpose of deception, in a wooden or absolute way, even though that’s *one* definition used for “lying.” Rather, the Church has *settled* and condemned all *lying*. Read back in the comments to understand better the various special cases that make this clear.
“Officious” and “daily” or “conventional” falsehoods have *not* been condemned by the Church, either. Speaking falsehood for amusement of others, for example, is NOT contrary to the Magisterium. It may be contrary to Aquinas, but NOT the Magisterium. We’ve *got* to get this point right, folks.
You wrote:
*** Strict mental reservation (where words are spoken which mean something totally different to us than the normal usage) is specifically condemned by the Church.****
Actually, no it’s not. At least, again, NOT in any “absolute” or “wooden” sense. But, please do cite the actual texts that apply to strict mental reservation, as that would be helpful.
**** Only broad mental reservation, where a word’s use is equivocal or ambiguous for a just reason, has been accepted. *****
Again, it’s not true that “only” this has been “accepted”. “Broad mental reservation” has not been *rejected* by the Church, but it’s merely *one* theological approach to this subject. If “not being rejected” implies “acceptance” by the Magisterium, then *other* theological approaches to the subject may still be proposed and utilized by people of good will, with the same level of “acceptance”, seems to me.
Again, I refer you to the analogous issue of using nonabortifacient contraception in the treatment of rape victims. I think that provides an excellent model upon which this whole discussion could be framed.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
@J Brown—
Out of respect and clarity, I do want to say that your application of the teaching regarding lying is certainly permissible, too. I would not want to leave the impression that it’s not. But for anyone to say that that application is the *only* permissible way to think is problematic. We need to be clear that people of good will may and do disagree on these finer theological points associated with “settled” teaching.
So, I don’t mean to be dismissive or argumentative in any sense. We can each make our points for discussion without assuming the other is somehow offering any form of dissent from authority, etc.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
The tenor that many of these discussions has taken seems to me to be a more sinful use of language than what LA did. I hear in some of these words a lack of charity, accusations, anger, etc. Why are we willing to do that but not to lie to save a life? Seems a little skewed to me.
Deacon Jim,
I merely repeat the Catechism’s teaching, which I think would be a good idea for everyone to do. A lie is a falsehood spoken with intent to deceive - it is always sinful. This cannot be debated or disagreed with, as some here have done.
@J Brown—
As an acceptable formula seeking to capture the essence of what it means to “lie,” I totally agree with you. The “species” of “lying” is always sinful, no doubt.
But the CCC uses two other “formulas” to try to capture the essence of a “lie,” as well.
2483 To lie is to speak or act againt the truth in order to lead someone into error.
2508 Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.
EACH of these three formulae seem to offer a particular nuance about lying. For example, in 2483, it mentions “act” and not merely speech. In 2508, it specifies deception of one’s *neighbor*.
The three definitions, together, MUST be considered, and indeed must be considered as three ways of defining “lying” such that the faithful can grasp the essence of the moral “species” here. But no single one of the three here (or even other definitions such as “speaking at variance with the mind” etc) can be treated as an *absolute* definition of the species of lying, seems to me.
It’s also good to recall that the “object” of the moral act is just as much about the *will* as any other aspect of the moral act. At heart, we’re talking about whether a human act willed by a person is capable of being ordered to the good, and to the ulimate end, which is God.
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Hi Deacon Jim,
On a side note, the old Catholic Encyclopaedia states that Innocent XI condemned strict mental reservation in a papal bull. Unfortunately, I can’t find it online, but there’s a relevant extract on the following page of the encyclopaedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13427c.htm
“we find in Sanchez the twenty-sixth thesis condemned by Innocent XI; “If anyone, by himself, or before others, whether under examination or of his own accord, whether for amusement or for any other purpose, should swear that he has not done something which he has really done, having in mind something else which he has not done, or some way of doing it other than the way he employed, or anything else that is true: he does not lie nor perjure himself.”
In response to your comment:
I think the difference between lying and contraception becomes clearer if we look at the moral philosophy behind the two, specifically, the ‘good’ that is harmed in each instance. The good that is harmed by contraception is the unitive self-giving of the married couple, and the ‘life-giving’ power of that union (this isn’t my field, so don’t quote me!). These goods are harmed by contraception. However, rape is purely a violation or abuse of these human capacities, and so these two goods do not enter the equation. It’s a bit like the pope’s comment about a male prostitute using a condom…the church forbids contraception in marriage, but since it also forbids male prostitution, it’s not as though the church needs to have a policy forbidding contraception among male prostitutes!
Sorry, that was a bit off track. Anyhow, the goods that are harmed by lying are four-fold by my count:
1. The good of knowing the truth. If someone lies to me and I believe them, my knowledge of the truth is harmed. This is bad in and of itself (truth is a ‘self-evident good’) but also because I might act on false information.
2. The social good of trust and reliable communication. ‘fabric of society’ etc.
3. The lie-teller’s love for the truth and respect/honour of the truth. It’s really hard for someone who *loves* the truth to tell a lie. It’s a kind of betrayal.
4. The ‘integrity’ or ‘sincerity’ or ‘wholeness’ thing I’ve mentioned. There is something self-evidently good about your words, actions, beliefs, and thoughts all corresponding. To break this correspondence is harmful, as most people will experience when the lie, cheat, keep secrets, etc.
1 & 2 involve other people, but 3 & 4 are about the individual who lies. If you look at the nature of these goods, you can see that they are very general compared to the goods of marriage, which take place within very limited circumstances. In other words, while we can think of a situation (rape) in which contraceptive devices can be used without harming the good of marriage, I am hard pressed to think of any situations in which we can speak falsehoods with the intent of deceiving, without harming at least some of the 4 goods outlined above.
I appreciate this conversation, Jim, it has been challenging and thought provoking, and above all, civil!
Kind regards,
Zac
Hi, Zac—just a real quick reply on the Pope Innocent the XI—I’ve heard the term “decretal” applied to the document this is found in, which may or may not be significant in that the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that one definition of the term is that it’s a papal response on a matter of “discpline” (as opposed to doctrine). But, I’m also told his statement on this is noted in Denzinger, so I’m assuming it’s positive magisterial teaching on a point of doctrine.
And, I can see why, since I beleive if refers specifically to what we might call a kind of “double” mental reservation, in that it’s said in the context of when someone is “swearing” that he is telling the truth.
That, to me, suggests a “limited” condemnation of the theological opinion of mental reservation, such as would apply in a court of law (thus the perjury reference) or in a situation in which a person is literally “swearing” (presumably before God) that what he says is true.
You also said: ****In other words, while we can think of a situation (rape) in which contraceptive devices can be used without harming the good of marriage, I am hard pressed to think of any situations in which we can speak falsehoods with the intent of deceiving, without harming at least some of the 4 goods outlined above.****
Well, the special case of contraception in rape still “accomplishes” the same material act as contraception in marriage—it “frustrates” the conception. Likewise, a special case of “speaking falsehood *without* an intention to deceive (such as with the intent to protect a greater truth via a form of *discretion*), can be seen to be quite naturally similar to the contraception special case. Such a special case of “speaking falsehood” will also accomplish the person’s “being-deceived but would be morally permissible, as I’ve theorized it, because there would be no “intention to deceive”.
Regarding the 4 goods you mentioned, I don’t know that they are all “absolute” or that they are all affirmed as essentially upheld by the Magisterial teaching on this subject. And, if the intention is really discretion, which is a form of respect for the truth, then I think it upholds those four goods after all.
God bless you
Deacon Jim Russell
*********
Posted by J Brown on Saturday, Feb 26, 2011 1:50 PM (EST):
Deacon Jim,
I merely repeat the Catechism’s teaching, which I think would be a good idea for everyone to do. A lie is a falsehood spoken with intent to deceive - it is always sinful. This cannot be debated or disagreed with, as some here have done.
**********
By that standard, Oskar Schindler’s lie to the Germans is sinful, and I believe Veritatis Splendor would argue against that. On the one hand, by telling the truth, Schindler himself aids and abets the Nazis in the murder of over 1000 Jews. (Silence, or “I don’t know” still results in their murder.) He cannot be absolved from the immorality of that act simply because he doesn’t personally pull the trigger. On the other hand, he “lies”, and says these Jews are necessary in the conduct of his business. The problem is that the situation itself calls for a choice between two acts of immorality. Thus, despite making an “intrinsically disordered” choice (lying), Schindler has not behaved sinfully, at least with respect to his own standing before conscience and God. In this particular case, it is a special charity that Schindler’s risk to his own life is heightened by the position he takes (lying) than by telling the Nazis the truth, thereby making himself an active participant in murder.
Now, if you want to say
Sorry - please delete “Now, if you want to say” from my last post.
It seems to me that we are leaving God out of the picture. Yes, it seems the acting videos can help bring to light the atrocities at abortion mills, but it seems then we take matters into our own hands rather than restraining from pretending to be something we are not, to bring about a greater good, when we should choose honesty and have faith that God will fix it. Is that too simple of an idea?
Hi Deacon Jim,
I’m afraid we’re going to remain in disagreement for now.
“Likewise, a special case of “speaking falsehood *without* an intention to deceive (such as with the intent to protect a greater truth via a form of *discretion*), can be seen to be quite naturally similar to the contraception special case. Such a special case of “speaking falsehood” will also accomplish the person’s “being-deceived but would be morally permissible, as I’ve theorized it, because there would be no “intention to deceive”.”
I still disagree about the correctness of the analogy between lying and contraception. But I will just say in summary that I think the biggest difficulty for your argument remains the plausibility of speaking a falsehood without an intent to deceive, when it is undeniable that deception follows directly from the falsehood spoken. In other words, I must continue to challenge the newly created category of ‘discretion’ which is used to justify telling falsehoods that would otherwise constitute deception.
I don’t usually argue about such things using the specific language of the catechism as definitive…so this may also be a cause of misunderstanding. I would prefer to define lying more stringently…ie. asserting an untruth as true. Deception demands the ‘as true’ part, so for me this is a clearer definition than one that invokes the intent to deceive.
Good luck!
Kind regards,
Zac
Hi, Zac—thanks again for the conversation—I’m concentrating on the concerns you raise, and I hope that in future in some public forum, I will be able to more properly articulate the thought process at work.
Pondering this is indeed a challenge, but a rewarding one.
God bless you
and thanks again
Deacon Jim Russell
@Theresa Lynn - i believe it is… too much to ask of us, i mean…
GOD said lying is a sin…
GOD said killing is a sin…
everyone wants to put themselves in the situations mentioned - they want to be right when they lie to authorities… they want to be right to defend themseves by killing in attack… they are thinking “us=right” and “they=wrong” instead of the fact that EVERYONE thinks this way…
.....
i dont know what to thinj - lying is wrong, killing is wrong… makes me go to my knees and beg GOD to make it real…
The article completely ignores the legitimate practice of (one kind of) mental reservation. And lying is always wrong - in all circumstances. Since the devil is the “father of lies”, it is incredible & nonsensical that some lies can possibly be venial.
What about the Pope instructing fake baptismal certificates to be made out in order to pass Jewish children off as Christian during the Nazi persecution? What about Rahab the harlot who was upheld as righteous BECAUSE she lied to those hunting the Jewish spies and thus saved their lives? What about Judith, who deceived the General in order to chop off his head because he was killing the Jewish people by blocking their access to water - and it was foretold of her that all generations would call her blessed - a foreshadowing of our blessed mother, I might add. Murder is evil, but killing is NOT NECESSARILY so. I might be wrong but I think lying in order to save a life is upheld in scripture as being justified, even potentially admirable.
Also, if lying is always wrong then acting is always wrong, writing fiction is always wrong, and even telling parables is always wrong. People in scripture constantly wrote under pseudonames, presenting themselves as someone they were not and this is a lie, so it should - by your logic - be wrong. Are undercover cops engaging in acts of sin by going undercover? Can Catholic police officers do so with a clear conscience?
Lila Rose did not infiltrate Planned Parenthood. Infiltrating Planned Parenthood would be working for them, trying to destroy them from the inside out. She would be required to participate in the killing of the unborn in order to do so. This is also why the efforts made by those early Christians to infiltrate the groups of heretics in order to expose them was wrong - it required their participation in the very evil they wanted to stop in order to do so. However, I am fairly certain that Augustine and St. Thomas both would see that Lila’s actions expose the evil without actively participating in it.
I don’t pretend to have the answers, but I think this requires a deeper examination before we move to condemn Lila Rose and Live Action.
Brandy:
The Pope never did that. As to your other objections, St. Thomas deals with them. Lying is always a sin. Always. That’s why the Church teaches that lying “by its very nature, is to be condemned.”
However, manticore, lying is not always mortal sin.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.