Mark, thank you for your defense of the truth.

The Church is clear in the catechism: lying, *by its nature* is to be condemned.

This means that no circumstance and no intention can make it acceptable. St. Thomas Aquinas said it: you cannot even lie to deliver people from danger.

I believe what contraception is to the body, lying is to the soul. Our souls were made for the truth, and when you lying, you counteract that purpose.

I’m not so sure I’m doing all that bang up a job of defending the truth.  As I say, I’m a) conflicted and b) not enough of a moral theologian to have a clear idea of the distinction between “Lying” and “Withholding the Truth from Those with No Right to it”.  As I say, if the Gestapo comes knocking for the Jews in the wine cellar, I lie and figure out the fine points later.  But I am nervous about not having all the fine points worked out because a massive amount of evil has been done by Liars for the Greater Good (including the people who gave us the Gestapo).

I find myself conflicted about this as well.  I feel that if I were in a situation where somebody would die directly as a result of my telling the whole truth, I would be very inclined to tell a lie.  (I’m reminded of the sisters in ‘The Sound of Music’ who, after sabotaging the nazi’s car, immediately confessed their sins).  I feel that this reasoning is not dissimilar to the argument for self-defense.  The use of lethal force (if that level is warranted) is justified (as I understand it) if that person poses a direct and imminent danger to myself or my family.
  I also understand that there are many consequences to such an action as justifying telling a lie and I have seen many evils brought about by the justification of ‘ends justify the means’.
  That being said, I believe the best thing to do in such as situation (in theory anyway) is to simply kneel down and pray.  It bypasses telling a lie and brings about the realization that God is in control and that I am a servant of His will.  I, however, do not have this level of faith (though I aspire to) and would be far too worried about the lives of the people I’m trying to protect and would try to control the situation by myself.
  *I’d love to hear any feedback as I am still quite young and have only recently started to develop any semblance of reasoning skills.  Thank you.

Mark,

I truly do not understand what motivates you to question this. And furthermore you answered your own question but then still have questions. I am not a theologian but I know that hiding from the bad guys is always OK. Planned parenthood is reaching out into the communities and pulling our daughters(and sons)into their evil. Lila Rose and Live Action are going in to save lives, Planned Parenthood and their kind are not just organizations we disagree with, they are actively and intentionally hurting people.

Mark, you said “I hate to say it, because my loathing for Murder Inc. is so deep, but I basically tend to agree that it is wrong to take even a butcher down with lies.”- The impression you give here is that Live Action is lying ABOUT PP, not true they are EXPOSING PP’s lies.

Mark, this is a case of right vs wrong. Maybe what you should have done is research this topic on your own and presented us with your own defense for bring down PP instead of just bringing scandal to Live Action, very careless writing.

JSTAR, I just read your post.  I think Mr. Shea is speaking more in theory about the morality of lying for a good cause (though he probably can answer this better than I can).  However, I think that in the case of Live Action, lying to Planned Parenthood in order to expose their lies is a mixed bag.  It does publicly expose their seemingly ingrained misconduct (though I think it warrants a better word), but it also gives them an ‘out’.  All they have to say is that they were ‘deceived’ or ‘victims of a fraud’ and yet again make themselves out to be the ‘victims’. So seems to be the way with using deception as a tool for good.  I think that it would be even more damning to have an expose on actual pimps and underage sex-traffikers taking the advice of the Planned Parenthood staff and linking it back to Planned Parenthood (though the logistics of this still elude me). 
  I hope I didn’t offend you, and I share your view that Planned Parenthood is responsible for a great many evils.

Matthew,

If Planned Parenthood is truly a “butcher”(Mark’s word) and this is truly a holocaust, debating about “lying” seems truly ridiculous. If you have been involved in this fight against the pro-aborts you might see how this argument (at least in this forum at this time) is counter productive. In order to bring down planned parenthood and their like and save lives, the activity of Live Action is completely justified, as was hiding the Jews, not paying taxes to the British (revolution), the underground railroad and on and on. Please let’s remember the true weight of the abortion issue.

I see your point and am inclined to agree with you (especially about the practicality).  However, I believe it is also wise to every once and a while take a step back and evaluate one’s methods to make sure that they are morally justified and not being counter-productive.  That was my intention. God bless!

Jstor:

The question is not about lying *about* PP, but lying to them.  That this does not bother you in the slightest is more or less what gives me qualms about it, because history demonstrates that those who are certain of their own righteousness tend to embrace the notion that if a lie in a good cause is okay here, why then it’s okay lots of other places since they are, of course, always doing it for a good cause. Your swiftness to denounce moral qualms about lying as a sort of heresy or betrayal and even as some sort of support for PP is likewise, a demonstration of the ease with which those who embrace morally dubious propositions tend to garland themselves with heroic pride while demonizing those who dare to suggest that there may be problems with their methods.  The “Either you are with or against us” mindset is toxic.  It tends to blind us and make us stupid, so that we take even the slightest criticism (“Is it right to lie *to* PP for a good end?”) and make it into an exaggerated claim (“You are saying we are lying *about* PP!  Whose side are you on, anyway?”)  Less polemical heat and more light please.  This is a serious moral problem that I am not at all sure I have a good answer to.  Many Christians, all mortally opposed to PP, have similar doubts.  Denouncing them as heretics or turncoats is not helpful.

In the article, the writer,Reginaldus stated that according to Catholic teaching, we cannot lie even to save someone’s life. My question was that since we are permitted under certain circumstances to use deadly force against an aggressor, then why would lying to the aggressor be a sin.

I don’t know that I can agree with Reginaldus’ answer.

Tollefsen’s definition of a lie is when you assert something as true, which you know to be false. The damage is thus twofold, first and foremost to the integrity of the person lying (by effecting a division b/w the inner and outer self) and secondly to the person who is lied to. If someone went into a PP clinic asking “if I was underage” or other sort of statements, then clearly there is no lie. It’s also likely though that that method probably wouldn’t work, as the PP clinics would either catch on or get very suspicious. Which is why lying seems to be the only way Live Action can get the footage they want (via the answers caught on tape by the unsuspecting clinic worker - who beleives that they are who they say they are). There’s not really much wrong in deception per se, as Aquinas often held that deception isn’t the wrong in lying, it is the fruit of the lie (in other words, a “good” lie, a succesful lie, is one that deceives, in order to achieve it’s purpose - but it isn’t the primary wrong in lying). It’s an important distinction I think. There is a big difference between asserting something which you know to be false as true (lying), and saying things which could be taken as evidence (but not an assertion) of a fact, but vague enough not too. For Chris Tollefsen’s full explanation of truth telling and lying, read his article “Lying: The Integrity Approach,” American Journal of Jurisprudence, 52 (2007): 253–71.

The article I am referring to in my above comment is from Public Discourse today, by Christopher Tollefsen on “Truth, Love and Live Action” and is in reference to their use of lies to uncover the wrong of PP. You can read it all here:http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2529

It’s a good question, Mark, but here’s the thing that stood out to me: From what I saw of the videos, the situation presented by Live Action in these videos seemed neither shocking nor disturbing to Planned Parenthood.  Kind of like they’ve had similar experiences before.  So I have to wonder how big of a lie it is to hand them a situation it seems they’re comfortable dealing with.  But that’s my impression.

I think the question of whether or not it was morally wrong to lie to the Nazis while defending Jews is the most pertinent in this debate.  Planned Parenthood is deliberately misleading people and, in the process, making millions of dollars off the slaughter of unborn children.  If the intent of the lying is not to cause harm to the innocent, but protect the innocent…well, I don’t know if that makes it any less…it’s just so confusing.

I just keep coming back to the work done by law enforcement officers working under cover: could we not operate stings or investigations to stop criminal activity if a cop has to lie?  I don’t know.

“In the article, the writer,Reginaldus stated that according to Catholic teaching, we cannot lie even to save someone’s life. My question was that since we are permitted under certain circumstances to use deadly force against an aggressor, then why would lying to the aggressor be a sin.”

Yah that’s a good question, any thoughts?

Matthew 10:16. “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

I only watched a few minutes of the video, then stopped.

If I was dealing directly with a pimp and under aged girls being trafficked, I would actually ‘play along’ and work with the pimp, until….. until I got the girls in a safe place away from the pimp (in the exam room) then offer them help from their abusive relationship.  Since I’m assuming the pimp and the young girl never returned for health services, and that the PP office had no info to follow up on how could they really report the crime?

I’m just thinking along the lines of being in a Catholic ER and a woman, obviously had injuries from domestic violence comes in. She may not be allowed to come in, if the abusive husband thinks he may get caught. You can’t ask her directly what happened, if for some reason the abusive husband is sitting right next to her in the ER triage.  A nurse has to wait until, the husband is out of the room to get help for the abuse victim. Was PP given that opportunity?

I’m rather in the same boat as Mr. Shea. Things like lying to Nazis about the Jews in the attic or an undercover cop lying seem reasonable and good, but I can’t really come up with a justification for why it wouldn’t be sinful aside from “it was for a good reason.” I very much want to be able to say that it’s not sinful or that there is a valid moral explanation for why the untruth is not truly a lie, but I’m coming up lacking.

What about Karol Wojtyla not being honest about being a seminarian? He must have had to lie at least once in order to stay alive.

@Jstar2009, OK, but WHAT makes that not a sin? I want more than examples of people who lie for a good reason, I want an explanation of why that’s not sinful.

As Mark demonstrates with his Gestapo example, lying is not intrinsically evil.  There are scenarios in which lying is morally acceptable such as self defense, espionage, etc.  However, there are obviously scenarios in which lying is wrong. 

For the sake of argument, lets say that lying is not necessarily evil in the circumstances of the LiveAction videos.  At that point, the question is one of proportionality.  Are the negative effects of lying outweighed by the benefits?  Proportionality is of course void if the action was wrong in the first place.  Personally, I am inclined to side with LiveAction.

Jstar:

Appeals to hypothetical actions by JPII don’t really wash because a) we don’t know that he lied about being a seminarian and b) even if he did, so what?  That doesn’t mean he was right.  What we *know* is that the Church teaches that good ends do not justify evil means.  This was articulately defended by…. Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor.

This would lead one to the conclusion that undercover police work is also wrong, and I am not willing to concede that, as it just “feels” like the wrong conclusion.  However, that said, I have no reasoning lined up to explain why undercover police work would be OK, just the intuition that it is morally acceptable.

I’m not sure that we have to classify this kind of activity as lying.  It is more like acting for the purpose of seeing how someone reacts to a particular situation.

As Mark demonstrates with his Gestapo example, lying is not intrinsically evil.

Mark “demonstrates” no such thing.  Mark states his feelings, nothing more.  The reason I feel conflicted is that both St. Thomas an St. Augustine tell us that lying *is* intrinsically evil.  The Church isn’t too hot on it either.  We can withhold information and misdirect, but direct lying—hard to see a license for it.

Do we have moral reservations with police officers working undercover?

Spies during wartime?

It seems (to me) the analogy fits.

After examining the catechism, I will have to revise my previous statement.  Lying does seem to be intrinsically evil.  However, there is some ambiguity about what is meant by a “lie.”  Some theologians hold that lying consists of telling falsehoods to someone who does not have a right to the truth.  Alternatively, the Catechism summarizes its definition of lying by describing a lie as a falsehood told to one’s neighbor.  Nazis, and arguably PP workers might be called enemies and not neighbors. 
Falsehood was employed against the enemies of the Israelites in wartime.  I know that they sort of get their own special moral code, what with the old covenant, but they were commanded to not bear false witness.

Whoops.  Correction for my above statement.  I meant to say “Some theologians hold that lying consists of telling falsehoods to someone who has a right to the truth.”

Didn’t Pope Pius XII issue fake passports to Jews to get them out of Europe? If he is canonized someday, that may help settle the issue.

@GAHUBER95:
Not really. Canonization doesn’t mean the person never sinned.

On the general subject, I would recommend Cardinal Newman’s note on Lying and Equivocation from his Apologia.

Mark-
  I’m curious to know your position on sting and deep-cover operations in general. Operations ranging from fighting organized crime with undercover officers to sting operations taking down online predators involve deceit. Even a local news reporter setting up cameras in his car to catch out a crooked mechanic involve the same kind of tactics Live Action used.

While I agree that lying as a means to an end is a slippery slope and to be denounced, law enforcement has always used ruses and misdirection like wiretaps and intercepted communication to catch criminals. Make no mistake, what that Planned Parenthood employee did was a felony. If a law enforcement body used the same techniques to catch and prosecute PP for committing a crime, would that be immoral?

I’m not trying to defend Live Action, I’m just genuinely curious as to where you draw the line on sting operations. I personally file this kind of thing under “gentle as doves, wise as serpents”.

Mark,

Your conflict is seen in the writing of the Catechism itself. When the Catechism was first released, paragraph 2483 stated that

“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.” (emphasis added).

However, when the revised version came out a few years later, that paragraph was changed to:

“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error.”

So obviously this is a debated point even at the highest levels of the Church. Obviously some moral theologians hold to the “right to know the truth” clause when defining the word “lie” (or else it would have never made it to the original version of the Catechism), but others were at least troubled by that definition, since that clause was eventually removed.

So I think it is a legitimate point for debate. I think one cannot say that lying is NOT intrinsically evil, but I think the definition of “lie” is very important here.

Personally, I think that the “right to know the truth” clause is an important part of the definition of lying. Our “common sense” meter should be used here. Mark, you mentioned that you would “cheerfully” deceive the Nazi guard, as would I. We both (presumably) have solid moral formation and in general know right from wrong. So why are we so untroubled by the idea of deception in such a situation? Because we intuitively understand that the Nazi guard has forfeited his right to the truth.

Of course, that does not mean that the “right to know the truth” clause can’t be easily abused. I can see someone quickly defending their deceptions in almost any situation, but the abuse of a principle does not negate its proper use.

A thought that occurs to me: Is any form of acting considered lying?  In this case, the Live Action folks were acting… the difference, I suppose, is that the PP workers didn’t *know* they were acting.  So does that change the justification?  One can lie so long as the person they’re lying to knows they are lying…?  I suppose I would be more comfortable with the LA workers had they come in seeking information for “hypothetical” situations—e.g., “What if I happened to know of 13 y/o sex workers who needed these services?”  If the PP worker assumed this wasn’t hypothetical, would that be the fault of the actor?  Would the intent still be to deceive…?  It’s a difficult question.  I’m more inclined to explore the “just war theory” on this one because there are truly millions of lives at stake here and they don’t have a voice to speak for themselves.

Something else that I’ve pondered is how the PP workers reacted to the actors… I’ve been a healthcare provider for several years, and I agree with a previous post that usually, one just “plays along” until the victim in question can be taken to a safe spot.  However, there was no direct victim in these scenarios; my thought is that the more appropriate action on the part of the PP workers should have been to verbalize understanding of what the pimp/prostitute were seeking, ask them to wait a few minutes to verify the clinic’s policies, then go call the police and have them arrested!  Obviously, though, the latter isn’t part of PP’s policies…

All lying? In any circumstance? like to your wife about a dinner you did not like? or your kids about their singing performance? If we are going to be literal about it.

I stand firmly with one foot on each side of the issue in perfect ambivalence.

Eric Sammons, nicely said. If I were smart enough I would have said what he said.

“I stand firmly with one foot on each side of the issue in perfect ambivalence.”
Mark took the words right out off my mouth.

Renee Aste, In some of the videos you can make that argument, but in others the workers give suggestions to the “pimp” which would prevent the girls from being detected upon being brought back in. In these cases it would be hard to imagine that the girls would receive any help, other than the “help” of birth control and abortions.

Re: lying. One could say that those PP workers (in some of the videos) were “lying to protect the young women”. If we can lie to the Nazi’s to save lives, then certainly you can lie to a pimp to get his girls into the clinic?

On another note, would it be permissible to *use* the information gained from the lies of others? What if it was being debated whether or not the lie was ethical?

I understand your concerns and I have some as well, but I tend to believe that this is morally permissible under the circumstances. Oskar Schindler did much more than lie when asked questions that the Nazis had no right to ask. He actively lied about his activities, why he needed to obtain more workers, and he even produced “dud” bombs while being paid by the Nazis for them.  While Schindler had his moral failings, I strongly doubt the Lord will judge him negatively for what he did in saving Jews from the Nazis. The deception these people have engaged in is far less serious and involved than what Schindler engaged. 

Consider what they did.  It’s not as if they entered a roomful of drunken men with hookers - appealing to a man’s weakness.  They went in and presented a situation that ANY human being or business should have immediately found to be morally repulsive.  It’s not as if there are human beings who have a personal moral weakness for enabling child sex traffickers to obtain abortions and other “services.” 

These people exposed the moral depravity of a *business*.  The woman on the video was following the business practices learned while in the employ of Planned Parenthood - there is an emerging pattern of corporate behavior and culture here and it isn’t simply the personal moral failings of individuals.  We already know that Planned Parenthood is murdering hundreds of thousands of children every year.  But, sadly, some people don’t see any problem with that.  Perhaps more are likely to be sickened by the enabling of child sex trafficking. 
 
In my opinion, I tend to think what they did was heroic.  Of course, should the Church somehow weigh in on this and contradict that, I would humbly submit.  But I doubt that’s going to happen.

My gut, throughout this whole discussion, has believed that there is an answer and I believe that Eric Sammons response comes the closest.  Indeed, *all* deception cannot be intrinsically evil or we would be telling our spouses that the casserole was lousy and that our kiddos artwork was unintetelligible (though I know better than to say a lie, but to tell a creative truth…“Never had anything like it”... or “beautiful colors”). 

The discussion brought by the CCC about lying is very interesting and does seem to offer clue to the answer: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error.” Would revealing the location of hidden Jews to the Gestapo lead the Gestapo to error (sin)?  Is not the defense of innocent life allowed, or more to the point, is not the destruction of innocent life a textbook example of error (sin)?  In fact, this reading of the CCC also illuminates the proper response to the lousy cook… a charitable answer praising the efforts of the cook but not necessarily the result, lest the lousy dish be created again due to the lie that it “was great”.
I really do not believe that defending innocent life (innocent Jews, victims of crime, the self-esteem of our children…) requires the type of lie condemned by the CCC, nor the excuse of the ends justifying the means.  The goal of those hiding the jews, of those in law enforcement, etc is the prevention of error, not deception.  But as Eric Sammons rightly said above:  “I can see someone quickly defending their deceptions in almost any situation, but the abuse of a principle does not negate its proper use. “

I wish I were more eloquent, but I needed to add my two cents.

Lying is intrinsically wrong, there is an absolute moral norm prohibiting lying. Augustine and Aquinas are clear on this. An absolute moral norm means nothing more than; an exception-less moral norm (i.e. there are no exceptions, justifications etc for it). Lying to the Nazis is wrong too, as Christ impels us to love our enemies, and lying to anyone is clearly incompatible with love. Someone who doesn’t deserve or have a right to the truth is in no position to demand it, and so in difficult situations like this, a crafty, witty, evasive or cunning reply is often good, or a refusal to answer or call for repentance of the offender is often the only morally appropriate response. Now of course, the ‘realists’ out there will throw it right back at me that it’s likey that you’ll be shot or that it won’t work, but this presuposses that the right action (morality) is concerned with obtaining the best possible state of affairs and minimizing harm, to which I would respond that such thinking is not Catholic (and not even fully reasonable), as it is consequentialist, utilitarian and proportionalist. Morality is all about our will, volitions, human choice and deliberation. We’re not marxists, bringing about a utopia of the best state of affairs, we’re human persons, seeking to choose uprightly and do good, pursuing truth and loving others, no matter what comes about. As Mother Teresa said, we are called to be faithful, not successful.

This issue is quite interesting and complex, and it is tragic that the souls of thousands of people and the lives of millions of babies are at stake here, because it is thus no idle exercise.

I do agree with many that the “right to know the truth” may be at the crux of this issue.  I think it is clear that deception per se is not intrinsically sinful: I imagine a person taking their PC home from work everyday as a security precaution, who observers think is very dedicated for working at home so diligently.  Of course, he is not obliged to announce to everyone that no, he is not planning on doing any work.  But if asked, he should explain truthfully.  One difference that is probably relevant is that there is not intent for the employee to make anyone think they’re a workaholic, whereas LiveAction’s activities are a ruse. 

For all the abuse in recent history that has occurred in the name of “primacy of conscience”, here might be a case where that concept has weight: this is a area where there is a line in the sand somewhere, but reasonable and informed people are differing where than line is.  But without question, some magisterial clarification on the matter would be greatly appreciated.  Even if it is just from a bishop or two from one of the dioceses where the tapes were made. 

It is nice to see near consensus here that this is a gray area.  And even though a few don’t see it as gray at all, with the context being as extreme as it is I can sympathize with that type of conviction.  Either God is letting Good come out of Evil (something He has proven time and again very good at), the more draconian opinions will be someday vindicated.  In both cases Thank God!

Patrick Langrell: I get what you are saying but I am not convinced.  As Jennifer points out, it would seem that not all untruths are wrong.  If all lies are wrong but not all untruths are wrong then it follows that not all untruths are “lies.”  I can tell you this: I wouldn’t want to be a Jew hiding in your attic.  I don’t mean to be uncharitable by saying this, but rather to encourage more thought on the issue.

Mark - Thanks for this article. I was one who got started in on the discussion at the link you provided, but bowed out because people didn’t want to discuss, but argue and be told they were right.

To let you know, I have waffled on my argument that is similar to what Eric Sammons put above - you can’t lie, but it depends on the definition of a lie. The reason I am waffling is because a friend sent me this:

“Abortion is a lie, and it will not be vanquished with more lies.  If we do have the truth on our side, why don’t we believe it?  Why do we feel that to expose the lie, we need to resort to tactics such as posing as pimps or prostitutes, because they are moral agents who herald our cause?  Consider a person who embodies the qualities of a moral agent, like Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.  Imagine her sitting across a table from the Planned Parenthood worker and telling her that some of her novices have gotten into trouble and she needed some ‘quiet’ assistance to skirt some legal entanglements.  My gut response at this prospect is disgust.  Of course, replace Mother Teresa with a pimp, who, by the way, is also made in the image and likeness of God and is equally called to be a moral agent, and I suddenly feel better with the whole situation and whatever information is gathered from it.  Mother Teresa carried the weight of representing Christ in the world, so I am much more comfortable asking someone else to act like a pimp to do God’s work.  I don’t think it would have entered Mother Teresa’s mind to deceive the clinic worker.  No, she would have just repeatedly pleaded with outstretched arms: “I want the babies, can you please give me the babies?”  This would be truth without nuance.

Conclusion: I’ll put my money on one loving, little old lady over an army of lying pimps any day.”

I am still on the fence, but about to jump down with the little old lady…

Mark, I thought about it and wrote about it after some other discussions.

“Is it wrong to deceive a deceiver to protect a child?”
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/2011/02/is-it-wrong-to-deceive-deceiver-and.html

If I’m being completely honest, I would lie to protect an innocent person, especially a child.  If that is morally wrong then I pray for muteness and physical strength if I’m ever in a situation where a child is in imminent danger.

We still have questions about law enforcement and the military doing undercover work.  Is that immoral or not?

Hi Pat, thanks for your comments. Firstly, I’m unclear in what an “untruth” is. If we’re going to evaluate a choice, I’d need to be clear in what is actually being done, in what context too. Deception isn’t the wrong in a lie, it’s the fruit of a lie. In other words, a “succesful lie” is one that actually deceives, achieves its purpose. The wrong in a lie is twofold; first and foremost to the person who lies, who damages their personal integrity by effecting a division between the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ self (as communication is self-revelatory, it tells people not mere things, but an insight into who we are, and what we believe). The secondary wrong is done to the person who is lied to, it damages the relationship between the two persons by virtue of the lie.

Does this make us question undercover work, undercover journalism, espionage, spies, and all of that? Insofar as it involves lieing (which in mose cases it does) - YES!

In my moral theology classes for the diaconate, a lie was defined as not telling someone the truth, who in justice, deserved the truth. I looked up passages in the catechism yesterday when I first read the original article and there is more than the one passage cited about truth and lies. I don’t have the references handy, but it seemed to me that you could still make the case for the “who in justice deserved the truth” line of reasoning. I can see both sides from the texts though. Perhaps the Church still wants to explore this.

Re:  the comparison to military and undercover police work:

If you review the Church’s teaching on Just War, and the death penalty you’ll see that “legitimate public authority” is a key concept.  (See CCC 2266, 2308-9).  These individuals acted solely on their own authority while carrying out this sort of deception.  They were not invested with “legitimate public authority.”  And that is my biggest concern here.  It is a sort of vigilantism and vigilantism is dangerous on many levels.  (Of course, they didn’t actually carry out a punishment here or hand down a “sentence”, so it’s not completely analogous, I acknowledge.  But I think the principle of “legitimate public authority” still has some relevance here).   
   
Certainly, the fact that citizens with no legitimate public authority are doing this sort of thing naturally suggests that those with real authority are seriously failing in their responsibilities. And as I think we have seen in certain extreme cases like Nazi Germany, there are times when the public authority can lose its legitimacy - at least in part.  It’s an interesting and important question, I think.  And I do appreciate Mark’s concerns, even if I don’t share them to the same degree.

One other point to add in favor of the people who videoed Planned Parenthood:  we do know, for a fact, that what Planned Parenthood is doing is objectively evil.  Therefore, we can at least draw a moral line in the sand against those who might take this example and use it to justify doing the same to *any* business or individual (something Mark is rightly concerned about).  At the very least, perhaps we can state that using deception to expose a business is wrong and unacceptable, *unless* it is known with moral certainty that said business is already engaging in gravely immoral/criminal behavior. 
 
Just throwing that out for consideration.

Does the Gospel help here:
John 7:6-10
6 So Jesus said to them, “My time is not yet here, but the time is always right for you.
7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I testify to it that its works are evil.
8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up 4 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.

Writer Joseph Bottoms makes the argument over at CatholicVote.com, in reference to an article written by Christopher Tollefsen similar to this discussion at Public Discourse, that what Live Action did is akin to naval warfare.

“. . . in the realm of naval warfare, there are recognized tricks—each a ruse de guerre that the international laws of war do not condemn. Sailing under false colors, prior to engaging in battle, for example.

“In the high abstraction of Prof. Tollefsen’s noble philosophy, such things would be counted as lies. And rightly so. In the monastery and the convent, too, they would be theologically condemned. War, however, is not fought on those fields. Neither are its combatants the perfect pacifists of Christian self-sacrifice.

“Of course, the fight against abortion is also not fought on abstract fields. Its battlegrounds are the political and social worlds, and for those worlds, Lila Rose’s ruse seems to me both fitting and clever.”

Check it out, there more detail at CatholicVote.com.

I’m going to have to go with Joseph Bottoms on this one - Live Action / Lila Rose did not sin in acting as pimps engaged in sexual exploitation of minors.

Many of us lie quite often.  When posed with questions such as “do you like my new hairdo,” or “does this outfit make me look fat?”  In all liklihood, many people take into consideration the feelings of the other person and shy away from radical honesty if in all reality, they don’t really think the person asking the question looks good/better..as an example

Also…isn’t using a pseudonym online the same thing as acting undercover?  If someone is “lying” about their name, couldn’t they also be lying about everything else?

Fransiscan: I can definitely appreciate your concerns about vigilantism.  We are not living in Nazi Germany and we have a legitimate government under which vigilantism is immoral.  I’m not sure if Lila Rose crosses over the vigilante line but it is an excellent question to explore.

I’ve been ping-ponging this in my head ever since reading Reginaldus’ piece, as well as several others, some pro and some anti.  And like Mark, I am standing firmly with both feet in ambivalence.

I have to wonder if some of this discussion can be covered in the same way certain medical treatments, known to cause infertility,(such as a hysterectomy, perhaps) are allowed when there is no better option.  Obviously some people will refuse treatment for the moral concerns, yet if I understand teaching correctly, it is allowed because the infertility is a ‘side effect” and not the goal of the treatment, though many here would probably mostly agree that birth-control in an inherent evil. Could not a similar argument be made, at least in the Nazi/Jew situation wherin the goal is not deception itself, per se, but the preseervation of innocent life? (the deception being akin to the hysterectomy?)
 
The PP/pimp situation is a little more difficult, though I wonder if the uproar is more over the fact that this is about abortion rather than someone hired as a “secret shopper” to evaluate a grocery store.

@jennifer:
What you are describing with the hysterectomy is the Principle of Double Effect, which is a legitimate moral principle. Part of that principle is that the evil is the unintended side-effect of an act intended for a good effect, it cannot be the act itself. In other words, the ends don’t justify the means. If telling the Nazis an untruth about the Jews in your attic is in fact lying, and if lying is in fact intrinsically evil, then the Principle of Double Effect does not apply because the evil is the means, not just the side-effect.

Any Cardinal Newman scholars out there? I’m not one of them, but I’ve been given to understand he made some important distinctions vis-a-vis telling the truth, mental reservation, etc.

It may not be germane, however, because in this case we don’t have someone backed into a corner, but initiating an untruth…

Mark - I am conflicted like you. I don’t know what to think of it. I’m so glad you took on this topic for discussion. Thanks for being a brave soul. My friend Father Geoff Horton tackled this topic a week ago on facebook. You can read his take here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/fr-geoff-horton/facilis-decensus-averno/10150133065746079

Though I have to admit - I am still troubled with this.

what does it mean if none of this even crossed my mind about the undercover videos until this article? however it’s a very good discussion. there is a tendency to think I can justify these means (posing as something I am not) by the outcome, but that assumes some things. I can’t judge the intentions or the soul of others, but I agree with Mark Shea that in the moment I would probably feel I was justified. It probably indicates a lack of faith on my part.

Oh yes, Catholic Vote has an interesting take as well: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=13848

I’m not sure if Lila Rose crosses over the vigilante line but it is an excellent question to explore.

I don’t think she is.  MOST of what our government does is legitimate and the laws, therefore, are binding on us.

But if we learned anything from the horror of the abortion clinic ran by Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania, it’s that the government’s laws and treatment concerning the unborn are decidedly immoral and unjust.

It is perfectly legal, in the United States of America, kill an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy.  The government cannot be relied upon to provide oversight to this horror so women and children aren’t butchered, let alone to reverse itself on the legality of abortion.

I consider all abortion laws that allow abortion to be unjust.  Since Lila Rose is combating an unjust law, I odn’t think the case can be made she is immorally a vigilante.

Thanks Ann.  By the way, you were great in “Viva Las Vegas”. [ducks]

Just to avoid confusion: The Amy at 2:17 pm was a different Amy than the previous posts.

The vatican has said that there are certain justifications for war, and that killing in self defense or the defense of another is justifiable.  Would not the same reasoning work here, that certain actions may be taken for a greater good?  One of the Popes also hid Jews in the vatican during WWII; did he not lie about that at the time?

It might be helpful to look to a biblical principle for some light.

In the book of Judith, we hear Judith pray this prayer:

“...By the deceit of my lips strike down the slave with the prince and the prince with his servant; crush their arrogance by the hand of a woman.
    “For thy power depends not upon numbers, nor thy might upon men of strength; for thou art God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of the weak, protector of the forlorn, savior of those without hope.  Hear O’ Israel, Lord of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all thy creation, hear my prayer!  Make my deceitful words to be their wound and stripe, for they have planned cruel things against thy consecrated house and against the top of Zion, and against the house possessed by thy children….”  Judith 9: 10-13

We know that God blesses Judith, one of the saviors of Israel, who tricks the Assyrians and chops off the head of Holofernes.  He blesses her deception, because it is just!  She is a heroine for deceiving the enemy!

We are at war.  Prudence, the guiding intellectual virtue informs us of what is just, courageous, and temperate.  In the matter of abortion which is a diabolical plague of the devil, it is perfectly permissable, and in fact necessary to employ deception.  Not only is it justified in this case, it is a laudable act of heroic justice.

“For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”  Eph. 6: 12

Just as Judith had to deceive to get into the enemy camp so did our young heroes of this present day story.

@Tina: Regarding just war, the difference is that war is not intrinsically evil, whereas as best I can tell the Magisterium teaches that lying is intrinsically evil.

“Withholding the truth” means remaining silent or equivocating, not lying.

@Tina,

Would not the same reasoning work here, that certain actions may be taken for a greater good?

No, because lying, unlike killing, is intrinsically evil. It can never be justified.

One of the Popes also hid Jews in the vatican during WWII; did he not lie about that at the time?

Hiding is not the same thing as lying.

It is important to note that not all deceptions are lies. When we engage in mental reservation we do intend to deceive (of course, we can only do this under certain circumstances). Lying consists of saying things you believe to be false with the intention of deceiving.

Chris:

Beware of adducing “biblical principles” from Old Testament tales or you might wind up concluding that everything from suicide to adultery and murder are biblical principles.  Tamar seduced her father in law and was ultimately rewarded for it.  It does not follow that incest is a biblical principle.

There are contexts where deception is licit.  I don’t think anyone would claim that it would be immoral for a football team to run a play-action pass, trying to convince the opposition that they’re doing a run play when they’re really running a pass play.  I suspect change-ups and head-fakes are also licit.

It may also be licit to be deceptive to say, preserve a surprise.  I may lead my parents to believe we’re going to a quiet dinner when I know we’re going to a surprise anniversary party.

I’m also inclined to think that deceptive maneuvers in the context of war are also licit.  One can put up a smokescreen to obscure one’s behaviors.  You can have a decoy.

In the context of hiding refugees, I’m not sure it would be licit to lie in response to a direct question, but I also think efforts to conceal it are licit.  I’m also inclined to think undercover law enforcement operations are licit.

So, I think there are contexts where deception, or maybe even lying, are acceptable, which puts before us the question of whether there is a distinguishing common thread for these contexts, and if it also runs through this particular context.

I’m not sure of the answer, but this might help organize some thinking.

Lying consists of saying things you believe to be false with the intention of deceiving

You mean like, “Why yes, Herr Sturmbannfuehrer, this Jewish kid has been baptised and is Catholic and does enjoy a few protections under the law.”?

Because Pius XII had no problem issuing fake baptismal certificates. Nor did Blessed John XXIII.  They might have been wrong in some technical sense to do so.  But it’s hard for me to care much.  I would have done the same thing and saved the question of my sin for the confessional.  Or not, since I’m jiggered if I can feel a jot of guilt for lying to save some innocent person’s life.

Mark, as the Catechism notes (CCC 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.” Assuming those acts were lies and therefore sinful, they may have been venial sins. There’s no law that says one cannot be merciful to the decisions made in such terrible circumstances, just as I think you have made clear in other contexts with reference to various just war teachings.

That said, there is also this quote from Blessed John Newman: “The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as 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 willful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.”

Mark,
    With all due respect, my comment deserves a bit more wrestling from you than a wave of the hand.  Or I should say the biblical precedent deserves some more wrestling from you. 
I laid out an argument-as best as can be done in a comment box-about the very nature of her action.  It is hardly an indiscriminate case of biblical proof texting.  The fact is St. Thomas himself cites scriptural precedent time and again when he wishes to cite God as the authority.  The question is whether the context supports the conclusion and in this case I don’t see how it cannot. 
The question before us is whether deception is intrinsically evil and this story clearly illustrates that it is not.  Judith prays to God for her deception to be blessed and it is!  She saves Israel by her deception and she praises God for his help and deliverance. 
If you wish to dismiss my argument then do so, but I think you may find some wisdom on this matter if you go back and read the whole book of Judith and take in the whole context.  There is not divinely inspired text dedicated to Tamar, but there is to Judith.  If scripture is the sould of sacred theology and if we are to renew moral theology by bringing it back to the inspired word of God then this is what must be done.
It is precisely in the Word of God, in harmony with human reason, that we will find the principles of life.  Just because that can be misapplied does not mean I have done so in this instance.
I encourage you to take another look at Judith.

@Chris: Who, in Catholic teaching, is the authoritative interpreter of divine revelation? (Hint: CCC 85.)

A big piece of the problem is that Jeremy Bentham won long ago in the Western mindset, and individual Catholics (as opposed to the mind of the Church) have not been immune. For many people, the critical questions to be asked in any moral issue is, “What are the consequences? What produces the greatest good of the greatest number?”

The thought that some things are just wrong no matter what ... people might pay lip service to it, especially when the “some thing” in question is something they agree is wrong, such as abortion, but when it comes to something we want to do, Utilitarianism or one of its Christian-veneer forms comes right back.

To show that Live Action’s telling falsehoods to PP is moral, one cannot start by looking at the results. If lying is intrinsically immoral, then no good result justifies it. CCC 2482 quotes St. Augustine’s definition of a lie: “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” CCC 2485 tells us: “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”

You’ll note that there is no exception for someone who does not have a right to the truth.

If you consult St. Augustine’s works on lying, BTW (they can be found at NewAdvent), you’ll see that the question of lying to protect others didn’t arise for the first time in the 1930s.

I hear a lot of people saying that lying is always wrong, but killing is not if it is to save the life of an innocent person.  Does that mean we wouldn’t have a moral issue if Live Action were killing abortionists rather than going undercover to expose lies?  I’m certainly not suggesting anyone do this, but this is the logical extension of that argument.  There is no question that abortion kills an innocent person.

Eric Sammons and Jennifer nail it.

I know this question went round and round awhile back at americancatholic blog-  I tend to go with the actors defense- like in “the world’s our stage”, and sometimes Artistic license can be taken to draw out or expose something sinful or untoward for the viewing audience. Acting is lying of a sort, playing devil’s advocate often seems appropriate though one is often led astray as to how one actually thinks in order to bring out some real Truth everyone should be seeking.

It would be nice if spying and uncover work was carried out in tandem with legitimate public authorities, but in cases where the public authorities have left off the natural law, then it is left for the citizenry and the free press to expose some things in order to create the conditions for a just reform to be made in the social fabric. The universal common good is the goal, but the means must be certified as moral ones in the process.  In the heat of battle- we may not react as we would wish, under duress, one can lose some or all of their free will- we panic, we think short-term, we want to please God but our consciences may conflict with our words or actions- save some people from a terrible death at the hands of Nazis or abortionists- you don’t want to lie, you don’t want your yes to mean no, but in the heat of the moment you may not do even that which you believe to be the perfect thing. And fighting abortion is our generation’s fight to save the innocent Jews from death- our best intentions get bettered all the time in small and large ways as we try to live and carry on in a society that if full of insane contradictions and crimes against unborn humanity. So, we may choose to lie or “act” and then go to Confession and confess our gray area sins and seek Father’s counsel- and then continue wrestling with our consciences and our studies of solid moral theology, with prayers flowing upwards for wisdom, truth, courage and prudence in going forward- to fight evil inside and outside another day.

Kyle,
    And if you read on….“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.”(CCC 86)  Of course properly understood, Jesus Christ, is the Word of God and not solely Scripture.

Nevertheless the very same catechism we are all looking too, is filled with biblical allusions to illustrate the numerous principles being laid down.

In article 2488 we read “The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional.  Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love.  This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.”

In the case of Judith it was not appropriate and in the case of Lila Rose it was not.  Just because in these cases they same to be offensive I think it throws us off.  We need to see more deeply and clearly into the situation.

The enemy has taken hold of certain ground which by rights belongs to God.  Lila Rose is really going back into claim what is rightfully God’s-not just the office, but the bodies and souls of those being abused by abortion.  They deceive in order to conquer.  They withhold the truth about who they are and what they wish to accomplish because to do otherwise would doom their just action.

The point to me is they are not lying to bring about a good.  They are witnessing to the truth to bring about the good.  They are not bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.  (CCC 2489)

The headline of the article is poorly worded because it is leading many of us to conclude that Lila is doing something evil to bring about the good-which is a violation of the moral law.  As St. Augustine has said, “God does not need our lies”.  Nevertheless the point is Lila Rose are not lying precisely because they are not withholding the truth from those who have a right to know it.  They are in fact witnessing to the sanctity of life by infiltrating enemy territory the only way it is possible.  They are as wise as serpents in this case.

The important point though is to conclude that they are doing something good to bring about something good.  They are not doing evil to bring about a good which would be a real compromise and be injurious to the cause of truth and life.

Mark, thank you for considering my article from New Theological Movement. It is a very difficult question—not theoretically, since it is quite clear that lying is always wrong; but practically, since it is hard to see how we can get through life in the modern world without at least some lies.

A couple of my own thoughts:
Christ himself said that Satan is the father of lies. The Catechism of Trent tells us that God has a special hatred for those who lie. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that lying is “by its nature” to be condemned.
In the long run, lies will never contribute formally to the victory of the Culture of Life—he who sins, becomes a slave of sin; and how much more when his victory is won through lies!
Obviously, it is hard…clearly, we want the pro-life movement to win. But, in the end, we must trust that the Lord will win the victory—for if the Lord does not build the house, in vain to the builders labor. And He is Truth!

@Marcel (12:53pm), I’m sorry you felt mistreated at New Theological Movement…do you make a habit of going to other various blogs and attacking a man’s reputation? It’s a serious thing to accuse me of not seeking the truth…

@Stacy (1:16pm), A pseudonym is not a lie, unless of course the author presented himself as someone other than he truly was. The pseudonym stands for an indication of the person, not as their proper name.
Also (re: your comment at 3:31pm), because killing is not always wrong, there are situations in which it would be legitimate to kill a murderer. However, as our nation is not in a state of anarchy (yet), it seems better to follow the laws of the State—and to work for their reform. If people just started killing abortionists, total anarchy could result…which would be an even worse evil.

@Chris,
You are correct, we ought not to reveal the truth to those who do not have a right to know it.
But we cannot ever, for any reason, tell a falsehood as a truth to anyone. This is what makes a lie a lie…regardless of whether PP has a right to know the truth, we cannot tell them a falsehood as truth (we cannot deceive them with falsehoods).
It seems that Live Action has done just this…saying that they are pimps and prostitutes, and that they have a whole ring of underage girls from other countries…This is the lie, and it is wrong.

Mark Shea wrote: “I’m jiggered if I can feel a jot of guilt for lying to save some innocent person’s life.”

Mark, I happen to be equally ambivalent as you on this subject. But replace the word “lying” with “waterboarding” above, and you get the exact sort of consequentialist argument that you so often dismantle.

To take this out of the abstract and back to real-life, Live Action saved exactly zero babies with its subterfuge. Yes, it may have helped to make Planned Parenthood look bad, but it seems to me if one claims that ends justify sinful means, then the ends ought to be something more than momentary embarrassment. The Jews in the attic example may be the best argument for lying, but it really doesn’t apply to this situation.

One day, before leaving for a family vacation, my 5-year-old son asked me why I was putting timers on the lights. “So bad guys will think we’re home, and they won’t try to rob the house while we’re away,” I explained. “Isn’t that a lie?” he asked.

I tried to explain the distinctions about how this was a deception, not a lie, and how the bad guys have no right to know when would be the best time to rob our home. But really, those answers all felt inadequate. Sometimes I wonder if the true, holier course of action would be simply not to deceive at all—better to lose my possessions than to lose my soul, no?

Regarding a pseudonym, that just seems like equivocating on what a lie is or is not.  Pseudonym means “false name” and when one gives it as his or her name as if it IS his or her name, then it’s stating a falsehood.  I once used one myself, and I am not offended at all if someone else uses one either, but if we are going to say that all misrepresentations of the truth are lies, then a pseudonym is a lie.  I stopped using one because I decided it was a contradiction to hide my identity when defending faith.  If everyone who actually knows you calls you by your real name face to face but you present yourself as some other name online, that is a falsehood.  The comment forms don’t say to enter your “false name” or “indication of your person.”  They say to enter your “name.”  The only reason people use pseudonyms is to protect themselves and their identity.  Given all that, how is that any more moral than using a pseudonym or any pseudo-fact undercover to protect an innocent person from abuse or murder?  At least in that case it’s not an act to protect the self, but someone else.  That’s my reasoning.  It’s just a question asked for exploration.  A pseudonym online is a form of being undercover.

FdS:

Of course, lying and torture are not the same thing.  Indeed, if I fib to the Gestapo, I’m doing it to keep them from subjecting somebody to “enhanced interrogation” or verscharft verhnehmung as they liked to call it.  But you grasp the point, which is that appeals to my feelings aren’t the same thing as actual moral reasoning.  The fact that I don’t feel bad about lying for a greater good is no guarantee that it’s okay.  It’s merely a statement about the current state of my emotions.  Many guys in the Gestapo had no emotional difficulties with doing grave evil for what they considered a greater good.  Indeed, it was the same good by which torture defenders today justify torture: national security.

That’s why I’m ambivalent.  I’ve heard BS argument for *years* from torture defenders.  I know they are crap and I’m very leery of crappy arguments for lying too.  However, I also intuit that fibbing to somebody is not morally equivalent to drowning them, freezing them, or suffocating them.  People who won’t acknowledge the distinction between those two classes of acts are sophists.

Reginald,
    Thank you for engaging my arguments.  Nevertheless you assert “that we cannot ever, for any reason, tell a falsehood as a truth to anyone”.  Where do you get this? 

It is true that we may never do evil to bring about good, BUT you are merely begging the question by asserting that we may never tell a falsehood as a truth to anyone.  This is clearly false.

In article 2490 of the Catechism we are told that the seal of the Confession is inviolable.  Under some extreme cases clearly it would be permissible and in fact necessary to tell a falsehood in order to protect the seal.

In Hitchcock’s somewhat famous movie “I Confess” from the 1950’s a priest is arrested for a murder he did not commit.  The actual murderer has already confessed to him and the circumstantial evidence all points to the priest, despite his innocence.  At a number of points in the movie the Priest can merely utter “I do not know” when asked certain very pointed questions.

If you assertion were true, what the priest does, would be evil.  In fact what he does is good.  He utters a falsehood to protect the truth. He is doing something good to bring about a good.  He is witnessing to the truth.  Note the 8th commandment is actually “Thou shalt not bear false witness”. 

The nature of language, and the dynamics of real life, sometimes produce situations where positively withholding the truth, i.e. telling a falsehood is the morally good act. 

Your assertion does not hold up to every situation and is therefore not true in every case.  Thus it is not a bedrock moral principle.

Judith utters deception and it is blessed by God, because it is a noble and righteous act in that particular situation.

Stacy, I suspect that if someone is using a monicker which is plainly a pseudonym (FdS is not my given name!) there is no deception. No one thinks it’s that person’s real name, so no one is being deceived. Likewise, by using only your first name you’re no more revealing your identity to the whole world than if you had used a handle.

One more thought, Stacy: It’s permissible to be anonymous or “undercover” in the confessional, right? That’s why the Church provides screens. Anonymity is not the same thing as deception.

It’s a good example to use in exploring what is a “lie” though.  Is assuming the other party expects it really a good measure of whether or not it is moral to state a falsehood?  If it is, then couldn’t we also assume that a criminal should expect undercover agents to try to expose her, a terrorist should expect to be tortured, a murderer should expect people to lie to protect their families, etc?

The point is not that immoral conduct can be excused if the person being violated “expects” it—that obviously is nonsense. The point is that you cannot be guilty of deceiving someone if no deception is intended or takes place.

That’s why it’s not a lie, for example, if on Halloween my kid puts on a costume and says, “I’m Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger!” No one thinks he is really Buzz Lightyear. He has no intention of deceiving anyone, and no one is being deceived. Likewise there is no lie if you sign a comment “Cap’n Crunch”—your pseudomnym isn’t an attempt to convince people that you are a naval officer who loves sugary cereal. Its actual, universally understood, meaning is, “I prefer to remain anonymous.” And that is a truthful statement—not a lie.

This is a very interesting discussion.

I share Mark’s dilemma; I think there must be *some* distinction between certain types of deceptive activities and outright lying, and that somewhere some vastly-learned group of moral theologians has probably already explored all of this (but the thing’s probably written in Latin and last published in 1463, or something).

That said, I don’t think that it necessarily follows that the Lila Rose videos don’t violate the truth in a way that may not be justifiable.  Even if there is a moral distinction between lying and undercover investigative strategies, there’s no certainty that this distinction applies to private citizens engaging in a little “gotcha” guerrilla journalism, even if their motives are noble.

One thing that makes me sure some deceptive tactics are permissible is that the very solid 1940s era high-school Catholic religion series I used as a homeschooler covered some of this.  Lying, it said clearly, was wrong, even so-called “white lies” or fibs.  However, it was *not* lying to make use of certain conventional replies, such as “My mother is not at home,” when you really mean “My mother is not at home to callers this afternoon,” or “My boss is not available right now,” meaning, “He’s in his office and not terribly busy, but asked me to deny him to anyone but a few specific people so he can concentrate on a task he needs to finish.”  In such cases the conventional meaning is accepted and understood, and the specific explanation is not only unnecessary but possibly harmful.

It was also not lying to make use of the evasive answer, especially in situations when charity was the motivator: e.g., “I think that dress is lovely on you,” or “What an interesting drawing, son; tell me about it!”  As an aside—have you ever noticed how good traditional nuns are at this?  If you want to improve your skills, just listen to Sister tell the children’s choir that she can tell how hard they’ve all been working! and then thank Mrs. Smith for the truckload of extra zucchini from her garden—because Sister Clare just loves making zucchini bread, and you know, it freezes so well! etc.  I think the key is to find something you really can say nicely, and then say it with great enthusiasm. :)

But all of that is ordered toward charity.  That’s the question that bothers me the most about undercover work, the Lila Rose vids, etc.—are they ordered toward charity?  Sure, charity to the unborn, or to the innocent victims of criminals, etc.  But charity to the sinner to whom we speak falsely?  Just as in the torture debate, we have a duty to charity to sinners, too; we can’t just use them as means to an end.

@FdS, I understand what you are saying.  For the sake of argument…a child who dresses up in a costume does in fact intend to deceive.  He really does want people to think he is someone else, and we see nothing wrong with that.  His intent is to project a personality not his own, not to be anonymous.  A pseudonym is used because the person doesn’t want people to know who he is in real life, and we see nothing wrong with that.  It is still deception.  The intent is to state a falsehood to protect one’s self.  Anonymity would be stating no name.  In confession we don’t tell the priest we are our neighbor (or Captain Crunch).  I still hold that a pseudonym is deception, a deception we don’t find immoral.  The question is: Why?  “Universally understood” is the same thing as assumed expectation among humans.

@Stacy, I think where we differ is in the word “falsehood,” and I suspect that’s because you are being very literalistic in your approach. “It’s raining cats and dogs” is not a falsehood, even if dogs and cats are not, indeed, falling from the sky, because people understand the term to mean only “it is raining hard.” Likewise, no one thinks an *obvious* pseudonym is a misrepresentation of someone’s actual identity—it is, instead, understood as another way of saying “Anyonymous.” (And a more helpful one—if every anoymous poster could only call himself “Anonymous,” there would be no way to tell them apart.) There is a big, difference, though, I will grant you, between using an obvious pseudonym versus using one that sounds like it could be one’s real name (e.g., Doug Zapparelli), which could be misleading.

Not every incline is a slippery slope. Some inclines are a hierarchy.
To wit:  The Gestapo comes to your home to take the Jew (you are hiding) to be killed.  Your dilemma: should you lie or should you be an accomplice to murder? Lie or murder? I would lie in a heartbeat. Saving a life is a higher value than not lying.

“Augustine and Aquinas are clear on this. “

Aquinas argued that lying in this manner is always sinful, but the gravity of the sin of the lie is diminished based on the intended end or ‘officious’ nature of the lie. An officious lie may be sinful, but only venially so if the intended effect is to, say, save someone’s life.

Here is what Aquinas addresses (it’s an interesting discussion):

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3110.htm

Specifically, Articles 2 and 3:

Just a couple of excerpts:

“Secondly, lies may be divided with respect to their nature as sins, and with regard to those things that aggravate or diminish the sin of lying, on the part of the end intended. Now the sin of lying is aggravated, if by lying a person intends to injure another, and this is called a “mischievous” lie, while the sin of lying is diminished if it be directed to some good—either of pleasure and then it is a “jocose” lie, or of usefulness, and then we have the “officious” lie, whereby it is intended to help another person, or to save him from being injured. On this way lies are divided into the three kinds aforesaid. “

“Now it is evident that the greater the good intended, the more is the sin of lying diminished in gravity. “

MP thank you for the link to the Summa.

I found St. Thomas’ explanation of certain figures of the Bible fascinating.  Note that he does deal with Judith albeit in a rather inconclusive manner.

Reply to Objection 3. In Holy Writ, as Augustine observes (Lib. De Mend. v), the deeds of certain persons are related as examples of perfect virtue: and we must not believe that such persons were liars. If, however, any of their statements appear to be untruthful, we must understand such statements to have been figurative and prophetic. Hence Augustine says (Lib. De Mend. v): “We must believe that whatever is related of those who, in prophetical times, are mentioned as being worthy of credit, was done and said by them prophetically.” As to Abraham “when he said that Sara was his sister, he wished to hide the truth, not to tell a lie, for she is called his sister since she was the daughter of his father,” Augustine says (QQ. Super. Gen. xxvi; Contra Mend. x; Contra Faust. xxii). Wherefore Abraham himself said (Genesis 20:12): “She is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother,” being related to him on his father’s side. Jacob’s assertion that he was Esau, Isaac’s first-born, was spoken in a mystical sense, because, to wit, the latter’s birthright was due to him by right: and he made use of this mode of speech being moved by the spirit of prophecy, in order to signify a mystery, namely, that the younger people, i.e. the Gentiles, should supplant the first-born, i.e. the Jews.

Some, however, are commended in the Scriptures, not on account of perfect virtue, but for a certain virtuous disposition, seeing that it was owing to some praiseworthy sentiment that they were moved to do certain undue things. It is thus that Judith is praised, not for lying to Holofernes, but for her desire to save the people, to which end she exposed herself to danger. And yet one might also say that her words contain truth in some mystical sense.

I think the comment about wearing costume is interesting. John Paul II as an actor faced that question too, that you are playing a role that is not actually who you are. But in those cases you are doing so in a way that you are not deceiving, but in an acceptable way. When we open our doors on halloween we expect to see small children wearing costume. They generally know that we know they are not really a monster, or a ghost. And watching actors on stage we know that they are not really the person they are acting as, we went to the play to see people act out roles. We are all together in it. The difference is with these videos someone was pretending to be someone to a person who had no way to know it was just acting.

We should keep in mind that St. Aquinas is not infallible.

Most references to the oft-cited Gestapo/Hidden Jews scenario make the error of assuming that not lying leads to death for the Jews.  On the contrary, there are morally good responses that are at least as effective as lying.  The obvious one is to simply refuse to answer.  The prohibition against lying does not include the action of withholding the truth from those not entitled to it.  It is the assertion of an untruth with the intent to deceive that is always objectively evil.  Of course, refusing to answer could lead to one’s discomfort or even death; but isn’t that what the Gospel promises?

Yes, I’ve always wondered about the courteous Nazi who asks at your door if you’re hiding any Jews, then believes you when you nervously tell him “no” and goes on to the next house. I’m not so sure this example is really that helpful.

A number of people seem to be confusing the act of deception and lying. Aquinas is clear that lying involves speech, not deception by, say, a costume. Not all deception is lying, though all lying is deception. Also, there is no universal obligation to speak the truth (let alone the whole truth), just one not to say what you think to be false (along with the intention to deceive).

If a priest is asked to reveal something heard in confession, I don’t see the necessity, let alone the virtue in lying - he can simply remain refuse to answer.

“Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.” - Matthew 5:37

James Aldrich says “refusing to answer could lead to one’s discomfort or even death”.  Well yes, but in this case it would also most certainly lead to the death of a person not yourself.  Hard to believe the Gestapo would grant 5th amendment rights and leave. Ditto to the assumption that not lying will not necessarily lead to death for the Jew you are hiding.  This individual Jew may well be spared due to some fluke but when you possess knowledge that there is an extermination program designed for all Jews,  is it not the higher good to side on the side of life?  A concern at this point to keep oneself free of the stain of lying seems, well, selfish.  Rather along the lines of, well, I know there’s a high chance he’s going to be killed but, darn it, if I claim he’s not here, I’ve sinned.  Can’t have that.

And furthermore, where does “do unto others as you would have them do unto come in”?  Were it our life in the balance, what then?

Thanks to Patrick and others for highlighting Mark’s point about St Thomas and St Augustine on lying. Thomas is very clear that offenses against truth are among the most serious of sins, because one does not merely sin against another person but against truth itself. Arguments about the gravity of various kinds of lies are unhelpful in this kind of discussion because no Catholic solution can tolerate sin as a moral means, not even a venial sin.

Try a thought experiment replacing the 8th commandment with another. Let’s say a Nazi officer comes to the door seeking Jews to murder and the only way to stop them is for a woman to sleep with the officer. Only if we place the good of life above that of marriage can we condone this (so much for Maria Goretti), just as we would be placing the good of life over that of the truth (so much for the matyrs).

If any are interested, I have posted another article over at The New Theological Movement on undercover police work and the LiveAction project. “Lying to Planned Parenthood, or is it mental reservation?” http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/02/lying-to-planned-parenthood-or-is-it.html

Stacy (Feb 9, 6:17pm), regarding your discussion of pseudonyms…is your legal name “Stacy @ Accepting Abundance”? You seem to have given that as your name on Feb 9 at 12:54pm and 1:16pm.
Or again, is “Stacy Trasancos” your legal name—do you have no middle name?
Do you think that you are “deceiving” us all? Personally, I don’t think that you are being deceptive…so long as you are the “Stacy” who writes the “Accepting Abundance” blog. Likewise, so long as I am the “Reginaldus” who writes at the “New Theological Movement” blog, I am not deceiving anyone either.
What would be deceptive, and a lie, would be if I left a comment as “Stacy” or you left a comment as “Reginaldus”...
Peace and blessings to you!

As an aside:  I am guilty of perpetuating the false myths re: St. Nick and the Tooth Fairy-  even our priest had a mock phone conversation with “Father Christmas/Santa during his pre-Christmas homily.  I really think that there must be some appreciation for the gravity and circumstances without giving way to full-on consequentialism..

Could there be a difference between lying and deception as there is a difference between murder and killing?

Murder is always wrong, because it is the taking of an innocent life. Killing is NOT always wrong, although it’s never the “ideal”. Self-defense, just war, and even hunting are the removing of life from a creature of God, and are, in a sense, an offense against Life itself.

Yet each of these things is an accepted harm, and sometimes even praised. It was initially hard to narrow down exactly WHY they are accepted, but in general, a well formed conscious KNOWS there is a difference. If a criminal is killed in a defensive act, the defender is praised. We now have a much more detailed framework for separating these out.

Likewise, we can see many biblical and historical examples of deception being accepted. Chris’s example of Judith is a wonderful example; that book very clearly praises Judith for her act of deception and killing. To say, “The Church trumps the bible” is plain wrong. The Church is the one which interprets what is there, but she can’t just say, “well that book’s bunk”. To say it’s the OT is equally unsatisfying since the NT is not an overturning of the old, but a fulfilling.

So what you are left with is the teaching of the Church that *lying* and *murder* are always wrong. We have had enough theology to distinguish between murder and killing, so the “unconsciously known” has become explained. There is a widespread “unconscious knowing” among those with _well formed conscious_ that points to a distinction between lying and deception. Could it not be along the same lines?

Note: This doesn’t get into the question of which category this particular case falls under, only that there might be two distinct categories.

Whether or not the Gestapo redherring (and it is a redherring, because World War II is over) is ever to be answered with certainty, let’s remember something.  Another Dominican, Garrigou Lagrange, said this sort of argument is exactly why we need to pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  Our humanity may lie in that situation, but if we are granted the Holy Spirit’s gifts, then God may just take care of us when it comes up. 

In a situation not unlike the Gestapo argument, Athanasius was being chased by thugs that were coming to kill him.  One band of them rowed up alongside a man walking the riverbank whom they did not recognize.  The man happened to be Athanasius himself.  The exchange went something like this:
“You there!  Where is Athanasius!?  Have you seen him?!”

“He is not far from you.”

An absolutely true statement.  The thugs moved on, continuing their search.

I meant “In our humanity, we may lie in that situation…”

I’m tilting toward the “not wrong” category.  Two examples stand out in my mind: 

1.  Raoul Wallenberg handing out fake Swedish passports to Hungarian Jews being shipped out to the extermination camps.  In one case, he climbed on a freight car and handed passports through the grill to the Jews while the Arrow Cross was shooting at him.  All the Jews in the car were released.

2.  Blessed John XXIII issuing fake baptismal certificates and passports, also to Hungarian Jews.

I think that the idea that one can simply say to the Gestapo “It would be crazy for me to hide Jews!”  Is acceptable while a simple lie is not is very silly.  The message one is trying to convey is a deception, in colloquial terms, a “lie.”  Likewise, the message conveyed by the Gestapo isn’t merely “are there any Jews around?” but “will you help me murder some Jews?”  Some commentators have said that it is acceptable to give an ambiguous answer because it has multiple meanings.  When I say “Nein Juden” I am responding to one of the multiple meanings of the question, specifically the genocidal one.  By the way, Anthony’s dismissal of the Gestapo situation is wrong.  Just because WWII is over doesn’t mean that it isn’t an important moral question.

Reginaldus - I think you are sincere in your desire, which I have never questioned, but I think you are off in your approach. You have hidden behind an anonymous internet user-name and told everyone that disagrees with you that they are disagreeing with the Church. That is akin to a lecture, not an honest discussion or dialogue. I don’t like arguing with others, I like discussion. I also don’t like be lectured by people who won’t reveal themselves on the internet.

I don’t know what’s so hard about the teaching of the catechism. It says “lying by its nature is to be condemned”.

The Church has spoken. When the Church says that lying *by its nature* should be condemned, it means that the nature of the act is evil, that no outside circumstance, motive or result can make it good. It is therefore intrinisically disordered. You can’t make a act that is evil by nature any good. It does not matter if it’s to save a life—the saving-a-life-part does not make it less sinful.

If God told you you could not lie to save a life, would you obey him? His Church has spoken. Why is this not clear? It is said with the same authority that condemns abortion and contraception, but we don’t go around wondering “would abortion be justifiable in this case? Would contraception?” We know the answer. We may not like it, but we know it.

Concerning hiding the Jews during the Holocaust, or a woman from a violent domestic partner for that matter, I think there might be a case of understanding what is meant when something is said. The Nazis altered the normal use of language when they asked if there were any Jews in a place, because the sentence meant are there any Jews here whose rights we may violate, and in that case, the answer would be no. But this would be an appropriate discerned reaction to answer the question most honestly. This is not proactive lying. I would also think the knowledge that there are undercover police is inherently approved of in the reelection of government officials who endorse the practice, and that within measure it is an appropriate limit on freedom. For what it’s worth, Media Matters has posted Planned Parenthood’s reporting of the incident to the Attorney General, suggesting they thought it might be a hoax for an edited undercover video. The appearance of something dishonest and sensationalistic to win “the culture war” on abortion will not help the pro-life movement in winning the culture and outlawing abortion. This is reminiscent of the easy, quick-sell, inflammatory type of evangelism associated with chick tracts - you might find someone who becomes Christian after reading one but you harden a hundred more hearts and minds to ever hearing the truth you speak.

Didn’t dismiss it, Pat.  Just saying that bringing it up is a redherring.

I simply cannot believe that Suzanne’s take on lying is the one we must live by.  Yes, the Catechism says lying by its nature is a sin. The nature of the lie is important.  Are we not also taught many other things about living a holy life: like defending the powerless, not cooperating with evil, protecting the innocent, working for justice, EXPOSING EVIL, and laying down our lives for a friend.  Like many others here, if the Nazi’s are at my door looking for Jews, you better believe I lie and say they’re not in my attic.  I’m protecting the innocent from evil with everything in my power at that moment.  I will not simply hand them over to be murdered.  The Nazi has lost his right to the truth, and has no real interest in TRUTH at all!  He simply wants to kill.  No way, no how do I help him.  God looks on the heart and sees my intention is to protect and save, and to defeat evil, not to sin.

“God looks on the heart and sees my intention is to protect and save, and to defeat evil, not to sin.”

Well Jen, I see where you are coming from.  However, theologically that is not allowable.  According to Church teaching intentions do weigh in on the gravity of your sin, significantly, but that is not, at the end of the day the entire picture. 

It’s stated as clearly and as unequivocally as you can get:

” ‘An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.”

This is what people mean when they talk about consequentialism.  You just gave the consequentialist argument, and that is not allowed if you want to say that you are within the bounds of formal doctrine. 

Object, intention, and circumstances are the sources of morality of any given action.  (The difference between object and intention is where people get all kinds of screwed up but that’s irrelevant at the moment.)

In terms of circumstances, I really think the Gestapo argument is only useful illustratively to a point—the point is, the circumstances of these stings and covert ops are in no way comparable to the IMMEDIACY of those circumstances. 

PP doesn’t come to these people’s door and demand that they hand over an unwilling minor who through no fault of her own is pregnant, and then desires to keep her child.

There is moral autonomy on the part of anyone who walks through the doors of Planned Parenthood and to imply that anyone needs to lie in order to save women, girls, and their unborn children, is a case of having delusions of adequacy.  It is an act of moral autonomy encouraged by ease and availability not tyranny and victimhood.  This is why many people, especially those who have lived through actual genocides, cringe at the comparison. 

people become pregnant through an act of moral autonomy and they decide to end the pregnancy as an act of moral autonomy.  End of discussion. 

Now, we can talk about what degree that autonomy makes them fully CULPABLE in today’s culture, and what a moral tragedy is that we have a society that produces women in such a state of existential despair that a miracle of their own bodies feels like a cancer that should be dealt with, and how social sin contributes to that, but now we’ve already gone miles away from the situation in which Chinese torturers or the Gestapo are searching out innocent people to put them to death. 

If they lie in an immediate moment to prevent an imminent abortion to be performed on an unwilling mother, then we are closer to the Gestapo scenario. 

And Toby hits the whole thing squarely on it’s ludicrious neck:  “The appearance of something dishonest and sensationalistic to win “the culture war” on abortion will not help the pro-life movement in winning the culture and outlawing abortion. This is reminiscent of the easy, quick-sell, inflammatory type of evangelism associated with chick tracts - you might find someone who becomes Christian after reading one but you harden a hundred more hearts and minds to ever hearing the truth you speak.”

I’d imagine that James O’Keefe’s example would be the teaching moment in which we see lying creates a self-justifying cocoon in which an other wise well-intentioned (we suspect, maybe) young person ends up in the sewers. 

But there are still many people that would defend him even on that score, so here we have the problem with not understanding Catholic morality on its own terms.

What DO they teach in schools these days?  :)

So here’s my question for all the ones who support the right to the truth argument….which I clearly don’t.

Let’s say a Nazi walks in and asks for the Jews. You contend that it is not really lying to deceive him, because he doesn’t have a right to the truth.

So what if the Nazis wise up and start to ask not for the Jews, because Christians have been lying about this. So instead they say “Are you a Christian, because if you are, we are going to search the house, find the Jews and kill them.” Are we ok to say no here?

I would argue that while many will say the first is a no-brainer, the second strikes us as more problematic. We can either say both responses are lies or both are ok, or now we have to come up with some rationale for saying deceiving people about the one is wrong and the other is not. What is this rationale?

When is it ok to deny Christ?

I hope this gives us pause.

in Christo

by the way, I think the focus should not be on the Nazi’s rights…. but on what our obligation as followers of Christ are. I think we can argue till we’re blue in the face about whether the Nazi has comprised his integrity. But we are Christians, and we are to witness to Him. That is our obligation.

@Jennifer,

Although you say that you agree with the Catechism when it says that lying is by to nature to be condemned, your deny it in your subsequent discussion. Substitute something that we all agree must be condemned by its nature (blasphemy, denying Christ) instead of lying and you’ll see what I mean.

I trust that you would not commit blasphemy to save the Jews - justifying it by saying “I’m protecting the innocent from evil with everything in my power at that moment” or “God looks on the heart and sees my intention is to protect and save, and to defeat evil, not to sin.” This is clearly inadmissible. We may never deny Christ, even if it meant saving our children, our parents - the whole world from death.

So why would it be OK in the case of lying? Only on the argument that lying really is not to be condemned by its very nature. But this goes against the teaching of the Church.

“I will not simply hand them over to be murdered.” No one is saying that you should. As other have suggested, the options are necessarily telling the whole truth and and telling an outright lie. Equivocation, delay, or other types of deception may be options. God will save the Jews from death if it is his will, but he does not ask to do something wrong to further his plan.

The CCC #2488-2489 reads:

“The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional.  Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precepts of fraternal love.  This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

“Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication.  The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of discreet language.  The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion.  No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”

So, I would deceive the Nazis about the location of Jews.  I would deceive the man desirous of kidnapping my children regarding their whereabouts.  I would deceive drug lords who sell crack to five year olds as part of a criminal investigation.  I was asked once to participate in a sting against landlords who came under suspiscion of discriminatory rental policies, and I said I would ( though was never asked to do so).  In none of these situations, or in any number of others, would I regard my deception as a sin.

It is ludicrous and contrary to common sense to regard all deception as sinful.  Otherwise, when my six year old asks what Mommy and Daddy are going to do in the bedroom ... please!  When you’re the one who is supposed to keep the birthday boy occupied while the surprise party is readied, are you really going to blow it by revealing the truth if he asks why you’re taking so long in the pharmaceuticals at Walgreens?

Planned Parenthood is an evil organization doing evil work.  The ends don’t justify the means only if the means are evil.  What Live Action is doing is no more evil than what the police do everyday when they infiltrate gangs and drug rings.  I’m glad the police do that, and I salute Live Action for their work.  Their work in Memphis was largely responsible for my state of Tennessee de-funding Planned Parenthood of the $1.1 million of taxpayer money they received from the state each year.  They are liars who kill children, harm women and protect child rapists.  Are you kidding me?  Bravo Live Action!

Bob—

Deceptions and withholding the truth are two different categories of moral action.  The Catechism makes that clear if you read that entire section. To make your argument, you have to demonstrate that there was no willful intent to deceive the person, and that they only withheld the truth.  I don’t think you can make that argument. 

Furthermore—and no offense, there, Mr. Bob—something drives me crazy.  This isn’t a case of it is either a sin or it is virtuous.  We believe and teach degrees of culpability and gravity of sin.  What occurs at Planned Parenthood is a MITIGATING circumstances to the gravity of the sin and the degree of culpability on the part of the moral actors. Which is to say, it isn’t irrelevant that they are deceiving with the intention of stopping an organization that commits murder.  It doesn’t absolve the inherently disordering nature of the lie.  It can’t.  The lie is objectively evil.

If you tell your kids that Mommy and Daddy need time to play Parcheesi the degree of sin in there is far less than other kinds of lies—it may be so negligible but as Thomas Aquinas taught, it may cause an infused habit of lying from parent to child, so it is STILL inherently disordering.  And now that you think about it, it’s much easier to say, Mommy and Daddy need alone time with each other because all Mommys and Daddys do.  Which is not a lie and withholds the part of the truth appropriately. 

that’s the diff, you dig?

And something ELSE drives me crazy. 

I understand what people mean when they say Planned Parenthood is an “evil” organizations.  But organizations are not subjects of moral evil.  Organizations are comprised of individual people.  The ends and means of an organization can be described as evil but the organization itself is neither evil nor good. 

Read John Paul II from
“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.”

You see?  Short duration, vain and ineffective.

Even if one could make an argument that deception—not the withholding of the truth, but deception—is not inherently disordering and righteous and just in these situations, it is going to have an effect of short duration, and is vain and ineffective.

I take vain to mean in this case both senses of the word as in “futile” and full of vanity.

These pranks are pretty much like the kid in the back of the classroom sticking out a foot for someone to trip on and then pulling it back.  It doesn’t matter if the person who tripped deserves it or not.  It’s good for a quick laugh and a little smug gloat, but you haven’t really accomplished much.

Jennifer P,
I’m not sure I agree that the Live Action stings haven’t really accomplished much.  It is entirely possible that because of these stings, the eyes of many Americans have been opened to what really goes on inside PP, and the true intentions of PP have been exposed to daylight.  Too many in our country naively think that PP is a good and helpful organization, and they need to wake up to the truth that PP is in business to destroy our children and teenagers through sexual sin and abortion.  If Live Action has helped expose some of this, even just a little, then it has not been for naught.

Maybe so, but then it’s consequentialist. The lying and Punk’d tactics are justified by exposing the fact that Planned Parenthood…

...performs abortions. Sometimes on minors.  I think most people know that already.  In fact, I’ll tell you that some people see minors as the people most in need of abortion.  So telling them that is just going to have a yes…and?  response.  Know what you are dealing with. 

The target isn’t PP—I’m afraid the target is much more difficult to get at.  The target is a conversion of heart and mind on the issue of pro-creative sexuality in each individual person.  That’s a really tough one. 

How does that happen?  Scripture tells us how.  Prayer, fasting, penance, and example.  Gaining credibility for compassion.  Eschewing the applause of the masses.  Eschewing cheap public relations victories that simply make us the opposite side of Cesar’s coin.  That’s how. 

You realize, the people whose hearts need conversion the most, think that Live Action is a group of zealots ready to use a by any means necessary set of tactics to bring down a positive health services agency sanctioned by the federal government. 

So when you employ those by any means tactics you are simply giving them confirmation on what they already believe. 

Furthermore, the issue isn’t that PP sits in a room and plots the destruction of our children and teenagers through sexual sin and abortion.  That’s not how they think at all.  That’s a cartoon mirage.  You have to empathise with the other point of view. 

They and their supporters see cyclical poverty and exploited women and female minors as seeking refuge in them as being their help and their hope.  Their salvation even.  When you cast them in that malevolent extreme you cease to be effective.  Empathy is crucial in winning the battle for hearts and minds. 

They see sex as natural not sinful. 

I’m afraid that a clever little video prank isn’t going to cut deep enough.  At most it will be what John Paul II said such tactics and ideologies produce—an effect that is short in duration, vain, and ineffective.

Mark - Thanks for the great, honest discussion here!

CCC 2488 says “The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.”

Regarding lying and CCC 2488, I wonder if somehow the principle of double effect would apply? Of course this would require that either lying is NOT intrinsically evil or, if lying is intrinsically evil, that not all deceit be considered a lie.

In many cases, such as with LiveAction or with the “hiding Jews from the gestapo” scenario, the intent and purpose of the deceit is to not reveal the truth to someone in which it is inappropriate to reveal or to which they have no right. In this case, the only way to not reveal the truth (i.e. NOT communicate the truth) is to deceive. Remaining silent, ignoring the question, etc. would all reveal the truth. In order to protect the truth, a lie must occur as a second, unintended effect.

So the act is actually “concealing or protecting the truth” because it is not appropriate to reveal it. As an unintended effect, a falsehood is perpetuated.

Any thoughts anyone?

Marcel - I find your thoughts very convincing regarding Mother Teresa. But I could also see Mother Teresa cheerfully deceiving the gestapo when asked if she were hiding Jews. So that puts me back on the fence.

So true, so true. @Jennifer P. that was a beautiful redirect to the original issue.  It does’t address the issue of the sinfulness of lying overall, but does illustrate how the lie in this case does not really bring about the desired fruit/consequence.

Thanks—but I addressed the lying issue earlier.  A lie is always obejctively evil and always essentially disordering and a deliberate deception is a different category of moral act than withholding the truth. 

There are MITIGATING circumstances that affect the gravity of a lie through the three moral sources of a given action: object, intention, and circumstances.  So it may be that in this case the gravity of the lie is lessened, but mitigating gravity isn’t the same thing as absolution. 

This isn’t me—this is all Catechism and Aquinas.  It’s all there in black and white.  Withholding the truth is not the same as deliberate deception, it isn’t irrelevant that the intention is to stop PP, but that’s not the same thing as saying it was righteous.  A lie can never be anything but disordering, if least of all it starts a pattern in the one who lies, what Aquinas calls an infusion of a habit of lying.  Soon many things seem justifiable that would otherwise be considered sinful or inappropriate.  The sad tale of Mr. O’Keefe shows how quickly that can devolve down into defending absolutely prurient behavior and disregard for another person who is just, after all, part of some EVIL ORGANIZATION, like “the media” or Planned Parenthood.  (When philosophically, theologically, LOGICALLY, organizations cannot be subjects of moral evil.  Again—not me—the Vatican and Aquinas, most recently JPII and Papa B.) 

But we don’t even have to get as far as lying and the Gestapo question.  This was just ineffective and impotent giving the opposition exactly what they expect from pro-Life activists.

“Furthermore, the issue isn’t that PP sits in a room and plots the destruction of our children and teenagers through sexual sin and abortion.  That’s not how they think at all.  That’s a cartoon mirage.  You have to empathise with the other point of view.

They and their supporters see cyclical poverty and exploited women and female minors as seeking refuge in them as being their help and their hope.  Their salvation even.  When you cast them in that malevolent extreme you cease to be effective.”

Jennifer, no, I don’t need to empathize with PP’s point of view.  The fact is, PP was born out of a desire to eliminate “undesirable” populations and control the birth rate among “desirables.”  That is the seed from which they have grown.  PP is, right now, the only business I can think of that generates the need for the very “service” they provide!  Their bottom line depends on abortions, so they will make darned sure that lots and lots of young girls and women need abortions.  They have no interest in reducing their cash cow.  So yes, I do think they sit around and plot ways to keep girls coming back for abortions.  And as far as being a refuge for exploited women—seriously?  The Live Actions tapes have just proven that PP has no problem at all in little girls being used for sex and exploited by pimps. They won’t lift a finger to rescue a child being trafficked for sex.  Why would they?  She’s a perfect candidate for needing their “services.”

I don’t believe that fact has yet dawned on enough people in America.  The more they see PP’s true colors the better.

Yes you DO, if you don’t want to stay in a bunker of self-righteousness remaining impotent and ineffective yet, very self-justified.

This is not some warm-fuzzy defanging evil philosophy.  This is Sun-Tzu.  Know (UNDERSTAND) thine enemy.  It’s spiritual warfare.  The individuals trapped within the thrall of the ideology are also victims in need of conversion, most of them sitting blind next to their own pool of Siloam. 

So you can paint them into caricatures or you can get smart and start trying to understand their point of view so you can defeat it more effectively.

If you are hung up on being righteous yourself and judging yourself BETTER than anyone who supports or is in PP you become completely unable to transform because you’ve liked yourself into a fury of self-righteousness.

So decide—do you want to be right or do you want to transform the world?

Wake up people, you’re getting trapped into an ideological and social ping pong game that you will never win.

Well, Jennifer, thank you for that smug, condescending and unjustified personal attack.

I believe I DO understand their point of view.  I simply don’t see it as benignly as you do.  I’m very much aware that those inside PP and the abortion industry are in dire need of conversion.  They are blinded by ignorance, sin, hatred of men, hatred of motherhood, hatred of femininity and hatred of God.  Yes, they need conversion of the heart.  I also do not believe that corporately they have the best interests of women at heart.  I do not believe their business intentions are noble or honest.  As I said, they have one goal and that is to perform as many abortions as possible, because that’s where the money is.  That is not a “caricature.”  That’s an assessment of what their motives are.

I apologize.  You took an editorial “you” as a personal attack.  It’s a rhetorical “you” an editorial you—but perhaps I misread your statement, “No I don’t need to empathize”—

Editorial YOU—ONE needs to if you wish to understand the enemy. The enemy is a spiritual enemy.  As I said—Sun Tzu.  I said very clearly that it is not a warm and fuzzy defanging of an evil ideology—it’s understanding how that evil ideology works on people THROUGH the GOODNESS in them.  Evil is a nothing that must attach itself to a good like a parasite in order to live.  This is not ME.  I’m not pulling this out of thin air.  This is classical theology and what it teaches.  Evil is an over-reaching toward a good. That is the definition of the word concupiscence—reaching toward the GOOD.  If you find me smug it is because I am certain that it is a truth.  I am equally certain that then errors in operations like this one are also a reaching toward the good.  But it overreaches and misses the true target.

I think you will find, however, that most people who work with and support PP are not any more a sinner than you are, they are under the sway of an evil ideology that has tapped into their BEST instincts and not their worst. 

Ask people why they support pro-Choice—because they are opposed to the subjugation of women!  Do you see?  It preys upon their thirst for justice and reaching for the good with lies.  They are victims of that ideology.

Well we want to stay in business, so we can continue doing GOOD.  How do we do that—MORE ABORTIONS.  They are completely motivated by the notion that they are doing good, the same way you are.  I don’t see that as benign.  I see that as diabolical.  Supernaturally diabolical.  It’s a parasitic infection on the human thirst for justice. 

You may continue to see the individuals at Planned Parenthood as some wholly other evil entity but I tell you here in now that if you do your battle against them will be against the WRONG enemy.  The people inside PP and those who use their services are your moral object.

Dr. Peter Kreeft just wrote an excellent piece about who the enemy really is—if you lose sight of that you end up firing upon people who essentially become casualties of friendly fire. 

Replace all the “yous” in the above with “one”—I honestly was not talking to YOU it was an editorial you.  If ONE is hung up—if one wants to be right or does one want to transform the world?  Etc. I meant no personal attack—a challenge perhaps to a new way of thinking about the same old problem, but not you.  Heck, I don’t even know you!

Pax.  I’ll let you have the last word. Or other people—I’ve made my case.

(~~white flag~~)

Jennifer P,

Respectfully, I disagree with your conclusion that Live Action’s videos are ineffective.  On what grounds do you make such an argument?  As I said in my post, the state of Tennessee has de-funded PP, the state of NJ has done likewise, and there is a fair chance that the feds will, too.  All of this directly or largely in response to Live Action’s stings of PP.  As well, the exposing of PP’s crimes have hit hard their reputation.

I understand the distinction between withholding the truth and wilfully deceiving.  Practically, I think it’s a distinction without a difference, especially when we consider the fact that it is possible to deceive by actions, and not merely by words.  If it’s possible to deceive by actions as well as by words, then Bl. John Paul the Great, Fr. Hugh O’Flaherty, Bl. John XXIII, Fr. Miguel Pro and so many others were habitual liars, for their actions were actions intended to deceive, and not merely to withhold the truth.  Wearing a disguise is, by definition, and act of deception.  Signing false baptismal certificates is, by definition, an act of deception.

Given my understanding of sin, the question: Is all deception sinful?  is the same question as: Are we ever morally justified in deceiving any other, for any reason?  My understanding of sin, and it may be primitive (I’m not a theologian and, of course, most people who find themselves in these situations are not theologians, never mind well read in Aquinas), is that it constitutes a wilfull rejection of God.  To be a wilfull rejection of God, one must be acting freely, of course.  A wilfull rejection of God is never justified.  Even a venial sin, or a sin much mitigated, is never justified because such constitutes a wilfull rejection of God.  So, if it is always a sin to wilfully deceive, then it is never justified to wilfully deceive any other for any reason, even to save one’s life or another’s life.  Even to save my child’s life, or your child’s life.  Sin can never be justified.  Let’s leave aside, at least for the moment, the question of how free one’s will is when their own life or their child’s life is at risk.

I would argue that those who desire possession of the truth for the purpose of doing harm to others or to the common good have no right to the truth.  So, we’re under no obligation to provide them with the truth.  The CCC is clear on this point.  Unfortunately, being silent or discreet or attempting to withhold the truth is often effectively the same as revealing the truth.  I would interpret Church teaching as allowing actual deception in those cases where attempting to withhold the truth effectively reveals it, in order to achieve the good goal of denying the truth to those who have no right to it. 

What wilfull action might you recommend in such cases?

The above seems to be off-topic a bit.  To get back: Live Action is wilfully deceiving PP personnel for the purpose of exposing their crimes, much as undercover agents and police officers do in order to expose the crimes of drug lords and gang members.  I’m not sure what a theologian might say about such efforts.  I’m not a theologian.  I do know that there are many Catholic priests and bishops who have served as police chaplains.  If the Church is going to justify the actions of undercover police officers, I see little to no difference in justifying Live Action’s efforts against PP.

Another thought:  Certainly wilfully taking another’s life is a more extreme action than wilfully deceiving another.  Yet, the Church justifies killing an unjust aggressor for the purpose of saving one’s own life or the life of another.  Is it a sin, then, to kill in self-defense, or for justice’s sake? 

How can it be argued that to take an unjust aggressor’s life is justified in order to save an innocent, but merely deceiving the unjust aggressor is never justified?  By that logic, when the Nazi comes to the door demanding to know where you are hiding Jews, the better action would be to kill him rather than deceive him.

This Rock magazine has some nice background on this topic in 2008.  You would be interested to know that the Catechism changed it’s definition of lying at the last minute in 1994.  The original definition was “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.”

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0809fea3.asp

Dear Mark You state that you’d like to see a theologian make an argument (in defense of Live Action’s actions?)without falling into a consequentialist argument. My raher thorough commentary on this whole issue is posted on CatholicVote.com   and also on my website www.prolifesociety.com   Maybe you’ll take a look. I welcome feedback. Anyone can respond to me directly by clicking “contact” on the prolifesociety website.  Sincerely, Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D.

I think this flap has exposed a chink in semantics rather than any great moral upheaval.  Take the example of hiding Jews from Nazis, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2265) allows the homeowner to kill the Nazis.  So to argue that lying to these Nazis is somehow sinful is ludicrous.
 
We KNOW that it can be justified to kill an aggressor when they threaten those that are entrusted in our care.  But lying to the aggressor is worse than killing him?  Come ON!

So, if the Church has clearly defined how killing an aggressor in self defense is NOT murder, then perhaps She can clarify how undercover police, espionage, and such is NOT lying. 

We can say all murder is wrong, because we define murder as the intentional killing of an innocent human being.  All other forms of traditionally licit killing do not meet this definition.  But the word lie is too broad, like the word kill.  Lie encompasses all forms of deception, everything from undercover police work to embezzling.  Just as there are Catholics who believe that the 5th Commandment must be interpreted to mean Christians must be vegetarian pacifists, there are some who will interpret the 8th Commandment so narrowly.  But there is a glaring lack of papal condemnation of undercover police and espionage.

Similar to the justification of lethal self-defense, undercover work does not intend to lead someone into wrongdoing.  In the case of Lila Rose, her work does not lead Planned Parenthood into wrong-doing.  But a child guilty of stealing cookies, deceives his/her parents into not exerting the consequences due the child.

Undercover police take great care to avoid the fine line between catching criminals and making criminals.  To drive up to a street corner and let the man offer to sell you drugs catches a criminal.  To drive up to a corner and offer a man money for drugs can make a criminal out of an ordinarily good man.  In the former the cop has no intention to lead into wrongdoing, therefore the cop’s identity deception is NOT lying or at least not sinful.  In the latter, the cop intends to lead into wrongdoing, thus it is sinful.

I think if our language had one particular word that was narrowly defined as, “to lead into wrongdoing,” we would be able to get past this confusion in the same way that the word murder allows us to distinguish from other forms of licit killing.

Dr. Miller:

Thanks!  I will check it out.

Black Jaque:

When you say “We KNOW that it can be justified to kill an aggressor when they threaten those that are entrusted in our care.  But lying to the aggressor is worse than killing him?  Come ON!” the immediate extrapolation from your logic is “Since you approve of aggressively lying to PP on Just War grounds, then it is only logical to approve of killing PP workers on Just War grounds too.”  This disastrous course is known as “murder” in English.  That’s because Just War principles don’t apply to private citizens.  We have the right to deny people the truth when they don’t have a right to it.  We don’t have the right to target people we decide don’t have a right to the truth and seek them out to lie to them.

First, CCC 2265 is not the just war doctrine, rather it applies to anyone who has a duty to care for others, that would be fathers of households, or people hiding Jews.

And you completely missed my point.  My point is that killing is a more grave act than lying, I am not equating the two.  In self defense situations we are always obliged to use non-lethal means whenever possible (including lying).  Therefore, if situations exist where we have a moral obligation to deceive, then the claim that all forms of deception are evil is false.

Just as not all forms of killing are murder, but all forms of murder are killing, so not all forms of deception are sinful lies, yet all sinful lies are deceptions. 

My American Heritage Dictionary defines misleading as “lead into wrong doing”.  So Live Action may have lied, but they did not mislead.  If you think they misled, then I have to ask what wrong doing did Live Action lead PP to?  It certainly is not wrong doing to admit to your sins.  Live Action certainly did not lead PP to cooperate with sex trafficking, rather Live Action merely exposed PP’s already cooperative policy. 

Live Action does not intend to “lead to wrong doing”, rather they intend to get PP to tell the truth.  When the Church distinguishes murder from legitimate defense She emphasizes the intentions the defender.  I think it is necessary to examine Live Actions intentions.

I don’t say all forms of deception are evil.  Please familiarize yourself with what I say before refuting things I don’t say.  The Church says deception can be legitimate.  It says *lying* is intrinsically immoral.  Sorry, but it does.  Lying for a good end is still lying.  If I fake up a miraculous healing for the sake of “leading people into right doing” such as belief in Jesus, I may well succeed.  Some sucker might be converted by my lie.  But you know what: I still lied—which the Church says is, you know, intrinsically immoral.  The Catechism says what it says.  I can’t change that.

Mark,

I think this is one of those situations where “the gut check” must apply.  You have used a sequence of logic and reason to reach a conclusion that just doesn’t “feel right” for many devout Catholics.

There are times when our intellect can be deceived, and when feel that little twinge in our guts that might be a good indicator that this is one of those moments.

As G.K. Chesterton put it, “a mad man is not someone who has lost his reasoning, a mad man is someone who has lost everything BUT his reasoning.”

Appealing to the man who said, “We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong” is probably an inadvisable course in arguing that we can blow off the clear teaching of the Catechism in favor of our gut.  After all, our “gut” also says things like “If two people love each other, who are we to say they can’t marry?” or “Abortion is wrong, except in cases or rape, incest, or horrendous birth defect” or “What’s the big difference between NFP and artificial birth control?  Six of one, half dozen of the other” or “Does it really matter if you believe in Jesus so long as you basically a good person?” or lots of other reasonable-sounding snap judgements that turn out, upon examination, to be swiss-cheesed full of holes.  Chesterton would, frankly, be horrified at somebody invoking his name as a reason to ignore the Catechism.  I speak as somebody who shares your “gut sense” but who is stymied precisely by the fact that the Church contradicts me here, as far as I can tell.

Mark,

Ok, if you can accept some forms of deception, then I would say that Live Action deceived, but they did not lie.

CCC 2482 says, “a lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving”.  Saying a lie consists only means that a lie must contain those elements, but it doesn’t mean that everything with those elements is a lie. 

CCC 2483 states, “to lie is to . . .lead someone into error.”  This further narrows what a lie is.  Live Action has not done this.  I believe error is to be interpretted in a moral, or theological sense, not a mere mathematical error. 

What error has PP been lead into?

PP has been lead to erroneously believe that these characters were pimps?  I do not think that is the kind of “error” CCC 2483 intends. 

Rather Live Action has actually lead PP into the Truth, not error.

As I already pointed out, if your definition of lying means “so long as you are trying to get somebody to believe or do something good, it’s not a lie” then you have just kicked open the door for every miraculous fraud in the world who wants to get people to believe in Jesus (an even better end than saving lives). I doubt you really want to do that.  Sorry, but lying about your identity, occupation and purpose doesn’t magically become not lying just because the people you are lying to are doing evil.

I’m not saying to go with your gut OVER the clear teaching of the CCC.  What I’m saying is to use that gut feeling as an indicator that perhaps your intellectual interpretation of the CCC may be erroneous.  I stand by my Chesterton quote.

I think if Live Action in their deception offered something that could have tempted Planned Parenthood staff to cooperate in sex trafficking, you would have a good case.  But the videos I saw showed nothing to indicate this.  The pimps did not offer to pay beyond PP normal fees, nor did I hear any claims that the pimps would bring in an extraordinary amount of business.  The sting deception appears to have succeeded in exposing the truth that PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAD A COMPANY WIDE POLICY TO COOPERATE WITH SEX TRAFFICKING.  It appears this policy was in place before Live Action showed up.  Planned Parenthood was already “in error” long before the sting.  The sting merely exposed the error it did not “lead into error.”  Therefore LIVE ACTION DID NOT LIE.

Mark,

No. I don’t think I would quite define a lie as “so long as you are trying to get somebody to believe or do something good.” 

And what I am advocating does not open the door to miraculous frauds.  What happens when the fraud is discovered?  The deceived runs the risk of losing their faith.  And that would definitely NOT be leading into the truth.

If the CCC says that to lie is to intend to lead someone into error. Then that intent must be present for the ruse to meet the definition of lie. 

So I would rephrase your sentence to say, “Sorry, but DECEIVING about your identity, occupation and purpose DOES become not lying when the intent of your deception is to lead someone out of error.”

” Sorry, but lying about your identity, occupation and purpose doesn’t magically become not lying just because the people you are lying to are doing evil.”

OK.  I think I see the problem here.  This statement reflects the fallacy of beggin the question.  The third term in your sentence inserts a presumed answer into the very thing we are questioning.  Since the question we should be asking is “Did Live Action lie?” You insert the conclusion into the question.  Sort of like asking, “Did Live Action lie when they lied to PP?”

Since you can agree that some forms of deception are legitimate, does it help to clarify if we phrase the question, “Did Live Action lie when they deceived PP?”

And the answer is, “Of *course* they lied.”  They gave false identities, occupations and purpose.” That’s lying, just as if I give a false account of a miraculous healing and get somebody to believe it, I am lying.  It matters not a jot whether my lie is found out or not.  I still lied.  By your accounting, the problem is not in lying, but in being found out in the lie (because it could cause my dupe to lose faith).  The moral of such reasoning is “Tell really good lies and don’t get found out” not “Don’t lie.”  I think “Don’t lie” is the better route, both for evangelists and for prolife activists.

Faith based upon a deception would be an error. That faith is based on a deception never being revealed.

This is very different from getting someone to reveal the contents of their policies based on a deception that is going to be revealed. All police work depends upon the eventual revelation of the deception.

“And the answer is, “Of *course* they lied.”  They gave false identities, occupations and purpose.” That’s lying…”

But you also said this:

“I don’t say all forms of deception are evil.  Please familiarize yourself with what I say before refuting things I don’t say.  The Church says deception can be legitimate. “

Please explain to me the difference between legitimate deception and lying.  Then please explain, without begging the question, how what Live Action did fits the definition of lying better that it fits the definition of legitimate deception.

Legitimate deception:  The cops come looking for Athanasius to arrest him because he is being persecuted by a tyrant.  The meet him on the Nile but don’t know what he looks like.  He tells them “He is not far from here.” and they continue on their way.  No lie was told, but truth they had no right to was withheld from them.

Lying:  I walk up to you and give you a false name, occupation and purpose.  I *tell you a lie*.  That is what Lila Rose did.  The Church says that by its nature, lying is to be condemned.  It says ““CCC 1753 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.”  Efforts to contort telling lies into “withholding information” are just that: contortions.  PP didn’t come to LR looking for info that had no right to.  She went to them and lied.

Mark,

“Lying:  I walk up to you and give you a false name, occupation and purpose.  I *tell you a lie*.”

This is begging the question.  You are using the word in it’s own definition.

I hardly believe that the difference between lying and legitimate deception depends on who approaches who.

Bravo for St. Athanasius for his quick thinking, but for the rest of us slow-thinkers, we are doomed to get captured?  I don’t believe it.  I think there is a better way of understanding this that meets what is taught in the CCC and still answers to that “gut feeling”.

Your defintion of legitimate deception begins to get close to President Clinton’s “definition of ‘is’”.  The mere fact that Clinton did about the same thing St. Athanasius did does not exonerate Clinton from culpability for illicit deception.  I have more on this on the other thread.

@Mark Shea from your blog above: “But I’m not inclined to believe you.  After all, you are setting yourself the task of trying to get me to trust that somebody who approves of LYING is not LYING to me.”

Well, you see, you are using two different nuances of the word lying in your sentence.  Let’s re-write it using more specific terminology.

“...the task of trying to get me to trust that somebody who approves of [giving a false name, occupation and purpose] is not [speaking or acting against the truth in order to lead me into error.]”

Well, if I truly believe in my mind that I am not leading you into error by the switching of my screen name from ‘choirloft’ to ‘CherylLynn,’ and by the never having told you that I write comments for the purpose of using your responses with my students, AM I really SINNING according to the Church?  You see, the CCC does not use ‘sloppy language.’  It very narrowly defines what LIE means.  Why?  Because it is IMPORTANT to have a SURE NORM for teaching and living the faith. (via Fr. Corapi)

(I used your defintion of lying for the first LYING - “Lying: I walk up to you and give you a false name, occupation and purpose.  I *tell you a lie*.”  I used the CCC’s defintion - CCC2483 - for the second LYING.)

Actually, your title: “Can You Lie for a Good Cause?” exposes a fallacy called ‘loaded question.’  A ‘loaded question’ is a question which contains a controversial assumption - in this case whether the deception Live Action carries out is actually considered a LIE by the Church.  Before tackling whether Live Action can “lie for a good cause,” we first need to establich that the deception they carried out IS INDEED a LIE according to the Church.

And, Mark Shea, over the course of numerous comments to 3 blogs, you simply have failed to prove that ‘loaded’ assumption.

Am a philosophy student. Have followed your lines of reasoning with interest. I offer the following opinions and suggestions:
In terms of understanding Aquinas and Augustine, the biggest philosophical arguments by authority in Christian philosophy, both unequivocally say lying is wrong. (Ref. Summa II-II q110, a1-4 and where Aquinas references Augustine.)
The question then boils down not to whether you can lie (which is categorically a sin for Aquinas) but what is a lie.
The sticky point, according to the definition of lying Aquinas offers, is that materially or intrinsically if you will wrong it is evil. Thus materially it is - enunciation of falsehood, while formally it is the will to enunciate what is false and effectively, it is the intention to deceive.
Let me explain the relevance, Catholic/Natural Law morality construes an act by looking at what the object of the act is, (act itself) i.e. enunciation of a falsehood the intention will to tell a falsehood and relevant circumstances. Relevant circumstances could be the Gestapo at the door asking if you are hiding Jews (which let us assume you are).
In certain circumstances, certain principles can come into play which shed light on the what you are/would be doing –letting you know if you can go ahead with that act. These are double effect scenarios, lesser evil, self-defence, etc. The red flag that should be evident is that NONE of these principles applies because the act you would be analysing is already evil for Aquinas. (you would have been able to proceed evaluating the situation where it otherwise – but to draw in the ´children on the bridge´ analogy, if blowing the bridge were evil it in itself, you couldn’t do it– even if there weren’t chch on the bridge) It would be tantamount to fornicating to save someone which is clearly untenable (ends and means).
Aquinas does allow for legit deception be it of contingent truths and for a good end (Gestapo situation fits the bill) but this does not mean you can enunciate falsehood as the contributors have already pointed out – Issue: this seems to go contrary to what anyone would do (conscience). 
Conclusion. I disagree with those who say ´commit a venial sin and go to confession’ bic you may never do evil anyway, it is a contradiction. I opine lying cannot be materially wrong. (cfr. II-II q110 a3, ad3. where Aquinas himself had difficulty defending how Jacob did not lie(enunciate falsehood) to obtain his birthright, etc)
The closest thing to making sense to this is the similarity with self-defense. Killing humans is sometimes permissible *(not intrinsically evil) but neither is it ‘good’. Namely sometimes situations warrant intending enunciating falsehood to deceive but not only regarding contingent truth and for a greater good in very serious situations.  Did I open the pandora’s box? Maybe. Either you say ‘I’m hiding any “beep” Jews’ or ‘sometimes you may do evil’ or ‘enunciating falsehood to deceive is not intrinsically evil’. Take your pick.

Is it a sin to work undercover as a police officer? Other aspects of police work seems to involve some deception as well…often in interrogations lies are used to get a confession out of someone. Sting operations like the ones used by Lila Rose are used in police work. Working as a “spy” would also involve deception. There seem to be jobs that require deception or lying. Would these jobs be off-limits to Catholics? I never really thought about it before but I’m currious now that the whole issue came up with the sting operation on Planned Parenthood.

A sting operation does not (at least technically) require enunciating falsehood. The fact of someone´s misinterpretation of what you said/did does not mean you lied (even granting you intended them to be deceived) because it is not different from say a ´military bluff´where Thomas opines you didn´t act falsely to what you believed. i.e. lying is wrong not because someone gets the wrong end of the stick but because it is wrong for you to say/do what is contrary to what you believe.

Dr. Janet Smith has a new article about lying: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/fig-leaves-and-falsehoods