Well, I’d hoped (as you no doubt did) that I could put the Lila Rose controversy behind me. But I continue to ponder the moral reasoning that has come to the fore with the advent of the campaign LiveAction has conducted against Planned Parenthood. Let me reiterate, first and foremost, that I think the reward of the Hebrew midwives will (and should) be the reward of Lila Rose and her companions. The big fact here, which must not get lost in all the hurly burly of argumentation, is that Lila Rose fears God and, like the Hebrew midwives, deserves the reward they received from God. I fear that in all my talk-the-hind-leg-off-a-donkey verbiage about the specific question of lying for Jesus, that will be obscured. Indeed, with the passage of the Planned Parenthood defunding bill, I feel gratitude, as much as anybody, for the well-timed blow that she landed against this monstrous organization. Who cannot rejoice when the evil are brought low?
So let me say it up front. My purpose is not to condemn Lila Rose (may God give us a million more like her) but rather to deal with (as my post tried to discuss on Friday) the many, many bad arguments swirling about the blogosphere which are being put forward to defend, not her fear of God, but lying.
The question of the legitimacy of lying was dealt with a long time ago by St. Thomas. Namely, “Is lying always a sin?”. Much as I’d like to report that Thomas says, “Not in cases of life or death” the fact is, he answers in the affirmative: lying is always a sin. I’d like to make the dodge, “Yeah, but he’s just one guy.” The problem is the Church—always and everywhere in its magisterial teaching and even after the Holocaust—agrees with him. That’s what “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned” (CCC 2485) means and that’s what “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” (CCC 1753) means. Indeed, St. Thomas specifically addresses the matter of lying in order to save the lives of innocent babies:
Objection 2. Further, no one is rewarded by God for sin. But the midwives of Egypt were rewarded by God for a lie, for it is stated that “God built them houses” (Exodus 1:21). Therefore a lie is not a sin.
Reply to Objection 2. The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, but for their fear of God, and for their good-will, which latter led them to tell a lie. Hence it is expressly stated (Exodus 2:21): “And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses.” But the subsequent lie was not meritorious.
In exactly the same way, I cheer for Lila Rose in the hope and confidence that she will likewise receive abundant rewards for her fear of God. But I also say that her lies are not meritorious.
To be sure, some folk are trying to figure out a way to say that lying isn’t really lying when you lie to bad people for Jesus. Various stabs have been made at saying that since it’s not a lie to deflect, mislead, or evade when the Nazis show up looking for the Jews, it’s also not a lie to walk up to somebody you deem to be doing evil, and give a false name, occupation and purpose. According to this theory, you aren’t “leading people into error” (i.e. you aren’t lying to make money, gain power, take vengeance or teach a false conclusion like “Satan is God” but are instead trying to show that PP is evil and stop sex trafficking), so it’s not lying. But this is as persuasive as saying it’s not lying to falsely claim you were miraculously healed of cancer in order to lead a gullible occultist out of his error and to the ultimate good end: Jesus the Way, the Truth and the Life. Good ends don’t make lies into “not-lies” just because we are trying to do a good thing by lying.
What concerns me is that some people, faced with this, frankly and simply acknowledge that, yes, we are talking about lying—and they will go ahead and lie and cheer for Lila Rose when she lies too. I empathize, of course. My own view (which is steadily evolving as my opinions dash themselves against the rock of the Catechism) has, until recently, been much the same. i still think “lying to Nazis” is not something I’m inclined to lose sleep over and is obviously a very venial sin. But I am finding that “embracing consequentialism” is something to lose sleep over. So when the esteemed and justly admired Dr. Gerard Nadal, writes frankly:
If some modern-day SS were looking for our family with murderous intent, would any of us lie to save them? Or would we watch them all get slaughtered?
I’d lie; and if that so offended the majesty of God so as to cut me off from Him for all eternity, then He’s not the God I was raised to believe in.
...it gives me pause. For what (pardon the pun) lies behind this is the notion that, well, sometimes God just forces you to lie by putting you in some situation where there is absolutely no other option. But this is the same God who says “no lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21) and whose Church teaches that lying is intrinsically immoral and that “by its nature” it is to be condemned. That gives me even greater pause, especially when James warns against the dodgy claim that God forces us into situations where we just have to sin against Him because “it’s the right thing to do”. That’s why he says, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.” (James 1:13-15). Sinning is never the right thing to do and lying is always a sin. Sorry, but that’s what the Church teaches.
Which leaves us where? Well, the first thing it leaves us with is a choice. One can say, “The hell with all this theology stuff. I’ll just lie in a life or death pinch.” The problem is that lying, says Holy Church, is intrinsically immoral (CCC 1753). One can alternatively say, “I must keep my prissy conscience pure by telling the SS where the Jews are hiding. Thousands of innocents may die, but I will go to my grave knowing that I am way more moral than the common herd.” That is both immoral and insane, not to mention narcissistic and evil.
But these do not exhaust our options. For one can also note that, in our panic about being accused of idiotic callousness toward innocent victims we have failed to notice that the notion that lying will save the Jews from the Nazis is dubious to start with. In other words “Lie or die!” is a false dilemma. Does anybody think that if I lie, the Gestapo will say, “Oh! Okay! Sorry to bother you! Have a nice day!” and not look in the attic anyway? Clearly the *real* trick is not to lie well but to *hide your Jews well*. Then you can say, “Look for yourself”, offer the Nazi a nice cup of tea, and speed him on his way with a “Seig Heil” without rousing suspicion, looking sweaty and guilty, and having to remember what you said. In short, a little forethought about what is morally permissible can actually help you do a better job of protecting your wards than just seat-of-the-pants “Let’s lie!” gut responses. Does this cover every possible situation? I doubt it. But it tends to get overlooked in the rush to create the dilemma for the sake of defending Lying for Jesus.
Why does this point matter? A couple of reasons.
First, though it seems like hair splitting, there really is a reason the tradition permits deception, but forbids lying, just as there is really a reason it permits NFP but condemns artificial contraception: namely the latter means do violence to nature but the former do not. Once you open up the floor to “You *can* do something intrinsically immoral that good may come of it”, it’s katie-bar-the-door. There’s no bottom. Add in the vigilante factor and you have a formula for lawlessness that will do a lot more than just trouble Planned Parenthood. It will give license to zealous teens who suspect the pastor is gay to stash cell phones in his bedroom and post what they film on Youtube. it will give Christian spouses the right to lie to each other and spy on each other in order to get bigger settlements (which they will call “justice”) in divorce court. Students will feel licensed to lie to teachers so that the subsequent Youtube, in which the student’s lies provoke an angry response from the teacher, can be posted to “prove” that the teacher is unfit for duty and should be sacked. There is literally a world of possibilities for Christians to lie to people they decide don’t deserve the truth and must be exposed by “citizen journalism”. The genie will not stay in the bottle once you grant that lying is not intrinsically immoral or that (which is the same thing) you can lie to anybody you deem unworthy of the truth. Indeed, given fallen human nature, it’s not really very hard to foresee that Vigilantes for Jesus will soon feel morally permitted to lie, not only to, but about their targets if they can’t get the dirt on them they are certain must exist.
Second, the leap (and it is a leap) from the (ahem) Lying Dutchman to Lila Rose and Lying for Jesus is huge and the prolife movement is going to find itself in the role of Evel Kneivel halfway across the Grand Canyon with no parachute, plummeting to a Wile E. Coyote destiny as a puff of smoke on the canyon floor if we keep insisting that because a desperate man 70 years ago can be excused for lying in a pinch, we can therefore use him as a template for creating an entire campaign of Vigilante Lying for Jesus with premeditation. We can’t. We have leisure to work stuff out in our spare time. We are responsible to use our heads, not to confine ourselves to imagining that everywhere and always it is Holland 1941 and that we are free to seek out and lie to anybody we think is a bad person.
Third, though I generally share John Zmirak’s tendency to regard mental reservation as the Catholic term of art for Bovine Excretions, I also note that Jesus nonetheless appears to have practiced it (“I am not [yet] going up to the feast” John 7:8). Indeed, if that’s not a classic picture of a mental reservation, then I don’t know what is. Though, perniciously, this and other passages tend to suddenly turn up in conversations about the morality of lying, not to suggest that mental reservation is legitimate, but to suggest that even Jesus told white lies, so it’s no big deal if we do too. To wit:
Do you think Jesus lied when he said, “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.” Because obviously, the Eternally Begotten Son of God knows when things are going to happen.
Such questions are, I think, deeply sinister when jammed sideways into a discussion of the morality of lying because they bid fair to metastasize the rationalizing from “It’s okay for Christians to lie sometimes” (which is already dubious and contrary to Church teaching) to “Jesus told lies too” (which is, you know, blasphemy). To massively understate things, I have a feeling you’ll have a tough time getting the Church to acknowledge that Jesus was a liar. God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
But (returning to the main point), I note that not just Jesus practices mental reservation. In fact, all normal people practice mental reservation when asked “Does this dress make me look fat?” Ultimately, I think the main issue is not “What do you do in really pressing and dicey circumstances like Nazis at the door?” but “What is your habit of life? Do you *constantly* talk as though you are full of crap like Bill Clinton carefully parsing the meaning of “is” or do you make it a habit to be plain spoken and honest?” I have no big problem with Athanasius telling the cops who were looking for him “He is not far from here.” In fact, I rather enjoy that reply. But I have *grave* misgivings about the prolife movement embracing, as a core pillar of its thought, the new enthusiasm for actively running around and lying to people we deem unworthy of the truth. If we clasp that to our bosom we will be indistinguishable from Muslim apologists for taqiyya. Jesus does not need us to lie for him. The Light of the World is not another taqiyya sunrise.
Fourth, a huge part of what concerns me is summed up in this little exchange from my comboxes:
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, Feb 19, 2011 11:25 PM (EST):
I had way too much caffeine today so my brain is sort of ricocheting off the inside of my skull, but I need to get this off my chest so I’m just going to post it here and then change my identity.
Here goes: in my heart of hearts, I feel like the people who say that what Live Action did is wrong, or is lying, are wimps and are just putting up an argument to make themselves feel better about not taking any real action against the greatest evil of our time. If two year olds were being torn limb from limb in the next room, I’m pretty sure I would do more than pretend to be someone I’m not. I am ashamed that I don’t do more to end the evil of abortion. Okay, I said it.
Posted by Kathy16670 on Saturday, Feb 19, 2011 11:40 PM (EST):
Anonymous, well stated.
And, there are plenty of Catholic Theologians who agree with you.
It’s a peculiar sort of courage to anonymize oneself for the purpose of recklessly calling others cowards. I hope my readers will do me the kindness of giving the names of the many Catholic theologians who possess their gift of clairvoyance by which they know the personal histories of the critics of Lying for Jesus? Please do tell me about how I, William Doino, Dawn Eden, the New Theological Movement bloggers, and the solidly orthodox priests and philosophers who have questioned LA’s tactics in these very comboxes and across St. Blog’s have “not taken any real action” against abortion. I would like to share the fruits of my readers’ soul-reading with the folks I have supported and stood with at abortion clinics during 40 Days for Life, not to mention the many prolifers troubled by Lying for Jesus who have made great sacrifices and worked for years on behalf of the unborn.
Or do my readers mean that 40 Days for Life is not taking any *real* action and that means which do not involve lying (you know, prayer, fasting, sacrifice, political and cultural resistance, including civil disobedience, education, etc.) are worthless and Lying for Jesus is suddenly the only *real* way to go?
Those are the words of stampeding panic, a kind of moral giddiness, not reasoned moral discourse. It’s one of the many reasons I am filled with increasing foreboding as more and more prolifers embrace Lying for Jesus as the New Hotness and spit on boring old anti-abortion tactics as, how did they put it again? “not taking any real action.”
In sum, I greatly fear that Lying for Jesus is rapidly revealing itself as a classic Faustian Bargain. C.S. Lewis once remarked that the devil is quite happy to concede a little ground if he can win the battle, to cure our chillblains if he can give us cancer. Embarrassing PP for a few days—indeed, passing a defunding bill (good as that is)—is curing chillblains (for, of course, the bill will either die in the Senate or most certainly be vetoed by Obama) and our feel-good moment will pass. Embracing the notion that ordinary resistance to abortion is “not taking any real action” and that the prolife movement can only survive by Lying for Jesus is cancer. Precisely the problem with placing our hopes on things the Church calls intrinsically immoral is that you tend to lose your soul and, as Screwtape gleefully notes, get nothing in return. In the same way, what is increasingly troubling to me is that the short term gain of Lila Rose’s action has been to temporarily embarrass Planned Parenthood (which I celebrate) and induce a sort of moral giddiness among prolifers. But the long term effect will be to give Planned Parenthood the extremely effective tool (already being deployed to good effect in their fundraising letters) of being able to say, “Now those evil prolifers are resorting to lies to attack us” and, as this very controversy demonstrates, is to transform the prolife movement into a huge number of people whose top priority is to staunchly defend the notion of Lying for Jesus. Added Screwtapian bonus: while latching on to lying as the New Hotness more and more prolifers are speaking of those in their ranks with moral qualms about lying who support more traditional forms of resistance as contemptible Do Nothings, Pharisees and legalists. It’s only going to end in disaster and sorrow, I fear.
One last point. Passions tend to run high on this and it’s easy for people to break into factions. I’ve watched in horror on Facebook and in comboxes as some people who agree with me have adopted the pose of the prophet Elijah and stridently denounced anybody who even slightly disagrees as a “cafeteria Catholic” and worse. I’ve seen people say absurd things of Peter Kreeft (whose sandals I am unworthy to untie) like “I’ve read some of his books with what I thought was profit to myself and have used one of them as instructional material in RCIA instruction. Now I wonder if I can trust anything he says.” And, conversely, I’ve gotten hate mail from folks suggesting or saying that I am not merely mistaken, but an evil Pharisee and legalist secretly bent on supporting Planned Parenthood, destroying the Church, and killing the unborn. And so forth.
Some perspective. Everybody involved in this discussion—Lila Rose, Peter Kreeft, Dawn Eden, William Doino, The New Theological Movement, Frank Beckwith, Fr. Pavone, John Zmirak, Christopher Tollefson and the host of prolife Catholics chewing over this problem—are friends of the unborn, serious disciples of Jesus Christ and lovers of the Catholic Faith. We all want what’s best for both the Church and the unborn. Hurling epithets like “Pharisee” and “Cafeteria Catholic” or presuming malice instead of honest moral disagreement is destructive. So: a word to those who agree with me: These matters are *hard*. Everything is *not* cut and dried. Those with grave misgivings about my points are good people, not fifth columnists bent on subverting the Church. Peter Kreeft ended his essay (which I urge you to read) by saying, “I could be wrong.” Permit me to say the same. I could be wrong. But I don’t think I am and I am therefore obliged to speak my conscience as best I can just as those who disagree with me are. For that reason, I also ask those who disagree with me: cut some slack to those with moral qualms about lying and don’t presume we are stupid or evil. If you feel compelled to make the Pavlovian charge of “Pharisee” to those troubled by Lying for Jesus bear in mind that the Pharisee you are attacking is, in my view, Paul, who has tart words for consequentialist reasoning: “But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.” (Romans 3:7-8).
I once asked a great man what to make of the fact that St. Thomas was wrong to reject the Immaculate Conception. He told me, “Even Michael Jordan misses layups sometimes.” That great man was Peter Kreeft. He taught me the all-important lesson that just because somebody makes a mistake doesn’t mean that he is either bad or totally unreliable. I think Dr. Kreeft makes a bad argument. I think so for two reasons: First, because in discussing the morality of lying, he (mysteriously to me) consults Thomas’ teaching on torture, but not Thomas’ teaching on lying, which says “Lying is always sinful”. Indeed, he specifically eschews discussion of what the definition of lying even is. As Scott P. Richert pointed out to me:
The problem with Kreeft’s piece can be found right here:
“On some other occasion I may take the time to argue logically against the serious arguments of the pro-life critics of Live Action, and about the proper definition of ‘lying.’”
The more than 2,000 words that he writes from that point on are essentially irrelevant, because he has stated that he does not intend to take up the only question that really matters in this discussion.
Second, while Dr. Kreeft exhibits the healthy Thomistic respect for ordinary human common sense, he simply ignores the fact that part of what revelation does is augment and provide course corrections to our fallen human reason: corrections like “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.” In this, his argument resembles greatly John Zmirak’s statement in the comboxes here last week:
the new Catechism makes no claim, on its own, to teach infallibly (though where it repeats previously defined doctrines and dogmas, it participates in their authority), and the result is something of a mess.
So we should follow our moral instincts, and realize that Augustine wasn’t infallible (he placed unbaptized infants in Hell), nor was Aquinas (he allowed for torturing suspects but not deceiving them), nor were the editors of the new Catechism.
Here’s a simple test: If someone presents to you as the “teaching of the Church” something so repugnant that it MAKES YOU CONSIDER LEAVING THE CHURCH, it probably ISN’T the teaching of the Church.
The startling notions that 1) the Catechism is *not* the teaching of the Church, 2) teaching which is in a state of development can be safely blown off as “a mess”, 3) the Catechism, Augustine and Aquinas (not to mention a ton of other theological authorities who insist lying is intrinsically immoral) can all be ignored in favor of our instincts, and 4) teaching which you find personally repugnant is therefore in all likelihood not authentic Christian teaching is something I cannot, for the life of me, tell apart from Anne Rice’s reasoning for dumping Church teaching.
After all, the Church’s teaching on how to regard the phenomenon of homosexuality is in flux too. Can she therefore declare it a mess and trust her moral instinct that homosexual acts are actually just fine? If it’s just a matter of trusting gut instinct over things I find repugnant or troubling, then I doubt I’m alone in saying that I find yesterday’s gospel reading about loving one’s enemies (meaning Osama bin Laden, Ted Bundy—who nearly slaughtered a cousin of mine—child rapists, and the Green River Killer), deeply repugnant. The disciples in John 6 found the Bread of Life discourse deeply repugnant (“This is a hard saying! Who can hear it?”). Many find the teaching that abortion is wrong, even in cases of rape and incest, to be repugnant. Others find the idea that it is anybody’s business who marries who to be repugnant. Others find it repugnant that the Church forbids those in loveless marriages to ditch their spouse and marry the Love of Their Life. Others find it repugnant that Bp. Olmsted won’t allow abortions for dangerous pregnancies. Others find repugnant the notion that only men can be ordained. Still others find repugnant the notion that a quadriplegic who just wants to die should be denied the blessing of a mercy killing. Lots of people have, in fact, left the Church over these and other areas. Indeed, Dr. Zmirak has ably written a fine and hilarious book (The Bad Catholic’s Guide to the Seven Deadly Sins. Read it!) which is all about how Catholic moral teaching is Jesus’ way of spoiling the fun of just going on our natural gut instincts. Jettisoning Aquinas, Augustine, the Catechism and an army of theological authorities who speak with one voice on the question of whether lying is intrinsically immoral in favor of gut instinct seems to me to be an epically bad argument that flings the door open to a host of catastrophic side effects.
But (mark this) though I think Drs. Kreeft and Zmirak make bad arguments in this case, I think they are—like St. Thomas rejecting the Immaculate Conception—great men making bad arguments. Indeed, I think all the people I mention above are great people in whose company I am not worthy to sit. I also think several of them are wrong on this point. It does not follow that they are wrong about everything, untrustworthy, bad, etc. I love them as brothers and, particularly in Dr. Kreeft’s case, as mentors—and I remain the loyal opposition who pledges them my prayers and beseeches theirs and the prayers of all people of good will.
“Be kind to everyone you meet. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.” - St. Ephraim the Syrian
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic cords of memory will swell when again touched as surely they will be by the better angels of our nature.” - Abraham Lincoln
PS. Joe Grabowski has a fine and sober analysis of the argument here.
Comments
Post a Comment
Excellent, Mark.
Thanks, Zac.
Just an FYI for the couple zillion responders I expect on this piece. I am engaged in a couple of big writing projects and under deadline so I will not be able to engage folks in the comboxes this week. Please play well with others and continue to hash matters out.
I cannot disagree with you, Mark. Both sides of the question hold uncomfortable implications. But I think the weight of evidence is on the intrinsic evil of lying. It is condemned in Scripture, it is condemned in the Catechism, and it seems to have been always condemned in the teaching of the Church, to the extent that it has been addressed. I’ve read Zmirak, and Kreeft, and various other commentators on both sides. Are they persuasive? Yes. But I don’t find them convincing.
There’s a lot of use of What If scenarios. Dutchmen and Nazis…rapists and children. I see a few problems with that. First, it’s a sword that cuts both ways…it imagines a situation of tension and stress, and encourages you to react intuitively, weighing goods and evils against each other. But how is that different from “What If it was YOUR daughter: 13, raped, pregnant, her life in danger?” I think Kreeft is right to point out that moral experience, intuitive judgments, etc. have a place. But clear understanding of moral principles can prevent us from making an easy error.
Second, even if one is to grant the What If situation, this is NOT the What If situation. Even if a lie to the Nazis is not sinful, Nazis are not searching Miss Rose’s home. So how effective does a lie have to be to justify it this time? How many babies were saved? How many abortuaries were closed? How many minds were changed? Thinking about it in that way makes it more obvious that this IS a case of consequentialism. The lie must be justified, because we recognize that the lie is Wrong.
That, for me, is the very heart of the matter. Your post is aptly named. It is a Faustian bargain. I don’t think God wants us to lie. I don’t think He wants us to go into PP clinics and lie to the people there. I think a lie is a wrong done to the person we lie to, but also an offense against an all good God of Truth, who we serve. I don’t see us winning the battle against the evils of abortion, and the culture that allows it, with lies, regardless of whether or not a lie is always wrong, if you want a practical argument. I think it’s far more likely to play out like the story of Gideon.
Like you, Mark, I initially cheered on Live Action and what they are doing. And I don’t presume to judge them. But I’ve come to the conviction that the whole strategy is a mistake. I think it will fail, or backfire, and when it comes down to it, it is because lying is wrong. You can’t build a house on sand, and you can’t do God’s work with lies.
I have been intrigued by this debate. It was very much on my mind when I went to mass this Sunday evening. During the first reading from Leviticus, the lector proclaimed “you shall not bear hatred for your brother or sister in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow citizen, do not incur sin because of him.”
I very nearly did a face palm. Here, in the midst of this debate, is a clear admonition from the Lord. Reprove your fellow citizen if necessary. Just don’t sin doing it.
Clearly this is not an easy issue to face. To stand on the side that lying is sinful requires an immense measure of faith and trust in God’s protection and provision. In today’s world, that’s an incredibly difficult place to live.
Even harder when you consider the message of the today’s gospel. “But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil.” It’s not simple to reconcile this admonition when faced with the great evil of abortion. Lives are at stake. Innocent lives.
The hard truth is that even in my attempts to be holy, I fall woefully short. Like Peter, I am a stupid and sinful man. How comforting than was the Psalm: “the Lord is kind and merciful. Not according to our sins does he deal with us nor does he requite us according to our crimes.”
Mark,
I find myself in quite the conundrum. I am forced to choose between my two favorite contemporary authors, yourself and Dr. Kreeft. I find this intriguing as I have always considered you and Dr. Kreeft as the same type of writer, in the tradition of Chesterton, Lewis etc. First I agreed with you, then I read Kreeft and went with him, now I think I like your argument better. To make matters worse, I usually like to think I can figure out things on my own, but this is clearly beyond me. Whenever that happens, I go three places, the CCC, you, and Kreeft. Blah! lol. As far as I can tell, now I think your argument is more in-line with the Church. Lets hope Kreeft doesn’t respond with some genius argument, so that I am not forced to go through the embarrassing process of switching sides again lol. On a side note, I greatly admire the charity you have shown in your arguments, I look up to you as a role model, as I do Dr. Kreeft.
God Bless
You have no idea how hard this is to say. Mark Shea is correct. Here he actually argues without caustic wit(well, mostly- but with less than usual) and describes well the Faustian ashes taquya provides. The Accuser doesn’t care about the lies of his own, he desires to destroy the truth, discredit the truth, deride the truth. (there: my baptist homiletic training rises again)—-Truth is more important than life itself. God is Truth. We live and breath every moment before the throne of the uncreated creator before whom no lie can stand.
The B.A. in Criminal Justice provides a baseline that I think helps anyone going into law enforcement develop the much-needed critical thinking skills. search for “United Forensic College”. Today, a degree is pretty much required if you want to move into supervision and management.
This excellent and charitable discussion on the seemingly unresolved question of whether it is morally licit to lie (at least in the case where the lie is not intended to defend against an imminent and direct threat to innocent life) raises again a question that has been on my mind for many years. According to the position expressed by Mark, it would seem there are some careers that are inherently unsuitable for faithful Christians because they employ lying and deception as a standard practice—such as positions in law enforcement, military and civilian intelligence where undercover operations and interrogation techniques rely upon such tactics. If Mark’s position about the Lila Rose tactics is correct, doesn’t that mean that these intelligence jobs—or at least these tactics—are off limits to believers?
Judith in chapter 12 of the same book lies like a Bokhara rug to Holofernes extendedly….copiously….(it’s early…I can’t think of the apposite word) until she gets the chance to behead him and she is praised by Scripture and God for doing so and it was impossible with the lies to enemies.
Rahab also is praised by Hebrews for receiving the spies in peace which she never would have done if she had to inform the enemy of what she was doing. Jerome opposed Aquinas on this question bringing up the tactical lie of Jehu and affirming it.
Jerome - more Biblical. Aquinas - temporarily gave up Bible for Aristotle on the usury question which led to prolonging that fiasco into Vix Pervenit and beyond.
At bottom, Mark opposes Judith and Rahab….two early black ops total deniability people. This is partly Mark’s anti military piece but not wholely. Undercover police are the heart of drug convictions….they daily do what Judith did.
Christ disguised himself after the resurrection such that two disciples walked with Him at lenght to Emmaus…didn’t recognize Him even when they began the meal…..but recognized Him only in the breaking of the bread…ie the wounds in His hands. Special ops disguise work by Christ or….or…...in receiving His resurrected body at its peak as Aquinas allegeds for each person, Christ was now 25 or 27 again…whatever his peak was. Otherwise He used a disguise wherein also only Peter recognized him from the boat in His voice while the others did not.
that should be…..that it was impossible for Judith to behead Holofernes without the many tactical lies.
As Ed Feser put it:
1. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2)
2. Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1), therefore
3. Jesus Christ cannot lie.
The argument is valid, which means you cannot reject the conclusion without rejecting one of the premises.
So, which one of (1) or (2) do you reject?
One thing you have all missed is that Jesus fibbed a little to save his life too. In John 7:1-12, Jesus tells his “brothers” that he is not going up to the feast of Tabernacles and they should go on. However, he does go after they leave. HMMMMMMMM!!!
I look at the end result way down the line, here. As nice as it may be to have won a minor victory with the House vote, all us pro-lifers will now have to live the tinge that a good part of the fervor that pushed the political will was based on a lie. Was based on immoral means to accomplish a good end and the ends *never* justify the means (Catholic morality 101). Ten years from now we will likely be regretting this because the abortion defenders will rub in our face that pro lifers cannot be trusted because they’re willing to lie to get whatever they want. And if they’re willing to lie to PP, how do you know, dear crisis prgnancy mother, that they’re not lying to you when they tell you everything will work out and God will provide for mother and baby?
You see, the pro life cause will win through love and integrity, not guile and deceit. Fr Povone and others have spent a lifetime cultivating a garden of peace, nonviolence, truth, and integirty to counter the evilness and antithesis that is the beast of PP. We are in danger of throwing that away and, I fear, become much more like PP: justifying our means because of the ends.
It is old wisdom that you should be careful in a life and death struggle that you do not become like your enemy and therefore become your enemy.
Great job on a difficult subject. I’m convinced you have it right on this just like on the torture question. The temptation to evil is pervasive.
Mark, I read through what you wrote, and I agree with you. Lying for Jesus is a sin. They used a lie about their own identities to get PPhood to reveal the lies PPhood has been telling. Because it is sin’s nature to compound itself, I also agree that this is going to have unforeseen consequences. How great a sin or how minor a sin is,that’s a question I don’t debate in my own mind about my own sins. They all must be confessed.
Chad Meyers
Please read the book of Judith chapter 12. Are we a Biblical faith or a scholastic logic/ catechism faith 1st and foremost.
And Judith isn’t in Protestant Bibles as canonical. She lies extensively to Holofernes who intends to massacre the Jews and by lying, she gets near him at night and cuts off his head and without the lying, that would have been impossible.
And she is then praised by Scripture: ” But the Lord Almighty thwarted them, by a woman’s hand he confounded them”. And the tactical lies….many….are what got her near Holofernes at night.
Had the first version of the catechism survived the 1997 emendations intact, Judith’s lies would have been more understandable….but the 1997 version went for the world of Catholic simple.
Mr Bannon, there are many examples in the Old Testament of behavior being done by the children of Israel, and even commanded by God, which we would now condemn as immoral, based on the ultimate revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Slaughtering enemy civilians down to the children, for instance.
But while you may find a number of instances of men Scripture praises as righteous lying (And David is a man after God’s own heart, so I guess murder and adultery is cool now), you will also repeatedly and always find condemnation of lies and liars, and exhortations to speak truth, as God does.
A few other things occur to me. Questions of official government actions in the area of espionage or law enforcement are legitimate and complex. My gut feeling here is that we give our government certain rights and responsibilities that we individuals do not possess. (e.g., The government can try and even execute a criminal legitimately, licitly, and morally. If a citizen were to take it upon himself to do that, it would be none of those.)
Also, it seems to me that if the Church emended the Catechism, it is because the emendations more closely align with Catholic teaching than the original, and thus represent a deliberate attempt to clarify teaching. That strengthens Mark’s position to me, rather than weakens it.
Finally, while the truth is always associated with God (Isa 45:19, Jn 14:6, etc), lies are the tools of the Devil. John 8: 44 tells us that the Devil is a Liar and the father of lies. In light of the nature of this argument, and the various extreme jackboot filled scenarios presented, I think it’s wise to recall that, and heed Christ’s words in Matt 10: 28, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” The Devil is a liar, and uses lies to try to destroy our souls. God does not lie (Nu 23:19), and God is true (Jn 3:33). I think, if we are marching under God’s banner in this war, as it were, we should adopt His tactics, rather than His enemy’s.
I just want to say - excellent article, Mark. God has given us the ability to use our creative minds for the good (hide the Jews well) and has asked us to trust Him in all situations. The struggle against evil that all people of good will are engaged in is the good fight. Christians are especially enjoined to follow the lead of their King in the battle, and as you say, in our King there is no darkness - only light.
This article describes my dilema exactly.
Brian,
His tactics were used by Judith in her tactical lies but you managed to conflate her actions with David’s murder of Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba. Here’s the difference: God praises Judith in Scripture for her actions which are of one piece…and God has Nathan tell David that his son will die due to his sins that you mentioned. Praise for Judith…punishment for David.
The massacres of the Canaanites including the babies was God Himself using the Jews as His arm which is like no other massacre in history. If it was not, the Church is totally negligent…totally negligent…. in leaving Wisdom chapter 12 in the Bible…it slowly tells you why this had to be done and Who ultimately did it and ordered it. Later you will find Saul removed from the kingship by God for not killing everyone in the Amalekite case.
Last night a 3 year old baby died in a fire in our area but Christ said of the sparrows…“not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s leave.” Any baby that dies dies within what Aquinas called the will of God simply.
God can use that fire last night with His grace to wipe out any sin in the child or maybe within a relative for all we know.
Tobias says, ” all thy ways are mercy and truth and judgement”. Within anything horrible you see, there is mercy but only in Heaven will you see the details of that mercy. ” God has glory in what he hides, kings have glory in what they fathom”...
you are a king due to sanctifying grace….you are to look for the mercy possibilities that are hidden in each tragedy.
God ordered the massacres in the First Person imperative…He did not order David to murder Uriah. In John 10:35,
Christ says “the scriptures cannot be broken”. When you shotgun post David’s two sins conflating it with ordered massacres and Judith’s tactical lies against Holofernes, you help people to break what Christ said cannot be broken.
You know, I’ve read Judith starting with Chapter 10 on to the end of the book and I don’t see anywhere where Judith lies specifically. She uses tricky language and vague sweeping statements which have the effect of deceiving the Assyrian king because he is fixated on destroying the Hebrews and taking Judith sexually. He assumes many things to his own folly and reads in many things into Judith’s vague words.
Judith points out, rightly, that the Assyrians were sent (allowed) by God to punish the Hebrews for their falling away in the law.
Yes, the later chapters praise Judith for her actions, but never are these words accounted to God. It is not clear, ultimately, whether this was God’s will or whether Judith acted contrary to it. In the process, she committed murder and saved many Hebrews that otherwise might have died. But was it God’s will that they all be saved? It was clear God was punishing the Hebrews for their falling away, perhaps God intended many to die as in the Babylonian wars and exile.
The end of Judith does not leave a clear picture of what the final judgment was on this matter. So, my advice to you is that Judith is not a good example of the point you’re trying to make. Judith use mental reservation and allowed the Assyrian king to assume things that were false, but she never said (as far as I can tell) anything that was directly false.
The lesson here is that, in the Nazi scenario, we could make vague statements that allude to facts which are not true and allow the villains to assume falsehoods without correcting them. This is not the same as lying (speaking directly an untruth or falsehood).
Except in the case of directly protecting an innocent, it would not be OK to kill the villain unless he was actively in the process of killing an innocent person. In the case of Judith, it appears to be murder on the face of it and her Hebrew countrymen praised her for it. Never in Judith do we see the word of God giving her the OK to do. She apparently acted on her own.
The Judith story is precisely what came to me as well. Judith is a type of the Blessed Mother, the terror of demons, is she not? And didn’t Jesus say somewhere that the children of light need to be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves?
I too am struggling mightily with this question, going from one side to the other.
Judith keeps coming up. Could someone show me, specifically, where she lied?
Note that a lie is directly speaking a falsehood that you know to be false before/during speaking it.
Withholding a portion of the truth, or stating a vague truth and allowing your enemy to assume too much (or assume something falsely) is not lying. This is the wisdom of serpents Jesus is talking about (and is referred to as ‘mental reservation’)
Here’s some irony for you. I was googling for more information on Judith and lying and stumbled upon an article by Mark Shea himself that explains away the lying of Judith and the midwives to Pharaoh:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html
Also, Mark provides no evidence of Judith lying specifically, though that would be out of context in that particular article.
I still can’t find anyone specifically listing how Judith lied, though I’ve found a lot of references where everyone just takes it for granted.
Mark, this is perfect, and the line “The Light of the World is not another taqiyya sunrise…” should end up in a new version of Bartlett’s someday.
I’ve also been surprised to see this discussion being framed as unfairly attacking Lila Rose. If anything, the point of discussing this is to protect such activists from future negative consequences; the other side won’t employ the “friendly fire” of philosophical discussion in their efforts against Live Action.
Difficult issue for sure. If you could save someones life, like many during the holocaust or the wise men choosing a route home to avoid the imminent murder of the Messiah I would welcome the judgement. God’s insinuation that Abram sacrifice was a lie? I’d rather see it as a test to discern motives. Lies are wrong, but they can be the lesser of evils.
Readers….read chapters 11 and 12 of Judith slowly. Decide for yourselves.
12:14
She replied (to Holofernes’ man Bogoas, about Holofernes) “Who am I to refuse my lord? Whatever is pleasing to him I will promptly do. This will be a joy for me till the day of my death.”
She is talking to Bogoas about Holofernes whose head she will cut off. Chad is calling that mental reservation because she can mean to herself that “lord” means God while she is leading Bogoas to think she means Holofernes as human lord. Then I conclude mental reservation is lying. If your wife asks you if she looks like Halle Berry, you can say, “Yes you do dear” then say to yourself…“you both have two arms and two legs”. If your wife asks, “Did you put out the recycling?” You can say, “Yes dear”....then say to yourself ” the one batch last week not this week”.
Casuistry period over for me…...bye.
@Bill:
You quote Judith, then you make a completely unrelated argument.
“Who am I to refuse my lord?” A simple question. Jesus asked leading questions like this to Pontius Pilate. There’s no lie in a question unless it contains a statement (which this one didn’t).
“Whatever is pleasing to him I will promptly do.” Did she not do everything he commanded of her while she was staying with him? Did he ever give her a command that she did not follow promptly or at all?
“This will be a joy for me till the day of my death.” She seemed rather pleased with herself after the deed was done.
I don’t see any lie here and only a little deceit. What would have her do otherwise? State the full truth “I’m only here because I want to kill him?” This is what Catechism states is “mental reservation”—she is under no obligation to tell him the *whole* truth.
She said only the things that would lead them to believe something. She did not have double meanings or logic traps, she made vague statements that Bogoas and Holofernes interpreted wrongly. She then failed to correct them in their incorrectness.
Failing to correct could be construed as a lack of charity (failing to instruct the ignorant), except in cases like this where you know that disingenuous people will that information to commit grave sin (murdering innocents).
For example, in the Nazi scenario, if the soldier says “The Jews are hiding in the basement!” and you know they’re not and fail to correct them, this is neither a lie, nor a failure in charity, IMHO.
Chad:
Judith tells the Assyrian patrol “I am on my way to the presence of Holofernes the commander of your army, to give him a true report; and I will show him a way by which he can go and capture all the hill country without losing one of his men, captured or slain.” That sounds like a lie since she is there to kill him. You could perhaps make the argument that since she did not tell the elders what her plan was that she hadn’t fully flashed it out yet, but still, she did not intend to do what she said. The report that she gives to Holofernes in Chapter 11: 11-19 is also lie. There is no indication that the Hebrews had resolved to eat the first fruits or eat what should not be eaten. They had only resolved to surrender themselves into slavery, if you read Chapter 7:20-27. I read it closely and it looks to me like she did actually lie, not just deceive, but like others have said, it was the Hebrews who praised her for it, not God.
“flushed it out” not flashed
@ScottR - Mark specifically mentioned that verse and disproved your argument in this article. Read it.
Charlotte….thanks for the common sense. We disagree on the praise of Judith in psalm form not being affirmed by God by way of inspiration. I think God is affirming her through inspiration in that form otherwise you have to discount countless similar psalm moments as human opinion throughout the Bible including the Magnificat.
And it is an enemy situation just like undercover cops within a drug gang…and like the planned parenthood victory so far.
I would like to think that telling an untruth is analogous to killing - always a regrettable action, but occasionally allowed and sometimes mandated.
That is, it is not murder to shoot someone in the face who is charging you with a knife, or to execute a criminal (under the conditions when such is allowed whether or not such conditions occur these days or not), but it is murder to kill someone so you can take the bagel they just bought for breakfast.
In the first two cases the person has (perhaps temporarily) given up his right to not be shot in the face.
I would like to say, then, that it is not lying to tell an untruth to a person who has similarly, by behaving in a way that conceals truth and actively seeks to harm others, given up their right to be told the truth. Of course, you’d have to come up with some sort of equivalent to “reasonable force” - analogous to it being wrong to kill someone who is honestly trying to kill you but completely incapable of causing you any serious harm, but I think that could be done.
Of course, this is only what I would like to be the case. Whether or not it is I do not know.
Same goes for the use of physical force in a self defense or just war scenario. We could say that “fight or die” in a self-defense or just-war scenario is a false dilemma, since force may fail to save us. Likewise, lying may fail to save the Jews in the attic. By itself, this tells us nothing about the legitimacy of attempting to fight off or deceive an aggressor if it is the course of action we reasonably judge most likely to succeed.
P.S. The rubric “Lying for Jesus” seems unnecessarily glib and dismissive. Granted the gap between a straightforward self-defense rationale for deceptive falsehood and Live Action’s more complicated deception, I would object to a critic of the Church’s nuanced definition of stealing with respect to the owner’s “reasonable will” using the rubric “Stealing For Jesus.” Ditto self-defense / just-war theory and “Murder (or even Killing) For Jesus.”
Jacob
Another analogy is drunkeness which is often condemned in scripture with one exception…extreme sorrow…wherein it is then mandated in Proverbs 31:6-7
“Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more.”
@bill bannon:
I’m just curious… are you referring to Chapter 16 in the Book of Judith? That is the only psalm of praise I am aware of. In the translation I am looking at it is begun by Judith in thanksgiving and then taken up by all the people of Israel. I’m not trying to argue one point over another in regards to lying… just became interested in the story of Judith because of the conversation here. It states in Judith 8:8 that no one spoke ill of her because she feared the Lord with great devotion. Again, at the end of that psalm of praise, it states “he who fears the Lord shall be great forever” indicating that it was this great devotion that made Judith the great woman she was. Earlier, when the psalm lists the deeds of Judith, they never mention lying. Deception, yes, but not lying. She is praised for having put aside her widow’s garb and deceiving Holofernes with her linen gown, sandal and tiara. I think it’s hard to interpret scripture based on what it doesn’t say but it’s interesting to note that when she returned with his head, she made a point of telling everyone that it was her face “that tricked him to his destruction, and yet he committed no act of sin with me to defile me or shame me”. She never gives any credit to her words, only her beauty and clearly, she doesn’t see her lies as sinful.
Steven:
I call it lying for Jesus because I cannot, for the life of me, see the slightest difference between Lila Rose lying to infiltrate Planned Parenthood and Augustine’s flock wanting to lie to infiltrate a heretical group. Here’s what Augustine said about the proposal:
“I wrote a book Against Lying, the occasion of which work was this. In order to discover the Priscillianist heretics… it seemed to certain Catholics that they ought to pretend themselves Priscillianists, in order that they might penetrate their lurking places. In prohibition of which thing, I composed this book.” - St. Augustine
Augustine knew (as we admit in *every* other situation where somebody walks up and lies about their identity, occupation and purpose) that this is lying, not “enhanced dialogic strategy” or whatever we want to call it. Indeed, propose to the average person in their simplicity the question, “Is it okay for undercover cops to lie about their identity?” and he will not say “Undercover cops aren’t lying about their identity.” He will say, “Undercover cops are lying about their identity for a good purpose.” So yeah. We’re talking about lying for Jesus, just as discussions of waterboarding are discussions about torture and not about “enhanced interrogation”.
Nor am I putting words in people’s mouths. Above, Gerard Nadal makes that abundantly clear by stating frankly:
“If some modern-day SS were looking for our family with murderous intent, would any of us lie to save them? Or would we watch them all get slaughtered?
I’d lie; and if that so offended the majesty of God so as to cut me off from Him for all eternity, then He’s not the God I was raised to believe in.”
Likewise, Peter Kreeft says, “If lying is always wrong, then it is wrong to lie to a nuclear terrorist (the “ticking time bomb” scenario) to elicit from him where he hid the nuclear bomb that in one hour will kill millions if it is not found and defused. The most reasonable response to the “no lying” legalist here is “You gotta be kidding”—or something less kind than that. Thomas Aquinas said that even torture is sometimes justified; in emergency situations like that; if torture, then a fortiori lying.” (Curiously, he does not consult St. Thomas on lying, with the unfortunate effect of appearing to affirm St. Thomas’ teaching on torture [which the developed magisterium rejects], while ignoring his teaching on lying, which the Magisterium—and the whole of the Catholic tradition—affirms: namely, that lying is intrinsically immoral).
Now eventually, people are going to have to face the fact that lying really is intrinsically immoral and that the tradition has always said this. When they do, I fully anticipate the discussion to then turn to the attempt to generate euphemisms for lying, just as the discussion turned to the attempt to generate euphemisms for torture (“enhanced interrogation”) and babies (“fetal material”). There’s a sort of inevitability to it as the human urge to rationalize kicks in. But make not mistake: we are talking about arguments for *lying* here. And when I see the *exact* analogy between what Augustine is talking about and what enthusiasts for LA are talking about, I find it impossible to describe the act as anything but lying and the rationalizations for it as anything but rationalizations for lying. Indeed, the irony of the situation, from my end, is that I honestly feel that I would be lying not to call it Lying for Jesus. :) (So there’s a moral conundrum to tax some Jesuit’s brain.) I will, by the by, have a piece about the parallel with Augustine’s situation up in this space on Wednesday. Given the normative use of English in all other situations, I think the defender of LA has the burden on him to show that this is not lying. Augustine certainly thought so and so do all ordinary people, so far as I can tell, whenever anybody else walks up to them and gives them a false name, occupation and purpose.
By the same token, we could say: “Indeed, propose to the average person the question, ‘Is it okay for a starving man to steal food to feed his starving children?” and he will not say ‘A starving man who takes food is not stealing.’ He will say, ‘A starving man is stealing for a good purpose.’ So yeah. We’re talking about stealing for Jesus, etc.”
@bill bannon,
Jephthe is also praised in Scripture, so should we assume that sacrificing one’s daughter as a burnt offering is OK?
@ScottR,
It is helpful to see what the Fathers have to say about the passage you cite in John 7. Specifically, St. Augustine:
You can find much more here: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-John7.php
Charlotte
Yes…chapter 16….her beauty and her lies were integral to the whole victory as one reads and verse 5 then states:
” But the Lord Almighty thwarted them, by a woman’s hand He confounded them.”. Her “hand” was metaphor or synechdoche for whatever was integral to the victory which was in fact the whole enchilada of what was needed to behead him….lies, beauty, severitas (Stoicism’s…ability to sever).... Had her beauty sufficed, she would not have even needed to talk at all.
SDG: I’m not sure that analogy fits. I do argue that taking food that you do not own when starving is not stealing.
Everyone has a right to live and have sustenance. Thus the starving person has a *right* to as much (or little) food as he needs for sustenance (and no more, though charity demands that we give him more).
Thus any food a starving man can get his hands on is technically his. Food is a gift from God and not technically owned by anyone by right.
If someone is not in need and takes food unjustly, then it is stealing. Yes, there is a difference between want and need. If you’re taking food for want, it’s stealing. If you’re taking it for need, it is not stealing because the current possessor is not rightly the foods owner.
Put another way, someone who withholds food from a starving human being is committing a grave sin. Thus it is *imperative* that we give *at least* enough food to prevent that person from starving. The food he needs is no longer owned by you, it is obligated by you, to God, to feed this person.
Note, para 2482 in the CCC says, “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”
I still don’t see where Judith spoke a falsehood. Did she fail to reveal the whole truth of her intentions? Yes. Did she fulfill the things she spoke of? Yes to one extent or another. She did reveal truths about the Hebrews and about God’s intention, etc to the Assyrians. She did not lie to gain entry to the camp.
Nice job Mark, I especially liked the first section.
As much as I wanted to side with the morality of what Live Action Films was doing - the weight of the magisterial teaching on the subject would not let me. It certainly seems to me that with the changes to the Catechism on lying that the magisterium was moving away from some earlier theological speculations concerning lying. The biblical examples that seem to approve lying such as Rahab and the Egyptian midwives can certainly be understood otherwise and in conformance with the rest of scripture.
I find it rather interesting that mostly this debate is so similar to the torture debate with even some of the same persons defending both torture and lying and often with very similar arguments. Once again the scenario comes first and the morality second. I was also disappointed with Peter Kreeft’s article, a writer I so deeply love and have gained much from to make such general arguments with no reference to the magisterium.
Most importantly is that this is a debate among people equally pro-life and working to save the unborn where we all seek the similar end. There should be no malice among people on either side of this question, but a seeking to the truth. As Dr. Peter Kreeft and you both said that you could be wrong and I would add myself to that. Magisterial development could put new light on the subject and make further distinctions.
@ Chad: I agree that the analogy doesn’t fit, though not for the reason you cite. You are not the man on the street to whom Mark and I are appealing. The man on the street defines theft as “taking another’s private property against his will” and lying as “speaking falsely to mislead someone.” You have been instructed by Catholic moral theology, specifically in light of what the man on the street would find a very obscure doctrine, the universal destination of goods, to refine the definition of theft as “taking another’s private property against his reasonable will.” Might it turn out to be the case that lying also needs to be more exactly defined? Catholic moral theology is still sussing it out.
Chad
Aquinas states that Judith lied: ” 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.”. ST 2nd of the 2nd/ quest.110 / art.3 / reply to 3rd objection. Amen.
Mark, that was outstanding. You put into words a great deal of what I’ve tried (somewhat clumsily) to explain, with (what I felt was) limited success. God bless your efforts, and may He bless our discernment as we plumb the depths of this issue. And let me echo your sentiment: WILL EVERYONE PLEASE PUT THEIR FLAME-THROWERS AWAY?? YOU NEEDN’T TORCH OTHER PRO-LIFERS IN ORDER TO MAKE/DEFEND YOUR POINT!!
Steven:
Fair enough about the average man and the undercover cop. But let’s face it: precisely my point is that lots of people (including heavy hitters like Kreeft) are not offering a nuanced parsing of the distinction between lying and legitimate deception. They are saying “Lying is the right thing to do sometimes”. They are even saying that if you are not willing to lie, you are are a morally stupid person (Kreeft’s word). That claim will and must dash itself to pieces on the teaching of the Church that “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.” Meanwhile, it remains what it is: advocacy of Lying for Jesus, which is why I call it what it is.
Summa Theologica…Aquinas cites Jerome in opposition to Aquinas:
“Jerome, in his commentary on Galatians 2:11, “The example of Jehu, king of Israel, who slew the priest of Baal, pretending that he desired to worship idols, should teach us that dissimulation is useful and sometimes to be employed”.
2nd of the 2nd/ question 111/ art. one/ obj. 2
Jerome thus sides with Judith, Jehu, the pro life spies, Rahab, seal team 6, undercover officers everywhere, killer elite (the activity)
and against Aquinas, Augustine, Shea and his band of merry men and women.
Chad,
Did you read Judith 11: 11-19? She first tells Holofernes, “And now, in order that my lord may not be defeated and his purpose frustrated, death will fall upon them, for a sin has overtaken them by which they are about to provoke their God to anger when they do what is wrong. ” Had she stopped there, she might not have been lying. But she goes on to say, “Since their food supply is exhausted and their water has almost given out, they have planned to kill their cattle and have determined to use all that God by his laws has forbidden them to eat. They have decided to consume the first fruits of the grain and the tithes of the wine and oil, which they had consecrated and set aside for the priests who minister in the presence of our God at Jerusalem—although it is not lawful for any of the people so much as to touch these things with their hands. (12-13) How is that not a lie? The Hebrews had never stipulated such intentions? She convinces Holofernes that this action will be so distasteful to both God and herself that she fled from them. Earlier in the chapter, the Hebrews had decided to ” Now call them in and surrender the whole city to the army of Holofernes and to all his forces, to be plundered. For it would be better for us to be captured by them; for we will be slaves, but our lives will be spared, and we shall not witness the death of our babes before our eyes, or see our wives and children draw their last breath” but that was actually what was horrific to Judith, not eating the first fruits, etc., as she claimed. That is only one example, but it seems pretty clear that she told a lie to Holofernes to gain his trust.
Thank you, Mark. You have again anticipated most of what I was about to say.
@Steven Greydanus,
A man on the street might well define direct abortion differently than the Church as well. The point is to educate the man in the street about what the Church teaches, including the definitions of the terms the Church uses, and why; not to alter the definitions of the Church according to what the man in the street believes. If the man in the street believes that stealing is X while the Church believes it is Y, that is a problem to address not by making Y into X but by educating the man in the street why the Church teaches it is Y.
Mark—
I do pray that you will continue to re-consider your position. Some of the more important things to consider:
The CCC contains *two* definitions of lying. If we are going to appeal to what the Catechism teaches on lying, *both* definitions must somehow be allowed to “speak together” rather than one or the other at different times, seems to me. Taken together, one can better get to the heart of a definition of lying and compare that to others’ definitions of “justifiable deception.”
Insofar as the Magisterium goes, the whole issue of “how to deceive people without lying” has been mulled over by Catholic theologians in a NON-magisterial fashion. As far as I’m aware, only one or two obscure statements *from* the Magisterium exist on things such as not using strict mental reservation under oath, etc. Therefore most everything about “how to deceive people without lying” falls in the category of theological opinion, including whether someone can positively deceive by “commission” rather than “omission”.
Also, the entire moral object of the action in question (the PP sting operation) necessarily *includes* the fact that the act is an engaging of an “unjust aggressor”. You simply cannot isolate the moral object of the act from important aspects of that object. The “object” of the act is not simply “lying” unless one believes the whole point of Live Action approaching a PP employee is to lie to him/her. I don’t think anyone really believes that it is…
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
“Here’s a simple test: If someone presents to you as the “teaching of the Church” something so repugnant that it MAKES YOU CONSIDER LEAVING THE CHURCH, it probably ISN’T the teaching of the Church.”
Just like the disciples in John 6?
Charlotte
Aquinas grees with us that Judith lied:
Aquinas: ” 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.”. ST 2nd of the 2nd/ quest.110 / art.3 / reply to 3rd objection.
@ dcs:
That is indeed the case (procured vs. spontaneous, direct vs. indirect, etc.).
In principle I agree, though both Mark and Dr. Kreeft have appealed to common sense and intuitive moral knowledge, and I was responding here to Mark’s specific appeal to the common man’s definition of lying, hence my parallel appeal.
Ultimately, though, it’s not vocabulary that matters, but meaning and clarity. There are situations in which it may be preferable to say “Catholics don’t worship Mary” even though it might be more consistent with historic Church usage to say “Catholics offer Mary the worship of hyperdulia, not the worship of latria.” Likewise, I’m more interested in the morality of taking someone else’s private property against his will in different circumstances than whether we call it stealing, and more interested in the morality of speaking or acting contrary to the truth in order to deceive in different circumstances than whether we call it lying.
For additional clarification, here are the *two* definitions of “lying” from the CCC:
2483: To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.
2508 Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.
Both must be considered to be the Church’s definition(s) of lying. Both must be referred to when determining whether a particular act constitutes “lying.”
JR
Deacon Jim,
Fr. Reginaldus (at New Theological Movement) has some references about papal condemnation of “strict mental reservation” (Pope Innocent XI, in 1679; I don’t have the document name handy, but you could check NTM for the reference, perhaps?). You also wrote:
“The ‘object’ of the act is not simply ‘lying’ unless one believes the whole point of Live Action approaching a PP employee is to lie to him/her. I don’t think anyone really believes that it is…”
I’m not sure how that distinction (to the extent that I understand what you mean) helps at all; no one may lie, either as an end or as a means to another end. Also, re: the Catechism’s definition of “lying”: you’re aware of the fact that the first (tan-covered) edition of the CCC had a mistaken definition of “lying” (including the idea of the recipient’s “right to know”), and it was corrected in the (green-covered) 1997 version?
Steven:
You are right that both I and Dr. Kreeft appeal to intuitive moral knowledge or common sense. So, for that matter, does Thomas. However, I *also* note (like Thomas) that our intuitive knowledge must be perfected and augmented by the teaching of the Church. After all, intuitive moral knowledge, unaided by revelation, says “You shall love your friends and hate your enemies.” Kreeft, I regret to say, simply ignores the data of the tradition here (“By its very nature, lying is to be condemned”), ignores Aquinas, ignores Augustine, deliberate eschews any attempt to define lying, and says “Go with your moral instinct.” Then he declares people who are dubious of this proposition morally stupid. I can’t help but get the impression he was writing in a hurry.
Ah. I see the “double definition” to which you refer, Deacon Jim! Thanks. But I don’t see how they differ, in this particular case; Live Action certainly spoke and acted against the truth (in the sense that they pretended to be pimp and hooker, invented a story about underage foreign girls needing abortion & contraceptive services, etc.) in order to lead PP into error (of believing that the sex trafficking story was, in fact, true); and Live Action certainly said what was false with the intent to deceive. I think we need to be careful of using (logically fallacious) equivocation-based definitions of “truth” (as in “that grand, over-arching something-or-other, that infinite horizon to which we all aspire: the ultimate ‘truth’ that is the Beatific Vision!”), here. It’s fallacious to say that “small offenses against the truth must give way to preservation of the ‘bigger truth’!”... and it’s quite nearly logical nonsense.
bill,
I saw that. Personally, the actual scripture means more to me, (no offense to St. Thomas) but I will be the first to admit that I am no biblical scholar. I don’t understand why Chad keeps doubting that Judith lied when it’s pretty clear just from scripture with the Aquinas back up. I’m not here to argue about the right or wrong of lying. That’s not my intention. Chad’s now asked the question twice and I was just trying to help answer it but maybe he only wants to engage Mark.
@ Mark: Yes, Dr. Kreeft discusses the question not in terms of Catholic moral theology or teaching but common sense philosophy, in a very ad hoc manner, as is his wont in much of his writings. It’s why we love him, and it’s also why his contribution here, though significant, I would say, is limited.
And yes, of course we agree that our intuitive knowledge must be perfected and augmented by the teaching of the Church. It’s also true that Church teaching develops and refines over time in part in response to ongoing critical analysis and philosophical inquiry.
I strongly suspect that the definition of lying in the Catechism is one of those elements that needs more work, and that a more complete definition will allow for speaking falsely in order to deceive under at least some circumstances. I’m less confident that those circumstances will necessarily include Live Action’s sting operation ... but my intuition leans in the direction that it may, though I admit I’m not ready to back that up with moral reasoning.
On Wednesday I will be posting a column on Insidecatholic.com that goes to the root of the matter: Augustine teaches (and Aquinas follows him) that telling an untruth is intrinsically evil, whereas killing is not. I dispute this, and think it ought to be abandoned, like the Church’s once absolute ban on lending at interest (via Aquinas), and her acceptance of government persecution of heretics (via Augustine). This position is the very root of all the arguments. Yes, it is wrong to do what is intrinsically evil in order to obtain a good result. No, telling an untruth is not intrinsically evil. Truth is not a greater value than life.
Regarding Anne Rice: The Church’s teaching on homosexuality is not in flux, and she knew that when she “reverted.” There wasn’t a recent Catechism that opened the door for homosexual acts, then a few years later shut it. If that had been true, I would have a great deal more sympathy for her position.
That said, if I came across a Church teaching which I could not reconcile with my moral sense, not matter what I did, the honest thing to do would be to leave. I respect Anne Rice for doing that, instead of joining “Dignity” and trying to distort the Church’s teaching and subvert it from within.
I’m concerned about the Judith thing only because some people use that as a justification for “Lying for Jesus.” And something deep inside me tells me that that is not the moral of the Judith story nor is it a valid justification for what Live Action did. Judith also objectively committed murder (premeditated, etc). So, let’s say that she did lie, she did it with the express intent of murdering the Assyrian general to save her people. It’s not clear to me that either of these things were moral even though the end was reasonably good.
If we say that Live Action can lie because Judith lie, shouldn’t we also say it’s OK to kill abortuary doctors because Judith killed the Assyrian? I’m definitely not prepared to say that’s OK.
Undercover cops lie to get into position to observe people committing crimes and catching them in the act.
Live Action lied specifically to lead someone into error. If a police officer did this, it would be entrapment because you could make a claim that the PP clerk (who was fired, by the way—she suffered injury as much as we may not feel the least bit sorry for her) might not have done what she did except when put into that situation and told very deceiving lies.
To use an undercover cop analogy, perhaps Live Action should get some of their operatives hired by PP to work in an abortuary to *observe* the crimes (trafficking, etc) and record them without being directly involved in entrapment. Of course, this would involve a number of potentially immoral acts in itself (working for PP, standing by as abortions were performed, accepting a paycheck from corrupt gains, etc).
In the end, I go back to Mark’s post and my original comment: We can win the fight against abortion without compromising ourselves in the process. PP is despicable enough and their crimes will eventually come to light without us lying in the process.
It would be a shame, 10-20 years from now to finally on the winning trend against PP only have all our motives questioned because we lied along the way. PP will say, “And if they’re willing to lie to us, how do you know, dear crisis prgnancy mother, that they’re not lying to you when they tell you everything will work out and God will provide for mother and baby?”
We cast doubt on our own efforts and allow PP a small moral victory over us and one small victory for them sets us back tremendously because we’re the underdog fighting the big mean corporation and Evil, Inc.
I’m not saying we should be timid, but we shouldn’t be so quick to give up our moral principles (i.e. the ends do *not* justify the means, ever!)
Thank you, Mark. Very well written.
Charlotte
I think if the Magisterium really had a problem with lying to the enemy, she would zealously denounce all undercover work which work involves constant lies to the enemy worldwide. Ergo…I don’t look so much at what the Magisterium says in a catechism but I look at what it denounces in the real world and the Magisterium does not denounce undercover work at all in the real world. In a sense, these debates for some are about what the catechism says….we have become a library. I rather look at what the Magisterium is not saying even though it could. Benedict like John Paul II e.g. has said that “violence solves nothing”. I don’t look at that. I look at the fact that the Swiss Guard carry Heckler and Koch MP5a3 submachine guns..$13k per gun. Younger people look at the words. I look at the reality that has been chosen and not rebuked. Adieu and goodluck.
I apologize if somebody ahs already stated this.
It comes back to the “Thou shalt not murder the innocent.” In another group (Hebrew Catholics) there was a discussion about true meanings of things and somebody researched The Ten Commandments” and the actual meaning of the 6th Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is lost in the translation.
There is Just War. It puts to mind that all things ( like killing) can be used rightly or wrongly.
There is the fact of the lie, which is indeed a lie, but whether justified or unjustified aims us in the direction of consequences.
Chad
Except that most Americans would not see the action against PP as a strict sense lie. Modern people are used to a basketball player feinting to drive right but go left…a boxer feinting to throw a right and throwing a left…..Sly Stallone pretending in movies that he was in Vietnam and he never was…..a quarterback pretending to throw but handing off…..Joan Rivers pretending her face is 15 years younger….Catholic receptionists saying the boss is not in when he is and having their priest ok it as “he’s not in for you even though he is in”. The list of fictions in modern life is endless and because of that the general public would not debate this as the Catholic internet has….and would not remember this incident as evily done. Has the USCCB denounced the lie? Has Benedict?
@Bill:
Apparently you’ve never debated with an anti-Catholic Protestant and especially not with a “pro-choice” atheist. They remember every sin Catholics (not just the Church, but many individuals) have committed.
And trust me, they will not miss *any* opportunity to morally equivocate and toss Catholics and the pro-life movement under the morality bus.
They most certainly will use this against it once the current crisis (for PP) has settled down in Congress one way or the other. PP will lash out either way, but especially if the legislation ends poorly for them. Expect retaliation of some kind. Also expect that the media will frenzy all over that retaliation. I expect they’ll target Live Action itself somehow, if not some other prominent organization, and they will trumpet it from all the rooftops and the media will eat it up and spew it all over the place and we won’t be able to get away from it.
10 years from now, if we bring up anything about PP’s back dealings with sex traffickers, expect to hear a full barrage and litany of all the unrelated alleged immoralities of this pro-life leader or that pro-life leader as a lame (but publicly effective) example of hypocrisy (the favorite charge of the left) and the public will eat it up and consider it moral equivalency - 1 point victory goes to Planned Parenthood. A victory point *we* will have handed to them on a silver platter.
We have stooped, just a little, down to them and we will pay 10x the price for it.
I keep saying, and I think this was Mark’s point (re: Faustian Bargains) we should not be so quick to give up one ounce of morality for the sake of a short-term victory (especially one that probably won’t pan out due to veto—as Mark also mentioned)
Chad: Whatever may be the merits of your moral case, I find your practical analysis utterly unconvincing. There is No. Way. that Live Action’s sting ops will wind up being a public relations fiasco for anyone but PP.
SDG: Really? You don’t believe that any of this will come back to haunt us when we get blamed for everything even some remotely crazy guy has ever said and claimed to be pro life? We get called racists, misogynists, “Confederates,” even murders. We get held to account because some crazy unhinged guy kills an abortion doctor.
You don’t think, when the dust settles, that they won’t come back guns blazing against us? I’m sorry, you just haven’t been paying attention or else you haven’t been out there with these people screaming in your face.
PP is evil and most people know it already whether they like to admit it. But now they know that pro-lifers, in addition to murdering doctors are now infiltrating PP and entrapping their “poor” employers and getting them fired. You of all people should know the media will always spin it in favor of PP. The press were slow to air the tapes and they hated every second of it and they’re going to get back at those pro-lifers making their job and agenda a little harder.
We can beat PP without compromising ourselves. We are winning, albeit slowly. Don’t, in the run-up to victory, compromise ourselves in the final moments of battle and end up losing the moral victory.
I’m sorry, the ends don’t justify the means, ever. There is no “... except when it gets us a little short-term victory against PP” because the result of ends-justifying-the-means is always the same: you become your enemy by the time you’re through.
And what next with the Judith argument? We can lie because “Judith did”. Judith killed the Assyrian general, so we should form a new “Special Ops Death Squad For Life” who assassinate high-level PP officials “because Judith did it”?
Clarification: I said “you of all people” because you’re a prominent Catholic figure who has some dealings with the media. That was not, even in the slightest, any sort of insult or put-down. In fact, it was a compliment due to your prominence.
Steven:
It’s already being used against us. PP fundraising is spiking as they tell the faithfulo “Now those evil anti-choice people are using lies and fraud against us”. Witness Obama’s rallying of the pro-choice troops today. It’s always unwise to give your opponent a sword. We’ve had our thrill. Now PP is cleaning up in donations.
Chad
You may be seeing the debating world as representing more of the population than it does and the media will rather be interested in ordinary people reactions…ordinary people who admire undercover work as a rule.
@Deacon Russell,
If someone steals to buy drugs, is the object of the act stealing or buying drugs? What if someone steals a copy of the Catechism in order to learn the Faith? Of course Live Action’s whole point wasn’t to lie; they used lies in order to achieve their end of exposing PP.
I do not believe that the condemnation of strict mental reservation (which is not, by the way, obscure—at least not to moral theologians) is limited to those under oath:
Mark,
I haven’t read all the posts, but I’m wondering if you’ve considered the example of St. Joan of Arc, and whether her actions were sinful?
I know in one of your arguments you said that this could not be considered akin to undercover agents or spies in warfare because the government has not sanctioned any war. But the government never sanctions revolutions, and while violence is out of the question, it seems to me that revolution is just what is needed to save the 1.3 million unborn killed in the U.S. every year. It’s a non-violent war, a non-violent revolution, and akin to Gandhi’s satyagraha, it’s militant non-violence that we need.
@bill bannon,
“Ordinary people” also believe that abortion can be justified in certain circumstances. Most people are consequentialists and believe that the ends justify the means. So the fact that they admire undercover work is not relevant to the issue of whether or not it can be justified.
Chad: No, I really don’t this will come back to haunt us. The crazy guy who claims to be pro-life is a net embarrassment to us; Lila Rose’s actions is a net embarrassment to PP. Whatever qualms some of us may have (rightly or wrongly) about Live Action’s tactics, in any court of public opinion worth countenancing PP looks a lot worse. The people who will hate on Lila Rose while glossing over criminal collusion in PP are the people who would hate on us no matter what, and any hay they try to make against us is likely to have the opposite effect. I think the media knows this, which is why they want to bury the subject, not make hay of it.
@Bill:
Don’t be mean. Ordinary people recognize when morals are being compromised. They’ve been confused about the PP thing, but most people don’t like to talk about PP or abortion because they know it’s an uncomfortable subject (immoral, but they’ve been told repeatedly it’s ‘necessary’). They now see the pro-lifers are resorting to underhanded tactics.
And here we see the response:
“Clearly, Live Action is the embodiment of imagining an evil, then fighting it with evil to prove that what was imagined is real. It could be dismissed as nothing more than a teenager’s prank if it didn’t run a serious risk of such major consequences for the real patients who rely on Planned Parenthood’s clinics.”
http://jrbarras.com/?p=1749
Mark Shea,
You state lying is intrinsically immoral/evil. Yet you say killing is not? Please explain. Is this because you read it somewhere or because you are using logic? Because the latter disagrees with the former.
Ordinary people even if they countenance abortion in rape or life of the mother….do not want their tax money in a stressed economy going to pay for elective abortions of diverse motivations.
Here’s an example of an atheist quoting from the Catechism against Live Action:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4196/lila_rose_targets_planned_parenthood_with_lies/
It’s worth noting that every mention of Live Action I’ve read from the pro-death web sites is immediately followed by the name Lila Rose and a mention of how she is Catholic and how she lied.
So we’ve got a trifecta here of the pro-life cause, the Catholic Church, and Lila Rose all having their morality questioned because of these actions.
Remember, Evil, Inc. doesn’t play fair. One of us screws up, it affects everyone in the cause and impairs the ability of the average sidewalk counselor to be as effective as otherwise.
Every sidewalk counselor I’ve talked to said that their success is entirely contingent upon the woman in the car’s perception that the counselor and the pro-life movement is based on genuine love for the mother and the baby and is not about winning points. The women already know that PP is evil. Telling the girl in the passenger seat that PP is evil or that abortion is wrong, or that it’s killing a baby is rarely effective.
Except now they’ll see on the news that pro-lifers are using questionable tactics.
I can’t help but think that this has set the sidewalk counseling and 40-days-for-life movements back years.
Chad, in the echo chamber of rabid pro-death opinion, they’ll say anything. In the light of day, I think most people will intuitively lean toward the same sort of reasoning as Dr. Kreeft. The idea that anyone will perceive the love for mother and baby of sidewalk counselors as somehow compromised I find simply incredible. That’s how I see it.
Hmmm. I must have been blind—there’s the initial *first* of three ways to define “lying” in the Catechism:
2482: A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving (a quote from Augustine)
2483: To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.
2508: Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.
So, *three* phrasings must be considered. Similar indeed, maybe, hopefully, identical.
2483 also says that a lie injures “man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor.”
2485 also says that “the deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity.”
2488 says “the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional.”
Notice that the emphasis in the CCC is that lying involves deception of “neighbor”? What if the “neighbor” is an “unjust aggressor”? Hmmm.
@Paladin—
If the CCC is to be taken at face value, then something interesting happens. We’re told lying, by its nature, is to be condemned. Elsewhere it’s called “intrinsically disordered”. Most folks conclude it’s therefore “intrinsically evil,” on account of “object alone” (apart from intention and circumstances) as Veritatis Splendor teaches regarding intrinsic evil.
What’s “interesting” is that this apparently means that the entire *definition* of lying is necessarily the “object” of the act of lying. Right? BUT, the *definition* of “lying” includes a *specific* INTENTION. The falsehood is *intended* to deceive. But “intention” is apart from “object”, right? Well, maybe not in this case, seems to me. Seems to me that “lying” might be a peculiar class of “intrinsic evil” because its “object” necessarily includes “intention” which, according to 1752, “in contrast to the object, resides in the acting subject.”
In the case of “lying”, its object (“the matter of the human act” per 1751) must necessarily contain an *intention* as well, for that is the definition of “lying,” correct? Either that, or the intrinsic evil of lying arises from BOTH object and intention, unlike other intrinsic evils. Can’t see any way around this…
If so, then speaking falsely *without* the intention to deceive no longer constitutes intrinsically evil lying, does it? Such a form of “speaking falsely” could be attached to other human acts with *different* objects and vastly different intentions. And in THIS case, unlike other “intrinsically evil” acts, a change of “intention” *must* change the nature of the object of the act (or could make it no longer intrinsicall evil), seems to me.
I think all pondering this issue would do well to read more from CCC 1750 and following, to better understand object, intention, and circumstances.
But now I really think that part of the issue is that lying is a very *peculiar* form of intrinsic evil because its defintion *necessarily* includes intention. I’m totally open to correction on this, btw.
What do you think?
Deacon Jim Russell
CCC 2488 “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.”
Fraternal love is the overriding concern according to the Gospel and the Catechism. If unborn children were to be able to defend themselves they surely should, and almost certainly would. If lying were the only way to for them defend their lives, they surely should, and almost certainly would “lie”. For that would not be a lie, but self defense. How could they possibly be wrong for lying in defense of their lives yet another be right for killing in self defense?
One cannot get derailed by language and words. One must seek and consider the meaning of the whole situation to understand whether in reality Live Action acted according to truth or not. They evidently did because they exposed the truth.
Thank you Deacon Jim.
Other things where speaking falsely is not a sin include telling jokes, telling stories (fiction for the purpose of entertainment or conveying morality), etc.
So I wonder, is it a sin to tell your enemy a falsehood if your intent is to lead them OUT of error? This might explain the Judith question (though the killing of the general still causes problems for me) as she was able to lead the Assyrians away from killing the Hebrews.
What if a Live Action type organization did the whole “Pimp and prostitute gag” in order to help individual PP workers see the errors of PP so that they would leave? Would that be immoral?
Perhaps we’re back to the crux of the actual actions of Live Action. The Catechism says that lying requires the intent of leading someone into error, but appears silent on spoken falsehoods with the intent of helping someone. Surely we can agree that comedy, theater, and storytelling are morally neutral acts by their nature (though they can be used in evil or good ways). Is Live Action just doing theater? The intent of theater is to entertain, but Live Action had different intent.
@Chad—
You’re welcome, and thank you, too!
It also occurs to me that perhaps lying isn’t such a “peculiar” intrinsic evil to include “intention” as part of the criteria for its intrinsic evil. If I’m not mistaken, the “object” of *murder* is also dependent upon some form of intention (to take an innocent life), isn’t it?
Deacon Jim R
I take all of the Church’s teachings very seriously. I try hard never to utter any falsehood. Moreover, I love the Catechism, and it is our surest summary of Catholic morality at a general level. Out of every 10,000 times we speak, the Catechism is right 9,999 times in telling us that an intentional falsehood is wrong.
But I don’t think the Catechism is a moral theology textbook designed to answer the morality of every situation. People are so worried about any hint of consequentialism or proportionalism or relativism (all of which are properly condemned) that they swing too far in the other direction — taking overly literal readings of the Catechism and using it as a prooftext to condemn as intrinsically evil acts that are not necessarily so, without every stopping to consider if the Catechism was really meant to be read that way in defining the moral object of various acts.
I have a hard time, for example, believing that something that made it into the last draft of the Catechism and which then was omitted — the idea that lying requires that the recipient have the right to know — is necessarily and definitively condemned. To quote Jeffrey Mirus at Catholic Answers, “the Catechism is intended as a basic compendium of Catholic doctrine, assembled with due ecclesiastical care, and not as a collection of definitive infallible pronouncements permanently settling every question on every topic it covers. In other words, the change in definition does not mean the original formulation was wrong. But it does mean that the editors of the Catechism were not prepared to endorse it in an official Catholic reference work.”
Indeed, I actually would bet serious money that if the question were squarely put to the Pope whether it would be wrongful to lie to protect a hiding Jew, he would say no. He may not have thought it was right to qualify the general moral lesson taught by the Catechism regarding lying, or he may not have liked the draft formulation that an intentional falsehood is not a lie when the recipient does not have the “right to know” the information, but I don’t think he would take the absolutist position.
Indeed, putting aside for the momemnt the words in the Catechism, what does the Church teach in its actions? Do we really think, for example, that the Church condemns all undercover journalism, plain-clothes police officers working to infiltrate the mafia or Al Qaeda, military disinformation in a just war, secret shoppers, and the government’s testing of its security procedures by, for example, sending people with fake IDs to see if they get through airport security? It seems like we would have heard something about that from Rome or the bishops over the years.
Many in this debate are treating the Catechsim like Protestant fundamentalists treat the Bible. We’ve become so scared that if any sentence or clause in the Catechism isn’t read as the definitive, infallible, complete truth for all time and in all circumstances, then our entire faith and moral system will collapse—consequentialism will reign and everything will be permitted. I have more confidence that our Church, faith, and moral reasoning are built on a surer foundation.
Alexander
Well said.
@Alexander:
“Indeed, I actually would bet serious money that if the question were squarely put to the Pope whether it would be wrongful to lie to protect a hiding Jew, he would say no. He may not have thought it was right to qualify the general moral lesson taught by the Catechism regarding lying, or he may not have liked the draft formulation that an intentional falsehood is not a lie when the recipient does not have the “right to know” the information, but I don’t think he would take the absolutist position.”
That’s certainly possible, though it should be pointed out that the current pope, in his 1990s roles as head of the CDF, oversaw the writing of the CCC. Its certainly true that we don’t know the details of the drafting process, but we do know that the first draft was prepared by a certain group and was submitted to the CDF for ultimate finalization. So if any thing the most likely explanation is that the earlier, more permissive language, was drafted by the committee and that Cardinal Ratzinger’s CDF corrected it to remove the “loopholes” deliberately. Again, we don;t know, but that’s the most likelyu explanation.
In any event, its not like the CCC’s absolute prohibitiopn on lying sprung up out of whole cloth. there is a deep tradition in the Church (Augustine, Aquinas, etc) saying that lying is never permissible - even to save a life. One can argue about whether that’s definitive or right, but if Augustine, Aquinas and the current CCC agree on a question its a bit rich to call those who take it seriously as being just like Protestant Fundamentalists.
(*groan*) Here’s where I lament NCR’s lack of HTML formatting! This is going to be a challenge…
Deacon Jim: It certainly seems to be true that lying cannot exist without an intention (since its very definition requires it). Beyond this, you wrote: “And in THIS case, unlike other ‘intrinsically evil’ acts, a change of ‘intention’ *must* change the nature of the object of the act (or could make it no longer intrinsically evil), seems to me.”
That’s possible, up to a point… but, so far as I can tell, all the other extraneous factors in the world would do nothing to change the objective moral evil of uttering a falsehood with the intention of deceiving (on any level—shallow or deep, specific or broad)... though additional intentions (and lack of knowledge) could certainly affect one’s culpability. For instance: could you come up with a hypothetical situation in which someone knowingly uttered a falsehood with the intention of deception, but which (through whatever circumstance) was not intrinsically evil, as per any of the Catechism’s definitions?
Mark, you infuriate me most of the time, but now and then you slam one out of the park. This is one of those slams. Well done, and thanks.
The CCC dos not have an “absolute” prohibition on “lying” as some insist. Again, please read CCC 2488.
The Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, expresses itself through the Catechism and otherwise, and cannot be wrong. That does not mean that it has addressed everything. But the topic being discussed is sufficiently clarified by referring to the Catechism.
In Matthew 5:15 Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” What was his intention here? It appears to be to obey the law.
But the law was being interpreted as prohibiting any work on the Sabbath. According to Mark 3: 2-5 Jesus asked: “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath rather than to do evil, to save life rather than to destroy it?” He then quite intentionally cured people on the Sabbath but was accused and subsequently crucified for breaking the Mosaic law. Did he? Did he lie when he said he had not come to abolish the law? Should he not have healed on the Sabbath?
Should Live Action not have exposed how a federally funded international organization that loudly advocates for abortion on demand was quite willing to help those who prey on non English speaking prostituted minors?
What would have been their intention if they had not? To “not lie”? To turn a blind eye to the crime against the most vulnerable of teenage minors and the unborn? Who would they be expressing fraternal love to if they hadn’t? The perpetrators? I’m afraid that the reasoning against Live Action is largely pharisaic.
@Alexander,
That it certainly is not, but chances are if you look at a moral theology textbook it will confirm exactly what the Catechism is teaching on the matter. In fact, that is almost certainly why the Catechism was updated—so that it would harmonize with the traditional Catholic teaching on the matter.
Do you mean literally? It is appropriate for the Catechism to be read literally—it is not mystical or symbolic in any way, but is rather intended to be a clear exposition of the Catholic faith. (That it is unclear in sections is beside the point.) I surely would not trust the moral judgment of a Catholic who claimed to be interpreting the Catechism like one would interpret Holy Scripture.
@bill bannon,
That is a non sequitur. Either the moral judgment of the common man can be trusted or it can’t. If ordinary people believe that abortion can be justified in certain circumstances, then their moral judgment is suspect.
Mark,
You used my comment in your article, and once again, you took it out of context. As I had explained in a later comment, I was making a distinction between the human and divine natures of Christ. And for the record: I did not imply that Jesus was lying, nor would I ever even suggest it; because I know that The Truth did not, nor could He ever lie!
My question was whether you thought it was a lie, because the information that He gave seemed to be contrary to the facts, especially when He said “Not even the Son”, which refers to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Eternally Begotten Son: to suggest that He did not know, may not be blasphemy, but it is certainly a heresy. There was nothing sinister about my question.
With respect to present day consequences of lying to PP:
1) Look up “jesuitical” in the dictionary and ponder how the good name of the Society of Jesus picked up a meaning like that.
2) Search the web for “Jesuit Titanic Jekyll Island.” Remember that people take this seriously. Why?
3) Do the same thing for “Jesuit blood oath.” Ditto. Why?
4) Ponder why there is such a vast reserve mistrust of Catholicism in English speaking culture.
The Jesuit missioners in Reformation England speculated that it _might_ be acceptable to lie or employ strict mental reservations. And here we are, 400 years later, still working against that legacy of mistrust.
Don’t tell me that there won’t be long term consequences for lying to Planned Parenthood.
@John Church,
Killing is not intrinsically immoral. Here are three examples of when it is not immoral: (1) killing in defense of one’s own life or that of another; (2) killing in a just war; and (3) the death penalty.
Mark, when I blogged about lying as a tactic, my concern was that people were praising LiveAction’s operations without considering the morality of what was being done and possibly causing scandal. Although I do believe that everyone is of good faith, I think we have to discourage this rah-rah attitude towards LiveAction because that in itself causes scandal and misleads people into thinking that the morality of the situation is no big deal. When the Hebrew Midwives and Rahab the harlot lied, they themselves were in danger of death and did the best they could under the danger of death. LiveAction is not in danger of death.
I also take exception to the notion that this is not cut and dried. When it comes to an intrinsically immoral act, it is cut and dried: it’s not permissible. I know that you’re a humble guy and you want to give credit to all the good people in the blogosphere. But I think it’s misleading to leave people open to the idea that there’s an “out” to this. There isn’t.
While most people would not engage in a lot of moral thinking while reflexively trying to handle a situation where they are in danger of death, this is clearly not the situation. Nobody is talking to an abortionist trying to trick him into not doing an abortion.
When you have the truth, don’t be afraid to state it plainly. You hit all the right notes about everyone being devoted to the cause and being of good faith. That being said, don’t sacrifice truth to be a nice guy. We know that with abortion, contraception and homosexuality, we may never commit these acts. The same is true of lying, on the same authority and for the same reason (ultimately).
Mark,
Fantastic piece!
Kreeft’s article does nothing to “discredit” him in my book, because it is so unlike anything he’s ever produced both in its weak arguments and its theme (as someone said on FB this evening, Kreeft once said you don’t fight fire with fire; you fight fire with water).
I was interested by your point that the Church “allows” deception. I wrote to the CDF today with this very question:
1. Is it possible to commit an act of falsehood which is not a lie, just as it is possible to kill without murdering or to take without stealing? That is the real question at stake here.
Similarly,
2 Ontologically, if you assume an alternative identity and live according to it, is that a lie? Or are you, for all intents and purposes, that person you claim to be? So, if a 19-year-old female cop poses as a 14-year-old girl, looks the part, acts the part, etc., isn’t she, for all intents and purposes, a 14 year old girl?
Thanks for the syllabus of other “big names” who have weighed in on this, and I was impressed to see my real life friend Chris Tollefson on the list, and just saw Chris’s piece from today summarizing the debate thus far.
Lastly, speaking of Screwtape, one of the things that keeps coming up is, “Obviously, lying is not as bad a sin as murder.” Well, the Catechism says that depends upon the lie and its consequences. But even if it’s less of a mortal sin than murder, if it’s a mortal sin, it’s still a mortal sin, and the Devil is more than happy to get someone for a lesser mortal sin.
@sd
Fair point that the position of Augustine and Aquinas is a deep tradition in the Church, but there is another deep tradition—going back to St. John Cassian and St. John Chrysostom—that holds that intentional falsehoods are permissible in some rare circumstances. There is no doubt that the Catechism’s definition follows Augustine and Aquinas, but I don’t think its use of that definition, in a book designed to give general and brief instruction on dozens of moral matters, is meant to definitively resolve the issue for all circumstances or to hold that all other views are wrong, especially when I don’t see the Church’s day-to-day practical teaching trying to implement an absolutist prohibition.
Furthermore, I’m not inclined to treat the Catechism’s defintion as a complete, final pronouncement when even the defenders of the absolutist position don’t seem to have the courage to follow it—i.e., very few are willing to say that they would never lie to a Nazi to protect a Jew, as the logic of their position demands. (Despite all of their efforts to dismiss that situation as extreme and to say that lying under those circumstances would only be a venial sin, it was a very real situation not that long ago and likely is today in many places in the world, and any good Catholic knows that one cannot intend even a venial sin.)
Mark is correct that our gut instinct is far from an infallible guide, but it’s also not irrelevant in identifying moral wrongs. We have a natural law written on our hearts, and when numerous faithful, thoughtful orthodox Catholics, with no selfish motivation, with due reflection, with some Catholic authority on their side, and with no definitive pronouncement from the Magisterium specifically condemning their position, come to the conclusion that the Catechism’s definition of lying is generally right but is too broad to cover every situation, I will, without regret, follow what my moral instinct is telling me.
I would like to explain the difference between the morality of lying and the morality of killing.
The act of using physical self-defense is morally permissible due to the theory of double effect.
See, the object of self-defense is not killing. It’s to use only as much physical violence necessary to disarm an aggressor.
And we know that physical violence is not intrinsically wrong.
Now using physical violence sometimes causes death, but this is an effect of using physical violence; it isn’t the intended end. The desired end is the disarmement of an aggressor.
The same reasoning is used when you give a terminal patient a lethal dose of morphine; the fatality is not the intended effect; the relief of pain is.
Physical violence is not intrinsically unjust because we need to be able to use force to respond to objects, animals and people who might harm us and in fact this is one reason the force exists. That’s how our bodies were meant to operate.
But lying is intrinsically wrong because our souls are created for truth. And so our souls were intended by God to be “authentic” i.e to communicate what we thought to be true. When we lie, we contradict God’s intended mode of operation for our souls.
I hope this has explained why killing in self-defense is not intrinsically immoral, but lying is.
The current Catechism, much like Vatican II, uses very impercise language compared to pre-conciliar instruction. If you really want to understand what constitutes a lie, I would not consult the latest CCC.
@Suzana
“LiveAction is not in danger of death.”
No they are not, but they were acting on behalf of those who are and cannot act for themselves.
“we may never commit these acts. The same is true of lying, on the same authority and for the same reason (ultimately).”
To claim they “lied” is a reductionist argument. It omits the context. They exposed the truth, not lied.
“I hope this has explained why killing in self-defense is not intrinsically immoral, but lying is.”
So it’s fine to kill some to save one’s life even though when one would be able to accomplish the same objective, saving one’s life, by “lying”?
@Suzana
I meant: “So it’s fine to kill some to save one’s life even when one would be able to accomplish the same objective, saving one’s life, by “lying”?
It’s not just the Catechism, though. I do think once we reach the point of closely parsing the wording of the Catechism to the exclusion of everything else, we’re in danger of a sort of fundamentalism. The Catechism is principally useful as a summary. But the unconditional sinfulness of lying is something that the saints have had a sort of (to borrow a phrase from Chesterton) savage monotony about. And as far as Magisterial pronouncements, where uncrossable lines *have* very explicitly been drawn—i.e. between broad and strict mental reservation—lying falls much further out on the wrong side of the line. If not strict mental reservation, then certainly not lying.
Even if Dr. Kreeft (among others) hadn’t explicitly connected the two, this situation resembles nothing so much as the torture debate, except that (as far as I can tell) there’s much less to actually dispute over in this case—one can barely move without bumping into one explicit teaching or another. That’s not to say that there’s no room at all for good-natured disagreement, but we need to be really careful to not start tearing down the edifice of Catholic teaching in the process.
At the very least, could we please refrain from arguments of the form:
* “Lying must be permissible in {{situation}}, because otherwise {{consequence}} [and that would be stupid/inconceivable/etc].” This is naked consequentialism. Please (re)read Veritatis Splendour.
* “{{Pope or biblical figure}} lied in {{situation}}, therefore lying must be permissible in some cases.” (Heaven help us when someone finally brings up the example of Pope Sergius III…) Thankfully, we rely primarily on the articulated teaching of the Church and not the moral example of our pastors and antecedents, even that of those who have been raised to the altar. Examples are instructive, but not authoritative.
“Lying” needs to be defined. Is omitting context while arguing that part of what occurred in a given context is a lie, an instance of “lying” or of “being truthful”?
Huh? Why isn’t her lying righteous anger as Jesus cleansing the temple? When done in peace, it is no less righteous than when anger is used. Gregory
I have been having the most marvelous debate with my entire family over this - we’re all very dedicated to the pro-life cause and have even used LA type tactics in the past.
I keep trying to write long pieces to explain my point of view, only to find you have posted another lucid article that covers the real essentials of the question.
Thank you for having the humility to ask difficult questions and to keep calmly sharing your findings for the good of the church. You have helped the pro-life movement immensely.
Enrique wrote: “The CCC dos not have an “absolute” prohibition on “lying” as some insist. Again, please read CCC 2488.”—I’m afraid CCC 2488 doesn’t say what you hope it says. CCC 2488 allows us to WITHHOLD information from those who have no right to it; it does NOT allow us to go further, and speak actual lies.
“[Jesus] then quite intentionally cured people on the Sabbath but was accused and subsequently crucified for breaking the Mosaic law. Did he? Did he lie when he said he had not come to abolish the law? Should he not have healed on the Sabbath?”—Yes, He should certainly have healed on the Sabbath… but don’t confuse Divine Law with interpretation of that law. A Jewish friend once described traditional Jewish approach to the law to my wife: “If the law commands us not to touch a particular tree, Jews build a fence around the tree and command everyone not to touch the fence!” That’s what happened here; the prohibition against “servile work” was never meant to exclude all “work” in the physics sense of the word… or else eating, getting out of bed, or even swallowing would violate the “law”. No… the Pharisees were mistakenly exaggerating the law’s requirements, and Jesus knew that.
“Should Live Action not have exposed how a federally funded international organization that loudly advocates for abortion on demand was quite willing to help those who prey on non English speaking prostituted minors?”—Of course, they should have… but the issue is whether they should have resorted to an immoral act while doing so. Appealing to the “noble motive” (and I agree with you, in that regard) solves nothing… and nor does hysterical-sounding rhetoric that denounces people of good will who are simply trying to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong. Could I ask you, kindly, to ease off your flame-thrower trigger, a bit?
I have to say, this is one of the most civil, informative, constructive, and useful comment threads I’ve ever seen on the Internet. I’m tempted to go so far as to say “edifying” for, like Laura, I have received moral instruction and had a lively discussion with my family (including several good arguments from my 10yo son) who also benefited. Kudos to Mark and everyone who’s commented. The civility is to be greatly commended!
Here’s my take-aways thus far: 1/ The Lying Dutchman/Nazis-at-the-door argument, similar to the Hebrew midwives, does not establish a principle for righteous lying because it involves immediate danger of death. In the Live Action situation, there was no immediate danger of death and Live Action’s actions didn’t save anyone from immediate death. 2/ The Judith example works both ways in that it proves too much. If it’s OK to lie because Judith did, then why isn’t it OK to assassinate leaders because Judith did? Also, Judith was faced with an imminent life or death situation in which many people would be massacred and the rest sold into slavery. 3/ The Live Action situation is particularly troublesome because there was no immediate result (the House would likely have pass the amendment anyhow and the bill is likely to get killed in the Senate or vetoed by Obama) and because it cost so much in present and future moral ambiguity. The price seems too much to pay, even if it can be conclusively proven that what they did was morally licit. 4/ The Lying Dutchman/Nazis-at-the-door scenario is still troubling to me in that it doesn’t seem to have an immediately obvious answer and I’ve heard many good arguments from both sides. When I asked my children, they immediately gave the obvious answer: Lie to the “Bad Policemen”—I’m afraid I’m out-thinking all this and that compromising my obligation as a father to protect those in my household and allowing innocents to die far outweighs lying to evil people.
@Chad Myers
Agreed. I think Mark is absolutely right in his column. Everyone here wants the same things ultimately. To the extent that we’re arguing (and no use hiding the fact that we are arguing) its within the framework of having the same goals, respecting the same authority (even though we interpret it differently) and wanting to do the right thing.
I dare so pro-choice forumns don’t display this level mof healthy, spirited debate about how to make the most progress without stepping over a moral line.
One other point, I’m concerned that we have essentially given up on our legal justice system and other straight-forward methods of dealing with the problem.
It seems the real problem is that we have allowed our Catholic and non-Catholic brethren fall into lapse. We have allowed bad judges to get into high positions. We don’t fight the good fights because they’re hard. Now we basically do an end-run around the system. Planned Parenthood is doing really bad things (even besides abortion). We knew this before Live Action. We could have proved it. We could have found a DA willing to investigate it and take on the system just like we took on the Mafia and other major syndicates who owned judges and senators and such. Beating the Mafia was a long, arduous, very dangerous task and through the moral convictions of people and leaders, the war was won.
We *CAN* beat Planned Parenthood on the street corners in front of the abortuaries, in the court rooms in the voting booths, in the media, etc. But few attend the marches, few sign up for 40-days-for-life, few donate money to 40-days or Priests for Life, etc. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that many of us are morally compromised from using birth control and getting divorces that we look at abortion and look at ourselves and realize we don’t have a moral leg to stand on. So many stay home and don’t fight because they feel they’re compromised.
We can’t come back after all these things and expect to win a quick fight after we’ve let the enemy take over the entire country. This is a battle for generations and we’ve lost the last 3. What are you doing to fix the next 3 generations so that they will take back morality in this country and hold leaders to account for their corruption and duplicity and timidity? Fight Planned Parenthood where it counts: In the womb and in the children. Don’t debase yourself in the process and stoop to petty tactics and cheap short-term victories. Win the real war, change the hearts and minds, the laws will follow. And in the end, remember WE WIN!
Chad and sd:
When you say that stuff about civility, you remind me of HITLER! (*ducking*) :)
Enrique:
They exposed the truth, not lied.
What was the method they used to expose the truth?
They told a lie. That’s wrong. You can’t expose the truth with a lie. It’s like Mark Shea said, that would be like leading people to Jesus with a false miracle.
You said that the Catechism does not condemn lying as intrinsically immoral. It does, it just doesn’t those precise words. The Catechism says “by its nature, lying is to be condemned.” That’s exactly the same thing as saying as it’s intrinsically immoral because that’s what an intrinsically immoral act is—an act that, by its nature, is evil.
As for saving someone life: yes, disarming an aggressor by killing him is permissible *if that’s what it takes* but not lying. Because as I explained, physical force is not intrinsically immoral, but lying is.
@Paladin
“...don’t confuse Divine Law with interpretation of that law.”
I don’t. That was precisely my point.
“CCC 2488 allows us to WITHHOLD information from those who have no right to it; it does NOT allow us to go further, and speak actual lies.”
But CCC 2488 specifically warns us “...in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.”
“...the issue is whether they should have resorted to an immoral act while doing so. “
If I’m not mistaken, they did not reveal who they truly were. They acted a part in order that truth might become evident. To call that an “immoral act” is a reductionist statement that appears to hide the truth. Please define what you mean by “lying”.
“...nor does hysterical-sounding rhetoric that denounces people of good will who are simply trying to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong. Could I ask you, kindly, to ease off your flame-thrower trigger, a bit?”
I believe I have reasoned against arguments, against a type of reasoning and assure you that I did not set out to denounce people of presumed good will or “throw flames”. But you are here denouncing me. Therefore, if you believe I did, please show me where I threw flames and to whom.
Mark, we *know* you’re not a duck. You lied!
Oh, wait, you meant the verb. Pardon my politically incorrect display of anatidaephobia.
;)
@ Mark, Hi Mark, I thought since you used my comment in your article, I’d better explain myself (I’m off caffeine for the moment.) First, I’m sorry that I have to post under Anonymous—it’s not to protect me, but those people who (thru no fault of their own) are related to me. I thought Anonymous would be better than using a fake name (no, really, I did). Second, when I said that people are wimps for spending all this time arguing about lying etc, what I meant, and what I should have said is, wouldn’t it be nice if all this energy could be focused on the fight against abortion? I, too, have participated in all the methods of protesting abortion that you listed (yes, even civil disobedience), and I do NOT think that “Lying for Jesus” should be the new, ‘hip’ way to fight abortion. I agree with what you said at the beginning of this article about Live Action and the reward of the Hebrew midwives. And thirdly, I did apologize for my majorly uncharitable behavior in making such sweeping obnoxious statements, but it was further down in the com boxes (and there are like a gajillion comments) so perhaps you missed it. So anyways, I’m going to do what I can to fight against abortion, and I wish you well.
Thank you, anonymous. I forgive you and God bless you. Please forgive me for replying with some heat.
@SUZANNE
“What was the method they used to expose the truth? They told a lie.”
No, the method was much more than that. It involved acting out a role which they believe PP was familiar with in order to see how the organization would react. Do you believe acting out a role is lying? What do you mean by lying?
“As for saving someone life: yes, disarming an aggressor by killing him is permissible *if that’s what it takes* but not lying. Because as I explained, physical force is not intrinsically immoral, but lying is.”
So you think it is preferable to kill someone than to “lie” to them, however it may be that you define the term. But I would contend that said position is intrinsically immoral, for in this case one would not be really killing in self defense given that one could have defended one’s life or another’s through other means (e.g. by role playing).
Enrique,
It’s not just what Suzanne “thinks”; it’s what the Catholic Church teaches.
But you’re misrepresenting the principle.
It’s never good to kill someone, but it’s excusable to kill someone unintentionally, whether you do it unintentionally by stabbing an assailant to stop the assault or by cutting a patient to do surgery.
It’s never excusable to lie, because every lie strikes not just to the body but to the soul.
I would like to commend Chad Myers for his very clear and insightful thinking, and the contribution he has made to this discussion! His last comments (@9:45 and 9:57), in particular, should be read by all.
The reason we’re all agonizing over this is that there is a strong, non-infallible tradition in Catholic theology that says telling falsehoods is worse than killing. Think about that for yourself—leaving aside arguments from authority, since it’s a rational, moral question that should be entirely deducible from reason alone. Do you believe that telling a falsehood is worse than killing? Really?
This is not a matter of mystery, like the Eucharist or the Trinity. It is a natural law argument, subject finally to reason. Augustine’s position on truth-telling has not been declared infallibly, has it? Then it’s open to debate, like the Church’s heavily revised traditions on charging interest and persecuting/torturing heretics. And I will debate it.
@ Mark—Thank you! : )
@JC—Where does the Catholic Church teach what you claim it teaches?
“It’s never good to kill someone, but it’s excusable to kill someone unintentionally…”
It’s not unintentional when one could have avoided it by role playing. It’s called murder.
Therefore, how is it that you define “lying” for it appears to allow for murder.
I must go now and will check back for any responses at some point tomorrow.
“Do you believe that telling a falsehood is worse than killing? Really?”
Personally speaking, I’m not prepared to pit one of the Ten Commandments against another.
Mark says,
“Jesus does not need us to lie for him. The Light of the World is not another taqiyya sunrise.”
Scripture says:
“Hath God any need of your lie, that you should speak deceitfully for him?” (Job 13:7)
Right on :)
John Zmirak, why not accept that telling a falsehood may, indeed, be worse than killing from a moral perspective? It is *possible* to kill someone without committing a sin at all. A doctor may use an anesthetic during surgery when no one, not even the patient himself, knows that the patient will suffer a fatal reaction; a careful driver might hit the inebriated person who lurches in front of the car on an ill-lighted street; a homeowner may use deadly force against home invaders who enter shooting; a legitimate state authority may justly execute a criminal under the (should-be) rare circumstance when that is required. In none of these, or dozens of similar examples, does someone commit a sin by killing another person.
Similarly, an *unintentional* falsehood is no lie, but merely a mistake—e.g., if Jane sincerely thinks her friends are meeting at 3:00 and gives this time to another friend, she is not guilty of any wrong if the meeting was actually scheduled for 2. But a willful lie is a deliberate act contrary to both truth and justice.
That every deliberate lie is a sin is simply what the Church teaches. But both the gravity of the sin and the culpability of the person will depend on many factors. For instance, if Jane tells her friend to join the group at 3 because the group usually gossips about the absent friend for the first hour of the meeting, that will be graver than Jane telling the friend to come at 3 because otherwise the friend will dominate the meeting with trivialities and nothing will get done for that first hour.
I think that for a lie to reach the level of murder, willful killing, in gravity that truly serious harm has to be done by the lie; but that’s just a guess.
Thanks again, and…....again, Mark. Love the way you express it, and I’m terribly sorry that people’s hearts (including Lila Rose, Dr. Kreeft, and all the others) including yours are being trashed by some people. Somewhere, truth and love get lost. At the same time, if someone confronts me about wrong in which I am engaged (and I hope for this - I do not avoid it), I don’t particularly expect it to feel good. It doesn’t; but it still needs to be said, and it still needs to be heard. Faithful are the wounds of a friend. This is the life which I have with my own family in my home, and this is the one I hope for from the Christian, especially Catholic, community. Your exhibition of humility is a good example, and it is both appreciated and noted.
John Zmirak, can you *unintentionally* tell a lie? If not, then how is it fair to say that the tradition holds falsehoods to be worse than killing?
Does it harm our integrity to knowingly assert the untrue as true? Does it harm our respect for the truth, even in the slightest? If so, then why not acknowledge that harm is done, even though good is achieved?
As a venial sin, it’s one thing to panic and lie with a good motivation, even though it harms you. It’s another thing altogether to plan to lie and to deny the harm…what use is that as moral guide? It’s simply false.
I look forward to your Wednesday article. I hope it addresses Tollefsen’s explanation of the harm to integrity.
John Zmirak wrote:
“Do you believe that telling a falsehood is worse than killing? Really?”
That is the wrong question. Neither telling a falsehood nor killing is intrinsically immoral. A falsehood might be non-sinful when there is no ultimate intention to deceive - acting, jokes/pranks, pretend games with children, social pleasantries (“I’m fine, thanks.”), etc.. Killing might be non-sinful when it is just - law enforcement, war, capital punishment, self-defense or defense of the innocent.
The question concerns lies - deliberate falsehoods with the intent to deceive - not mere falsehoods. Sin is always worse than innocence. If telling lies is sinful, and it is, then it is always “worse” than killing justly.
Murder is the unjust taking of innocent human life. Murder is generally (not always) “worse” than a lie.
Erin—you’re missing John’s point. The position you and others are taking says that even in a situation where you would be permitted to kill someone (e.g., a Nazi at your door hunting for Jews), you wouldn’t be allowed to state an intentional falsehood, no matter how small. Does that really make sense?
One more thing (which is not directed at Erin but at everyone advocating the absolutist position that every intentional falsehood is objectively evil): Before you post anything further on this issue, I’d ask that you preface your comment with the following statement: “I, [STATE YOUR NAME], would, if I could not evade a Nazi’s questioning through equivocation or mental reservation, disclose the location of a Jew in hiding rather than tell the Nazi any intentional falsehood, even if it would lead to the Jew’s certain death.” If you are unwilling to make that statement, you don’t really believe that all intentional falsehoods are intrinsically evil. (Note: I recognize that no one is saying that such a falsehood would be a mortal sin; I’m simply noting that, under the absolutist position, such a falsehood would be against the moral law and something that a faithful Catholic would be obliged to try not to do under any circumstances.)
“I, Jeff Culbreath, would, if I could not evade a Nazi’s questioning through equivocation or mental reservation (and if I possessed the moral courage in a moment of extreme distress), REMAIN SILENT AND UN-COOPERATIVE rather than tell the Nazi any intentional falsehood, even if it would lead to the Jew’s AND MY OWN certain death.”
In real life, I would probably try lying under duress, to save my skin, but my unpolished lies would be detected and I’d be killed along with the Jew. But I guess it’s official: I’m off the fence. I would hope to have obtained, by the time of such a crisis, a degree of sanctity so thorough that truth was a part of my nature and my tongue was simply incapable of lying, the thought of lying never crossing my mind.
Alexander:
“I recognize that no one is saying that such a falsehood would be a mortal sin; I’m simply noting that, under the absolutist position, such a falsehood would be against the moral law and something that a faithful Catholic would be obliged to try not to do under any circumstances”
IF this is the case, why is it such a big deal? Try not to tell lies, even in a good cause. The crux of the moral issue is the observation that lying harms our integrity. What worries me is that the non-absolutists have not given any counter-argument to this, as far as I’ve seen.
So if you panic and tell a lie, you’ll suffer harm to your integrity, hence try to avoid it. But instead, we have esteemed thinkers asserting that there is no harm. I’d like to accept Zmirak’s argument that it’s not lying when the other person has no right to the truth, but this doesn’t address the intrinsic harm issue.
I won’t make the statement you ask us to make, because it presents a false dilemma. The ethical arguments suggest that I should at worst *remain silent* rather than cooperate materially in the Nazis evil actions. He has no right to the truth, yet it’s harmful for me to lie. Where does that leave us? ‘Hold your tongue’.
I have read very closely all the back & forth about Judith. I agree with Chad; I do not think Bill & Charlotte have shown how she lied. Bill cites Aquinas (3 times), but Aquinas undermines his point. “Whether Judith lied” is a side-point that Aquinas does not resolve. He does not say that Judith lied, only that what she was praised for was something other than “not lying.” Secondly, Aquinas actually closes (as Bill noted in his citations) by saying Judith’s words may have been truthful. Lastly and most importantly, Aquinas uses the whole episode as a way of demonstrating that lying is NOT permissible—the opposite position to the “See? Judith lied so we can, too” people.
Jeff,
That doesn’t really work. Remaining silent likely wouldn’t get you killed; the Nazis would just search your house and take the Jews, allowing you to maintain your life and sanctity.
More impressive would be if you had responded that you would try to kill the Nazis—which might well get you killed. But that would have only highlighted John Zmirak’s question: why would it be OK for you to use your hands to kill them but not your lips to deceive them?
Second point: Judith and her people were besieged by an enemy at WAR. This alone makes her case a weak analogy to Live Action. This should also resolve Chad’s scruples that cause him to fear that Judith committed “murder.” I think the more appropriate term would be a “crushing victory against the foe.”
Zac—it’s not a false dilemma. By remaining silent, you likely would give up the location of the hiding Jews, causing them to get killled and likely not causing you any harm. In that situation, would you really stay silent rather than utter any intentional falsehood?
I suspect no one will be willing to say that because it is a monstrous proposition. And until someone does say that, I will continue not to believe those who say that they believe all intentional falsehoods are intrinsically evil.
“Remaining silent likely wouldn’t get you killed; the Nazis would just search your house and take the Jews, allowing you to maintain your life and sanctity.”
Were no Germans or Dutch ever killed for harboring Jews? I find that hard to believe. In any case lying is certainly the safer bet, if you can do it convincingly.
“More impressive would be if you had responded that you would try to kill the Nazis—which might well get you killed.”
Ah, yes, thanks for the reminder. That would be wholly justified if one could pull it off.
“But that would have only highlighted John Zmirak’s question: why would it be OK for you to use your hands to kill them but not your lips to deceive them?”
Because lying is a sin against God, a perversion, a frustration of the proper end of human speech. Killing in defense of the innocent is not sinful and can even be meritorious.
Third point: I still fail to see anywhere where Judith lied. Chad answered half the points, I’ll answer the other half. FIRST EXAMPLE: Judith tells the Assyrian patrol “I am on my way to the presence of Holofernes the commander of your army, to give him a true report; and I will show him a way by which he can go and capture all the hill country without losing one of his men, captured or slain.” Charlotte says: “That sounds like a lie since she is there to kill him. (It’s not a lie, Charlotte; she told him PART of her intentions). Charlotte also says: “. . . she did not intend to do what she said.” If you keep reading, Charlotte, not only did Judith intend to do it, she did it. She gave Holof. the whole plan; she also knew he would be too besotted with drink and lust to carry it out. Awesome!
“Because lying is a sin against God, a perversion, a frustration of the proper end of human speech. Killing in defense of the innocent is not sinful and can even be meritorious.”
That’s just tautological reasoning. The whole issue here is whether an intentional falsehood is sinful, so you can’t say that it’s sinful because it’s sinful. And why is it a proper end of my hands (and not a “perversion”) for me to kill someone? You can say because it is in “defense of the innocent” but I can equally say that using my lips to deceive a Nazi is in “defense of the innocent.”
Alexander: Are you presuming that Jeff thinks it’s okay to intentionally kill them?
Unintentionally (n.b. see Aquinas’ discussion of how double effect applies for the finer points of this) killing them in a defensive fight isn’t a culpable act, just as blurting out an unpremeditated falsehood in the heat of the moment probably wouldn’t be.
But killing them in cold blood, or telling a premeditated lie? Neither of those options are licit. Neither Commandment trumps the other—you’re not supposed to do either one.
“lying is a sin against God, a perversion, a frustration of the proper end of human speech.”
You’re begging the question. That is precisely what I deny (or rather, to be terminologically precise, I deny that all intentionally false statements are “lies” as I deny that all killing is “murder”).
The Church has never taught Augustine’s position infallibly. It is simply a theological tradition, like the one that forbade all lending at interest, or the one that supported the Inquisition. If those non-infallible traditions could be revised, so could this one.
Let me remind all of you that St. Augustine was equally opposed to Natural Family Planning as he was to deception. He considered sex during pregnancy a MORTAL SIN. He made mistakes—he was human, as he would have been the first to admit. We should engage his ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS on their merits—as I will try to do on Wed. at Insidecatholic.
Hubris? Maybe. That never stopped me before.
SECOND EXAMPLE: Charlotte says: “The report that (Judith) gives to Holofernes in Chapter 11: 11-19 is also lie. There is no indication that the Hebrews had resolved to eat the first fruits or eat what should not be eaten. They had only resolved to surrender themselves into slavery, if you read Chapter 7:20-27.” Just because there is no indication of it does not mean it did not happen. Do you think every single thing that was said is recorded there? You cannot infer Judith made it up just because there is no record someone said it to her. As someone pointed out: “I think it’s hard to interpret scripture based on what it doesn’t say . . .” Oh wait a minute . . . that was you, Charlotte!
Alexander
Bear in mind that I don’t necessarily accept the validity of your hypothetical scenario, for example, that silence would somehow exempt me from reprisal, or that the Nazis actions will hinge on my willingness to lie.
We can only seek good consequences within the limits of ethical actions. Beyond those limits, we are not responsible for the evil done by others. Hence, if my refusal to lie means that people are killed, responsibility falls on the killers rather than on me.
What is worse, to suffer or to do wrong?
Let me put it another way. If you could save someone’s life by shooting yourself in the foot, would you do so? I think many people would. But would we then say that shooting yourself in the foot is not a harmful action when it has good consequences?
This is analogous to the intrinsic harm of lying - the harm it does to our integrity. But luckily for me, I don’t believe that lying will ever be the only option available, so I will not subscribe to the opinion that necessity renders it licit.
THIRD AND LAST EXAMPLE: Charlotte says: “. . . but that (slavery & slaughter) was actually what was horrific to Judith, not eating the first fruits, etc., as she claimed.” What evidence do you have that it was not both? Indeed, with Judith’s great piety, I imagine she was more horrified by the prospect of her people sinning than by the thought of them getting slaughtered.
In summary,I await any examples from anyone demonstrating that Judith lied. But again, even if she did (which I don’t believe), it is a separate category from Live Action, as Judith was at war.
John Z:
As you noodle your article for Inside Catholic, I think you owe it to your readers to engage this critique of your argument and this critique of various other attempts to defend LA.
Regards.
John Zmifak,
“Hubris? Maybe. That never stopped me before.”
It should stop you now, at least for a couple weeks, or maybe a Lent.
By rushing out a reply “contra Augustine” you are going to lose a lot of credibility. His mistakes, I am guessing, are smaller and fewer than yours; his genius (I am not guessing) is out of your reach. You are going to look like you are trying to insert yourself into his league. That will be fatal. Really John; are you proud of your hubris?
“The Church has never taught Augustine’s position infallibly.”
OK, I’ll take your word for it, but I don’t think we want to cultivate an attitude which considers anything that hasn’t been taught infallibly to be up for grabs. The Church has essentially adopted Augustine’s position, so that the argument is no longer with Augustine alone but with centuries of consistent magisterial teaching on the subject. That’s worth something, don’t you think? And I don’t imagine one would need to look very far to find martyrs who earned their crowns for this very principle.
“Are you presuming that Jeff thinks it’s okay to intentionally kill them?
Unintentionally (n.b. see Aquinas’ discussion of how double effect applies for the finer points of this) killing them in a defensive fight isn’t a culpable act ...”
I should be clear: I don’t imagine killing a couple of SS officers in a defensive fight. I imagine having moral certainty that they are at my door in order to escort the Jews I am hiding to their deaths. With that moral certainty, I don’t think one needs to wait for a defensive fight (which one would lose quickly) in order to stop them - and lethal force is the only thing likely to stop them.
Alexander, I, Erin Manning, being all of approximately five feet one inches tall without shoes and probably five feet two in them because I hate high heels, having fired handguns exactly once in my life at a shooting range under the watchful eye of a then Lt. Cmdr. in the United States Navy who happened to be a family friend, and having both red hair and the easily-reddened complexion that goes along with it which makes me a spectacular failure as a liar, do hereby assert and affirm that had I been present during World War II in such a place and such a time when good Christians were hiding their Jewish neighbors would not have been capable for the safety of those neighbors of EITHER lying to hypothetical Nazis OR killing them in an attempt to keep my Jewish friends from harm. Knowing this about myself, I would hopefully have heeded Mark’s advice to hide my Jewish friends well, because their lives were depending on that, not on my feeble denials to soldiers determined to enter and search my house or on my completely non-existent talents of a more lethal sort.
Does that clear things up, at least in my case?
Of course there IS immediate danger of death in the abortion mills, and all effective pro-life activity is designed to prevent it.
When I first read Dr. Kreeft’s article, I was suddenly transported back many years to Mount St. Mary’s Seminary. I was sitting in the classroom of the late Father Robert Zylla teaching us about lying; that is, it is always a sin, regardless of the circumstance. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states very, “By its very nature, lying is condemned” (#2485). This is what I was taught, what I believe, and what the Catholic Church has always affirmed. As a priest of twenty-one years, it’s sad for me to see so many Catholics try to justify lying as a moral good.
@Alexander,
Fair point that the position of Augustine and Aquinas is a deep tradition in the Church, but there is another deep tradition—going back to St. John Cassian and St. John Chrysostom—that holds that intentional falsehoods are permissible in some rare circumstances.
Tradition is something that is handed down and received, so unless the Church has received from SS. Cassian and Chrysostom that lying can be morally justified in some circumstances, it is not a “tradition.” If we say that there is a “tradition” that lying can be morally justified, we might also say that there is a “tradition” that unbaptized infants who die suffer the fire of hell (St. Augustine and St. Fulgentius held to this) or that Our Lady was not immaculately conceived. In order to show that there is a tradition, you must show that some doctors in the Church continued to teach the opinion of Cassian and Chrysostom down to the present day. I think that would be difficult to do. (We can say, for example, that there is no tradition in the Church that strict mental reservation is permitted, because even though a few prominent theologians defended it at one point in time, theologian stopped teaching it after it was condemned by Innocent XI in 1679.) As an aside, I’ve noticed a few people claim that St. John Cassian and St. John Chrysostom hold the opinion that lying can be justified in some circumstances, but I’ve yet to see anyone actually quote what they wrote on the matter. I for one would be interested to see what they have to say—not because I doubt that they held that opinion, but because I wonder if their opinion could even apply to the Live Action “sting” operation.
Still waiting for anyone—just one person—to state squarely that he or she would, if put to the choice, give up the location of a hiding Jew (either by telling the SS or equivocating in a way that will make the SS suspicious) rather than utter a single falsehood to an SS officer. Everyone wants to avoid the question and say it is unrealistic or that it’s a false dilemmsa, but it really isn’t. There were certainly many times in WWII when Dutch or Polish or German people were put to that choice in one form or another (and there are undoubtedly circumstances like that in places like Iran today), where simply staying silent isn’t an option or where it would lead directly to the death of an innocent person. I therefore remain convinced that those taking the absolutist position here don’t really mean it, and that they actually do continue to have some moral sense in them.
********
Zac: “Hence, if my refusal to lie means that people are killed, responsibility falls on the killers rather than on me.”
St. Paul: “If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.”
Interesting, lying is “always wrong” regardless of circumstance but killing (a far graver course of action) is wrong unless the circumstance is “self-defense”. If you have an “unjust aggressor” and you can repel him with the lesser violence - deception - then why not use that means of defense?
Would you suggest one should attempt to kill the Gestapo officer when deception would suffice?
Remember the nuns in Sound of Music? They “stole” the carburetor from the car of the Nazi troops - to keep them from pursuing the von Trapps. Perhaps they should have just killed them instead ... since killing allows a self-defense exception but deception or stealing does not ...
I’d rather be in the trenches with Lila Rose than in the rarified air of theological speculation with you, Mark. She saves lives, you don’t.
Obviously, I know less about auto mechanics than I do about ethics ... it was the starter which the nuns stole from the Nazi truck ..
Wow. St. Paul is a liar and has been condemned to hell for his impudence. It says so in the Bible:
“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.” 1 Corinthians 9: 19-23.
Imagine using such subterfuge - to make people think he was a Jew, or was not a Jew, or was weak, or was whatever else he claimed to be but was not - in order to save a few souls.
Did Lila Rose “become like a Planned Parenthood customer, so that she might save some?” Then I guess she’s heading to the same place as St. Paul.
@Alexander,
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that because someone would do it, that it must be the moral course of action? I’m sure many women, when faced with the choice of dying or aborting their unborn child, would choose the latter, but it does not follow that they have moral sense in the matter or that the absolutist position is wrong. I don’t know what I would do in that situation since I’ve never been in it. I do know that if I lied that I would not hold it up as something moral or good.
The Barrister,
Did Lila Rose “become like a Planned Parenthood customer, so that she might save some?” Then I guess she’s heading to the same place as St. Paul.
Did you just compare Lila Rose to the Son of the living God? Please. Christ didn’t become like us so he could sin. Indeed, it was the one way he was not like us. So sure, Jesus’ mission took him right into the trenches of humanity, but the one place he refused to go was sinfulness. There’s the example we should be following.
This may be a case where the development of doctrine requires an articulation of a framework which was not envisioned before. Just because you can’t locate an explicit exception to the 8th commandment in the Fathers, that doesn’t mean the Church cannot find one there. How many centuries passed before the iussus bellum theory was hammered out .. or the principle of double effect? If the 5th commandment admits of exception - why not the 8th? Especially if the circumstance is the same - an unjust aggressor!
The question is not whether lying is better or worse than killing but whether Live Action lied rather than role played or tested. Again, how is it that lying is being defined? We know that Jesus, being God, never sinned and therefore never lied. But He appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus and for a while played the role of a curious stranger, pretended not to know that he had been crucified, did not act not as Himself (Luke 24: 13-35). Was He lying? No.
In John 6 5:8, just before feeding five thousand, Holy Scripture tells us that Jesus “tests” Phillip by asking him: “Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?” It’s reasonable to think that Jesus already knew that he was going to feed them Himself and that it was not really His intent for the apostles to go purchase food for the multitude. But He wanted to test Phillip, and He did. Was He lying? No. Neither did Live Action.
When the time comes I’ll be hiding in John Zmirak’s basement.
@Enrique. It is not lying anymore than you defending your children against a knife wielding predator is murder. There are exceptions for just war and self-defense ... Perhaps tradition has not spelled out the exception for the 8th commandment but it could.
If you could deter a predator with a deception or a baseball bat, which would you choose? The CE entry on unjust aggessor says:
“That is, only that degree of violence may be employed which is necessary adequately to protect one from the attack.”
@MarkC—I agree that what Live Action did is not the same as lying. That is precisely what i have been contending. However, I don’t agree that lying, as I would tentatively define it, could ever be right. Lying is an attack on and of Truth. Live Action did not do that, did not lie.
What are folks’ thoughts about the following, totally “Catechism-driven” explanation of why “speaking falsehood for a good cause” is not intrinsically evil and not a form of consequentialism?
1. The intrinsically evil “object” of lying (e.g. the “what” that lying is) involves, by definition *both* a “speaking falsehood” (an act) and an intention to deceive someone else (an *intention* residing in the acting subject obviously).
2. Without this intention, “speaking falsehood” is, by definition, not the intrinsically evil act of lying.
3. According to #1752, “the *end* is the first goal of the *intention* and indicates the purpose pursued in the action.”
4. Thus, by definition, the END intended by “lying” as defined by the catechism must be the first goal of the intention, identified in the definition as “deceiving” or “deception.”
5. This means that, by definition, when lying, the “deception” is NOT the “means” to the *end*. Deception IS the *end*—the first goal of the intention.
6. Therefore, in the most basic form of “lying” as defined by the CCC, the “means” in lying is the “speaking falsehood”—the END is the deception.
As mentioned in #2 above, “speaking falsehood” without having “deception” as the “goal of the activity” (the “END”) can’t be the intrinsic evil of lying. Therefore, if the first goal of the intention (the “movement of the will toward the end”) is a different *end*, then the act of “speaking falsehood” cannot be considered lying, cannot be considered intrinsically evil.
This means that “speaking falsehood” without having *deception* as the intended end CANNOT be a form of consequentialism (because it’s not lying, by definition!).
BUT, #1752 also says that “One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions…” AND, #1753 also says that “A good intention…does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means.” Here, we must consider a more complex form of potential lying—when an act is inspired by more than one intention.
Implicit in the statement in 1753 is the idea that *two* intentions would be present in a genuine act of lying—an act in which falsehood was spoken with the intended *end* of deception. In this example the “bad” end *is* intended, but so is a good end. The act is *still* evil because the bad end of deception is intended.
What about an act of “speaking falsehood” that involves a *good* intention only? The “movement of the will” toward a “first goal” is toward something good—say the surprise party example. This is precisely where double effect kicks in and finally makes sense! Deception happens as an *end* (not a means!) of the real and morally neutral means—“speaking falsehood”. But this “end” is totally unintended by the will. Alongside this bad effect is the *good* effect that *is* intended—throwing a surprise party.
The result of this example is: a NON-consequentialist means of speaking falsehood to throw a surprise party, courtesy of the CCC itself.
Naturally this applies to “the issue” as well. Live Action has an intention and end that are good. Several intentions and ends that are good, relative to “speaking falsehood.” But NO intention of deceiving as an end.
That’s been the problem all along—folks saying the *deception* is the means to the “end”. But it’s not, according to the CCC—the deception IS the “end” intended by a liar, but not the “end” intended by Live Action.
Fr. Horton’s remarks about the English Jesuits recalls the example and difficulties of one John Henry Newman, who endured suspicion and slander till his last days. He lived with the results of other people’s ‘choice’ to lie, and had some thoughts about it: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia65/noteg.html. He is not Aquinas, nor Augustine, though on this question he acknowledges the influence of the latter; but was a great reader of *all* the Church fathers, not unlike Aquinas, a fact of which Dr. Zmirak will doubtless take considerable account as he attempts to sideline not only the Church’s Doctor of grace from this discussion, but also the Angelic Doctor, and one whom some have called the Doctor of Conscience, Blessed John Henry Newman. Even saints will disagree; but never without doing their level best to weigh every word on a balance with the Word.
dcs—you’re still dodging the issue. If you believe the absolutist position, you should have no trouble saying that it would be morally wrong to tell an intentional falsehood to the Nazi officer, and that for anyone in that position, it would be better to tell the truth or stay silent, even if it led to the certain discovery and death of the Jews. If you believe that, please just say it.
(By the way, if someone did tell an intentional falsehood to a Nazi officer, it would not be out of fear or temptation or weakness or an instintic to protect oneself, but rather out of selfless love. That makes your analogy inapt.)
This is my last comment of the day. God bless you all.
@Alexander,
Yes, I do believe that. But I don’t believe that’s what you asked earlier. Nevertheless, just so there is no understanding, it would be morally wrong to lie (i.e., intentionally tell him a falsehood with the intention of deceiving him) to the Nazi officer and it would be better for someone in that position to remain silent or equivocate. I do not say necessarily that it would be better to tell the truth.
No, my analogy is not inapt since the mother might abort her unborn child out of “selfless love” to her husband or born children who should not be without a mother.
@Deacon Russell,
The intention of the agent might not be deception, but the intention in the act is deception. And that is precisely the problem.
Folks, the Nazi-at-the-door situation is extreme and does not relate (in any way that I can tell) to the Live Action situation. Arguments from the extreme case do not prove the casual case.
Live Action’s intent was not to directly save a life that was immediately in danger, so there is no moral equivalency to the Nazi-at-the-door situation. We can play analogies and try to achieve a concocted situation which involve Nazis that parallels what Live Action is trying to do, but I think we’d waste a lot of bits/bytes and not really get anywhere.
It would be my preference to go back to the specific Live Action scenario and discuss the merits of their actions. I still think that the harm that lying did, in this case, far outweighs the remote and intangible benefits (if any) that were gained. I think the average Joe watching the news report on TV is going to think two things: 1.) Meh, Planned Parenthood is doing shady things. I never really liked that org even though I’m told they help women and 2.) Why are pro-lifers doing sting operations like this? I thought they wanted to help women and babies? This seems beneath them.
And Joe Q. Average would have a valid point: Why are we stooping to these tactics when we’re actually seeing some *real* progress changing the hearts and minds of the American public through peaceful protest, prayer, public appeals to the hearts of Americans, and a thorough exposition of how the abortion effects not just the babies, but the WOMEN who have abortions. I believe those tactics are *working* and will continue to work.
However, if we start getting too activist, we could have a reversion back to the unfortunate radical opposition of the late 70’s early 80’s where doctors and nurses were murdered, protesters were going to jail and making fools of themselves in front of the world stage. Right now, Americans generally see the pro-life cause as peaceful, loving, and trying to do the right thing. Americans love a peaceful underdog. If we become the aggressor, we will set back the movement for years.
I have been very humbled watching the tireless efforts of the people at the Texas Alliance for Life and the 40 Days for Life campaigns and I have seen the tremendous progress they have made for the cause. It would be a crying shame if the rashness and questionable actions of Live Action (albeit well intentioned) set back TAL and 40D4L.
@dcs—
you wrote: “The intention of the agent might not be deception, but the intention in the act is deception. And that is precisely the problem.”
Thanks for the reply, dcs, but there is a problem—there is simply no such thing as the “intention of the ACT”. According to the CCC #1752, the intention resides in the ACTING SUBJECT, not the act.
Hope this helps.
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Sorry—one last post.
*************************
Fr. Kibler: I don’t read Bl. Newman as lining up so squarely with the absolutist position. From the piece you linked to: “if all killing be not murder, nor all taking from another stealing, why must all untruths be lies? Now I will say freely that I think it difficult to answer this question .... If I had my own way, I would oblige society, that is, its great men, its lawyers, its divines, its literature, publicly to acknowledge as such, those instances of untruth which are not lies, as for instance untruths in war; and then there could be no perplexity to the individual Catholic, for he would not be taking the law into his own hands.”
*******************
dcs: “Yes, I do believe that.” Wow, that’s some real selfless love, but I guess you’ll sleep well.
******************
“At this the Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?’ He said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry? How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?’ Then he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.’” Mark 2:24-27.
@Deacon Russell,
Your reading of #1752 would render the the teaching of #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”) meaningless. Please also note that I did not say “intention OF the act” but “intention IN the act,” namely the intention of the agent in the act.
Chad
Positive law is man made law like US law or canon law… and it is there that hard cases make bad law.
This discussion is about natural law. Natural law must encompass hard cases or our perception of natural law in that area is not fully developed.
Therefore the Nazi at the door case proves that “no lying ever” is simplistic as to how natural law should be understood on this topic. In the case of the book of Judith, she goes to the enemy’s door and uses lying against a man lethal to her whole people. The lying is extensive and pivotal to her killing him. A theology whether in the catechism or not that cannot explain both the Nazi case and Judith is a theology that is still not yet complete.
An argument that I have not seen, (Maybe I missed it) was the tactics used by King Solomon to make the decision to save the young boy and find his real mother. Now Solomon led his detective work through deception, not leading the women into the truth of what he was planning on doing. He blatantly asked for a sword (maybe he really did intend to use it, we will never know, but I think not), and led those women into thinking that he was going to cut the boy in half. Of course that deception led to exposing the truth and discovery of the real mother. Now it was taught to me that it was an example of wisdom, unless I was raised in bad theology, but with his example you can clearly see that his decision to deceive was proper.
@bill bannon,
It is not that Catholic theology on lying can’t explain them; it’s that you don’t like its explanation.
@Mike. You’re exactly on-point. It’s clear that the tradition has not fully developed to articulate the exceptions to the 8th commmandment but that does not mean they are not there or could be defined in the future (development of doctrine). Not only is there an analogy with the 5th commandment exceptions but an exact parallel.
Some are caught up on the fact they can not find the logical apparatus spelled out in Augustine or Aquinas .. but development of doctrine allows for these scriptural examples to be teased out to their logical conclusion ...
Andy - reread my comment. My goodness, I did not compare Lila Rose to Christ. I compared her actions to St. Paul’s actions. St. Paul presented a different face to the parties he was trying to save. To the Jew he became a Jew, to the Greek he became a Greek, to the weak he became weak, etc. Surely that was a deception on his part - a lie, if you will - yet we accept St. Paul’s deception as being morally acceptable. How are Lila Rose’s actions any different?
@dcs—
Okay, so is what you really meant to suggest in your original statement was that “The intention of the agent (in the act) might not be deception, but the intention of the agent in the act might be deception”????
Uhhh…I ....don’t….get…that….
You also wrote:
****Your reading of #1752 would render the the teaching of #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”) meaningless. Please also note that I did not say “intention OF the act” but “intention IN the act,” namely the intention of the agent in the act. ******
Take a look again at my post above. I addressed 1752 there. But, in short, the CCC states that one act can indeed have multiple intentions attached to it. What 1752 does is address a situation in which an act already compromised by an *evil* intention cannot be made “good” by also having a “good intention.” The example of lying in 1752 is actually ideal, because it is an intrinsically evil act whose definition depends on the evil intention of “deception” as an end to the act.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
Mike Wright
Excellent. I was just reading about Joseph in Genesis after he rises to prominence in Egypt and his brothers who mugged him and sold him years ago now come looking for food due to regionwide famine. As in your example, Joseph uses deception on his brothers that puts them through the ringer and thus leads them to repentance about having sold him years ago and he disguises himself throughout and pretends he does not know them. Some modern Christians here are allowing for deception in art and in games and then their other sphere is simply the other extreme of non game reality where they and Aquinas etc call for total non lying.
Jerome who was about the Bible and translated it opposed Aquinas and Augustine on this. Jerome had the biblical view that it is not games and art over here…..and perfect literal truth over there. In Jerome and in his Bible, it is a spectrum that is gradual and permits of the deceptions of sports within serious contexts.
@Deacon Russell,
No, rather that the overall intention of the agent was not deception, but rather to expose PP. But the intention in the act was one of deception, otherwise the end of exposing PP could not have been achieved.
@dcs
If you were to use lethal force against a predator (say a baseball bat) and understand that both the subjective and objective intention were self-defense, then why can you not understand that if you could accomplish the same end with verbal subterfuge, the species would be exactly the same. Both objectively and subjectively, the intention is self-defense ...
Just because it is not articulated in the tradition (though well attested in Scripture) does not mean this framework is precluded from future definition. The fact that there is such wide disagreement by so many well qualified and well intentioned people indicates there is something of a grey area here ..
@dcs—
OK, I think I follow your point—basically is your assessment that Live Action had at least two intentions attached to the “object” of their act—one is to “expose PP” (good) and the other is to “deceive the PP employee” (bad)?
Why?
The CCC also teaches that *one* intention may inspire more than one act. The “good” Live Action intention can thus inspire every act employed in the sting, including the “speaking falsehood”. Why would someone think Live Action fully intended to harm the PP employee with the “violence” of deception?
@dcs—further, keep in mind that what you seem to be saying or concluding is that LA *desired* to see that the PP employee was deceived. That they “intended”, in an intrinsically evil way, to have that person led into error…for that is the nature of moral intention—an act of the *will*. So, the people posing as pimps etc. actually *want* to see the employeed led into error, it itself?
JR
It seems to me that St. Thomas is correct that it is wrong to tell a lie in order to save a life. But the problem for St. Thomas—as for Mr. Shea as well—is this. Is it wrong to tell the truth if the information will serve as the instrumental cause of an injustice? It seems so. For on other matters we think nothing of it, even if the matter is addressed in the decalogue. So, for example, if my neighbor asks for his gun back—after I had borrowed it—because he wants to use it to kill his wife, is it “stealing” if I refuse to return it? Am I now stealing for Jesus?
There is a third option, of course: remaining silent. But suppose that in this instance my silence serves as a form of communication. Imagine the assailant says, “Where is Bobby, who I want to kill. He’s either in the garage or in the bedroom. If you don’t say anything, I will assume he’s in the garage. Suppose that you know that he is in the garage. In this instance, your silence communicates to the assailant `the truth,’ but you also by your silence cooperate in a murder in a case where it is wrong for you to tell the truth (as we have already established is a legitimate principle).
I love St. Thomas. He was brilliant. But he did not anticipate this sort of scenario, though if we were to take what he says elsewhere on other matters addressed in the decalogue (e.g., necessity justifies taking food that’s not yours), we can make some sense of this.
@dcs: “But the intention in the act was one of deception…”
Isn’t the intention of deception = deception? Otherwise, why USE deception? But, isn’t deception sometimes OK? Is only the deception NOT USED as a falsehood OK?
I think what moves any deception from OK to not OK is the intent - was it meant to be a means to lead the other into wrongdoing?
In the case of LiveAction, what wrongdoing were they leading PP to do?
The way I see it, LiveAction’s deception/falsehood was to KEEP PP’s focus on answering and conversing in an EVERYDAY manner. The intent of using the falsehood was not to lead PP INTO some kind of error or wrongdoing.
Guys, time out. We need to (re)distinguish between deception/misdirection (e.g. a broad mental reservation), and a direct lie.
I’d also like to point out that the quarrel isn’t just with the Catechism, or with Saint Augustine, or any one source. I’ve noticed that many people trying to find a loophole are addressing one source in isolation, but—seriously guys—we’re talking about something that has been insisted upon by pretty much every major saint and moral theologian since the early centuries. Plus the Catechism, plus the explicit condemnation of strict mental reservations by Innocent XI, plus countless pre-council catechetical materials. If you really want to argue with it, you are going to need to construct an argument which covers all these, rather than simply proof-texting JPII’s Catechism or Augustine or any other single source in a fundamentalist fashion.
Also, I don’t think the Nazi example is helpful at this point. Hard cases make bad law, and the original situation that prompted the discussion was not nearly so desperate! In any case, put in that situation myself, I would hopefully remain silent or employ broad mental reservation. If, in the heat of the moment, I lied, then I would recognize my act as a sin (as even the Dutch Protestants who sheltered Jews recognized). (Perhaps only a venial sin, but I would still mention it in Confession.) And frankly, insisting that someone would be culpably assisting the Nazis if they remained silent rather than lie *is an attempt to entice people to sin by assenting to sin*. False dichotomies shed no light, and moral reasoning from contrived circumstances is playing with fire.
@Francis Beckwith,
I do not know for certain whether St. Thomas anticipated this scenario. But I’m not sure that your scenario makes sense, practically. Would a lie somehow convince the would-be killer that “Bobby” was nowhere to be found? Would you lie and say “in the bedroom,” hoping that the killer goes there and you can run to the garage and escape with Bobby? I’m sorry but I don’t follow this at all.
I so appreciate this discussion. I would like to hear this situation addressed through the lens of Jesus words about the letter of the law. How would the sin of stealing food to feed a starving child be judged? Thank you for provoking important thought, discussion and prayer.
God Bless
@Deacon Russell,
If the PP employee is not deceived, then the whole “sting” would fall apart. So yes, clearly Live Action intended that the PP employee be lead into error. No deception = no expose.
Also, regarding St. Paul “lying” when he speaks of being a Jew to Jews and a Gentile to Gentiles? The guy was bi-cultural, a Pharisee who also happened to have had a Greek education. He could quite honestly speak with the Jewish teachers on their terms, and the Greek philosophers on theirs. (The modern equivalent of which is something we should all aspire to.)
Doris: taking *surplus* food to feed a starving child (absent other options) may be compatible with the nature of property (which is in different ways both personal and universal), but lying is in no way compatible with the nature of language.
Mike: please read 1 Kings 3:16-28 and identify the verses in which King Solomon is lying, and what the specific lie is in each case.
(I think you’ll find that he employed a ruse—which can be morally licit—but there was no direct lie. He does not even say “I intend to cut this baby in half,” he simply orders it to be done and then rescinds the order as soon as the true mother protests.)
@dcs—
You said: “If the PP employee is not deceived, then the whole “sting” would fall apart. So yes, clearly Live Action intended that the PP employee be lead into error. No deception = no expose. “
Compare that with this: “If the unjust aggressor is not stopped, then the whole “self-defense” thing would fall apart. So, yes, clearly the defender intended that the aggressor be killed. No killing, no self-defense.
This is the *other* aspect of the circumstances of the PP operation that makes it clear, at least to me, that there was no intention to deceive. The act is an engagement of an unjust aggressor…
@Deacon Russell,
Yes, one who kills in self-defense intends to kill, unless perhaps he is trying to incapacitate an aggressor and kills him accidentally. Similarly, when the State executes a criminal it intends to kill him. Ultimately the end of the act isn’t to kill, but the intention in the act is to kill.
@MenTaLguY - Come on, go back and read that passage. I gave you the full quote so there’s no excuse for reading words out of it. St. Paul could not have been clearer. He even went to some pains to illustrate the nature of his deception (“To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.”).
So what you are saying is that it was permissible for him to deceive because he had the necessary background to play the roles effectively? Again, how is that different than what Lila Rose did?
The Barrister: I honestly don’t see deception (never mind *lying*) in that passage. Consider also 1 Corinthians 8:9-13, for example. There is nothing deceptive about Paul observing the requirements of Jewish law when he is around observant Jews in order to avoid giving unnecessary offense while evangelizing them.
Compare that to lying about one’s occupation in order to lead them to sin on camera. How is Paul’s accommodation of weak consciences the same as what Live Action did?
s/lead them to sin/lead someone to sin/
@dcs—
Actually there is no moral intention to kill an unjust aggressor. The self-defense requires that this *end* of the act chosen be permitted, not morally intended.
Please keep in mind that the moral “intention” involves the “end” chosen by the will when choosing to act or not act in a certain manner. Obviously at another level, “we will to do the thing we do,” so to speak. But the moral intention is not the same thing as the “doing” of something.
@Enrique: “CCC 2488 specifically warns us ‘...in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.’—Exactly. There are at least four possible courses of action: tell the truth, tell a lie, say something else (whether vague or misdirecting or what-have-you), or be silent. The last two would be LICIT ways to satisfy CCC 2488; lying would be ILLICIT. A failure to reveal the truth does not translate into “lie” (which is an active statement of something false, with the intent to deceive).
“If I’m not mistaken, they did not reveal who they truly were. They acted a part in order that truth might become evident.”—That wasn’t the problematic part, per se; the problem came when they specifically lied about the “pimp” having a “burning sensation in his genitals, that he thinks he might have caught from one of the [nonexistent] under-age foreign girls”, and where they both lied about the EXISTENCE of the [nonexistent] “underage [sex slave] foreign girls”, at ALL.
“To call that an ‘immoral act’ is a reductionist statement that appears to hide the truth.”—I hope it’s now clear that I didn’t do that, or mean that, or refer to that, at all.
“Please define what you mean by ‘lying’.”—As per the CCC, a lie is a false statement intended to deceive another. It’s not the same as broad mental reservation, and it’s not the same as being silent.
“Therefore, if you believe I did, please show me where I threw flames and to whom.”—I was referring to your comment about your opponents’ arguments being “Pharisaic”... which is an ad hominem gibe, not a rebuttal, and it adds nothing of substance. It would have been far more productive to have said that you found the arguments unconvincing or illogical; whereas the only purpose of the word “pharisaic” is to connote “shallow, narrow-minded pedantry, in which personal dignity is eclipsed by exaggerated legalism”. Do you see the difference?
@Doris: The right to private property is a valid right (or else commandments against stealing our neighbour’s property would be meaningless), but it is not absolute (since everything ultimately belongs to God, and we are only stewards of everything we have); in fact, God makes it quite clear that, if we do not share OUR bread with the needy (and we can’t share bread that isn’t “ours”), we will be judged for it (“I was hungry, and you gave me no food…”). The sin of thefts consists in the [unjust] taking of what does not belong to us, without the permission of the owner; but a starving man (or a man who’s trying to feed a starving family, etc.) who’s been refused a loaf of bread by a neighbour who has plenty is NOT “stealing” the bread at all… since, in God’s eyes, the bread belongs NOT to the wealthy neighbour, but to the starving man! It’s God’s bread in the absolute sense, and God has decreed that all of the world’s goods must (while respecting private property) ultimately be at the disposal of the entire world… especially the needy. Does that help?
(Ironically, the captcha code was “property51”! :) )
@mentalguy: You said “Compare that to lying about one’s occupation in order to lead them to sin on camera.”
Question: what sin did they commit on camera? I thought they told the truth, which is not sin, about sins they were willing to commit for the sake of abortion. They believe they are *right*, by the way.
The Barrister: The PP employee sinned by assenting to cooperate in the supposed sin of the pimp, with respect to his underage sex ring. If she had not, the tape would not have been damaging to PP.
@dcs - “Yes, one who kills in self-defense intends to kill, unless perhaps he is trying to incapacitate an aggressor and kills him accidentally. Similarly, when the State executes a criminal it intends to kill him. Ultimately the end of the act isn’t to kill, but the intention in the act is to kill.”
Deacon Jim Russell handles this well. I’m going to chime in, really just reiterating what the good deacon says… The INTENT when killing in self-defense is NOT the incapacitation which might end in the death of the perpetrator, it is the the protection of the life of the party being attacked. So, the INTENT is protection of life. That this protection ends in a death is, well, an UNnintentional end. (Did I explain that right, Deacon? By the way, I have been appreciating your explanations on this thread and Shea’s last:-)
ooops. I meant to add that when the state executes a criminal, it does so with the INTENT that such action is the ONLY WAY to protect the lives of its citizens. The INTENT is to protect. The loss of life is an UNintentional end.
@CherylLynn,
That is not the only reason that the State might have recourse to the death penalty. This is not a case of double effect, in which the death of the criminal is foreseen but unintended. The death of the criminal is intended.
CherylLynn: kind of—basically, the principle of double effect applies. My understanding is that intending to kill an assailant as either a means or an end is illicit, but you can reasonably use lethal force with the intent of stopping their attack, in which case the killing is a secondary effect.
Informally, I suppose one illustration of the distinction might be whether, if you subsequently discovered you’d completely disabled your assailant rather than killing them, you would promptly call an ambulance for them.
Yes, the death penalty is a different situation, which prescinds from the status and responsibilities of government (versus individuals) before God.
@Mentalguy: “...sinned by assenting to cooperate in the supposed sin of the pimp, with respect to his underage sex ring.”
Uh….so that is the INTENT TO LEAD INTO WRONGDOING that LiveACtion is guilty of? But, PP had every opportunity to provide answers that were within the right of the law….matter of fact, the law EXPECTS PP to be operating within the law. As such, there are certain answers that we EXPECT PP to be giving. How can you say that LiveAction has any responsibility for the answers PP chooses? That is not LiveAction’s responsibility.
(Also, in the case of self-defense, I’m assuming a situation where lethal force would actually be required.)
Since everyone is still critiquing LiveAction to some degree - I wonder if anyone has sat down and really looked at the actual comments made by LiveAction at the clinics. I don’t intend to do this myself, but some of the comments I am remembering seem to quite possibly have been said with mental reservation. Example: “We do sex work.” Well, LiveAction IS involved to some degree in a type of ‘sex work.’ or “I have some girls working for me.” Well, possibly he does have a secretary at LiveAction working for him.
Get my drift?
Maybe LiveAction did not deliver their mental reservations perfectly, but a rock will still pound a nail in should a more perfect hammer not be at the ready. And, as Chesterton explained, if something is WORTH doing, it is worth doing poorly.
CherylLynn: There are a couple issues at work here.
1. Live Action’s guy lied to the PP employee, claiming that he was a pimp with a collection of underage prostitutes.
2. His statement constituted a lie because it was a falsehood spoken with the intent that the PP employee would believe something which is not true (that he was a pimp with a collection of underage prostitutes).
3. The PP employee directly sinned as an individual by choosing to cooperate with the man who she believed was a pimp.
4. The PP employee may have been convinced that aiding a pimp in this regard was the right thing to do, but conviction doesn’t turn an evil act into a good one (though it may reduce culpability). There is not a way that her act was not a sin. (Although it may have been venial.)
5. The guy posing as a pimp lied with the expectation (or at least hope) that the PP employee would sin by cooperating with this arrangement, so that he could get it on video in order to supply evidence about PP’s practices.
6. If she had refused to sin in this specific case (for whatever reason), then he would not have been able to get the evidence he anticipated for. From this, we can reasonably conclude that he lied not only with the intent of deceiving her regarding his occupation, but also specifically of prompting her to sin.
Have I missed anything?
@MenTaLguY: As requested, the passage about Solomon:
Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”
Are you arguing that there was not deception taking place in this passage? You are saying that this righteous and wise man was going to order the death of this child? You and I both know that he was not going to let that happen, but tricked the women into thinking he was. The point being made here is pretty clear. The only explanation that would keep him free from sinning according to the argument is that he really did have the intention of killing the boy, and he really was going to go through with it. He bluffed and it paid off. If a man who is known even today as an example of wisdom is deceiving these women to find truth, was he wrong for doing so?
s/anticipated for/hoped for/
Mike: He was certainly bluffing—I even called it a “ruse”. I am specifically saying that Solomon did not lie.
@CheryLynn—
Absolutely, thanks for adding your voice and thoughts! I think you’re quite right about the good intention/end desired and the bad effect that is tolerated.
Again, the two main issues facing those who are trying to process all this is that according to the CCC, “deception” is by definition and END and not a means in the act of lying, and that “speaking falsehood” is NOT the same thing as lying. If folks can concentrate on that, then it can be better realized that one can “speak falsehood” for a good end without any intention to “deceive,” and this most *especially* in a case of engaging an unjust aggressor…
God bless you,
Deacon Jim R
Deacon Jim: the issue here is that some people are focusing on the ultimate intended end while ignoring the intended means.
@Mentalguy: “5. The guy posing as a pimp lied with the expectation (or at least hope) that the PP employee would sin by cooperating with this arrangement.”
What is so funny with your scenario is that had LiveAction gone in there announcing who they were - Planned Parenthood would have LIED through their teeth in answering the questions! So, regarding your, “Have I missed anything?” I have to say, Yes!
A deception is a falsehood, but the INTENT TO DECEIVE means you intend to lead the other party into wrongdoing with your deception. LiveAction could very well have been hoping that PP would have answered according to the letter of the law - then LiveAction’s fears that PP was really and truly horrible would have been allayed. Unfortunately for young ladies all over America, PP does not operate according to the law. That is what the answers they gave reflect. LiveAction’s deception merely allowed PP to answer the questions truthfully.
In other words:
1. The guy pretending to be a pimp intended to deceive the PP employee into thinking that he was a pimp.
2. The guy pretending to be a pimp spoke falsehoods in order to do this.
3. Lying is speaking falsehood with the intent to deceive.
Therefore, the guy pretending to be a pimp lied. QED.
This would remain true regardless of whether his long-term aims in doing this were to mulch babies or to save them.
CherylLynn: No. “Intent to deceive” means an intent to lead someone into believing something which is not true.
From today’s ewtnnews, a very interesting summary of the different views, with new material from Janet Smith and Christopher Kaczor.
*********************************
Lila Rose, president of the pro-life activist group Live Action, has issued a new statement responding to ethical concerns from several top theologians and philosophers about her group’s work.
Live Action’s Catholic critics overwhelmingly agree with the group’s goal of exposing and de-funding Planned Parenthood. What troubles them is the use of “sting” tactics, which employ false identities and statements – such as claiming to be a pimp or prostitute – in an attempt to show Planned Parenthood’s willingness to cover up crimes.
Since Feb. 1, the group has been releasing a series of videos in which Live Action’s actors claim to manage a ring of underage prostitutes. Planned Parenthood employees are shown agreeing to help them confidentially acquire abortions and other services.
On Feb. 18, Live Action President Lila Rose provided EWTN News with a statement responding to her critics, reproduced here in its entirety.
“Live Action is a small, pro-life grassroots organization, and one of our primary goals is to unmask the lies of the abortion industry and lobby,” she wrote. “We are not about deception; we are about the truth.”
“Some Catholic intellectuals,” she acknowledged, “have a problem with Live Action’s practicing of established methods of investigative work.”
“We in no way mean to dismiss their opinions, but we are in profound disagreement with them.”
“At this time,” Rose concluded, “our team’s energies and attentions must be focused on advancing the opportunities our investigative research has provided the Pro-Life movement. We invite you to join us 100 percent to work together with all our hearts to defend the lives of the millions at stake.”
Among the Catholic intellectuals who agree with Live Action’s intentions, but not their tactics, is Professor Robert George of Princeton.
George, one of the drafters of the strongly pro-life Manhattan Declaration, called attention to the apparent conflict between Live Action’s investigative practices, and the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, in a Feb. 15 essay entitled “Life and Truth” on the Mirror of Justice blog.
Professor George acknowledged that the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church appeared to justify lying to someone who did not have “the right to know the truth.” However, the passage in question was substantially revised under the direction of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in his preparation of the authoritative second edition.
“The firm teaching of the magisterium, reconfirmed in the Catechism,” Professor George recalled, “is that lying is intrinsically immoral, and is therefore impermissible even as a means of preventing grave injustices and other evils.”
Among the Catechism passages in question are paragraphs 2483 and 2485. The first teaches that “to lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error,” while the second upholds the judgment that “by its very nature, lying is to be condemned”
“I don’t see how it is possible to avoid the conclusion that this teaching requires of Catholics the submission of intellect and will that is known as ‘religious assent’,” George stated.
“Catholics certainly, but non-Catholic pro-lifers, too, should reject lying even in the greatest of good causes,” he concluded. “We must not forfeit our standing in the debate as the tellers of truth.”
George’s remarks agreed with the position of Professors Germain Grisez and William May, two U.S. moral theologians who helped Pope Benedict XVI revise the Catechism into its authoritative form prior to his election to the papacy. Both professors unequivocally told EWTN News on Feb. 11 that Live Action’s undercover actors could not present overt falsehood as truth for the sake of a good end.
However, other highly regarded Catholic thinkers have expressed disagreement with this position.
Professor Janet Smith, who teaches moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Michigan, thinks that the question may not be as settled as Grisez and May believe.
“I think if tomorrow, the Vatican announced that it wanted theologians to debate thoroughly the question of the morality of telling falsehoods to evil doers who threatened the lives of the innocent, a large number of theologians who are now silent on the point would defend the practice,” she wrote in response to questions from EWTN News.
“Right now,” Smith explained, “those who wish to defend the practice hesitate to do so, because they fear appearing to question or reject Church teaching, and fear producing an atmosphere that leads to questioning or rejecting Church teaching.”
There may well be room, she indicated, for interpreting the condemnation of lying in a different manner than Grisez, May, and George. “The formulation of the first edition (of the Catechism),” she pointed out, “has not been officially repudiated, and I believe it is not necessarily incompatible with the formulation of the second.”
She indicated that the question needed to be discussed more openly. “In my discussion with theologians who practice religious assent to Church teaching,” she recalled, “I have found many – even high Churchmen – who believe it moral to tell falsehoods in some situations. They are not, however, willing to write or speak publicly on the matter.”
Dr. Christopher Kaczor, a Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, is a notable scholar of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas – who held, along with St. Augustine, that “every lie is a sin.” But Professor Kaczor, who has defended Live Action in the current controversy, pointed out that a lie was not necessarily easy to define.
“Although there are some Church Fathers who hold otherwise, I do believe it is wrong – intrinsically evil – to lie,” Professor Kaczor explained in response to questions. “But precisely what is being debated is, what constitutes a lie?”
He referred to Bl. John Henry Newman, who considered the question in his essay “Lying and Equivocation.” The piece pertains, in Kazcor’s words, to the question of “how one is to understand what formally – not merely materially – constitutes lying.”
In the essay, Newman noted there were “different schools of opinion” in the history of the Church regarding “this difficult doctrine,” as to which intentional falsehoods constituted lies in the full sense.
“A given individual,” Cardinal Newman wrote, “cannot agree with all, and has a full right to follow which he will.”
According to Kaczor, Newman also held that “what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says about lying” – that Christians should “suffer any inconvenience, rather than utter a falsehood” – was “meant for general instruction of the faithful, and is not an authoritative adjudication among rival theological schools.”
Pertinently, the question answered in that catechism also had to do with the personal consequences of one’s own truth-telling, rather than the more complex case in which others would be made to suffer. Like Professor Smith, Kaczor suggested that falsehoods in that instance might not formally constitute lies.
“About this matter, as far as I am aware, there is no authoritative Catholic teaching, but rather more or less probable points of view,” Kaczor said. Probability, in this sense, refers not to the statistical likelihood of an outcome, but – in the traditional language of moral theology – to the possibility of following different permitted opinions in regard to a disputed question.
Kaczor maintained that he follows Newman’s analysis in considering the question of lying to be a disputed one in some cases. He also indicated that the Catechism itself, even in its second edition, was not meant to resolve this difficult question with perfect clarity.
“I believe that the Catechism’s recent revision reflects a desire on the part of the revisers to have a more probable definition of lying expressed for general catechetical instruction, rather than a less probable definition,” he stated, referring to the degrees of certainty associated with varying opinions in moral theology.
Kaczor did, however, grant that there may be a more serious problem with telling the particular kind of falsehood that Live Action’s actors told – namely, the kind that could involve pretending to be a willing participant in gravely immoral actions.
Although Live Action’s purpose is to expose immorality, their actors directly presented themselves, if only strategically and temporarily, as committed pimps and sex traffickers.
“In normal circumstances,” Kaczor noted, “pretending that you believe something is right, which actually is wrong, may be morally impermissible.”
Read more: http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=2690#ixzz1Ej5dDOCf
@Mentalguy: “3. Lying is speaking falsehood with the intent to deceive.”
Make that, with the INTENT to lead into error or wrongdoing.
Just getting someone to believe your costume is not making them do anything wrong.
“What is so funny with your scenario is that had LiveAction gone in there announcing who they were - Planned Parenthood would have LIED through their teeth in answering the questions!”
1. This is a false dichotomy. The guy could have given his real name and asked hypotheticals, without announcing his intentions.
2. Any argument of the form “But if they hadn’t lied, then {{consequence}}, therefore they were justified in doing so,” is a consequentialist argument. According to the Church, is not a permissible form of moral reasoning.
“@Mentalguy: “3. Lying is speaking falsehood with the intent to deceive.”
Make that, with the INTENT to lead into error or wrongdoing. Just getting someone to believe your costume is not making them do anything wrong.”
CherylLynn: If you want to phrase it that way, then fine. It is leading them to believe something erroneous, which is what is meant by leading someone into error.
Just getting someone to believe your costume is not, in itself, wrong, but speaking falsehoods in order to accomplish that *is*.
Btw, I wouldn’t necessarily include the “or wrongdoing” there, in a definition of lying. Lying has only to do leading someone to believe something that is erroneous, false-to-facts.
Doing anything (including speaking falsehood) with the intent of *leading someone into wrongdoing* would have to do with the sin of scandal.
Paladin— This matter we are discussing is indeed complex. Consider for example how one would characterize an event where real pimps had used the exact same words, tone, gestures as the Live Action, let’s say, investigators.
In such a case the real pimps would have been guilty of various grave immoral and criminal acts against minors, in addition to facilitating abortions with PP, and of colluding with them to hide the truth from the public. Live Action, on the contrary, is guilty of none of that and has the extraordinary merit of exposing it all. They have dealt a devastating blow to PP and the latter are henceforth on notice that they will never again be able to commit their crimes safely ande in secret, thanks to Live Action. As most will surely be able to appreciate, two practically identical acts can have entirely contrary meanings because, as Deacon Russell has pointed out, their objectives were completely different. Some however insist on abstracting a portion of the event and judging it on its own merit as if a living event could be dissected and its purpose/meaning excluded from the analysis. That’s what it looks like when you argue that the “...underage [sex slave] foreign girls…” were “non existent”. It’s public knowledge that underage foreign minors. You know that, right? Live Action exposed it further, that’s all. When I characterized the reasoning I oppose as “pharisaic” I was trying to describe a mode of thinking. Do I see it here? Yes. Do I mean to offend anyone or you. No.
Paladin—I meant: It’s public knowledge that underage foreign minors are being prostituted. You know that, right?
I think if tomorrow, the Vatican announced that that it wanted theologians to debate thoroughly the question of the morality of aborting unborn children when the mother’s life was in danger, a large number of theologians who are now silent on the point would defend the practice.
Alexander
I read that earlier. It shows inter alia that theologians are excessively cautious about scandalizing the already obedient ( how many Catholics consult a catechism rather than a priest on gray area questions as to lying) when their speaking up could help. It shows also that there are two tiers of moral thinking….catechism level and moral manual level….and a third…theologians thinking right now but yet to publish….three mini magisteria. Anyone reading these threads would consult a priest from here on in as to gray areas.
If one is asked intrusive questions ,mostly provoked by sheer curiosity, such as “did your husband ever cheat on you?” or “did your daughter have an abortion?”, does that person deserve to know the truth? Does the intent or motive of the questioner ever come into play determining guilt in responding with an untruth? Notwithstanding the brash insensitivity of such questions, they get asked nevertheless. If one just refuses to answer, that is always interpreted as a “Yes” therefore the one questioned loses either way.
Thank you for your insights.
@bill
That was point Kreeft was trying to make, was that in regards to those grey areas, an almost moral experience or maturity needs to be present, since you may not have the luxury of a priest or catechism at hand when a decision needs to be made. I wrote a post on my blog www.menofjc.com about how men, at times mind you, need to lead from the gut. Most are afraid to pull the trigger in fear of scrupulosity and get caught up in the semantics of what they may perceive as a lie or deception, yet in reality, may very well not be.
@dcs—ergo?
“That was point Kreeft was trying to make, was that in regards to those grey areas, an almost moral experience or maturity needs to be present, since you may not have the luxury of a priest or catechism at hand when a decision needs to be made.”
That part of the argument, I agree with. As I think Dr. Kreeft would put it, our intuition is actually our highest rational faculty. Doing the right thing instinctually is better than having to sweat it out. But our moral intuition needs to be trained.
We can’t ignore our responsibility to train and sanity check our moral instincts against the teaching of the Church. It is not wrong to go with our gut instincts when we have no opportunity for close moral reasoning, nor should we be ashamed to do so, but then we need to be willing to seriously examine those instincts after the fact.
I think for pretty much all of us, our initial gut reaction was that there wasn’t anything that wrong with what Live Action did. But one of the things that bothers me about this discussion is the overtone of *Ile locuta est, causa finita est*. That is not a Catholic attitude, any more than the opposite extreme of turning some hapless priest into our personal dial-a-conscience.
It seems that the Live Action debate has caused some very bad and unintended consequences. We now see respected moral theologians (or at least those who are described as moral theologians by the media) as suggesting the Church might revise its definitive teaching on the immorality of lying. To show how corrupting this has become (and following the lead of ‘dcs’ above), substitute the word “contraception”, “abortion in the life of the mother”, “in vitro fertilization”, “women’s ordination”, or any number of other hard teachings (by modern standards). Surely, this is not what Lila Rose wanted when this began.
I pray that “responsible adults” stop making statements to the press which undermine confidence in authorative Catholic teaching. Absolutely nothing can justify doing evil, not even the greatest good imaginable. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes, it is not licit to commit a single act of adultery even if it saves the lives of an entire nation. No good can ever make an evil act something other than evil. The deliberate telling of a falsehood, such as “I’m a prostitute”, with the intention to cause a false impression is intrinsically evil and forbidden by the 8th Commandment given by God Himself.
J Brown: and that is something that also bugs me about the whole thing; the lies told by Live Action in order to gather evidence have clearly been the source of significant scandal.
One further point:
It has been noted that Live Action’s main purpose was actually to solicit evil acts to be caught on tape, i.e., facilitation of illegal sex trafficking and other crimes. These are not only criminal, but also formally evil. As such, we have another moral question that few are addressing, which is whether or not it is evil to solicit an evil act to be done, in order to catch the perpetrator in the act.
Once again, this seems to violate some basic moral principles. If we acknowledge that the object of this act is first and foremost to solicit evil, regardess of the ultimate purpose, we have a moral problem. It is never licit to formally ask someone to commit evil. Now, in his case it’s possible that Live Action was merely presenting the occasion of sin, which can be justified for proportionately grave reasons - saving life would be one of those. However, it sounds from the tapes that they requested the PP personnel to take actions which are formally wrong, including prepare paperwork for future abortions and consultations. This is a critical distinction which I haven’t seen addressed, and it is actually far more serious.
To solicit another person formally to commit an objectively grave evil is itself gravely wrong and, if done with the necessary prerequisites, is a mortal sin itself.
J Brown
Mike Wright
When young with many moral questions, I had the blessing of an old, humorous, joyful, stricter than common…priest who did charity work. Aquinas writing about docility, quoted the OT….” stand thou in the company of the ancients that are wise, join thyself from thy heart to their wisdom.”. He went on to say that such older men have “experience that gives them an insight into principles”. I found him proceeding from intuition within a humorous outlook as Bishop Sheen defined humor…the ability to see through things. He was a treasure and at length, I was able to leave him because I had internalized part of him….what you are driving at but in a lightly communal “man passing on to man” way.
Remember your example of Solomon….totally on target….but add to it Judith and Jacob’s Joseph and Jerome’s example of Jehu. It is as though Western man gradually decoupled from Scripture and chose the logic of the classical schools and thus the over simplifications in the catechism on lying and the death penalty also. And the concommittant mistakes in Splendor of the Truth. Lol….deportation as an intrinsic evil…..followed by the next Pope dissenting from that and letting Italy protect him last May by the deportation of two muslim students. Benedict’s dissent from Splendor of the Truth last May on deportation is totally supported by Germain Grisez’s “Way of the Lord Jesus” / vol.1/ page 854….but some scrupulous laymen immigration worker somewhere is agonizing over deporting a drug dealer because John Paul II was getting to old to qualify his terms. Oy….pass me a Scotch and water…..hey….I have Scotch….Adieu.
@Alexander,
Ergo, the fact that there are theologians chomping at the bit to change the Church’s traditional teaching on lying does not at all imply that the teaching is a matter of debate—just as its teaching on abortion is not a matter of debate.
Doris: all I can say is that, if we can’t think of an appropriate mental reservation when asked an inappropriately probing question, our other licit option is silence. Blessed John Henry Newman might be appropriate to ask for aid in such a situation.
There is a reason that the Litany of Humility asks for delivery from the fear of calumny and suspicion:
http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/prayers/humility.htm
When we are free of fear, we are free to do the right thing.
“It is as though Western man gradually decoupled from Scripture and chose the logic of the classical schools…”
This quote reminds me of nothing so much as what I was taught when I was going to a Lutheran elementary school.
The real classical schools and the Scholastics valued intuition as much as anyone (see Dr. Kreeft on this), but Christianity has some hard and unconditional teachings that even the Scholastics understood.
In this case, we are not even talking about some stricture of the old law that Jesus perfected (e.g. the teaching on divorce), never mind a modern and incomplete refinement of social teaching (deportation?). The Eighth Commandment has been with us, carved in hard and inflexible stone, since that one day when Moses came down from the mountain, his face radiant with the glory of God.
If we start making exceptions to *that*, then everything else is fair game by comparison.
dcs—under your standard, no doctrine could ever develop after any initial overbroad pronouncement in a non-infallible teaching, because according to you, it could not be a matter of debate. If you ever dig through Catholic history, you soon learn that the development of doctrine isn’t so simple. If it were, the Church would still be teaching against usury and the persecution of heretics.
I know what you’re going to say: but then every teaching of the Church is up for grabs, and pretty soon we’ll be seeing human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. Wrong. When a signficant number of faithful orthodox Catholics, reasoning from Biblical and Catholic principles and applying pratical reason and their own experience, find with no selfish benefit to themselves that a non-infallible definition of a wrongful action is too broad to apply in all situations, there is room for debate on that issue without saying that everything is permitted. That’s the way doctrine develops. If the Magisterium then specifically condemns their reasoning, they would then be obligated as Catholics to assent to that teaching. But until then, there is room for debate.
Is “I’m a prostitute” a falsehood? According to the dictionary, a prostitute could be anyone who puts or has put him/herself to bad use. In that sense, it’s much like saying “I’m a sinner.” Similar arguments can also be made about being pregnant, in the sex business, underage, not wanting to tell your parents, having a sexually transmitted disease, etc. Rather than lying, it could be confessing. And if she says, “I’m a prostitute”, who is speaking anyway? Maybe she’s empathizing with or even possessed by the spirit of a prostitute. Why jump to the conclusion that she’s telling a falsehood? Maybe she’s telling the truth. James 2:10 says, “whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.” Who doesn’t fall short in one particular or another? If we all fall short, are we not all guilty in respect to all of it? As St. Vincent de Paul supposedly said, “Charity is infinitely inventive.” If so, I’d sure want charity as my advocate.
“The deliberate telling of a falsehood, such as “I’m a prostitute”, with the intention to:
1. “...cause a false impression. Period.”
2. “...cause a false impression and thereby expose child abuse, pimped adolescents subjected to abortions, etc.”
These two statements describe two different events, talk of two different matters. The first event is about a lie, and therefore intrinsically evil, assuming that is all there is to the matter. But it’s the second event that we are debating.
Enrique: they differ only by the inclusion of anticipated consequences.
@J Brown—
I’ve not seen any respected moral theologian suggesting the Church might revise its definitive teaching on the immorality of lying.
By comparison, one respected moral theologian has stated, as quoted above and here: “I think if tomorrow, the Vatican announced that it wanted theologians to debate thoroughly the question of the morality of telling falsehoods to evil doers who threatened the lives of the innocent, a large number of theologians who are now silent on the point would defend the practice,” [Janet Smith]
Everyone, please tell me you see the essentially necessary and precise phrasing Janet Smith used above—”...the morality of TELLING FALSEHOODS to evil doers…” (not shouting, but the all caps help I think)
If anyone is nervous about what Janet Smith said, then that would illustrate *exactly* what the doctrinal question at hand really is. Some think that HALF the Catechism’s definition of lying is sufficient for there to really be lying going on, and others (apparently like Smith), think the WHOLE definition from the CCC is necessary.
Smith, above, uses HALF the CCC definition—“telling falsehoods”. In her mind, that obviously does *not* equate with the evil act of *lying*. If she wanted to mean “lying” she would either have said “lying” or would have used the *whole* CCC definition—“speaking falsehood with the INTENTION OF DECEIVING” (sorry for the caps, not shouting, but this is crucial).
Folks, this is what the discussion is really about—if *half* the CCC definition enough, or not?
Catholics of good will can debate this question charitably all the way up to the point that the Magisterium definitively resolves the question….
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
And apparently I can’t type after all…
I meant: Folks, this is what the discussion is really about—IS *half* the CCC definition enough, or not?
Deacon Jim: speaking only for myself, I think both halves are necessary. We can say falsehoods without intent to deceive; I might say, for example, “I am a lemur,” just to make you laugh, and that would not be a lie. (In that case I would know you are in no reasonable danger of being deceived.)
As far as I can tell, most of the discussion so far has been over:
1) Whether what was said was really a falsehood (c.f. Pregnant with Possibilities, in one of the most jaw-dropping posts I’ve ever seen)
2) What constitutes intent to deceive (c.f. CherylLynn)
3) Whether the ultimate goals (saving babies, underage sex workers, etc) render the act morally harmless (c.f. Enrique)
I have great respect for Dr. Beckwith and will continue to recommend his _Defending Life_ as the most comprehensive resource I know for responding to pro-choice arguments. But yes, we do know for a practical certainty that St. Thomas considered such scenarios because St. Augustine considered them in his works on lying, which St. Thomas quotes extensively in his own work. St. Augustine’s second work on lying, “Against Lying,” was written precisely in response to such a scenario, in response to the suggestion that aggressive lying was an acceptable tactic in the cause of saving souls.
I surely would not call Pius XII a liar, but a hero. This is exactly what he did for the Jews during the time of the Holocaust. He will very likely be a Saint one day. “Lie or die,” may not be a common dilemma, but it is not always a false one.
Deacon Jim,
Your post is, I’m afraid to say, somewhat misleading as to what Dr. Smith is actually saying here. There really is no question that the Live Action people 1. told falsehoods, 2. with intent to cause PP to believe the falsehood. Hence, they seem to have told lies, unless somehow they didn’t intend what the evidence indicates they intended. The idea that they practiced mental reservation about “I’m a prostitute” is to fall into the caricature of “Jesuitical casuistry” that can find a way to make anything a mental reservation. I say that with greatest respect for faithful Jesuit moral theologians who avoided such bad thinking.
Dr. Smith is clearly stating that she thinks the Catechism is open to revision in this area and that the clear teaching of the Church on lying might be erroneous. In other words, she thinks St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, two of the greatest minds God has given the Church, were both very possibly completely wrong on this. Both of them specifically condemned telling falsehoods to evildoers in order to deceive, so that good might come of it. The fact that the Church has formally made their teaching her own doesn’t seem to bother the other “respected theologians” who would attack this teaching as too restrictive, etc. J Brown
Dawn: Setting aside the question of whether Pius XII really did order documents to be forged, and the issue that he hasn’t been canonized yet, even saints can and do sin during their lives on earth, nor are hero and sinner exclusive (unless we require our heroes to be wholly sinless).
If lying is a sin, then “sin or die” is a question that we all know the right answer to—though my God grant that none of us are faced with it.
Enrique,
You are incorrect - the action being debated is the telling of a falsehood with intention to deceive, with the claim of extenuating circumstances. The first rule of Catholic moral theology, which Dr. Smith very well knows, is to examine the OBJECT of the act, before intention and circumstances are considered. The object here is the communication of a falsehood as if it were the truth, i.e., to cause false impression. The ultimate intention, and circumstances, are certainly laudable - to expose PP’s evil behavior. However, you are completely wrong to suggest that these circumstances somehow change the object. The action is still defined within the species of lying, according to St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism.
J Brown
Dawn:
Pius was a hero. But he did not lie or forge baptismal certificates and he condemned situational ethics in no uncertain terms.
@bill bannon,
Your argument is with Gaudium et Spes (which is what the Pope is quoting in that passage of Veritatis Splendor), not with the late Pope John Paul II, and I think it is obvious that both the Pope and the Council are referring to arbitrary deportation, not deportation itself.
***
@Alexander,
Assuming that the teaching on lying is non-infallible (I don’t agree, but I will accept it for the sake of argument), given that the Church has taught consistently on the topic for many centuries, it is much more likely that those who are arguing for a change in that teaching are arguing for a corruption and not a development. Development of doctrine doesn’t change the essential meaning of a teaching. With respect to usury and punishing heretics, the fact that a doctrine has become obscured does not mean that the Church no longer teaches it. Again, the analogy to abortion is apt. The Church condemns abortion and always has, but perhaps with future development we could redefine what we mean by “abortion” (as some commentators tried to do in the case of Sr. Margaret McBride).
@Deacon Jim
“3. According to #1752, “the *end* is the first goal of the *intention* and indicates the purpose pursued in the action.”
4. Thus, by definition, the END intended by “lying” as defined by the catechism must be the first goal of the intention, identified in the definition as “deceiving” or “deception.”
5. This means that, by definition, when lying, the “deception” is NOT the “means” to the *end*. Deception IS the *end*—the first goal of the intention.”
You are confusing the terms INTENTION and END. The CCC specifially says deception is the INTENTION of speaking falsehood, not the END or “goal” of speaking falsehood. The end is something else. You are trying to say that the intention of speaking falsehood (deception) is actually an end in itself, thus confusing the terms “intention” and “end”. Intention and end are two different things. Intention is intention, and end is end. In a lie, deception is the intention of speaking falsehood, not the end. The end is something else (e.g. eliciting information from another). “Intention” refers to the desired *means* to attain an “end”. So, you have: 1. act (speak falsehood), 2. intention (deception), 3. end (gain information). I commit the act (speak falsehood) with the intention (to deceive you) for the end (to gain information). In effect, your analysis makes the act (speak falsehood) the intention, and the intention (deception) the end. You can’t do that.
God bless,
Bob
@J Brown—
Dear J—
You wrote:
****“Your post is, I’m afraid to say, somewhat misleading as to what Dr. Smith is actually saying here. There really is no question that the Live Action people 1. told falsehoods, 2. with intent to cause PP to believe the falsehood. Hence, they seem to have told lies, unless somehow they didn’t intend what the evidence indicates they intended.****
Actually, J, that *is* the question—in “speaking falsehoods” did they further, as a *moral intention*, also intend the *end* of “deception”? It is one thing for Live Action to “forsee” the “end” that the employee would be deceived, but it’s quite another to morally *intend* the deception. Someone committing violence as an act of self-defense “forsees” the harm inflicted on the aggressor by the violence, but does not *intend* that harm. If they did, the act of self-defense would actually be sinful, wouldn’t it?
*****Dr. Smith is clearly stating that she thinks the Catechism is open to revision in this area and that the clear teaching of the Church on lying might be erroneous.*****
Yikes! This is *exactly* what I hoped to avoid in commenting the way I did earlier. Dr. Smith chose her words *carefully*—they must be *read* just as carefully. Unless you believe you only need *half* the Catechism definition for lying, you can’t conclude that Dr. Smith is meaning “lying” when she says “telling falsehoods” in her quote. When someone seeks to amuse another, he/she will “tell falsehoods” for the ironic effect. People know these “falsehoods” are not “lies”, by definition. Dr. Smith is in *no way* questioning the positive teaching on lying. Rather, she’s clearly expressing the moral question at hand by her language.
The Magisterium hasn’t actually expressed any teaching on the specific point be discussed and debated, the same point referred to in Dr. Smith’s quote….
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
dcs: “Development of doctrine doesn’t change the essential meaning of a teaching. With respect to usury and punishing heretics, the fact that a doctrine has become obscured does not mean that the Church no longer teaches it.”
You’re missing the point. The Church long understood usury as the taking of any form of interest. If you’d asked the medieval equivalent of dcs whether the definition of usury prohibits any interest, he would have unequivocally said yes and that the matter is closed. For example, Gratian’s “Concordia discordantium canonum” from 1140 is essentially a summary of the ancient law of the Church, and embodies the teachings of the first ten ecumenical councils, and it states “To demand or receive or even to lend expecting to receive something above the capital is to be guilty of usury.” Now the Church still teaches that “usury” is wrong, but it has realized that the absolutist definition of usury was too broad, and hence the doctrine of usury developed. That development was legitimate, and the revision of the definition did not lead to the questioning or collapse of all moral norms within the Church.
Same with the Catechism’s definition of lying. I’m arguing (with support from Newman by the way) that the definition of lying in the Catechism is too broad and that further development is appropriate. No developement I am suggesting would “change the essential meaning of a teaching” as you allege. As I’ve said before, the current definition is right for the vast majority of circumstances. But the current definition makes easy cases hard (the Nazi example) and is not consistent even with the Church’s practice today, when neither the Pope nor the bishops have suggested that common practices like undercover police officers and spies in wartime are objectively wrongn and should be stopped.
@bob—
hi, Bob—you wrote: “You are confusing the terms INTENTION and END. The CCC specifially says deception is the INTENTION of speaking falsehood, not the END or “goal” of speaking falsehood.”
Well, no, I can’t agree that I’ve confused the terms intention and end, as I’ve derived what I’m saying directly from the Catechism in #1752:
“...The *end* is the first goal of the *intention* and indicates the purpose pursued in the *action*.”
With lying, we are told, by definition, what the “first goal of the intention” is (and what the purpose of the “action”—the “speaking falsehood”—is): lying is “speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” By definition, the “action” is speaking a falsehood, and the intention’s “first goal” is the *end*—“deceiving.”
Isn’t that pretty straightforward?
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
dcs
A Pope is responsible for what he writes not for what your think he meant. It would have taken him a second to write “arbitrary”. He did not. He is responsible unless you define him as a totally non accountable person. Maybe that’s the problem right there.
He was wrong on listing slavery as an intrinsic evil also….God gives chattel slavery of a perpetual type to the Jews over foreigners in Leviticus 25:44-47.
@dcs: Do you find it ironic that much of your anti-consequentialist position is based on the consequentialist argument that if we allow any revision to the Catechism’s definion of lying, the consequences will be horrible?
All those who may be overstating the flawlessness of Aquinas and Augustine…and
J Brown
Can you think of any issues Aquinas and Augustine were incorrect on…together? I’ll start you off with the immaculate conception wherein their view that Mary contracted original sin but was cleansed of it prior to birth was rejected by the Church….go here…. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm.
They were together wrong also on women being basically good for man for one thing: children…and apart from children, a man is better company and a better help to a man. Thank heavens the media never saw that one recently.
And they were together wrong about asking….not paying….for the marriage debt as being venial sin if children are not willed….modern papal permission to use infertile times contradicts them both on this:
Augustine. On Marriage and Concupiscence
Chapter 16 [XIV.]— A Certain Degree of Intemperance is to Be Tolerated in the Case of Married Persons; The Use of Matrimony for the Mere Pleasure of Lust is Not Without Sin, But Because of the Nuptial Relation the Sin is Venial.
....To escape this evil, even such embraces of husband and wife as have not procreation for their object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so far as to be within range of forgiveness….
....................................................................................................................................
Aquinas. Summa T. Supplement question 49 art.5 Reply to Objection 2.
“If a man intends by the marriage act to prevent fornication in his wife, it is no sin, because this is a kind of payment of the debt that comes under the good of “faith.” But if he intends to avoid fornication in himself, then there is a certain superfluity, and accordingly there is a venial sin, nor was the sacrament instituted for that purpose, except by indulgence, which regards venial sins.”
Aquinas. Supplement question 49, art.6, on the contrary…
“If, however, he seek pleasure within the bounds of marriage, so that it would not be sought in another than his wife, it is a venial sin.”
question 49 art 5 “I answer that”:
“Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt, otherwise it is always at least a venial sin.”
@J Brown—
Hi again—you wrote to Enrique:
***“The first rule of Catholic moral theology, which Dr. Smith very well knows, is to examine the OBJECT of the act, before intention and circumstances are considered. The object here is the communication of a falsehood as if it were the truth, i.e., to cause false impression.”****
Actually, according to the Catechism, the “object” of lying is, by definition, “speaking a falsehood with the intention to deceive.” Please note that some moral “objects” *necessarily* contain an intention as well. By *definition*, lying most certainly does. Other intentions can attach to this object, and usually do, but in this case the *intention to deceive* is most certainly a part of the “object” of lying.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
Alexander, one can engage in many forms of undercover police work and spying without running afoul of the Church’s definition of lying. Thus the Church does not teach that (all) undercover police work and spying is lying. But some aspects of undercover work and spying can be lying, and Church teaching condemns those aspects as it condemns lying.
@Bill Bannon—
Hi, Bill—just a quick point that may be helpful, as I was just pondering VS 80 yesterday. Notice how (at least in my translation) the wording is: “The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts:”
What if, by saying “gives a number of examples”, JP II is not implying the *whole* list is a list of intrinsic evils, but rather that a number of intrinsic evils are to be found in that list? Might relieve the tension on slaver that exists between VS 80 and, say, the Holy Office Instruction to the Apostolic Vicar of the Galla from 1866 (hoping you know that document).
Just a speculation…but maybe…
God bless you
Deacon Jim Russell
I am still trying to come to grips with the idea that if a man broke into my home with the intent to rape someone, that it is perfectly fine for me to kill him(as nervous as I would be, I could not be assured of the kind of accuracy needed for merely wounding), but that I would be sinning if I told him that I had a burglar alarm that had been very efficient at getting a policeman to my home in under five minutes. I guess that human life is not as important as I thought. It is not as important as lying to someone to protect myself and prevent someone else from committing a grave sin. Wow. This will take me some time to come to terms with I think.
Also, as far as the “gut instinct” issue, I am a convert and have had a few of those while learning about the faith. One of the first was with the issue of limbo for unbaptized babies. Couldn’t reconcile such a fate for a totally innocent infant with an all-loving God. Was so relieved to read Ratzinger’s Intro to Chrisianity and see that he had issues with the idea as well. Capital punishment and war were two other issues. The way they were explained to me just didn’t make sense and the recent clarifications have set much better with my initial reactions to those subjects.
We need to be very careful about following what can seem to be our emotions but there are times when our gut instincts are actually more in tune with the truth than out intellectual grasp of things from reading about a subject. Concerning the subject at hand, I believe there are too many unknowns even in the short explanation in the Catechism. Para. 2489, I believe, does mention the issue of whether or not someone has the right to the truth. Maybe someone involved in murdering babies, assisting in the trafficking of underage, abducted girls for sex, etc. has forfeited their right to know the truth about certain things. If murdering someone can forfeit an individual’s right to life, I don’t see why the same cannot be true about their right to the truth when it is something along the lines of what LA is doing.
I don’t understand how one could infiltrate such an organization to passively gain information either. You would have to be complicit in some manner with the evils that they do or you would not be employed there for any length of time. The very least would be passing out contraceptives. How would that be any less sinful than what LA did? And wouldn’t it be lying to give the impression that you went along with what they were doing while you were employed there?
Some have said that this issue is not comparable to that of hiding Jews in WWII or other examples that have been given. I don’t know about that. If a person is very sensitive to the reality of what goes on in PP offices, it could bring about a similar sense of terror and urgency. We should all strive to FEEL the reality of what is going on with these issues and it might spur us on to more action. I just can’t help but think that if we knew that two year olds were being murdered every day at a certain office we would be a little more adamant about doing something drastic to stop it.
Deacon Jim
I think you are somewhat confused on the nature of Catholic moral theology and the difference between object and intention. The object is the object of the will, i.e., what the will decides upon. In the case of lying, the object is the speaking of a falsehood for the purpose of causing another to accept that falsehood as true (in other words, deception). This includes “jocular” and officious lies, according to the perennial teaching of the Church - not just injurious lies.
Your attempted dichotomy between speaking falsehood and intending deception does not comport with common human experience. When one deliberately chooses to speak a falsehood in a manner which a reasonable person would believe that it is spoken as the truth, it is hard to imagine that the purpose is not deception. Indeed, if one recklessly states falsehoods in a manner which leads others to error, this is essentially lying. In the present case, there is no question - Live Action stated things which were false so as to convince PP that they were in fact true.
Finally, I’m not sure if you are fully aware of this, but there have only been two universal catechisms produced by the Church- Trent and the recent Catechism. BOTH of these catechisms teach that ALL speaking of falsehood for deception is evil, no matter what the purpose (including even for humor). Dr. Smith is suggesting the Church might have been wrong for the last several hundred years in its official teaching.
Bill
I encourage you to study St. Thomas Aquinas in a spirit other than what you are showing on these comboxes towards him. I think the Angelic Doctor deserves a little better. Also, just so you understand - the Church has produced two universal catechisms, Trent and the modern CCC. Both of them officially adopted the teaching of St. Augustine and St. Thomas on this point, in line with papal teaching on the subject. This is, therefore, significantly more than a mere theological opinion. It is official Church teaching.
Also, to address the CONSTANT reference to Nazis and hiding Jews, and how this somehow proves that the Church is wrong on this point. St. Augustine lived in a time during which Christians were still persecuted in some regions, meaning that at times they would have to hide from soldiers, etc. He mentions the possible case where a Christian, or some other refugee, would be hiding when the soldiers come looking. St. Augustine specifically states that while various means are available to avoid stating the whole truth, deliberately speaking a falsehood, even to save a life, is not acceptable. So, please do not speak as if this is a new phenomenon which should cause the Church to reexamine her teaching. This has been an ageold problem and was known for millenia by the time the Church officially promulgated her doctrine on lying.
Deacon Jim
First, thank you for your service as deacon. I pray for you guys every day of the week right after my family.
I think we have redefined the Popes since Vatican I and not in line with Vatican I. I think we cover for them too much because career movements within the clergy and book sales for Catholic writers ebb for anyone who raises a rational
criticism about them. The death penalty debacle is the emperor’s new clothes of that whole trend….lifers within gangs are shanking people in prison precisely because nothing further can be done to them. In our area, a 12 year old witness was ordered killed from prison while ccc 2267 says that modern penology is so perfect without the death penalty that it the death penalty is rarely needed. Let me stop before I throw our thermostat off. I disagree about VS. A college guy would get an F for section 80.
Hyperdulia is for Mary not for Peter.
J Brown
You attacked my spirit because my content was perfect. Isn’t that deception? Did not Aquinas and Augustine err on the Immaculate Conception, err on it being a venial sin to ask for the debt, err on women being a better helper only in respect to producing and nurturing children. When my fellow Catholics can’t deal with content, they go for the ad hominem area. Did Aquinas and Augustine err on these things? No deceptions while you’re preaching no deception.
Lauretta
You’ re making far too much sense.
@Alexander,
I am not making a consequentialist argument, I am making an analogy. I did not say that the Church’s teaching on abortion would be assailed because people make a mockery of her teaching on lying. Instead, I was pointing out how ridiculous these arguments become when applied to another intrinsic evil.
***
@bill bannon,
It is possible that both St. Thomas and St. Augustine together could be wrong on a particular point. It is much less likely that St. Thomas, St. Augustine, and St. Alphonsus, not to mention many other saints, are wrong on a particular point. It is still less likely that the Church herself, in adopting this teaching in her two universal catechisms (that of Trent and the modern Catechism) is wrong. This is not a teaching, such as that of St. Thomas on the marriage debt or the Immaculate Conception, that was not received by the Church.
Laurette, in self-defense, the killing of the aggressor is not intended. But in lying, the harm is intended. Also, in self-defense, one is permitted only “necessary” violence, and killing the aggressor could be beyond what was necessary and therefore unlawful. It is dubious whether anything LA did was “necessary” to stop an attack or if it stopped any attack at all. Other less “violent” means are available which may in fact be more effective. You speak of “someone involved in murdering babies, assisting in the trafficking of underage, abducted girls for sex, etc. has forfeited their right to know the truth about certain things”, but while the PP worker was speaking the LA imposter, the PP worker was not doing the things you speak of. Instead, she was providing information about what PP does. One might say the PP worker was telling the truth to LA who was not. In that arrangement, it may be that LA forfeited the right to know the truth. You wonder about ways to infiltrate PP without having to pass out condoms, but there are people who are willing to infiltrate PP and pass out condoms, even if you aren’t. You don’t have to encourage them to do it but you can listen to what they find out. And anyone can go into any PP office and ask questions without passing out condoms and without lying. One could even bring along a real 15 year old pregnant girl who wants to know about what PP offers. There’s no shortage of real pregnant underage girls, is there? There’s also no shortage of real sex workers. They’re very easy to find and many will do just about anything—even good things—if you pay them.
Bill,
Can I quote you to my husband?:)
Lauretta
Trust me….he knows it.
Tom, your suggestions are very interesting.
I will start with your first comment—the intent of LA. I would say that the intent of LA was to stop the immoral, and in this case, illegal practices of PP. The deception of the PP worker was an unintended by-product of the LA actions. Just as in the case of self-defense, the intent is to stop the perpetrator from causing harm, his death would be an unintended by-product of the intent of the action.
You stated that PP was telling the truth of their services to LA. So, I guess that means then that you are not in agreement with some in this discussion who say that LA was causing the PP employee to sin. Telling the truth is certainly not a sin.
You also think that it is all right to talk someone else, who has no qualms about it, into passing out condoms (or pills). Isn’t that pretty much a case of being complicit in sin? Just because they don’t have a problem with it doesn’t mean that you should be going along with what they are willing to do if you do know that it is wrong.
As far as bringing a 15 year old who is pregnant into a PP office, that’s a great idea. Put her into a situation where they just might talk her into having an abortion. Don’t think I could be a part of that, sorry.
And as far as getting a prostitute to go in and gather information, that would be quite tricky, wouldn’t it? If she has a pimp, that might put her on the bad side of him which could have serious negative consequences for her. I don’t think you are going to get someone who is actually using underage, abducted girls to be very co-operative in helping you gather info from PP. They know what they are doing is illegal and they aren’t going to give you the time of day.
All of these ideas sound nice and neat and tidy until you actually look at the logistics of doing them, and then things get a lot more tricky. The only licit way I could see of accomplishing anything different than what LA did would be to befriend someone who was already working in PP and try to convert them. Someone like Abby—can’t remember her last name—who just wrote a book about her PP experiences. But then you would just have her word against PP if she hadn’t taken videos, etc. And few are the people who, once they understood the horror of what PP was doing, would stay in long enough to tape their activities. Again that person would have to be assisting with whatever PP was doing and that would be sinning.
dcs
The marriage debt mistake held sway from Augustine til the 19th century…1400 years. The way we know it did was that the natural methods for sex were only explicitly affirmed in the 19th century by Rome and still in the early 20th century, the Council of Malines (local and Bishops only) objected to the natural methods as leading to abortion if they didn’t work; Arthur Vermessch ( the premier moral theologian under Pius XI) objected that the natural methods should be used as a lesser evil to onanism; and the Spanish clergy objected in the press. The modern Popes had to fight for the natural methods largely due to that idea that seeking sex for itself was venial….and multiple venial sins dispose to mortal sin…Aquinas citing OT…” him that contemneth little things shall fall little by little”.
A quote from Abby Johnson:
“There is evidence in the video released that Planned Parenthood will go to measures to aid sex trafficking in order to keep their abortion services at a high rate. This evidence can’t be denied,” Johnson said. ” They are very troubling and show the reality of what is being said and how women, men, and their families are being treated by Planned Parenthood — an organization that claims to care for women, but their actions reveal quite the opposite. I am in full support of Live Action’s mission.”
@J Brown—
Hi, again—you wrote:
****Deacon Jim
I think you are somewhat confused on the nature of Catholic moral theology and the difference between object and intention. The object is the object of the will, i.e., what the will decides upon.*****
Hmmm. I don’t recall saying otherwise; do you recall me saying otherwise?
According to CCC 1751, the object also is “the matter of the human act”, and, “the object chosen morally specifies the act of the will…”
So far, so good. You wrote:
**** In the case of lying, the object is the speaking of a falsehood for the purpose of causing another to accept that falsehood as true (in other words, deception).****
Indeed this is so, as I’ve already noted in citing the CCC definition(s) of lying. So far, no confusion.
You wrote:
**** This includes “jocular” and officious lies, according to the perennial teaching of the Church - not just injurious lies.****
Well, if by “‘jocular’ and officious lies” you mean “jocular and officious spoken falsehood with the intent to deceive,” then the Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees with you. If that’s *not* what you mean, well, then obviously the CCC wouldn’t agree with you.
****Your attempted dichotomy between speaking falsehood and intending deception does not comport with common human experience.****
Is this a “gut-check” statement similar to Peter Kreeft’s approach? If so, part of the problem is not all “guts” are the same, so to speak. :-)
In any case, *I’m* not bold or brazen enough to attempt a dichotomy between speaking falsehood and intended deception—I’m saying that only *together* does that particular act constitute a *lie*, by definition, according to the CCC. But, if someone is bold or brazen enough to only utilize *half* the defintion, then that someone can’t exactly call the act being described by that definition a “lie” in the same way meant by the CCC, right?
You wrote: **** When one deliberately chooses to speak a falsehood in a manner which a reasonable person would believe that it is spoken as the truth, it is hard to imagine that the purpose is not deception.****
Under most circumstances, of course this is accurate. But the discussion centers on exactly whether one *can* have a situation in which “speaking falsehood” while willing a noble and good intention and end and *not* willing the intrinsic evil of deception is possible, or not. Posing this question—and debating it—simply doesn’t run counter to anything taught Magisterially or anything found in the CCC.
**** Indeed, if one recklessly states falsehoods in a manner which leads others to error, this is essentially lying.****
It’s “essentially lying” as long as there was *intention* of the *will* to deceive or lead into error, according to definition(s) found in the CCC.
**** In the present case, there is no question - Live Action stated things which were false so as to convince PP that they were in fact true.****
Hmmmm. If there is no “question”, then why has this generated so much commentary and question-ing? If there were Magisterial teaching that fully addressed this nuanced aspect of what constitutes lying, *then* there would be no question. But, after examining the CCC, the question remains open.
****Finally, I’m not sure if you are fully aware of this, but there have only been two universal catechisms produced by the Church- Trent and the recent Catechism. BOTH of these catechisms teach that ALL speaking of falsehood for deception is evil, no matter what the purpose (including even for humor).*****
Do mean by “even for humor” to reference the CCC #2481’s mention of “irony”? If so, then I agree completely, of course. ALL speaking of falsehood with the intention of deceiving” is instrinsically evil lying.
Then you wrote:
**** Dr. Smith is suggesting the Church might have been wrong for the last several hundred years in its official teaching. ****
NOW you are correct—I *am* confused. Confused as to how you can make this assertion based on Dr. Smith’s quote. I strongly encourage you to reconsider this view such that you give the benefit of the doubt to Dr. Smith and re-read *carefully* her quote and NOTE WELL that she is speaking of HALF of the CCC definition of “lying” when saying “telling falsehoods”. It would be a very charitable thing to do.
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
Lauretta,
Solomon lied and told his servant to cut the baby in half and as a result, he found out who the real mom was.
Judith in the book of Judith lies continuously and then is able to kill Holofernes who was going to slaughter her people.
Joseph in Egypt in Gn.37 etc. lies to his brothers and thereby leads them to repentance. There is no Pope of the 265 Popes who would ever have criticized any of those three….regardless of what the catechism says or does not say…(2489
keeps vanishing).
Before I begin, I’d like others to please stop referring to prostituted minors as sex workers. That is an outrageous euphemism. They are not sex workers. No one has legally or morally hired them. They are outrageously abused children and adolescents. One would not call one’s offspring, a minor, a sex worker if she or he had been snatched and enslaved by pimps and traffickers.
2. According to the CCC 1750 there are 3 constituents to consider: (1) the object chosen; (2) the end in view or the intention; and (3) the circumstances of the action.
3. According to CCC 1751 “The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act…”
Some are arguing that the object chosen was to lie to PP. That is incorrect. The object chosen was (i) the restored life, rights and dignity of enslaved youth and their families and(ii) the protection of innocent lives threatened by legal murder through abortion. That’s the object Live Action was aiming for, as I see it.
4. According to CCC 1752 “...the intention is a movement of the will toward the end…is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose…” In this case, the intention involved creating and implementing a plan that would expose the truth so that authorities and the general public would become fully aware of what was happening and prevent it.
5. However, according to 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. the end does not justify the means.”. This raises the question of whether role playing and secretly testing someone is the same as lying, and therefore intrinsically disordered; and whether what Live Action’s various acts, in moving towards the object, can indeed be fairly and honestly characterized as role playing.
6.In a previous post (9:59 AM) I wrote about Jesus pretending to be a stranger on the road to Emmaus and also about his “testing” Phillip. Since Jesus thus appears to have played roles and to have tested others we cannot say that these acts or behaviors are, in isolation, “lying” or intrinsically evil. Therefore, if we agree that Live Action was playing roles, than their behavior was not intrinsically evil or disordered.
6. CCC 2269 warns that “The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death…” This arguably condemns killing someone when playing a role would solve the problem.
7. CCC2269 further warns: “the moral law prohibits…refusing assistance to a person in danger.” Thus we are all morally obligated to assist enslaved youth, pregnant or not. This is what Live Action did.
If one’s child had been abducted and enslaved, one would have a most compelling obligation to do his utmost to recover him or her, even if that means walking in to a place pretending to be a pimp. Who would not do that for their own child if it could help rescue him or her?
My fifth argument should have read: CCC 2268 warns: “The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.” This arguably condemns killing someone when playing a role would solve the problem.
Oh well. My numbering is all wrong. My (first) sixth argument should have read: CCC 2268 warns: “The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.” This arguably condemns killing someone when playing a role would solve the problem.
Lauretta, as I see it, the LA folks are human. They can have all sorts of intents, at different levels of consciousness, at different moments, all of which I’m not privy. And so I don’t say what their intents were. I don’t know. It’s always a possibility that they have evil intents, no matter how much we’d like to believe they’re working for good. I do not subscribe to putting the LA people on a pedestal and demonizing the PP people. It’s too simplistic. Also, I did not “state that PP was telling the truth of their services to LA”. I said one might say they were, but how would I know? Likewise, as to whether “LA was causing the PP employee to sin”, they might have, or might not, or might have been trying to, or maybe not. Again, how would I know their intentions or gauge the full effects of anyone’s actions? And on someone working inside of PP, simply talking or listening to someone who sins doesn’t mean one supports or “goes along with” his/her sinful behavior. On concerns about an underage girl or sex worker working undercover and saying it’s “tricky”, I don’t suggest indiscriminately picking someone off the street for the job, and I don’t believe that it’s beyond what we can do. I don’t think it was beyond what I could do when I was underage. And as Jesus said, everything is possible to one who has faith. And as to the quote from Abby, it’s always a matter of interpretation as to what the snippits of evidence really show. Videos can be produced showing what some priests do all over the country, but I’m not a fan of Abby’s style of rhetoric whereby one might say “the videos show the reality of what is being said and how women, men, and their families are being treated by the Catholic Church.”
@Lauretta,
The deception was intended, otherwise the sting operation could not have worked.
***
@bill bannon,
I don’t know how you went from the marriage debt to periodic continence ... the two have little to do with one another. I also don’t think it’s quite correct to say that the Augustinian opinion held sway over the whole Church; St. Alphonsus disagreed, for one, and his opinion was widely followed. So here, on the issue of when a married couple might engage in relations we have differing opinions (St. Thomas and St. Augustine held one opinion, though I don’t think St. Thomas was quite as strict as St. Augustine; and St. Alphonsus held another); while on the matter of lying, we don’t (all three affirm the intrinsic evil of lying). Furthermore, two of your examples of “lying” from Holy Scripture (Solomon and Joseph) are not lies.
@dcs:
You wrote:
***The deception was intended, otherwise the sting operation could not have worked.***
And I write, regarding an ectopic pregnancy addressed by the removal of the Fallopian tube:
“The killing of the baby was intended. Otherwise saving the mother could not have worked.”
dcs—what’s the difference? Doctors “do” something they *know* will kill the baby, indirectly. They know it. They “forsee” it. They *do* it anyway. Therefore they *will* that the baby should die to save the mother???? It’s one of the *desired* “ends” of the act?
Not according to Catholic moral theologians across the universe, who always state that the baby’s death is a “forseen” but *not* intended effect of the act taken to save the mother’s life.
dcs
Give me text on that from St. Alphonsus unless you are fibbing for the non fibbing party.
@bill bannon,
I agree that the Pope is responsible. However, you act as if he alone is responsible, that the teaching was developed in a vacuum. But all the Pope is doing is citing Gaudium et Spes. If the Pope is wrong, then so is GS. (I very much doubt, by the way, that a theology student would receive an F for quoting extensively from Vatican II.) Let’s not lay this all at the feet of the Pope, please. Indeed, if one were to take your attitude toward Papal teaching on this subject and apply it to another subject, one could conclude that St. Thomas and St. Augustine were right about the marriage debt all along.
dcs
G and S said that those acts were “shameful”. John Paul II took it on himself to introduce the term “intrinsic evil” about the list which thereby devalued the term since perpetual chattel slavery is given by God to the Jews over foreigners in Leviticus 25:44-47. God does give intrinsic evils…He permitted divorce since they were unbaptized ( still the principal in Pauline cases. I’ll let you slide on Alphonsus; I know you’re doing a Lila Rose on me.
ps dcs
Joseph lied repeatedly…...I read it yesterday as did Solomon because he never was going to cut the baby unless you think him bipolar.
That should read….God does not give intrinsic evils
@bill bannon,
Here is a cite from St. Alphonsus:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yP_Sbtq_XZgC&lpg=PA114&ots=HEbPNEoiFZ&dq=st alphonsus liguori marriage debt&pg=PA113#v=onepage&q=st alphonsus liguori marriage debt&f=false
***
@Deacon Russell,
The two are not similar. The death of the baby is foreseen but not intended when a diseased Fallopian tube is removed. The mother is saved by the removal of the tube, not by the death of the baby. The deception of PP was not merely foreseen, but also intended. They intended to deceive the PP counselor so as to catch PP in a sting. No deception, no sting.
To clarify for readers. In permitting divorce to the Jews, God was not giving them the right to an intrinsic evil since it is only that for two baptized people who have due maturity at the point of marriage. Therefore when God gave the Jews chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44 etc…..He was not giving them an intrinsic evil either. The brutal passages about beating slaves in the Bible reflect a nomadic culture with no prisons. Some slaves on a farm were captured criminals, others owed money, others were captured soldiers…but there were no prisons so that the brutal passages about beating slaves concerned that first group….captured criminals. Hence one proverb says…” evil is driven out by bloody lashes and a scourging to the inmost being”. Imagine if your state had no prisons and farmed out a murderer to work on your farm….not pretty.
@bill bannon,
It said quite a bit more than that:
—-
all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.
—-
It is not a stretch to go from there to “intrinsic evil.”
***
Joseph did not lie and neither did Solomon, unless you would also have God lying when He told Abraham to kill Isaac. Making threats, accusations, hiding one’s true identity—these are not lies and can be morally justified in certain circumstances.
Intrinsic evil was devalued because applying that precise term means that the act can never be done well and slavery could and were there a total breakdown of civilization due to massive nuclear war, those nomadic conditions would arise again. Making false threats that you know are fictitious is lying and both Joseph and Solomon did so. Then Joseph hid a goblet in Benjamin’s baggage and had his men capture him and find the goblet.
Your Alphonsus link was an author telling us what the Saint believed but not giving texts but giving fragments in individual words and sometimes phrases….notvtrust inspiring.
@dcs—
you wrote:****The two are not similar. The death of the baby is foreseen but not intended when a diseased Fallopian tube is removed. The mother is saved by the removal of the tube, not by the death of the baby.****
The “deception” is foreseen but not intended when a sting operation is executed. The corruption is exposed by the execution of the sting operation, not by the deception.
You also wrote:
****The deception of PP was not merely foreseen, but also intended. They intended to deceive the PP counselor so as to catch PP in a sting. No deception, no sting. ****
The death of the baby was not merely foreseen. But also intended. They intended the death of the baby so as to save the mother. No death, no rescue.
Guess we gotta try again! :-)
Deacon Jim Russell
Deacon Jim,
I state that Dr. Smith suggests that Church teaching may be in error because that is exactly what she says in her quote. She states that she personally knows many theologians, including “high Churchmen”, who are jumping at the chance to publicly question the received, and generally understood teaching on this point. As I noted, and you agreed with this, it is hard to imagine the situation where deliberately telling falsehoods is not coupled with the object of deceiving another. There really can be no reasonable disagreement that Dr. Smith suggests that telling falsehoods in order to deceive “evil doers who threaten innocent life” may be moral, despite the fact that is falls squarely within the definition of lying. Surely, you are not suggesting that she and the anonymous “high Churchmen” are speaking of telling falsehoods for some purpose other than deception? What other possible purpose is there in such a case?
@J Brown—
You wrote: ****I state that Dr. Smith suggests that Church teaching may be in error because that is exactly what she says in her quote.****
Sorry, but not a true statement.
What does Dr. Smith “exactly” say? This: “I think if tomorrow, the Vatican announced that it wanted theologians to debate thoroughly the question of the morality of telling falsehoods to evil doers who threatened the lives of the innocent, a large number of theologians who are now silent on the point would defend the practice,”
Isn’t THAT exactly what she says? THAT means Smith thinks Church teaching may be in error??? I find that to be a huuuuggee streeetchhhhh….
It doesn’t even *address* the existing teaching. Or are you thinking of a different quote? If so, then cite the quote you have in mind, please.
You wrote:
**** She states that she personally knows many theologians, including “high Churchmen”, who are jumping at the chance to publicly question the received, and generally understood teaching on this point.****
She does? Well then please cite where she states this. I haven’t seen it.
You wrote:
****As I noted, and you agreed with this, it is hard to imagine the situation where deliberately telling falsehoods is not coupled with the object of deceiving another.****
EXACTLY. “Hard to imagine” but not *impossible* to imagine.
You wrote:
**** There really can be no reasonable disagreement that Dr. Smith suggests that telling falsehoods in order to deceive “evil doers who threaten innocent life” may be moral, despite the fact that is falls squarely within the definition of lying.****
Actually there can be and *is* reasonable disagreement on this point because it does NOT fall squarely within the definition of lying.
You wrote:
*****Surely, you are not suggesting that she and the anonymous “high Churchmen” are speaking of telling falsehoods for some purpose other than deception? What other possible purpose is there in such a case?****
Surely I *am* talking about the question of “telling falsehoods *without* the intention of deceiving.” And so is Smith in her quote, apparently, as the definition of *lying* is “telling a falsehood with the intention of deceiving a neighbor” and she used only HALF that definition (perhaps even one-third of the definition if you include the “neighbor” part) in her quote.
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Deacon Jim,
Please see the Catholic News Agency story which carries several quotes from Dr. Smith. Included is the following: “In my discussion with theologians who practice religious assent to Church teaching,” she recalled, “I have found many – even high Churchmen – who believe it moral to tell falsehoods in some situations. They are not, however, willing to write or speak publicly on the matter.” They are not willing to speak publicly because it necessarily involves publicly questioning what is presently official Church teaching - why else remain silent?
It risks credibility to argue that telling a deliberate falsehood for the purpose of misleading an evil doer to prevent evil does not contain within it the essence of a lie. The basic rules of logic require that terms being used univocally actually have the same meaning - telling a falsehood for the purpose of misleading, for example. Deacon Jim, a reasonable person cannot claim that if I lie to a Nazi about having Jews in my house, in order to mislead him as to the whereabouts of the Jews, that I have not told a falsehood to mislead him. It is increasingly scandalous to have a public debate involving moral theologians of the Church suggesting ways to get around what is clear Catholic teaching regarding the definition of lies and the morality of telling lies. As I said earlier, substitute “contraception” for lying, but for the same purpose (saving innocent life), and I can assure you that theologians, including “high Churchmen”, will come out publicly to support contraception and even abortion in such cases.
I am quite sure Lila Rose did not want such a discussion to occur.
@J Brown—
Hi, again. You wrote:
****Please see the Catholic News Agency story which carries several quotes from Dr. Smith. Included is the following: “In my discussion with theologians who practice religious assent to Church teaching,” she recalled, “I have found many – even high Churchmen – who believe it moral to tell falsehoods in some situations. They are not, however, willing to write or speak publicly on the matter.” They are not willing to speak publicly because it necessarily involves publicly questioning what is presently official Church teaching - why else remain silent?*****
First, thank you for provided the quote. Not again, however, Dr. Smith refers to *half* the definition lying—you do see that, right? I mean, it’s an uncontestible fact that she does this. In *both* quotes cited thus far. She omits the “intention to deceive” part that transforms “speaking falsehood” into an act of lying, by definition.
So, here’s what she is saying: She’s spoken with many theologians who *practice religious assent* to Church teaching. Many of them, she says, believes it’s okay to *tell falsehoods* in some situations, but they don’t want to speak publicly because…well, I’ll let her say why (from the same article):
“Right now,” Smith explained, “those who wish to defend the practice hesitate to do so, because they fear appearing to question or reject Church teaching, and fear producing an atmosphere that leads to questioning or rejecting Church teaching.”
That is, they don’t want to “appear” to be embracing any form of *dissent* from teaching. They are not. They also fear creating an atmosphere that my lead to dissent. They are being as prudent and careful as possible. But this doesn’t mean they would *like* question Church teaching—they’re not. But they would like to discuss a matter as yet resolved, associated with Church teaching regarding lying.
******It risks credibility to argue that telling a deliberate falsehood for the purpose of misleading an evil doer to prevent evil does not contain within it the essence of a lie.****
If by “essence of a lie” you mean the act of “speaking a falsehood”, I totally agree. But, by definition the “essence of a lie” is not *necessarily* a lie.
*** The basic rules of logic require that terms being used univocally actually have the same meaning - telling a falsehood for the purpose of misleading, for example.****
We agree.
**** Deacon Jim, a reasonable person cannot claim that if I lie to a Nazi about having Jews in my house, in order to mislead him as to the whereabouts of the Jews, that I have not told a falsehood to mislead him.****
The question at hand involves whether there is an intrinsically evil moral intention to *deceive* one’s neighbor when speaking falsehood, for example, under the conditions you mention above. That’s what’s is under examination, basically.
The Magisterium has not yet resolved that issue definitively, and there is a looooong history of theologians discussing this issue. Nothing yet from the Magisterium has settled the matter.
God bless you
Deacon Jim Russell
Frankly, I think this is pretty much a tempest-in-a-teapot kind of thing. I think calling Live Action’s undercover work “acts of lying” is a bit of a stretch. So, I think Mr. Shea gets it wrong from the beginning. Is a “secret shopper” who checks out the quality of customer service at a grocery store sinning because they are not really a customer but only posing as one? In this case they are even paid to “lie” by the store they are investigating! All LA is doing is presenting scenarios that PP apparently comes across with some frequency (judging by the nonchalant way the PP staff handle the interviews), recording them, and publicly distributing the recordings.
The only thing I see objectively wrong with this is that an independent organization like LA should not have to take it upon themselves to do this… This kind of “testing” should be done with some regularity by the US government for *all* their tax investments, not just PP. With so many tax dollars going to PP, you would think the government would take a greater interest.
Enrique,
I just saw your reply. I mean in self-defense. People keep saying it’s “morally absurd to say it’s OK to kill but not to lie.” Well, it’s never OK to kill; it’s just sometimes OK to do violence. People take the principle of just self-defense and double effect and go to town with it, even though it has very strict terms.
But, as you and Mark say, we’re not talking about Nazis at the door; we’re talking about something premeditated.
@JC “But, as you and Mark say, we’re not talking about Nazis at the door; we’re talking about something premeditated.”
That’s not what I meant. I wrote, referring to someone’s contention that it was better to kill some than to lie: “It’s not unintentional when one could have avoided it by role playing. It’s called murder.”
If there is an aggressor at the door and by pretending to be deaf and dumb, or pretending to be someone else, or even a pimp, I can defend myself and avoid killing him, I should.
Pretending or role playing is not NECESSARILY the same as lying. In the case of Live Action, I believe it was not because the object was not to offend truth but to save lives and even souls.
As far as I can tell the only remaining matters to consider is if there is a valid argument that Live Action was not role playing; or if their role playing was aiming at an evil objective. I certainly have not been able to think of one in either case.
Planned parenthood however is also role playing. They pretend to be a beneficent organization that helps women and youth. They speak of freedom and choice. But they work towards an evil objective.
My conscience would not stop. A more careful comparison between how Our Most Holy Lord behaved at Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31) and Live Action reveals a sharp difference. Jesus did not say he was a “stranger” or “not Jesus”. *He did not say anything whatsoever that was not true.* He just did not verbally reveal who He was until the breaking of the bread and they were unable to “see” until then.
Live Action did not reveal who it was and pretended to be someone else. Then they spoke falsehoods. Given the good they were aiming at this has been hard to see, but it is.
One apparently insignificant falsehood can have devastating consequences. It is never acceptable. They should not have done it. One cannot speak falsehoods even to save lives. Live Action crossed the line. Yet it is still hard to conceive that one might not lie to save someone from a killer, assuming that would be the only way. This has not been addressed adequately and needs to be addressed further.
When playing a role, as in a play, everyone knows it’s not factual (unless the contrary is somehow expressed or implied), so it is not a falsehood; there is no intent to deceive.
I’m sorry if I have misled anyone as I struggle with this.
Excuse me if my train of thought has been addressed before, I didn’t see it.
There are many conditions that make a false statement into a lie. (You have to know it’s false, else it’s just an error, and so on.) I would count among them the expectation that the hearer would believe it. “My loan officer told me a frog asked for a loan the other day….” That can’t be a lie, it’s just a joke, a story.
The stories Live Action tell are almost as shocking. If the Planned Parenthood people behaved properly in that case, the fact that it was a story would be revealed very quickly. They’d call the police, and verify the details of the story. It would not be believed.
It is the behavior of the Planned Parenthood people that make the story into “a lie.” If they called the police the instant a “pregnant 13 year old girl” came into the office, there would be no story telling. (Hmmm… Perhaps Live Action would get in trouble for causing a false report to be filed?)
I guess we need to be on the search for really pregnant 13 year old girls so we can find out whether or not Planned Parenthood obeys the law. Otherwise we’re “bearing false witness.”
Haha that’s rediculous. No way
Acai Berry Pulp Or Entire Acai Berry Fresh fruits? Which Might Make Powerful Weight Loss Supplements? Numerous people who have heard of the The oprah show endorsed acai berry diet regime wind up mixed up on what part of the acai berry they must try to eat to lose weight naturally. In reality, pretty much 99 percent from the fruit’s natural anti-oxidants are found in the pulp on your own. Nonetheless, might a way for any eating plan firm to earn money off from you, because seeds does not have health positive aspects which is as a result just product inside a product supplement. In the end, the pulp on the pink berry is the place that the magical qualities with the acai berry are located. http://buycapsiplexcheap.blinkweb.com/ Meratol Side Effects - Learn What Side Effects You’ll Find Everything you could sought after to discover more regarding Meratol area effectsBecause from the tremendous increase in reputation of Meratol a lot of folks are now inclined to discover Meratol unwanted side effects. If one is overweight and one is consistently getting discomfited about people’s look and another need to take up a nourishing way of life. Gastric bypass needs to be one’s upper concern since excess fat may result in harmful situations.
www.ralphlaurenpolosaleukoutlets.com ralph lauren romance too men
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.