My post the other day has generated a boatload of questions, comments and concerns. I can’t address absolutely everything, but there are several main questions that come up which I think it is worth playing whack-a-mole on (though, as “whack-a-mole” suggests, they are hardy perennials that lots of people seem to raise again and again, usually because they’ve never thought about it). In no particular order, here are some random thoughts about some of these moles.
First, isn’t it interesting how things that appear to be “elementary” moral teaching (“Don’t lie”) suddenly get complex when it’s Us and not Them who are pondering the problem. Case in point, not long ago we were all being told how peculiarly immoral Muslims were for their concept of Taqiyya or lying in defense of some sacred truth and how almost inhumanly different these barbarians are from us good Christian folk. Now we are rediscovering once again the ancient problem (common to all the great ethical monotheistic traditions) of trying to square the plain words against lying with the real world problem of how to speak the truth in a world that can visit horrendous punishment on honest people and their loved ones. Remember this discussion that next time you are tempted to harshly judge some Muslim who thinks you can lie in a good cause. We’re not so very different after all.
Second, please remember that the question I have been trying to treat is simply and solely the morality of lying in a good cause, not the question of whether Lila Rose, undercover cops, spies, wartime strategists, and husbands who don’t give forthcoming answers to “Does this dress make me look fat?” are going to hell. I take it for granted that a) there are all sorts of levels of gravity and culpability in lying and that the overwhelming number of lies we tell are fibs and white lies, not huge and grave ones.
Third, I’m still thinking this one through and I’m not entirely happy. But I don’t see how to avoid the conclusion that lying is, in fact, intrinsically immoral given that the Church says it is (CCC 2485 “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”) The whole point of having a Magisterium is not that it is right where we are right, but that it is right where we are wrong. “By its very nature” means what it means, whether I like it or not.
Fourth, comparisons of Lila Rose’s sting to war or police work break down because, well, this is not war or police work. It’s not war because you are not authorized to spray your local Planned Parenthood center with machine gun fire, shoot bazookas into the offices of their national headquarters, or bomb the government institutions that fund them. You are a citizen. So are they. Your government has not declared war on them. No troops have been drafted to fight them. If you do take it upon yourself to shoot one of them, you will rightly and properly be arrested, charged with murder in the first degree, and jailed. Do not mistake metaphor for reality. For the same reason, comparisons with the cops don’t fly. The state had a right to arrest, detain, try and even execute Lee Harvey Oswald. That doesn’t mean that Jack Ruby does.
So, for instance comparisons of Lila’s tactic with ruses in war ignore the fact that ruses in war presuppose spying by the enemy. That is, they presuppose the attempt by an enemy to gain access to information to which he has no right. Depriving the enemy of information to which he has no right is not the same thing as lying, just as my refusal to share with you the contents of my last confession is not a violation of your rights. Lying is, as it were, aggressive. If I seek you out for the express purpose of telling you a falsehood, that’s a different thing than leading you to think something that you are already set on thinking (as, for example with the use of phony tanks to feed Nazi photographers misleading info, etc.) This is part of what bothers me about the tactics deployed against PP. Lila Rose went to them and, well, lied. They didn’t come to her demanding information to which they were not entitled.
As to the morality of police stings and lying in wartime, I am still frankly conflicted. My instinct is to say “They’re fine” but my instinct is not the measure of all things. Our culture’s absolute favorite moral heresy is consequentialism and I am highly distrustful of our tendency to err in favor of this heresy rather than against it. The extreme ease with which many American Catholics view even the use of torture and atomic mass murder for a good end as just ducky does not persuade me we are likely to be thinking clearly when it comes to much lesser (but still intrinsically immoral) means such as lying.
Fifth, please do not muddy the waters and poison the wells with absurd claims that somebody who expresses concern about the morality of lying for a good end is more worried about Lila Rose taking on a cover than about PP employees systematically covering up sexual abuse. I merely am saying that Lila Rose lying is not the way to end the monstrous evil of Planned Parenthood because, as Holy Church says, “CCC 1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.”
Sixth, comparisons of Lila’s sting to acting break down because acting (like fiction writing) is a particular kind of speech act in which both parties agree that the speech being spoken is pretend, not real. If I portray a character on the stage or in a film, I’m not lying to you because the credits say, “Mark Shea as Innocent Smith”. If I come to your house, tell you I’m Innocent Smith, vacuum cleaner salesman, and gain entry so that I can snoop around and photograph your property without your permission, I am lying to you.
Seventh, Lila Rose’s claim that she is justified in lying about her identity, occupation and purpose because she “represents” underage girls abused by Planned Parenthood is a formula for vigilante chaos unless she can show that she has power of attorney for the people she assumes the mantle of representing. I could just as easily announce that anything I write in this space “represents” the belief of all my readers. As my grandmother said, “Your sayin’ so don’t make it so.” Further, even if she did have actual legal claim to represent somebody, that would still not give her the right to mispresent herself by lying about her identity, occupation and purpose.
Eighth, those who are looking for some sort of ironclad dogmatic ruling from the Church on the general problem of what, precisely constitutes lying in every conceivable situation will wait long. From what I can tell, the Church has not made up its mind about how to apply its teaching about lying in every conceivable case, and you can get a real good argument among theologians about what, exactly, constitutes lying. My remarks on this represent a “good faith effort” to apply the Catechism’s teaching and are still, in part, provisional. I suspect that if you put a roomful of bishops together to chew this one over, you’d not get a monolithic verdict. That does not mean it’s impossible for us to come to any conclusions here. It means that the Church expects us to have the sense God gave a goose thinking these things through, not to pretend that every act not formally condemned by a papal encyclical—(“Pope releases formal statement condemning Mark Shea for eating bagel he knew his wife was saving for lunch”)—is opaque to our capacity for moral reasoning.
Ninth, another thing I note is that the speed with which a discussion has to hurry to remote hypotheticals (“Suppose you suffered from a rare condition which required you to wear a condom?” “What if you have an ectopic pregnancy caused by an incestuous rape and are dying of uterine cancer?” “What if you have the guy who planted the bomb under the orphanage in your custody and there’s ONLY FIFTEEN MINUTES TILL THE BOMB GOES OFF?????” “Suppose the NAZIS ARE AT YOUR VERY DOOR WITH THEIR CHINESE TORTURER FRIENDS AND YOU’VE ONLY JUST HAD TIME TO HIDE SWEET POLLY PUREBREAD IN YOUR CUPBOARD????”) is generally a sign of how desperate somebody is to justify something the Church condemns. That makes me very nervous.
Hard cases make extremely bad law. And desperate scenarios tend to make bad reality. Now to be sure, it’s only when it comes to the specific question of lying to Planned Parenthood (or “lying for Jesus” in general) that I have been directing my conclusion that it’s wrong and there’s no persuasive justification for it. Indeed, my views on the proverbial “lying to Nazis” issue are rather more nuanced. But since I don’t anticipate meeting many Nazis, I think it more profitable to deal with real world questions of lying for a good cause rather than remote hypothetical scenarios. Given the enormous popularity of consequentialism as the Number One Favorite Form of! Moral Heresy among Americans in general and Catholics in particular, I think it is best to emphasize the fact that lying is intrinsically immoral rather than to focus on remote hypotheticals that give Americans license to speed off in the direction they are already champing at the bit to go. Should the Nazis and their Chinese torturer buddies with the red hot pincers show up at the door looking for Sweet Polly Purebread who I have only just hidden in my cupboard, I would likely lie (not being able to think fast on my feet) and refer them to the non-existent cab she just drove off in, complete with license plate numbers and a convincing tale about her non-existent aunt’s house in Tacoma.
Still more, upon reflection, I reckon I would not be such an idiot as to assume that if I lie, the Gestapo would say, “Okay. Sorry to bother you. Have a nice day!”. So the real trick is not come up with a lie but to hide Sweet Polly Purebread very well. Then, instead of trusting to a lie to save her and me, I could simply say “Look for yourself!” in the confidence that my non-lying answer would in fact help to protect her by lending credibility to me while misleading her evil persecutors. So, while I’m willing to bet fibbin to Nazis is a venial sin, I’m even more willing to bet that I am eager to think all my lies are venial sins and to look for justifications for lying more than I am willing to look for ways to take seriously the Church’s teaching that lying is intrinsically immoral. I’m also willing to bet that a prolife movement that bets the farm on lionizing the use of lies for a good end is a prolife movement that will soon experience another James O’Keefe public relations catastrophe and have nobody but itself to blame since we were warned by the Church that lying is intrinsically immoral.
Tenth: you know that story about Pius XII or John XXIII making fake baptismal certificates to save Jews? Turns out it’s an urban legend. In fact, Rome urged clerics who were doing this to stop and find other ways to save Jews that didn’t involve lying. Pius XII was no slouch at saving Jews, by the way. At any rate, that what William Doino, who co-authored the piece with Dawn Eden and who is an expert on this writes me:
On the one hand, it is absolutely true that Pius XII urged and encouraged Roncalli to save Jews, as you can see in my commentary on this-quoting Roncalli’s assistant—in the anthology, The Pius War, of which I am the lead contributor:
On the other hand, there is no evidence of which I am aware—not a single statement, much less document—that shows Pius XII ever personally authorized his representatives, or anyone else, to lie or forge baptismal certificates in rescue operations (I have discussed this at length wit my Jesuit friends in Rome, in charge of Pius XII’s cause, and they concur
—that said, Pius XII was a fantastic rescuer, who DID enthusiastically instruct Catholic to rescue Jews by every possible MORAL means—that’s the key, moral-and they did, saving hundreds of thousands of persecuted Jews in the process. There were some rescuers among them who, out of doubtless good motives and intentions, forged baptismal certificates, which may or may not have helped in given circumstances (falsifying documents could also backfire, and lead to Nazi reprisals and even more death) but this was NOT authorized by Pius XII—-and as regards Roncalli, the latest and best evidence is that he did NOT utilize false baptismal certificates to rescue Jews, but rather immigration certificates and protective Vatican visas—a completely different thing, and this strategy was successful and fully endorsed by Pius XII: see the comments about that at this link here:
Eleventh: Yes, the Hebrew midwives, Rahab and Judith lied. Not only that, Israel slaughtered men, women, children and cattle in ancient semitic warfare. Care to appeal to that aspect of Old Testament morality while we’re at it? St. Thomas tells us (just like the Church today) that lying is always a sin. Honest. That’s what he says. Yes, he is nuanced in his approach (like I am) and recognizes that not all speech acts must be in conformity with flat-footed literalism. But he does not tell us “Bible characters are allow to lie and so are we.” He says:
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 short, he takes pretty much the pastoral approach that any sane confessor would by saying “No, it wasn’t right to lie, but they did the best they could in a pinch.”
Twelfth, one particularly confusing appeal to the Bible as a justification for lying ran this way:
“Were the Apostles who denied Jesus immoral or were they simply unable to summon courage from their faith at that desperate moment.”
This is a rather infelicitous way of trying to make the case that lying is just fine under certain circumstances. Were the apostles immoral cowards when they denied Jesus? Hell yes! And they felt the burning shame of it. That’s why Peter wept when the cock crowed. Trying to make the case for the morality of lying by appealing to the denial of Jesus as a precedent is like trying to make the case for the morality of murder by saying that Caiaphas’ judicial murder of Jesus ended well for us, so it’s all okay.
It is therefore a bit a of a shell game to suddenly introduce the radically different question (as my reader then did), “Will God punish them for denying Jesus on that day?” to the discussion. Again, I’m not talking about the culpability or the eternal destiny of people who lie, whether for a good cause or to save their own skins. Obviously, God has forgiven the sins of the apostles in denying Jesus. What he has not done is say, “It was morally right to deny Jesus. After all, you were saving yourself and your fellow apostles, Peter.”
Does God forgive lying for a good cause? Of course he does. Nor am I particularly persuaded that lying in a desperate situation (because you can’t think of what else to do and are doing the best you can) is much more than a venial sin (called, in English, “fibbing” or “telling a white lie”). I, at any rate, would not lose much sleep over it.
But constructing a carefully planned strategy of aggressively lying is not like that and is, I think, a very morally precarious scaffolding upon which to build the future hopes of the prolife movement. We’ve already seen it come crashing down once with Lila Rose’s friend James O’Keefe. We shouldn’t be surprised if it explodes in our faces again since, as the Church has warned, lying is intrinsically immoral. Those who do not know their master’s will and do not do it (like the person who is suddenly in a desperate situation where he can’t think of anything to do but lie to save a life) will be beaten with few blows, says our Lord. Those who do know the Master’s will (like the person who knows that it is intrinsically immoral to lie but set out to create an entire prolife strategy based on lying to Planned Parenthood) will be beaten with many blows, says our Lord. I think the prolife movement should consider strategies which do not involve us in telling lies and inviting judgement. We’ve got enough on our plate and a lot of other ways of fighting the Father of Lies than adopting his tactics. Indeed, the swiftness with which many defenders of Lila Rose are beginning to say, “Well, what else *can* she do?” is pernicious—as though all the thousands of other prolife initiatives (prayer, fasting, sacrifice, civil disobedience, political and culture involvement and persuasion, 40 Days for Life, anyone?) that do not involve our lying to anybody are old and busted and lying is the New Hotness that we must place at the core of the prolife movement. I am filled with foreboding that such thinking will only end in tears.
Thirteenth, it appears to me that a huge number of people still don’t really get what “consequentialism” (the Number One Favorite Moral Heresy of Americans) means. It does not mean “If I tell a lie in order to get rich, hurt my enemy, or gain fame that’s bad, but if I tell a lie to help somebody that’s good.” It means “There is no justification for telling lies or doing any other intrinsically immoral act.” No. Really. That’s what it means. To repeat: “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 problem with saying “We can lie for Jesus to save lives” is that it’s also an argument that we can lie for Jesus to save souls. There are plenty of religious zealots who have no desire for self-advancement and no intention of personal monetary gain who would argue that if you can fake a miracle for Jesus that will “win souls” then you should do it. Paul says “their condemnation is deserved”. That’s because, as he says, you cannot live by the principle “Let Us Do Evil that Good May Come of It.” That is, in the end, what is being argued for when you say that you can lie in a good cause.
Fourteenth: it’s important to understand what is and is not being said here. What is emphatically not being said is “Lila Rose’s sin of lying is equal to or greater than the sin of PP.” Of course not. Personally, I think both the gravity of and the culpability for the sin of lying here is mighty small and I hope God gives us a million more like Lila Rose.
But I also note that the attempt to deny that consequentialism (such as the theory that lying is not a sin when done by Our Team for a Good Cause) is wrong destroys Catholic moral teaching down to its very foundations. That’s what’s at stake here. That’s why it’s extremely important to be careful what we say. Again, consequentialism is The Favorite Moral Heresy of Americans (including the majority of American Catholics). As long as something “works”, Americans are typically fine with it. The problem is, this thinking undergirds not just the people who support Lila Rose, but the people Lila Rose opposes. Abortion “works”. It solves a problem. Embrace ends-justifies-the-means thinking and you destroy the logical basis for opposition to abortion (and all other Catholic morality) too.
Fifteenth, one other false theology tends to rear its ugly head whenever the subject of abortion comes up. It is summed up in this comment from a reader:
Let’s see, Lila maybe lying. We can not judge her heart. We can judge her actions.
And on the other hand, 50+ million dead due to the intrinsic evil of abortion in the US since Roe v. Wade. We can judge the actions of PP personnel.
Now what was that Catechism section on the gravity of sins?
Nobody’s saying the sins are of equal gravity. What I am saying is that lying is called an intrinsically immoral act by Holy Church because, you know, it is. The pernicious and newly minted moral theory that opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world is rank heresy. Declaring that something the Church says is intrinsically immoral to be A-OK just so long as you are prolife is a peculiar new form of idolatry in that it declares that opposition to abortion, not Jesus, takes away our sins. I still hold with the old-fashioned Catholic doctrine that the Lamb of God, not our opposition to abortion, takes away the sin of the world.
Sixteenth: the repeated attempt to argue, “According to the CCC, the intent has to be to lead someone into error. Lila’s intent was not to lead PP into error, but to reveal their error to themselves and the world. Thus, according to the CCC, her actions fail to satisfy the criterion of intent in order to qualify as a lie” breaks down quickly as soon as we use another example. To wit:
“I don’t want to lead anybody into error. I want to lead them to believe in Jesus, the way, the truth, and the life, which is vastly more important than saving mere mortal life. Therefore, I will be telling sinners (who have no right to the truth anyway) that I was miraculously healed of cancer after an apparition of the Blessed Virgin (even though I wasn’t and there was no apparition). I hope to make many converts from this and to help them expose and renounce their error of disbelief to themselves and to the world for the glory of God. Thus, according to the CCC, my actions fail to satisfy the criterion of intent in order to qualify as a lie.”
Seventeenth: One of the things I have discovered over the years is that when you accurately quote passages like Veritatis Splendor 80 or CCC 1753 in order to point out that consequentialist arguments are bad, it won’t be too long before somebody declares that you reading these texts like a Pharisee. The charge is, in fact, true. And I can even name the Pharisee. He is called Paul (Romans 3:8).
And finally, there seems to be perennial confusion over the distinction between deception (which can be permissible) and lying, which never is permissible. Repeatedly, people have attempted to invoke the Church’s caveat that we are not bound to give the truth to people who have no right to it as a justification for Lila Rose’s tactics.
It just ain’t so.
Saying that we are not bound to give the truth to people with no right to it does not mean “You have carte blanche to lie to anybody you regard as bad.” It means that when people demand information of us to which they have no right, we have the right to deny them that. The logic that this covers marching into PP and lying to their faces means that Christians are free to march up to anybody and lie whenever they like just so long as they tell themselves, “I didn’t owe that person the truth because he’s a sinner.” It’s a formula for moral chaos and the nullification of the word of God for the sake of an extremely dubious human tradition of moral reasoning. We are not authorized by the Church to go knock on the doors of people we deem to be sinners and lie to their faces while telling ourselves we are doing it for a good cause. Once more with feeling: “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.” How you *feel* about lying to bad people may be an interesting insight into your personal subjective mood at the moment, but is valueless in determining how, as Catholics, we are to respond to the teaching of Holy Church. I myself share the gleeful mood over exposing PP, but so what? Who made you and me the measure of all things?
The distinction about the hoary “Nazis at the door” analogy and this situation is precisely who is doing the knocking on the door. In this case, it’s prolifers knocking on PPs door for the express purpose of coming in and lying to them, not hapless victims trying to fend off people with no right to the truth. I just don’t see how that can be justified by any reasonable understanding of what the word “lying” means in English nor by any reasonable understanding of what the Catechism means when it declares: “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.”
Believe me. I’d love to find a loophole here because my loathing for PP is intense. But, well, I can’t get around the fact that what I’m desperately looking for is a loophole in much the same way that every other clever person who wants to dodge the bleedin’ obvious meaning of clear language does whenever they want to do something they know perfectly well is wrong. So I’m forced, even in the attempt to bend language out of all recognizable meaning, back to the fact that I know what “lying” means, I know what the Church says, and I know this is lying for a good end, which is as wrong here as it is when faking up a miracle to save somebody’s soul.
Comments
Post a Comment
I couldn’t agree more. My brain hurts from this discussion, but I believe that I’ve come away with a new, or at least better, understanding of church teaching on this. I will be giving much greater thought to the meaning and truthfulness of my words!
Mark, thank you for laying all of this out with such clarity and charity. You are right on this, absolutely right.
Yes, thank you for this interesting and enlightening conversation/debate. May I just reiterate the immense risk of using a behavior that is intrinsically disordered to do good. It still hurts the soul (we know from experience that even a tiny fib does this). It leads us away from Truth. We should be focused on the Truth, and not allow ourselves to use the weapons of the ‘great deceiver’, however good our intentions or beneficial it may seem.
ps- I still think the Lord of the Rings analogy is pretty spot-on.
According to St Ignatius Loyola, “no immoral means justify the ends, regardless of how meritious the ends may be considered”. Thanks for your clear well written arguments presented here!
May I also add, Mr Shea, that before you brought up the topic, I had never considered the morality of these actions (no spidey-sense at all on this one) and only celebrated the result of exposing PP. Thank you for bringing this to light and I will try to apply this in other parts of my life. Sincerely,
It always seems to me like a lack of trust in God. Because we can’t believe that He will work this (abortion) out for us, helping us and blessing our efforts when we use clearly good and permitted methods towards saving the mothers and babies, we must therefore turn to questionable and sinful methods in order to get the job done. This mindset could be applied to anything, and is always going to be corrupting and harmful.
Thank you!
“Whack-a-mole… usually because they’ve never thought about it” is extremely condescending.
I think you are wrong on this one.
First off,you say that this sting can’t be compared to police work because they don’t have the authority to arrest. But they did not arrest, or attempt to arrest. If I see a light on in my neighbor’s empty house I am not usurping police authority to investigate. It is the right and duty of citizens to “whistle blow” when they believe crimes are being committed.
Secondly, I would argue that the whole “lying” thing rests on the right of the person asking to know the truth. Does someone have a right to information when the sole purpose of getting it is to allow them to (continue to) harm others? Under what circumstance do you think someone has a right to what information?
Lastly, I’ve seen convincing double effect defenses, such as http://adorotedevote.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-defense-of-lila-rose-and-live-action.html
Kudos, Mark.
Lots of us, including myself, are “cut to the heart” by your truth-seeking and willingness to question the ambient consequentialism. Once we start to realize what’s wrong with this error, the more we see it everywhere, including in ourselves.
Explicitly rejecting consequentialism has got to be a key to bridging the separation of faith from life in contemporary Christianity. I feel there is too little love for truth and for God’s word in me and those around me, such a panicked search for worldly effectiveness.
@Mike,
The fact that someone doesn’t have a right to the truth in a particular circumstance does not mean that one can lie to him. One can equivocate, remain silent, ask a question, etc. The point is that one cannot lie.
Double effect does not apply because the means used in double effect must be morally good or at least morally neutral, and lying is neither.
This is from Fr. Frank Pavone’s blog. God Bless. :
David says:
February 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
Thanks for your question, Jacqueline. Father Frank has actually commented about this precise matter before. In response to inquiries about the morality of Live Action’s approach (since it necessarily involves a degree of deception and dishonesty), Father stated that he is fully supportive of Live Action’s activities, since “every war needs spies.” Even though obviously the Catholic Church teaches that lying is a sin, Father Frank is basically of the opinion that exceptional measures are warranted when dealing with a matter as gravely evil as abortion (just as the use of spies is warranted in wartime – in both situations, the acquisition of information which would otherwise be impossible to obtain can result in the preservation of numerous lives).
From EWTN’s Q&A :
Dear Miguel
Theologians with whom we have consulted agree that LIVE ACTION film representatives are ACTING; they are investigative reporters who have identified real life victims and are presenting their stories in order to gain documented evidence on Planned Parenthood’s hidden agenda.
As far as we are concerned, this is not a sin; it is a tactic.
Judie Brown
Mark-
You are still MISSING the question. The question is NOT: “Can you lie for a good cause?”
The question is: “Is what Live Action did against Church Teaching?”
CCC 2483: To lie is to speak or act against the truth in ORDER TO LEAD SOMEONE INTO ERROR.
We do not need to visit the “good cause” question at all. We do not need to look at the “the ends” of this situation at all. We merely need to know that Live Action DID NOT mislead IN ORDER TO LEAD PP INTO ERROR.
Therefore, they did not “LIE.”
Fr. Pavone’s position is basically that the ends justify the means. But this is rejected by the Church.
Mrs. Brown is simply wrong that the Live Action agents are acting. Actors don’t generally intent to deceive; Live Action does intend to deceive—they could not get information otherwise—therefore their falsehoods are actual lies.
Whew!!! “This Rock” magazine article in 2008 on lying is interesting. “It would satisfy a well-formed conscience to permit the speaking of falsehood when it is the only means we think of to prevent someone from committing an immoral act”. I have to agree with Father Frank Pavone. I invite every one of you to go to PPLA Santa Monica Food Faire and look under donations to Planned Parenthoods silent auction. Under entertainment you will find J.Serra Catholic High School(one of many illecit examples)as one of the donations. I would dare say, as we have found out, that they are the using the good name of many people (we have found out) to promote their evil orgainization. How do you fight evil? Persistant and pervasive evil. I say that there times when telling a lie is the least our worries.
@choirloft,
First of all, the definition of “lie” is given in CCC 2482, not 2483. Second of all, if the PP counselors believe that the Live Action agents are pimps and prostitutes, then they have been lead into error. Therefore, yes, Live Action did indeed lie.
Sorry Mark, but I think many have gotten so wrapped up in the theology and moral theory that they’ve missed the forest for the trees. Yes, I believe the moral theology of the Church, but that must ultimately be brought down to earth or it’s meaningless.
The WWII analogy is completely valid in this case as it was then. Playing little games like trying not to tell the Nazis about the Jews but not technically lying is just silly. The answer to the Nazis is a plain simple NO. A lie? yes, Sinful? NO. Killing is intrinsically wrong, but can be moral in certain circumstances. The same goes for any other intrinsically wrong act. Yes, great care must be taken to avoid the slippery slope. But in down-to-earth reality, deceiving a mass murderer (PP) to expose their evil is justified. You said this is not a war. I disagree. They (PP) are just as evil as the Nazis in killing millions of children.
An example: The pro-abortion politicians try to play word games with abortion by bringing out the rape and incest exemption. This is also theory getting in the way of reality. If killing a 2 year old is wrong in all circumstances, then killing a 3 month pre-born is also. I find it helpful to sort it out in my own mind by switching terms, a logical trick I learned from an old professor. If there is no moral difference between a pre-born baby and a 2 year old, switch the terms and see if the argument still makes sense. So in the case of the rape or incest exemption, try saying: “It’s ok to kill your 2 year old if he was conceived in rape or incest”. Clearly this is wrong, and so is saying the same thing about a pre-born.
In PP and this lying case, we’re dealing with a group that kills innocent children daily. This is indeed, war. Sitting around wringing our hands about deceiving the killer is just trying to play word games, and possibly justify our inaction, much like happened in Germany in WWII.
I know this is a very difficult concept Mark, and I don’t fault you on your reasoning. I just think a little more down to earth common sense is needed. My not so humble opinion.
@dcs,
CCC 2482 says, “a lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving”. Saying a lie consists only means that a lie must contain those elements, but it doesn’t mean that everything with those elements is a lie.
CCC 2483 states, “to lie is to . . .lead someone into error.” This further narrows what a lie is. Live Action has not done this. I believe error is to be interpretted in a moral, or theological sense, not a mere mathematical error.
What error has PP been lead into?
PP has been lead to erroneously believe that these characters were pimps? I do not think that is the kind of “error” CCC 2483 intends.
Mike, I’ll tackle your issues in order (even though I’m not Mark),
1) There’s a huge difference between checking a neighbor’s empty house and entering a business and lying to the employees. Yes, we have a right and duty to whistle-blow, but not a right to lie to obtain information leading to the whistle-blowing. The issue is lying period. Going beyond that is consequentialism. Live Action has the right to go into a Planned Parenthood. They don’t have a right to directly lie to the employees, although deception seems to be okay (something I’m still uncomfortable with…I’ll get to that).
2) The right of the person asking…the actors walked into the PP, the employees asked a question. They have the right to a truthful answer. Any justification for lying to them is either based on consequentialism (I’m lying for a good cause) or judgement (they don’t deserve the truth because they’re working for an evil organization). But the Catechism doesn’t say “you can lie to your enemies”.
3) The problem with a double-effect defense is that it doesn’t apply in this case. Double effect is something like removing a section of fallopian tube in danger of bursting (direct act) in the case of an ectopic pregnancy resulting in the death of a baby (secondary effect). The ectopic pregnancy could also be ended by directly acting on the baby, but that would be immoral. In the case of Live Action, the direct act was to lie. There was no secondary effect, at least not as far as double-effect goes.
Furthermore, applying such logic as in the linked article (and in other comments I’ve seen) is covered by Mark above where he talks about the gravity of the sin. No, Live Action actors lying to PP employees is not as grave as the abortion of 50+ million children in the US. (I think abortion in the whole world has claimed more lives than we have people in the US). That doesn’t change the immorality of lying, nor justify its use, and the same logic can be used to justify murder of an abortionist.
—
I personally have an issue with deception. Since lying is “the most direct offense against the truth” (CCC2483), and lying can be accomplished through actions and not just words (“To lie is to speak or act against the truth” CCC2483), it would seem to me that deception through action, intended to fool someone, is likewise sinful if the deceived has a right to know the truth (which covers deceptions meant for spies, and also something like me having a file on my computer called “passwords” that contains false information in case hackers steal it…I don’t keep passwords on my computer ;)). The hard part, I guess, is determining who has the right to know the truth in a given situation.
One question I still have is one I asked in Pat Archbold’s post…if someone asks me for my SSN I can just deny to tell them since they don’t have the right to know. Is it also moral for me to give them a fake number? In other words, to lie. Based on a strict interpretation of 2483, it would seem so. 2489 suggests silence or discreet language, but doesn’t impose it.
I think semantics plays a huge part here - to mislead, to misrepresent, to decieve…all are PART of the Church’s defintion of LYING. What the Church actually calls the SIN of LYING involves more than just the misleading, misrepresentation and deception. It INVOLVES “the INTENT to lead into ERROR.”
From CCC 2485: “The culpability is greater when the INTENTION of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are LED ASTRAY.”
Note: It does NOT say “culpability is greater when the DECEPTION entails the risk…”
So, if everyone would use the terms appropriately and not broadly, maybe we would all be talking about the same thing….‘deception’ does not equal the term ‘lying’ as it is used in the CCC. Deception is NOT always WRONG. Lying IS always WRONG.
I can’t imagine anything more sanctimonious than this effort to suggest that people who support Lila Rose are immoral people who tell lies. What have you done for the unborn lately Mr Shea? Wring your hands, pray and sigh for wo for all flesh is weak and mortal. Faith without works is dead Mr Shea. And the more you defend your position, the more you dig your heels in for your obstinate pharisaical convictions. Must I remind people that this is a war and that sometimes you have to do unpleasant things so that other people do not do more unpleasant things. I thank God that people like Lila Rose work every day to being the reality of abortion to an end in this country. I bid Mr Shea to some to his sense of reason. Please.
If the police analogy doesn’t work for your Mark (and I do appreciate your points to prevent vigilante efforts)—I suppose if they were consideree journalists—and posed much as 60 minutes might—to reveal and broadcast wrongs to their audience—it would pass the acid test??
@ Matthew A. Siekierski: “Is it also moral for me to give them a fake number? In other words, to lie. Based on a strict interpretation of 2483, it would seem so. 2489 suggests silence or discreet language, but doesn’t impose it.”
Lying-deception meant to lead someone into error.
Does telling the person a wrong number lead them into error? Probably not moral error. But, you likely are causing them some grief as: 1.they spend time trying to enter the number and keep getting error messages 2. the reason they need the number can’t be completed.
I suppose you might be leading them to moral error if you know they are going to use the number for ill, and instead of just saying, “I’m not telling you, you don’t have a right to my number,” you give them a number and fully expect they will then try to use it in an illegal fashion - it’s like the police sting offering the money for drugs and enticing someone to then sell when they wouldn’t have freely sold otherwise.
I’m not a consequentialist.
I agree with Mike and his link: http://adorotedevote.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-defense-of-lila-rose-and-live-action.html
Convince me otherwise….
Thank you for such thoughtful discussion. I suppose I would feel more comfortable with Live Action if they had taken a slightly different approach. Rather than “posing” as a pimp and prostitute, would it be morally permissable to send someone into the clinic, with video surveillance, stating something like, “I have some hypothetical questions. How would you handle a situation if I happened to bring in an underage, non-English speaking girl that is employed as a prostitute, who happened to get pregnant?” etc. On the one hand, I suppose someone could deduct that this person was *implying* he was a pimp. On the other hand, he wouldn’t be lying - just merely failing to correct any misinterpretation on the part of a PP clinic worker. Or is this still under the same heading? The problem isn’t simply that PP is clearly engaged in immoral, unethical, and illegal activities across the board—it’s also that those with legal authority have not done anything substantive to investigate or correct such action. So how to solve the problem? I think, Mr. Shea, that you are spot-on with reminding all of us that we can engage in activites such as 40 Days for Life (which begins in just a couple weeks!) and that, as this is a type of spiritual warfare, we must engage our spiritual weapons. Only then will the battle be won.
I’ve noticed that some of the people who agree with Mark that Lila is lying are not posting under their real given names. Is’t that deceptive? Does that constitute a lie?
1. Fr.Frank is considered a person of great moral weight on this particular subject.
2. I think we could say that LiveAction is NOT leading PP and employees into error but into the truth for PP et all are objectively in error already and need LiveActions work. Peace.
2.
Mark Shea: Do you have a problem with my reasoning? Namely that what the Church actually calls the SIN of LYING involves more than just the misleading, misrepresentation and deception. It INVOLVES “the INTENT to lead into ERROR.”
The way I see it, if you still want to call what Live Action did LYING according to the Church, you will have to point out how you think Live Action INTENDED to lead PP to ERROR. (Note: do not look at after effects, look at intent.)
“Whack-a-mole… usually because they’ve never thought about it” is extremely condescending.
It’s not meant to be. It’s meant to be jocular, particular since I very much count myself among those who have never given this issue much thought till this week. But the simple fact is, when you have to give the same answer 50 times to every fresh combox writer who says, “Yes, but have you ever thought about lying to Nazis?” you are playing whack-a-mole.
@choirloft, the underlying quote from CCC 2482 (cited accurately in the official Latin edition, I understand—the English is a bit of a loose translation) is from St. Augustine’s De mendacio:
“But none doubts that it is a lie when a person willingly utters a falsehood for the purpose of deceiving: wherefore a false utterance put forth with will to deceive is manifestly a lie.”
Therefore, if someone says something he believes to be false with the intention of deceiving his listener(s), he has lied. There is no indication in CCC 2483 that error is limited to “moral error,” “theological error,” etc. I think Mr. Shea addresses this well in his article above. If we limit 2483 to mean “moral error” then there should be no problem with deceiving people to become Catholic. They would not be lead to moral error but to moral truth.
@Matthew A. Siekierski, if someone has a right to the truth, we cannot employ any sort of deception against them, not silence, not equivocation, etc.
@Richard: “I think we could say that LiveAction is NOT leading PP and employees into error but into the truth for PP et all are objectively in error already.”
Almost there. Not INTENDING to lead into error IS NOT THE SAME AS leading OUT of error.
Not leading into error is simply that. There is no other stipulation of where you are leading them to or from. Just not INTO ERROR. You might be leading them to a morally NEUTRAL place. As such, it is not into error, and would not by LYING according to the CHURCH.
Reason would also tell me that if my INTENTION was NOT to lead to ERROR, but my action had that effect - I would be culpable of some sin. Likewise, if I deceived with INTENT to lead to error, but in reality the error did not come to pass, because of my intent I would have sinned (even with no actual error being evidenced.)
Brian F. Hudson:
I’ve noticed that some of the people who agree with Mark that Lila is lying are not posting under their real given names. Is’t that deceptive? Does that constitute a lie?
Please. First, you don’t have a right to their names. Second, we’re on the internet, and there is an implicit agreement that people who don’t wish to share their personal information with you make use of avatars and screen names. It’s an inherent part of this internet identity.
dcs makes a correct statement as far as those who are trying to equivocate about leading people into error.
This is a war. We are in a war. This is our modern day holocaust, the extermination of several hundred million people deemed non-human, and due to all of their family trees that have been stopped dead cold in their progressions. THIS IS A WAR. And the evil enemy is hidden in abortion mills and must be exposed. I wonder if we would be having this discussion if we had had undercover investigative (unpaid at that!) young people uncover evil in the White House? This is a matter of saving lives, innocent lives and is a matter of national security, our human family is in severe critical condition. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Shea wholeheartedly. The whole premise that what Live Action is doing is wrong just places undue division and what feels like unnecessary opposition in the prolife work that so many brave, courageous men and women are enaged in. Stop it already indeed!
@dcs: “then there should be no problem with deceiving people to become Catholic. They would not be lead to moral error but to moral truth.”
Again-it does not matter how the cards fall. What matters is your INTENT. Do you intend to lead them into ERROR? Of course you did - they would NOT have the full TRUTH of the Church (if you fed them deceptions.) And, with such misinformation - you are setting them up to NOT be able to have a well-formed conscience.
Such is the Bishop who lets vociferous pro-abortion parishioners receive Communion. He is ‘telling’ a lie to get them to say “Amen.” He has led them into error, has he not?
Sheila, this is not a war. If it were a war then it would be acceptable for us to riddle PP with bullet holes.
@JS: “If it were a war then it would be acceptable for us to riddle PP with bullet holes.”
Not really. It has to do with proportionality. If there is a less traumatic way to get it done, you should choose that method.
Choirloft:
I’m really busy. You are simply rehashing the argument I already refuted in point 16. Lies do not cease to be lies merely because they are deployed for some good intention.
Everybody: Lots of people are likewise simply reasserting other points (“You are a pharisee” is 17. “This is WAR!” is 4. “What about lying to Nazis?” is 9. “This is just acting” is 6). I’m working on a big project and won’t be able to respond much, if at all. So if those who have actually been willing to read the article rather than simply glance at the title or first paragraph before lapsing into consequentialist talking points, false analogies, and dubious logic could just reply to the people offering the same old arguments with the appropriate number, that will save me time. I’ve already talked the hind leg off a donkey on this. Re-writing stuff I’ve already written for the benefit of those who can’t be bothered to read the piece is not something I feel like doing. So I think a simple rousing game of numbers such as
What about lying to Nazis? Have you ever thought of that, eh?
Answer: 9!
This is acting!
Answer: 6!
...will speed things up and save us all time.
http://adorotedevote.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-defense-of-lila-rose-and-live-action.html
which number?
@Mark Shea: “You are simply rehashing the argument I already refuted in point 16. Lies do not cease to be lies merely because they are deployed for some good intention.”
No, Mark. I am NOT rehashing your argument. There is a difference you are refusing to acknowledge. It is not due to “because they are deployed for some good intention.” Like I noted, for deception to be LYING it needs to have INTENTION behind it…intention to LEAD into error. This has no bearing on the actual outcome.
As I mentioned before: Reason would also tell me that if my INTENTION was NOT to lead to ERROR, but my action had that effect - I would be culpable of some sin. Likewise, if I deceived with INTENT to lead to error, but in reality the error did not come to pass, because of my intent I would have sinned (even with no actual error being evidenced.)
I admit it is a fine line…but, sometimes those lines DO MATTER.
I meant spiritual warfare. As Catholics, we are in the Church Militant and engaged in warfare every moment of everyday. We are soldiers.
And we do have weapons at our disposal that are moe powerful than guns and bullets. Use them comrades. I use the language of a Christian soldier. ;o) We are not at peace in this world. Only spiritual peace of Christ is present in our souls. Peace be with you.
@Mark Shea: ” I’ve already talked the hind leg off a donkey on this. Re-writing stuff I’ve already written for the benefit of those who can’t be bothered to read the piece is not something I feel like doing.”
You offered a new blog today - not us:-) I think you are really wanting us all to see things YOUR way. I HAVE read your stuff. I just don’t think you have it reasoned out correctly, that’s all.
“Lies do not cease to be lies merely because they are deployed for some good intention.”
....IS NOT the same as….
“Misrepresentations and deceptions DO cease to be LYING according to the Church IFF they are not uttered with the INTENTION to lead (the victim)into error.”
It matters not one HOOT what the intention is, AS LONG AS it is NOT to lead INTO error.
Sheila:
Authentic spiritual warfare does not include lying in its arsenal.
@rob,
“Adoro Te Devote” asks “Can the sin of lying or killing ever be mitigated?”
The problem is that killing is not intrinsically evil (three examples when it is not: (1) in defense of self or another, (2) the death penalty, and (3) in a just war), while lying is.
“According to the doctrine of double effect, yes it can be.”
In order for double effect to apply, the act must be morally good or at least morally neutral. Killing is morally neutral (it is the circumstances that make it evil), lying is not (it is evil in all circumstances). So double effect can never apply to lies, since a lie is evil in itself.
Hope this helps.
Excellent article, Mark. You are spot on. Yes, the truth can be difficult, but who said Christianity was easy?
@dcs: “lying is not (it is evil in all circumstances). So double effect can never apply to lies, since a lie is evil in itself.”
I agree - double effect does not work well in defense of misrepresentaion or deception.
However - you have to watch the semantics - by ‘lie’ you must mean ‘what the Catholic Church teaches is a LIE.’ Yes, the Church does teach that all LYING is evil/wrong. However, the Church DOES NOT consider all ‘falsehoods uttered’ to by LYING.
The question IS NOT: “Can Live Action LIE for a good cause?”
The question that pertains is: “Is what Live Action did considered to be LYING according to the Church?” Merely ‘uttering a falsehood’ is NOT LYING if you do not have the intention to lead into error behind it.
The Latin agrees, by the way: “...for the purpose of deceiving: wherefore a false utterance put forth with will to deceive is manifestly a lie.” DECEIVE involves falsehood or the deliberate concealment or misrepresentation of the truth WITH INTENT TO LEAD ANOTHER INTO ERROR OR TO DISADVANTAGE.” (Amer. Heritage Dictionary)
Even St. Augustine noted…it is the INTENT behind the falsehood. Thanks for pointing that out.
Mark, I do appeciate your warning to all of us to not lie. I appreciate your open and honest struggle with this. I absolutely understand the gravity of immoral lies. I feel that perhaps you are not understanding the gravity of the lies and deceptions of PP. Let’s attack their ways! I support the way that Live Action is exposing the evil of what PP is founded on. I wish everyone understood the gravity of how many people have died because of the immoral lies and deception of abortion AND Planned Deathhood. Live Action is akin to David bringing down Goliath, aka Planned Deathhood. I pray now that Abby Johnson has joined them that their strategic tactics bring Goliath to death.(close them down)
I wrote this up this morning, referencing something I read by Fr. Groeschel:
http://oxyparadoxy.blogspot.com/2011/02/lying-game.html
@choirloft,
Good grief! Live Action did most certainly lead PP into error or disadvantage; PP never would have said what it did if they had not erroneously believed the agents to be actual pimps/prostitutes/sex traffickers. Their intention was to deceive—or to be precise, the intention of the act was to deceive, even though we might say that the overall intention of the agent was to “expose Planned Parenthood.” The reason the agents were successful is because they deceived PP into thinking they were who they claimed to be.
I’m sorry, but this whole “lead into error” defense of LiveAction is about the dumbest argument I’ve read in a good long while.
Of course the LiveAction people intended to lead the PP workers into error. They told PP staffers that they were pimps/prostitutes so that the PP staffers would speak and act as they would to pimps/prostitutes, which the LiveAction people were not. If the PP staffers didn’t commit the error of believing the people across their desks were pimps/prostitutes then there would be no point in the sting at all.
But more importantly, in generating a scenario that tempted the PP staffers to do something gravely evil (i.e. cover up child prostitution), under the clear expectation that some of the PP staffers would bite at the bait (other, sagain, why bother with the sting), the LiveAction folks tempted another human being into committing what is likely objectively a mortal sin. That is absolutely never ever OK.
Did the PP staffers do something wrong - something that further endagered their own souls - by offering to disregard and even cover up child prostitution? Of course they did. Their behavior is wicked. But they wouldn’t have done so unless prompted to by the LiveAction agents. The LiveAction agents created a circumstance in which a grave sin, with eternal consequences for the sinner, that otherwise would not have been committed, could indeed be committed. That’s flat our wrong. Period.
They didn’t merely “expose” evil on the part of PP, they deliberately and knowingly facilitated that evil.
@sd: “They didn’t merely “expose” evil on the part of PP, they deliberately and knowingly facilitated that evil.”
Did PP have every opportunity to provide answers that complied with state law? Of course they did!! Live Action did not ‘intend to lead PP to error.’ PP should be answering these questions, whether from a REAL pimp or from a ‘fake’ pimp in the same manner - according to state law and regulation.
The crux of the matter is this:
This isn’t religion this is politics.
Politics MUST be consequentialist. If it isn’t consequentialist it isn’t politics, it’s transcendence.
Why? The ends is always the goal in politics because if it weren’t it would lose it’s purpose in the first place, which is to secure power for your point of view or platform. If the consequences are that you lose—even temporarily—the path can’t be chosen.
This is why whenever Christ was forced to take a political position by the Pharisee’s and the Saducees he transcends the question. He allows no political trap to ensare him. He flips coins to Ceasar and builds the kingdom amongst his friends. Don’t you think there was an argument for over throwing Roman colonization? Because it worked against Jewish values?
Of course there was—and someone amongst the twelve was constantly making it.
This why the sin of Judas Iscariot the Zealot (which is actually what Live Action is called by pro-Choice activists) is not that he betrayed Christ out of malice.
He did it to FORCE CHRIST’S hand.
We betray because we wish to force an outcome. We betray because we have little faith that fidelity will accomplish anything. We betray because patience and prudence have flown out the window and a thirst for justice runs wild. (All of the vices are virtues run amok.)
I mean this with all your heart—don’t seek solutions in political expedience. From
Catena Aurea, St. Thomas’s commentary on today’s gospel:
“as if He said, I call you to those good things which a man should wish for, I do not force you to evil and burdensome things; for he who does violence to his hearer, often stands in his way; but he who leaves him free, rather draws him to himself.”
He never forces burdensome or evil things—nor does he ask you to do violence to the hearer, for her realizes the “target” must be set free to choose good or choose evil—that is when we will find that he is drawn toward us.
In that instant—PP is out of customers.
Naive, foolish? Fool for Christ, are we not called to be?
(Why has my grammar turned to Yoda?)
@dcs: The reason the agents were successful is because they deceived PP into thinking they were who they claimed to be.
No, the reason Live Action has anything to show us is that PP itself caused their own error - by doing things they by law are not to be doing. Live Action did not go in there with an INTENT to make PP error. PP had EVERY opportunity to answer those questions IN LINE with state law. The fact that PP did not answer appropriately is not commensurate on whether it was a REAL pimp or a fake pimp.
@choirloft
“Live Action did not go in there with an INTENT to make PP error.”
Of course they did. They told PP staffers falsehoods so that they would act under the assumption that those falsehoods were corrects. That’s the definition of error.
You (and many others on this comment thread) seem to be defining “error” as “moral error.” Moral error is one type of error of course, but its not the only type. There is also plain old garden variety “I think X to be true when in fact its not true” error. And telling falsehoods with the intent to lead others into error is a sin and that is most certainly what was done here.
@dcs: “First of all, the definition of “lie” is given in CCC 2482, not 2483. Second of all, if the PP counselors believe that the Live Action agents are pimps and prostitutes, then they have been lead into error. Therefore, yes, Live Action did indeed lie. “
Wrong. CCC 2482 merely descibes what a lie consists of, falsehoods and deception. CCC 2484 tells us what a lie EQUATES to. You cannot dismiss the fact that CCC 2484 specifies “. . .in order to lead someone into error.”
As Mark Shea has already conceded, not every falsehood or deception meets the definition of a lie. Those falsehoods that lack the “in order to lead someone into wrongdoing” are not lies.
If you believe that PP has never dealt with the issue of how to handle sex trafficking clients, and when Live Action came this was the first these employees had to dealt with such a situation you may have a point.
But the evidence suggests otherwise. This looks like a sting, not entrapment.
Oops. My goof. Where I wrote 2484, please read as 2483.
Mark,
I agree with your points as stated in the article, but I have a question about the lies that are venial sins. You mention that you have no big problem with them in certain cases (Nazis…). But isn’t even a venial sin an offense against God? And if so, doesn’t that mean that God desires a different course of action. Then how can we be said to be doing the “best we can”, and what is that God-desired course of action?
Those falsehoods that lack the “in order to lead someone into wrongdoing” are not lies.
Answer: Point 16.
@Black Jaque Janaviac
“Those falsehoods that lack the “in order to lead someone into wrongdoing” are not lies.”
Whoa whoa whoa now. The word used in the Catechism is “error” not “wrongdoing.” Unless you’re relying on another Church teaching document which defines lies as only those falsehoods that are meant to lead another into doing something wrong, then you’ve over-written a word that can (and indeed, usually does) refer to simple misunderstanding of facts with a word that refers particulalrly to morally bad behavior.
I would be shocked if you had found such a document, because if so then the Church would be teaching that uttering falsehoods in the course of committing fraud isn’t lying (after all, you’re only trying to take advantage of the hearer, not lead him to do something bad). Not very likely.
In any event though, even if a falsehood can only be described as a lie if it leads another into wrongdoing that still doesn’t get LiveAction off the hook because that is exactly what they did. They said false things that led to PP staffers committing sins. Yes, the PP staffers bear primary moral responsibility for those sins. But if I give a drug addict a bag of cocaine the fact the he bears primary moral responsibility for using the cocaine doesn’t mean that I haven’t done some deeply wrong.
Mark, yet another clear and convincing presentation of the subject.
Over at The New Theological Movement, I have been shocked by the comments some people have left—while many call me a legalistic “Pharisee”, others claim that I am secretly supporting Planned Parenthood!
While some say that I am reading the Catechism in isolation, others take isolated passages of Scripture and draw their own conclusions (apart from the Church).
What strikes me is this ... many people who know nothing (or almost nothing) about moral theology are opining at will on this issue—for example, claiming that the direct use of a lie in order to bring about a good could fit under the principle of “double-effect”—I refer here to blog articles, not merely to comments.
This is very sad, since those who write such articles are leading people into philosophical (and sometimes theological) error ... which is a very serious thing.
It’s not that I think only “scholars” should be able to have blogs, but I do wish that those who have not spent at least 8 or 9 years studying philosophy and theology would at least have a bit of humility before vomiting forth their opinions…
Im with you Mark. As a matter of fact I am having a discussion on this with some good Catholic gals at the moment.
Phillip:
My point is not to say “Venial sins are fine” but simply to give my subjective account of what I would likely do given the fact that I am a doofus who is not fast on my feet and who has not thought the matter through. Venial sins are indeed an offense against God. I commit a lot of them anyway because I’m weak, stupid, and prone to give in to temptation. So are most of us. And so, when we are in a pinch, we do the best we can and hope God will supply the lack. That’s not an argument for more lack. It’s just an assessment of how things are on the ground as I schlep along in a messy world.
I have been shocked by the comments some people have left—while many call me a legalistic “Pharisee”, others claim that I am secretly supporting Planned Parenthood!
See points 5 and 17. Blessed are you when men say all manner of evil against you for His sake.
I propose a thought experiment. Suppose two pro-abortion advocates present themselves at a crisis pregnancy center as a pregnant woman and her boyfriend, ambivalent about the pregnancy and seeking abortion, but willing to listen to what the pro-life people say first. But they actually have a hidden camera, and they hope to catch the CPC volunteers violating the law.
Now, suppose that these activists catch on camera a well-meaning but misguided volunteer telling the woman that her six-weeks-gestation baby is much more developed than a baby actually is at six weeks, that most if not all women attempt suicide within three months after an abortion, that every abortion definitely threatens a woman’s health, and other things that aren’t true. Assuming that the volunteer *knows* that these things are untrue (e.g., she’s not just confused) consider the following:
1. Is the volunteer free from the sin of lying because she thinks she is trying to save a baby?
2. Are the activists guilty of lying, since in fact they’re just presenting a hypothetical situation similar to the Live Action people—though, of course, opposite in what they pretend to be and what they hope to capture on video?
If the pro-abort activists are lying in this scenario, then so are the Live Action activists. And if you think the volunteer is not guilty of lying because she’s trying to save a baby, then you are accepting consequentialism, plain and simple.
Mark Shea, you wrote “Blessed are you when men say all manner of evil against you for His sake.”
Thanks for the encouragement! But, in the comment box, people actually started talking about various situations in which I would be knifed to death—that is just spooky! [n.b. the person who started the discussion meant no real harm by it, but it was strange to see others join in]
Some (here and elsewhere) have been claiming that all must use their real identities on the internet when they post or make comments—to them I would mention that it is not likely that I will ever associate my legal name with my on-line name, given that some people seem to want me (at least hypothetically) dead!
I suppose, if they think we are at war, they might eventual even feel justified in killing intellectuals who disagree with their mission…who else did that?, someone in Germany? or was it Russia?... Now this is a “pro-life movement” I can support!...oh, wait…
SD,
My fault. “wrongdoing” is the word in my American Heritage Dictionary.
I agree that wrongdoing is a stronger word in this context as errors can be inconsequential as well as gravely consequential. But I disagree that all wrongdoing is moral wrongdoing. To commit fraud is to lead someone into investing wrongly (an error with consequence).
Do you understand the difference between a legitimate “sting” and entrapment? In a properly done sting, the under cover officer must take great care not to tempt the suspect into committing the crime. For instance, the cop cannot approach someone and offer them $500 for drugs. This runs the risk of tempting an otherwise innocent man. However, if the man offers the cop drugs, and the cop MERELY deceived the man about the officers identity, the sting will hold up in court.
Erin:
Because so many of your readers are consequentialists, here is the reply you will get:
Pro-abortion people who lie in order to expose that a crisis pregnancy worker does something wrong are wrong to lie—because they seek to justify abortion. It is not, however, lying when you seek to oppose abortion. Just so long as you mean well, lying is not lying. Pro-aborts don’t mean well, so when they lie it’s really lying. When we lie, it’s not.
sd, you commented “Of course they did. They told PP staffers falsehoods so that they would act under the assumption that those falsehoods were corrects. That’s the definition of error.” to my “Live Action did not go in there with an INTENT to make PP error.”
Where is the ERROR in “they would act under the assumption that those falsehoods were corrects.” That is not any ERROR. PP is not led to answer any differently to a ‘fake’ pimp than they would to a ‘real’ pimp. PP ends up ERRING through every FAULT of their own. You are confusing Live Action’s INTENT with the end RESULT of said action. PP DID NOT have to answer the way they did. They had every opportunity to answer the way the LAW expected them to answer. True, without the pimp, there would NOT have been ANY answer. But, WITH the pimp, there is STILL no reason for PP to provide the answers THAT THEY DID.
I like your: “But if I give a drug addict a bag of cocaine the fact the he bears primary moral responsibility for using the cocaine doesn’t mean that I haven’t done some deeply wrong.” How this relates to a falsehood, I’m not sure, as I think you are suggesting giving the druggie real drugs AND not fake drugs, am I right? I think what you mean to say, is ‘If I give the druggie a bag of FAKE cocaine and tell him it’s the real thing, am I guilty of LYING?’ Anyhow, I like that you relate PP’s ADDICTION to LYING to a druggie’s addiction to cocaine. That about sums it up :-)
I support the way that Live Action is exposing the evil of what PP is founded on.
Which is pretty much exactly the problem. I support *that* LiveAction is exposing PP. Precisely what I cannot support is *the way* they are doing it. Because the *way* they are doing it by *lying*, which the Church says is intrinsically disordered. No. Really. She does: “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.”
As I say, consequentialism is the number one favorite moral Heresy of American Catholics. We love it.
@rob: 13.
Like it or not, justifying lying because of the good ends is consequentialism. The link basically admits it:
“Lila Rose and Live Action have a greater moral duty to defend human life and to the greater common good, than to avoid the sin of lying in the face of an unjust “law” and organization that does not respect either natural law or even proper civil laws that are supposed to defend the legitimate rights of citizens who disagree with their immoral, murderous activity.”
Basically, arguing that it’s okay to lie to PP because a) they’re evil, and b) to defend life. Point 13 addresses that.
Hopefully this will help. I’ll apply the same logic to make a pro-abortion argument: The goal of abortion is to save the mother’s life. Therefore the normally immoral act (abortion) is mitigated by the desire to do good (save the life of the mother). Clearly this violates CCC 1753.
@Mark Shea-
Thanks for your comments to Erin. Usually people resort to strawmen arguments when they run out of REAL argument. Can we all stick to the actual arguments, please.
Call it whatever you want, the “shell game” is being perped by the writer. In situations, such as the imminent sack of Rome or hiding Jews from Nazis etc, it was necessary for even the Pope at the time (of the Roman siege) to lie to his enemies. This is what happens when a guy with a computer is held up as qualified to speak on moral law. EWTN take note.
Frankly, I find your mocking of the Old Testament to be more disturbing than Live Action’s undercover investigations of Planned Parenthood.
Where is the ERROR in “they would act under the assumption that those falsehoods were corrects.” That is not any ERROR. PP is not led to answer any differently to a ‘fake’ pimp than they would to a ‘real’ pimp.
Where is the ERROR in “my deluded convert to the Catholic faith would act under the assumption that my miraculous healing from cancer was true.” That is not any ERROR. My deluded convert is not led to answer any differently to a ‘fake’ miraculous healing than they would to a ‘real’ miraculous healing.
Jesus doesn’t need us to lie for him whether it’s about saving bodies or souls.
“Mocking the Old Testament”?
@Mark Shea: “Just so long as you mean well, lying is not lying.”
Sorry, I did not number all my arguments so I could easily refer to them in a shorthanded way…but I have pointed out many times how THIS line of reasoning IS NOT the same as saying, “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” (CCC 2483) No ‘consequentialism’ is necessary. What is considered is INTENT not consequence. Because, after all, if you INTEND to lead into error but the outcome is such that the person ended up not being led into error after all - you are still guilty of the sin of LYING! It DEPENDS upon INTENT.
Let’s look at the CCC - If it said: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth.” PERIOD That would mean ALL falsehoods no matter what equal the sin of LYING. However, the CCC actually specifies “...in order to lead someone into error.” Therein lies the crux. I will repeat again - it does NOT depend on what actually results…..it depends upon INTENT.
Mark,
I admire your self examination on this and your holding yourself to a high standard in spite of your gut feeling. I also am not totally decided but I lean toward supporting Live Action’s tactics. One thing that would really help me decide would be for someone to engage the argument brought up by Steve Greydanus in your previous combox, which argument is not engaged by any of your above eighteen points.
choirloft:
You are confusing your line of reasoning—which is pure consequentialism—with CCC 2483, which is not. Exactly what you are saying is that lying is not lying so long as you lie for some good intention. That’s why your excuses for lying to Planned Parenthood map perfectly to my phony evangelist’s excuses for faking a miracle to win converts. I know you refuse to admit the obvious parallel, but it’s true nonetheless.
Consequentialism: Still Number One in America’s Top 40 Favorite Moral Heresies.
@Mark Shea: “Where is the ERROR in “my deluded convert to the Catholic faith would act under the assumption that my miraculous healing from cancer was true.” That is not any ERROR. My deluded convert is not led to answer any differently to a ‘fake’ miraculous healing than they would to a ‘real’ miraculous healing.”
The error comes in when that formerly non-Catholic person BASES their becoming Catholic upon this falsehood. This is causing the ‘deluded convert’ to build their house upon shifting sands. As such, should the falsehood be uncovered, the ‘deluded convert’ is at risk to be scandalized and at risk to lose his faith in the one true Church.
You see, the definition of LYING is NOT dependent upon the consequences.(In this case, a good one - gaining a convert - does not cancel the ERROR you are leading the person into.) It is dependent upon your intention - and your intention here is to set the ‘deluded convert’ up to have a faith based not on TRUTH.
@Mark Shay: “Exactly what you are saying is that lying is not lying so long as you lie for some good intention.”
Mark, Mark, Mark. ‘I’ am not saying it. I am taking it straight out of the Catechism. Again, CCC 2483: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”
The CCC does not say: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth. PERIOD” The CCC says: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth IN ORDER TO LEAD SOMEONE INTO ERROR.” The intentin does NOT have to be good. It simply has to NOT BE leading into error. You continue to slip in the consequence part. I do not.
I think you get bogged down by the fact that PP took the bait and IMPLICATED themselves by wrongdoing. After all, PP could have answered in ways that DID NOT implicate themselves. The consequences do not matter. It is the INTENT. Another after all - if you tell a falsehood with the intent to “lead into error” but the error isn’t realized - YOU HAVE STILL commited the sin of LYING according to the church.
Back in the real world, I’ll just say, if I am ever in a situation where I’m being hidden in a closet when the bad guys come to the door looking for me, I sure hope the owner of the house isn’t the kind to sit on their self satisfied hind end and betray me so that their conscience isn’t troubled by “lying”.
Mark, you’ve said you’d likely lie to the Nazis because you’re not quick to think on your feet”. Now that you have plenty of time to think, what would your answer be then? You can’t just refuse to answer, they’ll burst in and get the Jews. You can’t say “yes, they’re here” (I hope!!). The only answer is to lie. Circumstances can totally mitigate sin. In this case I would think the sin of the “lie” to the Nazis would be totally mitigated by the circumstances. It would no longer be even a venial sin.
Now I suppose you’re tired of hearing about the Nazi situation. Too bad! It’s a very useful true example and excellent for trying to get at this issue. We should always back up our moral theology with real world situations as a test to see if they really make sense.
So please just say what would your answer to the Nazis be? I’d lie and I believe the sin would be totally mitigated by the circumstances.
May as well call this “discussion” quits. No one is listening to each other anymore, as is the case with most comments sections in newspapers.
Your words were:
Eleventh: Yes, the Hebrew midwives, Rahab and Judith lied. Not only that, Israel slaughtered men, women, children and cattle in ancient semitic warfare. Care to appeal to that aspect of Old Testament morality while we’re at it?
In my opinion, you’ve mocked the O.T. by comparing apples to oranges (is there no difference between lying to save life and going to war?), and you’ve elevated Catholic dogma above the Bible itself.
Jesus does state that “One should agree with one’s adversary quickly, before (s)he hauls you to the brink”. All people who lie in one form or another needs to confess and repent, just in case such a statement, even if done to save a precious life for Jesus is regarded, by Jesus as a sin. It is such a sad world when it becomes so wicked that people have to actually sin in order to preserve life.
Mary
Can we get rid of the fiction that this has saved lives—in point of fact this has likely ended many more lies than you can even imagine?
Abortion is the PROFIT engine, if the legitimate health services of PP are defunded, they will simply push abortion more to stay in business.
WAKE UP.
Think things through.
They’ve already declared publicly that they don’t need Title X to continue, and Title X was never allowed to be used for abortion in the first place.
The Nazi comparison is absurd and not even remotely related to what is going on here.
W9FCC:
An obvious reply is “Look for yourself!” No lie involved. Presumably the person hiding the Jews is not such an idiot as to suppose that the Gestapo will take their word for it if they lie, so the real trick is to *hide the Jews well*.
choirloft:
Your confusion still boils down to saying that when you lie for some purpose you approve of, it’s not lying. Only now you are complicating it by saying that the key is to lie so well that you don’t get caught. Your thinking remains consequentialist in that the problem of lying to my convert is that I might get found out and lose the convert. Since your definition says “It’s not a lie if you have a good intention” the obvious takeaway for my lying evangelist is “Don’t get caught when you lie” not “Don’t lie.” This remains stunningly bad moral reasoning. A lie remains a lie even when you lie to lead people toward some good end.
Kate:
No. I’m saying “Don’t read the Bible like a sola scriptura Protestant”. It turns out those passages have been rather thoroughly considered by the Magisterium.
***APPLAUSE***
Another opinion by Peter Kreeft:
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14306#more-14306
Mark…I think you hit the nail on the head. The reason that we all are having so much difficulty with this question is because the the criteria we are using to measure the truth are wrong. Wartime criteria are different from peacetime criteria and, make no mistake about it…WE ARE AT WAR…a spiritual war! The Scriptures are full of instances where God uses deceit, particularly in wartime, to manifest his glory. Don’t you find it interesting that in a nation of over 300 million people, two people, sent by God, can make such an impact on a battle we have been waging since 1973. If that’s not the hand of God in answer to prayer, I don’t know what is.
Mark,
The example in point #16 does NOT meet the definition of a lie because the person deceiving does not intend to lead to error.
HOWEVER, your error comes because you assume that if we do not condemn this deception as lying we cannot condemn it at all. The problem is we lack a word that accurately defines this type of deception as evil, while still distinguishing it from lying.
On the subject of illicit killing our language does have words that are able to distinguish between one form of illicit killing and another form.
In order for a person to be guilty of murder there must be an element of intent. But that doesn’t mean that so long as you didn’t intend to kill someone you are exonerated. Very likely, you would be guilty of manslaughter which is the same as murder in every way except the intent to kill is lacking.
So it is with illicit deception and lying. In the case of the fraud, a person deceives another with the intention of getting the victim to turn over money erroneously. The intention is malicious. However, in your example from #16 the false miracle story while told with good intentions, does not get the deceiver off the hook entirely. He might not have lied according to the narrow definition of the CCC’s 2282 & 2283, but he is certainly guilty of an illicit deception. If only our language had a word that made this distinction like manslaughter is distinguished from murder.
One Post Script to my earlier comment…The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same…our Lord and Savior, Jesus, the Christ!
Brother Robert:
Deception is (sometimes) morally permissible. Lying is not. See my final point.
If that’s not the hand of God in answer to prayer, I don’t know what is.
No doubt the citizens of Troy told themselves the same thing when the Greek fleet sailed off leaving that big wooden horse behind as a token of their shameful defeat.
The devil is quite happy 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 is curing chillblains. Embracing the notion that the prolife movement can only survive by Lying for Jesus is cancer. It will only end in sorrow.
Brian F. Hudson,
They are real names. Names are just signifiers for a person. As long as the name is a truthful signifier, it is not a lie. The sin would be in using *someone else’s* signifier.
Sheila,
If this is war, then we have the obligation to act justly. I don’t think that the just war doctrine is a good application here. The just war doctrine is a specific application of the doctrine of double effect. But let’s go with it for argument’s sake. If you read anything about just war, you find that a just war does not make intrinsically evil acts permissible. Just war provides a context to pursue morally good and morally neutral actions when they have an unintended bad effect. It does not provide a way to make evil acts permissible. Evil means are universally condemned by Catholic teaching, regardless of good results or good intents. The only question here is whether the Church teaches that lying is *intrinsically* wrong and whether what Live Action has been doing is lying. We can all agree that their intentions are good. I think we can all agree that there have been good results (although some people have brought up very legitimate concern over even greater bad results that we may yet see). So, the context is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether lying is intrinsically wrong and whether what Live Action is doing is lying.
choirloft,
The actions of Live Action do intend to lead the employees of PP into error. That they hope to use this error to lead them to greater truth does not matter. Both their immediate and ultimate intents must be considered. They have been telling the employees that they are pimps, pregnant underage girls, prostitutes in order to lead the employees into the error of believing that they are pimps, pregnant underage girls, prostitutes. You cannot divorce their intent to deceive the employees about their identities from their intent to lead them out of their larger error about abortion. And I think the quotes offered from the catechism have made it quite clear that this is not limited to moral error.
W9FCC,
That’s not Catholic teaching. Intent will determine whether a morally good or morally neutral act is just or sinful. However, intent can never make an intrinsically morally bad act good. However, things like intent can affect our *culpability* for the sin. It is just as much a sin, but we become less culpable for that sin. Good intent can *never* make a morally disordered act good or neutral.
Jennifer Pierce,
Just a little correction, Simon was the Zealot.
All I see in the combox supporting Lila Rose is more consequentialism and a misunderstanding of the nature of acting. A lie is a lie is a lie.
To call this acting, by the way, is silly. Surely, she put on an act, but in acting, other actors and even the audience are in on it. You might say, “she’s representative of the women who are in this situation in real life, so it’s moral,” but that argument would hinge on the question, “what difference does it make if it’s a real prostitute or if she’s acting as a representative of one?” Well, that’s an interesting question. The difference is that a real prostitute would be telling the truth. Lila Rose, however, is telling a lie. “Yeah, but I mean, what difference does it make? I mean, same results either way, right?” Consequentialism…
I wonder if this whole thing could have been avoided if she told her camera man, “if you give me a dollar, I’ll be your slave for a day,” and then went into Planned Parenthood claiming that she made money by selling herself. Now there’s an ambiguous statement that might’ve worked…
Trouble is, we can’t sin, and when we do all that we can and see that no good comes of it, and therefore resort to sin, what we’re really saying is, “well, I tried doing it God’s way and it didn’t work. Nothing good has come of it yet. Now I’m going to do it my way.” Rejecting God’s way for our way is, quite frankly, demonic. Our shout should be: “death before sin!”
How ‘bout this: the government isn’t doing its job. How about an analogy with hiding runaway slaves and lying to protect them in the 19th century? No government is perfect; ours may have less corruption than many others, but it still has some amount of corruption. This is an attempt to make up for our government’s shortcoming in protecting the unborn.
It should not be a surprise to a Christian that this debate comes up always when we are also talking about death related issues.
Fear of death is the key word.
Someone still hold us in bondage through the fear of death.
He is the father of all lies and murderer from the beginning.
To lie is to deny our faith in the truth. Yet we claim that our God is the truth in whom all things were created and hold together. How can we have this faith and consider that some little domains are not covered by this principle?
We should pray more to Jesus and Mary and ask them to teach us to witness to the truth. A deeper meditation on the Passion should make the power of the truth shine more brightly.
As a point of clarity—-Simon the Zealot was, of course a Zealot, but scripture scholars speculate that Judas Iscariot was the same as the Judas the Zealot of the epistles.
His name is also somewhat suspicious as it seems that it may have derived, in part, from the sicarii, who were a Zealot sect.
But you are right—it isn’t a point of undisputed fact that he was a Zealot, it just appears to mean (and to me) that he was.
In fact, as we are instructed not to look at him as demonic but as containing some grace and goodness despite his deep fall, it would be Zealotry that saves him, for Zealotry—political and religious—is simply a thirst for justice gone unchecked by patience and prudence.
Is Fr. Frank Pavone a Consequentialist?
The real question is what is a lie. Is the intentional communication of falsehood always a lie?
It’s not clear that it is. First, the Rahab and Hebrew midwives cases are strong counter-examples. Aquinas and Augustine are particularly unconvincing in their exegesis. The distinctions they are making are not only not required by the text, the text actually appears inconsistent with them. (And here you can’t isolate the OT passages from the NT, as Mark does, since at least one of cases is cited in the NT as an example of exemplary faith. “Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.” [Ja 2:25]. The Hebrew midwives case is praised indirectly in Heb 11).
Second, if I know that my uttering the truth will help facilitate an unjust killing, then preventing the killing is within my power. I can either remain silent (an option in most cases) or engage in a kind of deception that is not explicitly uttering a falsehood. Concerning the latter, suppose I answer “Paris” to a question but I really mean Texas and not France and I know that my hearer assumes I mean France. Some say that’s an acceptable form of deception but not a lie. How is that any different than saying “Waco” when I know the truth is “Paris, Texas?” In both cases the true concept in my mind “Paris, France” did not correspond to the meaning of either “Waco” or “Paris [Texas].” But the “Paris” deception is justified while the “Waco” deception is a lie. I don’t see the difference, except that the false and true concepts of Paris have the same linguistic expression while the “Paris” and “Waco” in the other illustration do not. This seems to be a distinction without a difference.
Third, to say that some forms of deception including intentionally uttering a falsehood are based on consequentialism is mistaken. It is based on a hierarchy of duties, and those duties are absolute. They, unfortunately, in a fallen world, come in conflict with each other. So, for example, my duty to obey God may come in conflict with my duty to obey the law. And that is precisely what happened in Acts 5, and in that case the Apostle obeyed God and disobeyed the authorities. St. Peter was not weighing the consequences. He was obeying God regardless of the consequences.
These cases of conflicting duties—Rahab, Hebrew Midwives, the Apostles—have something in common: some human authority was requesting each violate their obligation to obey God. So, in the cases of Rahab and the Hebrew midwives, they intentionally told a falsehood. In the case of the Apostles, they intentionally broke the law. But, and this is important, these cases are not like the case of Live Action. LA is not being coerced by the state to violate their higher obligations to obey God. So, even though I agree with Mark that LA’s methods are questionable, I do not agree that it is always wrong to utter a falsehood intentionally.
If Live Action used a broad mental reservation or asked questions in the desire to “whistleblow” (since as citizens in a certain sense we all have the duty to report illegal/ immoral activity) then they didn’t necessarily sin by lying. For instance if she said she was a “Sex Worker” in a certain sense they are since they are involved in that field. If Planned Parenthood took it to mean a different sense then Live Actionis not morally obligated to explain the correct sense. They deceived themselves. Besides to say it is right for cops,spies, etc to lie and not for other plain citizens is another form of moral relativism. If they have the right to Broad mental reservations then so do other citizens. Since in a democratic society the government receives the right to govern from the people (who receive it from God) the only way the government can have more rights is if the people grant them. They can not receive it from God directly- in a “democratic” government at least. They can not have more rights than were originally granted to the people by God. Civil codes original intent was for the sake of moral laws and not an end in of themselves. Hence the concept of Just War, etc. Besides governments are composed of individuals and are not some mythical entity which is above moral laws.
Traditionally English law did require all to apprehend lawbreakers. It is still engrained in our law since citizen arrests are totally legal (though commonly discouraged by many who don’t understand it or think that only the state has the right due to some vague illogical reasoning).
If Live Action used strict mental reservations or just out and out lied then they definitely committed at least a venial sin though not the most grievous committed. However, those who defend and justify a lie commit a far greater sin and are also guilty of scandal, encouraging sinful activity and possibly creating occasions of sin for others.
I have not listened to the tapes (still on dialup) so am not qualified to state whether broad or strict mental reservation was used.
Moral relativism is a very serious heresy. No matter how it is cloaked justifying a lie by claiming it was not a lie or not sinful is Moral Relativism (specifically Consequentialism). It is worse than the commision of a so called “white lie.”
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.
@Mark Shea: “Your confusion still boils down to saying that when you lie for some purpose you approve of, it’s not lying.”
I am not confused one iota. Again, the CCC 2483: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” To lie is to ______ in order to ______________. There are 2 blanks to fill in. First blank = falsehood. By filling that in, you still are missing something…that goes in the second blank. That something is a KEY point. No, filling in your “for some purpose you approve of” does not make the sentence equal the CCC.
First, you are being relativistic - “for some purpose YOU approve of.” And, no, that IS NOT what I have been saying (as you can see if you’d have only read my comments), and no, that is NOT what my comment boils down to.
Second, the CCC’s “...to lead someone into error,” means something and not something ‘light’ nor something ‘relative.’ To think merely having PP ‘think’ you are a pimp when you are not is NOTHING MAJOR. “To lead someone into error,” cannot just mean lead someone to believe your falsehood…because that is simply the first part of 2483: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth….” Because, we have to assume that for this to be a sin, the falsehood is being believed ANYWAY, a.k.a. ACCEPTING the falsehood. However, we know that the CCC is saying MORE is necessary for this to be SIN - the believing/accepting of the falsehood is what precipitates someone being LED INTO ERROR.
So, again, what ERROR do you claim Live Action is being led to do? The fact that PP implicates itself is their OWN doing. Live Action does not MAKE them say the things they do! There are many ways PP could have answered. And, the answers really are INconsequential since Live Action’s intent is determined BEFORE they even walk into the clinic. The answers do NOT matter. INconsequential.
Now, the fact that PP is CAUGHT doing something (because we all know that this WAS indeed the consequence.) PP is caught making statements that IMPLICATE themselves with regard to the law. Live Action does NOT MAKE PP MAKE THOSE CHOICES. Just like undercover police work - as long as Live Action did NOT entrap PP into making THOSE particular comments, over OTHER possible comments PP might have made, Live Action is blameless.
Anyhow - Dr. Kreeft hits the nail on the head. (Thanks for that link!) I can’t wait to read his take on the proper definition of “lying.”
@Francis J. Beckwith: “The real question is what is a lie.”
B-I-N-G-O!
For once, I agree with every single word you wrote. Lying is always and everywhere wrong. That is what you just reiterated. Ms. Rose meant to deceive PP…that was her whole intent and strategy. She lied. Was it for a worthy cause? Yes. Was it the best way of accomplishing her overall goal? Who knows. She certainly provided a slew of rocks for PP to throw at her, though.
Francis:
Almost everything you mention is dealt with in my article. Unfortunately, what Lila is doing is not “withholding truth from those with no right to it”. She is lying about her identity, occupation and purpose, just as much as if I went to your door and lied about my name, occupation and purpose.
Bro Bob:
Your note illustrates one of the more pernicious effects of the Lying for Jesus movement. Namely, in order to legitimate it, Christians turn to saying “Even Jesus is a liar, so it’s okay.”
In fact, Jesus did not lie. If he says he does not know when the world is ending, he does not know. Your insistence that he must know and be lying is a fine indication of how desperate some people are to legitimate Lying for Jesus, but not an indication of what the text actually means.
@Lauretta,
I read Dr. Kreeft’s offering—what I find most interesting is that he did not cite a single Church authority in favor of his view. First, he makes an argumentum ad populum, saying that most people would approve of lying in order to save others. Of course, most people would also approve of abortion to save a mother’s life, so we cannot depend on them for moral judgment. He then makes a consequentialist argument, saying that he doesn’t care whether police stings, etc., are immoral as long as his children are protected. He then makes an argument that is truly absurd: “Thomas Aquinas said that even torture is sometimes justified; in emergency situations like that; if torture, then a fortiori lying.” St. Thomas teaches clearly (ST II-ii q.110 a.3) that lying is always forbidden. So one can’t appeal to St. Thomas to try and show that lying is permitted in “emergency situations.” Torture is not intrinsically evil (just as killing, mutilation, etc., are not intrinsically evil), while lying is.
@Mark Shea,
It is actually heresy to believe that He does not know (or did not know) when the world is ending. St. Gregory the Great explains that Jesus says “the Son of Man does not know” (sorry, I can’t remember the exact wording) because Our Lord, while He knew in His Humanity, did not know from His Humanity. Similarly a priest, when asked about a certain penitent’s confession, can respond “I don’t know” because while he might know as an ordinary man he does not know it from his ordinary life, but only from his priesthood.
Hope this helps.
Mark wrote:
“But *constructing a carefully planned strategy of aggressively lying* is not like that and is, I think, a very morally precarious scaffolding upon which to build the future hopes of the prolife movement.”
Judith, the great Hebrew heroine, constructed a carefully planned strategy of aggressively lying to the Assyrians, telling them she came to offer help to defeat the Israelites. She gained access to the king, got him drunk, and slew him. And was the result of deceit the “chillblains” of which you warn? Not at all. God raised her up to deliver the Israelites, and she was hailed as a heroine afterwards, and continues to be so held. There was no falling out over her deception, no come-uppance, no bad karma. God blessed her and the Israelites abundantly.
This was Judith’s prayer before she set out:
“Let my guileful speech bring wound and wale on those who have planned dire things against Your covenant, Your holy temple, Mount Zion, and the homes your children have inherited. Let Your whole nation and all the tribes know clearly that You are the God of all power and might, and that there is no other who protects the people of Israel but You alone. -Jud. 9:13-1
As to the Nazi analogy that you keep writing off—this only shows how little you understand abortion. Doctors are sticking scissors in the back of live infants’ skulls and sucking out their brains; they’re injecting the hearts of the pre-born with deadly solution; they’re filling the womb with sodium solution that scalds and suffocates the unborn. Go look at the pictures, if you dare.
Jews were tortured and killed with the sanction of the Nazi government. Would you have condoned the attempt of some German Christians to infiltrate the concentration camps, disguised as prisoners, in order to stage a break-out? Or is that unjustified “vigilante justice”?
To those who think that what Lila Rose did was not intended to deceive or lead the worker into error, I think you are mistaken. If the purpose was to expose PP’s willingness to ignore the law and perform abortions for underage girls, then by posing as a pimp and giving scenarios they invited the worker to jump head first into sin. What is it that God says about leading others into sin? It’s not pretty. This is dangerous spiritual matter and not something to play with. The souls of EACH ONE OF US that CHRIST shed HIS blood for are being sorted into “good guy” and “bad guy” piles and some are being considered beyond redemption and therefore fine to attack. THIS IS DANGEROUS THINKING. One of the ads in this and lasts weeks register is for a book about a woman who worked at one of these clinics and did these horrible things and received the GRACE of conversion. She shows us the lie of this thinking. God can save ANYBODY! His grace is enough.
Mark Shea is not qualified to write about morals, says one comment, but Lila Rose is above the whole moral law and teaching of the church. Call me when she walks on water.
Christine:
See points 9 and 10, assuming you can read.
As to the rest, come on. Don’t be silly. Of course, concentration camp prisoners had not only the right but the responsibility to try to escape.
And thanks for informing me that abortion is a grave evil.
Sheesh.
dcs:
That’s too stratospheric for me to grasp, but I content myself with the basic fact that, no, Jesus did not lie.
“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.”
Yes. But then the CCC also states that the INTENTION of the defender changes the act of killing a man from an act of murder to an act of legitimate defense or manslaughter. Or more correctly, the act of lethal defense or manslaughter must LACK the intent to kill.
So claiming that intentions do not affect the morality of an act is bogus. Live Action LACKED the intent to lead into error as required to meet the definition of intrinsically disordered lying per CCC 2283.
If the Christ of Sacred Scripture is only a moralist, than Jesus is a dictator and a monster and we are all liars and all bound to hell. The Christian God is not the deity of absolute black and white submission to moral absolutes. (Do and be rewarded; do not and be to hell.) Jesus is mercy. Lila Rose has brought light upon the lie of all lies, which proceeds from the father of lies, the lie of abortion. Lila has has cast the light of truth on the greatest evil of our age. As I think upon your simplistic definition of lying, I am reminded of the timeless pedstrian charge against the Catholic Church, “Call no man father! -as if those four words themselves would bring down Christ’s visible Church on earth. I pray to God that no person’s welfare ever depends upon your sense of morality if it hangs in the balance between life and death.
In your view of Christ, I reminded also of the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:24-30 where scripture says: He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, `Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, `You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’
Wow. The same arguments iterum iterumque. No, lead into error means, “Make them believe something that is false.” If I tell the mailman I am going out of town when I am not, I am leading him into error. If I suspect that he is going to rob my house while I am gone—well, guess what, I still lied to him in the first place. (Now, if I merely make it *look* like I’ll be away by, say, asking him to place a few days’ hold on my mail without expressly saying that I’ll be away—that might well be different.)
Live Action operatives said false things on purpose to those to whom they were speaking, thus leading those to whom they were speaking into error.
Pam,
Why would posing as a Pimp lead a PP employee to want to cooperate with the sex traffickers?
IF, the pimp was offering to pay large sums of money you’d have a case.
But simply pretending to be a pimp doesn’t automatically compel someone into cooperating with his illegal work. Not anymore than a undercover officer posing as a prostitute compels someone to offer to pay her for her services.
What is the error that Planned Parenthood’s workers were led into? The practice that was already in place at Planned Parenthood was a precondition for the stings to work at all. Live Action did not script Planned Parenthood’s responses. They did not have to urge anyone to answer in an inappropriate manner. These responses were genuine and deplorable because they were the kind of reponses that Planned Parenthood’s staff was ready to give at a moments notice, to anyone.
@Erin
“No, lead into error means, ‘Make them believe something that is false.’”
If that is the case, then ALL FORMS OF DECEPTION are intrinsically evil - something which Mark Shea and the Church have disagreed with.
Erin:
Here is how the conversation will evolve over time. Advocates of Lying for Jesus will, like advocates of torture, eventually smash up against the rocks of Church teaching enough to realize that, no, really, lying (like torture) is intrinsically immoral. The attempts at direct justification of outright lying for a good cause will dwindle away as they beat themselves to death on “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned” and so forth.
Nothing daunted, advocates of lying will then turn to the expedient of saying, “Okay. Lying is immoral. But what *is* lying anyway?” Then we will spend the rest of eternity with people trying to figure out a way to say that walking up to somebody, lying through you teeth about who you are, what you do, and what you want are not *really* lying when you are doing it for some good cause.”
The malady lingers on. It’s just the same old attempt to justify consequentialism in a different key.
You watch. That’s how it will go. That’s how it *has* to go if one is bound and determined to try to justify lying.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the article, I think you did touch on something with the validity of requests for information. But I’d like to offer a slightly different way of looking at the situation.
In my mind this present dilemma is better solved by looking at if/when citizens are obliged to act as whistleblowers & operatives.
From my reading of the situation (and I am based well outside the US) Lila would have explored all of the ‘right’ ways to bring this to everybody’s attention. I think people who are surprised at what these videos show really don’t understand what abortion is and what the industry is about.
I think the Nazi analogy is wrong, but suppose in a town there is a habitual criminal, who is constantly bribing the sheriff and raping women. At what point should the townspeople take matters into their own hands?
I haven’t thought about either issue myself except in the past few days, but I think that question really hinges around ‘in what situation should one be a vigilante’?
Because if the answer is that in this situation Lila should not have been a vigilante the question is answered, and if she ought to have been one, then it really does become an analogy with spying.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on looking at it in this manner.
Mark: I’m afraid you may be right. I read Peter Kreeft’s piece with great disappointment.
Brian: Did you forget the other part of the definition? That is, that lying is *speaking* falsehood with the intent to lead into error? Some deception which doesn’t involve lying may be permissible. Other deception may not be. But lying means, “You said something untrue to someone that deceives him.”
Mark Shea wrote:
“See points 9 and 10, assuming you can read.”
Wow, thanks for the nasty attitude. You just discredited yourself with such a response. Anyway, points 9 & 10 do not in any way address my comment.
Mark Shea continues:
“As to the rest, come on. Don’t be silly. Of course, concentration camp prisoners had not only the right but the responsibility to try to escape.”
Again, failure to understand my point. If German Christians were attempting to BREAK IN to a concentration camp DISGUISED as prisoners in order to help others escape, is that vigilante justice? You accuse Lila Rose of being a vigilante, rather than leaving it up to the state to do the job—but the problem is that the state itself is sanctioning this murder in both cases (Nazis, and here with regard to abortion). If what Lila Rose did was wrong—going to PP in order to expose them and save the lives of the unborn—then German Christians disguised as prisoners attempting to break into a concentration camp to free Jews is equally wrong.
I’d appreciate if if (1) you would respond to the points I ACTUALLY made, and (2) it was done without sarcasm or snarkiness.
Screwtape and wormwood must be laughing like hell.
You know, sometimes you just have to have a sense of humor.
Mark, your first article included these words…
But yet anyone who puts forth a “good faith effort,” and believes that LiveAction is not guilty of the sin of lying,(including some of the good bishops in your above scenario,) get a verbal pounding (ah hem, whack a mole,) from you.
Then today, you include that same quote in your second article. Either you see room to firm up the definition of lying (and Live Action might not fit that definition,) OR Live Action is already guilty lock stock and barrel (as you have so zealously attested to in the combox of your first article.) Why pretend you are sitting on the fence when you attack anyone who questions if they really “fit the definition” of lying?
Then in your first article the debate about the fake baptismal certificates came up. I posted the article by Sr. Margherita Marchione, PhD, who is considered to be the leading Scholar on the life of Pope Pius XII. Here it is again…
http://www.sistermargherita.com/antidef.htm
Here is an excerpt, in Sr. Margherita Marchione’s own words:
John Zmirak said “According to Sr. Margherita Marchione, the leading Catholic biographer of Pius XII, whose book “Pius XII: Architect for Peace” I helped edit, both the apostolic nuncio for Hungary, and Angelo Roncalli (e.g. the Bl. Pope John XXIII) made public statements that they printed such baptismal certificates at Pius’ orders. This was during his lifetime, and he did not contradict them.”
Fransican said “I also attended a presentation made by Rabbi Eric Silver, who was given access to the Vatican archives. And he stated the same thing.” You replied back to Franciscan “William Doino says he didn’t. Others say he did. Till that’s resolved, it’s a dubious precedent.”
TILL THAT’S RESOLVED you printed in your new article…
Tenth: you know that story about Pius XII or John XXIII making fake baptismal certificates to save Jews? Turns out it’s an urban legend.
Sr. Marchione’s personal phone # is listed at the top of the article. Did you call her, and she said “Oh, it was all a mistake?”
What is the topic we are discussing? Oh, the irony of it all.
I am curious how Fr. Frank Pavone’s answer would be considered in this case. He is a person of great moral import specifically to this debate. He would not be considered someone of general import, no? Based on the below response is he consequential? The person representing him in response below may not be using precise wording because he used words “deception and dishonesty” in the first part but then used lying later on when the representative of Fr.Frank should have stayed with ” deception and dishonesty”. Fr. Pavone is saying Lila used deception. Should Fr. Frank’s authority carry the day? He is in full support of Live Action’s activities.Peace. :
“Thanks for your question, Jacqueline. Father Frank has actually commented about this precise matter before. In response to inquiries about the morality of Live Action’s approach (since it necessarily involves a degree of deception and dishonesty), Father stated that he is fully supportive of Live Action’s activities, since “every war needs spies.” Even though obviously the Catholic Church teaches that lying is a sin, Father Frank is basically of the opinion that exceptional measures are warranted when dealing with a matter as gravely evil as abortion (just as the use of spies is warranted in wartime – in both situations, the acquisition of information which would otherwise be impossible to obtain can result in the preservation of numerous lives).”
Oh, and this consequentialist horse you keep beating—you’re well-intentioned, but wrong.
I’m no consequentialist. I believe torture is wrong in all circumstances, based on Church teaching. I think the atomic bomb (along with the firebombing of Dresden) an abomination, based on Church teaching. But I do NOT think what Lila Rose did was wrong—not because I have some sinful desire to bend the truth when it suits me (thanks for the assumption, though), but because I believe what she did was RIGHT, very right.
I’m glad you’re so morally certain on an issue that even the greatest saints could not agree on (e.g., Chrysostom & Augustine). One thing I can be quite certain of: God is far more pleased with Lila Rose’s sincere attempt to bring down the abortion industry and save lives than with the self-righteous pontifications of armchair theologians.
Now I’m off to revise my Facebook friends list.
@Erin Manning: “Some deception which doesn’t involve lying may be permissible. Other deception may not be. But lying means, ‘You said something untrue to someone that deceives him.’”
So, to rephrase, using your OWN verbage: Some deception MAY BE permissible IF you don’t cause DECEPTION by saying something untrue to someone.
Is that possible??
The problems lay in the semantics….and people are NOT being consistent in their use of the word ‘lie.’ [Black Jaque Janaviac-you covered that in one of your earlier posts?]
When you read CCC 2482, “The gravity of a lie is measured aaginst the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the INTENTIONS of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims,” you get a sense that “lead into error” implies leading into harm. Telling your mailman that you are not home when you indeed are home IN NO WAY leads your mailman to error OR harm. If he decides to BREAK INTO your house based on your ‘falsehood’ you have not led him to error or harm. HE has led HIMSELF to error and harm. A LIE contains a falsehood AND an INTENT. A lie (what the Church calls a SIN) does not equal just the falsehood.
Read CCC 2482 (above in my post) over again. It contains: FALSEHOOD, INTENT, AND HARM. The SIN of lying INVOLVES more than just the uttering of a falsehood.
You are correct, however, Erin, “the same arguments [both sides] iterum iterumque.” I’ve read enough. And, Mike McLaren, Screwtape no doubt is taking notes! The only thing I look forward to at this point is Dr. Kreeft’s article regarding the definition of ‘lying’ (if he gets around to writing it), and that’s no lie!! Good-bye.
I just got done reading an article on Dr. Alveda King’s blog from Priests for Life about a webcast (http://www.PlannedParenthoodCorruption.org) that happened Feb 15th 2011 and was sponsored by David Bereit, National Director of 40 Days for Life and among the list of “expert presenters” was:
“* LILA ROSE, president of Live Action (the group that exposed Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting underage trafficking)” Another major pro-life group giving their support for her work in the name of life. Interesting.
Christine:
I apologize for my short-tempered response. I do get weary of saying the same things again and again and I particular dislike having to deal with the insinuation that having moral qualms about lying can only be explained by the fact that I don’t really care about the unborn.
The tendency of the consequentialists is to focus on the evil (lying, or deceiving, or whatever they call it) and the good supposedly achieved (saving babies from the great evil of abortion). The good outweighs the evil (if it really is evil—they say), so this is clearly desirable.
These people fail to consider the _objective malice_ of the lies: because the lies entice the person to whom they are told to unite their will with grave evil. It doesn’t matter that the evil is never carried out; the fact is, they have assented to it and are ready to do it.
Here is an example: I walk into an abortion clinic and pretend to be a pimp who runs a prostitution ring. I tell the clinic worker that I am going to need their services from time to time and would they please help me. I’ll even throw in a little extra money over their normal fee schedule, to sweeten the deal. All of this is a lie, but I want to expose how evil they are. Sure enough: they agree to help me out, and I have it all on tape.
EXPOSED! Right? Right. But _in addition_, not only have you told a lie that has exposed a moral evil, but your lie has also caused the person to whom you lied to unite their will with a great moral evil: pimping, prostitution, providing illegal services, etc. etc. etc.
The consequentialist will now reply, “Yes, but that abortion worker was already damned! He/she had already united his will to evil!!” Oh? And you know this how? The truth is, you don’t know it, because we are unable to judge the heart of another. We are talking here about the objectivity of the act, and telling lies of the nature that are under discussion here is, objectively, grave business indeed.
I’d like to get NCR’s new owner’s opinion on this. I would be willing to guarantee Mother Angelica would not agree with Mark Shea on this.
Fr. Ignotus- From hearing Lila Rose do interviews her position is not one of “they are damned anyway” but one of “they are actively-currently- already participating in these crimes,i.e. human trafficing, providing cover for rapists,etc.” She was just exposing activities that were known to be happening. Now this can be known unlike judging the heart. So she was just re-presenting a past criminal customer and showing that PP has a proclivity to these specific crimes. The employees did not need to be “baited”, it’s business as usual. It’s engrained in their, may I say, “Culture of Death”? These characters that Live Action portrayed are not foreign to PP and employees. It is their normal. Peace.
P.S. Thank you for being a priest.
Dear Richard, thank you for your kind comment. I understand what you are saying; however, even if something is someone’s “normal”, it is to heap more coals on their head. I.e., the person who entices the person to evil by lying to them is enticing them to one more evil that they would not have committed, if that person had never lied to them. This is never good, regardless of the subjective state of their soul or what constitutes “normal” for them. Objectively, it is a grave evil.
There are some words missing in the above. I think I am staying up too late! The point is, you are heaping more coals on their head by lying to them and so enticing them to evil; i.e., even if the evil in question is “their normal”, you are enticing them to commit one more evil in that vein that they would not have otherwise committed if you hadn’t showed up and lied. Hope my comment is clearer this time. In any case, good night!
I think this is your weak link Mark…
“As to the morality of police stings and lying in wartime, I am still frankly conflicted. My instinct is to say “They’re fine” but my instinct is not the measure of all things. Our culture’s absolute favorite moral heresy is consequentialism and I am highly distrustful of our tendency to err in favor of this heresy rather than against it. The extreme ease with which many American Catholics view even the use of torture and atomic mass murder for a good end as just ducky does not persuade me we are likely to be thinking clearly when it comes to much lesser (but still intrinsically immoral) means such as lying.”
You seem to say that lying is always wrong, and then say that it isn’t under these circumstances… or at least that you are conflicted about it. You disclose a weakness here admittedly. But can you be so certain that lying is always wrong and so uncertain that it is not always wrong?
My difficulty is, while in the weakness of your argument (this being your weakest link), and in the presence of other senior Catholic thinkers, you have nevertheless taken a pretty broad stance against Live Action. And though you have praise for Lila Rose, you have to admit that the overall results of your writings on this subject are rather condemning of her actions. Those condemnations being based largely on your weakest link, wherein you may find the loopholes you are searching for.
I submit that war does not necessitate guns only, but may also include vacuum pumps and forceps, or even cyber technology in our times. Furthermore the casualties of this war are far more deadly and devastating than any known conventional ‘war’.
Additionally, our constitution gives the people the power to defy our authorities when that authority becomes corrupt. I believe it can be easily demonstrated that this is the case of our time. If Lila was a licensed investigator, would that have made ‘lying’ any different for her in your conflicted thoughts?
I have to say that I agree it is wrong to tell a lie, and that the ends do not justify the means. But I have not been convinced that Lila’s actions have constituted lying. Very little of what I’ve read focuses on whether or not her actions constitute a lie, and this is my great dissappointment. It seems that many have put the cart before the horse in jumping to judgment before resolving their internal conflicts on the matter.
Mark, I think you’re spot on and not to be spat on.
Mark, you are over intellectualizing this. Anyone with common sense knows you are wrong. Lila Rose just got the House of Representatives to vote on pulling the plug on PP’s funding. This is historic. She has done far more to save lives than all your hot air. Peter Kreeft blew your views out of the water with his analogy to Dutchmen lying to Nazis to save Jews.
I feel like I should go to confession after reading all these comments. Lord have mercy on us.
It appears that those on the front line of the battle didn’t blink an eye about the appropriatness of this sting operation. Going into enemy territory is always dangerous and easy to criticize from the armchair. I wish I was as sure as Kreeft, but I must be too distanced myself as of late. I wonder why it bothers me. Maybe I am a little too legalistic myself. I sure don’t have the gumption to call it absolutely wrong. I’ll leave that for holier men than me. I guess I can’t trust my gut, because it says to take the life of the reprobates that kill and rape the innocent, after, of course, they have had an opportunity to make a good confession.
Mark, I did not say that Jesus knew or did not know. I said the Only Begotten Son knew, because in fact the Divine Nature of knew everything. Christ’s words were, “Not even the Son knows,” not, “Not even I know”. PS I am only making the distinctions between the human and divine natures of Christ.
PS:
I know Jesus is not a liar, and I never claimed he was. I asked if anyone thought He was, because of the statement He made.
I would ask people, what would Mark Shea do to de-fund Planned Parenthood? Would Mark Shea in fact do anything? Anything at all? Or should should I call him Mark P Shea as he prefers to be called when he is in an anti-conservative mood? http://www.mark-shea.com/ad.html http://rightsoftheunborn.blogspot.com/2011/02/mark-shea-and-ethics-of-cowardice.html Or would Mark Shea simply rather use abortion as a tool against the right. I’m not surprised that Mark Shea would attack Lila Rose. She has after all appeared on FoxNews and especially on the Glenn Beck Show. Lila Rose is just another talking hairdo, isn’t that right Mr Shea? In fact Mr Shea, I can’t seem to find one word you have written about getting rid of abortion altogether, or any suggestion that we should do anything about abortion. Or sure, abortion is wrong because the Church says so, but that’s about all you are good for. I would say that rates you with Raymond Gravel and Michael Pfleger, a real liberation theologian and social justice man. That’s the kind of Catholic we can do without. You are a liberal Mr Shea. I do not respect you or your views. Why don’t you head right on over to the National Catholic Reporter with John Allen JR and the other good liberal Catholics of America? You’d fit right in.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://gerardnadal.com/2011/02/19/the-lila-enigma-selective-outrage/&h=31893
For shame, Mr. Shea, if you are supposing the spiritual warfare is not as real, more real, than warfare between nations. The absence of bazookas hardly dismisses the reality of war.
Was it wrong for clerical rescuers to issue baptismal certificates to Jews without actually baptizing them? Do you think Holy Father Pius XII was innocent as to the means that would be employed when he encouraged religious houses throughout Europe - and opened even his own household - to clandestine Jewish refugees? Did he think they would all be hidden and kept safe by careful mental reservations?
The simple fact is that we ARE at war, Mr. Shea. It is not a war that we can win with bullets because it is a war against principalities and powers. Our enemies are overturning the tables in the House of God as rapidly as they can; they do not themselves believe in righteousness or truth. In war, there rights to it are greatly reduced.
And don’t get me wrong: if it were another nation attacking ours, a nation that had overthrown Christianity and was intent on bringing its revolution to the rest of the world, then we would not only deceive them with spies, but we would shoot them with bullets. And we would be right. We fought such wars in the Crusades, we fought such two such crusades in the first half of the twentieth century.
(As I write all this I give pause to reflect on the fact that in the very heyday of Christianity as dominant-fact-of-life, I cannot imagine a Christian knight giving deception for any reason. Hmmm… that may have had to do with his Germanic boldness and pride more than with simple honor or moral courage. Hmmm…)
To BH, and all those who are close to crossing, or have already crossed the bounds of civil discourse: Please be charitable, even if you do not agree with his opinions. Slander and defamation or not of the Christ. Christ said to love your enemies. Even if you believe you are “admonishing the sinner” or “instructing the ignorant,” please be at least civil. Remember, Mr. Shea has not claimed to be an expert theologian, nor is he (in the name of The Church) authoritatively able to declare the position of the Church in this matter. Mr Shea is a professional opinion expresser; this is where his expertise lies. He is expressing his opinion on what he thinks the Church is saying (such as the definition of a lie, and judging whether those involved are lying or acting, or something else), and doing it in such a way that it generates many emotions for and against his opinion. He is This is what he gets paid to do, and the more people who are drawn to the blog, the better it is. On the other hand, there are expert theologians who are divided on this matter, not on the lying part, but on whether or not what Live Action is doing is really (not “technically”) a lie.
Mark writes: “In fact, Jesus did not lie. If he says he does not know when the world is ending, he does not know. Your insistence that he must know and be lying is a fine indication of how desperate some people are to legitimate Lying for Jesus, but not an indication of what the text actually means.”
I don’t mention Jesus in my comments. So, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Honest Abe - GEICO Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdy3orO6tQA
Oh brother. So now evangelical fundamentalism is being applied to the CCC leading to same moral confusion as when it’s applied to the Bible.
Perhaps the question is not “what does is a lie?” but “what is the truth?”. Many have commented that we are involved in spiritual warfare. Thus, wartime rules apply. What are the nature and rules of spiritual combat?
The nature of it is that it is spiritual. As St. Paul says, “3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
How do we prepare for this? Since we are not fighting flesh and blood, but evil spiritual powers, “10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.” (Ephesians 6:10-18)
If this is spiritual warfare, it must be waged according to the principles of such, of which is truth.
The Live Action team set out to reveal the truth. The results could have turned out differently. Planned Parenthood could have turned away these “potential clients” and reported the incidents to the proper authorities, which they are legally bound to do.
The fact that evil practices were exposed reflects on the organization of Planned Parenthood and the individual employees questioned, not on the investigative team. The employees questioned seemed very sure of the policies of PP, and appeared to be acting from their own free will, apparently undeterred by the possible hideous consequences of their actions.
Live Action used perhaps the only legal method available to expose this kind of indecent, criminal activity. There is no sin in either their motivations or their method.
While this article presents some very good points about lying, I feel these points are misapplied in this case and sadly this has created some confusion among the readers. Unfortunately, Catholics are particularly susceptible to wanting to find blame in themselves, at the mere mention of it. Maybe by not seeing evil as evil, we can equivocate ourselves into not doing anything about it.
Not tell a lie to potentially save millions of babies? The Pharisees would agree.
If the civil authorities were acting under the guidelines of just and moral law, we could depend on them to protect us and our children from the abortion agenda. Yet as Roe sets a precedent of unjust law, our civil law - run by individuals disinterested in pursuing PP - cannot be depended on to pursue actual justice.
As a Church, we have experienced a catastrophic lack of leadership in this fight. Furthermore, as the media is clearly not interested in picking this fight, rogue journalism is the logical next step.
The question should not be whether or not what Lila Rose did was moral, but rather if she attempted to engage the attention of civil authorities before being forced to act on her own.
Christ instructs us to “Be shrewd as serpents, and simple as doves.” Reading the above thread, I think we have it backwards. Bicker over canon law all you want, but in the meantime, children are dying. I support Lila’s actions as courageous, and they could not have come at a better time.
Since folks seems willing to cite anonymous authorities on the matter, it seems about time for moral theologians who have made up their minds to speak up publicly for the good of the faithful. I make no claim to personal authority here, only some of the best moral training a seminary can offer. While others have already weighed in, there are more pastors of souls out there that need to do the same. Mark’s testimony here, which is that of others as well, correctly reflects the mind of the Church, and any moral theologian who thinks otherwise needs to put his or her name in writing, without which their opinion remains as doubtful as their identity. The examples of Dr. Beckwith and Fr. Pavone in this forum and others elsewhere is laudable, while no less erroneous, as the arguments will hopefully conclude clearly. I would also caution folks that the principal object of spiritual warfare is the unrighteousness of *our own* spirits, and only afterwards, that of others, per Mt 7:3; which seems precisely where the concern of Mark and others lies in this question, viz., that our desire for vindication against the terrors of Moloch does not lead us and future generations into the snares of his network.
Who said the “Age of Bernadin” is over? The Seamless Garment is alive and well.
@Chardin,
I don’t think this is a valid objection. The CCC isn’t mystical or symbolic; it is meant to be taken literally. Otherwise it would not be a sure norm for teaching the faith.
One must ask: Is all use of deception sinful? When does the practice of deception become sinful? In war time don’t submarines hide under the water? In police work don’t undercover agents pose as non-policemen? When Corrie Ten Boom hid Jews wasn’t she being, in a certain sense, deceitful, right from the get-go, long before anyone interrogated her? She pretended to the Germans to not be hiding Jews. The very act of hiding carries with it the will to deceive. Is it the speaking of the deception make it sinful? Is that the test, when it is spoken?
What about a Joseph who hides his identity from his brothers as well as his ability to both speak and understand their language. This is intrinsically evil? What about Rahab, the harlot in Joshua 2 who hides Jewish spies, lies to the authorities about it, and earns a place in the bible hall of fame in Hebrews 11 for doing so. Augustine claims Rahab was wrong to lie but that she did not know better because she was a Pagan, not a Jew and did not know the 10 commandments. That seems weak to me, especially given her reward in the New Testament. Furthermore, the the law forbidding lying certainly belongs to the category of “natural”—things we can’t not know, laws that don’t require revelation for us to be bound by them. In other words even Pagans know it is wrong to lie. The golden rule (I won’t lie to you because I don’t want you to lie to me) does not require any “thus says the Lord;” it is written in the human heart. Yet Rahab is held up as a hero of the Faith in the NT and the only a couple of things are known about her, she hid Jews and practicvd deception to protect them. Mark dismisses the Rahab story way too easily, given he place in Hebrews 11, which is in the NT.
Was Strider sinful in hiding his identity from the Hobbits at Bree? Were the twin boys Cor and Corin in C.S. Lewis’s The Horse and His Boy sinning for masquerading for a good part of the story? All of the great stories of heroes masking their true identity now need to be banned?
When Jesus tells us to hide the fact that we are subjecting ourselves to the rigors of fasting by oiling our hair and washing our face, is he asking us to do something sinful? When the Christians let Paul escape down the walls of Damascus they did so at night, very much hiding their actions from the eye of the authorities. Isn’t that deceptive? Does one really think they were obliged, if asked, to tell the authorities which direction he went? Or . . . they needed to have command of verbal trickery to tell a truth that does not help the authorities find him? Really? Where does this end?
To me it appears that using deception to protect the life of the innocent, far from being sinful, can even be virtuous.
The morality of a sting operation is certainly not the open-and-shut easy-to-decide sort of thing that Marks wants it to be. I am not at all convinced that it is intrinsically evil. The attempts to label it as such end up like those defending absolute pacifism. They seem clean and clear but don’t work out over time in real situations.
Tom in Ohio
Thanks, Mark. I agree (not that it matters:-), but I’ve gotten down to this.
Abby Johnson and Lila Rose (Live Action) - two distinct women (thank you, Jesus!) with exactly the same aim. Maybe it’s just that I’m incredibly slow, but God seems to show me things through people. Abby Johnson is a true work of God. There is absolutely no deceit in her conversion, no confusion about her methods, nothing to bring any kind of question into an unbelieving mind who is honestly considering truth. The confusion and distraction that has been caused by Live Action’s choices (and it is not just Lila Rose - she is the face for the organization, but she is not the only one) cause me to consider why they chose that route.
Is God trustworthy? If I look at Abby Johnson, I say, yes, He is. He can shine in any situation and the glory goes directly and supremely to Him. Can He move in ways about which no one knows? Yes, he can. He can find a woman’s heart, looking at an abortion on ultrasound and absolutely enter it and bring it to life.
If I look at Live Action, I say, Well, I think we need to manipulate the circumstances or He’s not going to really be able to come through for us. I need to look like the world, act like the world, and think like the world in order to overcome the world. If that’s the truth, then what in the world am I doing, believing? Why am I sacrificing to trust God to meet me, to meet my needs, to answer prayers? And I guess, connected to those thoughts are, does the sensationalism perpetuated by the videos distract/detract from the work that God is doing in people like Abby Johnson? Is God not enough anymore?
Thanks for being willing to take this on.
@ Tom in Ohio - Thank you, Thank you! You have relayed my very own thoughts, albeit in a much more clear and direct manner.
Tom’s comments also are similar to what John Zmirak recently posted under the “Dawn Eden Is Right, Darn It” blog. If you haven’t read those posts, I encourage you to seek them out.
@Mark Shea- As John Zmirak notes in his post at the Eden blog, “The Church forbids detraction—the needless destruction of someone’s good name through gossip.” I am wondering why you didn’t take up your concerns with Live Action itself, instead of faulting thier actions as ‘sinful’ across the blogosphere. For all the worry you had that their actions were precariously founded and as such would betray the Pro-Life movement, I think you have caused more consternation amid Pro-Lifers and for Pro-Lifers.
One must ask: Is all use of deception sinful?
No. See my final point.
John Zmirak’s take on this topic: “Cancel My Mental Reservations” can be read at http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/zmirak/08789.html
It has been very interesting following all of the comments on this topic. Haven’t had time to read everything on this thread but I will throw out my thoughts anyway.
Many years ago my husband and I were desiring to learn more about our faith. He was reading the Bible a lot and I began reading encyclicals and other Church documents. He would read something in the Bible that would perplex him and he would not be comfortable with it but thought that surely the Bible must be right. Occasionally I would be reading an encyclical that would be discussing the same issue and it would be different than what my husband understood the Bible to be saying. That showed us the importance of reading something in context and not assuming that because we THINK God or the Church says thus and so because that is what we read, that that is truly what the Church or God means. We often had to do more research.
I find it difficult to believe that the Church would be so cut and dried on the issue of lying, which while wrong, does not seem to be the same degree of seriousness as killing someone. We can undo the effects of a lie much easier than we can unkill someone! The Church, however, has many, many explanations of when it may be justifiable to kill someone. I think the issue of lying may be just as nuanced. Two things that are mentioned in the issue of lying are “with the intent to deceive” and “someone who has the right to know the truth”. With both of these statements people are coming to their own conclusions concerning this issue of LA videos. It may be true that the Church would not view what they are doing as intending to deceive PP employees as much as bringing to light the truth about PP. Also, maybe the Church would say that the PP employees have no right to the truth due to the heinous things in which they are engaging. I don’t know what the Church’s position is on this and I don’t think most of those blogging about this do either.
The LA people are pretty subtle in the statements they make and I’m not sure they would be found guilty of lying in a court of law because of the way they phrase things. Some have mentioned that they wish LA would find PP in the act of committing these crimes instead of merely talking about them. Well, that would involve someone who was pregnant being willing to undergo an abortion or a young girl entering prostitution or someone becoming a pimp in order to “catch” them, wouldn’t it? Seems a little extreme to me.
Mark has expressed his concerns about the LA methodology because of the issue of James O’Keefe. I know little about his situation but to me that is like saying that the Church needs to remove her teaching about killing in defense of life because sometimes some people have killed unnecessarily in times of war or self-defense. People misusing a moral teaching occasionally does not invalidate the licitness of the teaching totally.
The House in the meantime has just voted to defund PP. Do you suppose LA’s work has had anything to do with that? I don’t doubt it at all. Maybe we should be thanking them instead of harassing them.
Lauretta,
You are searching for nuances where the Church speaks very clearly and unambiguously. The Bible is also clear and unambiguous on lying. Satan is the “Father of lies”. To say that you can undo the effects of a lie more easily than the effects of murder (a claim which you do not support), is to look at the consequences of the action. To refer to House defunding of PP, is to look at the consequences of the action. But one may not do evil that good might come of it. One may not do evil because good consequences are perceived. Mark has addressed the matter of consequentialism in his article, and the Church has also spoken clearly against it in Veritatis Splendor.
Consequentialists fail to consider the bad effects of their actions. They fixate on the perceived good and fail to consider the bad. If the Church has defined lying as intrinsically evil, then is it worth losing my own soul by telling a grave lie, even though I think that a certain number of lives _might_ be saved? If the Church has defined lying as intrinsically evil, then is it worth leading another person (the one to whom you are lying) to cooperation in your lie—i.e. leading them into objective grave evil also, and so possibly losing their own soul as well—even though I think that a certain number of lives _might_ be saved?
The Church’s teaching is very clear, and Mark faithfully explains it.
Sue2, Abby Johnson, I believe, has just joined Live Action.
Father, you may know what the Church’s position is on this subject but I do not. I have merely read the Catechism, which is a sure norm, but not an exhaustive treatise, on Catholic teaching. I also read Veritatis Splendor many years ago and loved the parts which I understood. I do know that the author of Veritatis Splendor deceived the Communists in power in his country by hiding the fact that he was a seminarian. I believe that we can tell as many lies by our actions as we do by our words. John Paul II secretly took training for the priesthood and neglected to wear clericals which I believe was normal for seminarians to do in that era. He would have been perceived by the Communists at the time as lying to them by his actions if he had been caught. I believe there is more discussion to be had on this issue in the long run. I am not being a Clinton fan when I say that I believe we need a further definition of the term lying.
Lauretta,
You are confusing lying with deception (not the same thing—not all lies involve deception, and not all deception involves lies). Mark treats of deception in his article - the 18th point.
@Father Jerabek: “If the Church has defined lying as intrinsically evil, then is it worth leading another person (the one to whom you are lying) to cooperation in your lie—i.e. leading them into objective grave evil also, and so possibly losing their own soul as well—even though I think that a certain number of lives _might_ be saved?”
Yes, lying is intrinsically evil. However, every falsehood IS NOT a ‘lie’ according to the Church.
This does not work - “Leading them to cooperate in your lie…..” Presenting a falsehood to PP is one thing. However, PP is NOT LED to cooperate IN ANY LIE. They tell exactly how they handle underage girls, a lack of nationality papers, problems w/ those nasty people called parents… The falsehood presented by Live Action IN NO WAY changes what they would say to a REAL pimp, prostitute, or Thai-speaking-underage-girl who only has a paper signed by a fake care-taker who is really her pimp. Matter of fact…..PP would have LIED through their teeth had they KNOWN it was really a Live Action under-cover journalist! So, Live Action, NEEDS to use the FALSEHOOD to keep from “leading [PP] into objective grave evil.”
But again, Mark will read too much into my explanation, thinking it a justification. It is not. It is really and truly just an explanatin for how Father Jerabek’s argument tanks.
I will re-iterate for Mark’s benefit, every falsehood IS NOT a ‘lie’ according to the Church. I believe Live Action’s disguises are falsehoods, but not lies, for the simple reason they DO NOT INTEND to lead PP into any kind of error or harm (as PP is totally free to answer in ways that do themselves absolutely no harm.) The fact that PP, itself, suffers harm is ENTIRELY its own fault because its workers do not follow the letter of the law as they should.
Tom in Ohio, yes… great post. and Choirloft, I’ve wondered the same thing about the possible culpability of Mark Shea’s broadcasting this without being sure of it himself. But of course, I’m not the judge of that. I’m just dissappointed that he chose to do so the way he did.
A lively debate could have been begun very easily without condemnation.
Also, why did this not surface when other investigative journalists did precisely the same thing? When unlisenced, civilian journalists ‘lied’ to convenient store clerks to catch them in the act of stealing winning lottery tickets no one said a word on the morality of a sting operation by an unlicensed civilian with a camera.
The fact that this never surfaced in the mind of the general populace as ‘lying’ leads me to believe that the cause of the scandal was not Lila, but in fact the Catholic thinkers who raised their judgment against her.
I will re-iterate for choirloft’s benefit, every falsehood IS NOT a ‘lie’ according to the Church. But I believe when somebody “disguises” himself as the recipient of a miraculous cure from cancer it is BS to say they are not lying merely because they DO NOT INTEND to lead potential converts into error or harm. They are lying. Just like people who lie to PP about their identity, occupation, and purpose.
And, by the way, it is not gossip to discuss the moral implications of actions that are in the public domain. You might as well say that nobody has the right to talk about the President without writing him personally first.
Father, could you explain the difference in reality between someone who dresses as someone else to deceive and someone who says he is something he is not? If someone came to my door and stated that he was a policeman while not in uniform and someone who came to my door in a uniform, I would probably be more likely to open the door to the man dressed appropriately than the man who merely stated he was a policeman. So, if he then proceeded to rob me, his deception by false clothing was more harmful to me than the man who lied to me with his words.
I would guess that the way in which the LA people dressed, behaved and spoke (deception) was much more convincing to the PP employee than the man saying that he was in sex work. I think the line in this particular situation is such a fine one as to be meaningless.
Lauretta, you keep falling back into an analysis of consequences. I don’t know what else to say. God bless.
Mark, I’m sorry but your use of the hokey apparition just does not compare in any way to this situation in my opinion. I appreciate your position on most things—have been surprised when my minority opinions on things have been espoused publicly on you blogs but I just can’t agree with this one.
For one thing, if the PP person were to find out about the truth of the LA people, what harm would it do? She might have to face the TRUTH of her behavior but that would be about it. The phony apparition, if found out, could potentially lead to much loss of faith for all of those whose faith was based on that apparition. No comparison. Someone is going to have to work really hard to show me the difference between dressing as someone you aren’t in order to mislead people and saying that you are someone you aren’t. I fail to see why one is moral and the other is not. As I said in my earlier post, someone would be much more likely to fool me if he were dressed appropriately than if he said he possessed a certain title.
Also, Mark, what if the LA people are in contact with a bishop about this situation? You could be leading a whole bunch of people into condemning their work when it is being approved by someone in authority. Do you know for a fact that these people have had no counsel from the Church in this matter?
@Mark Shea- “I will re-iterate for choirloft’s benefit, every falsehood IS NOT a ‘lie’ according to the Church. But I believe when somebody “disguises” himself as the recipient of a miraculous cure from cancer it is BS to say they are not lying merely because they DO NOT INTEND to lead potential converts into error or harm.”
I guess one has to ask what would be a person’s intentions for presenting a falsehood concerning a ‘miraculous’ cure? Why do that? If they tell themselves that…so what. But, WHY would they tell that to someone else? And, I’ve covered before (bear with me, I did not number my arguments:-)...EVEN IF your intent is NOT to cause harm, and you DO INDEED cause harm, you have SINNED. This SIN will NOT be because you “told a falsehood” (because your intention was really and truly not an evil one), but WILL BE tied to the SIN of bearing false witness against the Church itself…“The duty of Christians to take part in the life of the Church impels them to act as witnesses of the Gospel and of the obligations that flow from it. This witness is a TRANSMISSION OF THE FAITH IN WORDS and deeds. Witness is an act of justice that establishes the truth or makes it known. All Christians by the example of their lives and the witness of their word, wherever they live, HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MANIFEST the new man which they have put on in Baptism and to reveal the power of the Holy Spirit by whom they were strengthened at Confirmation.” -CCC 2472
Lauretta:
I don’t see what the problem is. We are being told that if you tell somebody a lie for some good end (whether saving bodies or, in my case, souls, from destruction) then that somehow makes it not a lie. My illustration simply shows where that logic leads: namely so long as I am leading people away from error and toward the truth of Jesus, I can lie about my identity and my miraculous healing just as LA lied about their name, occupation and purpose. And it goes further than that. Lots of vigilantes will be able to lie about lots of things to lots of people they deem unworthy of knowing the truth. It’s a formula for moral chaos.
It’s not my job to show that these folks had counsel from the Church. That’s their job. My job is to look at the logic of arguments in favor of Lying for Jesus and see how they square up with the teaching of the Church. So far, it’s not looking too good. I will be happy to see some bishops step forward on this and tell me I’m wrong, but I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t want to beat this dead horse ever further—but I thought of a Biblical example of a believer choosing to be shrewd even though this involved lying-in order to further a righteous cause. I think this is an example of of a believer acting shrewdly, more than it is an example of deception. Tamar did this.(Genesis 38) She deceived Judah by acting like a harlot, in order to be treated righteously. She shrewdly prepared for the inevitable result of acting the harlot(being accused of adultery) and kept Judah’s personal belongings(seal and staff) to prove that Judah was the father of her child. Thus she was able to have children, which was her right and Judah’s duty to her that he never fulfilled. As you know, because of Tamar’s shrewdness, she became one of the lineage of Christ-and was listed in the genealogy of Matthew. Without her intervention, the lineage of Judah would have died out. Ironic that this applies, considering that harlots are involved in both these situations. But my point is this: this situation of the PP sting seems to me, a matter of acting shrewdly in order to further a righteous cause, a cause that should have been taken care of under the law but was not. Jesus praised the shrewd, as he praised the shrewd steward Luke 16:8-because one sometimes must outwit those of the world by being as shrewd as they are.
@Mark Shea: “I don’t see what the problem is. We are being told that if you tell somebody a lie for some good end (whether saving bodies or, in my case, souls, from destruction) then that somehow makes it not a lie. My illustration simply shows where that logic leads: namely so long as I am leading people away from error and toward the truth of Jesus, I can lie about my identity and my miraculous healing just as LA lied about their name, occupation and purpose.”
No, Mark, more correctly - presenting a falsehood ‘TO LEAD SOMEONE into error’ is the verbage. It IS NOT, ‘to lead someone to the truth’, nor is it ‘to lead them to some good end.’ It ONLY is “in order to lead someone into error.” Your case of the miraculous healing can only apply if you NEVER meant ot lead someone into error. It does NOT matter where you intend to lead them, EXCEPT if it is into ERROR. HOWEVER, in your case where you mislead others into thinking a miraculous cure has really occurred, you are SINNING because you are bearing false witness AGAINST the CHURCH.
EVEN IF your intent is NOT to cause harm, and you DO INDEED cause harm, you have SINNED.
Precisely. And that’s what opposition to consequentialism is all about, Charlie Brown. Now if you could only grasp that this applies even to sins you want to commit for the greater good too. Because, you see, lying does cause harm and is even a form of violence, says the Catechism. In fact, even if I never get caught, I have still sinned. Your argument basically says, “it’s a sin to lie because you might get caught and that would cause harm.” The Church’s teaching is simpler: It’s a sin to lie—even if you don’t get caught. Your argument is basically consequentialist: lying is bad if you get caught. Mine is simpler: Lying is bad.
TMR:
See point 11.
On the contrary, choirloft. You misunderstand the nobility of my phony evangelist. She want everybody to know that Jesus is the truth and that the Church is glorious recipient of all truth. That’s not bearing false witness against the Church. That’s the truth! She doesn’t want to lead people into error any more than LA does. That’s why she’s not lying (as you yourself make clear). Because her “disguise” as somebody who has been miraculously healed from cancer is going lead people *out* of the error of their godless lives and into Holy Church.
People are *dying* for lack of the gospel, choirloft! Dying! And you sit there quibbling about whether its a lie to fake a little teeny white lie about a miraculous healing when millions are passing into a Christless eternity? WE HAVE TO ACT NOW! THIS IS SPIRITUAL WAR! WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE! AND IF YOU QUESTION MY EVANGELIST’S TACTIC EVEN A LITTLE BIT THEN I HAVE TO WONDER WHO’S SIDE YOU ARE REALLY ON AND IF YOU REALLY EVEN CARE ABOUT THOSE DYING SOULS OR IF YOU ARE JUST A PHARISEE WHO IS ONLY SITTING ON YOUR PRETTY LAURELS WORRYING ABOUT NITPICKY LEGALISM!!!!
Ahem, sorry. My evangelist friend gets carried away sometimes. Anyway, as you yourself say of fake pimps and real pimps, the reality is that even if my little miracle is fake, there are real miracles, and the effects are the same: people come to faith. So obviously it’s not lying. It’s… legitimate deception. Or acting. Or something that’s really good because it gets results. And it leads people out of error and into the ETERNAL light of Christ. So it’s not lying.
By this definition, Oskar Schindler sinned, and his options, in your view, would have been to “hide” the over 1000 workers he lied to protect. That’s a real world, not hyperbolic example. It is difficult for me to reconcile Schindler’s action with sin. Yet, that is, in essence,, consequentialism, which I totally agree, is a modern heresy that justifies a host evils that far exceed lying. I’m willing to say that the issue of his sinfulness is a mystery I can’t resolve, rather than accuse Schindler of sinning. The CCC is magisterial wisdom, period. How you or I read it is not, and I think that fact is a source of significant heresy as well. It is quite possible that no one on earth, other than God, is in a position to make the call.
On the other hand, the PP sting is consequentialist at face value, because even the consequence doesn’t justify the ruse. How can I say this? Because any moralist and I don’t limit that to catholics, with half a brain already knows what PP has been, is, and will be about, whether this sting happens or not.
So, lying to achieve a result that everyone is already aware of can’t possbily be considered a licit event.
@Mark Shea: “Because, you see, lying does cause harm.”
Ya, ya, ya…and if it causes harm it’s a lie. That’s as CIRCULAR as Charlie Brown’s head! That is nothing more than “Live Action lied because they lied.”
However, a falsehood does not necessarily cause harm. And, if the falsehood is ‘commited’ without the intent to lead to error, it is not a SIN. If Live Action’s falsehood was not intended to lead PP into error/sin, Live Action’s actions are not sinful and are not considered sinning/lying according to the Church. YOU cannot say their falsehood is sinning BECAUSE they indeed caused harm - as that would be nothing more than consequentialism, Charlie Brown.
You tell me WHY you think Live Action’s falsehood was a sin.
That is nothing more than “Live Action lied because they lied.”
No. Live Action lied because they walked up to somebody and gave a false name, occupation and purpose, just as my phony evangelist lies when she walks up and says she was miraculously healed when she was not.
The difference between us is that I recognize that both of these acts are what all normal speakers of English call “lying” while you attempt some spectacularly contorted reasoning to claim the first act is not lying while the second act is.
And now I’m gone again. Life beckons.
Here is a comment from a legal perspective:
Agreeing with Yoest and Ingraham, one of Rose’s legal counsels, Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society, says: “What Lila Rose and Live Action have accomplished through their undercover videos is nothing more or less than what mainstream investigative journalists have done to uncover abuses in other businesses — meatpacking, slaughterhouses, and so forth. Live Action’s investigations have been carefully planned and researched and found to be in strict accordance with the applicable laws.”
@Mark Shea: “People are *dying* for lack of the gospel, choirloft! Dying! And you sit there on quibbling about whether its a lie to fake a miraculous healing when millions are passing into a Christless eternity?”
Like I said, the intent of your Godly evangelist was NOT to lead to error. It is INconsequential that she wants to lead to the Truth, and as such it doesn’t really amount to a hill o’beans in the argument. So, she is NOT GUILTY of LYING. However, I think most people will recognize her falsehood/deception as BEING A SIN. Don’t you? That evangelist “must profess [the faith] without equivocation.” (CCC 2471) And, to mislead the faithful concerning a miracle is very likely a sin against the Holy Spirit.
@Mark Shea: “No. Live Action lied because they walked up to somebody and gave a false name, occupation and purpose, just as my phony evangelist lies when she walks up and says she was miraculously healed when she was not.”
Doesn’t pan out Mark. What you are saying is, Live Action sinned (the sin of lying) BECAUSE they told a falsehood. But, since not all falsehood is a lie (EVEN acknowledged by you: “I will re-iterate for choirloft’s benefit, every falsehood IS NOT a ‘lie’ according to the Church.”), we cannot conclude that their falsehood WAS a LIE. You have failed to tell us how the falsehood BECAME a LIE.
Black Jacque, PP makes money performing abortions. Workers in any business are encouraged to promote more business. Some workers have poorly formed consciences and don’t realize what they are promoting, like some workers at abortion clinics. Asking if 14 year olds could get abortions or what could be done if they needed an abortion is putting these workers in an occasion of sin - a place they would not be at that moment if they were not being asked the question. It is only in answering the question that they will be sinning. So while the tapes expose the sin, they also cause it. The lie is exposing an evil but also harming a soul.
Okay. One more.
Lauretta:
The question is not “Is it legal?” If it comes to that abortion is legal. The question is “Is it a sin to lie to PP?”
Choirloft:
Your tortured logic eludes me, but it appears that you have at least figured out that lying for Jesus (at least to save souls) is a sin. That’s a good start. I hope one day you will figure out that lying for Jesus to save bodies is also a sin.
Mr. Shea
Thank you for sharing your excellent reflection!
I am relieved to still find people that firmly and solidly believe the foundations of the pro-life movement should be built on on personal holiness, prayer, penance and fasting as modeled by Jesus, who is the “Way, the Truth, and the Life”. I pray that Live Action reconsider their mediocre means and reflect on better ways that don’t compromise Christian charity, faith, and hope.
I am a victim of my own parallelism of your sloppy language, choirloft. I take “falsehood” to be a synonym for “lie”, so I shouldn’t have quoted you so literally.
I would say that not all *deception* is a lie. Athanasius was deceiving, but not lying or telling a falsehood when he told the cops who asked him if he’d seen Athanasius, “He is not far from here.” All perfect true and all perfectly deceptive.
LA was lying when they gave false identity, occupation, and purpose to PP just as my evangelist is lying when she gives a false miracle story.
And now, really, goodbye.
I wasn’t concerned with the quote proving the legality as much as I was noting that even the Thomas More Society are assisting in this. You are up against some pretty big guns, Mark.
And I am in Choirloft’s camp, I think. We have yet to prove that what LA did was a sinful lie or something lesser due to circumstances. PP may not have a right to the truth when one takes into account what they are doing—killing babies and promoting women to be abused. It has to be proven to me that this deception that LA is performing is a sinful lie.
Also, to be concerned that this is leading someone at PP to sin is silly in my opinion. They either have no clue that what they do is wrong or they don’t care—the woman knew way too much to have seemed like this situation had never happened before. In other words this wasn’t her first encounter with “sex workers”. If they don’t know its wrong, then it’s not a sin, right? And if they know but continue to participate in the activities, that’s their own issue, not Live Action’s.
Well it’s Saturday night. Time to go have a few beers and come back to reality after the weekend. I won’t be discussing anymore - I’ve satisfied both my intellect and my intuition over the matter.
I hope Mark you are certain of your position. If you are correct, then fine. But, if you even think you COULD be wrong about this you should have used more discreet channels to communicate your reservations. If it turns out that you are incorrect then you really do owe Lila a public appology.
One thing that I have discovered, both in these fora and also in talking with people in person about it, is that it doesn’t seem to matter how many different ways you lay out the matter for a consesquentialist (or for someone who believes that circumstances can make good on an intrinsically evil object of a moral act): they always come back to talking about the allegedly good consequences of an action, and often also invoke a subjective judgment on the motives or knowledge of the other party to the case.
Then we also see how our politicized culture affects us, as people begin to take sides and camps instead of undertaking a rational analysis of what someone is saying and holding it up against the clear teaching of the Church. It becomes a popularity contest of sorts.
I admire Mark for his longanimity in defending the Church’s teaching.
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.
Anonymous, well stated.
And, there are plenty of Catholic Theologians who agree with you.
Feelings do not an argument make. And our “heart of hearts” can be wrong about many things. Many people who agree with the Church’s clear teaching on this matter would take exception with your calling them wimps who do nothing about the scourge of abortion.
Kathy (and anonymous):
It’s a peculiar sort of courage to anonymize oneself for the purpose of calling others cowards. Could you please do me the kindness of giving the names of the many Catholic theologians who possess your gift of clairvoyance by which you know the personal histories of the critics of Lying for Jesus? Please do tell me about how I have “not taken any real action”. I would like to share it with the folks I have supported and stood with (including Fr. Pavone) at abortion clinics during 40 Days for Life.
Or do you 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, etc.) are worthless crap and Lying for Jesus is the only *real* way to go?
Those are the words of stampeding panic, not reasoned moral discourse. It’s one of the many reason I am filled with increasing foreboding as prolifers embrace Lying for Jesus as the New Hotness and spit on boring old anti-abortion tactics as, how did you put again? “not taking any real action.”
A fundamental undercurrent at work during the last supper and “evil hour” is sin. The Crucifixion reveals how it was that not only every single one of Christ’s disciples were taken by sin, but also the entire people. The distinction between the sin of Peter (decieving the bad guys) and that of Judas (decieving the good guys) is found in intention: the same thing that distiguishes venial from mortal sin. If you are Catholic, then you should know that Jesus provides the better example of how to conduct oneself.
@Mark Shea from your blog above: “My post the other day has generated a boatload of questions, comments and concerns. I can’t address absolutely everything, but there are several main questions that come up which I think it is worth playing whack-a-mole on.”
You won’t mind me joing in the game, I hope.
I truly believe the reason the com-box comments keep going around in circles is that you have based your blogs on an unproven assumption and as such your blogs tackle what is basically a LOADED QUESTION. You ask: “Can You Lie for a Good Cause?” and offer “Last Comments on Lying for Jesus.” Both of these titles contain a controversial assumption - namely, that the deception Live Action carries out is actually considered a LIE by the Church. Mark, before tackling whether Live Action can “lie for a good cause,” you first need to establish that the deception they carried out IS INDEED a LIE according to the Church.
That is LIE “according to the Church.” Not “lie” as it is used in common English language or by bloggers. You see, the CCC does not use “sloppy language.” It very narrowly defines what LIE means. Why? Because it is IMPORTANT to have a SURE NORM for teaching and living the faith. (via Fr. Corapi)
As you said, “The Church says deception can be legitimate.”
So, the task at hand (long-overdue) is explaining WHY Live Action’s deception of “giving a false name, occupation and purpose” is NOT LEGITIMATE, or in other words, how Live Action’s actions “speak or act against the truth in ORDER to lead someone INTO ERROR (CCC 2483).”
ordinary citizins can accomplish “police” work in certain circumstances: ie, citizens arrest.
I was not going to post in this forum but I feel compelled to, so here goes. In all of this I think one basic fact has not been established. You say Live Action’s deception was “giving a false name, occupation, and purpose” but what was their motivation? As far as I can tell, they told a falsehood to gain information and expose an organization known to break the law. They did not specifically target a certain person or people to get them in trouble or to lead them astray. They wanted to expose to authorities and lawmakers how Planned Parenthood flaunts the law and how it helps others to do so. The specific people in the videos were not the targets of the falsehood but the organization was.
It says “by it’s very nature, lying should be condemned.” There is no “...unless you’re the police, unless you’re engaging in counter espionage, unless you’re at war, unless there is a mutual understanding between the parties that they will lie to each other, unless you’re hiding Jews from the Nazi’s”. Now, a fundamentalist interpretation of what the ccc says will require condemnation of all of these. Or we can conclude that what the CCC is talking about is not the way in which Lila Rose thwarted the bad guys and hopefully will continue to thwart the bad guys.
CherylLynn, thank you. Very well put. Many here have noted that consequentialists keep dodging, while not covering what you have stated. The further this proceeds the less respect I have for them, because they prove to earn it less and less.
I wish someone would judge Joseph for deceiving his brothers, Blessed Miguel Pro for deceiving the Mexican Authorities, St Edmund Campion for masquerading against England’s legitimate authority. If the critics of Lila Rose are so sure of their position, they should confront the Church for beatifying these heros, and proceed to denounce their ruses for scandalizing their brethren.
But somehow I think that will not happen. And I know why.
I’d also like the author to point out where in the CCC the distinction between lying and deception is.
There must be a good subjective intention, good relative circumstance, and objectively good action for any act to be good. Noone has yet provided convincing arguments as to why they ‘think’ Lila’s actions were lying. They have only concluded based on their own opinions that her actions were lying.
And Father, forgive me, but it is consequentialist in nature to say that we cannot act in circumstances because of the potential of the other party to commit sin.
Mark, please continue to pray about what you are conflicted about here, because it seems as if you are riding the train far too long, and it could well damage your credibility.
“I apologize for my short-tempered response. I do get weary of saying the same things again and again and I particular dislike having to deal with the insinuation that having moral qualms about lying can only be explained by the fact that I don’t really care about the unborn.”
No worries. I never thought you didn’t care about the unborn.
Anyway, the question is not: “Is it ok to commit a venial sin in order to bring about a greater good?” The answer is clear: No.
Neither is the question: “Is lying intrinsically evil?” The answer is clear: Yes.
Those are clearly established. Rather, the question is: “Is every intentional falsehood a lie?” And that’s where the Catechism and tradition are not clear.
For instance, the fellow who dons a red coat and boots and surprises children at a Christmas party by saying, “Ho, ho, ho! I’m St. Nick!” has uttered an intentional falsehood—but he hasn’t lied.
The good-natured prankster who phones his neighbor and says, “Hi! I’m the cable guy!” has uttered an intentional falsehood—but he hasn’t lied.
Aquinas defines a lie as “a statement at variance with the mind.” But this definition fails, because by that standard, God would be said to lie—a blasphemy.
When God told Abraham to kill Isaac, this was a statement at variance with God’s mind, as it was done to test Abraham’s faith, and not because God ever had any intention of actually having Isaac killed. This is clearly not a lie.
Jesus told His disciples He was not going up to Jerusalem, a statement at variance with His mind, as He had every intention of going. This was not a lie.
King Solomon ordered the baby to be cut in two, a statement at variance with his mind, as he had no intention of having the order carried out. This was not a lie.
There are too many instances where intentional falsehoods are clearly not lies to give the wise pause for thought. If we’ve already made up our mind that people who support LA are just a bunch of consequentialists who think it’s ok to commit venial sins in the name of truth, then we’ve fallen into another sin against truth: rash judgment.
I was also hoping you’d clarify your statement about Pius XII, at least with a caveat that there is some credible information to the contrary (which you did acknowledge to John Zmirak). Failure to do so would result, I think, in another sin against truth: withholding information from people with the right to it.
“When God told Abraham to kill Isaac, this was a statement at variance with God’s mind, as it was done to test Abraham’s faith,”
The test was meant not only for Abraham, but also for Abraham’s decendants. I’m talking specifically about those who claimed to be his decendants and those who killed Jesus claiming they were accomplishing something good. The point here is that left unchecked, satan can turn even well intentioned untruths in to an opportunity to convince people (evil or not) to commit sinfull acts. With that in mind, the definition of lying provided by the CCC is not confusing to me.
The CCC’s definition of lying does not impose moral conditions on the term “error”, nor does it specify application only to good people or only to evil people. Jesus wanted people to say what they meant, and mean what they said.
“Jesus told His disciples He was not going up to Jerusalem, a statement at variance with His mind,”
How do you know Jesus’ statement was at variance with his mind? Rather I believe that he truely intendended to avoid going, but changed his mind later.
“Failure to do so would result, I think, in another sin against truth: withholding information from people with the right to it.”
How do you determine wether or not someone has a right to knowledge of the truth? Note that Jesus cooperated with the Father many times in keeping knowledge from people.
Eric Bohn wrote:
“How do you determine wether or not someone has a right to knowledge of the truth? Note that Jesus cooperated with the Father many times in keeping knowledge from people.”
That’s neither here nor there. Stating something as clearly established fact when you know that it is NOT clearly established fact is dishonest. And the reading public has a right to know that there is credible evidence (which Mr. Shea is aware of) to the contrary regarding Pius XII and the false baptismal certificates.
Your arguments do no credit to your cause, and I find it ironic that people so seemingly zealous to defend truth and righteousness would defend dishonesty so easily, just to prove their point.
I’d like to take back my remark above—I re-read Mr. Shea’s comments at Zmirak’s article, and it seems he genuinely does not think there is any credible evidence to the contrary, including the statements of Sr. Marchione, the Nuncio of Hungary, and Bd. John XXIII. I apologize for accusing him of dishonesty, and take it back.
I feel properly chastened after today’s readings. I think the combination of these sorts of arguments and caffeine is a near occasion of sin for me. I’m going to go figure out how I can be pro-life without yelling at (or about) fellow pro-lifers. And I do apologize for calling people wimps. Good luck and God bless to all here.
Seems to me that everybody is focusing only on one part of the Catechism. One should also take into account the section beginning at 1750 as weel as those dealing with the conscience from 1777.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.
1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
- the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.“56
- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.“57 Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”
Given these criteria, I find it hard to condemn those who go undercover to save lives.
I have two scenarios that I would like someone to clarify:
1. During WWII, John Paul II was involved in 2 deceptive careers: He founded an underground theater, which he later remarked about later saying: “it was essential to keep these theatrical get-togethers secret; otherwise we risked serious punishment from the occupying forces, even deportation to the concentration camps” (Gift and Mystery). Secondly, he was a seminarian in the “underground” seminary in Krakow.
2. St. Maximillian Mary Kolbe, while at Auschwitz celebrated Mass covertly, with both smuggled bread and wine and bread that was given to him in his cell by the guards. He also secretly heard confessions.
In these two scenarios, we have two holy men who clearly deceived the Nazis. John Paul II deceived them in two instances both for his underground theater as well as in the case of being a seminarian. St. Maximillian Kolbe deceived the Nazis by secretly celebrating Mass and hearing confessions (and condoning the smuggling of bread and wine, which means he both thought it was OK to steal and lie in order to celebrate Mass).
Consequently, I am confused, what is true?
1. Is all lying or deception evil? (in other words, is it sinful to morally withhold the truth from someone in all cases, even in the case of the Nazis?)
2. Did John Paul II and St. Maximillian Kolbe lie in those instances?
What happened when the Nazis questioned John Paul II and Maximillian Koble in those two instances? Did they lie to keep cover? Did John Paul II tell the Nazi night police that he was going to seminary? Did Maximillian Kolbe tell the Nazi guards that he was hearing someone’s confession or celebrating Mass?
Can someone answer these questions for me?
Rachel,
The very passages you quote from the CCC state that its never OK to do evil that good may come from it and that respect for the conscience of one’s neighbor must always be before you.
LiveAction people lied. They said things that were not true, intended to do so (they were well rehearsed) and intended to lead PP staffers into error (they clearly wanted PP staffers to believe that they were something other than what they in fact were).
And LiveAction people tempted PP staffers into mortal sin.
By the very standards of the passage you quote its clear that LiveAction has done wrong in this case.
Philip, if you add to your examples all of the priests throughout the years who had to not wear clericals, even though canon law required it, to avoid being killed or imprisoned by whatever regime was in power at the time, we have many examples of ordained people lying and sinning—to give the Sacraments, no less. I hope that if someone gives the definitive answer to this at some point, we hear how all of these things that have been brought up from events in the Church to incidents in the Bible are to be understood.
Mark: There might be a few minor places where I’d disagree with you, but your basic points are clear, lucid, solid, and on target. Thank you.
@Philip: “Consequently, I am confused, what is true? Is all lying or deception evil?”
Mark Shea does say it correctly: “Deception is (sometimes) morally permissible. Lying is not.” However, one needs to keep in mind that we need to use the definition of each put forth BY THE CHURCH, not by Mark Shea, not by Webster, nor even by Encarta.
In fact, it really HAS NOT been established that Live Action’s deception even crosses the line from morally permissible into morally NOT permissible. Before we secure the final verdict on that, we really cannot discuss whether LA has been LYING (the morally IMpermissible kind)for a good cause (per Mark Shea’s blogging.)
Ron, the purpose of the lie is to entrap the other person, so since that is part of the act of lying itself, it is not an analysis of consequences for me to point out that the entrapment adds to the gravity/malice of the act.
@Father Jerabek- “...the purpose of the lie is to entrap the other person…”
Wrong. Use the terms/definitions carefully. It matters.
Let’s rephrase that more accurately. “The purpose of the [DECEPTION] is [DECEPTION].” The purpose of the [giving a false name, occupation and purpose] is deception. And, not all deception is wrong. And, believing the deception is already implicit in what deception is….the fact that the deception is beleived IS NOT what ‘being led into error’ is talking about. (see my post re:@sd below…)
ALso, not all deception has as its goal entrapment. Did Athanasius when he answered: “He is not far from here.”
@sd - You have already determined “Live Action people lied.” You have determined that Live Action’s actions “speak or act against the truth in ORDER TO LEAD [Planned Parenthood] INTO ERROR.” (emp. mine, CCC 2483) I disagree. What you present as example is basically that PP is LED INTO ERROR because PP believes the deception. But, isn’t that inherent with using a deception? It’s not a deception unless someone is fooled, right? So, you are telling us that Live Action LIED (according to the Church) because their ‘speaking or acting against the truth (a.k.a.deception)’ was done with the INTENT to “lead PP into believing the deception.”
Read that over a few times.
Well, if, as Mark Shea states, “Deception is (sometimes) morally permissible,” you, sd, would have us believe that the ONLY deception that is MORALLY possible is the deception THAT FAILS to deceive. Which makes absolutely NO SENSE given all the examples we have of deceptions that REALLY DO work as deceptions and that REALLY are PERMISSIBLE. It’s time you head back to the drawing board, sd, and come up with a better argument for why you think Live Action’s deception should be considered a LIE according to the Church.
@sd, read Tom Crowe’s piece at CatholicVote.org very carefully. Tom makes the point that if the ‘victim’ (in this case, PP) HAS LED HIMSELF into error if “he chooses to act in a horribly immoral manner.” In other words, Live Action did NOT choose how PP would answer or dialogue…that is entirely in PP’s boat. PP could have answered ALL the questions and provided dialogue in a manner totally befitting of legal requirements.
It is not worth for the police to set up a sting or the CIA to undergo espionage UNLESS they have a good idea that some useful information may be gained. In this case, PP is completely responsible for the answers they gave, as they had every option of providing the “right” answers.
CherylLynn, your post makes no sense to me.
@Father Jerabek - I’ll try again. Essentially you and sd are claiming Live Action LIED according to the Church because PP believed the deception. The ‘believing the deception’ is what you take to be as the ERROR that occurred, the ERROR that Live Action INTENDED to LEAD PP into.
I am saying that that doesn’t work. That CANNOT be the ERROR needed for Live Action’s deception to be a morally IMpermissible deception.
We have already established that “deception is (sometimes) morally permissible.” And, we have already read about many deceptions that were carried out AND were believed AND were morally PERMISSIBLE. Therefore, it cannot be that the simple fact that the deception WORKS is what marks the difference between morally PERMISSIBLE and morally IMpermissible deception.
Is that better?
That is not what I said at all. I said that they lied to PP because what they did falls within the definition of a lie given by the Catechism. I said further that there was added gravity/malice to their lie because it was intended to entrap the person lied to into agreeing to do something that was intrinsically evil. You are driving my analysis into the consequences and I am saying that it has to do with the object, intention, and circumstances of the act, none of which are the outcome or consequences (“believing the deception” is how you put it).
What the basic issue is here is that you think what Live Action did was merely a deception, and I am saying that it was a lie.
@Father Jerabek: “I said that they lied to PP because what they did falls within the definition of a lie given by the Catechism.”
I’d be interested to find out WHY you think Live Action’s deception crosses over into morally IMPERMISSIBLE.
@ Mark,
Ok, a couple of things. Point # 1
You asked William Donio, Jr if he knew anything about false baptismal certificates and he said he did not. A leading scholar on the life of Pope Pius XII is ON RECORD as saying the false baptismal certificates are real. How should you have verified the information? You contact the person who says it’s real! But no, instead you went back to the person who didn’t know anything about in on Wed, and nope, still doesn’t know anything about it on Sat, so IT MUST BE TRUE!
You know that if the shoe were on the other foot, you would lambaste the other person for that type of journalism.
You can choose to believe Donio, and cite Griffin’s book, but then you need to say that there is some disagreement between experts on the historical accuracy. You cannot say “turns out it’s an urban legend,” until you verify BOTH sources (Donio and Sr. Marchione.)
To watch an interview on EWTN where Sr. Marchione and Fr. Mitch Pacwa discuss the false baptismal certificates, go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFTt693dzHI
the false baptismal certificates are discussed at point 6:45/56:34
Here is Christ going by version one of the catechism which said lying is leading into error someone who has a right to the truth….it was then shortened (see comments at Vox Nova by David Nickols). But here is John’s gospel…nab version:
John
Chapter 7
1
1 After this, Jesus moved about within Galilee; but he did not wish to travel in Judea, because the Jews were trying to kill him.
2
But the Jewish feast of Tabernacles was near.
3
So his brothers 2 said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.
4
No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world.”
5
For his brothers did not believe in him.
6
3 So Jesus said to them, “My time is not yet here, but the time is always right for you.
7
The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I testify to it that its works are evil.
8
You go up to the feast. I am not going up 4 to this feast, because my time has not yet been fulfilled.”
9
After he had said this, he stayed on in Galilee.
10
But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, he himself also went up, not openly but (as it were) in secret.
Point # 2
Mark, (again,) you made this statement twice. First in your “Dawn Eden is Right, Darn It,” article that you posted on Wed. and then used it AGAIN with this article.
My question was why do you PRETEND to be sitting on the fence with this statement, when you are CLEARLY in the “Lila Rose/Live Action sting operation is lying always and everywhere, ” group? (We’ll it Group A)
We could call the other group the “Lila Rose’s/Live Actions sting operation does not fit the definition of lying,” group. (Group B)
Then anonymous posted lastnight “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 agreed with this persons sentiment. And, mentioned that there are Catholic Theologians (should have used your word of “worthies,”) that agree that Lila Rose’s/Live Actions sting operation does not fit the definition of lying.
My agreement with what Anonymous was with that point only. For the record Mark, I know you are pro-life. I know you are not a “secrete liberal,” or any of that other nonsense. I do believe, though, that sometimes you over think things. In the same way some Christians think they have to be pacifists if they really want to follow Christ. No, sometimes we have a moral duty to defend the innocent. I believe you are well intentioned on this one, but wrong.
You asked for a list (for a different reason,) but here is a list non the less.
A short list of “Catholic Worthies” that belong in Group B:
Deal Hudson “Taking on Goliath” an article praising Lila Rose
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/05679.html
Jeffrey A. Mirus “Is Lying Ever Right?”
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0809fea3.asp
Peter Kreeft:
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14306#more-14306
John Zmirak’ “Cancel My Mental Reservations” http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/zmirak/08789.html
Matthew Warner
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/more_planned_parenthood_lies_caught_on_tape/
Steven Graydanus…in the combox of your “Darn It” article.
Thomas Peters, on CatholicVote (let me know if you want the reference)
EWTN (let me know if you want the reference)
We could have a Group C – Catholic Worthies that are TRULY conflicted on this…
“So the Church recognizes that there are certain narrow circumstances, notably in the protection of life, in which it is licit to kill. But there are no narrow circumstances, even to protect life, in which it is licit to deceive? Does that seem right?” Pat Archbold
The list could go on and on, but I’ve run out of time. I’ll check back later tonight.
@Father Jerabek - You claim Live Action’s deception caused PP to “agre[e] to do something that was intrinsically evil.”
What did PP “agree” to do?
PP TOLD what THEY do in certain circumstances. I don’t remember them “agreeing” with a procedure or technique that Live Action suggests. Did I miss that section of the film? Yes, some of the things PP said were pretty incriminating. Matter of fact, these are some of the very same things they say every day to some young ladies in some cities of our country. PP is “agreeing to do something that [is] intrinsically evil” every day in this country. There was nothing special in what they told Live Action. That’s the UNDERLYING problem, however. That is the entire reason FOR the sting. The sting was meant to uncover what PP says in a ‘normal, everyday’ situation. There was NO intent to ENTRAP them into saying anything especially incriminating. The entire problem with PP is that MANY of the things they say every day are simply incriminating. That’s PP’s problem, is it not? That’s not Live Action’s problem.
Christine,
Some of the points I was hoping would hit home:
—Through the example and teaching of Jesus, it appears to me that lying is always a sin.
—If you dont’t know the person you are considering, and you don’t know what God thinks about them, then you can’t presume to know what they think is valid or relevant as truth. To accuse someone of lying under such circumstances makes you liable to be assigned a place with “the accuser”.
—While it is always wrong to lie, the example and teaching of Jesus indicates that it is not necessarily wrong to withhold truth, especially if you have no way to know who deserves to know it or who doesn’t. Amongst his disciples, Jesus spoke plainly; amongst the crowds, he preffered parables; before Herrod, he was silent. I can’t help but think that what LA did, could have been handled better.
““So the Church recognizes that there are certain narrow circumstances, notably in the protection of life, in which it is licit to kill. But there are no narrow circumstances, even to protect life, in which it is licit to deceive? Does that seem right?” Pat Archbold”
This is the issue that gets me. Killing and stealing can at times be justified but telling lies can never be justified. As I have stated before, it is much easier to undo the harm from lying when later discovering that it was the wrong thing to do than it is to undo killing. If killing can sometimes be justified to defend others—say in the issue of rape, then I cannot understand why pretending to be someone you are not(lying according to Mark) to stop the horror of human trafficking cannot be justified.
@Father Jerabek - You claim Live Action’s deception caused PP to “agre[e] to do something that was intrinsically evil.”
You know what is REALLY pertinent here…..if Live Action HAD NOT used the deception, Planned Parenthood WOULD HAVE LIED through their teeth!! So, I would disagree that the DECEPTION (costumes and comment about “doing sex work”) LED Planned Parenthood into doing something that was intrinsically evil, say, like LYING.
So, I think you need to come up with some other reason WHY you think Live Action’s deception crosses over into morally IMPERMISSIBLE. I’m still interested to hear it.
Peter Kreeft has an interesting take on this over on CatholicVote.com. He says that not only is Lila Rose right but she is obviously right. My own take on this is that what Planned Parenthood does is intrinsically evil and the undercover operation is the only way to take them down. They certainly will never admit to what they do.
@Denise Johnson: “My own take on this is that what Planned Parenthood does is intrinsically evil and the undercover operation is the only way to take them down.”
Listen to the recording of the webcast from Feb. 15, 2011 concerning how Planned Parenthood and its connections are trying to silence Phill Kline, the prosecutor who had the courage to expose PP’s criminal actions in Kansas. http://instantteleseminar.com/?eventid=17699817
I think there is also info at: http://plannedparenthoodcorruption.org/
This debate is ridiculous and does nothing to help the pro-life movement; it only creates division. All of the PP undercover videos show PP employes ready and willing to offer advice and direction to a “pimp” who made it clear that he wanted info for his underage female prostitutes. Those caught on camera were not led into sin. Abby Johnson ( the former PP Director from TX ) was recently on the O’Rielly Factor and admitted that this kind of information and support was given to ‘pimp’ like individuals all the time; caring more for their (the young girls’) right to all that Roe v. Wade has to offer, rather than caring for the right of the girl’s not to be raped and sold as sexual toys in the U.S.A.. If Live Action/Lila Rose have to ‘fib’ to show that PP do not deserve federal dollars (our money) to fund abortion (murder) and contraception, then I say fib away! To suggest that God binds himself to the technical wording proscribed by His earthly Church is absurd. Yes lying is a sin…but clearly God can see the greater good that can come from what Live Action has done to protect lives. After all, our Church history offers wonderful examples of how God Himself has endorsed the taking of lives for a greater good and the fulfillment of His Will…such as St. Joan of Arc, St. Constantine, Moses, and David. All killed in the service of God. Any upstart theologians wanna tackle that one?...
Satan is the author of lies and deception.
Right now hundreds of Christians and Catholics are hung up about whether or not a certain thing is deceptive or lying.
Many of these same people are spending a lot of time discussing this.
Satan is doing his job by deceiving us and lying to us. He wants us to have this lengthy discussion, for it distracts us from doing something good and it brings out the worst in us (many uncharitable sentiments directed towards commentators and Lila Rose).
I suggest three things:
Pray.
Hope.
Don’t Worry.
The moment we let down our guard, Satan comes in and distracts us.
Why don’t we pray for Lila Rose?
Why don’t we ask the Holy Spirit for guidance?
And above all, why don’t we pray for the unborn?
As a side note (I really think THIS is the issue at hand):
Which is more evil what the Nazis did or what Planned Parenthood does every day?
I retract what I wrote before, for the most part. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is absolutely clear that lying is unequivocally wrong - always and everywhere, for any reason. It reminds us that Our Lord Himself called the devil “the father of lies and a murder from the beginning,” and that the connection between the two - lying and murdering - is not so distant as we might think. We cannot contribute to the Kingdom of Heaven, founded on grace and truth, with lies. Lies are an attempt to circumnavigate reality in order to force our desired aims, rather than trusting that obedience to the will of God will bring us to His promised victory.
The only possible moral defense of an apparent lie, then, must consist in demonstrating that the lie really is only apparently, and that in fact truth was not violated.
Mark,
Thank you for your very detailed analysis and patience in addressing the many issues here. I am not settled on this matter (and do not expect to be any time soon). I have a few thoughts that I hope you might further address.
First, while I see that there are significant differences between the Live Action sting and the work of undercover law enforcement officers (and spies and even diplomats) I can see nothing in your analysis (nor in any of those I’ve seen that come to the same conclusion) that would not apply to equally to both. This would mean that the Church’s teachings would have grave and far-reaching consequences. No faithful Catholic could ever engage in those activities.
Second, I am suspicious of (perhaps because I am unclear of) the distinction between lying and deception. Can we really “baptise” intentionally deceiving someone by the avoidance inaccurate words? Most of us know how to deceive people using only statements that are, on their face anyway, technically true. For instance, when I know that the listener is mistaken about some background fact. Live Action’s stings might very well have been accomplished without anything that was, technically at least, lying. For example, it might have been very convincing for the “pimp” to cast the whole conversation hypothetically. “What if, hypothetically of course (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), someone had some girls working for him and one of them, you know, got pregnant . . . And if one of my ... no, no, I mean, if one of that guy’s girls was only 13 . . . .”
Finally, for lying to be always and everywhere illicit, whereas killing is not, there must be a sacredness to language that I, and I suspect many people, have not fully grasped. We know “intuitively,” as Dr. Kreeft migth say, that we could not rape someone to save a life or even to permanently end all abortion. But we (meaning the world of otherwise practicing Catholics) do not know so intuitively that we cannot use contraception for “good faith” family planning. Our grasp of the sacredness of sexuality is incomplete. We are in great need of a Theology of the Body. This whole discussion on lying indicates that we are also in need of a theology of language. After all, it was the “Word” that was made flesh and dwelt among us.
There is a solid post on a blog called the men of Jesus Christ blog concerning live action. Might add a different dynamic to the discussion. http://menofjc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=185:is-it-a-lie-what-we-can-learn-from-live-action&catid=38:mojc-leadership-main-contribution-category#josc73
I don’t consider myself a “legalist” but I’m still not sure on the Lila Rose dilemma…..and the first article I read with comments from Germain Grisez and William May against lying in this situation made much sense to me. They, too, are giants in the field of moral theology. I don’t expect this to be settled any time soon. And….I do agree with the “gut” reactions that Kreeft talks about. And, of course, he’s a giant, also. I know nothing, really.
But the following situations from Kreeft got me thinking if they could be justified by the explanation I cited below.
“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.
If you were watching your son or daughter being raped while you were disarmed and tied up and had only words as weapons, and if there was some lie you could tell to the rapist that would stop him, do you really mean to tell me that you would not tell that lie?”
CCC #2263 Legitimate Defense
If killing an unjust aggressor is a legitimate defense under the principle of double effect……then would not lying as a legitimate defense to prevent the above scenarios (from Peter Kreeft’s article) be in a similar moral category? If you can kill….then you can lie.
The clear teaching of the Church, four years of major seminary, and twenty-one years of priesthood prove to me that you are correct on this issue, Mark. Well written and well done!
Jackie,
I am convinced that Mark Shea and others are indeed mistaken in their assessment of this moral issue, and that others who are moral theologians (e.g., Monica Miller), are indeed correct, and so is Kreeft’s “gut-check” approach (at least as a first but fallible indicator of where the truth lies).
But the key is indeed the notion of “legitimate defense” as articulated in the CCC in its treatment of the commandment not to kill.
Much of the problem here is that our use of “lie” is so colloquial, while in the CCC the use of “lie” becomes rather technical—lie *must* mean an “intrinsically disordered” act that should *not* be done. It becomes clearer if we clean up the language.
For example, when we speak of killing in self-defense, we don’t refer to that as “justifiable *murder*” but rather “justifiable homicide” to distinguish the act from its intrsincially evil counterpart.
In this case, therefore it is not: “If you can kill, then you can lie.” But it IS “If you can kill, then you can deceive.”
Deception is ultimately a form of “verbal violence”, and it IS possible to employ both physical and verbal “violence” when engaging an unjust aggressor in the attempt to weaken or halt that aggression for the sake of the common good. By virtue of our baptismal calling, in the case of “taking on” PP, we *do* have the right/authority to take proportionately appropriate action in that engagement of the unjust aggressor. It isn’t just “metaphor” to say that this particular aggressor attacks *all* families equally, by means of its own deceptive tactics.
Thus it is morally permissible to respond in a proportionate manner, using a form of deception that yields both a positive and a negative effect (double effect)—the positive is the weakening of the unjust aggressor (and maybe even the neutralizing of that aggressor), while the negative effect is the PP employee being “led into error” via the sting. The proportional difference between the two effects (with the good greatly outweighing the bad effect) makes the act justifiable.
Mark Shea’s attempted comprehensive post here is not so comprehensive as it really doesn’t address these points. My hope is that he and others will re-consider their positions.
Sincerely,
Deacon Jim Russell
@Jackie,
I’m sorry but this isn’t correct. Killing is not intrinsically evil, while lying is. So one can kill in defense of oneself or another, but one may not lie. The principle of double effect can only apply to a certain act if the act itself is morally good or morally neutral. Lying is neither.
dcs,
It looks as though you and Deacon Jim Russell posted at nearly the same time, and discussing the same point.
Please read what Dc. Russell posted, as I think he satisfies the question you raise.
@bill bannon,
I think Our Lord is referring to a particular festival day in John 7:8 (this is how the Douay-Rheims translates the passage), while the Feast of Tabernacles lasted seven days (so to arrive in the midst of the feast would be after that first day). This is how St. Augustine understood the passage:
as well as how St. John Chrysostom understood it:
Ref: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-John7.php
@Deacon Russell, you are correct that we can use deception in certain circumstances; what we cannot do is lie (that is, we cannot say something we believe to be false with the intention of deceiving another). The problem is that the “form of deception” used by Live Action is lying. They might have been justified if they could have accomplished their “sting” without resorting to lies (or to strict mental reservation, which is equivalent to lying).
One can quote a fact from the CCC, which carries the authority of the magisterium. There is no argument on that point. However, quoting a fact from the CCC and then postulating that fact to be applicable to a situation of any particular author’s choosing is a dangerous literary device, that, as this set of posts shows, can lead to schism amongst well intentioned Catholics. A good intention leading to such a result does not reflect upon the truth. Rather, it reflects the fact that humanity does not yet understand the fullness of God’s revelation. That’s precisely why there are mysteries in the Catholic Church, and precisely why I’m beginning to think so called “Catholic Blog” sites do not promote Catholicism at all. They do, however, pit Catholics against one another, and inhibit the “new evangelization” charged on us all by Cardinal Burke.
So if I’m living in a home in Nazi-occupied Netherlands in 1943, and a little Jewish girl named Anne is hiding in my attic, and the Gestapo asks me “Do you have any Jews in your house” and I INTENTIONALLY LIE and say “No,” then I’ve just committed a horrible offense against God, right?
Right?
Or is there any room in the teachings of the Catholic Church for a different conclusion than the one you so zealously cling to, Mark?
The key, again, is found in the Catechism.
@DCS, who wrote:
*** you are correct that we can use deception in certain circumstances; what we cannot do is lie (that is, we cannot say something we believe to be false with the intention of deceiving another). The problem is that the “form of deception” used by Live Action is lying. ****
Part of the problem is that there is a slightly circular argument going on because of the word choices and phrasing. What you’re really stating is basically that “I believe Live Action can’t do what they did because I believe Live Action lied.”
The incorrect insistence is that the “object” of the action has been properly identified by merely stating that Live Action “lied.”
Does anyone *really* believe that Live Action’s whole purpose in engaging Planned Parenthood is to tell a lie???
Murder, for example, is intrinsically evil. But, when an unjust aggressor attacks and is killed in self-defense, we don’t say that the victim of agressor’s attack *murdered* the agressor in self-defense. We say the agressor was *killed*. Why?
Because the *nature* of the “object” of the action is *necessarily* changed by the added circumstance that the action is a RE-action to an unjust aggressor.
Folks have just *got* to see that a “deception” is no longer, by *nature*, a “lie” when the deception is targeting an unjust aggressor. The “unjust aggressor” changes the whole nature of the “object” of the action….
God bless you all,
Deacon Jim Russell
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, variety; in all things, charity.” The matter of truth-telling belongs to the first, as much as, or more than, the Church instructing the faithful on what belongs (and does not belong) in the bedroom. Numbers did not and do not resolve that question, nor will they this. If anyone’s interested in another ride than the merry-go-round, perhaps it’s worth checking on what Blessed John Henry Newman has to *say* (not just vaguely suggest) about all this, most especially what his idea of ‘crafty’ is: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/subjects/sermon20.html
Mark, you are right even though you are apparently in the minority - Dr. Kreeft and Fr. Pavone (if quoted accurately here) and others are wrong. Lying is always wrong period. The fact that our pro-life instincts cheers the good guys doing it doesn’t change a thing. Regarding Dr. Kreeft’s article: Not all of Catholic teaching is intuitively understood by children - how many children do you know inutitively know that they should love their enemies? It goes against every instinct that they have! We Catholics have become very good at rationalizing why we don’t do what Christ or His Church teaches. Yesterday, the second reading was about the wisdom of the world and how the wisdom of Christ seems like foolishness to the world. Perhaps we should try and stop trying to apply such “wordly wisdom” such as “the ends justify the means” when discerning the morality of specific actions just because our gut tells us that this is the way to go.
@Deacon Russell,
That wasn’t their whole purpose, but lies were told in pursuit of that purpose. I get the impression that you are considering the ends and not considering the means. Moreover, there is no basis in the teaching of the Church that one can tell lies to “unjust aggressors,” even assuming that PP can be considered an “unjust aggressor” in this case (they can’t since they were not the aggressor).
@dcs—
You’re doing it again…Of *course* there’s no “basis in the teaching of the Church that one can tell *lies*” to unjust aggressors. But there IS a basis in the teaching of the Church that one can tell *justifiable deceptions* to unjust aggressors.
Btw, it would be much more productive and more technically precise to focus on “object,” “intention,” and “circumstance” rather than “ends” and means”. Again, colloquial use of “ends and means” is partially obscuring the issue. The Church’s tradition is to use the threefold object, intention, and circumstance. I’m saying unequivocally that the “object” of the act is NOT lying. The “intention” of the act is NOT lying. And the “circumstances” of the act do not elicit lying.
Further, if you really don’t think PP is the “aggressor,” then you miss the whole point of Live Action’s existence…it is the action of PP that gives rise to the RE-action of Live Action. All this is necessarily attached to the “object” of the action taken by Live Action….
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
@Deacon Russell,
Yes, one can use broad mental reservation, one can remain silent, one can equivocate, etc. What one cannot do is lie, that is, say something that one believes to be false with the intention of deceiving. I believe you are wrong about the object of the act. If one tells lies in pursuit of some other end then lying is the object. The reason you do not believe that lying is the object is because you (wrongly) believe that Live Action did not lie.
“Why Live Action did right and why we all should know that”
the article by Peter Kreeft
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14306
I felt there were flaws in this absolutist view of lying at all times and circumstances is evil but couldn’t express why - I believe Kreeft does a good job of expressing the flaws.
As Kreeft said, “But any argument that begins by contradicting our moral common sense is almost certainly going to be wrong.”
@dcs—
Actually, the *Magisterium* of the Catholic Church does *not* teach anything doctrinally on mental reservation or its rules, to my knowledge. Rather there is a tradition of theological opinion on the issue. A respectable tradition on “how” to deceive without lying, but it’s a tradition that is neither exhaustive nor *magisterial*, as far as I’m aware. Do you have any magisteral sources available on the “rules” of mental reservation? That would be helpful if you do.
You believe I’m wrong about the “object” of the act. I believe you are. And by continually using the term “lie” in your statements, they effectively become circular points. I’m certainly not saying that *lying* is justifiable under any circumstance. I wouldn’t, for example, try to argue that *murder* is a justifiable form of self-defense….
In order to take this issue seriously and respect the views of others, we have to at least get each others’ language right, even if we disagree.
I have demonstrated a morally acceptable approach to the PP sting issue because the approach doesn’t involve lying. You disagree with that approach. Fine. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church, while having definitively clarified the issue of *unjust deception* (lying), does not yet appear to have clarified the issue of “just deception” with any finality. Meanwhile, we can respectfully disagree, I suppose….
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
This is simply a case of hyper-spiritualism that cripples the movement.
The problem of how PP has failed to uphold the law when it comes to underage girls has been going on for decades. PP has been deceitful and lying and has therefore lost the right to the truth.
The States and Feds have failed to investigate this on their own, and have lost their authority to investigate this issue. Abortion corruption runs through the entire system and the Gov’t has sided with this corruption.
As such, all contracts of understanding of truth have already been violated. If PP and the State have broken these contracts, then citizens - taxpayers - surely have the right to carry on a sting investigation without it being cast as sin.
Mark, you have always been one of my favorites, an inspiration. In this discussion I see you exhibiting characteristics that are very negative—sanctimony, fundamentalism, condescension, !@#$%. If you truly have had enough of repeating yourself, consider that you framed the discussion in a way that backs you into a corner (RE:CherylLynn.) How about a step back, a deep breath, and a little perspective? What you have set up pits people of
good will against each other. This is not from God. You goofed. Own up.
Take that smirk off Screwtape’s face.
@Deacon Jim Russell - regarding “just deception”, one thing we know is that whatever it is, it cannot be what the Church teaches that lying or “unjust deception” is. If it is, then it is false. What does the Church say lying is? It says: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” [CCC 2483] If someone tries to say that it is ok to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error because of some noble end, that is false, pure and simple. Withholding the truth from someone who has no right to it must be done in some other way. Hence the obvious keeping silent. Hence the theories of mental reservation, etc. All of these must be different than lying to be morally acceptable.
@Deacon Russel,
That is false - the Church teaches that strict mental reservation is equivalent to lying. See propositions 26 and 27 of Innocent XI, Santissimus Dominus (1679). So mental reservation must be broad (or wide) for it to be morally justified. But in using broad mental reservation we cannot say anything that is false. To say something false while mentally adding a qualification to make it true is strict mental reservation and is condemned.
@DCS—
***The following condemned by Innocent: “If anyone, by himself, or before others, whether under examination or of his own accord, whether for amusement or for any other purpose, should swear that he has not done something which he has really done, having in mind something else which he has not done, or some way of doing it other than the way he employed, or anything else that is true: he does not lie nor perjure himself.”***
The above version is the only one I’ve found thus far that corresponds to one or the other of the statements from Pope Innocent XI. I’m happy to consider any citations of 26 and 27 you could include.
As such, the above quote seems to suggest that what the Pope condemned had to do with “strict mental reservation” UNDER OATH. Is that so? I’m eager to see one (or both) citations from you to learn more.
In any case, you’re saying my statement was “false” based upon this example. So I guess I should amend what I said and state that: Other than one occasion in 1679, dealing with strict mental reservation while under oath, the *rest* of the “tradition” regarding mental reservation and “how to deceive without lying” is NON-magisterial, to my knowledge…which leaves much room for further development and clarification….
@John A—
Part of the fun of defining “lying” via the CCC is that we have *two* expressions, not one, to wrestle with.
You mentioned one, 2483: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”
The other is 2508: “Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor”
So, it would seem, *both* of these need to be considered as the “Church’s definition(s) of lying,” right? Can’t have one without the other, I would think….
If this is so, then I would assert that the CCC teaches that lying necessarily involves an act—saying what is false—intrinsically coupled with the *intention* to deceive one’s neighbor. Right? So, are acts that don’t include the “intention of deceiving one’s neighbor” lying, or not, according to the CCC?
God bless you,
Deacon Jim Russell
According to the Catechism, to lie “is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error”. Live Action, on the other hand was leading PP and the public toward the truth—the truth about what goes on at PP. The aim of Live Action all along was to reveal who they really were. They couldn’t make their point without doing so. It’s hard to call something a lie when what you’re doing can’t work unless you tell the truth.
I tend to agree with Peter Kreeft’s conclusion on this issue. Not only was Live Action right but they were clearly right.
It’s very tempting to take a snippet from the Catechism and pretend that you’re making an infallible doctrinal pronouncement on an issue, but I don’t think Lila Rose’s detractors have made much of a case here.
@Deacon Jim Russell - thank you for your reply… in truth, I don’t find any substantial difference between the two definitions in the Catechism - both involve an intent to decieve. The passage in 2483 says “in order to lead someone into error” seems like an intention of deception. I think what the Church is saying is something like this - if you asked me what I ate for breakfast yesterday, and I said an English muffin, but I really ate bacon and eggs - if my intention was to lead someone into error or deceive them by hiding the fact that I had bacon and eggs (perhaps trying to paint a false picture of my eating habits), then this is lying. If however, I merely got my days mixed up and told that objective falsehood with no intention of deception or misleading someone, it is not lying. I think this is consistent with both definitions in the Catechism.
@Denis - then according to you, one can pick any truth they wish and claim they are lying to promote that truth, any other truth not withstanding? It seems to me that if what we say is false and there is an intention to deceive about what we say, then it is lying no matter what other truth is used as an excuse to justify it.
@John A: “@Deacon Jim Russell - thank you for your reply… in truth, I don’t find any substantial difference between the two definitions in the Catechism…”
A couple of things - When comparing the 2 CCC paragraphs, keep in mind that, “Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor,” is telling us that NOT ALL “...saying what is false with the intention of deceiving….” is LYING. There is a distinction.
—NOT ALL “...saying what is false with the intention of deceiving….” is LYING.
—However, ALL LYING involves some sort of “...saying what is false with the intention of deceiving….”
So, those 2 paragraphs are NOT saying essentially the same thing.
&
@John A: “The passage in 2483 says “in order to lead someone into error” seems like an intention of deception.”
Can’t be. The ‘believing the deception’ is what you take to be as the ERROR that occurred, the ERROR that Live Action INTENDED to LEAD PP into.
I am saying that that doesn’t work. That CANNOT be the ERROR needed for Live Action’s deception to be a morally IMpermissible deception.
We have already established that “deception is (sometimes) morally permissible.” And, we have already read about many deceptions that were carried out AND were believed AND were morally PERMISSIBLE. Therefore, it cannot be that the simple fact that the deception WORKS is what marks the difference between morally PERMISSIBLE and morally IMpermissible deception.
@Cheryl - you wrote: “keep in mind that, “Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor,” is telling us that NOT ALL “...saying what is false with the intention of deceiving….” is LYING.” - I thought I explained that in my last post - yes, that is true that saying an objective falsehood but with no intention of deception (about what one is saying) is not lying. I even gave an example of this.
@Cheryl - you wrote: “The ‘believing the deception’ is what you take to be as the ERROR that occurred, the ERROR that Live Action INTENDED to LEAD PP into.” - If Live Action deliberately said X, and Live Action knew that X was false and Live Action had the intention of deceiving PP into thinking that X was true, that fits the definition of a lie as found in the Catechism under both citations and is therefore instrinsically evil. Note that it is independent of whether the deception worked or not.
@dcs - in replies to Jackie and to Deacon Jim Russell, you show that you are still mix
You say, “Killing is not intrinsically evil, while lying is. So one can kill in defense of oneself or another, but one may not lie.” You are setting up an analogy for explanation, but you have an error in it. Here is the correct analogy - killing:murder::deception:lying. Killing and deception are the actions that are not intrinsically evil, while murder and lying are the actions that ARE intrinsically evil.
You also say: “The problem is that the ‘form of deception’ used by LiveAction is lying. They might have been justified if they could have accomplished their ‘sting’ without resorting to lies.” You are reasoning in circles here. You are saying the “form of deception used by LiveAction” is “resorting to lies,” therefore they LIED. The problem - you have failed to explain WHY the form of deception used by LiveAction IS A LIE. (Remember, just because a deception works does not mean it is a lie.)
@John A: “If Live Action deliberately said X, and Live Action knew that X was false and Live Action had the intention of deceiving PP into thinking that X was true, that fits the definition of a lie as found in the Catechism under both citations and is therefore instrinsically evil.”
I’m sorry, I must disagree with your take on that. “Lead into error” most definitely means that you intend to lead them into something BEYOND just the deception.
Just posted this in comments on Mark’s latest column, but thought that folks viewing this one might want to consider this too:
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
PS—may not be so “peculiar” after all, as I think the definition of “murder” is also totally dependent upon an “intention” as part of its object….
@Deacon Jim Russell - You wrote: “As such, the above quote seems to suggest that what the Pope condemned had to do with “strict mental reservation” UNDER OATH.”
That seems like a strange distinction - surely it cannot be the case that I can swear X under oath, and it is perjury independent of whether or not I am lying. If there is perjury, then by definition there is a lie. The Church teaches the following regarding oaths: “It is to invoke the divine truthfulness as a pledge of one’s own truthfulness.” [CCC 2150] and “A false oath calls on God to be witness to a lie.” [CCC 2151] So if someone says that strict mental reservation under oath is perjury, then a lie is involved and the same thing said not under oath would still be a lie although not perjury.
@John A: ” If Live Action deliberately said X, and Live Action knew that X was false and Live Action had the intention of deceiving PP into thinking that X was true, that fits the definition of a lie as found in the Catechism under both citations and is therefore instrinsically evil.”
Then, do you believe ALL deception to be ‘intrinsically evil?’
@JohnA:
You wrote: “So if someone says that strict mental reservation under oath is perjury, then a lie is involved and the same thing said not under oath would still be a lie although not perjury. “
This is pretty much of an aside, but in any case, I think the distinction here is that one who takes an oath promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in some form or other.
Strict mental reservation is designed to *avoid* telling the truth completely, by definition, right? Those two things are not compatible: seeking to avoid the truth under oath…
Do you have any other citations from Pope Innocent on this? It might help clarify whether he taught anything about the *general* application of strict mental reservation…
God bless,
Deacon Jim R
@CherylLynn - You asked: “Then, do you believe ALL deception to be ‘intrinsically evil?’” - No, deception incompasses a broader category of actions than lying. For example, a Roman Catholic priest wearing ordinary clothes in a country that outlaws priests and where priests usually wear distinctive clothing is not lying - but it is a deception.
Since Christians are to be a light in the world, is it really wisdom to use the seemingly same tactics of *lying* and *deception* that Planned Parenthood uses to lure its victims into the darkness? Aren’t we called to a higher standard? And what will be the fruits in the long run even if there are apparent ones in the short. I am speaking only of the PP sting by Live Action and not examples of hiding Jews from the Nazis, etc.
You write: “This is pretty much of an aside, but in any case, I think the distinction here is that one who takes an oath promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in some form or other.” - Really? The legal oaths we have are just one example of oaths, are they not? For example: saying to anyone: I swear before God that I did not do X is sufficient to cause me to perjure myself if indeed I did do X. In looking at the language of the statement, it says: “If anyone, by himself, or before others, whether under examination or of his own accord, whether for amusement or for any other purpose, should swear that he has not done something which he has really done” leads me to believe that we are not talking only about swearing in a judicial context. The part about amusement is interesting too.
@JohnA
I’m just taking the Catechism definition of lying and applying it to this case. LA’s intention was not to lead to error but to lead to truth.
You seem to be relying on some other definition when you say, in response to me: “then according to you, one can pick any truth they wish and claim they are lying to promote that truth”. The problem here is that you assume that one is lying in order to promote a truth. I’m denying that LA LA had ever made use of “lies” as defined by the Catechism.
According to that definition, the kind of lying that is to be condemned “by its very nature” involves:
1. speaking a falsehood;
AND
2. doing so with the intention of deceiving.
LA’s intention was not to deceive. Rather, their plan, from the beginning, was to reveal who they really were. What they did wouldn’t have made any sense unless that had been their aim.
We cannot speak, therefore, of lying for the sake of revealing a truth if no lying had occurred in the first place. LA’s intention was to reveal the truth—about who they were, and about what kind of organization PP is. Consequently, the second criterion of lying, as defined by the catechism, was not met by LA’s actions.
@Jackie,
The key is that PP is “luring its victims into the darkness”, whereas LA is bringing PP into the light. Lying involves an intention to deceive (to use Augustine’s definition, cited at 2482 in the Catechism) or to “bring into error”, to use the other one at 2483. What the intention to deceive involves would require a broader discussion of Augustine’s analysis in De Mendacio, but it’s not quite as simple as what you seem to think it is. Augustine, for example, also talks about speaking the truth in order to deceive.
At any rate, the basic difference between PP and LA is that PP really does intend to deceive women. They keep information from them, tell them things that are false, hoping that the women will think that it’s just a simple, morally neutral procedure, involving the removal of undifferentiated tissue. Their aim is to have these women believe it and continue to believe it and never to discover the truth. When confronted with the truth, they continue to lie, obfuscate, hoping that the false impression they had given will continue to be believed by the women they have exploited. That really is a lie, as defined by the Catechism.
@Denis - You write: “LA’s intention was not to lead to error but to lead to truth.” - Saying they ultimately had in mind to tell the truth after the operation concludes doesn’t work - otherwise anyone can lie through their teeth to gain an objective and say that when the dust settles after obtaining the objective, they will speak the truth so it really wasn’t lying. Isn’t this just mental gymnastics? Of course there was an intention to deceive at the time - otherwise they would not have spoken the falsehood -it was critical to the success of the operation. The intention of deceiving must be considered at the time it is conveyed, not later.
@John :No, deception incompasses a broader category of actions than lying. For example, a Roman Catholic priest wearing ordinary clothes in a country that outlaws priests and where priests usually wear distinctive clothing is not lying - but it is a deception.
You seem to imply the above is an OK deception. But, the Catechism DOES say “...to speak or ACT against the truth…” I ask, what is the line between OK deception (by word or action) and NOT OK deception (by word or action)?
Your answer to Denis: “Of course there was an intention to deceive at the time - otherwise they would not have spoken the falsehood -it was critical to the success of the operation.” **I ask, how do you know that LiveAction’s intent wasn’t a broader category deception (to use your words). How do you know that their deception was really intended to mislead (which means to lead into error or doing wrong)?
It is evident that the DOER’s intention is important. And, as long as the intention is NOT to LEAD into ERROR, you cannot claim it a LIE (at least according to CCC 2483). Again, CCC 2482 (the St. Augustine ref.) is telling us that ALL lies *include* “speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” But, that does NOT mean the reverse MUST be true, that ALL “speaking of a falsehood with the intent of deceiving” is LYING. IF the “speaking of a falsehood” is MEANT to deceive, that is to intentionally MISLEAD (mislead=lead somebody into bad actions; to be responsible for making somebody do wrong), then it would be a lie.
John A,
To be honest, I don’t really understand your objection. I’m applying the definition of lying that we find in the Catechism. You appear to have a problem with that definition. It makes perfect sense to me.
You continue to allude some definition of lying different from the one in the Catechism. You say, for example “...otherwise anyone can lie through their teeth to gain an objective and say that when the dust settles after obtaining the objective, they will speak the truth so it really wasn’t lying.”
You’re begging the question. You’re assuming that one is lying to obtain an objective. According to the definition of lying at CCC 2482-2483, that’s not what LA was doing. LA’s objective was to tell the truth—about itself and PP. It’s hard to make sense of the notion of a lie that has as its objective telling the truth about the very thing that one is supposedly lying about. If I want to get you to believe X because my aim is to tell you not-X, how on earth can I be lying?
It’s part of the very nature of what LA was doing that they intended to tell the truth about who they really were. At no point were they intending to make PP or anyone really believe that they were involved in a prostitution ring. The intention behind their actions and statements was not to get PP to reveal a truth about how PP operates.
Maybe an analogy will help. Let’s say I’m in the building construction business, and you hire me to build a skyscraper for you. You don’t know this, but I ask the architect to make sure to include, in the foundations of the building, spaces for explosives that I intend to discharge as soon as I’ve received your final payment for my services. After the explosion, when you’re looking at the rubble on the ground, would you say to yourself—“Well, I have no reason to complain, because he did in fact provide the service I paid for”? Not really. You’d probably have me arrested, and then sue me to get the money that you paid me, and some additional money for damages.
And knowing that, from the beginning, my intention was to destroy the building, you’d think of what I did as I was working on the project differently. You’d no longer think that I had been engaged in an act of construction. Instead, you’d think that I had been busy with an evil, destructive scheme. You’d think that because it would be obvious that that had been my plan from the beginning—after all, why else would I have built explosives into the foundations?
It’s not a perfect analogy, but it might help. LA wasn’t working on a project to get PP to believe that they were running a prostitution ring. If they had been, they would have done a bit more work preparing for what might happen if PP looked into their story. No, LA approached PP with a story that already had the explosives for its destruction built into its foundation. Clearly, they intended from the beginning to reveal that they were not really pimps but members of a pro-life group.
@Denis - You write: “You’re assuming that one is lying to obtain an objective.” - That was not my intent - I’m using the term lying as defined in the Catechism - speaking a falsehood with the intention to deceive. You seem to be saying that one can speak a falsehood with the intention to deceive *now* as long as there is an intention to tell the truth *later* and therefore speaking said falsehood now is not lying. From where I sit, that is lying now, telling the truth later. It really isn’t very complicated. Maybe I can bring my 12 year old child to the movie theatre and say he is 11 years old so that I can get the lower price now - and I can claim that there is no intention to deceive - if I see the ticket manager next year, I’ll let him know he is over 12. I don’t know of any moral theologian who would say that this wasn’t lying precisely because of the intention to deceive at the time.
You further write: “LA wasn’t working on a project to get PP to believe that they were running a prostitution ring.” - true that this wasn’t their ultimate goal but in their methods, they spoke a falsehood to deceive PP precisely so that they could achieve their goal. It is still lying, there was falsehood spoken with the intention to deceive regardless of the ultimate goal.
@CherylLynn - You write: “I ask, what is the line between OK deception (by word or action) and NOT OK deception (by word or action)?” The clothes are not lying because a priest’s clothes do not make him a priest. They merely make it more likely that someone will not think he is a priest. An action that would be a lie is for someone to do something that only a priest can do such as saying Mass. If someone said Mass who wasn’t a priest, that would be among other sins a lie as well.
Your theater example is interesting, but it fails as an analogy.
You are certainly right that you cannot BOTH intend to profit from telling the theater owner that your kid is 12 AND intend to tell the theater owner the truth. The aim of profiting by saying something untrue about your kid’s age is not compatible with an intention to tell the truth. In order to profit, you have to intend to maintain the false impression that you gave when paying for the ticket.
But that’s not at all analogous to what LA did.
Here’s a version of your story that is analogous: You had intended from the beginning to tell them on the way out that your kid is really 12, and to pay the difference. (Note: You didn’t tell the truth and pay the difference on the way out because you started to feel guilty about profiting from a lie. It had been your plan all along to tell the truth and pay the difference on the way out.) It’s a strange game you’re playing, but it’s not a lie as defined by the catechism.
And it makes sense to say that you weren’t really lying. We might question your sanity, but we wouldn’t question your honesty.
I neglected to mention that my last comment was in response to John A.
@Denis - so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if for some reason, I spoke a falsehood to the ticket agent but didn’t intend to profit because I intended at the time I paid for the tickets to pay back on the way out that this wouldn’t be a lie. But it actually seems more disjointed from the LA case. LA did indeed profit or achieve a goal from what they told PP, their goal of getting them to expose their unlawful actions was their profit. Telling the truth later didn’t negate that, they didn’t pay anything back. So they told a falsehood with the intention of deceiving now, getting something out of it, telling the truth later and keeping what they got out of it. Oh my… it boggles my mind how folks cannot see that this is lying.
I think Mike at Friday, Feb 18, 2011 8:30 AM (EST), nails it. Christ expects us to go out like sheep in the midst of wolves, as shrewd as foxes and as innocent as doves.
The Catechism (2488) says “The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.”
2489 - Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.
Abortionists have no “right” to information being used to expose them, just as Hitler had no right to know the counter-intelligence tactics of the Allies and criminals have no right to know they’re being set up by an undercover cop.
It’s true that lying is always wrong, but it’s hardly “lying” to tell Nazis we don’t know where Jews are hiding. Truth is sometimes served when accurate information is denied to evildoers who aren’t entitled to it.
I strongly disagree. If we’re not at war, I don’t know who is. Thank you Lila Rose!!
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.
@John A: “So they told a falsehood with the intention of deceiving…”
All deception is not necessarily used to LEAD SOMEONE INTO ERROR - TO LEAD THEM TO DO SOMETHING WRONG.
Maybe the deception, like the priest’s ‘layman’ clothing is merely intended to keep the focus of the social interaction on another reality, NOT ON USING THE DECEPTION TO LEAD the other INTO DOING SOMETHING WRONG. The priest’s deception allows the focus of the government soldiers to continue looking for REAL wrongdoing…and the focus of Live Action’s deception was to allow PP to answer in an everyday fashion.
Hi @Jim Russel:
NOW I see where then problem is in the other conversation.
Over here, I agree with what Joe was trying to do. What do you want I’m a woman? I’m fickle.
The problem is you can’t use a distant end or intention to condition the intention or object of an immediate act. Otherwise, one could say to his wife: “I am not sleeping with that woman.” even if he is, because, his distant intention and object is not to deceive his wife but to keep his family together. I might argue it is also so he can have his cake and eat it, too, but I digress.
This is what is meant by sua natura—that there are certain acts that are by their nature disordered (and illicit) because they cannot ever be licit by reference to intention or object.
So the intention to deceive IN ORDER TO ARRIVE at some larger object, fulfilling a good intention, doesn’t mean it’s a tactic we can recommend and be in accordance with Church teaching.
It might be a venial sin of low gravity and low moral culpability—it could even have no culpability if it is under a situation of extreme duress as in the Nazi’s coming to your door. It doesn’t change the objective moral status of the act, outside of an individual’s moral culpability, and therefore should not be something we commend as heroic, just, or even advisable.
So we can still all love Lila Rose’s purity of intention and courageousness of heart, as well as her authentic search for social justice, but STRONGLY recommend that she use other means to achieve it.
@Jennifer Pierce - FWIW, I totally agree with your last post.
I think the focus of this discussion should also shift to this: the false premise that Lila Rose was not a legal authority. I assent that indeed, she was a legal authority. She may not have been appointed by law enforcement, but she was appointed as a pro-lifer, because she was a bonified pro-lifer, and assigned working in the field doing private investigation, thus her work falls under the exceptions listed and implied in the Catechism for ‘professional secrets.’ Because ordinary law enforcement would not, or could not, due to political or monetary constraints fulfill this duty and do the ‘sting’ operation, some kind of private investigation had to step in and bring this travesty to light. Its a bit like the ‘Dog’ on TV looking for that bounty. Only Lila needs not license to do this work. I also think that, Mark, when you dismissed an entire Scriptural record of righteous deception and dismissed Tamar’s example of a righteous deception that was sanctified in order to bring about justice that was due to her, but not fulfilled by the powers that be, that was a bit…well….conveniently dismissive.
Sorry, I meant to add this CCC to my post: 2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason
Blessed Miguel Augustine Pro was an undercover priest. He portrayed himself as anything but a priest in service of God and His children. Lila Rose’s undercover activities is also in service of God and His church. P/P declared war many years ago. Over 50 million babies have been killed and countless victims of sexual abuse and trafficing has caused untold harm to the young. This is the epitomy of a just war. God said, “Be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” The deceivers of this world is those who speak the words of God but act as His enemy with their actions, such as more than a few very public politicians and a very small percentage in the Church who cause scandal. I liken Lila Rose’s work as Acting.
@John A, thanks.
I assume you mean here and not at my blog?
Either way. Thanks. :)
Sorry, Mark, but I think that you have missed the mark quite badly on this one.
In “speaking falsehood for a good cause”, the “good cause” is motive, not intention. One can speak falsehood for a good cause with or without an intent to deceive. Thus anyone, even for a good cause, including people from Live Action or Liars for Jesus, can lie. But who knows the motives and intentions of the Live Action people or anyone else? Even if we ask them, who knows if their answers are truthful? Even people with motives of vanity can engage in efforts to expose wrongdoing or to stop abortion, and people with innocent intentions can appear to have evil intentions, or their intentions might actually be evil. We might guess what their true motives and intentions are, but who knows if we’re right? I’m not sure that even the Live Action people know themselves.
If PP was a 100% privately funded organization, maybe LIve Action would have less moral footing. But, PP is funded by our tax dollars, so perhaps we have a right to find out what those hard earned dollars are being spent on. Its as if we have a stake in a business. Businesses regularly send in fake customers and dummy clients to see how their employees react in certain situations. The business owners are paying the salary of the employees who are being tested, so it isn’t hard to see that the owners have a right (or even a responsibility) to their customers to see that their employees are acting properly. In that sense, we taxpayers are employers of the PP staff, and undercover information gathering could be categorized as our right to know what really goes on behind those walls.
Of course, we already know that PP kills children, and if it was up to us we would fire them on the spot. But, our blind-to-the-truth political leaders don’t see baby killing as wrong, so we have to reveal other immoral things that PP does to the politicians who are in the position to “fire” PP from the taxpayers payroll.
Am a philosophy student. Have followed your lines of reasoning with interest. I offer the following opinions and suggestions:
In terms of understanding Aquinas and Augustine, the biggest philosophical arguments by authority in Christian philosophy, both unequivocally say lying is wrong. (Ref. Summa II-II q110, a1-4 and where Aquinas references Augustine.)
The question then boils down not to whether you can lie (which is categorically a sin for Aquinas) but what is a lie.
The sticky point, according to the definition of lying Aquinas offers, is that materially or intrinsically if you will wrong it is evil. Thus materially it is - enunciation of falsehood, while formally it is the will to enunciate what is false and effectively, it is the intention to deceive.
Let me explain the relevance. Catholic/Natural Law morality construes an act by looking at what the object of the act is, (act itself) i.e. enunciation of a falsehood the intention will to tell a falsehood and relevant circumstances. Relevant circumstances could be the Gestapo at the door asking if you are hiding Jews (which let us assume you are).
In certain circumstances, certain principles can come into play which shed light on the what you are/would be doing –letting you know if you can go ahead with that act. These are double effect scenarios, lesser evil, self-defence, etc. The red flag that should be evident is that NONE of these principles applies because the act you would be analysing is already evil for Aquinas. (you would have been able to proceed evaluating the situation where it otherwise – but to draw in the ´children on the bridge´ analogy, if blowing the bridge were evil it in itself, you couldn’t do it– even if there weren’t chch on the bridge) It would be tantamount to fornicating to save someone which is clearly untenable (ends and means).
Aquinas does allow for legit deception be it of contingent truths and for a good end (Gestapo situation fits the bill) but this does not mean you can enunciate falsehood as the contributors have already pointed out – Issue: this seems to go contrary to what anyone would do (conscience).
Conclusion. I disagree with those who say ´commit a venial sin and go to confession’ bic you may never do evil anyway, it is a contradiction. I opine lying is materially wrong even though the following is a strong arguemtn. (cfr. II-II q110 a3, ad3. where Aquinas himself had difficulty defending how Jacob did not lie(enunciate falsehood) to obtain his birthright, etc) There appearsto be a similarity to self-defense. Killing humans is sometimes permissible *(not intrinsically evil) but neither is it ‘good’. Namely sometimes situations warrant intending enunciating falsehood to deceive but only regarding contingent truth and for a greater good in very serious situations. It would seem the following: Either you say cannot say: ‘I’m not hiding any Jews’ or ‘sometimes you may do evil’ or ‘enunciating falsehood to deceive is not intrinsically evil’.
After several insightful, lengthy and heated discussions with fellow students, I arrive to the following conclusions. (special thanks to several!)
By way of illuminating the answer I provide and the reasoning process to arrive at these conclusions, let me state the essentials of several of the scenarios invented to shed light on why/how enunciation of falsehood is or isn’t a lie. The following is a textual rendering of a chart we made. Try to recreate if it the conclusions appear incongruent.
In synthesis, a lie is the ?of enunciating a falsehood+desiring to tell a falsehood+intention to deceive.
The following segments separated by “/” are columns, title/material falsehood/form: intention to enunciate what is false to deceive/perfection of in deceived hearer/consequences or damage due to enunciation.
1) Gestapo situation where you say I’m hiding no Jews/ materially false yes/ intention yes/ perfection presumably yes/ consequences: speaker enunciated false, caused falsehood in hearer, saved 3rd party Jews. =lie
2) Gestapo situation where you say “I’m not hiding any ‘beep’ Jews”/ material falsehood no/ intention yes/ perfection supposed yes/ consequences no incongruence in speakers mind between what you believe and what you said etc.?lie
3) standing alone in a cornfield “saying this corn is pink”/ materially false yes/ intention to state falsehood yes, intention to deceive no, ?no/ perfection no/ consequences in speaker: incongruence between what you know or believe and say, no one else affected.?lie
4) Error: believing and saying “Hawaii is a country”/ materially yes/ intention no/ perfection presumably none or at any rate, speaker is not culpable/ effect speaker believed he stated the truth, hearer potentially mislead regarding contingent truth (i.e. not morally significant falsehood)?lie
5) white lie: there is water bottle filled with vodka on the table, a drunk walks in and asks is it alcohol (seeking alcohol) and you say “No”/materially false yes/ intention to enunciate the falsehood yes/ perfection yes/ consequences: subjectively lie by definition, for drunk hearer: good (potentially life-saving)=lie
6) police sting operation: fake prostitute / materially no*/ intention yes/perfection yes/ circumstances: subjectively justifiable, in person captured: no moral damage, physical damage yes, in drivers by: potential occasion of sin (would seem justifiable by double effect)?lie
7) military ruse or apparent dissimulation: retreat horn blown, enemy surrounded by ambush/ materially no*/ intention yes/ perfection yes/ consequences in commander or retreating army: technically no falsehood done and good achieved, in enemy no moral damage but physical damage yes.?lie
8) fake priest in confessional: material no/ intention yes/ perfection supposed yes/ consequences subjectively yes there could be damage due to effect in others, damage in others: morally grave in matters which do not only concern contingent truth?lie but a sin on other charges.
Note to the “*”marks: for Aquinas the malice of sin is primarily in the speaker and only secondarily in hearer. Therefore you may state what is appears to be materially false but is actually true if the circumstances warrant it and provided the damage is not of a moral nature. (that it concern contingent truth and has a justificatory circumstance+intention).
Conclusion: YOU MAY NEVER LIE=you may never intend to say falsehood to deceive (saying something contrary to what you believe). The reason for this is found in article 3 of II-II of q110: The key point being it is always “unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind” and so what fits the bill for lying is therefore intrinsically evil [never justifiable by good intentions or tricky situations]) Even still, if you say what is not false but appears so and someone is deceived you are not at fault when it regards non-moral truth (contingent), causes no worse scandal and supposing it is justified not to divulge the pertinent info.
Points discussed which could be of interest to philosophically minded readers:
limitations in Aquinas’ language theory relative to post-modern developments (his insistence on the proximity between RATIO and RES) in relation to lying.
the ‘Jesuit’ theory which included in the definition there was no obligation to say the truth to unjust aggressors and consequently sometimes lying was permissible, (given persecution of England of priests like Edmond Champion, John Gerard, etc. and their opinions of lying…)
the history of the interpretation of lying in Christian philosophy – Athanasius, Egyptian midwives, Jacob’s blessing (which we diagnosed a lie), discussions as to the influence of volition in intrinsically evil acts – (whether the intention has a specifying role in indicating the NATURE of a moral act, cnf q18 of Summa), Raymund of Pennafort and differences in scholasticism’s opinion of lying,
Doctor Navarrus and the case of ‘strict mental reservation’ relative to its subsequent condemnation by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679,
the correction in the new translation of the English CCC on lying.
Relevant Texts of Aquinas:
1
“Accordingly if these three things concur, namely, falsehood of what is said, the will to tell a falsehood, and finally the intention to deceive, then there is falsehood—-materially, since what is said is false, formally, on account of the will to tell an untruth, and effectively, on account of the will to impart a falsehood.”
2
“An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful, since in order for an action to be good it must be right in every respect: because good results from a complete cause, while evil results from any single defect, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that “lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise.” Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i).”
This conversation makes me think of Christ and his “you hypocrites!” dialogue with the pharisees.
Consider the sin of working on the Sabbath - what did Christ say about that? That any man, were his sheep to fall down a well, would break the law to save this animal.
And this is to save an ANIMAL. Here, we are working to save people. Perhaps even millions of people, considering the current pro-life political climate.
When we quibble over finer parts of canon law while millions die every year, we are no better than the pharisees. Lila Rosa exposed a falsehood that the media and current law enforcement did not have the desire to expose.
Not only was it right, but it should be repeated as often as necessary.
incidently - were it wrong, how would we differ? ends and means…
Neither did I say Live Action´s actions were wrong. Incidently, I believe were they even to have ‘lied’, a little change in their wording would’ve fixed that.
e.g. Lila “In the interests of privacy, I need to keep a little vague, If we were… ” etc.
Do you think tearing up the tracks to Auschwitz vandalism?
Well said, Mark! Good point, SenioorDondon.
Sheila F. I liken Lila Rose as acting, too, but the intent is deception. To judge whether or not an act will be or is moral, there are three criteria as definded by Catholic moral theology: 1. Objective 2. Circumstance 3. Intent/Motive
If the act is not already defined by natural law, these are the criteria in which to judge an act.
The intent and motive can be a little ambiguous. Her intent was to save babies, but the immediate intent was to deceive to bring about a good end and an evil must never been done to bring about a good end. So, are we back to that is wrong? Appears so. Lila Rose will have to pray about it. My humanity wants to side with her actions and my heart cries for mercy for the babies, but for the glory of God, we need to hold back on trying to take too much control over a problem that is bigger than what we can handle. Only grace can fix our culture.
@Mark Nowakowski:
The Church’s moral doctrine on truthfulness has been received from Divine Revelation & Sacred Tradition, & this absolute prohibution expresses part of the doctrine. To sin in order to prevent a sin, is morally chaotic - that is why there is not, nor can be, the slightest exception to the judgement that lying is always wrong. Consequentialism - the moral position that lying to protect others in some cases implies - would have devastating effects on Catholic moral doctrine: sooner or later, there would be no Catholic moral doctrine left, because there is no sinful course of action which cannot be defended by pleading grave necessity for it. No wonder, because lies are like acid - they corrode, & what they corrode are the bonds between man & man that make life as a society possible.
Canon law is involved only secondarily. It is *not* the basis of the absolute prohibition on lying. Canon Law does no more than express, for certain situations, what is taught & known on other grounds.
Quite why the use of canon law to apply in legal matters the moral teaching of the Church, should be a black mark against the Church, is not clear.
Not to lie can be difficult, & may well involve a degree of courage at times - but if we believe what we claim to believe, is that something we can duck out of ? The use of mental reservation was worked precisely as a means of avoiding lying without speaking the truth when this would lead to sin: the exceptionless prohibition against lying needed modifying, without becoming a doctrine that lies were permissible.
Are Catholics really to be no different in moral behaviour from anyone else ?
Mark, I don’t think there’s anyone involved in this discussion who would disagree with you. Lying is always wrong, and a sin in order to prevent a sin is morally chaotic. But that’s begging the question. We’re not all in agreement that a police sting, or infiltrating an abortion clinic, is lying.
“No records have been published regarding who conceived the idea or how it was implemented, but the existence of the false baptismal certificates, and they number in the thousands, is a fact. It is also a fact that the Vatican was well aware of the plan, and that members of resistance groups, apostolic nuncios, nuns, representatives of Jewish aid groups based in the Allied countries, and untold numbers of ordinary citizens risked their welfare if not their lives to promote the ingenious scheme. By mid-1944, when only the Jews of Budapest had been temporarily spared in blood-soaked Hungary, another beloved Catholic figure had thrown his weight to the wheel, increasing the distribution of the baptismal certificates many times over; this was Pius XII’s close friend and successor, Archbishop Roncalli, the late Pope John XXIII.”
Dr. Joseph Lichten
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef2.html
Mark, this is a question I’ve spent quite a long time thinking about, even before the PP sting. Your post is a masterful summary of the arguments against lying for the greater good (and against the semantics used to disguise what is clearly a lie as something else). Well done; I too am disturbed by the reactions of many clearly well-intentioned Catholics who continue to argue for these sorts of tactics seemingly without even the slightest hesitation.
I do not think that lying in a “sting” operation is a sin per se. If not the Archangel Raphael would have sinned when he did not give his real name to Tobias in the Book of Tobit.
@Paul Z on Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 2:42 AM (EDT)
Exactly what I was thinking. Putting the question on the proper question.
I will have to “spam” this.
@ Mark Shea
Seriously. A lie is a lie but we all don’t agree that what they’re doing is a lie. Kreeft was right about the spy analogy. You can’t say that it isn’t a war, abortion is actually worse than war since it kills more people.
Here is a source for those truly interested in the authority and teaching of the church.
03/15/11 — 350 views
http://www.PriestsForLife.org Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priest For Life.
When in doubt consult an authentic teacher of the faith, then walk the walk of Christ.
@ Mark Shea, many prayers from only one of you commentors you insulted. God bless you and your discernment.
If by “insulted” you mean “refuted”, I make no apologies, since to refute is not to insult. The catechism says what it says. Not all deception is lying. But what LA did was lying, as Peter Kreeft himself pointed out. The Catechism says lying is intrinsically immoral. You can pretend it’s not all you like, but Catechism says what it says. It is not a personal insult to you that I point that out. It is merely a statement of what the Catechism says.
Unterstehen dessentwegen Pharmazie aequidistant diesseits schnaufen wolkenlos <a >daheim Geld verdienen</a> sich wie ein Elefant im Porzellanladen benehmen unser beschickern oder beizufuegen abheben Geld Student um seinetwillen werden ablecken.
I have not had time to read all of the comments, but for those who say ALL lies are wrong, what about the WWII Germans and Austrians, and others, who hid Jews and priests and when their properties were inspected, did not say, “yes, we have a family in the attic?” when they were asked if they were hiding anyone, or knew of any neighbors hiding anyone….
What about St Tarcisius when he was asked what he hiding?
I do agree with one comment that the right of the person asking the question to know the truth might have something to do with it…. If it were to ever come to a persecution of Catholics in this country the likes of what caused La Christiada, I would have no problem hiding and supporting our clergy and lying to protect them…. I just cannot fathom that being ‘intrinsically immoral’.... When placed in a situation like that, perhaps it still is, but I think maybe This is where that “well-formed conscience” (in light of Revelation AND Magesterium) comes into play….. I know that misrepresentation of yourself is different, so, what if we had to have Mass and Sacraments underground and were stopped on your way to Confession and said you were on your way to a dinner party? Would that not be misrepresenting yourself?
Are we praying for Lila Rose and her ilk, or are we passing judgement (on the person, not what we think of the action, fine line, I know….)
Maybe this was addressed, and I apologize if someone else already brought this up…. I am traveling and will read the entire comment body tonight…..
still have not gotten through the copious comments, but Mark - VERY well done…..
You really hit it on this one…... It finally came to me that if God=Truth, and lying ¥ truth, therefore, logically, lying ¥ God.
I would ask, though, if we are dealing, on a pure evel, with the language of the aw, so to speak, the “intent to lead another into error,” does error=sin. Is error, used there, to mean away from God, harming the soul or integrity of that person, or is it a more literal “to make a mistake?”. From a logical and linguistic stand (not my view, but i am trying to grapple and think this through…) if error=sin or away from God, then the people at PP are already in error….
Taking the emotion of the horrors of abortion out of it, I think to really come to an effective, and correct, conclusion, one needs to understand the definitions of ‘lie’ and ‘error’ as intended by the Magesterium. I know it is semantics and rationalizations, but language has specific meanings and power, and we need to understand the intent of the writers when we read a work….. it is akin to a romantic reading of Romeo and Juliet versus a moral reading of that same work…... People can use words from the same work and warp them if they do not understand the intent….
Really, I am an idiot in this…. I think that all lying is bad, I love your admission that you want the loophole but knowing it is a loophole means on some level you know it is wrong…. My rationalizations, I think, are the same thing….. On one hand, I am glad someone is putting pressure to PP, on the other hand, my stomach gets funny feeling when I think about the method…. I suppose I should listen to that ‘funny feeling’ because usually, in the long run, I realize it was my Guardian Angel trying to nudge me….
Wow. If Catholicism believes that one should not lie to save lives, especially the lives of innocent children, then I must reconsider my commitment to my faith. None of Lila Rose’s actions entrap people into doing something they would not otherwise do. It is exposing them doing something they consistently do and would lie to her about if they knew who she was. PP is no better than the Nazis. For the dozen years they were the legitimate government of Germany and weren’t at war, you would have approved of German Catholics turning in Jews vs. “lying”? And sending mentally challenged to gas trucks? That is disgusting. If lying is worse than stopping the slaughter of people, then we all have blood on our hands. That one poster was correct; you aren’t seeing the forest for the trees. Christ died for our sins, but I don’t believe he meant for us to be accomplices to murder to avoid the sin of lying. That sounds like the thinking of the Pharisees. I remember Him getting upset about them being more concerned about the letter of the Law vs the spirit of the Law. The last post here was long ago, so you may never see this comment, but I am forced to wonder if your tune has changed after the expose of Gosnell and his PP approved house of horrors, and constant PP representatives stating it should be OK to murder a full-term, born alive infant because someone goofed. Someone please direct me to a Catholic scholar who believes differenly, or maybe I need to be an Anglican or Lutheran—Missouri Synod
I think anyone who criticizes Lila for her work in saving human life is a nitwit.
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. —Matthew 10:16
Lila Rose lied which she has publicly acknowledged. Planned Parenthood has killed millions of innocent babies. Does the Roman Catholic church see these sins as equally grave ? And do you ? Just asking.
This does not save lives. What it does is teach prolifers that you may do evil that good may come of it. In this case, the evils being done are a) lying for Jesus and b) lying for Jesus in order to tempt somebody to commit a mortal sin. It is astounding that Christians are not troubled by that.
I am astounded that it seems you are more upset regarding the expose of PP’s killing machine than you are of the nazi-like PP. The OVERWHELMING majority of pro-lifers are peaceful activists. I’ll bet Lila Rose creates more active pro-lifers from the passive CINO crowd than people turned off by her expose of the killers. Peace be with you. I wonder what Chesterton would say. Lila Rose gave a false name while PP was killing kids. I still think there are varying levels of sin. Lila Rose lied. Planned Parenthood murders.
Not everyone agrees that Lila Rose lied. The Catechism (2488) says “The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.” And 2489 says “No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”
Criminals have no right to know they’re being investigated by plainclothes police, and abortionists have no right to know they’re being exposed.
Thanks Paulz. Well put !
Gabriel Serafin,
Catholicism teaches that lying is an intrinsic evil - that is, there are no circumstances that can make it anything other than evil - that’s not quite being innocent as a dove.
David B. Wendell,
The Catholic Church does not consider the sins equally bad. But that doesn’t matter. To justify one sin by the greater sins being done by PP is to fall into two heresies: consequentialism and relativism. Our previous pope was quite keen on combating the latter.
And while these videos have galvanized some pro-lifers, they have also galvanized pro-choicers as well. PP has been using these videos to raise money, and quite successfully. They say, “Look at what liars pro-lifers are, this is why we need your money, to combat their lies.” And the donations come rolling in.
And we also should consider that the truth is our greatest weapon. The pro-choice movement already tries to discredit us by calling us liars about what abortion really is, about human development, about the health consequences of abortion. If we embrace lying for our cause, how are we to convince people that we aren’t lying about these other things? We make PP’s smear campaign easy.
Paulz,
That says nothing about lying. It says that we are not obliged to divulge the truth. That means that we can keep our mouths shut, or say something ambiguous (but true). When the catechism talks about lying, it is very clear: “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned” (2485). By its very nature. There is no wiggle room there.
I will ponder your comments Gabriel. It is also a sin to put our heads in the sand re the intrinsic evil of abortion. I wonder how many Catholics do absolutely nothing about abortion and euthenasia. I hope Mr. Shea spends as much writing about that as he did about Ms. Rose’s lying about her name. And I thank Lila Rose for all the work she does for the pro-life movement that does not include lying. She is a sinner like me, but she does more for the babies than I do. Planned Parenthood will continue to lie about pro-lifers even if we were all saints. But I will ponder your statements from the catechism, etc. I really like canon 915 from canon law (or is it the catechism) ? I wish the pro-choicers would let me have a choice and not pay some of my taxes for PP grants etc. I get no “choice”; I have to pay taxes that include $$ for killing innocent life.
You can always judge something by its fruits. Lila Rose vs Mark Shea. Enough said.
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.