I’m just about talked out on the whole “lying for a good cause” thing. Indeed, I thought I was talked out a week ago. But since people keep asking what I think about this and that, I thought I’d give answers
To begin, lot of folks ask what I think of the whole undercover cops issue. Here goes:
Briefly: I’m not much use here because
1) I haven’t seen any ecclesial teaching on the matter (recall that my interest was sparked by current events, not by some long work of study of the matter, so there’s lots I don’t know),
2) I don’t know what the rules of engagement for cops are, and
3) I don’t know what is legitimate for the state to do vs. what the private individual can do (ie. agents of the state can legitimately arrest and jail people but I, as a private citizen, can’t lock people in my broom closet because that’s called “kidnapping”).
Till that’s settled by wiser heads then mine, I remain mute.
The problem is, people who appeal to the undercover cop as automatically legitimizing Live Action’s sting simply *assume* it’s a given that since cops are allowed to lie by Catholic moral teaching, Lila Rose can too. This is problematic, since we haven’t really established that cops are allowed to lie by Catholic moral teaching, and the more I contemplate “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned” the more I doubt that case can be made. As to what cops, in fact, do: so what? Since when did the cops become the measure of all Catholic morality, even if they do lie (and even that has not been established)? What most of us (including me) know about undercover work comes from movies, not from actual knowledge, so most of this conversation is between an ignoramus like me and various other people who, for all I know, haven’t the slightest idea what they are talking about. So I conclude that if we are going to get our moral theology about lying from movies, may I suggest we watch Donnie Brasco, which shows just how corrosive lying, even for a good cause, can be to the soul? That’s been my point all along: what gets overlooked in the matter of lying, even for a good cause, is that lying doesn’t just mislead others and bring the gospel into disrepute. It corrodes the soul of the liar (and the soul of the person making excuses for lying).
To illustrate what I mean about the corrosive effect of attempting to defend lying: here is an actual serious comment by somebody who actually seriously thought he was making a coherent defense of the concept of the “good lie” in my comboxes yesterday:
Every actor who has ever uttered a line, every author who has written a novel or short story, every Congressional Budget Office staffer who has written a financial impact statement (okay, I threw that in for laughs) is a dam**d liar. Christ spoke in parables - stories that in and of themselves were untrue - in order to lead people to the truth.
Constructing arguments in favor of “good lying” which don’t merely invite but attempt to compel us to conclude that Jesus Christ is a “dam**d liar” is an… infelicitous… way of defending the proposition that lying is compatible with Catholic teaching. I think this has to be the most desperate, not say blasphemous, attempt at rationalization I have yet encountered. But that’s my point: once you set out to defend sin as “the right thing to do sometimes” you wind up saying this sort of nonsense.
Another issue raised by some readers was the matter of detraction. The notion is that to discuss the morality of lying to Planned Parenthood was to unjustly besmirch the characters of the people pulling off the sting if they were not approached first. I don’t see how this can be. For one thing, I’ve repeatedly said I think Lila Rose is great and heroic. So I certainly don’t think I’ve committed detraction. But above all, their act was emphatically in the public arena. Indeed, Live Action was going out of its way to trumpet its work far and wide. Once you make it a subject for public discussion, it’s not breaking any confidence to take you at your word and discuss it publicly. To me, the charge of “detraction” is like saying I’m trying to blacken Obama’s name by criticizing what he does in the public square. He’s a public figure. As such, his public actions are fair game for discussion. Same with Lila. She invited public scrutiny of her actions. I and others obligingly scrutinized.
A further difficulty with the claim of “detraction” (for the defenders of Live Action) is something Scott P. Richert points out:
You commit detraction if you make known the “faults or failings” of another. If [the defender of Live Action] is serious in accusing those of us who criticized Rose’s actions of detraction, then he’s admitting that she did wrong.
Next, some folk are urging me to ponder Newman, which I will try to do when I come up for air. But I suspect that looking to Newman with a sort of hopefulness that he will point the way to a new theology of lying for a good cause is a greatly exaggerated hope. Newman is, after all, the man who famously said that the Catholic Church “holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse.” Not too much help in the “lying to Planned Parenthood” department, I reckon.
Next, I want to dissent from an opinion expressed by an ardent supporter of my arguments, who said, “Truth is more important than human life.”
I think this is a dangerous false dilemma. I don’t believe God forces us to choose between the two.
Finally, let me reiterate that I think these are deep waters and I don’t claim to have all the answers. Much of this is mysterious to me and the more I think about it, the more struck I am by the curious fact that I empathize (though I am still compelled by the Church’s teaching to disagree) with Chesterton, who wrote:
it was absurd to say that Catholics introduced a horrible sophistry of saying that a man might sometimes tell a lie, since every sane man knows he would tell a lie to save a child from Chinese torturers; that it missed the whole point, in this connection, to quote Ward’s phrase, “Make up your mind that you are justified in lying and then lie like a trooper,” for Ward’s argument was against equivocation or what people call Jesuitry. He meant, “When the child really is hiding in the cupboard and the Chinese torturers really are chasing him with red-hot pincers, then (and then only) be sure that you are right to deceive and do not hesitate to lie; but do not stoop to equivocate. Do not bother yourself to say, “The child is in a wooden house not far from here,” meaning the cupboard; but say the child is in Chiswick or Chimbora zoo, or anywhere you choose.”
That passage, probably more than anything else in this controversy, gives me pause. It doesn’t ultimately change my mind, but it gives me pause and makes it impossible for me to think that the average person who supports the idea of lying in a good cause is a bad person. Indeed, I think it reflects Chesterton’s love of plain speech—and yours and mine. It’s an odd quirk I haven’t figured out, but there is a part of me that says, “Either tell the truth plainly or lie plainly. But don’t give me Clintonian parsing and nice euphemisms and roundabout and elaborate deceptions.” I have no idea where that comes from but it does resonate with me deeply. The paradox is that such a full-throated commitment to a good solid lie in a case of necessity seems to me to be deeply rooted in a fundamental sense of honesty. That doesn’t make a lie right. But it does make the person advocating it (like the great Chesterton) a deeply good and noble (albeit, I have to conclude in light of the Catechism) mistaken person.
Comments
Post a Comment
Time to move on.
I quite agree. But I try to be considerate to my readers. They asked. I answered. Happily, I will be talking about other stuff next week (and it’s already written an waiting to post!)
if we lived in nazi germany would you discourage people from misleading nazi soldiers intent on killing children.I pray not.I am disappointed that you spent so much time critical of a courageous young lady who has taken great risk to shed light on an satanic group invovled in child sacrific and corruption of minors.The devil is very busy.It would have been nice if you would have suggested prayers for Lily Rose protection and guidance.
If I lived in a situation where some sadistic camp guard insisted that I shoot myself in the foot in order that an innocent man avoid execution, I would shoot myself in the foot. But I would not call being shot in the foot a good thing. Exactly the same thing obtains with lying. It’s one thing to say that people who lied to save folks were good people. Of course they were. It’s another thing to say, “Lying is good.” Of course it’s not.
This is probably the most uncharitable post I’ve seen from you, Mark, and that’s saying something. You don’t want to engage or teach. Instead, you want to beat down with the heaviest board you can find. These are fellow Catholics in search of the truth, and this is the way you explain? Shame on you.
In this case it is the same principal as, “mental reservations”, employed by the ordained. If you understand, no explanation is necessary, if you do not understand, no explanation would be good enough.
Well, yes, Quinly, there is a way of speaking that doesn’t reveal the whole truth, such as with someone who asks a priest, “What did John Smith tell you in confession?” A priest can answer using a broad mental reservation (which can only be used for a good reason), “I have no knowledge of that,” since the knowledge gained in the confessional was spoken to the priest as he represents Christ. Outside of the confessional he has no right to use that information (strict mental reservations are never permitted). This is not the case with an out-right lie, as happened with Lila Rose. I think you would be hard pressed to find any Catholic source that would say it’s okay for a police officer to lie, Mark. I’ve been looking in preparing for my homily this weekend. ;) My Prummer states, “A lie is intrinsically evil, so that no reason whatsoever can justify its use.” Seems pretty clear to me. I’m not a theaologian; just a simple country priest who says my Mass and hears confessions daily.
Mark, if you will not address the question of whether there is such a thing as legitimate deception, and if you don’t know whether cops engage in it, and you won’t consider whether Live Actions methods could be examples of legitimate deception, then I don’t understand why you have a right to express an opinion on Live Action’s undercover work, including your inflamatory conclusion that Lila Rose is “lying for Jesus.”
The “parable” comment was mine. I have to agree with the comment that this column is rather uncharitable, and it’s certainly unfair in singling out my comment as “desperate,” “blasphemous” and “nonsense.” Go back and reread it. You cannot state that I am saying “Jesus Christ is a dam**d liar.” I didn’t say it, and you cannot infer that. I’m searching for answers like many others who frequent this site. Not only is your characterization uncharitable, it’s calumny, Mark, and unbecoming of a Christian, and certainly unbecoming of one who holds himself out as an apologist. If you can’t engage in civil discourse with fellow Catholic sojourners, then you’re no better than Glen Beck or the others you chastise for their disrespectful behavior. Have a good day.
Amen to Keith.
Contrary to popular opinion one of the Beatitudes IS NOT “I was bored and you entertained me” Why should Mark write on this with so much else happening? Years from now (when the reality of this killing machine planned parenthood REALLY sets in) these same critics and non-Catholics will be stating that Catholics “didn’t do enough” (i.e. Pius XII critics) I think it is easy to spot the agenda of these “alleged” Catholics…pew-sitters who agree with a womans right to choose to kill her child. I agree with Mark…lets move on and let Live Action do their job.
It has became obvious to me that this is a question about which well-meaning Catholics can and do disagree. It is a question which I may have instinctively answered wrongly (I am not leaning that way, but it could be). You write with a tone which leads me to believe you cannot imagine that Mark Shea might need further reflection, might need to listen to Dr. Kreeft, John Zmirak or even me before condemning the efforts of Lila Rose, which I view as heroic. That does not mean you would change your mind, but it would mean that you recognize some things can be difficult. You don’t leave any room for dialog. In short, you treat those who disagree with disrespect. Maybe it comes with the territory of your kind of journalism, but it is not attractive.
To universalize your more rigoristic approach would probably close the door to Catholics working as detectives or in any investigative professions that use undercover roles or deception to find the truth. That continues in my mind to make your position more and more similar to that of the absolute pacifist. It sounds clean and appeals to a certain kind of mind, but in reality it turns us into people more like Quakers than the kind of Catholic I strive to be; in the world but not of it.
I am a fellow convert from Evangelicalism and your writing and speaking played a role in my conversion, one which cost me my tenured professorship at an evangelical college.
Lastly as much as I respect your work, the fact that the likes of Peter Kreeft disagree ought to change your tone to be less absolute, less impatient, less taken with itself.
tom in ohio
Most of the time, these type of posts dont necessarily spark people to “defend” the sin, in this case “lying”, but to discuss, get out thoughts of how or why Live Action is doing the right thing and are not necessarily sinning. This is issue is about discussion, and not so much about placing one or 2 people’s comments in the bin as “defending sin”. That is not true. People need to get their reasoning out, we are humans who reason, and we need discussion and reiteration of truth with charity so we can naturally, through the Holy Spirit, see the truth. For some, the truth is easy to see. In regards to this Live Action’s work, the work they’re doing seems to be very well done and to get these kind of “hard facts” that they are putting out there is not anything anyone could truly do unless a “real pimp” “real prostitute” were to do the same thing, yet somehow be pro life….which is impossible.
The truth is that police officer-investigator, IM not using them as the “moral source” but the fact they they do undercover work is never brought up in the same way this Live Action work has. So all of a sudden, undercover work is all evil Im assuming since “lying” is used. But if anyone could discuss how the police officers work is moral and legitimate in the eyes of the Church teachings, then I dont see how Live Actions work could be immoral.
I would certainly, after finding that out throw out on the table that you will NEVER see any undercover police work in this society, trying to uncover Planned parenthood’s evil works. That is because this government protects the evils of abortions.
“If the world were merely seductive, that would be easy. If it were merely challenging, that would be no problem. But I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day.” E.B. White
Catechism: 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.
As I contemplated the issue of lying the above paragraphs came to mind. Lying is sin and Jesus is Truth. Killing is an evil, but if killing is done in defense of the innocent then the evil originates with the one attempting to kill the innocent. So, if one lies to save the innocent it is still an evil, but the evil originates with those trying to kill the innocent and “double effect” occurs. As others have stated there are consequences of the sin for all involved. Even if I kill someone legitimately in self defense, I may suffer emotional and spiritual pain, but through prayer and the sacrements Jesus can bring good out of it.
The problem with my own argument is that usually in the defense of the innocent as one who is not a part of “law enforcement”, I don’t “plan” out before hand the defense of the innocent. So, how far can we go in the defense of the innocent???
Is tearing up the tracks to Auschwitz vandalism?
Whipping money changers assault?
I think your moral dilemmas convenient.
Luke 6 vs 6-11 I believe gives Witness to Jesus handling of the raging anger of the pharisees against Him when He asked “Is it lawful to do good or harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or destroy it”? Jesus was breaking the LAW but wasn’t His greater law of love his answer to breaking the Law?
Kevin A.:
I have, multiple times, address the question of whether there is such a thing as legitimate *deception*. There is. The question I am speaking to here is “Do what cops do constitute legitimate deception or does it constitute *lying*?” Since I don’t know either what cops do, nor what the Church says about what cops do, I think it best to keep my trap shut.
George: I haven’t the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
Barrister: Not only can I infer it, I cannot infer anything else. It was a ridiculous thing for you to say and a perfect example of the corrosiveness of attempts to defend lying.
St. Nicholas: You’ve got me pegged. I love abortion and want to kill as many innocent people as possible. I secretly support Planned Parenthood. And, if I could only do so, I would destroy the Catholic Church by my nefarious system of constantly appealing to its teaching and urging we listen to Augustine, Aquinas, and the Catechism and forming our thinking according to what they say. I am a cunning devil. For I know as well as you that supporting traditional means of resistance to abortion is Doing Nothing, just as Pius XII Did Nothing because he refused to lie.
Tom: I have to say what I think true. So does everybody else in the argument. It’s an odd thing to call me an absolutist who is certain he has all the answers in answer to a post specifically written to state that I don’t have all the answers.
I am, alas, still on deadline and can’t do much more in these comboxes. So please: play well with others, all. Thanks for what has turned out to be a generally civil and fruitful discussion. I will, thanks be to God, turn my thoughts to other subjects next week. (They are already in the queue!)
St. Thomas Aquinas stated that one does not have to obey a law that is unjust. So, Ms. Rose is not lying because she is not obeying an unjust law. She is deceiving Planned Parenthood, which is definitely not obeying natural law and God’s law in aborting innocent unborn babies.
@MGWRASMAN@GMAIL.COM
we must decide, then, on “just” laws and “unjust” ones?
i “think” the law at 55mph is unjust… therefore i drive at 65…
i “think” the law of 25mph in school zone is unjust… therefore i do the regular speed…
i “think” the law stating stealing is unjust… therefore i will steal for my family…
i “think” the law stating killing is unjust… therefore i kill anyone who appears to be doing bad…
i “think…”
.....
who thinks? not the law… they do so, but only for us… the judges? but for us…
GOD himself? who matters in the end…
when JESUS breaks a law, we say “right on”... we dont ask what law, why did he break it? JESUS is the lawgiver… he decides who is right and who is wrong… but i dont have the authority to do that…
Mark: you can’t resist the ad hominum attacks, can you? I guess being a jerk is one of your better attributes because you do it so well.
Dear Mark: My comments were in your favor…perhaps you read them wrong. I support Live Action and your decision not continue to blog (blab) about their actions…hence my final sentence. “I agree with Mark…lets move on and let Live Action do their job.” So you’ve got me pegged…I do not write clearly.
Barrister:
Please familiarize yourself with the meaning of “ad hominem”.
Saying “This argument is false because Mark Shea is a jerk” is ad hominem.
Saying “This argument is false because it relies on the false premise that novelists and actors are, ipso facto, “dam**d liars since all fiction is supposedly lying for a good cause” is not ad hominem. Nor is it ad hominem to point out the falsity of the conclusion this argument is trying to compel—namely that Jesus, in telling parables, or St. Paul in being all things to all, were also lying for a good cause. Nor is it ad hominem to say that this false conclusion is, in fact, blasphemous in that it attempt to implicate our Lord and the apostle as liars. In fact, I said nothing whatever about your person. I addressed myself to the argument and pointed out that it is a very bad one.
@The Barrister
according to merriam-webster, you cannot either… ad hominem:(1)appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; (2)marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
StNicholas:
My apologies. I apparently misunderstood (though I must confess puzzlement at what you were really trying to say). I’ve taken a fair amount of flak (see, for instance, the Barrister’s remarks) and can sometimes react too quickly. If you say you intended something else, I’ll take your word for it.
Pax et Bonum
If I may interject, an ad hominem ARGUMENT is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance. However, the Barrister used the phrase “ad hominem ATTACK”, and an ad hominem ATTACK may be any attack against a person and/or his character. Literally, it’s a “to a man” attack. If one construes Mark Shea’s statement (e.g. “a perfect example of the corrosiveness of attempts to defend lying”) as speaking to the Barrister personally, such as suggesting ill intent on his part, then it might be seen as an ad hominem attack. I do not say, however, that Mark Shea intended it to be seen that way.
Mark thank you for your forthright opinion…on this very debatable issue. I pray for the day when debate about the abortion issue is no
longer necessary and all of us agree that the right to life is sacrosanct
everywhere and observed without exception. I applaud Lila Rose and Live Action for their courage and witness to life.
“Newman is, after all, the man who famously said that the Catholic Church ‘holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse.’”
Beautiful! I really need to get around to reading some Newman. Everything I’ve ever read from his works is stirring and full of truth.
Good roundup, Mark.
It’s been quite a wild debate!
Interesting quotation from Chesterton. Sounds a bit like “tell *honest* lies!” ; )
Actually if you look at the source http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/05/chesterton-on-the-three-stages-of-conversion.html
Chesterton seems to be reflecting on his early thoughts about the Church long before he converted. It was part of his attempt to ‘be fair’ to the Church. He seems to be saying that it was foolish for the Church to be criticised for the practice of mental reservation when those who did the criticising had no problems with lying to save someone’s life.
Just a thought.
Zac
Zac:
Just so. He’s arguing against the sort of English anti-popery activist who says there’s something peculiarly sinister about Catholic attempts to figure out what to do about “lies of necessity” when, in fact, any average Protestant Englishman would “lie like a trooper” in such necessity and be a good and noble person for doing the best he could to protect the child from the torturers. In short, he’s arguing that Catholics are normal human beings, not some alien jesuitical bacteria that has infiltrated English culture. So it’s not quite on point to say that Chesterton is really arguing for lying for Jesus—though I’d bet some Chestertonians would likely invoke this passage to say the great man would Lila Rose, and not without reason. Still, even if we could summon his shade and get a testimony to that effect, there remains the problem of the Catechism, which tells us that lying like a trooper is, by its very nature, to be condemned. I suspect that, upon hearing that, the Blessed Chesterton (as I have no doubt he is) would say, “We do not want a Church that is right where we are right. We want a Church that is right where we are wrong” and return to the realms of light.
Actually, I think this situation quite simple:
Jesus berated the pharisees, saying that any one of them would break the work laws of the Sabbath to save an animal that had fallen down the well. I see this as an equivalent situation - we are not to tell a small lie in order to potentially save millions of lives? Let us not be pharisees, willfully choosing not to help children in order to follow the letter of the law.
‘“it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse.’”
Honestly, this is the most absurd and repugnant thing I’ve ever read from a saint or blessed—though I’m sure I could dig up some really misogynistic quotes from Desert Fathers that would put it to shame. If God the Creator shared this attitude, He could have avoided the existence of sin entirely, by declining to create men with free wills, some of whom might inevitably sin. He thought the trade-off worth it, and so do I. I think Newman’s quote shows far too little regard for Creation and the natural goods—the wholesome desires God implanted in our hearts, which the Old Testament celebrates—for life, abundance, fertility, and joy even in this life. That quote makes Christianity sound like a type of world-despising Gnosticism, which would do better to drown all its infants in the baptismal font—so they’d go straight to Heaven without sinning.
Think about that proposal for a moment, consider it seriously: You would have absolute certainty that your children would go to Heaven for all eternity; not one of them would commit a venial sin, much less a mortal one. None of them would be damned. The Pope could with moral certainty place their names in the Calendar of Saints; no investigation needed. You’d be filling up Heaven with tiny saints. What is wrong with this idea?
If the ONLY reason you can think of is that “drowning babies is a sin,” you are suffering from Gnosticism. You have so fixated on God as Judge that you’ve forgotten Him as Creator. Stop reading arguments on the Internet, and go take a LONG nature walk. Whatever prayers pop into your head as you walk, engage them. When you get home, re-read the first few chapters of Genesis. See what you think then.
If you still feel tempted by the baptismal drowning scheme, read up on what the Church says about “necessary” occasions of sin. For instance, dating. I doubt very much that most married couples arrive at the altar without having committed at least SOME venial sins against purity. We could avoid these original sins by preventing people from courting, and the whole “sin” problem would clear up in 70 short years. Why don’t we do it?
Seriously, why not?
Mark, I’ve got a serious question—and you know I’ve been in agreement with you on this pretty much from the get-go. In your first answer to “St. Nicholas” above, you say things that everyone here knows are false (e.g., that you love abortion and are secretly supporting PP).
Some of those who hold to a strict interpretation of the Catechism would say that even such rhetorical devices as saying X when everyone present knows you mean Y (for humor, or to make a point) technically involve the venial sin of lying. I don’t, because as a former English major I think that such rhetorical devices (”...you are all, all honorable men…) have a long history and are by now understood in their meaning; this same respect for the history of speech allows me to see fables, stories, poetry, etc. as “not-lying” even if the literal sense of the words is not strictly true.
Thus, I say that you are not intending to deceive (per half the CCC definition) when you say that you love abortion—you expect that everyone here understands the device. But in a literal sense, your words are not true, and someone who doesn’t know you might indeed be deceived, especially if that quote is shared out of context (on, say, an SSPX website, in the “See what this NewChurch Convert Type says about abortion!” category).
Granted that this has nothing to do with Live Action/Lila Rose, as they uttered things that were not true to people who had no context for assuming they were employing rhetorical devices. But if you’ve got half a second, I’d appreciate it if you could answer: are such devices generally permissible because there is no evil intent to deceive, or are such devices still technically lying, or is there some third option I haven’t thought of?
The one thing I think I’ve learned after this endless diatribe is that the psalmist was right when he cautions us against idle speech and specious argument…“Be still and know that I am God”. Best we all
now take that sagacious advice..zip our lips..because whatever comes
out will in somebody’s book be a lie…venial or otherwise..It does
not seem as if man has any truth in him (from some of these comments anyway)!
this whole argument makes me want to watch Liar Liar w/ Jim Carey for goodness sake.
ThirstforTruth, as Pope Benedict stated when commenting on the dispute between St. Peter and St. Paul, “the Truth is worth fighting for” with the obvious goal to end up in Christian unity, unity with Christ and the Church.
Erin:
Such devices fall under the species of a “jocose” fiction if I read my Thomas aright. They aren’t lying any more than acting or novel writing or parables are lying (even though none of these things communicate “facts” which are literally true) precisely because the nature of the speech act is one in which everybody understands that there is no intention to deceive.
Deacon Patrick….I totally support Pope Benedict’s statement re the
need to defend truth…however what I said here was meant to be simply
tongue in cheek…sorry if I threw you a curve-ball!!!
Mark: your comments re “jocose” fiction response to Erin? How do you
know for certain Lila Rose and LiveAction’s “intent” is foremost one to
deceive?? Could it not be just as true that their intent was/is to lead
others to the truth? Actors in morality plays do this all the time..and
while saying LiveAction is a “drama club” a stretch none-the-less they
are ultimately playing on the stage of life and trying to bring about
a good while exposing evil. I know ‘nuff has been said on this issue to fill a whole shelf of books…but it just does not want to seem to go
away…we all want clear-cut answers to our questions..but sometimes
the area in question is simply gray and won’t be ever black or white
as we’d like!
Thanks, Mark. Somebody on one of these long threads said that Thomas called it a “jocuse lie” but then said that it was still a lie; that confused me because I’d certainly never heard that before, and am admittedly no scholar of Thomas.
Now, Mark, why do you keep using that one quote from Newman when several of us on earlier threads posted quite a few quotes from his essay on lying that reveal a much more nuanced approach to the whole subject? Which, if I remember correctly, you didn’t respond to any of the other Newman quotes that were cited.
One thing that no one brings up when discussing the Catechism is that para. 2489 states, in part, that, “No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”
Also Deacon Mongan comments above reminded me of the need to read the Catechism as everything else—as part of a whole body of teaching. The paragraph he quoted could certainly be tweaked to say something to the effect that in order to defend those being abused by sex trafficking one lies to bring out the truth of the activities of PP illegally aiding the sex traffickers. The lie is an unintended part of the double effect of protecting these girls from abuse.
And, Deacon, in war the soldiers are often fighting in self-defense and they certainly plan out ahead of time the tactics they will use which sometimes again has the unintended effect of killing the enemy. So, I would think that war would be an instance of a type of pre-planned self-defense. Just as I am sure that those who undertook the dangerous and heroic task of hiding Jews, slaves, Rwandans, etc. planned ahead of time what they were going to say when and if someone came knocking on their door asking if they were harboring anyone. And some of them seem to have taken the position of Chesterton.
One more thing. Mark you took exception to the statement from one of your supporters that “Truth is more important than human life.” But if you take what you say the Catechism is saying, that is, that it is okay for someone to kill another in defense of one’s own life or that of another but that it is not okay to lie in defense of the life of another, it would be very easy to draw that conclusion. That would certainly seem to be saying that killing another is less important than lying to them.
killing - is wrong
accidentally is wrong - did you read exodus?
lying - bearing false witness - is wrong
.....
both are defensible in court - but not before GOD
This is just getting down right silly ...just preposterous!! I cannot
believe where this has gone…if someone’s life depends upon your
lying what in the world is the matter with that? Life is the greater good here…and I would deny anyone to say that choosing the greater good is wrong/immoral/a sin. Who among you is doing anything remotely requiring the moral courage to stop the heinous act of murdering babies in the womb?that you can take such a pharisiacal view of the work of Lila Rose and LiveAction…I would be willing to spend half of eternity in purgatory working off that “venial sin” for the reduction if not elimination of the abortion on demand that is going on world-wide! What a bunch of wimps!!
Where is your moral courage? All twisted up in something called mental
reservation while millions of babies are slaughtered! I am really impressed with your sense of the good! NOT! Get out Occam’s razor!!!
lying is wrong - GOD said so…
abortion is wrong - CHURCH says so, with the BIBLE…
killing is wrong - GOD says so…
I just watched the movie The Scarlet and the Black and it brought to mind the controversy with Live Action. Those who knew that the Nazi regime was evil, didn’t spend their time exposing the evil, they were undercover trying to save those who were in danger. When we see what went on in Philadelphia at Dr. Gosnell’s abortion mill, citizens tried to expose the evil, but the government was complicit in covering up the atrocities. Exposing evil isn’t enough.
I appreciate what Live Action is doing, for the most part they are reaffirming what the prolife community all ready knows is taking place. We hope that because of their efforts Congress will stop funding Planned Parenthood, but how do you stop George Soros and others of his ilk? In the end, it still comes down to those who are out on the street sidewalk counseling, or welcoming women at a pregnancy care center.
Important questions regarding Live Actions tactics should be asked, I just hope it doesn’t detract from the work that must go on to save women and their babies.
Sleepyhead…I think God said all those things are shalt not’s…but
He also said he who is without sin cast the first stone…seems like
alot of “stone throwing” going on here in the name of self-rightousness!
When you weigh in the balance…a justifiable lie ( and if ever there was one this would seem it ) and the abortions of millions and millions of babies ..and
no end in sight…which has the greater weight? Which is the greater good?
Which is the greater evil? Did not Solomon in all his wisdom “lie” when
he said he would divide the infant between the two mothers? Do we really
think he would have done this to satisfy justice? Of course not! He used
subterfuge… feeling that the real mother would never agree to destroy her
child ..even if it meant giving the child over to another. Let’s see if
we can practice here some wisdom..the wisdom of Solomon!
i feel so, too… i feel instead of acting, we should be seeking HIS answer… and if its not loud enough…
thou shalt not lie…
thou shalt not murder…
in other words, “what would JESUS do??”
we are to follow HIM… to copy HIM…
when did HE murder anyone? i cant find it in my bible… i guess HE didnt… i suppose HE fled, HE hid, HE asked others not to reveal HIMSELF but didnt hold them accoutable…
HE swore he wouldnt lose any of twelve… but in face of what they (pharisees, sanhedrin, romans…) wanted, HE bargained with them… “I am he who you seek… let them go free…”
.....
did HE send anyone to save babies? yes… the twelve… with the knowledge that they would do their best without sin…
HE didnt send anyone else… because they felt as most of us do… smash the truth into them, no matter the cost…
.....
what would JESUS do?
we should hold prayer services… with the permission of govt… we should pray aloud for the babies that undergo this murder… we should pray for those that abort… that they will know the truth of what they do… we should pray for those who seek abortion… that one day, their murdered young wont haunt them, even into old age - and they will one day find GOD…
Final post: I’m done with Shea, done with NCR, and will be cancelling my subscription. Mark manages to take a narrow definition of ad hominem because it suits his purpose. Exactly what he accuses me of doing. Et tu, brute. And if you go back and read my replies, you’ll see that I was attempting to make a point, not attack Mark or his character. It wasn’t until I was shamefully and falsely accused of blasphemy that I struck back. For that, I apologize. I expect no reciprocity from Mr. Shea, of course, because that’s not how he rolls. Humility and charity have no place in the Shea pantheon.
It seems that some of this discussion is kept at the intellectual level, but I treat all of this as the manner I need to form my actions in case of necessity. I am having a very difficult time accepting that if I am ever faced with a dangerous intruder, I am to seek out my husband’s rifles and shoot the person before I am to tell him a lie (my husband is on his way home soon)
That is the the manner in which I am to approach the situation I guess if it ever arises and I will inform my family and friends that that is the course of action they should take if ever the needs arises.
My stomach, however, is tied in knots, much as it was when I first learned of the Church’s teaching on the fate of unbaptized babies and a few other things. My heart is going to be waiting for a definitive answer to this and I hope that it comes before I or someone else kills a person in self-defense rather than lying to them.
Lauretta…What would you have to lie about should an intruder enter into your home and threaten to kill you ( he might just want your money or
some valuable, marketable possessions )? Shooting the intruder
unless your life was truly threatened might be construed by some courts as “undue use of force” on your part.
The situation you imagine is not the same situation Lila Rose and LiveAction presents…at least not as I see it. In that scenario the dilemma being discussed is about faking their identity in order to expose the truth about Planned Parenthood…did they commit a sin as some suggest in
presenting false identities to the PP ..or is there such a thing as a justifiable lie?( those who support Lila Rose and Live Action believe there is ) Are they permitted some leeway here since their intent does not seem to be to lead PP personel into serious moral error…which would be sinful if that had been the purpose of their actions. Some maintain that
it is fairly obvious their intent was to expose the truth..about the activities of PP. I think the story about Solomon (as I previously suggested )comes rather close…Did Solomon use subterfuge in making these two women ( only one of whom was the real mother )think he was really going to bring about justice by cutting in half this infant? Wasn’t
he being deceitful? Instead we are encouraged to think Solomon was wise and courageous in handling the matter as he did…no one to my knowledge has ever dwelled upon the possibility whether he sinned or not in creating this deception ...in order to bring about the desired end.
Thirst for Truth, I specifically stated a dangerous intruder to emphasize that I thought my life was in danger. I would not call a robber dangerous. The reason I bring this up is because that is the thrust of the debate. It is not centered on Lila Rose but on the issue of lying in any circumstance. That is what I am trying to understand—the general principles—and then applying it to my own life situation.
Solomon is an issue for me as well. Those in this debate state that he did not lie, but from reading the story it certainly seemed as though he did. Must be another case of me not understanding Scripture but I truly don’t know how to explain that story to someone now. It certainly seemed to me that he said something other than what was in his mind with the intent to mislead the two women. That would be considered a sinful lie if I am understanding the St. Thomas experts correctly.
I think Aquinas believes that jocose lies are still lies, albeit venial, and therefore sinful.
Thanks so much Mark. I appreciate that you are motivated by what is True and Good and Right, and be confident that God is not outdone in generosity! Thanks for daring to state the obvious; I am persuaded, wholeheartedly, by your argument, (and I have read both sides, extensively). The truth will do! God bless you and yours.
Since John Zmirak is no slouch at conveying truth via exaggerated vividness – (& since he does it regularly & magnificently, I’ll but mention here the theory in his new book that heterosexual men see but two things in the world, pretty women & orange police cones) – it is dismaying to see him go all prosaic on Cardinal Newman’s arguably even greater poetic genius in the famous passage above.
Alas, a cacophonous combox may not be the best place to explore either poetic genius or theological depth; but you know, Doc Z’s preposterous example of drowning infants in the font rather misses Newman’s point – which surely seeks to express not the pleasures of puritan depravity, but rather the overwhelming goodness of God via the utter horror of even a minor assault on a goodness of that infinite kind.
Again, a combox won’t do, since exploring the nature of freedom gets rather involved; but if we may agree that our freedom is both our core & paradoxically a good even if this means our freedom to abuse it, then Newman but illustrates how vivid physical affliction is of minor account compared to a will that violates its very essence, not to say on the Goodness to which that will is called. In so doing, Newman’s passage necessarily upholds joy & abundance & life & the good of Creation & its wholesome desires far better than any direct celebration of these things themselves could do, precisely by measuring the horror of their violation; & is thus the very opposite, to put it mildly, of any world despising Gnosticism.
To be a little mean here, it looks like Dr. Zmirak’s is an understandably ladylike aversion to suffering, which we all share, at least if it is our own suffering we contemplate. But surely suffering in se isn’t the greatest evil, as the Faith has always held, even as She has also always both fought and embraced it with something like equal vigor.
The greatest evil is the perversion of the will, sin if you prefer, since it is a perversion of the essence of a man, upon which all the other goods depend.
As Newman’s terrifying passage conveys this with such power, it remains both baffling and interesting not just that Dr. Zmirak misses it so badly, but that he does so even as his own literary strengths employ a comparable means, often & effectively.
Pardon me for being literal-minded, but this discussion has not been about the comparative merits of Lewis’ Fauns and Tolkien’s Ents. It has been over what we MAY do or SHOULD do to save the innocent. Mr. Shea and his allies have been laboring to prove that telling untruths to save innocents such as the Jews from murderers such as the Nazis is at least a venial sin. Then someone who agreed with this point posted Newman’s quote—which argues the preferability of universal suffering over venial sin. The message was clear: If Newman is taken literally, and Aquinas’ theory accepted, then here’s the conclusion: We as Catholics should prefer that every Jew in Europe (or every fetus in America) be murdered, rather than tell a single fib to the killers. (I’m not saying Newman would agree… but if he didn’t, he’d have to revise his statement.) Since that is the explicit message being sent by at least some posters on this thread, who mean it LITERALLY and are trying to impose scruples on their fellow Catholics, then I insist on an answer. What, Antigon, is wrong with the “Drowning Infants Pastoral Plan,” apart from the sinfulness of the means? If that is ALL you think is wrong with it, please say so. If not, please explain why else it would be undesirable, since it would avoid not just one venial sin, but countless venial and even mortal sins. And since sin-avoidance is the only purpose of life, as we trudge through this grim, No-Man’s Land of landmines and poison gas, WHAT ELSE IS WRONG WITH MY PLAN? Use 350 words or less, and a number 2 pencil.
Thank you, Dr. Zmirak, I am struggling with the same questions. I have wondered as well, why that one quote of Newman’s is so often mentioned while an essay he wrote specifically on lying, of which parts were quoted here, is not expounded upon at all. One can only hope that at some point someone with authority will clarify this whole situation so that we can know if we need to go to confession for lying to our children about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. Plus I will need to make sure my husband has his guns in good operating condition so I can use them instead of my imagination if an intruder enters our home.
Holy Toledo!!! I hope none of my friends in RCIA EVER find this blog…it
would send them running lickety-split from whence they came. Let us not forget that the greatest saints were mostly illiterate..and most
not abundantly blessed with academic degrees. Does not the Lord himself say that God confounds the wise and blesses the simple? The greatest commandment requires us to love…God and our neighbor. What seems like
the greater love: the man who protects the life of his brethren by standing up to the evil presented him? Or one who cannot act to save
his neighbor’s life because he is too warped in his own false sense of the spiritual to act. Why did he hide his neighbor in the first place? If this man so “honors” truth why did he not just march him up to the first Gestapo he could find. There are those here who suggest there are
different standards to be applied in regard to truth for those working for government agencies e.g. CIA or FBI…and those civilians like Lila Rose and LiveAction. Well, as far as I am concerned we are all spies…spies for God in the battle between good and evil…..and Our Commander in Chief knows hearts…and can distinquish between evil ones
and good ones. He will sort it all out…and in the end reward His Captains as He sees fit! Not the tribunal here! Enough already you self
appointed judges ...if you thirst so much for theologic discussions according to the world of academe do yourselves a favor and go to Peter Kreeft and spend some time reading what he has to offer..it is
lengthy but by wading that you might just come to your senses. Or you might just consider this whole thing moot…and go out into the world and do some real good, like Lila Rose and LiveAction.
Dear Holy Toledo thirstfortruth,
RIGHTON!
The absolutists can accept the deceptions of Joseph vis-a-vis his brothers but not Lila Rose. They see Rahab in the NT canon as a horoine of the faith, but they condemn others who do the same. They can’t see that there is a difference between deceiving in order that the truth be known and deceiving that the truth remain unknown.
They can be called absolutists or rigorists. In some circles they are called fundamentalists. They have a right to their opinion, and some of them express it with respect (Mark Shea finally admitted that yes he could be wrong as he expressed his appreciation for those who differ with him).
We need to wise as serpents and there is a time to learn some tactical strategies from the sagacity of the sons of this world (Luke 16).
Some of the writers laugh at my references to how disguises are treated in in great literature as virtuous, but I think we learn great lessons from great literature. One is that disguising oneself to discover the truth is different that lying. I don’t offer that as my main proof but as an interesting aside, as supporting evidence.
tom in ohio
Dr. Z:
Alas, no #2 at hand, & as my post above suggests, exploration of such waters as these may not be amenable to our good Doctor’s other wry restriction.
But here’s a shot. What is it that makes massacring people wrong? Or if you prefer, what in us causes us – on such occasions that it does – to recoil from it? Well, we just do, seems not entirely an adequate response, even apart from that enthusiasm for abortion, Hiroshima, Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, & a host of other examples would indicate the recoil remains unwholly uniform.
With apologies to combox etiquette, these queries are not meant to address directly the excitement provoked by the glorious Miss Rose, but instead to consider, as Newman’s passage does, the deeper rivulets, & perhaps deepest, about whether there is such a thing as morality at all, & if so – (& given that if so, in light of our damaged capacity to grasp it) – what is it’s foundation, & how do we keep hold of first principles when exploring it?
Since it seems fair to propose Christianity historically almost uniquely serious in regard to such exploration (& for instance in passim this current debate), so did the criticism of, in the heat of that debate, an arguably egregious misinterpretation of Newman despite that the criticism was not meant as part of the debate itself.
But to the particular chase here – the inadequacy of comboxes notwithstanding – the either/or of preferring mass murder to veniality is possibly not the sole proposition. As in the matter of torturing a terrorist (or Protestant banker) in hopes of averting a mass slaughter, like many I might risk the sin; yet we see the consequence of this proposition has likely not, in fact, led to said aversion, so much as to poor Lynndie England & an enthusiasm to codify torture as policy.
In like matter, there seems reason to fear an isolated use of the venality/mass murder proposition might well – like Walker Percy’s view of tenderness – rather than prevent the hypothetical murder, instead create a moral atmosphere more disposed to provoke it. Not necessarily of course, yet it hardly seems an imposition of scrupulosity, in se, but also in light of what appears to be something very much like a constant admonition of the Faith, to be uneasy in concluding a lie to be applauded, & exalted, as the first or only moral recourse.
But while doubtless missing something, I fear Antigon does stand convicted by what appears to be an accusation, though I can’t quite grasp why it is. Again, what makes massacring people wrong, even, & perhaps especially at the baptismal font?
Because it violates our objective purpose, it is a perversion of the will, because it is a sin. That may not be the only reason, but it’ll do, since all the other reasons flow from that foundation, & so are less interesting – including the argument, just because – in that they avoid the core of the crime.
Two last observations on this, the first of which I hope addresses the different premises at the matter’s hub: outside social organization – also a rather large subject – it is not as such one’s obligation to prevent others from sinning (by drowning them for example), save as failure to try damages one’s own soul, since finally it is only our own sins for which we shall be accountable on that terrible Day.
And finally, to temper the high-mindedness with a properly unpleasant conclusion: is not the proposal that all this means life but a grim no man’s land of mines & gas with avoiding sin its sole purpose, just a tad too similar to the aunts’ grasp, or Dawn Eden’s, of our beloved Bertie?
I will write an extensive commentary on the Newman passage and its application to this and other questions two weeks from now on Insidecatholic.com. I do not, unlike some commentors here, have a “ladylike” aversion to paying work.
Dear Dr. Z: Me either. Let me know when Deal’s hiring!
Con affetto - Antigon
Dr. Zmirak, here is a link to a lengthy essay by Newman on lying. I found it an interesting contrast to the short quote above.
http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/02/27/cardinal-newman-on-lying-and-equivation/
Dr. Zmirak, Newman has an essay on lying that seems to be somewhat in contrast to the short quote above. I tried to provide a link to it but was not allowed to. It is easy to find by googling newman lying.
thou shalt not lie…
it was GOD who said so…
she lied to pp, and that lie was NOT to save even one innocent… the mom will go someplace or someone else…
the baby will die…
lila rose still lied…
and while pp goes down, there will be 5 more come up…
the baby died…
i will pray for baby…
i will pray for momma… who did not want another/any baby, and the damage it will do to her…
i will pray for whoever aborted the baby… that they may one day (befort they die) will meet CHRIST… and know love…
Thank you Lauretta, for posting that link to Newman on lying/mental reservation. As usual, he is lucid and exhaustive. I will write more on this Wed. at Insidecatholic.
Your welcome, John. I look forward to your next article on this fascinating topic!
You know what, I DON’T think Lila Rose is “great and heroic.” She deliberately seeks out people (on the “Evil Heathen Team”) with the sole purpose of lying and deceipt, in order to catch them—perhaps even to provoke them into—doing wrong.
What would the people on Team Pro-Life say if a young woman (from Team Evil Heathens) decided to pretned to be pregnant and do stings on crisis pregnancy centers?
Even more fitting, what would Team Catholic say if a young man (perhaps one who looked like a teenager) infiltrated a Life Teen program with the intent of catching the priest saying something inappropriate/sexual?
The mandatory reporting laws put anyone in a tough spot, and I’m sure that there are people (*GASP* even people on The Right Team) who have failed to report. (Remember that these laws bind nearly anyone in an occupation or role that deals with the public… which is a lot of folks.)
Frankly, I see a lot of potential for PP to GAIN support from the Live Action stings. They can fire the offending counselors, and then show their supporters how hypocritical and deceptive The Other Side is. The pro-life movement claims, aboves anything else, to have the moral high ground, often going beyond just the issue of abortion. If the so-called “hero” of the movement (Ms. Rose) got there through lies and deceipt, can we really expect hearts and minds to be changed by an example of hypocrisy?
If pro-lifers are going to claim to have the moral high ground, shouldn’t an attempt be made to try and hold it?
Jill…in other words you think Lila Rose is perpetrating evil in order
to “catch” PP in wrong doing? Tell me this, would it be justifiable for a mom, in order to get her kids to eat more vegetables and thus be healthier to puree the veggies and “hide” them in their mac and cheese or in their spaghetti sauce? In other words deceive them into getting their daily nutritional needs? As a matter of fact Jerry Seinfeld’s wife wrote a cookbook for moms with picky eaters called Deceptively Delicious!! Was she guilty of endorsing deception? to millions of readers? and being hypocrtitical? After all she did advise practicing deception! Somehow I think your common sense would tell you otherwise! Granted the stakes
in Lila Rose’s campaign against abortion are on a greater level but the principle of a just deception remains the same…It is a sting…but one
that took great courage. To say if PP did the reverse on Pregnancy Crisis centers is a ludicrous suggestion. First of all they would not want to alert the public about this available help…nor would they find anything that would not stand up to the light of day! Me thinks you protest because you heart lies yonder in the camp of the Pro-Choice crowd. Too
obvious! and won’t sell here!to the majority of commenters!
Ridiculous remarks by Jill,
PP is doing the work of evil. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are doing the work of good.
Amen to those who are able to recognize the difference of what is behind these two operations, and IN FACT do the “spy” or “police” work if you will, to catch them in their deception and expose their evil works towards destroying thousands and thousands of lives and esp innocent children.
Its SOOO ridiculously easy for one to analyze this situation and pick at it like a psychopath to try and find wrongdoing on the part of the person who is actually persevering in the RIGHT way.
“with the sole purpose of lying and deceipt, in order to catch them—perhaps even to provoke them into—doing wrong.
What would the people on Team Pro-Life say if a young woman (from Team Evil Heathens) decided to pretned to be pregnant and do stings on crisis pregnancy centers?”
Learn to spell and learn to think. I would be DELIGHTED if pro-life pregnancy centers were exposed to such scrutiny, since I know that 99% of them would pass, and the rest would deserve to close.
“show their supporters how hypocritical and deceptive The Other Side is.”
What a contemptible joke. Everyone else in the culture considers journalistic stings perfectly fair play. (Note how the HEAD of the elite institution National Public Radio could NOT defend herself with piffle like yours, but instead had to RESIGN after a similar sting.)
I’ll pay you the compliment of thinking that you’re not really this foolish, that you are simply working for the pro-abortion side. That’s the most charitable opinion I can concoct.
Yes, obviously since I disagree with someone’s tactics, that makes me a pro-abort. Obviously.
_
I’ll just quote what Mark Shea wrote on another post: “One of the problems with the increasingly tribalized approach to American politics is that when somebody is perceived as having scored a point for Our Team, then any questioning of the person is perceived as an attack on Our Team. The problem is, sometimes the point got scored because the player threw his racket and accidently drove the ball over the net, not because the player was good or even particularly ethical. That’s why a hallmark of a healthy society is being able to interrogate even your own side and make sure everything is on the up and up. When things become so tribal that any scrutiny directed to the Home Team is regarded as treason and betrayal, the first thing to be imperiled is the integrity of the Home Team. Crazies, juvenile delinquents and scam artists begin to multiply and wrap themselves in the Home Team banner in order to avoid any examination of what they are up to.”
_
Either the end justifies the means, or it doesn’t. But what do I know, I’m apparently just an evil pro-abort (who reads conservative Catholic blogs? Right, that makes sense.).
@Jill…I agree that what you have said makes no sense (nonsense)! If what you are truly doing is trying to play “devil’s advocate” you would use facts and figures to build your case. You have done neither…either
because you don’t understand how that is done or you have nothing substantial to support such a position. It would appear now after two of your comments that it is the latter…and yes! Liberal left Pro-choice
people read conservative Catholic blogs all the time and leave comments like yours. Case rests!!
Give it up, Jill. You, like me, have been exposed as the blood-drinking fiend that you are. The *only* conceivable reason you could be concerned about lying or taking Saul Alinsky as a role model of Christian virtue is because you love abortion just as much as I do. Come, let us retire from these cursed Christians and their spiritual powers of soul-reading given them by the Holy Spirit and slink back into the darkness, to the camp of the Pro-Choice Crowd, where we can hatch our next plot to destroy as many babies as possible.
Either you are with the Righteous or against them, Jill. I, for one, am against them and can only hope I can kill as many innocent people as possible before I join my Dark Master in the nether regions. I’m just comforted to know that you are as dedicated to evil as I am, Jill. It’s less lonely that way.
Forgive me if I have skimmed and not seen the argument come up, but I suggest that the characters portrayed in the LiveAction sting can be thought of as sort of “Everyman,” a composite representation of PP’s actual or likely clientele. Pimps and their prostitutes. Scared young girls with much older boyfriends. One one level, a very literal level, they were indeed misrepresenting who they are. On another, they stood, quite realistically, for a much broader category of people. Would it have been better by some small degree if they had, say, gotten actual pimps or scared young girls to do it for them?
I realize this is old news but if anybody has any thoughts…
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.