Print Article | Email Article | Write To Us

Waves

Monday, March 07, 2011 3:00 AM Comments (6)

One of the interesting phenomena one constantly runs into on the Internet is the fact that conversations tend to roll in eternally like waves on a beach. 

What I mean is this: You have some argument about something; say, the morality of lying in a good cause (as we’ve had here recently).

What fascinates me is how you can hash out some point in great detail, building a great sand castle of argument on the beach whereby you show, with geometric logic, that there is a real difference between the speech act we call “lying” and the speech act we call “writing fiction.”  You labor with great care to make clear (to the scrupulous) that writing fiction is morally acceptable even though what is being written is not “true” in the sense of flat-footed literalism.  You labor (for the licentious) to show that the moral acceptability of writing fiction does not mean that “lying through your teeth” is therefore “the same” as writing fiction.  You parse out the distinction between different sorts of speech acts which we all, by common consent, recognize as morally acceptable vs. those which are not (the actor playing a role vs. the con man lying about his identity).  Finally, when all the t’s are crossed and the i’s dotted on this little artifice of reason, some new person crashes into the discussion and says, “Yeah?  Well what about writing fiction?  Is that lying?  Huh?  Huh?  Answer me that!”

It’s a problem you run into over and over.  So, for instance, earlier this week, I wrote, as clearly as I could:

Third, though I generally share John Zmirak’s tendency to regard mental reservation as the Catholic term of art for Bovine Excretions, I also note that Jesus nonetheless appears to have practiced it (“I am not [yet] going up to the feast” John 7:8). Indeed, if that’s not a classic picture of a mental reservation, then I don’t know what is. Though, perniciously, this and other passages tend to suddenly turn up in conversations about the morality of lying, not to suggest that mental reservation is legitimate, but to suggest that even Jesus told white lies, so it’s no big deal if we do too.  To wit:

Do you think Jesus lied when he said, “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.”  Because obviously, the Eternally Begotten Son of God knows when things are going to happen.

Such questions are, I think, deeply sinister when jammed sideways into a discussion of the morality of lying because they bid fair to metastasize the rationalizing from “It’s okay for Christians to lie sometimes” (which is already dubious and contrary to Church teaching) to “Jesus told lies too” (which is, you know, blasphemy).  To massively understate things, I have a feeling you’ll have a tough time getting the Church to acknowledge that Jesus was a liar.  God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

To which a reader almost immediately responded:

One thing you have all missed is that Jesus fibbed a little to save his life too. In John 7:1-12, Jesus tells his “brothers” that he is not going up to the feast of Tabernacles and they should go on. However, he does go after they leave. HMMMMMMMM!!!

He sure got me there.  Never thought of that.

And the beat goes on.  Every anti-Catholic fundamentalist is sure he is the first person in history to have caught Catholics in the shocking revelation that Borgia Popes were bad and Jesus said “Call no man Father.”  Every atheist on planet earth seems to think that he is the first person to reveal to Christians that the Old Testament contains morally problematic scenes of violence or to ask “If God made everything, then who made God?”  Every teenager on earth seems to be convinced that he is the first person to reveal to Christians that sex is pleasurable.  Every “Jesus never existed” zealot thinks he is the first to notice that contemporary Roman records of Jesus are thin on the ground.  Every six day creationist is certain he has discovered the ironclad proof that overturns the overwhelming consensus of the sciences about the age of the earth and evolution by common descent.  Every atheist materialist is certain that some passage from Genesis, read with flat-footed literalism, shows the Bible to be worthless.  Every Obama Birther is certain that nobody has ever before considered their theory.  Every 9/11 Conspiracy theorist is certain that the shocking revelation that lighting a cup of gas in his hamster cage and failing to melt the bars will unveil the Hidden History of our Time.

What I glean from these endless waves washing up on our conversational shores is that this is why the teaching mission of the Church is an ongoing one throughout all time.  There will never be a time, short of Heaven, when the Church will be able to rest on its laurels and say “Mission accomplished!”  Every generation of Catholics must, as the saying goes, tame a wave of barbarians called “their children.”  Because the truth of things (whether of relatively trivial things like the times table) or of immensely important things like the gospel of Jesus is news to each generation—along with such matters as elementary reasoning skills and basic facts about history, math, and science.  Those inclined to conservatism cannot rest with the certitude that people have a clue about what needs to be conserved.  Those inclined to progressivism cannot rest with the certitude that their neighbors have the slightest idea what we should be progressing to.  Nor can Catholics assume that the Faith will just sail on of itself without our cooperation with grace and our active participation in making sure it is handed on.  Not that everything is on us, of course.  God is the author and finisher of the Faith.  But if we do not cooperate with him, we can expect that the sand castles will be lost for us and those we love.  As Paul says, using another metaphor:

Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

 

Filed under pondering

Comments

Post a Comment

Thanks, again, Mark.  As I was reading the pages and pages on the issue of lying vs. not, I almost fell off my chair when I read the comment stating “Jesus lied was well.”  WHAT??!!  Have we come to far in trying to justify our sins that we need to drag Jesus into our mess?

But what about Corrie ten Boom’s Ticking Time Bomb Scenario in which the Millions of Japanese Would Have Fought to the Death and Ruth Lied too About Rape or Incest?

Reminds me of Ephesians 4:14-16 where the wave image is used:

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

These waves are not to be part of the life of a mature Christian. Being connected to the body and speaking the truth in love are supposed to prevent it. You have given some examples of how speaking the truth in love can try one’s patience. Guess what? Patience is one way we show love. When we don’t look at it as the 50th time we have answered the same objection but rather as a human being who needs to understand the truth of God.

“Every anti-Catholic fundamentalist is sure he is the first person in history to have caught Catholics in the shocking revelation that Borgia Popes were bad and Jesus said “Call no man Father.”  Every atheist on planet earth seems to think that he is the first person to reveal to Christians that the Old Testament contains morally problematic scenes of violence or to ask “If God made everything, then who made God?” . . .”

Indeed, the beat does go on.  Thank you for the reminder that “nor can Catholics assume that the Faith will just sail on of itself without our cooperation with grace and our active participation in making sure it is handed on.”

At least with that, that means that I’ll be a little less frustrated whenever the same questions come at me in waves, and I’m tempted to just roll my eyes and grumble, “what, AGAIN?!?!”

I’ll just make sure I roll up my sleeves instead.

As either THE or A guilty party concerning “what about fiction?!” a week ago, I blame myself for reading the original post too quickly and missing that - my apologies, sir.  Maybe headers would have helped the article like “The fiction argument”  but still, I blame myself of course.


Maybe this further comment goes there, but oh well.  You claimed to examine whether, in light of the Catechism declaring lying to be intrinsically evil, Lila Rose’s actions were morally licit.  Then you distinguished what she did from fiction writing (among many other paragraph provisos) and said that that such writing is morally licit since both parties agree to the conceit.  I agree it’s morally licit, but you miss the point at least with regard to your overall investigation.  By precisely denying someone the fiction argument (and others), you prevent someone from arguing that the statement in question is an overgeneralization.


The point is: does the Catechism with its sweeping “by its very nature” statement envision and encompass fiction writing, which contains things which are not true?  If not, and I think we agree it doesn’t, then we know that the sentence is already subject to a great source of legitimate equivocation.


Compare these two possible sentences the Catechism could have used:
“By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.” (actually used)
“By its very nature, lying, except in the context of fiction writing, is to be condemned.”


The second statement, even though it carves out an exception, is in fact stronger than the first because we can discern that if they made one exception they probably considered many possible exceptions yet only resolved to except the one.  If they excepted fiction writing explicitly, but not undercover police work, we can infer more strongly what the Magisterium thinks of undercover police work.  The fact that they made no exceptions to the statement suggests that there are a whole host of exceptions that reason can discern that are indeed valid exceptions.


Therefore the question becomes not one of whether the Rose action is lying, but rather what are the exceptions that the Church implicitly recognizes to its Catechetical overgeneralization.  Fiction writing is one of those implicit exceptions (perhaps, but probable), what are the others?


(Trying some HTML line breaks here for the first time, apologies in advance if they don’t work out or aren’t wanted.)

Whoops, forgot to add that this is of course another “wave”.  I hope it’s unique enough to not cause too much additional frustration.

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.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

     

Notify me of follow-up comments.

About Mark Shea

Mark Shea
  • Get the RSS feed
Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register.Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.