Once you permit lying in your world view, it undermines it. Our entire Gospel is based on eyewitness testimony, and that testimony is only reliable as long as there isn’t fudging in the fine print like, “Well, you can lie if you have a really good reason for it.” Our course, God becoming incarnate for the salvation and eternal life of mankind IS a really good reason, so how do you know the “except of a really good reason isn’t being applied here? No. As the Catechism plainly states, “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.

I’ve read the concerns held about whether we should be applauding the expose by Lila Rose of Planned Parenthood’s complicitcy in providing sex based abortion.  I’ve also read on whether we should think highly of those involved in this investigative reporting, or whether they are thinking that the end, (exposing abortion practices that are illegal, dangerous and evil), justifies the means (expose reporting and secret cameras and scripted actors).

I don’t think the people asking the questions wish simply to debate the type of ordinance used, but whether we should be using ordinance at all and whether moral people can use a deception to reveal a truth? Is it moral to do so?  Is it reflective of the Way, Truth and the Life, or of the father of lies?

Proper Catholic moral ethics stem from love that imitates God’s love and require we will the good of the other…both Lila Rose and the employee who has had two abortions and has four children.  Jesus is always after all of our souls, Jesus says “Let him who has no sin cast the first stone,” and also, “Go and sin no more.”  He says his yoke is easy, his burden light, and “Take up your cross and follow me.  So it is a contradiction that we struggle inartfully to live out, Lila, you, me, Shea, all those who seek to figure out, Who this Jesus is? and What does He ask of Me? 

So I wonder, if the Holy Spirit is now pushing down on both in this instance, the woman of Planned Parenthood who lost her job because of the expose to see that she was earning her salary at the cost of these mothers’ souls and her own, and Lila to consider whether there might be a better way than deception, to reveal the evil that is abortion.  Perhaps, going to interview woman after woman after woman, seeking to document the aftermath of the 50, million lost, in statistics, in story, in outcomes for those mothers who now have dead children but either do not allow themselves to mourn, or believe they are not allowed to mourn.

It is rather like gender based abortion itself.  The horror should not be at the reason these children are lost, (being girls) but the loss of all children thru abortion itself. 

It’s not shades of gray - the Church teaches that lying is clearly, unambiguously and always wrong.  The fact that it’s a tactic deployed against people who are doing even worse thing (much, much worse things) doesn’t change the fact that the lying itself is sinful - an affront to God Himself.

And its not “tut-tuttery” to articulate Truth.

No lying ever… but it’s okay to kill when it’s convenient?
Or how about… it’s okay to BELIEVE the lie that a baby in utero is not a human life?  If anyone wants to talk about no lying ever, why don’t we start there?
.

You know, I could understand to a degree, if people in the 60s and 70s thought MAYBE it wasn’t a baby… before ultrasounds COULD PROVE IT!!!!

“No lying ever… but it’s okay to kill when it’s convenient?”

No it’s not.  But Bob’s very bad sins don’t make Jim’s less bad sins “unsinful.” 

No lying ever… but it’s okay to kill when it’s convenient?

Who says that? The deliberate killing of innocent humans is always wrong, and i might add, always gravely so. Not all lies are grave, but all lying is wrong.

Your caricature of the argument against the tactics employed by Lila Rose and Co. raises so many problems it’s difficult to decide where to begin.

The feel of the article as a whole gives the impression that you think the good, moral Catholics who believe differently about Lila Rose are complicit in gender-selective abortion, which is an outrageous claim to make.

Your argument from Peter Kreeft, while great as a smear, is not an argument against the logic of the opposing position. Kreeft himself, otherwise brilliant man that he is, only gave an emotional argument based on what he called common sense, an easy catch-all “gotcha” argument for philosophers who don’t have any facts.

You seem to outright ignore the fact that those of us who disagree with Lila Rose nevertheless appreciate her intention, assume her ignorance on the moral flaw, and enjoy the good that comes of it. I think she’s a hero of the pro-life movement, but like every hero aside from Christ, she’s a flawed one, or rather, she sometimes makes moral errors. Why is it that your side of the argument feels the need to make Lila Rose impeccable?

You call our side ”manufactured fundamentalism” (another great “gotcha” for a man who wants to villify his opponent), but ours is the side that agrees with Aquinas and the theologians of the Reformation, and the great theological tradition that went before them. How is that manufactured, exactly? Clearly, it’s a position grown organically from the development of Catholic doctrine on lying. The position that small lies for good intentions are morally acceptable is a manufactured one, albeit not fundamentalist.

This:

“It is this very same type of high-minded moral tut-tuttery that often leads some of these very same people to declare that it is fundamentally immoral to vote against the most virulently pro-abortion (and infanticide) President ever if that means voting for a potential replacement does not meet with their high moral standards.”

...is simply mind-bogglingly inaccurate.  I don’t know a single person who argues that Lila Rose’s tactics are technically immoral, albeit well-intentioned, who wants Barack Obama in office another instant, let alone for another term. Sure, there are many who hate what Lila Rose is doing because they support abortion, but it is blatantly dishonest to lump us in with them. There is a HUGE difference between finding a flaw in a particular pro-life tactic and being pro-abortion.

This:

“In the war against such horrors such as abortion, gendercide, and infanticide I would be proud to occupy the same foxhole as Lila Rose and Live Action, the continuous chants from those in the rear about what caliber bullets we may morally use not-withstanding.”

We likewise are proud to occupy the same foxhole, but your whining about our moral quandries and your comment about the “caliber” of bullets used seems to imply that you think this is merely a matter of strategy, as if one is equal to another, or either “caliber” bullet will do.  That is not the case at all. Lying is never acceptable. It isn’t simply a different caliber of bullet, it is an altogether different weapon, one which, while a relatively minor evil in this situation, is still an evil, even though we will join you in praising God when the enemy falls by it, even if we don’t care for the means.

I and those with whom I agree believe Lila Rose should be commended for the work she’s done, although we find some of it morally flawed.  We believe any guilt incurred must be very low, as lying to murderers must be very light matter for sin. Why is it that you, who bring this up out of the blue and accuse us of pushing the issue as only fundamentalists do, feel the need to have her acquitted of all guilt in the public eye?  We’re all on the same side, we all want abortion ended, and we’re all glad abortionists are getting caught in their own webs.

Drop it, already.

Thanks for that thourough response Micah. I like Peter Kreeft, but think he’s just plain wrong here. As is the admirable and intelligent Janet Smith, whose analysis of Aquinas and proposal of speech as allowing lying as a somewhat necessary feature of the Fall was astoundingly bad.

Just because someone is fighting for a good cause doesn’t mean that they can do anything they want. Such an argument could be used to justify murdering abortionists or other crimes.

At different times I’ve gone either way on this argument, both sides have good points, but in the end, when people ask me if they should “call up PP and lie about needing an abortion to find out X” I always advise them not too. Satan is the father of lies, he is the master of lies, and anyone who uses lies enters into his domain.

Living in the Third Reich, someone is hiding a Jew in his home, and has become suspected of it by the authorities. When the officer asks, “Do you have any Jews hidden in your home?” what is the proper, moral response?  Would it be an affront to God to continue to conceal (via subterfuge) their presence, and to deny it (lie) when directly asked by the officer?

I believe that Kreef and Janet Smith are expressing a truth that we know in our gut, but just haven’t figured out the theological language/reasoning to express.

“Are you harboring Jews?” said the Nazi to the homeowner.
“Are you an undercover police officer?” asked the drug lord.
“Don’t you think my baby is cute?”

Would it be possible to live in a world of order and harmony without such subterfuge? God does not demand the impossible.

When the officer asks, “Do you have any Jews hidden in your home?” what is the proper, moral response

One acceptable response to my mind is, “There is no one here that should’t be.” Or even confidently inviting them in saying, “Search if you must, but you won’t find anything.” Which brings up the basic point: rather than relying on lies, simply hide your Jews better.

But here is a scenario that may someday have a chance of happening to some of us. If you get pulled over by a cop and he asks if you have had anything to drink and you say yes even if it was less than one drink of alcohol, apparently that is probable cause and the cop can ask you to step out and proceed to make your life one big hassle. If you say no, he has to let you go (assuming not being stopped for something else) without some concrete evidence. I’ve been told that I should lie in this scenario as legal advice. Rather, I won’t drink any amount and get in a car because it just isn’t worth it. The absolute prohibition against lying is only hard if you want it to be.

Would it be possible to live in a world of order and harmony without such subterfuge? God does not demand the impossible.

Never lying may prove difficult and burdensome and (rarely) even deadly. No, God does not demand the impossible. But taking on difficulties, burdens, and even death is hard, not impossible.

Fr. John Hardon, in “The Catholic Catechism” states: “Circumstances are an integral part of human speech; such circumstances are the time, place, tone of voice, and the persons addressed. Thus what may verbally be contrary to fact, like telling children about Santa Claus, is not lying.”

I find it telling that most (though not all) those who oppose the actions of Lila Rose and Live Action also think that telling children about Santa Claus is lying.

On the other hand, I firmly oppose any and all torture and think that discussions of what is/is not torture is similar to the woman asked if she’d sleep with a man not her husband for a million dollars: “We know what you are, madam, anything else is haggling over the price.”

(As a Catholic, I’m a conservative bleeding heart hippy trad. Go figure!)

Two points:

1)  The Nazis-at-the-door, Jews-in-the-basement hypothetical is indeed a hard case.  Note that Catholic moral theology doesn’t make exceptions for hard cases (after all - a poor woman who finds herself pregnant via a rape is a hard case too), but they are hard cases nonetheless.  The culpability of persons who sin in “hard case” scenarios may be substantially lessened.  But what makes them hard cases is the imminent threat of violence at the time of the deception.  This is completely different from a situation where someone makes a plan, well in advance, to initiate contact with another person with the pre-meditated and freely-chosen intent to lie, with no direct result in the protection of anyone’s life and limb. 

2)  The arguments over the deception itself obscures the fact the Live Action agents in these sting videos are actually actively tempting another person to sin - which is NEVER acceptable. 

How so you might say? Ask yourself the following:

A)  Is it a sin to assist someone in procuring an abortion, in general or for the purposes of sex selection specifically?  (Yes and yes - of course)

B)  If a person has already assisted many other people in procuring abortions, is it an instance of a new sin to assist one more person in procuring and abortion?  (Yes - of course)

C)  If a person freely chooses an act with the intent of doing evil, do they still sin if in fact their act doesn’t result in the intended consequence?  (yes - of course;  if I aim a gun at you, pull the trigger and miss I have sinned, morally, just as much as I would have if my aim had been better)

D)  Did the Planned Parenthood workers caught on film believe that they were assisting in the procurement of an abortion? (Yes - of course;  they believed the lie)

From A-D, we know that the Planned Parenthood workers in the videos committed specific sins - right there “on the tape.”  Now:

E)  Had that specific Live Action agent not shown up in the office at the time of filming and presented the fictitious scenario to the specific Planned Parenthood worker, would the worker have had the opportunity to commit the specific sin depicted in the video?  (No - of course not)

Thus the Live Action agents, with full intent and understanding of the likely consequences, told lies (always a sin) that resulted in a forseeable near occasion of sin for the Planned Parenthood workers (also always a sin).

The fact that the Planned Parenthood workers are, on balance, much worse, doesn’t make what the Live Action agent did right.

I (and most people) aren’t clever enough to come up with a “non-lie” on the spot to keep evil at bay. I’m also a mother. I can smell a “non-lie” by a kid a mile away. Nazis aren’t stupid. Drug lords aren’t stupid either. “Non-lies” won’t fool them, but perhaps a denial with superior acting will. I’m am not advocating all out subterfuge as a way of life, rather I’m suggesting (as does Kreeft and Smith) who are much more knowledgeable about moral theology, that such a prohibition is not absolute.

Has anyone just tried asking PP for information? You shouldn’t have to lie to get it from them.

I (and most people) aren’t clever enough to come up with a “non-lie” on the spot to keep evil at bay.

There are two duties. 1) not betraying people you have promised to protect and b) not engaging in the yes, absolute prohibition against lying. It is NOT one’s duty to make sure that we are effective at 1 at all costs. So, my evasion examples above won’t fool anyone. So what? That just goes back to my advice: hide your Jews better. Smith and Kreeft are admirable, but not the Magesterium. Anyone can find x theologian or scholar who says differently. It’s an old leftist dissident’s trick.

Nazis: Do you have Jews in your attic?

Me: Nope.

So I couldn’t morally lie to the nazis about the Jews but I could morally kill them to protect the Jews? That makes sense.

The question I have is:  Are these undercover operations actually converting anyone?  If they are truly a “good” where are the conversions of fence-sitters in the pro-life / pro-abortion argument?

Those that are already pro-life are now more ardently pro-life.  Those that are pro-abortion simply argue semantics about the videos (that worker was not educated properly, that was an isolated incident, etc) and continue on.

Please prove me wrong here.  For all that is indeed being exposed, where is the fruit?

“So I couldn’t morally lie to the nazis about the Jews but I could morally kill them to protect the Jews? That makes sense.”

Yes. Lying is inherently disordered, while killing (other than murder) is not, and is permissible under many circumstances, such as to prevent the taking of an innocent life.

sd says that the Catholic Church teaches “no lying, ever”.  Does that mean that if we were alive when slavery was legal, and we were hiding a slave in our house and lied to protect the slave, or if we were hiding Jews during WWII and lied to the Nazis, we would be committing a sin?  I respectfully disagree.

I’ll let a comment from Joe Gabowski be my closing word on the subject,
“Gut-wrenching video, in every respect. The horror of what’s being discussed, the horror of how it’s being obtained, all converging to make for one great sadness. It hits at one of those finer points in the objection against lying for a good cause though: that laughter in the moment when the woman mentions that she’s had two abortions herself already – it should haunt us in our sleep. I cannot even conceive of laughing, even in a ploy or a conceit. That’s the moment my cover would be blown. How even to act laughter, when the angels are weeping? It would tear apart one’s own moral metaphysical nature to attempt it. And that’s the upshot: we cannot employ these tactics because even if they’re not sins for which we are culpable they are actions which engage a kind of violence against our moral nature within the act. This is, of course, to say nothing of all the positives evils done by this kind of activity, which I’ve noted before and won’t labor to elucidate here: the treatment of the ‘other,’ so wounded, so exploited, who more than anyone needs truth herself. To laugh at a woman who’s had two abortions herself, and all the damage its done her – to join her in her laughter at it! – all for the sake of some ‘evidence’ which is inadmissible in any serious legal application, unconvincing in any shrewd argumentative sense (because it can’t be demonstrated or proven to be “typical”). It pains the soul.”

Lila Rose and Live Action are like soldiers on the front.  They lie (a sin) so that others may have a chance to live by the exposing of the horrors of abortion, and the exposition of the lies told by Planned Parenthood.  So, how are they like soldiers?  Because…the men and women of the military go out, fight, and kill (a sin) in the name of the US and in self defense.  Both have sinned…but in the defense of others.  Sometimes, people have to go out and do what we may be sqeamish about doing, because it needs to be done, even if it is a wrong.  Planned Parenthood already lies and kills, but attempst to put a cute little mask on in front of it’s hideous face.  Live Action rips it away to expose them for who they are…

Hector, killing is not a sin under many circumstances. Look at the OT, or the Crusades, etc.

Whats worse abortion or lying?I rest my case.

Some people have no legitimate right to the truth.  (Nazis, slave owners, human traffickers, drug dealers….)  Withholding something from someone who has no right to it is no sin.  I can’t remember exactly where in the Old Testament, but didn’t a woman in the Bible hide someone in a cistern on her property to protect them from “authorities” who illegitimately sought to either kill or imprison them?  If I remember correctly, she had to lie at least once to preserve the subterfuge.  I am with Kreeft.  Anyone who thinks a person hiding a Jew, who lied to a Nazi, sinned, is a moral idiot.  So too, abortion-mongers.

Jennifer, even if you accept that argument, it still holds that by lying to these people, the Lila Rosers are causing them (the PP workers) to commit the sin of helping procure an abortion. Whether or not they actually are is irrelevant, since the intent and will is there.

So where, exactly, in the Catechism does it say that saying something that isn’t true, is always morally wrong?  Chapter and verse please. The “Nazis at the door, Jews in the basement scenario” is under no circumstances a hard case.  It’s about as much of slam dunk as you can find. Too bad so many amateur moralists muff the shot. Ditto for Lila Rose’s work.

So, then how about camouflage, and sting operations? And practical jokes, which I dislike, but are they inherently sinful?

While I also agree that abortion is one of the ugliest things on the planet, I cannot help but feel, deep in my heart of hearts, that the abortion worker was exploited.  She admitted to two abortions, she is a scarred soul! The lies needed to end and the ministry to the sick needed to begin. She’s now been fired from her job because of the deception of an organization that seeks to minister to exactly her type!  Where does that leave her?  It leaves her NOTHING.  She now knows that neither side will care for her or “have her back.” All of these circumstances occurred in her life because of lies.  I sincerely want abortion to end, with all my heart and soul and strength.  I cannot see the moral justification when there are human victims sacrificed in the “pro-life” name….  But I really DO want abortion to end.  I am so very torn.  Mother of Mercy, show us the way!

CCC 2482-2485: “A *lie* consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.  The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil…Lying is the most direct offense againts the truth…By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.  It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others.  The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity.”
CCC 2488-2489: “The right to communication of the truth is not unconditional…No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”
According to the Church, lying and deception are not synonyms. You can withhold the truth from someone who has no right to it. (not lie to them)
When the Nazis knock at your door looking for Jews, their full unstated question is “Are you hinding Jews for us to find, torture, and kill?”  It is not lying but truthful to answer, “No.”  And if they are convinced you are hinding Jews, it does not make a damn bit of difference what you say.  They WILL search your house, so if you believe it would be lying to answer, “No,” invite them to search your house.
Asking someone to commit gendercide for you, when you have no intention of it, is “speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving”(CCC 2482), i.e. lying.  Lila Rose, with good intentions, lied to PP, which according to the Church is unequivocally to be condemned.

By the way, I am in NO way passing judgment on Lila Rose or any member of Live Action for their individual morality. I want the atrocity of abortion to end.  We simply cannot afford to have victims of both the abortion industry, or the pro-life movement.

Lila Rose has done more to unveil the evil of murder that Planned Parenthood performs.  I guess everyone here is against undercover work, thinks detectives & spies are hell bound.  While we sit on our butts commenting on Lila’s sin and babies continue to die and women continue to be hurt.  I for one don’t know Lila’s soul and whether she goes to confession, but I applaud her for shedding light on this horrid industry and bringing it down piece by piece.  Do we condemn Nellie Bly for uncovering the cruelty in insane asylums by posing as a patient?  Come on people, she is an undercover prolife journalist.  Surely you aren’t against a journalist uncovering the evil.

Pat,

You demonstrate exactly why Pope Benedict has made such a point of condemning relativism.  The world’s voice has been so loud that now even the faithful are willing to excuse sin, to redefine the nature of sin “relative” to the situation.

It’s not lying; it’s acting.
If you are opposed to acting, then don’t go to a movie, watch TV, go to a play, or even a commercial. They are all Liars, right?
And if you have children, forbid them from playing dress-up and make-believe, because that’s not real either. They’ll just grow up to be little Liars.
Ridiculous. I am with Peter Kreeft, This “liar argument” is moral stupidity.

Like I said, my main concern is the care for the victim of lies, if that be a pre-born baby, or an abortionist.

Micah:

So tell me…is a person who works as a spy for Homeland Security justified in concealing his identity when he (or she) manages to infiltrate a terrorist group and prevents or disrupts a terrorist attack?

Why do you feel compelled to point out what you refer to as “moral flaws”?  What higher purpose does this serve?  I strongly believe that many moral theologians would agree that the brilliant Lila Rose/Live Action’s undercover sting presents a perfect case for what is known as “justified lying”. Anyone who has taken a class in moral ethics is familiar with this argument.

Theologically Speaking is a website hosted by Tim Farley, pastor at a church near Kalamazoo, Michigan (M.Div. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary); he has a “ passion for challenging people to live what they say they believe – especially fellow Christians” . 

The following excerpt from one of his blogs (see link below) provides us with a remarkable commentary on this issue. He challenges us to consider “ …the following ways that we go about using deception every day, but do not think of it as wrong (or at least we recognize a need for it).  Here are some of those ways:
- We use deception to keep secrets – like when we are trying to throw a surprise birthday party for our child.
- We use deception in games – we fake passes in football and basketball, we try to deceive our opponent in chess, and we try to either pretend we have a strong hand in Poker or a weak one (whichever is to our advantage).
- We tell lies (or half-truths) to show love – we thank people for singing at church (even if the song was not so great).
- We use deception to keep ourselves safe – we instruct our children to never tell a stranger that they are home alone (even if they are).

We also see situations in the Bible where lying either seems to be praised or, at least not condemned as wrong.  Here are some examples:
- In Exodus 1, the midwives disobeyed pharaoh’s command to kill all male Hebrew children, and then lied to pharaoh when questioned about why they were disobedient.  At the end of the story, we are told that the “widwives feared God.”
- In Joshua 2, Rahab hides the Hebrew spies and lies to their potential captors to keep them safe.  She is praised for her “friendly welcome” in Hebrews 11:31.
- In 1 Samuel 16:1-3, God instructs Samuel to keep his mission a secret from Saul by telling him a lie (or at least a half truth).
These are a few examples of where lying seems to be okay in the Bible.  But why is this so?  The Bible clearly tells us that lying is wrong. 

Why would it seem okay in some situations and is it okay for us?  I believe that Bruce Waltke in his commentary on Joshua found in The New Bible Commentary has helpful words to give us clarity on this topic.  He writes concerning Joshua 2 and Rahab:
‘Reconnaissance, espionage, and deception are necessary in war, even holy war (see 1; Jdg 7:9–16). Rahab hid the spies and misled the king of Jericho’s scouts with lies (2–7). She clandestinely let the spies escape and instructed them how to avoid detection by hiding in the mountains pitted with caves to the west of the city—the opposite of what might be expected by a posse (16–17). The deceptions by Joshua and Rahab raise eyebrows. How can they be a legitimate part of holy war? (Cf. Mt. 5:33–37; Eph. 4:14–15).

Indirect analogies of situations where deception and disinformation are right and necessary may help. Hunters use traps and blinds; fishermen, lures and bait. In sport, players will often try to trick their opponents by putting spin on a ball or adopting deceptive postures. In chess a player deceives his opponent into taking his weaker piece in order to capture his stronger one; in poker one keeps a ‘straight face’. God was kind to the midwives for deceiving Pharaoh (Ex. 1:19–20), and ‘by faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born’ (Heb. 11:23). In all these situations we do not accuse the participants of acting according to the unethical principle that a right end justifies a wrong means. Rather, we recognize that in such situations deception is legitimate, not wrong. So also the OT recognizes that in war intelligence, counter-intelligence and decoys are all part of ‘the game’. Joshua set an ambush (Jos. 8:9), and David used Hushai as a mole in conjunction with a network of spies (2 Sa. 15:32–37; 16:15–22). In the NT Paul escaped the Jews under the cover of night (Acts 9:23–26), and the angel took advantage of the sleeping soldiers to release Peter from Herod’s clutches (Acts 12:6–10). In most situations, however, lies are wrong (Pr. 30:7–8), and truth is required (Eph. 4:15).’

So, for Waltke, the Rahab’s lie was okay because the rules of the game (war) did not require truth.  Lying and deception are a part of war, just like they are a part of chess, football, hunting, etc.  So too, are other situations in or lives.  We do not need to tell strangers the truth if it could put us in danger to do so.  If we were hiding Jews in Nazi Germany, we would have no obligation to tell the German soldiers at our door that we were doing so…”

Read more at http://theologicallyspeaking.com/2009/05/11/a-case-for-justified-lying/

Micah, kindly cease the unwarranted, hypercritical comments and hop down from your sanctimonious soapbox. In other words, just “give it a rest”! 
**********************************************************************
From the Center for Bioethical Reform website:

WORLDWIDE ABORTION FACTS
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000
Abortion averages:
Worldwide, the lifetime average is about 1 abortion per woman.

http://www.abortionno.org/world.html

I find this article very disappointing. If you think lying is morally justifiable, Mr. Archbold, then refute the arguments that attempt to prove the opposite. Most of the people with whom you disagree are, like you, genuinely seeking after goodness. To insinuate that anyone who believes that lying is always wrong is a relativist, is not authentically pro-life, and has been seduced by the progressives into voting for Obama is a cheap rhetorical device. Resorting to character assassination instead of engaging with the arguments of those with whom you disagree suggests that you find yourself unable to meet the arguments on intellectual grounds.

Kreeft calls it moral stupidity. I call it being pharisaical. OK then, let’s try this one on for size. CCC 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…”  If we call call what Lila Rose did a “professional secret” does that assuage your scrupulous consciences?

It is always easier to sit, spin, and pontificate than it is to take action.  Lila Rose, in uncovering the reality of Planned Parenthood, is exposing a great evil that recieves government money.  Why is it that you tut-tutters don’t slam PP for not revealing the reality of their founder?  Her racism, her eugenic beliefs?  No, instead you want to slam the one who exposes that organization and it’s own lies by going undercover…me thinks you doth protest too much.

“If we call call what Lila Rose did a “professional secret” does that assuage your scrupulous consciences?”

But it’s not (and so doing so would be, ahem, a lie).  The Church teaches that it is perfectly acceptable (and in some cases, morally obligatory) to refrain from passing truthful information on to another person if that person has no right to the information or if he or she will likely use the information to commit evil acts.

But that’s a completely different action from passing on untruthful information with the intent to deceive, which is defined as lying and which is always condemned. 

In other words - you can in good conscience refuse to tell someone something if its none of their business or if they are an evil sumbitch.  But you cannot tell them something that you know to be untrue, with the intent to deceive them, even if its for a good cause.

What the Live Action agents do in these videos is lying.  They say things that are not true, that they know to be not true, with the intent of deceiving someone else.  That’s what lying is.  And lying is condemned by the Church in all circumstances.  Peter Kreeft and Janet Smith can spin out whatever un-Catholic sophistry they want to deny that Truth, but Truth it is.

All this ground was covered the last time Live Action was in the news and Mark started calling them Liars for Jesus.  I applaud the group for trying, actively doing something, even if I don’t agree with their tactics. Its really easy to sit in judgement in an ivory tower its another thing to actually do something. I m interested in our reaction if they make it illegal to be Catholic and we are hiding in someones elses home if we would want them to lie for us.

“I strongly believe that many moral theologians would agree that the brilliant Lila Rose/Live Action’s undercover sting presents a perfect case for what is known as “justified lying”. Anyone who has taken a class in moral ethics is familiar with this argument.”

There are a number of non-Catholic moral theologies which speak of “justified lying,” but the Catholic Church of course condemns these heretical notions just as she condemns all forms of moral relativism.

“Theologically Speaking is a website hosted by Tim Farley, pastor at a church near Kalamazoo, Michigan (M.Div. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary)... The following excerpt from one of his blogs (see link below) provides us with a remarkable commentary on this issue.”

With all due respect - I couldn’t care less what some Protestant pastor thinks about the ethics of lying, in much the same way that I couldn’t care less what he thinks about the Real Presence or Apostolic Succession or The Immaculate Conception.  I’m sure he’s a nice man, and I’m sure his faith in sincere and, to the extent that he is orthodox on many issue, animated by the Holy Spirit.  But being a Protestant he departs from the Truth of the Catholic faith on a number of issues - including, it seems, the morality of lying.

Teresa,
I have done so many times, just not in this post.  google it.

Oh but it is a “professional secret” in much the same vein as a soldier or a spy.  Yes, she’s saying something untrue. So what? It’s done to reveal the ultimate truth of what PP stands for and unmasking their lies that result in dead babies. If you want to equate those as somehow being in the same category of “lies” go right ahead. But don’t throw accusations of being “un-Catholic” around because we aren’t suffering from scrupulousness like you.

“Yes, she’s saying something untrue. So what? It’s done to reveal the ultimate truth of what PP stands for and unmasking their lies that result in dead babies.”

So in other words, the ends justify the means.  Compare to:

CCC 1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving)

CCC 1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Would having to choose between the lesser of two evils apply here?

“Oh but it is a “professional secret” in much the same vein as a soldier or a spy.”

No its not.  Go back and read the passage from the Catechism that you originally quoted.  It defines “professional secret” very clearly - as truthful information that can (and sometimes must) be withheld from others.  It does NOT define it as untruthful information communicated to others. 

The Live Action agents intentionally withholding the fact that they are Live Action agents is arguably an instance of a “professional secret.”  Obviously the Planned Parenthood folks would have liked to have know that to avoid embarrassment, but they had no right to that information.  But that’s not (all) they did.  they also intentionally said things that were untrue.  While the Planned Parenthood folks have no moral right to hear the truth, the Live Action agents have a moral obligation not to say something untrue.

This isn’t an end justifying the means situation. The means here does not need justification at all. It is simply not comparable to tell what is essentially a harmless “little white lie” and the lie that PP doesn’t do sex selection abortions. This is not a “lie” where an innocent person is condemned, for example. Just the opposite in fact. It may actually save innocents from being murdered. There is something quite ofensive in the idea that allowing this legalized murder to go on is morally superior to telling a “lie” that does not “lead a neighbor into error” nor is it a “failure in justice and charity.” it is ultimately a triumph of both. It is offensive to insist that these types of “lies” are morally impermissible even if not telling them allows murder to continue.

“Would having to choose between the lesser of two evils apply here?”

Nope.  The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that it’s ever acceptable to “choose” evil, even if its a lesser evil (to do so would be moral relativism).  Secular and non-Catholic moral systems often allows such an act, but not the Church. 

The Church does of course teach that its OK to choose to do something that is morally neutral, even if it has harmful consequences, if the harm is outweighed by some greater good.  But that’s only if the act itself is morally neutral (or good).  If the act itself in intrinsically wrong, then it is wrong to choose to do it, even if the temporal consequences of not doing it are worse than the consequences of doing it.  And the Church defines lying (the intentional communication of false information with the intent to deceive - which clearly applies to what the Live Action agents did in all three respects) as intrinsically wrong.

“This isn’t an end justifying the means situation. The means here does not need justification at all. It is simply not comparable to tell what is essentially a harmless “little white lie” and the lie that PP doesn’t do sex selection abortions.”

You’re saying precisely that the ends justify the means.  You’re saying that the ends (exposing the evil of PP) justify the means (lying to PP employees).

And lying to PP employees is exactly what the Live Action agents did.  They knowingly communicated (check) false information (check) with the intent to deceive (check).  Lying.

Those that are accusing Lila Rose of lying don’t seem to have any problem in lying to themselves. 

It must be very odd world that the Shea-ites here live in. They not only don’t do half of what people like Lila Rose do, but have the audacity to condemn those whose actions show that they really believe that abortion is murder (a real “intrinsic wrong”). If they had their way, such efforts would be hamstrung by a refusal to “play a part.” They would force Lila Rose and Live Action to an ineffective parsing of words to avoid a technical lie, the ease with which such subterfuge would be detected being of no concern to them whatsoever. They can rest easy in the smug satisfaction of not having told a lie, while the slaughter of the innocents continues. Pharisees.

Ugh, now it gets ugly.  I’m out, as the interest now has nothing to do with discussing morality anymore.  I’m not a Pharisee because I want to thoroughly explore the morality of “righteous deception” as it seems to be.

Ad hominem doesn’t accomplish anything, folks. Let’s keep to the principles and assume goodwill.

I’ve always wondered why Lila Rose doesn’t ask women that are actually pregnant to do the asking? 
-
Couldn’t a clearly pregnant woman enter any PP office and just ask the questions on a fact finding mission?  “I’m pregnant but aren’t clear about the options about sex selection and abortion?”  A true statement. 
-
A PP employee would then happily provide them all the info needed - even though the mother has no intention of using the information other than making the conversation public which she has right to.
-
Other issues that Lila Rose has exposed might not be so easy (such as rape, underage sex, etc.) but those were made clear by former PP workers including Abby Johnson.
-
And, please stop accusing those of us who are worried about the use of ‘ends vs. means’ and ‘lying for the greater good’ as being less prolife than others.  We have strong history of support for our view from the Catechism to Aquinas.

We are throwing relativism around like candy…even those who don’t think they are.  All lying is condemned…there seems to be no sense of common sense.  All killing is condemned…again no sense of common sense.  Yet…there seems to be a sense of raising condemnation to the same level for killing as lying.  There seems to be more wailing or gnashing of teeth over the lie than there is over the evil the lie is used to stop.  Here is where the purveyors of abortion, crime and other evils of the world like to have us…discussing how good we have to be, and ignoring how bad they already are.  Mercy?  To be sure…however, the people we are being merciful toward are like the stewardwho was granted mercy over his debt, and now chokes someone else who owes him.  In the same way, evil likes it when we turn ourselves in knots and end up doing nothing because it might be bad.  While we may fail at upholding God’s law with respect to being untruthful, can it be worse to be complacent with evil so we don’t end up lying?

Why are you guys arguing about lying?  Some people are quoting the catechism but only one (Evan) is quoting the REST of the catechism and everyone seems to be ignoring it except Pat Archibold and Peter Kreeft:  Not everyone has the right to the truth.  That means you can NOT tell certain people/agencies the truth and it is not morally considered a lie.  The Nazi’s do not have a right to the truth, neither do the spy people, neither does PP.  End of story.  Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.

“Not everyone has the right to the truth.  That means you can NOT tell certain people/agencies the truth and it is not morally considered a lie.  The Nazi’s do not have a right to the truth, neither do the spy people, neither does PP.  End of story.  Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.”

You are correct that not everyone has the right to the truth.  That is why it is morally permissible to withhold truthful information from some people under some circumstances.  You do not not have to answer every question posed to you.

But it is not morally permissible to (knowingly and with deceptive intent) communicate untruthful information to anyone under any circumstances.  Such an act is a lie, which the Church teaches is never permissible.

I agree with Susan: it’s called acting.  They represent actual and potential clients of Planned Parenthood and people who would speak up if they had or thought they had any voice.  I don’t see what’s untruthful about that.  Sure, they could get people who actually fit those circumstances to go in, but I can understand why they didn’t (especially the underage prostitution one—I imagine there would have to be significant bribery involved to get any of them to risk arrest), and it clearly only makes a difference to PP once they’re busted.
-
sd and Kevin, I would agree with you if a) it wasn’t their job, and I also think b) she still could have refused to assist such a request.  If they didn’t want to have something to do with abortion, they presumably would not be working there; as it is, they expect that people who come will want an abortion, and those people presume that they will get one.  I do not see how the Live Action agents are directly causing that, since if it were not them it could just as easily be someone else.
-
Jen Raiche: my understanding is that evidence from Live Action and another group was instrumental in getting Congress to formally investigate PP, and their funding is being cut off in a number of states.
-
Kevin: killing is not inherently disordered?  What?  In the beginning we were not even supposed to taste death.
-
Kay: or if I do some fibbing to facilitate a birthday surprise for a loved one? 
-
RW:  Watch the video again.  They had to have given her a pregnancy test.  She was pregnant.

“I agree with Susan: it’s called acting.  They represent actual and potential clients of Planned Parenthood and people who would speak up if they had or thought they had any voice.”

Nope.  Its called acting when your “audience” isn’t expecting to take you at face value.  When your “audience” believe you to be telling the truth, and has every reason to believe that you are telling the truth, it’s called lying.

The criteria for lying are threefold:

1)  False statement (check - the Live Action agent wasn’t actually seeking an abortion)
2)  Uttered knowingly (check - the Live Action agent planned this out in advance and knew that she was not telling the truth)
3)  Intent to deceive (check - the Live Action agent clearly wanted the PP worker to believe the falsehood and act as if it were true)

#2 and #3 without #1 isn’t lying, it’s verbal mis-direction, which the Church does not condemn.

#1 without #2 and #3 isn’t lying, it’s a mistake

#1 and #2 without #3 isn’t lying - it’s acting

But #1 and #2 and #3 together is lying.  Which the Church teaches is a sin, regardless of intent or circumstances.

sd: good analysis of the lying/acting distinction, and how this cannot be considered acting in a proper sense.
enness: with regards to “I would agree with you if a) it wasn’t their job, and I also think b) she still could have refused to assist such a request.”, it’s true that they could have refused, but the Live Action workers are expecting them not to, knowing (and, dare I say, hoping?) that the PP workers will accede to their requests. Even if they had no idea what the PP worker would do, the LA workers are still presenting them with a near occasion of (mortal) sin. And even if the PP workers would have/have done that anyway, it still fulfills the criteria for commission of this sin (namely, helping to procure an abortion) one more time than they would have otherwise, which is significant (hence, why sins are to be confessed in both kind and number).
Killing is not inherently wrong, otherwise it would be (like lying) proscribed under all circumstances. Instead, we see that it is completely permissible under many circumstances, e.g. in a just war.
I think I speak for everyone arguing against the actions of LA when I say that we are certainly not trying to stop the war against abortion, but only ensuring that the proper weapons are used. All action taken must be done with concern for both the body and soul of all parties involved, i.e. the unborn child, the mother, the abortionist, the pro-life worker, etc.
Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Distortion of the truth is distortion of Christ.

Dear SD,

After reading all of these posts, I sought advice on how to best respond to the hyper-critical, closed minded posters on this website who apparently suffer from scrupulousness. I contacted two of my cousins who are priests (names of their orders withheld lest someone
 find reason to criticize them, too) - one a professor of theology,  the other the chair of philosophy at a major Catholic university (and before you start getting snarky, definitely not Georgetown or Boston College). Both of them are quite familiar with Lila Rose and both of them are in agreement  that her behavior was not only ethical, but also praiseworthy. 

 Fr. J. advised me to present the “justified lying” argument. Father P.suggested that I quote scriptural passages in support of this argument and check out Protestant theology websites because some  our  Protestant brethren have a wealth of scriptural knowledge that would knock the socks off most Catholics. One of my cousins found Pastor Farley’s discourse online, the other priest vetted his commentary before I posted it. Surely you would not accuse them of being heretics! 

SD, if I had plagiarized Rev. Farley’s comments and just cut and pasted them into my comments, would you have read them and considered their value rather then tossing them aside because of their source? Also, would you  please explain your comment: “But being a Protestant he departs from the Truth of the Catholic faith on a number of issues - including, it seems, the morality of lying”. Aside from your disputable comment re: his morality of lying, can you tell us where & how does he depart from the Truth?

How does your uncharitable comment “I could’t care less what he thinks about the Real Presence or Apostolic Succession or The Immaculate Conception” align with Pope Benedict’s call for all Catholics to participate in the ” New Evangelization” ? Our beloved pope  calls each of us to deepen our faith, believe in the Gospel message and go forth to proclaim the Gospel. Actually, you should care! Each time you engage in making such biased, scornful comments, you lose an excellent teaching opportunity to evangelize and witness to our Protestant brethren. 

It worries me that our Protestant brothers and sisters will read your comments and will think that the rest of us orthodox Catholics have the same sanctimonious attitude towards them. In our parish, many of us along with many other Catholics have been working hard to become more ecumenical in our discourse, hone our apologist skills, overcome the scourge of moral relativism, and reach out to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters. Your negative comments only serve to burn bridges.

I pray that you will open your heart and mind to the true teachings of Christ. I will include you in my prayer intentions at daily mass. 

 “It is like a mustard seed that, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on the earth. But once it is sown, it springs up and becomes the largest of plants and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the sky can dwell in its shade.”  Mk 4: 31-32

SD is incorrect that Lying is three fold.  The truth is that it is four-fold.  He forgot what I posted before which is what the catechism states:  PP does not have the right to that truth.  Therefore, Lila Rose can say whatever she likes (repeatedly!), in ten different ways, in order to fulfill her mission in order to stop PP.  It doesn’t matter if it is her job or not.  It is all of our jobs to stop evil and if that means saying something that is blatently, knowingly, and purposfully not true to get the job done, it morally permissible because the evil ones (whomever that is) do not have a right to it.

“SD is incorrect that Lying is three fold.  The truth is that it is four-fold.  He forgot what I posted before which is what the catechism states:  PP does not have the right to that truth.  Therefore, Lila Rose can say whatever she likes (repeatedly!), in ten different ways, in order to fulfill her mission in order to stop PP.”

The passage from the catechism that you posted does not say what you claim it says.  It simply says that if you have truthful information you are not always obligated to disclose it.  It does NOT say that it is ever OK to knowingly and deceptively communicate untruthful knowledge.  Read the fullness of what the catechism says about lying and you find no justification anywhere for the practice.  The idea that we owe no obligation to behave morally towards people who themselves engage in immoral conduct is laughable. 

The correct analogy in this situation is this:  Had a PP worker asked the Live Action agents “Do you work for Live Action?” or “Are you conducting a “sting” operation?” then the Live Action agent would not have been obligated to say “yes.”  She could have evaded the question or tried to change the subject or said “no comment.”  But had she said “No” she would have been guilty of lying, just as she was surely guilty of lying when she said that she wanted to procure an abortion.

The defenders of lying here would certainly consider it a lie if someone walked into your home or place of business and intentionally mis-represented themselves with the intent of drawing you out into a conversation that they could record and publicize against your wishes.  NOBODY would say that this was anything other than a lie if it was directed at them.  Acts don’t magically switch from being immoral lies to moral whatever-you-want-to-euphamistically-call-them because they are directed at people who are engaged in immoral activity themselves.

“They continually say that you can never ever ever ever lie for any reason, ever!”

“They” follow the ‘moral stupidity’ of that dunce of all dunces, The Dumb Ox himself. Yes, St Thomas says that all lies are sin.

St Paul, that ‘fool for Christ’ said it best when he said “You can never do evil to achieve good.”

It was John Paul II the Great, who infallibly declared that we can never do evil (no matter how ‘small’ we think that evil is) in order to achieve a good, (no matter how big and emotionally invested we are in that good.)

Otherwise we could pick ANY evil, no matter how horrendous, and justify it on the basis of defeating (or scoring a minor political point against) another evil… simply by piling up enough of one to be outraged enough to be blind to the evil of the other.

We live in a society where it is known that there are undercover agents among us. The police, Revenue officers, any number of officials from state and local government must go undercover in order to do their job. That also applies to some in the private sphere, inter alia, undercover journalists.

It may seem Jesuitical to say this, but as it is a known hazard that such people walk among us, & we as a society allow them to operate, it is arguable that there is a tacit consent to their actions within our society. If this is the case, this would mean that the journalist here should not be accused of lies and deceit; she acted within the norms of her profession, fulfilling a role that is accepted within our culture.

“We live in a society where it is known that there are undercover agents among us. The police, Revenue officers, any number of officials from state and local government must go undercover in order to do their job. That also applies to some in the private sphere, inter alia, undercover journalists.
It may seem Jesuitical to say this, but as it is a known hazard that such people walk among us, & we as a society allow them to operate, it is arguable that there is a tacit consent to their actions within our society.”

We live in a society where all sorts of sins are widespread and commonly accepted.  That doesn’t make them OK.  The fact that one can “expect” to be the object of bad conduct doesn;t make it any less bad.

I have found this whole discussion so compelling.  And who says moral theology is boring?

A question: Did Lila Rose actually lead the PP employee into the sin of aiding in the procurement of an abortion, since Lila Rose actually never INTENDED to have an abortion?  Since the one sin was not committed, how could the sin of aiding in the first sin occur?

Second: Did Lila Rose, by taking an appointment slot, actually PREVENT the PP employee from committing the sin of aiding, etc?  Surely if Lila had not taken that appointment, some woman who actually wanted to abort, and actually would have aborted, would have taken that slot and the sin of abortion and aiding abortion would have been committed. 

I think that one of these, if not both, is true, and thus I think the claim that Lila led this woman into mortal sin is a false one.

Discuss!

Do we know if Lila actually said “I want to abort”?  If she said “Can I abort my baby if it is a girl?”, then she was not lying, she was presenting a hypothesis. It is like when an undercover cop is busting a prostitute: if he asks for the act, he is breaking the law; if she offers the act, and he then discusses price and “options” he, is not breaking the law, she is.

Thomas in MD:

You raise a number of interesting points (basically three across your two comments).  My reactions:

1)  Yes, the Live Action agent did lead the PP worker to sin, even though she did not actually herself intend to have an abortion.  When one choose to do something wrong one sins, even if your efforts to do the wrong are ultimately frustrated by circumstance.  If I think you’re in a shed (but you’re not), and fire a machine gun through the walls, then I have sinned and sinned gravely even though there was no chance of actually killing you.  My freely chosen intent was to kill you, and that’s where sin arises.
2)  Interesting but I think unrelated point. Lot’s of actions can be sins in and of themselves but prevent other sins from occurring.  If I hire a prostitute then she cannot serve another “client” while she’s working for me.  And if I’m single but the client she would have served in the same time slot is married then the sin that is prevented by me hiring her is probably “worse” than the sin that occurs with me.  But that doesn’t change the fact that I’ve sinned.  Nobody that I’m aware of is suggesting that what Live Action did in these videos is worse in any way than what PP does every single day.  But the whole point of teaching that “good ends cannot justify evil means” (as the Catholic Church clearly does) is that it doesn’t matter if the impact of your actions prevents great sins from occurring - if those actions are sinful they are still sinful even with a good intention and good consequences.
3)  I do think in many cases that it would be possible to create these “sting” videos without actually lying by doing just what you’re suggesting:  asking questions, posing hypotheticals, being cagey, etc.  The issue of tempting the PP worker to sin would still be there, but the lies would not.  That said, I don;t think that’s what has happened in the actual videos that have been released.  The Live Action agents say things affirmatively that are clearly false.  Thus they have lied.

sd:
Watch again.  The PP employee says: “I see that you say you want to terminate if it’s a girl…”

Lila Rose says:
“Yeah, I think, that would be the, um, the plan”

Now we do not know what Lila wrote on the form, “I want to..” or “Could I…”  Her response “I think that would be the plan” is not a declaration that she is going to do anything.  In fact Lila uses “would” throughout.  Syntactically, those ‘woulds’ require an ‘if’, ‘if I wanted to, would I…?”.  So by concluding she is lying, we are assuming she was not scrupulous in how she presented the situation.  In charity, I think we need to presume her scrupulousness. 

In response to “Are you possibly wanting to get on pregnancy Medicaid to see if you can get like a..? (sic) she says “Yeah, I’d like to try that.”  That is not saying she will or won’t; she might actually mean she wants to try it in her next undercover expose. Again, charity might be in order, since we do not have all the facts.

Sd please don’t think that I am saying YOU are being uncharitable. I am just saying we might all lean FURTHER in that direction given both the lack of all the facts and the good Lila Rose is doing.  I truly appreciate your concern in establishing that no evil should be done to attain a good.

SD,
The difference between Lila Rose going into PP and someone coming into my house is that in the latter situation, I have a right to that truth they are hiding.  PP does not have that right. 
Again, this is not about whether lying is wrong, this is about whether PP has a right to a particular truth.  The CCC clearly says that not everyone has a right to the truth.  Therefore, you can deny them that truth by changing the subject, or misdirection, or “no comment”, etc or just by plain saying something that is not true.  Because of the non-right factor, It is not morally considered a lie.

Before I put in my two-cents’ worth, just a couple statements: I am pro-life and all that it encompasses.  I believe abortion to be intrinsically evil.  My heart weeps for the babies, mothers, fathers, and families who are wounded by abortion.  I believe we all have a moral duty to protect “the least among us” - the pre-born, Jews, slaves, etc.  I believe that Lila Rose and those at Live Action have good and noble intentions.  I also believe that God does not ask the impossible when He asks us not to sin.
***
That being said, I think there is a better way.  If the folks at Live Action want to expose the truth, how much more effective and healing would it be to find the young women who actually *have* been to PP in similar situations and tell their story?  The women and girls who have been exploited by PP and others need our love and our support—and for those who have the courage, they need a venue to tell their story.  I think Lila has so much talent; wouldn’t it be incredible to see her do a documentary by speaking with the actual victims here and giving them a voice?  The full truth of the horrors of abortion would be put in the light, and nobody would have to lie in order to expose such a heinous operation.

RMMT, that is not a bad idea…it just has already been tried.  PP and it’s supporters then lie themselves, and call these women “brainwashed”, “sheep”, “obvious plants”, “traitors to women”, etc.  In other words, they minimize and distort the experience they had.  In much the same way that the guy from NBC outs the horrors of pedophiles, Lila Rose does the same thing with abortion clinics, especially the government’s favorite, Planned Parenthood.  They are journalists in the same way that he is.  IS it a fine line?  It is…and one that should be watched carefully.  For example, if Lila Rose set up false clinic employees, in a fake office, and then pretended that it was real, then it is not right…since she is trying to incite people based on a falsehood.  However, when she presents herself or her other journalists as patients, she draws out the truth of who PP and other abortion clinics really are, something the mainstream media won’t do.

Hector Maldonado,

The reason this has been such a heated discussion over what is a fairly minor sin with little to no culpability is quite simple:  otherwise very faithful Catholics are publicly rejecting Church teaching.  Church teaching is quite clear that all lying is inherently evil.  The Church clearly teaches that we may not do evil that good may come of it.  Yet whenever someone points out these clear teachings of the Church in regard to these Live Action sting videos, the comboxes are full of people flat-out rejecting these clear Church teachings.

And then those who stand up for what the Church teaches are unjustly condemned.  Just because we believe that Paul taught true when he taught that we may not to evil that good may come of it does not mean that we believe that we can’t do anything.  PP sting videos aren’t the only way to oppose PP and abortion.  Just because a weapon should not be used does not mean that the war should not be fought.  We don’t have to choose between being faithful to Catholic teaching and opposing abortion.  There are plenty of other ways to oppose abortion besides lying to PP staffers and recording it.

Martin Atencio,

Take a look at what the Catechism says.  It only talks about *withholding* the truth when someone doesn’t have a right to it.  That paragraph from the catechism never says that you may lie to them.  Lying is not the only way to withhold the truth.  And the catechism elsewhere says that lying is *always* wrong.  Now put the two together.  We can be silent.  We can misdirect.  We can be vague.  But the catechism tells us that it is always wrong to lie, therefore, we cannot lie.

Martin Atencio wrote:

“Therefore, you can deny them that truth by changing the subject, or misdirection, or “no comment”, etc or just by plain saying something that is not true.  Because of the non-right factor, It is not morally considered a lie.”

This is imply not correct.  The Church teaches that it is sometimes permissible to do the first three things you cite (1 - changing the subject, 2- misdirection, 3 - “no comment) but that it is NEVER permissible to do the 4th, saying something that is not true.

The 4th tactic is lying, which is condemned as intrinsically immoral.  In other words, behavior that is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances.  If you speak falsely, knowingly, with the intent to deceive you lie.  And therefore sin. 

sd, You continue to assert that lying is condemned as intrinsically immoral.  This assertion confuses a real intrinsic evil: ABORTION.
This is what the Church teaches:
CCC2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.  This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.  Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill an embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.  God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.  Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
CCC2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.  The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication ‘latae sentential’, “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.  The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.  Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as the the parents and the whole of society.
Look at the words used: moral evil, unchangeable, abominable crimes, grave offense, canonical penalty, excommunication, gravity of crime, irreparable harm
In contrast,
CCC2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth.  To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. <snip>
I don’t think that PP has the “right to know” about an investigation that will show them in their TRUE form.  This is an investigation to SHOW THE TRUTH, not to deceive.  This is what abortionists do; they do sex-selection abortions.  Or in past investigations, cover up for child abuser, sex traffickers, etc….
2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intention of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims….. <snip>
See the difference in the words used: measured, circumstances, intention.
I prefer the Magisterium’s teachings over sd’s “church teaching”.

So much scrupulosity as usual from Mark Shea and his followers! It must be nice to be so perfect, to ALWAYS know the correct and moral way to handle every situation according to the CCC and to feel free to tell EVERYONE that Lila Rose is LYING, which is “always a sin”. Please, Mark. The only perfect human was our Blessed Mother, and I am quite sure she weeps every-time an unborn baby is ripped apart limb from limb in her mother’s womb. We are in a spiritual battle Mark. In wars we need brave soldiers and Marines. I for one, am grateful to Lila Rose and her team at Live Action for exposing the truth about Planned Parenthood. I trust that our Lord will judge her by her fruits, when her time comes. I hope I can someday say that I was as courageous and spoke out against the evil of abortion when I meet my Maker.

suan:

You are misquoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  You quote paragraph 2243 as saying “Lying is the most direct offense against the truth.  To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth”

That is NOT the text of paragraph 2483.  the actual text is:

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

It is possible that the text you are quoting is from an early draft of the CCC.  Earlier (non-official) draft versions of the CCC did indeed state that a statement was a lie only if the audience for the statement had a “right to the truth,” but this language was intentionally removed in the final, official version of the Catechism (the drafting of which was, I might add, supervised by then Cardinal Ratzinger himself). 

Nowhere in the CCC does it state that it is acceptable to lie (i.e. knowingly make false statements to someone with the intent to deceive) to someone for any reason, including that they “do not have a right to the truth.”

haha, now you are making my eyes cross!  I double-checked, and checked again, and that’s right from my CCC.
In English, CCC published April 1995
Latin text copyright 1994 Libreria EDitrice Vaticana, Citta del Vaticano

Susan - the final and official text of the CCC was published in 1997.  Earlier drafts had been published before 1997 but were not official and several changes were made in the final text to clarify subtle points and to correct errors of doctrine. 

The document you’re using isn’t the CCC.  It’s an unofficial early draft.  The official version of the CCC (i.e. the only one that carries the teaching authority of the Magisterium) does not in any way say that it’s morally permissible to lie to anyone for any reason, including that they “don’t have a right to the truth.”

Laura,

It is not scrupulosity to hold fast to what the Church teaches.  It is astounding to me that faithful Catholics would condemn their brothers and sisters in Christ for stating what the Church teaches.

Soldiers in a war are those willing to put their own well-being on the line on behalf of others.  Being a soldier doesn’t mean being willing to do anything, including evil means, to fight the war.  Catholicism has a just war doctrine for a reason.  War, no matter how just the cause, does not make all actions moral or permissible.

The whole reason that this is a big deal is that so many people are loudly rejecting Church teaching.  The teaching of the Church holds that all lying is a sin.  That means these videos are recording a sin.  The sin is, honestly, not that big.  Considering the circumstances (the great pressing atrocity that is abortion and the fact that so many Catholics seem to not even know what the Church teaches), the culpability of those committing it is probably minor to none.  The real issue is that so many otherwise faithful Catholics are so loudly rejecting Church teaching about lying and the Machiavellian heresy of consequentialism.  If it weren’t for that, the comments about “lying for Jesus” would be a footnote.

thanks, I’ll make the correction as the newer translation doesn’t affect the point I’m trying to make.
You continue to assert that lying is condemned as intrinsically immoral.  This assertion confuses a real intrinsic evil: ABORTION.
This is what the Church teaches:
CCC2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.  This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.  Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill an embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.  God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.  Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
CCC2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.  The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication ‘latae sentential’, “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.  The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.  Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as the the parents and the whole of society.
Look at the words used: moral evil, unchangeable, abominable crimes, grave offense, canonical penalty, excommunication, gravity of crime, irreparable harm
In contrast,
CCC2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth.  To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone. <snip>
I don’t think that PP was lead into error,  They were lead into behaving in an every day manner, oh, and filmed.  This under cover operation shows PP in their TRUE form.  This is an investigation to SHOW THE TRUTH, not to deceive.  This is what abortionists do; they do sex-selection abortions.  Or in past investigations, cover up for child abuser, sex traffickers, etc….
2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intention of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims….. <snip>
See the difference in the words used: measured, circumstances, intention.
Do you see the big picture here ? 
Abortion=moral evil, unchangeable, abominable crimes, grave offense, canonical penalty, excommunication, gravity of crime, irreparable harm.  And even though I don’t think what Live Action is doing is lying ...
Lying= measured, circumstances, intention.
To portray them as equivalent is misleading and confusing.

@Hector Maldonado: just because it has “already been tried” does not mean it is not a viable option. (And remember, a great number of saints were ridiculed and called “liars” among other things - take Blessed Mother Teresa, for example.)  We are no more responsible for the response of those at PP than we are for their other unjust actions.  The fact that PP responds in this way only adds credence to the victim and gives weight to the very real fact that those who have a vested interest in PP will say or do anything to protect PP.  In short, it makes them look very, very bad and shows how little they actually “support women in crisis.”  My opinion as to whether or not the actions of Lila Rose and her group are morally licit is quite irrelevant; and honestly, I don’t know anyway.  My only point here is that there *is* another way.  Just like many may say that “praying has already been tried”—look at the 40 Days For Life campaign.
**
This is, indeed, a spiritual battle.  I, for one, would rather advocate that we pray, fast, and perform the spiritual and corporal works of mercy for the victims of abortion (babies, parents, family members, *and* the clinic workers) as a means to end the atrocity.  How many more lives could we change and hearts could we touch by truly acting in the person of Christ to those who are wounded?

Susan wrote:

“I don’t think that PP was lead into error”

What???  The PP employee was talking to an undercover agent from an activist organization opposed to PP.  But because of the things that that agent said, the PP employee THOUGHT she was talking to a prospective patient.  That’s an error.  She was led to believe something that was false by deliberate, intentional false speech.  That’s what “being led into error” means.  Again, if someone behaved this way toward you in any other context (falsely represented themselves as something they are not in order to influence your behavior) you would think (rightly) that you had been lied to.

An older example of lying in order to protect the Jews, Shiphrah and Puah lied to Pharaoh in Exodus 1:15-21:

Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?”

And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”

Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

Susan wrote:

“Abortion=moral evil, unchangeable, abominable crimes, grave offense, canonical penalty, excommunication, gravity of crime, irreparable harm.  And even though I don’t think what Live Action is doing is lying ...
Lying= measured, circumstances, intention.
To portray them as equivalent is misleading and confusing.”

First, while the gravity of most lies is indeed much lesser than the gravity of an abortion, it is not correct to say that the Church teaches that “circumstances and intention” can make a sinful lie into a non-sinful act.  Circumstances and intention can reduce the moral culpability of someone who lies, but the exact same thing can be said for any sin. 

Second, nobody is saying that they are equivalent.  But the whole reason that the Church has to teach that it is impermissible to do evil that good may come from it is that its impermissible to do even a little evil that a lot of good may come from it.  Nobody with a brain needs to be told not to commit a great evil that a tiny little good can come from it.  But sinful humans (i.e. all of us), who are much better at using their reason to justify their actions than they are at using their reason to figure out the truth, find it VERY easy to tell themselves that its surely OK to commit this one little tiny sin so that so much good may come of it.  Though many secular and Protestant moralists endorse that point of view, the Church does not. 

Hal Duston:

The “Hebrew Midwives” story is often trotted out in these debates.  Three points:

1)  The OT contains many examples of generally good and upstanding people committing sins as well (David anyone).  That the midwives in question found favor with The Lord is not necessarily because they lied vs.  because they did other things.
2)  There are examples of behaviors that were permitted to humanity before the coming of Christ (divorce) that are not now.  The New Covenant implies a higher and fundamentally eschatological morality.
3)  Its not even clear that the midwives in question lied.  Their reply to Pharaoh seems more like a good use of verbal misdirection (which is indeed morally permissible).  They were asked why they hid male children.  They responded that often children are born before they arrive (which as far as I know may well be true).  In other words, they answered a different question.  Note that the text does not say that the midwives replied to Pharaoh saying “we have not saved any male children.”

The claim that the expectations of the audience are what determine honesty is wrong.

I do not mean to sound as if I am willing to rationalize evil, but I think context is lost when you become overly “legalistic” as the article mentions.

Yes, lying is wrong, immediately before saying “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned”, the Catechism states:

CCC2484 - The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

All discussion of lying in the catechism revolve around respect for “the truth”. As Jesus noted, “I am the Way, and the TRUTH, and the Life.”

I am not sure I can see how the actions of anyone being deceitful in the pursuit of the Truth, rather than in doing violence to it, is flat out wrong & on a slippery slope to hell.

As my pastor has repeatedly said in the past, “The ship of the Church, which was built by Christ, is perfect, but the CREW (all of us), is far from that.”

As such, I’m not particularly intent on condemning & mocking people who fail to perfectly adhere to every jot & tittle.

ChrisKABA,

You hit on it there.  A lie is a sin is a sin.  It’s only a question of how big of a sin it is.  Very small sins are still sins.  Very small evils are still evil.  I don’t think anyone who has pointed out Church teaching about lying in regard to these videos has said otherwise.  The only problem is when people try to start redefining sins, even very small sins, as non-sins in contradiction of Church teaching.

This document, by a Catholic moral theologian, may be of some relevance:

http://www.shms.edu/aodonline-sqlimages/shms/faculty/latkovicmark/publishedwritings/0610MentalReservation.pdf

I still don’t think that PP was lead into error.  I think that they are doing this every day to every patient that walk in the door.  Whether or not Live Action was there to film it or not.

I stand with Mark Shea on this issue.  There has to be better ways.  As once was stated (about the futility of remorse, but valuable here too), you don’t get clean by rolling around in the muck.

Dear Fr. Levi -

Thank you for posting this link!

Hopefully, some of the more pompous commentators will actually read this and find merit in this noteworthy document.

Ok all, for your edification (ha ha)...

Kerfuffle: A commotion or fuss.

Ado: 1. heightened fuss or concern   2.  time-wasting bother over trivial details

Blather: to talk foolishly at length

Tut tut: describing a person who is expressing an overall feeling of superiority or pompousness

Nitpicking: 1. the pastime of pointing out minor flaws or mistakes. The term is always used in a negative light. The term comes from the intense concentration and careful attention to detail required when nitpicking (searching for the eggs of lice, known as nits).  2. Minute, trivial, unnecessary, and unjustified criticism or faultfinding.
Quibble: 1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections. 2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons; cavil.

Cavil: 1. to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily.  2. to oppose by inconsequential, frivolous, or sham objections: 3. a trivial and annoying objection. 4. the raising of such objections.

Carp: to find fault or complain querulously

Inveigh:  to protest or complain bitterly or vehemently

Kvetch: to complain habitually : gripe

Caterwaul: 1. to make a harsh cry 2. to protest or complain noisily

Pother: 1. a : confused or fidgety flurry of activity : commotion b : agitated talk or controversy usually over a trivial matter 2. : a choking cloud of dust or smoke 3. mental turmoil

I’m just sayin’..........!

Is it relativism to say not everyone is entitled to every bit of information? No, it is not. And that’s my sole contribution to this discussion. Persons of declared evil intent are not entitled to any information to assist them in furthering their ends. Otherwise, we cooperate. Perhaps at times cooperation is remote, and we cannot be liable for actions, but other times not. The best example of justifying a “small evil” directly in hope of a greater good comes from Scripture, where Christ is admittedly unjustly condemned out of a patently false desire to placate the Romans.

“Persons of declared evil intent are not entitled to any information to assist them in furthering their ends.”

While it is true that the Catholic Church teaches that those with an evil intent do not have the right to receive truthful information, the Church also teaches that it is immoral to knowingly and deceitfully pass along untruthful information, even to those who are evil.  To lie is a sin.  The fact that person being lied to is also a sinner (to a greater or a lesser degree) does not change the fact that the lie is a sin.

Hissy fit: an emotional outburst, usually associated with children or those in emotional distress, that is typically characterized by stubbornness, crying, screaming, yelling, shrieking, defiance, angry ranting, a resistance to attempts at pacification and, in some cases, violence. Physical control may be lost, the person may be unable to remain still, and even if the “goal” of the person is met he or she may not be calmed.A tantrum may be expressed in a tirade: a protracted, angry, or violent speech.

Pontificate: to speak or behave in a pompous or dogmatic manner.

Like a dog with a bone. 1. Committed, tenacious, stubborn, determined, single-minded. Grabbing hold of something stubborn letting go; doesn’t play well with others, cannot give up even on lost causes, or just doest know when to give up

Ann Marie, please try to keep this civil. Name-calling is not going to help.

Hi Kevin,

My somewhat tongue-in-cheek posts were not intended to be “name-calling” and I did not address these to any particular individual(s). Rather
they were meant to supportive of Pat’s article and to shed some light on the unproductive, less than charitable commentary.
I am still hoping that some participants will recognize their behavior in the terms I defined above - a kind of “if the shoe fits”  ...or perhaps that’s an exercise in futility…

Thank you for your kind reconsideration in light of my explanation.

Dr. Marrero,

No, it is not relativism to say that people of evil intent are not entitled to the truth.  But not divulging the truth and lying are two different things.  It is relativism to claim that an intrinsic evil (as the Church defines lying) is permissible in the face of a greater intrinsic evil (as the Church says it isn’t).

As someone in the “you can never tell a lie” camp who also admires Live Action I think you are stirring up a pot where you don’t need to. 

Live Action has done some great work and I admire 99% of it - I just wish they could find a way around the lying.  Their intentions are good, there results are good, but their tactics leave a bit to be desired, and it’s okay to say that.

Theologians need to be really precise and accurate to defend and preserve the Faith.  They can’t just fudge here, gloss over there and be sloppy to make you happy, Pat.

Perhaps there is a way to reconcile telling the truth with undercover work - but it probably deserves more careful treatment than blog com boxes afford.

I think the grounds upon which the “you can never lie” proponents stand is a false premise. The use of deception is needed as a tactic in warfare, which is what this is. Making your enemy think he is safe from discovery by placing yourself in concealment is a good way to ambush your enemy. Lila Rose is doing that. She is engaged in combat and must use the tactics that best fit the situation. War has rules in order to save lives and to defeat thew enemy. These rules do not apply to civilian life. This is not a means fit the ends argument. Is ambushing your enemy wrong in battle? No. Neither is deceiving the killers at planned parenthood.

Tom,

There are a couple of problems with your comment.

There first is quite basic, the premise that the “you may never lie” proponents stand on is that the Catholic Church is infallible.  Catholic teaching is quite clear that lying is an intrinsic evil.  That means there are no circumstances where we can do it .. ever.

And Catholicism has never had a morality of necessity.  It does not matter how much we need to be able to do something - actually, how much we *think* we need to be able to do something - that does not make it permissible to do it.  Just war theory does not exist to make immoral actions moral, it exists to provide a rather rigorous method of maintaining moral actions even in wartime.

And finally, there is a difference between deceiving and lying.  Catholic teaching prohibits lying, but not all deception.

“And finally, there is a difference between deceiving and lying.  Catholic teaching prohibits lying, but not all deception.”
And, there it is.  I think we’ve all finally come to it.
Live Action practices concealment or deception in order to reveal the TRUTH about Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood=evil
Live Action=good
PP= lies
LA= reveals the lies
PP= kills babies
LA=saves babies

Susan,

Live Action practices concealment and deception .. and also lies.  Catholic teaching would allow them to practice concealment and deception, but would prohibit them from lying.

The fact that Live Action is good is actually the very reason that we should talk about the fact that one of the actions they pursue is considered an intrinsic evil by Catholic teaching.  We *are* our brother’s keeper.

If I may ask a rhetorical question… why the continued moral tut-tuttery over a paltry 1%? Your beating a dead horse.

Seriously, if you are so upset with Ms. Rose, stop criticizing her behind her back and contact her directly - let her know how you feel.

You may want to discuss your continued obsession with your confessor.