I took up this topic with my parish priest (whom I do trust) and he basically said the same thing. I agree there is no easy answer, nor one that is likely available right now.  As for Aquinas and Augustine, with all due respect, I think we do well to remember that they are not infallible, though declared saints and doctors of the church, and that there MAY be another answer to those they have given.

When asked if you’re hiding Jews, you can alway say, “No” knowing that the Nazis will find and kill them if you were completely honest.  However your “No” can still be true in the sense that “No, I am not hiding Jews - for you to kill”  It’s a mental reservation.  I am glad you attempted to address this issue.  And while I won’t pretend to be a moral theologian, I can share my thoughts as follows

In the Hebrew Scriptures, an angel was permitted to test Job by killing his children and destroying his property.  Cfr. Job1-2.  That’s a hell of a lot more than posing to be a pimp.

Also, using the morality of the greater evil one may ask:  which is more evil, to pose as a pimp to expose and curb the activities of an organization that murders unborn children or to do nothing?  Answer: to do nothing is more evil than to pretend to be a pimp.  St. Theresa of Avila said,  “Those who make no mistakes, make nothing.”  And at the end, Christians are judged with what they have accomplished with their time, talent and treasure.  The one who did nothing and buried his one talent was punished for stupidity and sloth.  God told him, “You could have deposited the talent in the bank for interest if you were not going to use it as capital.”  Cfr. Gospel of St. Matthew 25:14-30.

And come to think of it, who is the victim of the false witness?  Who is hurt by posing as a pimp?  It would be the reputation of the poser because people would think he is a shady character.  The 8th commandment was not against truth per se but against injuring another by the false witness.  So, the poser sacrifices his own reputation to stop an immoral institution.  And that is not bad because one can even sacrifice one’s very life to help another in the Christian ethos.

So, in my opinion, the ways and means used by Lila Rose is acceptable in and of themselves.
from http://www.divine-ripples.blogspot.com/

Pope Pius XII wrote had fake baptismal certificates written for Jews to save them from Nazis.  Was that wrong too?

Great point, Archbold. Fantastic.

@Lynn: that didn’t actually happen.  The Dawn Eden article that Mark Shea linked to addresses that in passing.

@Ricky: That particular would be a strict mental reservation (as distinct from a broad/wide mental reservation); strict mental reservation has been explicitly condemned by the church.  Again, addressed in Dawn Eden’s piece.

Lynn:

Actually, Pius did no such thing.  William Doino, who co-authored the piece with Dawn Eden to which I refer in my second blog article is an expert on this matter.

Pat:

By the way, if my article gave the impression I think the matter cut and dried, I apologize.  It’s certainly not cut and dried for me.  In my second piece, I was only confining myself to the specific situation of Lila Rose lying to Planned Parenthood.  I think the matter of lying/fibbing/complex speech acts far more nuanced in general.  It’s only when it comes to the specific question of lying to Planned Parenthood (or “lying for Jesus” in general that I have to conclude that it’s wrong and there’s no persuasive justification for it.  My views on the proverbial “lying to Nazis” issue are rather more nuanced.  But since I don’t anticipate meeting many Nazis, I think it more profitable to deal with real world questions of lying for a good cause.  Given the enormous popularity of consequentialism the Number One favorite form or moral heresy among Americans in general and Catholic in particular, I think it it best to emphasize the fact that lying is intrinsically immoral rather than to focus on remote hypotheticals that give Americans license to speed off in the direction they are already champing at the bit to go.  As I’ve said, should the Chinese torturers with the red hot pincers show up at the door looking for the pure and innocent Polly Purebread who I have only just hidden in my cupboard, I would likely lie (not being able to think fast on my feet) and refer them to the non-existent cab she just drove off in, complete with license plate numbers.  I’m willing to bet such a fib is a venial sin.  But I’m even more willing to bet that I am eager to think all my lies are venial sins and to look for justifications for lying more than I am willing to look for ways to take seriously the Church’s teaching that lying is intrinsically immoral.  I’m also willing to bet that a prolife movement that bets the farm on lionizing the use of lies for a good end is a prolife movement that will soon experience another James O’Keefe public relations catastrophe and have nobody but itself to blame since we were warned by the Church that lying is intrinsically immoral.

Mark
Thanks for the clarification.  It raises a question though.  Is killing intrinsically immoral?

Apparently, those who decieved the nazis by hiding Jews were sinful little liars.

Apparently if you wear makeup, you are engaged is deception. You dont look like that.

Apparently, bloggers who use of a pen name instead of their own engage in a sinful deception.

Why does people use a pen name?
To protect themselves.

Why does Live Action?
To protect babies.

“Is killing intrinsically immoral?”

Indirect killing with the intent to stop another evil is morally permitted. (ie indirect abortion is permitted)

So for lying, perhaps the key is a distinction between indirect lying and direct lying. If one is trying to save a Jew from the Nazis, the intent is not to lie but to save one from being killed; this is opposed to directly lying to save yourself from an embarrassing situation (etc).

For Ms. Rose, her setups are questionable since the situations themselves were lies in order to set PP personnel to create an immoral action that they thought was real. The setups were direct lies to create (an) evil action(s). (this is opposed to just acting where all know the situation is really a lie)

Gerry

Pat:

Certainly not.  *Murder* is intrinsically immoral, not killing.  We kill in just war and in capital punishment, which the Church acknowledges can be done.  Lying is, if you will the murder of truthful speech.  But, of course, the complexity of speech acts (such as acting, writing fiction, figuring out how to answer the question, “Does this dress make me look fat?” and a million other such situations), is why it’s important to have a clear sense of what we mean by “lying”.  We can’t be too black and white (“The Lord of the Rings is a Lie because those things never happened!), nor can we be so fluid that we wind up excusing real lies with sophistry.  When somebody describes “Going into Planned Parenthood and giving a false identity, occupation and purpose” as “acting” my BS detector goes off.  Acting my eye.  It’s lying.  And lying even for a good end is intrinsically immoral. *Acting* takes place when there is the agreement between actor and audience that a fictional character is being created and the audience is suspending disbelief to engage the story.  If I come to your door representing myself as an insurance salesman and you believe me, I am not acting.  I’m lying to you.  That I am lying so that I snoop around and see if you have a meth lab is neither here nor there.  You might have a meth lab.  I still lied.  And lying is intrinsically immoral according to Holy Church.

Let’s see, Lila maybe lying. We can not judge her heart. We can judge her actions.

And on the other hand, 50+ million dead due to the intrinsic evil of abortion in the US since Roe v. Wade. We can judge the actions of PP personnel.

Now what was that Catechism section on the gravity of sins?

I think these Catechism points are significant in this discussion:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH
2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.
2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

The safety of babies is always involved at Planned Parenthood

Nobody’s saying the sins are of equal gravity.  What I am saying is that lying is called an intrinsically immoral act by Holy Church because, you know, it is.  I’m very familiar with the newly minted moral theory that opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world, but I’m afraid I regard it as the rank heresy it so obviously is.  I still hold with the old-fashioned Catholic doctrine that the Lamb of God, not our opposition to abortion, takes away the sin of the world.

Another Catechism point

2484 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.

Like Mark, I don’t anticipate meeting any Nazis so the Jews in the attic question is essentially academic, though not unimportant.  As for LiveAction, they seem to be telling straight up premeditated lies.  I think that Lila Rose and Co. have the best of intentions but I don’t think that I could support their actions. 

This debate makes me wonder about undercover police work.  My immediate emotional reaction is one of support for undercover work, but that doesn’t make it right.  Like Pat mentioned, clarification from the Church could help us sort out these issues.

What about Catholics who work undercover for the police department who pretend to be drug dealers, etc.?  What about Catholics who are spies working in the CIA?  Are they engaged in inherently sinful occupations?  Just asking.

Sorry, I’m with Mark on this and have thought Lila Rose’s actions were immoral since the story broke. However, I acknowledge her good intentions and I don’t know that she knew better. I also think we need to use the videos now that they’ve been made.

Lying really is always wrong. How can we do a good thing by violating truth, when God Himself is Truth? It’s not merely that it could ruin a reputation or lead to other evils. To lie is, in a sense, to wish for the death of God, the death of Truth. An act done in conflict with God cannot be a morally good act. Lying is always in conflict with God, who is truth. Good may come of it, but this is only from the mercy of God who brings good out of evil.

Don’t forget, Satan is the father of lies, and he has no problem telling us the lie that lying is okay…all to get us to be his children in sin.

The way I think of it, a lie is a falsehood told with the intent to deceive. Now, we can tell a falsehood with other intentions (e.g. acting). We can tell a truth with intent to deceive (an true but ambiguous statement to someone who has no right to the straight truth). However, we may not lie.

Ann Landell is absolutely right. You only tell the truth to those to whom it is owed, in justice.  Even if there aren’t lives at stake, do you tell personal information to anyone who demands it?  Come on!  Not everyone is OWED the truth, especially if they intend to wound others with it.  Saying that lying is “the death of God,” is hysterical and simplistic, and it is behaving in an infantile way, not using the brains that God gave you to apply common sense and prudence to the dissemination of information.

We are supposed to be wise as serpents - not a bunch of lemmings that can be manipulated when someone else tries to unjustly skewer us with the letter of the law.

Good for Lila Rose.  I’m not too concerned about the truth those baby-murderers were deprived of.  Boo freaking hoo!

Not being a moral theologian, I defer to the analysis of those more qualified than I. However, there are two dimensions to the question that I have yet to see addressed, which I will just throw out for information’s sake.

First is the fact that the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia points out an obvious flaw with the Catechism’s current definition of a lie: “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” (CCC 2482)

The Encyclopedia remarks in its entry on lying, “Thus a recent authority defines a lie as a false statement made with the intention of deceiving. But it is possible to lie without making a false statement and without any intention of deceiving. For if a man makes a statement which he thinks is false, but which in reality is true he certainly lies inasmuch as he intends to say what is false, and although a well-known liar may have no intention of deceiving others — for he knows that no one believes a word he says — yet if he speaks at variance with his mind he does not cease to lie.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm

So it would seem that the Catechism’s formulation is not beyond critique.

The second aspect is then-Cdl. Ratzinger’s comments on the magisterial weight of the Catechism in his “Introduction to the Catechism”:

“This does not mean that the catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on its as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992—exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith.”

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church.”

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html

Which is simply to say that a given teaching in the Catechism is meant to be understood, it seems, in the context of the whole tradition of Church teaching, which at least on this matter seems to be somewhat divided, (e.g. Chrysostom and Cassian.)

Personally, though I deeply indebted to Aquinas in my ordinary work, I wonder whether the Aquinas and Augustine’s conception of a lie takes too little into account the intrinsically contractual and transactional nature of communication—meaning, that communication involves more than simply making statements of truth and has further dimensions and implications in social interactions.

In any case, I defer to those with proper authority and expertise—however I haven’t seen these aspects to the question brought up yet, so if anyone can comment, I’d be interested to see what can be said.

@Blackrep
I didn’t say that we owe everyone the truth. I said that we owe it to God not to lie. There is a difference. I don’t owe Nazis the truth about the Jews hiding in my basement. However, that also doesn’t mean I can lie. You say to use the brains God gave us, but the simple truth is that it is unreasonable to use an evil, such as a lie, for a good intention. “The ends justify the means” is a brainless statement. As you said, I ought to tell the truth to those to whom it is owed, in justice. However, I owe it to God more than to any man to live in accord with the truth, also in justice. It is unjust to God to lie. Nothing can excuse a lie (although, as Mark points out, culpability can be diminished by circumstances).
Put briefly: if we’re supposed to be wise as serpents, I think Christ expects us to be able to bring down abortion without resorting to sin and lies.

Blackrep:

Saying that we are not bound to give the truth to people with no right to it does not mean “You have carte blanche to lie to anybody you regard as bad.” It means that when people demand information of us to which they have no ...right, we have the right to deny them that. Your logic means that Christians are free to lie whenever like just so long as they tell themselves, “I didn’t owe that person the truth because he’s a sinner.” It’s a formula for moral chaos. We are not authorized by the Church to go knock on the doors of people we deem to be sinners and lie to their faces while telling ourselves we are doing it for a good cause. Here’s the catechism: “A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.” How you *feel* about lying to bad people is interesting insight into your personal subjective mood at the moment, but valueless in determining how, as Catholics, we are to respond to the teaching of Holy Church.  I share your mood, but so what?  Who made you and me the measure of all things?

A couple points:
1. Deception with mental reservation is only permissible if the ‘lie-ee’ doesn’t deserve (or will abuse) the full truth.  When I was a kid, my mom asked “did you unload the dishwasher” to which I responded “yes” knowing at once that I had not today, but yesterday.  This was wrong.
2. Pat’s assertion that killing in self defense (not discussing war, here) is morally acceptable is not entirely accurate.  There is an important and fine line between [somebody dying from actions you take saving your life] and [you killing someone in self defense].  Since self defense (or of another) is your only desire, you would still need to morally will the good of the attacker.  This means stopping him in an absolute way, but if you can do it without killing him, you must.  Simply put, shoot the chest, not the head.  If the person dies, so be it, but you took reasonable steps to: stop them; not absolutely kill them.

@Blackrep:
Don’t mean to gang up on you, but do notice that the “wise as serpents” verse doesn’t mean what you suggest. Jesus says He is sending us as sheep in the midst of wolves. The context implies that we are to be innocent, while those we evangelize (or in this case, expose for their treachery) are the vicious ones. Christ is telling us how to maintain that innocence: be wise as serpents and simple as doves. Wisdom (and prudence) give us arguments of truth, logical distinction, careful thought, and graceful delivery of our arguments. Simplicity bring us courage as the truly simple-minded have, not fearing for our own lives, but telling the truth with boldness and also prudence. Consider the wisdom and simplicity of St. Athanasius. When pursued by a group of Arians on boat, he went out of their site so that they lost him. When they began to catch up to him, they shouted out, thinking he was someone else, “have you seen Athanasius?” “Yes,” came the reply, “he is just ahead of you and if you hurry, I am certain you can catch him!” They continued at a hurried pace and passed him altogether. God intends for us to remain faithful. It is our job to tell the truth, or at least not to lie. We will do the best we can without sinning. God must handle the rest.  You might ask, “but you tried honesty and it did nothing, so maybe you should lie. In reason! Haven’t you done as much as God can reasonably want?”

A Man for All Seasons (on lying, even for a good reason):

MORE You want me to swear to the Act of Succession?

MARGARET “God more regards the thoughts of the heart than the words of the mouth.” Or so you’ve always told me.

MORE Yes.

MARGARET Then say the words of the oath and in your heart think otherwise.

MORE What is an oath then but words we say to God?

MARGARET That’s very neat.

MORE Do you mean it isn’t true?

MARGARET No, it’s true.

MORE Then it’s a poor argument to call it “neat,” Meg. When a man takes an oath, Meg, he’s holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. (He cups his hands) And if he opens his fingers then-he needn’t hope to find himself again. Some men aren’t capable of this, but I’d be loathe to think your father one of them.

MARGARET In any State that was half good, you would be raised up high, not here, for what you’ve done already. It’s not your fault the State’s three-quarters bad. Then if you elect to suffer for it, you elect yourself a hero.

MORE That’s very neat. But look now . . . If we lived in a State where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly. And we’d live like animals or angels in the happy land that needs no heroes. But since in fact we see that avarice, anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity commonly profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice and thought, and have to choose, to be human at all . . . why then perhaps we must stand fast a little-even at the risk of being heroes.

MARGARET (Emotionally) But in reason! Haven’t you done as much as God can reasonably want?

MORE Well . . . finally . . . it isn’t a matter of reason; finally it’s a matter of love.

Andrew…welcome…

@Micah - With a Man for All Seasons, you’re going to take this off into an argument about conscience.
DUDE: Look at these names!  Just sign it - for friendship!
MORE: When you are sent to Heaven for acting on your conscience and I am sent to Hell for not acting on mine, will you come with me? For friendship?
Is Lila Rose and her group morally culpable if they were following their conscience?
Oh man.  It’s getting late.

Drew, it depends on if their consciences were rightly formed or wrongly, and if wrongly, whether it was due to vincible or invincible ignorance.

Also, “Dude” was the Duke of Norfolk.

As for undercover work by the police, I think that is in a different class than that which is presented here with Lila Rose.  It is the difference between legitimate authority and vigilantism.  We accept the authority of the police to investigate, to arrest, and do all the things necessary, and legal, to maintain a civil society.  Police “buy” drugs from dealers because selling is a crime and the best way to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of intent on the part of the seller, the police engage in stings.  Locally, a man was arrested after a FBI sting revealed he had intended to detonate a bomb at a tree lighting ceremony.  The FBI waited until the suspect actually ‘armed’ the (what turned out to be dummy-) bomb because until that moment he hadn’t comitted a crime.  We trust those in authority to follow rigorous protocol so that the end result is legally and (as much as possible given this discussion) ethically obtained.  With ‘vigilante justice’ there are no such safeguards; only ones own sense of what is permissable, and though Lila Rose’s deception could be said to have not ‘victimized’ anybody, we have only her personal sense of justice versus another pro-lifer’s who may think it’s okay to kill abortion doctors in order to protect the innocent.

*Sigh* For starters, the comparison with “Thou shalt not kill” is not that simple. There are at least 5 Hebrew words I have counted which are translated as ‘kill’ in poor English translations. The word “murder” is a better translation of the word used in the commandments as it specifically means the taking of innocent life, personal revenge etc, and is distinguished from legal execution, driving out enemies etc. Secondly,... well I was going to talk about St Thomas on lies but re-reading your post I get the impression that everyone over there desperately WANTS to justify lying in order to catch the evil people, or whatever good it is that we currently think justifies breaking a particular commandment. Very very dissapointed in what is normally a fearless bastion of Catholic morality. Shame.

Peter,
Are you suggesting that I should be ashamed for even asking the question?

Your impression is everyone over where wants to justify lying?

So while you acknowledge that there are distinctions between killing and murder, it is shameful to faithfully inquire whether there are similar distinctions between deception and lying?

You can *sigh* as much as you want because we know that such condescension is so very Christian.

Mr Archbold and Mr Butter,
  May I offer a thought (though I still need more time to reflect on it)? Is it possible that lying and deception are wrong in all cases?  Lying to the SS. Lying to directly save a life.  Lying undercover. Deception in war. Lying about Santa.
First, lying to the SS.  This is clearly an issue of ends justifying means. Despite the good intentions and the fact that the SS don’t have a right to that information, the lie still affects your soul as a sin.  Also, lying to the SS doesn’t mean the Jews you are hiding are safe.  The SS could (and I’m sure did in many cases despite the word of the homeowner) just come in and search the place.  They also often used the tactic of spying on the house or getting neighbors to tell them about anything suspicious.  It is so easy to get caught in a lie.  And to get good at it, one seems to really have to do it a lot.  Also, if they somehow find out you lied and are harboring the Jews, anybody else who kept that secret is also in grave danger because of your lie (your lie may have forced them to lie and so on).  I think the best thing to do morally (though not the easiest) would be to not answer and pray, taking all of the power out of your hands and into God’s.

Second, lying directly to save a life (as compared to killing to save a life). It is hard to think of a better example of saving the Jews, so I will just talk directly about the videos.  Lying about who you are in order to catch someone in the act of aiding ‘sex traffickers’ and INDIRECTLY possibly prevent the killing of innocent babies, when put this way, is obviously wrong.  So, at best, the direct purpose was to show that these people are capable and willing to aid those involved in the sex trafficking of children.  While sex trafficking is truly nauseating, a lie with the intent to cause another person to sin is wrong.  Planned Parenthood can use (and has used) the videos as a way to make themselves out to be the victims. All they have to say is ‘we were victims of a hoax’ and further reinforce within their ranks that people are out to stop what they do by deceptive means.  Lies can lead to nothing but problems, and so are intrinsically immoral. Another example of the ends justifying the means.

Thirdly, regarding undercover policemen.  Despite these brave men having a duty to defend and protect the people, undercover work is a very grey area in terms of the law, and many lawyers are wary of the process.  Undercover policemen walk a very fine legal line.  As is often the case, they can be accused of entrapment or the case can be thrown out because the illegal action was caused by the cop.  This is merely the legal side.  When we enter the moral side it gets even harder to justify.  You are lying/deceiving in order to make another person commit a crime.  Also, lies breed lies.  Undercover cops, as with spies, must face the effects of lying.  Lying makes it harder to tell the truth, whether that be at home or in the battlefield.  Spies breed spies and distrust between men.  It ends up being the opposite of TRUTH. 

  Lies, however good the intention, are just that: lies.  They still have the effects that all lies have (especially on the soul) and push us farther from TRUTH.  Let’s aim for truth.  There are other methods to every circumstance I’ve stated, and just because they are more difficult or involve otherworldly powers (GOD) doesn’t mean that it’s not the RIGHT path.  Just some food for thought.  God bless.

I would like to add a disclaimer that it is very possible that I’m wrong on this matter, and that there are still aspects which I haven’t addressed.  I merely wanted to take a step back and look at the effects of a lie and the alternatives.  Thank you Mr Archbold and Mr Shea for such an interesting and deep question you have both posed in your articles.  May I also add that, though I may be wrong, I do have the benefit of youth, which comes with the blessing of always being right.  Thanks again!

I once heard about Christians in Muslim countries who, when caught celebrating the Holy Mass, pretend they are doing something else (a party, a wedding, etc.) or else they would be killed. What about them?

The Old Testament has a story about a prostitute who hides some Israeli spies who are being searched for. She lies to the searchers and sends them on a wild goose chase. When Israel later destroys the city, they spare the prostitute for having saved their lives. I can’t recall chapter and verse, but I remember the story and also seem to recall that this prostitute is in the line of Jesus’ ancestors. Apparently, her deception was rewarded!

Also, are consumer advocates deceptive because they are not “legitimate authority” as undercover cops? They, too, pose as customers, etc. to expose fraudulent mechanics, etc. and report them to TV viewers etc.

Doesn’t some of this go back to “motivation” as the key? If your intent is to save lives rather than exploit people or do evil, and the means is not harmful to others in the process (who was harmed by Lila Rose’s expose outside of PP?), can it be justified? It would seem that justice demands that wrongdoing be exposed.

I believe the act was justified, based on my interpretation of intent and circumstance garnered from the video. I think lying is wrong and begets lying. I believe I will suffer the consequences of my lies in Purgatory. I would do what Lila Rose did again! Not to entrap, embarrass, or otherwise defame a person, but to defend a people; not with violence but a voice.

@Sandra - pretending to be doing something other than celebrating Mass doesn’t necessarily involve a lie. Did they say anything false with the intent to deceive? Perhaps they said something true but misleading, “we are celebrating” or “we are feasting” or “we are celebrating with a feast” or “this is a wedding celebration” (mentally reserving: “the Wedding Feast of the Lamb”).
@Joanne - Rahab, the prostitute you mention, lied and therefore sinned. She is mentioned in Christ’s genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew to make a point that 1) Christ (and David) descended from sinners, and 2) Christ (and David) descended (in part) from foreigners. Christ’s genealogy is full of sinners. They were not rewarded for their sins, but treated mercifully by Christ’s coming from their bloodlines.  Lastly, the means involved in this case is lying, which is intrinsically evil. That means the evil exists in the lie itself, not in the intention or circumstances, and so the lie is always a sin no matter what the intention. Also, a lie is always an offense against God, who is Truth, so it does hurt someone in the process outside of Planned Parenthood. No good motivation can justify lying.

@Rob - God gave the angels powers far greater than our own to stop evil. Nevertheless, they do not sin to accomplish the good or to bring about justice. The angels who do sin we call demons. How can we think any better of ourselves when we seek to do good through evil means or when we reject God’s will and way of doing things truthfully in order to pursue our own will and our own way of doing things. We must do what we can without sinning. Beyond that, we place all these things in God’s hands. To sacrifice truth at the altar of justice is to offer sacrifice to the father of lies.

Pat,

Keep in mind that what is being condemned is lying not all forms of deception.  Aquinas addresses this in his discussion on lying (STh II-II.40.3):

“Now a man may be deceived by another’s word or deed in two ways. First, through being told something false, or through the breaking of a promise, and this is always unlawful….

“Secondly, a man may be deceived by what we say or do, because we do not declare our purpose or meaning to him. Now we are not always bound to do this…”

It seems pretty clear that Live Action engaged in the former, illicit, form of deception.

Since the impact of this teaching on law enforcement has come up several times, Gerard Bradley had a nice discussion of this in a blog post yesterday: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259911/lying-ever-permissible-undercover-deep-and-shallow-gerard-v-bradley.

When I read Mark’s article, I had some reservations about his conclusion but couldn’t quite articulate my feelings.  Since then, I have considered that double agents or spies have always used similar tactics to get information during times of war.  Certainly, we are in spiritual warfare with the culture of death.  The media distorts the truth—painting pro-life people as maniacs and potential terrorists but pro-abortion people as compassionate supporters of women and children.  In my state of Maryland, pro-abortion people have used legislation to try to handcuff pro-life pregnancy centers with numerous restrictions because they “mislead” woman who may be looking for an abortion provide, while having no objections with planned parenthood offices posting pictures of smiling babies and children on the front of their buildings.  Using undercover investigations to expose the truth is not engaging in evil activity, but rather exposing the truth about an organization that engages in evil activities under the guise of “helping” women.

Mary M. from Maryland

I think you have hit the nail on the head in somewhat jocularly calling for a just deception theory. Clearly there are instances in which deception is legitimate. If all deception were immoral, then a Catholic basketball player could not perform any “fakes” intended to deceive his defender. If deception is legitimate on the part of just belligerents in a war, and if a feint is legitimate for a person justly defending himself or an innocent person from an unjust attack, I think there is certainly an opening for the legitimacy of a civic organization like Live Action trying to destroy an unjust civic organization like Planned Parenthood. By the way, it might be useful to note that Live Action isn’t doing anything to cause PP to do evil; it is just using deception to reveal the evil that is already there.

So if Lila Rose and comapany were actually pimps and prostitutes, their investigations would be okay??  I think that their investigations could be considered more like a detective or a lawyer asking lateral questions that get at the truth more directly than asking direct questions.

Direct questioning: What would you do to help a pimp who is abusing underage girls?  Planned Parenthood:Nothing!!

Lateral subversion: I’m a pimp with underage girls as prostitutes, one of whom is pregnant, what can you do to help me?  Planned Parenthood:Well, of course first of all we will have to get you guardianship for her…

There is a better definition in CCC 2483 of what a lie is that I think could help here:“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.”

Lila Rose’s sting operation was in service to the truth, trying to draw the truth out from a big lie.

@Micah
I’m not an Angel, I’m a free will human being. I accept the consequences of my possible error in judgment. I seek all that is good, just and pure. I live in the world and must make choices now that will have ramifications later. So be it. Praise God that you have the wisdom to know His will and eloquence to carry it out. I’m not as fortunate. I will persevere, seeking Truth and Understanding, praying for the Wisdom to know His Will for my life and the courage to carry it out. You call their actions sin and evil, okay, I disagree, and haven’t been convinced otherwise.

If the deception is done to protect innocent life, babies who would be aborted, I fully agree with performing the deception.  Seems to me the deception we are debating here is this question: can individuals, not in the government, go to abortion clinics to discover if legal methods are being used.  If the motive for the deception is to discover the truth, then the deception, in my mind, is not a sin.  Motive is all.

We cannot use the tool of the enemy for good.  Lying and deception are not good.  At best you can say that this is a grey area.  They are certainly not ‘of God’. I am struck by the wisdom of a certain fantasy writer and the clarity that the main theme of the story delivers to this matter.
The story I speak of is, of course, The Lord of the Rings.  I feel like this discussion board (along with Mr Shea’s) is the council of Elrond. We have Boromir here, a great hero and steadfast defender of his people who wants to use the power of the ring to save his people and middle earth from an unimaginably powerful and great evil.  His intentions are purely GOOD. However, the ring is a tool crafted by the enemy, and even the greatest men with the best intentions cannot wield it without succumbing to its evil.  It perverts the will of man to its own ends, betraying Boromir. 
Just as sin can corrupt a person, the ring can also corrupt turning Smeagol into Gollum (note- all you that confuse one that sins as being evil; that, despite all of his wickedness, there is still good in Gollum- just because someone tells a lie does not make them evil, just the act.) You cannot get past the fact that the act of lying hurts the soul and can lead to more sin.
These people at Live Action are GOOD people with GOOD intentions.  However, using the tool of the enemy to do GOOD is counter-productive and very dangerous.
BTW- I’m the Matthew from 6:01am and 6:31am, not the Matthew of 9:01am.

dkdan:
Please understand the danger of what your statement implies.  The ‘ends justifying the means’ has been used to justify some of the greatest evils committed by man.  Deception (although done for a good purpose) does not mean that deception is right.

There’s a problem with your comparisons, Pat.
1. Nazis: Right, we can’t lie, but we can remain silent or deceive in other ways. For those who ask about inevitable death in such circumstances, I point to the example of all of the martyrs.
2. Killing under Just War: Legitimate authority is involved here, which changes the dynamics. I can’t declare Just War on the idiots who drive down my street too quickly blasting their radios at 1am, and engage in war, but the US can declare war on Germany. Enemies of the state (opposition soldiers), officially declared as such, may be killed. But note that enemy civilians must not be targeted, and due care must be taken to minimize the chance of harming non-military opponents (not that the US did that during WWII). Just War is not a carte blanche to kill all of the enemy.
3. Self-defense: the goal is to stop the aggressor, not kill them. Their death, if it occurs, is a secondary effect, and one should try to avoid killing them.
Here’s where I have a hard time reconciling things: Outright lying is an offense to the truth, and to be condemned. But isn’t deceptive language equally so? Is using ambiguous truth to deceive someone better than using a lie? It smacks of sophistry to me, because in either case the truth is distorted. The Catechism says “Lying is the most direct offense against the truth”, not that it is the only offense against the truth. Lying is defined as speaking or acting “in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth”. Isn’t speaking the truth ambiguously likewise intended to lead someone into error? If the sin comes from leading another into error, then it would seem to me that anything intended to accomplish that end would be sinful.
The only stipulation I see is “someone who has the right to know the truth”, but how are we to judge that? If Pat asks me “What’s your Social Security number?”, I can simply say “I’m not going to tell you.” But would I be morally allowed to say “123-12-0987”, since he has no right to the truth?
There’s a part of me that thinks there might be some type of Just Deception, but there are parts of me that think all sorts of inappropriate things.

While I think that we ought to err on the side of avoiding the lie, a thought came to me:

IF the wording of the 5th Commandment allows for taking of life in some circumstances (due to the usage of ‘ratsach’~ murder), including the development of Just War Theory and theories of self defense; then the 8th Commandment ought to more than justify a similar theory on lying, as it specifically refers to false testimony (ie perjury).

We can resort too much to isolating-literalism re certain *parts* of Church teaching without taking account of the *whole* of the Catechism and the *whole* of Church teaching. When such an *incompleteness-approach* is made in Bible interpretation, we get many hundreds of Protestant sects.
God allows just war and deception is a NORMAL part of such war. CCC 2483 broadens lying to both speech and acting. The very last sentence of 2483 gives the *context* for giving assent to Church teaching about “true lying”. And there is no conflict between faith and reason – which is also part of Catholic teaching.
In an allowed just war, camouflage “lies” to others’ eyes and brains about what is actually present and *deliberately designed* to draw them in so as to defeat them efficiently— as a result of our successfully fooling them.
In granting us free will which gives the ruthless an enormous advantage over peaceful society, God reluctantly allows just war to compensate. The *incompleteness-approach* is often the enemy of understanding Church teaching.
In war, the whole nation is against its enemy; those protecting Jews can deceive the SS and it is not an offense against truth as comprehended by the *whole* of Catholic teaching.
That neighbors might be endangered by telling “lies” about your protecting Jews is just one example of bad things that do happen even in just wars.  They soon learn to simply shrug a no or say they don’t know and as for the protector, it is not an offense against truth when analyzed in its full relationship to total circumstances and the whole of Church teaching which combine to remove it from “end justifies the means”, etc..
We are in a just war with Planned Parenthood and must not resort to ‘isolationist-literalism’ regarding the *opinion* we can’t be in a just war UNTIL our unjust Government (as Roe & Doe protectors) declares it on Planned Parenthood. Again, the rules for just war have evolved and are not yet fully properly expressed for all warring conditions.
There may be prudential limits that vary with particular wars.
But deceiving Planned Parenthood to help save the innocent is well within just war operation and outside “consequentialism” and similar charges because the just war is real. The price of continually taking the *incompleteness-approach* is the babies and mothers continuing to lose *big time* while others going to PP suffer *other grave evils* done to them.
Engaging in isolationist readings of church laws means that one cannot dismiss the issue by saying Christ wants us to do it only in a certain way. We must first prove the deception way is in fact a SIN while NOT ignoring the wholeness of Church teaching in our “proof”. Yes, I do affirm Romans 3:8. See that it was foreshadowed in Sirach at the end of Chapter 15.

I recall a scripture scholar equating the terms used for Adam in the Garden of Eden. Adam was one term, another was priest a word which implies guard or protector. (I wish I knew this better) Adam’s sin, if I recall correctly, was to not protect Eve from the snake. Protecting family, the innocent etc. is a messy, dangerous task full of grey areas. Thank-you Pat Archbold

@Rob: I am hardly without sin, but the point of my response to you was to show that we may not morally do good by disobeying God.  Someone else put it more simply: “we cannot use the tool of the enemy for good.”  You simply can’t morally try to act for good by committing evil.  We must do what good we can and, if that fails, trust in God.  In fact, to commit evil in order to achieve a good is demonic and has everything to do with the same sin Adam and Eve committed.  God calls on us to trust Him and to do good to achieve proper ends.  When, in pursuing those ends and seeing our good acts fail, we resort to using evil to reach those good ends, what we are really saying is, “God isn’t going to come through for us to achieve these good ends, so it looks like we’ll have to do this our own way.”

This is something I have been struggling with to understand also. I am so glad that Planned Parenthood is being exposed, but is this the right way?  I support the defense of intrusions, such as with protecting the Jews or yourself in self defense. If somebody intrudes your life by knocking on your door unwelcomely to ask if you are hiding people or if somebody comes at you with a knife, I see it fit to “lie” and “kill” (in self defense. Yes, lying in self defense seems the same as killing in self defense now that I speak of it.)  But the hard thing to understand is when somebody in this situation (Live Action) is the one who is being intrusive to others and intentionally lying. Would it be better to have witnesses such as Abby Johnson to speak out, which is what she is doing so well? I don’t know these answers myself and look to the Church for guidance. One last question I have, is: Do Live Actions actions coincide with Matthew 10:16; “Behold, I send out out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be ‘sneaky’ as serpents and innocent as doves.”?

I would rather lie to the evil one or his representatives in order save or help my unborn brothers and sisters or my already alive brothers and sisters and depend on my beloved Father’s mercy for my action than not to protect them or save them.  And if my Abba demanded of me greater purgation because of it, then so be it.

Too much bloggerbabble going on here. I question the purity of intent in this topic. Do your homework Mark, Pat, then bring us answers of authority, not speculation and opinions. Considering NOT reading these blogs (authors) of division and if the Register is going this route, considering dropping as well.

JMJ Mary:

The pose of noble self-sacrifice in direct defiance of God (which is, in fact, what you are advocating) is a common one for people who are trying to justify what they know to be wrong.  It is, as I point out here, an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do.

Pamcc:

Trying to grapple with how best to think with the Church is not “authoring division”.  It is what disciples do.  Sorry it bothers you that the Church is not monolithic, but that’s life in the real world.

The Holy Spirit will continue to guide The Church, The Body of Christ. We must obey and live on every word of God. It is not the will of the Father that any of these little ones shall be lost (Matthew 18:14) We cannot reason with opinions, because those who trust in their own minds will suffer harm, but those who walk in wisdom will be delivered. (Proverbs 28:26) We must avoid sin at all cost. Turn to the Blessed Mother and ask what she would do.

Right, “those jeans don’t make you look fat.” It is the rather large butt in the jeans that both looks and is fat. So though it is true the jeans are not culpable for the appearance of the fatness, they are not helping the one making the inquiry to conceal the fat butt. If you didn’t already know you have a fat butt why would you ask in the first place? So the questioner is looking for an accessory to the self deception of the inquired. :)

in all seriousness thought, the commandment is Thou shalt not murder. which is not the same as a blanket prohibition on killing. the difference being a justified versus an unjustified killing. God justly struck down a man for spilling his seed. so killing a rapist in the act with no alternative but deadly force is not murder but justified homicide. I would be inclined to believe there is a similar subtlety to the deception prohibition. the intention of the deception is not to cause harm but to bring justice.

To repeat: The Church does not say *deception* is intrinsically immoral.  The Church does say that *lying* is intrinsically immoral.  If I evade your questions, allow you to think something that is false, or speak the truth in a way I know you will misunderstand and you have no right to the truth, I am not lying.

If I go to you, declare, “My name is John Q. Skank, I am a pimp, and I want you to help me commit criminal activities” when none of these statements are true, I am not merely deceiving.  I am *lying*.  Lying, says the Church, is intrinsically immoral.  That the lie produces good fruit by exposing Planned Parenthood as the evil organization it is does not make the lie not a lie.

I definitely do not want to go down the slippery slope, about justifying and rationalizing. However, there is a growing evil in America called abortion — and I would add its accompanying evils called infanticide, “voluntary” euthanasia and other attacks against life. People need to know the truth — which we will NEVER get from the lame-stream press — as to what organizations such as Banned Parenthood ARE doing. Unless you have conversions such as Abbey Johnson, it won’t happen, and millions more will be murdered and harmed. Many have talked about using God’s weapons, such as prayer. Obviously, that is a good thing to start from and continue. Unfortunately, it seems millions have done this and babies continue to be murdered and lives destroyed. Here we have someone — Ms. Rose — trying to do something to expose the truth about what is being done by a certain organization, Planned Barrenhood. The thing is, these people have been accused of harboring criminal activity for years — statutory rape, for instance. We have heard it with taped phone calls even before Ms. Rose. Has anything been done by the appropriate authorities? Heck no. How about the Philadelphia abortionist who did this horrific deed for YEARS with total disregard by the law?  How many women and children were destroyed by this guy and his minions? Far too many. You could actually say that Ms. Rose and others are doing the work that God-given authorities rightfully should be doing. They are NOT inciting sin; they are exposing it. That is different. Even Jesus talked about not throwing pearls to swine. Does this apply here? Perhaps, perhaps not. And Christ tells us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves? Is this what he is talking about? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, to think that the aforementioned Jew-protectors were somehow required to tell the complete and honest truth to the Nazis is pretty ridiculous to me. I think even those claiming what Ms. Rose did was wrong would admit that (I’m not writing that they are claiming the Jew-protectors should have answered yes, either). Either way, good topic. It’s made me think of things in a different way. I know this is a bit long-worded but permit me one final question? How DO we expose the truth of Planned Barrenhood? (OK, 2) What action followed from prayer?

William F. Folger,

The problem with your reasoning is that war is not an intrinsic evil in Catholic teaching.  The just war principle is not a means of making an unjust thing into a just thing.  War may be either just or unjust, and it is the context that makes the difference.  We must remember, that actions taken in a just war are not automatically just.  Intrinsic evils undertaken in a just war are still evil.

Intrinsic evils, which lying certainly seems to be, can never be just.  There is no circumstance that can make an intrinsic evil permissible.  Ultimately, the context is a moot point.  The question is, does the Church teach that lying is an intrinsic evil.  If she does, then we may never do it no matter what the circumstances.

The correlation here between just war and lying seems to really be deception.  Deception does not seem to be an intrinsic evil, therefore it is the circumstances and context that make deception good or evil.  But just as we cannot pursue intrinsic evils in a just war, we cannot pursue intrinsic evils, such as direct lying, in a just deception.

Nora:
Does PP openly admit they engage in covering up statutory rape? There was no intimation — there was flat-out stating. No one is entrapping them, by the way. This is standard procedure; no one was forcing them into this. By the way, they are flouting the law; by law, they are to report to the authorities ANY suspicion of statutory but they tell “clients” not to tell the truth. They WILLINGLY do this and no one was ever really curious before now.
How have they been appropriately dealt with? That is the problem: they haven’t been!!! This is not just one or two chambers; it is several, which leads to figuring this is an accepted practice.
This is not like the Catholic Church in general. There were some bad bishops, priests, etc., and they should be dealt with severely. However, that is a far cry from implicating the entire Church and all schools, teachers, etc.
By the way, PP claims they also support adoption services, etc. How many adoptions have they ever helped and yet they pretend it is a major part of what they do? Plus, they are getting OUR tax money.

In the end, when, hopefully, standing at the “pearly gates”, I try to envision what God would say about Lila Rose and her “tactics”,  I cannot speak for God but in the whole scheme of things I would guess that she would not be condemned for it.  It just amazes me that anyone does not get it.  What ever happened to common sense?  I am Catholic, my family and grown kids with their families are passionately in love with our beautiful Catholic faith.  Lila Rose, a beautiful and articulate young women, deserves better.  I hope that in her new found Catholic faith (formally from a pro-life evangelical family)  she finds the needed support and spiritual advise in regards to this matter.

Deception versus abortion are on entirely different planes.

50 million dead due to the intrinsic evil of abortion in the US since Roe v. Wade.

To paraphrase the Catechism section 1858: The gravity of sins is more or less great: abortion is graver than deception.

I’m not sure if anyone has approached the topic from this angle, but CCC 2482 defines a lie as “speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving”.

So, what was Lila Rose’s intention?  Why did she and her organization go undercover into the PP clinics?  Was it simply to trick and deceive the PP workers, and be done with it?  Or, was the intention to bring to light the truth about what happens inside a PP clinic?  This is not unlike the undercover detective whose intention is not merely to deceive, but rather to reveal the truth about suspected criminal activities.

Perhaps it seems like a stretch, but I think that one could easily make the case that the “pimps” spoke falsehoods with the intention of revealing the truth.  If that is the case, then what they did would not fit the definition a lie.

Pat Archbold’s points justifying deception insofar as dealing with the Nazis are well put and I applaud him for bringing them up. There is a huge chasm of difference between the Vatican’s dealings with the Nazis and Lila Rose’s brand of political activism. Like Lila Rose, I abhor abortion and want it legally ended.

On the other hand, I hope many pro-Lifers would be a lot choosier insofar as who they want for philosophical fellow travellers or heroes. Lila Rose is no hero. She’s indeed a “fellow traveler,” of the likes of Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe (of the bogus ACORN video where he used a National Journalism Center intern to act as the prostitute while he played the pimp. Remember that? That the NJC has yet to disavow what that kid did is a major embarrassment to myself, (NJC, Spring ‘83) This isn’t journalism, it’s “baggin’ people” or “gotcha” hatchet job “reporting.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/201102010048

All the more reason I’m becoming more embarrassed and disillusioned with the present direction of the pro-Life movement. Prayers have moved more mountains than packaged deceit. The Vatican acted in a humanitarian way as a STATE, not as an individual looking to feather her own personal agenda nest.

It’s amazing to see the people who harrumph with such noticeable umbrage at what they consider “radicalist antics” inspired by Saul Alinsky ... all the while they do such a wonderful job of aping their opposites ... self-righteously so. Want to save children? Do so in a mature way and avoid the manufactured hit jobs perpetuated by the likes of Ms. Rose and Messrs. Breitbart and O’Keefe.

As a pro-Life social conservative, I’m simply embarrassed to think these three “represent” the pro-Life Movement.

I think that one could easily make the case that the “pimps” spoke falsehoods with the intention of revealing the truth.  If that is the case, then what they did would not fit the definition a lie.

Yes.  Lots and lots of people attempt to make this bad argument. It’s pure consequentialism: the claim that you can do something sinful just so long as you do it for a good end.

It is just like arguing, “I have a gullible neighbor who is living a sinful life.  I just want his sins to be renounced and for him to believe in Jesus.  So I will falsely claim to be the recipient of a miraculous healing from Jesus in order to get him to repent and believe.  My intention is to bring to light the truth that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  So I’m not lying when I fake a miracle because my neighbor will believe in Jesus as a result.”

Hand Wringer,

A lesser evil is still evil, a smaller sin is still a sin.  While I think the discussion here has revealed that there may be some doubt as to whether the Church teaches that lying is an intrinsic evil (it seems that she does, but I can understand doubt about it), there is no doubt that the Church teaches that evil may never be used to bring about good ends.

Lying may not be as great an evil as abortion, but that does not make lying not an evil.

Mark and Pat, 
    Would you say that if the Live Action people went into the PP clinics and said to them “Now let’s say, I’m a pimp with 14 year old girls. And let’s just say that they got knocked up.  And let’s just say that I want to get them abortions, What would you do?  Not saying that I am, wink, wink, know what I mean.” Then it would have been OK?  If so, then Lila,  use the round about deceptive manner described above from now on. 
    For the record,  I believe strongly that there is only Black and White.  I also believe that we are not wise enough to figure that distinction out, which is why God gave us the Law and ultimately Incarnated Himself since we NEVER could get this distinction correct.  I am NOT a relativist, but I take offense at those who come out and state absolute proclamations for patently tricky questions. 
  I also freely admit that it probably peeves me because it is one of my own character flaws.

I think deception is justified in certain cases. Years ago I read the Book of Judith in the Old Testament where Judith is basically proclaimed a Jewish heroine for her infiltration of the tyrannical Holoferne’s court and eventually killing him. I took this to mean that deception is justifiable in some cases as well as killing, thus requiring a careful reading/understanding of the 8th and 5th Commandments. I think the 8th Commandment was primarily to keep people from defaming an innocent person. If the reporter in the Lila Rose case commits no sin and is presenting the facts squarely, then it seems the report would be justifiable.

Um… I just thought about one more thing: jokes. Like when you tell your friend that he/she got something on his/her face, and then shout “April Fools!” Does it still count as a lie? It seems so…

Sandra:

No.  St. Thomas takes into account “jocose” falsehoods—as do we all.  Lies are a distinct speech act from agreed-upon social conventions such as acting or writing fiction—or telling jokes.  Jesus told stories that were not literally true—there was no actual prodigal son.  But he did not lie.

Would you say that if the Live Action people went into the PP clinics and said to them “Now let’s say, I’m a pimp with 14 year old girls. And let’s just say that they got knocked up.  And let’s just say that I want to get them abortions, What would you do?  Not saying that I am, wink, wink, know what I mean.” Then it would have been OK?

It might have been “not lying”, but it would not have worked.  The question, however is not “What works?” but “What works *and* is morally permissible?”  Many in this discussion are presuming its one or the other.  Might I suggest that our arsenal against Planned Parenthood is not exhausted if we are forbidden to lie and that it is mighty bleak for prolifers to talk as though it is?  Have we forgotten so quickly the work of 40 Days for Life and the many other fine apostolates who oppose abortion *without* lying?  No small part of the perniciousness of this approach is that so many people so seem to think that without recourse to lies, there is no hope of opposing Planned Parenthood.  That’s a thought the devil loves.

Nora:

Nora:

Unless, of course, the nature of the relationship between the two people is such that the joke is enjoyed by both people for reasons private to them.  There are jokes I share with friends which, if I said such things to other people, would be taken as cruel insults but which are, by common consent with my friends, simply fun.  It’s a bit like black folk who use the N word in their banter with one another but would rightly take it as an insult when not used by intimates.  Speech acts are enormously complex and it’s not possible to render one size fits all verdicts on every one (though it is possible to know what is going on in a particular speech act if you have the proper information).

Nora, lets think about these things for a bit.  The business of PP is abortion, plain and simple (at least according to Abby Johnson).  The more they perform, the better.  Now, this isn’t the first time PP has been caught suggesting or doing something illegal.  This has happened all throughout the US, in many different states.  In each case the “low-level” employee is fired, while the management gets away scott-free. 

When do all these instances become a pattern?  While the tactics of Ms. Rose and her companions certainly give the pro-death media some fodder, they have still pointed out some pretty damning things about PP and the abortion industry.  With all the incidents that are reported or demonstrated through these videos, I think it is pretty conclusive that these “low-level” employees are at the least given the incentive to increase the amount of abortions and are told how annoying or bad-for-business certain laws (like parental consent or statutory rape) are.  The problem is endemic throughout PP.

This is a great article and I agree.  Law enforcement and the military routinely pose as someone else to learn information. If it leads to the greater good, and prevents loss of life, it is usually justified.  There needs to be a start point and an end point.  This would prevent a slippery slope.

@Nora, I don’t think Live Action’s intention is to put anyone in jail. Their appeal is to the court of public opinion. If public option demands PP be defunded, Congress may do that and that would be a great prolife victory. Liveaction’s “stunt” has propelled PP’s pattern of illegal (but not legally actionable) activity into the national spotlight.

Pardon me, I am not a theologian, just an ordinary pwerson-  [a fallen away Catholic, actually]. But when I learned the commamdments, there was not one that said “thou shalt not lie” but one that said ” thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.  Please note: AGAINST thy neighbor.  it does not forbid false witness FOR thy neighbor—that should do it for the Nazi question!  It did not say ” never tell an untruth” even, so how is it justified to say any and all “deception”  is evil? 
    By the way, I have wanted to return to the Catholic Church in which I was raised, but I cannot find it;  it seems to have disappeared.

The ongoing debate re. lying has been a great read but I wonder how many of the bloggers have and/or are writing to their representatives, the media, et al. when lies with respect to the various life issues have been misrepresented to the public? I know that in Canada the most effective pro-abortion argument in 1969 was that the unborn is not a human being even though every biology textbook noted otherwise. Eventually the law and legislature enacted pro-abortion acts and judgements. Recently this lie was recognized by the proabortionists who noted that yes, abortion kills a living human being but sometimes it is necessary for the mother to take care of herself and abort the unborn child? While we furiously argue about how many angels can dance on a pinhead, the merchants of death -esp those in P.P.- are laughing themselves silly, saying “We don’t belive in angels” and are pushing for more funds and using cover-ups to secure their position and enshrine their protection in law!

1.) The commandment in Hebrew is “Thous shalt not murder”, not “kill.”  Murder, the intentional killing of an innocent person, is NEVER allowed.  Intentional killing of the grievously not-innocent—while not recommended—may be carried out by a state.  Unintentional killing, as you point out, may be permissible under the just war and double-effect conditions when the intention is other than to kill, when the means of the action is neutral or good, and the good achieved is greater than the resulting evil.

2.) Lying is NEVER allowed, period.  Deception by a variety of means, esp to one who does not have a right to the information is allowed, as is a refusal to answer.

I know Lila Rose and I have a close friend who knows her very well. Lila is a young woman of heroic courage and great integrity. I know she has carefully considered the morality of Live Action’s methods and she intends to live her Catholic faith with complete fidelity.

Hmmm.  Would Planned Parenthood have given the SAME answer to both a REAL pimp AND one ‘acting’ as a pimp? 
Of course.
The ‘deception’ led Planned Parenthood into NO HARM.
As such, Live Action did not essentially ‘lie’ - did not intend to cause PP harm or lead them into error. (CCC 2483)

Next time, Live Action should just hire a REAL pimp.  Then all the ‘naysayers’ and ‘busybodies’ could save their keyboards some wear and tear.

3 brief points

1.  Live Action’s deception has a particular relationship to the truth: its effectiveness depends on the truth. The act has no consequences—except maybe dinner conversation for the PP worker—unless it is revealed as a deception.  It’s the revelation of the truth that makes it effective.

2.  This is akin to Hamlet:  “The play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.”  Live Action put on a play for PP with every intention of revealing that it was a play…in due time.

3.  The catechism says that a lie does violence to the judgement of another.  Are there judgments, such as those that prevail at PP, that merit a comeuppance just as the moneychangers did in the temple?

Another point: It was either in the first or in the secondd set of videos released…the PP worker indicated that (paraphrase): “It is better if you don’t tell us the entire truth….because we are required to report some types of things.”

@Ann Landell - I like your point.  These are ACTORS.  The young people went inot PP as actors.  Actors representing a REAL type of person that could have walked into PP.  Live Action did not mislead to get in.

If by deception you mean the cleverness to deflect a question with a non-answer because giving an answer would cause some harm, like the Jew who is hoping you will protect them from the Nazi,then no it is not wrong.  We are supposed to think and use all God’s gifts for good like saving lives. But if by deception you mean intentionally telling an untruth then yes it is always wrong.  It is a lack of faith, really.

This is a horrible case of over thinking.

I think this flap has exposed a chink in semantics rather than any great moral upheaval.  Take the example of hiding Jews from Nazis, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2265) allows the homeowner to kill the Nazis.  So to argue that lying to these Nazis is somehow sinful is ludicrous.
 
We KNOW that it can be justified to kill an aggressor when they threaten those that are entrusted in our care.  But lying to the aggressor is worse than killing him?  Come ON!

So, if the Church has clearly defined how killing an aggressor in self defense is NOT murder, then perhaps She can clarify how undercover police, espionage, and such is NOT lying. 

We can say all murder is wrong, because we define murder as the intentional killing of an innocent human being.  All other forms of traditionally licit killing do not meet this definition.  But the word lie is too broad, like the word kill.  Lie encompasses all forms of deception, everything from undercover police work to embezzling.  Just as there are Catholics who believe that the 5th Commandment must be interpreted to mean Christians must be vegetarian pacifists, there are some who will interpret the 8th Commandment so narrowly.  But there is a glaring lack of papal condemnation of undercover police and espionage.

Similar to the justification of lethal self-defense, undercover work does not intend to lead someone into wrongdoing.  In the case of Lila Rose, her work does not lead Planned Parenthood into wrong-doing.  But a child guilty of stealing cookies, deceives his/her parents into not exerting the consequences due the child.

Undercover police take great care to avoid the fine line between catching criminals and making criminals.  To drive up to a street corner and let the man offer to sell you drugs catches a criminal.  To drive up to a corner and offer a man money for drugs can make a criminal out of an ordinarily good man.  In the former the cop has no intention to lead into wrongdoing, therefore the cop’s identity deception is NOT lying or at least not sinful.  In the latter, the cop intends to lead into wrongdoing, thus it is sinful.

I think if our language had one particular word that was narrowly defined as, “to lead into wrongdoing,” we would be able to get past this confusion in the same way that the word murder allows us to distinguish from other forms of licit killing.

Pat, I have to agree with you regarding the thoughts on “lies and deception”.  For years the lies and deception of abortion and Planned Parenthood have proceeded w/many moralists living like the proverbial ostrich, hoping the problem would go away if they didn’t see it. Meanwhile we have lost a whole generation of children. Would history have been changed had hidden cameras and investigative reporters been given tours of the Nazi concentration camps or on the ships of slave traders? People have a tendency to not believe until they are shown actual proof of evil at work. To date nothing else has had such an impact on the public soul as these videos. Would there have been any debate had an investigative reporter from ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX/CNN had used the same means to gather the information? Rather than wringing our hands in the “morality of the method” by causing more division in the pro-life camp we should be uniting behind our pro-life members. I applaud the courage of this young lady and all who work in the field to stop this holocaust of murder in our country.

Cecilia, You are thinking as men think, not as God thinks.  Your focus is narrowed to the wrongs of the world. We were made for greater things. God has a plan. Bad things happen to good people. It doesn’t mean His plan is not at work. I’m not convinced the world is a better place because we are aware of the wrongs.  We aren’t even supposed to speak of some things, never mind spread knowledge of evils throughout the world. Whatever is good, whatever is just whatever is holy… that’s what we are called to think about and talk about. We have wandered from that.

Respectfully to Mark Shea, wineinthewater and David Hegedusich:
If we take CCC 2482 alone (David’s citation) and then together with CCC 2483, it illustrates the importance of avoiding the *incompleteness-approach* mentioned above (Feb. 17, 10:22 AM). In 2482 “A lie consists in *speaking* a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”
See the middle sentence in 2483: “To lie is to speak *or act* against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” It does not say “to speak *and* act”; hence 2483 is a broadening of the meaning of “to lie” (i.e., beyond the less complete 2482’s *spoken* lie). Both 2482 and 2483 clearly involve deception. So, if lying is an intrinsic evil, so is every act of deception (excluding those done in unharmful humor, playacting, etc.) which goes “against the truth…” as 2483 states.
Since a corporate-someone like Planned Parenthood has no special right to expect or demand cooperation of any sort from those probing its internal weaknesses for as long as it wages unjust child-killing war against the totally innocent by the *scores of millions* and can “even get used” by its own employees who extend the range of evils to yet other persons regardless of PP’s official functions or even its bylaws, the just war against such a **child-killing MACHINE** means the deception is not immoral but instead an example of what typically is allowed in a just war, namely deception of the enemy by many types of actions for as long as they can still kill the innocent or damage society.
That there are different opinions by pro-lifers about the value of such probing is a prudential matter and not an evil. An enemy as deadly as Planned Parenthood deserves no special consideration. Corporately, it threatens America’s survival as do those who treat its attacks on God too lightly (see John Paul II, EV 9) – as do too many Christians.
An example from the just war category is the good in being a battlefield spy for the just side in the war—*without sinning even venially*. Our good soldier puts on the enemy uniform and uses his ability to speak their tongue in order to confuse and weaken them. His role has two inseparable parts, the “deception” via the uniform and perhaps certain actions and the “lying” by spoken word. Those quotation marks are used to indicate that both speech and actions of our spy do not go against Catholic teaching.
So, when the fullness of Catholic teaching is taken into account, including about just wars, there is simply no problem of conflicts of teaching or loss of the meaning of intrinsic evils. Lying, * properly understood*, is ALWAYS evil – an intrinsic evil. BUT it must be a bona fide case of lying – in contrast with allowed just war “spy-lying”.
First we must recognize the significance and importance of this phrase in 2483: “against the truth…”  Having done that, the last sentence in 2483 tells us there is no injury in our spy’s relation to truth, to his neighbor or to the Lord, indeed the very same Lord who allows just wars invariably involving spying and deception! In allowing some just warring, God never works “against the truth…”.
In summary, only God’s provision for just war can modify what would otherwise be considered a lie. That is why the Catechism has those signal-phrases noted above. WE must not be naïve and assert a slippery slope argument, for God is smarter than that! True lying is but one of several intrinsic evils; so one must have a reference like God to assert we will lose the value of having other intrinsic evils because “we” gave into telling untruths to the enemy in a just war.
Spying, “deceiving” and “lying” to the enemy under just war conditions simply are not within the scope of being “against the truth” – per God’s provision for society’s sake.

How pharisaical. To lie must involve speech:) otherwise it is not a lie? How silly.

It is the deception which makes something a lie. Not the speech.

You seem not to have studied CCC 2482 & 2483 if you were responding to my post. If around and not busy I’ll read your reply but may not be able to respond. If you are right, that will shine without using terms like pharisaical and silly. You need to be more analytical.

Mr. Folger:

The problem, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is that just because a state actor can do something (and I’m not persuaded they can do what LiveAction is doing) does not mean that a private individual can do it.  Lila is neither a soldier nor a cop.  Appeals to just war doctrine therefore fall apart.  We are left with the plain teaching of Holy Church: 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, etc.

Believe me, I’d love to endorse this.  But the Church says what she says.  And I think she is wise to do so.  It is seductive to want a short cut to justice.  But the speed with which Christians are embracing the rhetoric of “How *else* can we win this fight?”—as though prayer, sacrifice, and traditional methods of civil disobedience and political resistance which do not involve embracing the theory that you can feel free to seek out people and lie aggressively just so long as you’ve decided the people you are lying to don’t deserve the truth.  It fills me with foreboding and the conviction that this latest embrace of consequentialism will only end in disaster for the prolife movement.  Particularly, when I am repeatedly hearing from people attempting to shout down and shut down those with legitimate moral qualms as “sowing discord”.  “Shut up and accept lying or you are a bad Catholic” is not from the Spirit of Christ, I believe.

Lynn,
Sr. Magherita Marchione is considered a leading expert on Pope Pious XII.

Here is an excerpt, in Sr. Margherita Marchione’s own words

It was Pope Pius XII who authorized false baptismal certificates to save Jewish lives. He also distributed visas for Jews to enter other countries, and ordered the superiors of convents and monasteries to open their doors and hide Jews and other victims of the Nazis and Fascists. Angelo Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) who also distributed many certifcates stated that all he was doing was following the Pope’s directives.

http://www.sistermargherita.com/antidef.htm

Mark, as you should know from other posts, I’m not one “attempting to shout down and shut down those with legitimate moral qualms as “sowing discord”.” As indicated in my 10:22 AM post just war doctrine is not fully developed. Even the USCCB site contains added “conditions” that are questionable.
So it’s not a matter of “We are left with the plain teaching of Holy Church.” When a government has so degraded for 37 years of slaughter, it is currently impossible to get it to declare a just war against the slaughters it protects. God allowed just war because it was otherwise impossible to protect society from abuse of free will, given He wants us to show faith. So He remains fairly hidden for that reason, allowing just war, instead.
Faith and reason being in harmony, it is not clear that to be engaged in a just war *invariably* requires a state to first declare it though that must occur if state-conditions allow it. When conditions show it is not possible and the state gravely in danger as we are, people connected within the state can defend the new life innocent fellow-citizen victims in a variety of ways. In doing so, they may be arrested and jailed.
Most of us will not risk that much. And those who do, like those probing and exposing PP’s weaknesses, do not objectively sin.  So it’s not a matter of wanting a “shortcut to justice” or seeking out people to lie to, as you described it. Planned Parenthood deserves no respect as it disrespects Truth.
I can understand your position given that you seem to think just war doctrine is completely settled and fully developed in meaningful ways for all cases, even when a particular state is far removed from the possibility of declaring a just war that is to be well short of a conventional killing war.
However, I don’t think you can make a valid definitive statement binding on Catholics that just war development is surely complete and have your statement pegged to the magisterium in such way as to make objectively-sinful—acts such as probing and exposing PP”s weaknesses by brave individuals said by you to be lying while their state stubbornly protects the baby slaughtering of 37 years and counting.
I continue to be for the prayerful and other ways we are slowly using over time. What the unborn lack is ability to show up on leaders’ doorsteps to protest. Hence busy humans can and do ignore them in ways that would be loudly condemned were the babies able to do sit-ins. For that reason, barring enlightenment from you, a de facto just war condition exists which has sound basis in the current context.

Correspondingly, there is no lying as per my above posts in this forum.

Mr. Folger:

I wasn’t referring to you. My apologies.  I was referring things like “Rather than wringing our hands in the “morality of the method” by causing more division in the pro-life camp we should be uniting behind our pro-life members” and “I question the purity of intent in this topic. Do your homework Mark, Pat, then bring us answers of authority, not speculation and opinions. Considering NOT reading these blogs (authors) of division and if the Register is going this route, considering dropping as well” not to mention the sundry snarky suggestions that somebody who is troubled by this is (as I have been called) a pharisee, hand wringer, smartass, narcisstic, undermining the prolife movement, etc. etc.

PS.  Re: attempt to claim that Just War doctrine applies here, please be aware that the principal reason JWD demands “competent authority” for declaration of war is precisely that when passions flare, every jackass with a gun starts to imagine (as John Brown did) that God was personally calling him to open fire on whoever said jackass decided was ‘the enemy’.  The demand for competent authority is precisely to limit our tendency to vigilante score settling.  Prolifers who loosely throw around appeals to Just War doctrine need to be aware that if they are going to be consistent, they need to face that fact the JWD is dead against vigilantism.  Yes, the state supports a grave injustice with abortion as it once supported the grave injustice of slavery.  John Brown was *still* a murdering butcher who got what he deserved, just as Jack Ruby did.

Nora:
Are you serious? The case in Philly, for example: how many people are now claiming something should have been done years ago!!! This man was flouting the law and they had him dead to rights and no one laid a glove on him. NOW, all of a sudden, everybody is going apoplectic; how did he get away with this all these years? Also, it is not entrapment. No one forced any of these people to make those statements about “looking the other way”; they did it of their own free will. Do you honestly believe these employees only did this just in this case?
The case of Abby Johnson is interesting. She is attesting to the veracity of these videos. Think she’ll be taken seriously? Think anything will change? Will there be any investigations?
As far as the priestly scandal, I agree; they should have been prosecuted. The media blared from the housetops but how many cases against “pedophile priests” were brought decades after, when people are dead or the memories failed? A good many priest has been tarnished — many of them dead or very aged. It’s awful hard to prove yourself innocent in this court of public opinion, especially when something happened 60 years ago in some cases. Where do you go to get your name cleared?

Ann Landall has correctly quoted the Catechism on the nuances of lying.
It would thus seem Lila Rose and Live Action’s work for life can be
perfectly justified.  It would seem that those who object so strenuously
against their behavoir are perhaps guilty of “being holier than the
church”. Mark, I don’t quite understand your point about abortion, the new morality, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world…are
you saying that in the minds of some anti-abortion zealots that the issue
of abortion supercedes all other issues? If so I would have to agree..if
the anti-life group don’t represent the most heinous group currently leading the “parade of sins” what would you suggest is more evil? Of course we digress from the central issue being argued here…but it is
am important factor in the over-all argument here ( and I am NOT suggesting that the ends justifies the means morally )that the Live Action
might justify their subterfuge with just those paragraphs Ann Landall quotes from the Catechism…pretty impossible to refute Live Action in the light of those paragraphs given.

My estimate is that “competent authority” for just war doctrine is a relative requirement *when* the formal state is continually obviously incompetent by failing to see the necessity to stop the slaughter. I agree that we avoid vigilantism per se but do not agree that non-state actors are all incompetent and like some you described. They do risk prosecution and that is a big part of their bravery. Laws that protect the slaughter are not valid laws.

To Mark (Shea),

I feel the weight of your arguments and have stated some of them myself previously at your blog and at the NCRegister blog (including the point about competent authority vs. vigilantism), but I am interested in this one specific point.  Above, you indicated that Pope Pius XII absolutely did not have fake baptismal certificates issued for Jews.

However, Kathy16670 provided a quote from Sr. Marchione’s book that directly contradicts that.  I’ll re-quote it directly below:

“It was Pope Pius XII who authorized false baptismal certificates to save Jewish lives. He also distributed visas for Jews to enter other countries, and ordered the superiors of convents and monasteries to open their doors and hide Jews and other victims of the Nazis and Fascists. Angelo Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) who also distributed many certifcates stated that all he was doing was following the Pope’s directives.”
http://www.sistermargherita.com/antidef.htm

I also attended a presentation made by Rabbi Eric Silver, who was given access to the Vatican archives.  And he stated the same thing.  He also indicated that he personally saw a letter comprised of a one-word response from the Vatican to a bishop who indicated that he had personally given out 20,000 false certificates of baptism.  The one word response?  “Bravo!”

Do you dispute the accuracy of these reports?  Or, if you accept their accuracy, how would you judge the actions of Pius XII and the Vatican?  Venially sinful?

Thirst:

When I speak of the moral theory that opposition to abortion takes away the sin of the world, I don’t mean that some people think abortion the most important moral issue.  I mean some people treat it as the only moral issue and imagine that, so long as you oppose abortion, any sin you might commit is forgiven for that reason.  So we see skank politicians excuse for supporting (and sometimes committing) serious sins because “He’s prolife, so we have to support him”.  Similarly, here, we are encountering the notion that you can lie, just so long as you lie for a prolife cause.  As to the CCC paragraphs Ann cites, these have been discussed at length.  Saying you don’t have to volunteer information to people with no right to it is *not* the same as saying you have to right to seek out and lie to anybody you deem a sinner.  The Catechism *also* says: “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.”  You’re not arguing with me.  You are arguing with the Catechism here.

William:  I use the term “incompetent” in a technical manner.  I don’t mean “bumbling” but simply “not authorized”.  I’m handy with a gun.  But I am not competent to use one to go around shooting people if they refuse to let me arrest them and lock them in my broom closet.  A policeman is “competent” to do that because he is authorized by the state to arrest and, if necessary, shoot people who resist arrest.

Franciscan:

You ask two question: First, did Pius fake the certificates?  William Doino says he didn’t (I quote him in my latest blog entry).  Others say he did.  Till that’s resolved, it’s a dubious precedent.

Second, do I think the sin venial if he did?  Emphatically yes.  What I don’t think is “It’s not a sin.”

Finally, I think the appeal to Pius (whatever he did) of extremely limited and highly dangerous utility in judging the question, “Should the prolife movement embrace consequentialism and lying as a central core of its identity and methodology?”  I think this is a disastrous approach and that it will only end in tears if prolife vigilantes decide God died set them loose to live by “Everybody does what is right in his own eyes.”

@Pat. My *sigh* was one of weary sadness, over years teaching adults theology and ethics, I have been delighted to refer them to NCR on hard issues such as torture because you have consistantly searched for what is faithful, not what is politically convenient. I *sighed* because as far as I can see the issue may have changed from torture to lies, but the arguments haven’t changed at all. St Thomas has worked this one through at length, nothing I have read suggests that he would give a different answer now.

I appreciate that my *sigh* was open to negative interpretation. I apologise if I allowed that to to be seen as a shot at you. On the other hand, you jumped fairly quickly to a snippy reply, assuming a lack of charity and character on my part. I guess that is one of the pitfalls of the com-box.

Thank you -  I was just curious how you would view the matter(s) and whether you had some irrefutable evidence that these reports were false.  I think you already understand this, but just to make it clearer for others, I have no intention of implying that the actions of Pius XII, the Vatican and the bishop mentioned above (issuing false baptismal certificates) provide some sort of blanket justification for lying for a good cause.  That would be a morally disastrous conclusion to reach.
 

My interest in these reports (Rabbi Silver and Sr. Marchione) primarily has to do with Jewish-Catholic relations, specifically in regard to what Pius XII and the Church did or did not do in order to help save Jews from the Nazis. 

I’m interested to read William Doino’s account because Sr. Marchione seems very credible and I spoke with Rabbi Silver personally about this.  Especially in the second example I mentioned (the letter from the bishop to the Vatican, in which the Vatican praised the bishop for issuing 20,000 false baptismal certificates), he said that he read it personally.

(Note -  my comment above was to Mark Shea).

Franciscan:

If so, you should contact Mr. Doino, because he’s aware of no such documentation and I’m sure would be interested for the sake of accuracy (either his own or the good Rabbi’s depending on who’s right).

Mark,

To be clear:

In the second case (the letter of praise to the bishop from the Vatican), Rabbi Silver did not indicate that *the Pope* personally responded “Bravo!”.  Rabbi Silver stated that it was someone else at the Vatican - a bishop or cardinal, I can’t recall for certain.  Nonetheless, still interesting.

In the first case (the Pope directly authorizing the baptismal certificates), I don’t recall whether the rabbi claimed to have personally seen written evidence or whether he simply stated it as a fact.

Perhaps I’ll mention this to both Mr. Doino and Rabbi Silver and invite them to discuss the issue.  I don’t have Sr. Marchione’s contact information, however.

A few more thoughts on this topic if I may…

It seems to me rather pointless to argue this point via the catechism.  If all deception is lying, which in the catechism’s short treatment on the subject, it would seem to be, then the case is closed.  All you are left with is an “ends justify the means” defense and that won’t fly.

However, just as not all killing is murder, perhaps not all deception is lying.  This distinction is not made in the catechism, there is no getting around that fact.  However, as I was trying say in my post, not all killing was murder before we had a just war theory.  Just because it has not been defined, doesn’t necessarily mean it is not true.

So I argue for this distinction.  I may be right or I may be wrong, but I argue this from the point of reason.  I believe this is a distinction that could be / should be defined.  But there is no arguing that it has not been defined yet.

@ Pat
Yes, exactly!  That is also the point being made by Steven Graydanus and many others over at Mark’s blog.

Steven listed this article by Jeffrey Minus titled “Is Lying Ever Right?”

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0809fea3.asp

@Franciscan
I would offer that Sister Margherita Marchione, Ph.D, is a leading scholar on the life of Pope Pius XII.  I would consider her a more competent authority, than your Rabbi friend.  (Certainly NO disrespect intended.)
To contact Sr. Marchione, go to:

http://www.themontfortacademy.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=67247&type=d&termREC;_ID=&pREC_ID=119716&hideMenu=1

There is a “Contact Us” link available there.

Here is statement about LiveAction’s methods from Fr. Frank Pavone’s blog:
    David says:
February 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
Thanks for your question, Jacqueline. Father Frank has actually commented about this precise matter before. In response to inquiries about the morality of Live Action’s approach (since it necessarily involves a degree of deception and dishonesty), Father stated that he is fully supportive of Live Action’s activities, since “every war needs spies.” Even though obviously the Catholic Church teaches that lying is a sin, Father Frank is basically of the opinion that exceptional measures are warranted when dealing with a matter as gravely evil as abortion (just as the use of spies is warranted in wartime – in both situations, the acquisition of information which would otherwise be impossible to obtain can result in the preservation of numerous lives).

From EWTN Q&A :
Dear Miguel
Theologians with whom we have consulted agree that LIVE ACTION film representatives are ACTING; they are investigative reporters who have identified real life victims and are presenting their stories in order to gain documented evidence on Planned Parenthood’s hidden agenda.

As far as we are concerned, this is not a sin; it is a tactic.

Judie Brown

Mark…thank you for explaining your moral theory that “opposition to abortion takes away the sin of the world”. While it is an interesting
opinion I would insist that this would not explain the motivation behind 99 and 44/100% of the pro-life force…not a consideration worthy of this debate. To say that one can committ any kind and number of sins as long as one is against abortion is totally ludicrous and certainly not widely held by many. I doubt that many pro-life people feel abortion is the only serious sin but many, if not all, feel
it is an evil so intrinsic and pandemic in our world, it is certainly one of the major battlefieds in our culture. We cannot know the real motivation behind Live Action but it would be a fair quess that their concerns might be in direct proportion to the enormity of this battle the culture faces. Again, in light of what the catechism states ( and it is not equivocal )there are perhaps times and circumstances when the truth may be un-disclosed or even shaded given the gravity of the situation. I think instead of acting as judge and jury here re LiveAction we should cut some slack and assume their intentions were the best ( intent is of course a huge part of sin )and felt for the greater good. That in itself not a defense of course ( smacks too much of the ends justifies the means) but the catechism clearly “makes allowances” while at the same time clearly stating that out and out lies are intrisically wrong. It would seem intent here should be more concentrated on whether what the Live Action did was truly sinful. We can argue this one until the “cows come home”...but in the end it is the Lord who sees this most clearly and will judge…let us see what fruits this produces…He did say by your fruits you will be known. Patience prevails…meanwhile thousands of innocents are murdered daily…how much does debate help to stem that? Very little I would say…action is needed on the battlefield! Prayer, such as the rosary, is our greatest weapon. Perhaps our energies might be more profitably spent doing just that! Also as an addendum to this whole argument/discussion…if something is intrinsically evil that means it is always evil to do…how then can we allow some killing, some lying, under certain circumstances? It would seem in all this debate the problem might lie in that usage of the word intrinsic here..some acts are intrinsically evil truly…for example abortion, which is a specific kind of killing…murder! To lie…to bear false witness..does not seem to be
quite the same….for we read in the catechism that some circumstances
that would be usually considered deceitful are not always such. Anyway,
the devil is the only winner here for while we are debating the “fine
points” of whether Live Action crossed the line and sinned…thousands
of abortions occur hourly in our world-wide culture of death! For which
of these sins will we be held more accountable?

@Pat Archbold: “However, just as not all killing is murder, perhaps not all deception is lying.  This distinction is not made in the catechism, there is no getting around that fact.”

Not exactly - the CCC DOES make the distinction: (2483) “lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”

Deception that does not intend to lead someone into error IS NOT LYING.

Choirloft (interesting name!!):

That phrase…“deception that does not intend to lead someone into
error” seems the key to this whole debate! Live Action is ultimately
trying to lead PP towards the truth….the truth about the dignity of
life…and expose the truth of this organization’s evil activities.
Thanks for sorting out from the catechism the one phrase that most
aptly applies to the debate of whether LiveAction acted w/o actually
committing a lie!!! Very clearly they did not, according to Catholic teaching, lie when filming these “interviews” inspite of what all the
pundits here believe.

I think we could say that LiveAction is NOT leading PP and employees into error but into the truth for PP et all are objectively in error already and need LiveActions work. Peace.

@ Kathy16670

My inclination is to believe Rabbi Silver and Sr. Marchione.  And fyi, Rabbi Silver wrote the forward to Sr. Marchione’s book on Pius XII.

Nora:
I disagree. The Gosnell case has everything to do with it. You keep talking about law enforcement being given evidence of shenanigans. Well, that was exactly done as you described and what was done by thats elf-same law enforcement? Not a darn thing.
According to Ms. Rose own web site, she HAS given evidence to the authorities and apparently they have taken action. So much for your “unsubstantiated charges.” Of course, she has an ax, to grind, so it’s irrelevent.
Abby Johnson has an “axe to grind” so to speak, so she cannot be trusted. If she cannot be, whom do you suggest would be to bring charges? You have set an impossible standard to live up to. Do you think she has a chance to be prosecuted? By making these claims, she opens herself to the possibility, does she not? So much for her “motives.”
Your comment on priests is very, very revealing. ALL priests have made this bed? Talk about a blanket accusation you CANNOT back up!!! Not every bishop was in on this, not every cardinal, not every priest and yet they ALL should lie in this bed.
Yet you have no sympathy. Where is YOUR chain of evidence to make such a claim?
Yet the very organization, PP, that you yourself describe in very unflattering terms — one wonders how you can make these claims based on your own arguments if we have no evidence of what is going on from “law enforcement” — whose purpose is to end the lives of babies, gets far more sympathy than the MANY priests who do not, did not and never will engage in the behavior of SOME priests.
Do you realize what abortion has done to that very law enforcement? Roe vs. Wade was a fraud — illegal — perpetrated on the Supreme Court. Norma McCorvey has stated so. Yet, the Supremes refuse to set it aside.
How many states either do not have parental notification for abortion or have had it set aside by courts — a school nurse cannot give an aspirin to a 13-year-old or she cannot have an appendectomy without parental APPROVAL but that same nurse can take her to an abortionist without their knowledge. Nor can a judge give approval for a tattoo but he/she CAN for an abortion.
Some states — like New York under Elliott Spitzer — tried to sue crisis pregnancy centers out of existence because they weren’t “telling the truth” about their services (a lie). Joe Scheidler and Pro-Life Action League — and some others — were sued for simply giving a burial to discarded babies from these clinics — a violation of the law and they had the evidence, the dead babies in the trash can! So much for law enforcement.
How many states have strict rules about health clinics, such as emergency equipment or cleanliness, that do not apply to abortion chambers? How many are trying or have passed laws allowing non-doctors to perform these surgeries (abortion is not the most desired specialty, apparently!)  but yet try to have a non-surgeon do one on a breast cancer victim and see where that gets you.
How about right-to-know laws that apply to every other procedure but abortion. Apparently, women don’t have the right to know what is going on and what could happen.
This is what abortion jurisprudence — it’s just another medical procedure between a woman and her doctor — has done to our law enforcement. Try making that claim when it comes to cancer and see how the “law” will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
Mark Shea made a comment about using established legal means to combat this, such as civil disobedience. Operation rescue comes to mind; look how they were brutalized. They had evidence and testimony of officers removing badges and treating objectors like vermin - broken arms, smashed fingers — and who got sued: protestors.
Let’s also face facts: no matter what pro-lifers do, they will never meet the approval of the lamestream press until they fall in love with abortion. Then, and ONLY then, will they be praised.
If law enforcement – courts, legislatures, police, etc.  — had done its job, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Abortion has distorted that much.

Well stated James!! I hope you are VERY active in your local and state
pro-life organization(s). We need smart and articulate as well as truly Catholic-informed people at the forefront of this battle! Join the action if you have not already done so. If people would put themselves where their “mouths” are the battle would be over and we would have won!!

@Franciscan

My inclination is to agree with you! :-)

I misunderstood Rabbi Silvers’ role.  Thanks
for the explanation.

Thirst:
Thanks. I have realized lately that I am not as involved as I KNOW I NEED to be but I am getting there; this is that important. I admit I don’t pray nearly enough as I should — yes, as Mr. Shea wrote, prayer, fasting and sacrifice are needed to expel this demon from our land. That also includes being politically active — motivated by the self-same triple of P, F and S.
I actually struggled to sleep last night thinking about this whole topic. I’ve been thinking about the Commandment “thou shalt not bear false witness”. Is it false witness what Ms. Rose was doing? I don’t think so. It seems to me she gave them an opportunity — unknown to them but still a chance – to flat-out state we don’t engage in these illegal acts, that we will report any illegal activity we even suspect — a 13-year-old coming in with an older man coming in for an abortion should signal bells and whistles in ANYONE’s head — but they did not do that. In fact, they were told to lie about things if asked. If they had told these actors the former, end of story with no story.
I wish the need for these kinds of interventions weren’t needed but I work in the media — sports — but I see the way the media shapes issues. When something like what Ms. Rose did catches someone THEY don’t like, the person(s) are hailed as heroes and trumpeted on all the talk shows. However, when it comes to issues they prefer like abortion, etc., the silence is deafening. In fact, they slice up the ones exposing the matters. Guaranteed, she will NEVER be on Oprah!!!
I do what I can in the limited scope of my work.

There are so many levels in the Live Action event:  The camera is making a true record of their deception so they can eventually show the whole truth.  This demonstrates that a commitment to truth is present in the midst of their actions. Their deception is not an enemy of the truth.  If I lie about my education in a job interview, I do not want the truth to come out. Evah (to use my favorite Aechboldism)

Secondly,:  Shakespeare said that all the world’s a stage .. How much more so now in our reality TV world.  The popes say that we do not impose, we propose;  we try to persuade.  The people we are trying to persuade live in and out of camera/video worlds all day long.

Also, there is this:  “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers…”
No there wasn’t and no, he didn’t.

I know this is late in the discussion but I would like to return to the issue of Rahab in the Old Testament (even though I wasn’t the original commenter about it) because I don’t think it was dealt with completely.  My children and I are reading through the Old Testament and have come across this issue in a few stories but Rahab’s is the strongest example.  Rahab outwardly lied to the soldiers of Jericho in order to save the Hebrew spies( Joshua 5:4-5)).  She did this because she believed in the power of their God (Joshua 5:11).  She was rewarded by God in that her and her family’s lives were spared.  There is no indication that she sinned (and in the cases of sinning in the Old Testament one was not usually rewarded so it is not ambiguous as to whether one has gone against God - wish it was so cut and dry today!).  She is treated as a hero in the Jewish history.  Now, one can argue that since she was not Jewish her conscience was not formed by the 10 Commandments and so she was not culpable for that lie.  Then there is the case of David’s wife, Michol, who lied to her father Saul in order to prevent Saul from killing David (1 Kings 19:17).  She was Jewish and knew the 10 Commandments and yet we do not see any retribution (or reward) but in reading the story one is led to believe she did the right thing (at least in my reading).  Now does the New Testament and the teachings of Christ (“let your yes mean yes and your no mean no”) totally trump these Old Testament readings?  Are these women wrong only in the light of Christ?  Or do these Old Testament readings have something to teach us?  I am curious in regards to the Lila Rose issue but also I am struggling with how to discuss these type of readings (which seem to justify lying or even brutal killing) to my children (all under the age of 10).

Pat wrote: “just as not all killing is murder, perhaps not all deception is lying.”

This is a true gray area. Impersonating a police officer is clearly evil deception. Faking a handoff in a football game is a perfectly acceptable deception.

As Pat points out (if I can word it myself) what constitutes non-lying (hence evil) deception could be and maybe should be defined.

In the meantime, maybe we should all mind our own business. Lila Rose and the other members of Live Action are personally responsible for their actions. If any one of us gets into a situation in which we think deception is morally right, then we can be personally responsible for our choice.

It’s not liable to be a Live Action scenario, however, since almost nobody has that much courage.

Last night while watching the debate between the two major parties over defunding PPF, I was astounded to see just how wide the partisan divide over this issue has become, and how manipulated it’s become by the boiler-backroom boyos n’ gals on both sides.

I was terribly disappointed to find no pro-Life Democrats breaking with their party by saying “NO, we won’t defend any funding to any organization that’s profiting from not only the taking of innocent human lives, but also contributing to the further economic woes of the crown jewel of the New Deal, the Social Security safetynet (including Medicare/aid.)” One Democrat, Rep. Speirer of California, a Catholic no less, admitted she had an abortion (“procedure” was her word) and inadvertently compared PPF to the controversial Haliburton Corp of not so great fame lately. And they all asked, “what does defunding PPF have to do with creating more jobs?”  Well, maybe they should ask that question some 16 years from now after the private sector has nixed any need to hire x amt of jobs because they weren’t needed due to the lack of workers.

On the GOP side, it would’ve helped greatly if some moderate (on other issues but strongly pro-Life) members got up and reminded the Democrats of the cost of their blindness to the overall greater and long-term benefit of the nation at large that defunding PPF through the Pence Amendment would’ve brought.

Last fall after the election, I became an Independent. No longer could I remain a Democrat because they’d for all intents and purposes frozen out any Democrat who was strongly Pro-Life, but also a stalwart on labor, environmental issues, and single payer health care (but REALLY minus tax-payer funding for abortions across the board, meaning no back-door funding to FOR PROFIT-STOCKHOLDER DIVIDEND PAYING OUTFITS LIKE PPF.

As for the GOP, I couldn’t belong to it again for its over-the-top embracement of economic policies that have enriched only a tiny portion of the population. Folks, when the economic “fiscal conservatives” use phrases like “trickle down,” take them at their word and ask them why they can defend just a trickle when so many other people are need of funding for legitimate social safety net programs such as community block development grants, low cost oil for the elderly, families in need, the disabled, etc. Speaking of the disabled, what do the Republicans have against agencies having nothing to do with abortion that they want to cut these fine agencies? WHOSE POCKETS ARE BEING LINED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE POOR? Moreover, how on God’s earth can any Catholic loyal to his/her Faith support a party that has a lot more of the filth of UNION BUSTING splattered all over its pin-stripped suits and shimmerin’ “power ties.”?

A pox on both houses, I said and if need be, I’ll form my own Christian Socialist Democratic Party of my own, a one-man band (lol) ... but at least I’ll be doing so in good conscience. (When I use “socialistic” I’m not referring to the old Red stuff, trust me on this because I’ve seen what that means having toured East Berlin twice as a military dependent during the early Sixties.

Social liberals’ lock’d arm alliance with PPF are leaving them like Lady MacBeth, never being able to wash the blood off her hands. Conservative’s alliances with Citizens United, the brothers Koch, Tea Party, and narrow-minded allegiances to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, et al leave them open to forever never being able to shake off Barney Frank’s apt quip that social conservatives love unborn fetuses, but don’t show much love for poor babies after they’re born.

And ANY association Lila Rose and her fellow travellers working their way up through the far right wing will bring nothing but unnecessary headaches for the vast number of non-political pro-Life activists. Wake and put these political users on the spot.

Want to really do a lot for the pro-Life movement? Just work to elect pro-Life pols who are truly pro-Life/pro-social justice across the board.

I was glad to see Chris Smith (R-NJ)actually describe a horrific abortion on CSPAN last night; but where’s his party when it comes to helping the people they’re trying to save?  I was heartened by the Democrats defense of the good parts of the Affordable Health Care Act (no more turning down due to pre-existing conditions, etc.), workers’ rights, Labor, public education, NPR/PBS, rapid transit, mass transit, infrastructure repairs (=JOBS)... but where’s their heart when it comes to the “least among us”?

Here’s a healthy alternate compromise and a nice way to chill out from the more tense means of saving lives without dropping out:

Pray hard and work hard to support EXPRESSEDLY NON-POLITICAL organizations such as Birthright

Nora:
One comment you made stands out and disturbs me. You distrust all priests. Why is this so? Since you make such emphases on law, where is the evidence to have this thought?

This is my latest thinking on the subject, for what it’s worth.
FIRST:
Are there instances in which a human being can legitimately employ deception against another human being? I’m certain the answer to this question is yes.
SECOND:
Is the deception which members of the civic organization Live Action have employed against the civic organization Planned Parenthood an instance of legitimate deception? This is the question we are trying to answer.
THIRD:
Has the Magisterium of the Church answered the above question? Clearly not, otherwise competent and orthodox Catholic philosophers like Peter Kreeft and Christopher Tollefsen would not disagree.
FOURTH:
Given no magisterial teaching and disagreement as to the correct answer, how should we respond? There should be charity between those who hold different positions. People are free to think either way. If you are involved with Live Action, you have to make a decision of conscience and you are responsible for what you decide.

If lying is *always* wrong, how does that interact with fairy tails, plays, movies, and well, all of fiction?  Is the delusional insane person leading a life of objective sin even if not subjectively guilty (a lie by some definitions)?  Is dreaming or daydreaming a form of lying to yourself as hatred is a form of murder?  What about bluffs in penny poker?  The more cited examples of undercover work, Nazis, and social compliments as well.

If people are selling that all these are lies, I’m not buying.

Having read with a lot of interest the back and forth arguments about the tactics used in exposing Planned Parenthood…I think that of Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life, nails it solid. Every war has its spies, and if we are not in a war against the Culture of Death, we should be.  This may involve a crisis of conscience for the individuals involved, just as being an undercover agent would for me, but that’s to work out with a qualified spiritual director. The action itself is spying, in dangerous enemy territory,and should be lauded as such!

Nora:
There is SOME evidence of abuse, cover-ups and such; no one disputes that.  No one disputes this didn’t go on and those who did are paying for it. The Pope has admitted to it. So what? Does that mean that ALL priests are now guilty until proven innocent — which is a difficult thing to do? Your conclusion is a pretty widespread and damning one that isn’t merited by the very facts you talk about. That is very disturbing. And yet you are willing to bend over backward to give PP EVERY break in the book when you yourself have written what a rotten bunch of liars they are; they are killing babies! Yet, apparently, Catholic priests don’t get such breaks; I don’t know of many Catholic priests who kill children these days and with all the scrutiny, I know of many priests that are afraid to even give a child a hug who might need one. This in no way is excusing what some of these “men” — and using that term to describe them is sickening to me — did; that was horrific and they should be punished. But to now say they are ALL guilty is a farce.

Nora,

It seems to that you are making the case for both sides of the same argument.

You state “I am willing to go after PP in a meaningful way. I’d like to see an independent, honest investigation of PP. “

Just how would you go after PP that would be meaningful, and honest?

Would you hire REAL pimps and prostitutes (and of course, they would have to actually have 13 and 14 year old girls that they are sex trafficing, so the evidence can be gathered without the real or percieved sin of lying.) 

Or

Would you use the testimony of former employees who finally saw the light, and left Murder, Inc?

The discussion here has centered around “if Lila Rose’s actions constituted lying in the strick sense as outlined in the CCC.” 
Your argument is one of legality, and motives.
Lila Rose/Live Action have done nothing illegal.  You accuse people of being “hate-mongers and attention-seekers .”  How do you know their motives?
I’d be careful, if I were you, as your post with all it’s acusations looks like a clear case of libel to me.
You really dislike Abby Johnston.  Got it.  Don’t really know what she has to do with our discussion here.  She supports the sting operation, but is not part of it. Abby Johnston has spoken publicly on this topic for at least 2 years.  If they were going to arrest her and take her away, they’d have done so by now.  I suspect just the opposite.  The law did not take her seriousely. 
The truth of the matter is that the law enforcement needed something substantial to start an investigation with.  Live Action GAVE THEM what they needed.  After the tapes were given to law enforcement, an investigation was started.
You said “When Lila Rose tampers with the audio on one tape; she undermines the credibility of the rest of her tapes as well as tapes made by other agencies.”
Please site your reference for Lila “tampering with the audio.” 
While I find your reference to Barney Frank very telling, I think you are missing the forest for the trees.
You said “If you want to get serious, if you really, seriously care about real, live people and this isn’t, as Barney Frank said, mere unborn-fetus-worship, then you have to be willing to sacrifice the big, splashy interviews and articles that include your glamour shot and do something truly meaningful.
The House representatives approved the amendment to cut all federal funding to the nation’s largest abortion provider based on Lila Rose/Live Action’s sting operation.  I would say that is truly meaningful.

If my memory serves me correctly, both Lila Rose and her consort ASKED QUESTIONS, never stating who they were, letting the abortion clinic worker assume what they will so anxious to get another piece of business. Asking for information is not a lie.

Nora:
I actually have been reading every word you have written to me. It is you who have not read a single word of mine. Do you honestly think there are no other “Dr.” Gosnell’s running around that have gotten away with this garbage for years? He laughed at these so-called “authorities.” Now, they are blaming it on racism, not abortion!!! In PA, for example, they didn’t investigate him with how many complaints against him FOR YEARS. Why? They exercise more oversight for a beauty parlor or nail salon. Remember, dead babies tell no tales. And maimed women — ever heard of Post-Abortion Syndrome, or is that just something someone made up? — don’t, either; they are so shamed by guilt that they don’t speak up. Many of them are, now; where are the stories in the media and the police? Where an honest and “objective” investigation going to come from? The media, which is supposed to b the watchdog press? The law? When they don’t even apply the law that covers every other medical procedure — which is ALL that abortion is made out to be — to this “procedure? When a 13-year-old, in far too many states, can’t get an aspirin or tattoo without parental APPROVAL, but a school nurse or someone else can take them to an abortion clinic or get a judge’s approval without even notifying the parents — but let something go wrong and who is going to have the pick up the pieces? What planet are you living on? Abortion has destroyed the law!!! Where is this investigation you keep referring to going to come from? And who are the ones that fight against ANY effort to actually try to have the oversight that Gosnell defied for years? I give you three guesses.
So anyone that is trying to do something is automatically a “fringe” person and can’t be trusted.
The fact that Abby is out there — as you write, incriminating herself — don’t you think that speaks volumes of what I have been writing about this so-called “independent” investigation you keep talking about? I hope the cops do come after her and she names names — do you think PP wants that?
As far as the Church, are you trying to tell me this “conspiracy” reached the top for decades and nothing was done? Are you serious? Where is your so-called evidence? Anecdotes, perhaps? Media stories?? Right, the media is DEFINITELY an objective source. That bishops were involved, yes. How many? Who really knows? Of course, how many people like SNAP and others are doing the very same thing you dislike about Abby Johnson and Ms. Rose and yet they are to be commended, etc., for exposing the truth.
At least you wrote “the crimes of the few”. A few too many, most definitely; one is too many. As one who was turned down as a candidate years ago for some very bush “excuses”, I take offense to ANY priest who does this heinous act and I hope they rot in jail. But I do not believe that every priest accused is guilty, nor do I think every person accusing is above suspicion, nor every lawyer who brings these cases truly cares about the truth.