Gilbert Magazine: we quarrel, you decide
When the pro-life organization Live Action conducted undercover sting operations in Planned Parenthood facilities last winter, it set off a storm of controversy — in the pro-life movement. While all applauded the exposure of Planned Parenthood’s inherently repugnant practices, some objected that Live Action’s tactics undermined the integrity of the pro-life movement. How divisive was it? For the first time since Gilbert Magazine began publishing unsigned editorials in 2003, our editorial board was too sharply divided to reach any sort of consensus.
To stave off violence and death threats, GM Publisher Dale Ahlquist sagely suggested that we write three editorials. GM contributing editor David Beresford was assigned to defend Live Action, I was assigned the rebuttal, with Dale himself batting cleanup. All three editorials, presented below, also will be in the March/April, 2011, issue of Gilbert Magazine, which went to press more than a week ago. Happy reading!
________________________________________
When can we lie? When the lie is not a lie
“Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control–these three alone will make a man a prig.”—G.K. Chesterton in Manalive
First, let us be clear, that we believe that it is always wrong to lie. But what we argue here is that there is a technical and colloquial meaning of the word, and that these are different things.
Recently, Live Action held a sting operation in which Planned Parenthood employees were caught on undercover camera providing advice on how to break the law and obtain abortions for minors. Once the videos were released, the workers were fired. But instead of simple moral outrage over the tactics of Planned Parenthood, a different controversy arose over the tactics of Live Action and when it is morally permissible to lie. Here at Gilbert Magazine we are going to add our voices to the confusion.
In The Catholic Church and Conversion, G.K. Chesterton defends what was then understood as the Catholic position on lying in these words:
…it was absurd to say that Catholics introduced a horrible sophistry of saying that a man might sometimes tell a lie, since every sane man knows he would tell a lie to save a child from Chinese torturers; that it missed the whole point, in this connection, to quote Ward’s phrase, “Make up your mind that you are justified in lying and then lie like a trooper,” for Ward’s argument was against equivocation or what people call Jesuitry. He meant, “When the child really is hiding in the cupboard and the Chinese torturers really are chasing him with red-hot pincers, then (and then only) be sure that you are right to deceive and do not hesitate to lie; but do not stoop to equivocate (our emphasis). Do not bother yourself to say, “The child is in a wooden house not far from here,” meaning the cupboard; but say the child is in Chiswick or Chimbora zoo, or anywhere you choose.”
“Do not stoop to equivocate” is the key point here. This paragraph, as far as we know, did not bring down the condemnation of the Catholic Church on Chesterton when he wrote it. (The book contains a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur.)
Chesterton makes the “do not stoop to equivocate” argument clear in The Man Who Was Thursday. Gabriel Syme is an undercover secret police spy. When questioned repeatedly, Syme denies that he is with the British police. Is his deception a lie?
The problem with many of the arguments that try to justify lying is that they come encumbered with emotionally charged situations in which some bad guys want to do unspeakably horrific things and a small evil must be created to do a great good. The person who insists on telling the truth at all costs is forced into a corner, and often becomes increasingly insistent to the degree that the temptation to tell a lie increases. This sort of moral gymnastics results in otherwise intelligent people criticizing the actions of Live Action in their fight against Planned Parenthood.
We reject this argument, and assert again that is always wrong to lie, but we do insist that we must know what a lie is. So, let us strip away the emotion, remove the heroism associated with refusing to lie even at the cost of great personal pain (usually someone else’s) so that the issue can be made clear.
Suppose, for example a four-year-old girl comes to her father and shows him a crayon drawing of a cow. “Look at my cow, Daddy! Isn’t it a good picture?”
What is the right response?
For literalist, truth-at-all-costs-and damn-the-consequences types, the situation is stripped of the heroic sacrifices associated with telling the strict truth, and reveals this position as that of a heel. “No, it is not good,” they must answer. And shame on them.
The equivocators among us may want to craft a clever response with a mental reservation: “It is a wonderful picture and the colors are so bright!” Congratulations, this verbal dexterity will allow one
to maintain self-respect and fool the small child in the process by dodging the question. But, this is no better than the previous answer.
There is only one morally right answer, one answer that does not sin against charity, against duty, and against innocence: “That is the best picture of a cow I have ever seen!”
This is the only answer that is not encumbered by “self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control.” We do not know if it is lying or not, by definition. We do know that in this case equivocating is a disgusting pose almost as despicable as answering that the picture is no good.
Where does that leave us? Where we have always been, with a profound faith in the common sense of ordinary people: the natural law written on men’s hearts. If mothers and fathers cannot rear children without daily having to choose between crushing a child’s heart or telling what some call lies, then lying has become a meaningless term. In the same way, if men of good will cannot save the lives of children without being accused of lying, then again, lying has become a meaningless term.
The right and wrong of this is clear according to the natural law written in every man’s heart. If theologians, philosophers, and moralists do not see it, then the love of truth is not in them.
—David Beresford, for the editorial board of Gilbert Magazine
________________________________________
A Lie is a Lie is a Lie
Whether Live Action resorted to lying in its stings last winter against Planned Parenthood can be dispensed with quickly. We know Live Action lied because its most ardent defenders say it did. If no less an authority than Peter Kreeft says Live Action lied, then we will take him at his word, and leave the equivocation and sophistry to others who wish to pretend otherwise.
In January, the pro-life group Live Action conducted undercover stings against numerous Planned Parenthood facilities, filming the stings with hidden cameras. In the videos, a man and a woman posing as a pimp and a prostitute gain access to Planned Parenthood clinics. In consultation with a Planned Parenthood worker, they seek advice on obtaining checkups for prostitutes, including underage prostitutes—said medical “care” to include contraception and, if necessary, abortions, all in violation of federal and state laws.
The videos, and the blithe complicity of Planned Parenthood employees in the unspeakably appalling evils of abortion and teen prostitution, are repugnant.
We do not doubt the sincerity of Live Action’s commitment to the pro-life cause. They are clearly trying to do good. Their end is laudable. But we cannot condone the means they use of getting at the truth. Since when do we use the tactics of the enemy to defeat the enemy?
How do Live Action’s supporters defend this? They turn to G.K. Chesterton. Yes, Chesterton. They point to a passage in The Catholic Church and Conversion in which Chesterton appears to defend lying “to save a child from Chinese torturers.” But in context, Chesterton’s purpose is to expose Protestant falsehoods—i.e., lies—about the Catholic Church, as well as to condemn equivocation—not because equivocation contains an element of truth, but because equivocation is far too close to lying.
But would Chesterton, in his life and in his massive body of work, stand for lying? In this false “Chesterton vs. the Church” dichotomy, we already see the corrosive effect of lying for a good cause—those who defend lying compromise the clarity of their thought and their relation to the truth, even the truths found in the writings of Chesterton.
Chesterton cherished the common sense of the common man. But he also knew that ordinary common sense could take one only so far, and that in a dilemma such as this, one must seek a higher authority: the Catholic Church.
What does the Catholic Church say? The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that Jesus denounced lying as the work of the devil. Furthermore:
A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means.
And finally:
By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity.
A failure in justice and charity. To our neighbor. Who is our neighbor? Like it or not, Planned Parenthood employees are our neighbor. Planned Parenthood is evil, yes, but its employees? Did Live Action ever wonder who they are, or even see them as people? The irony here is that they work at Planned Parenthood not because they are evil, but because, possibly, they have been lied to. How does Live Action help them by lying to them also? As Christians, it is our duty to be salt and light, to present these people with opportunities for virtue rather than opportunities for more evil. They have souls too, souls already in grave danger of eternal damnation. Should we be helping to send them to hell?
“We have to touch such men, not with a barge pole, but with a benediction,” Chesterton once wrote, speaking through Fr. Brown. Or as he wrote, also in The Catholic Church and Conversion, “We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong.”
Proof-texting Chesterton is one thing. Proof-texting the Bible is another, especially to defend lying. Yet some point to Bible passages as justification for lying in some instances. God rewards the Jewish midwives in Exodus, who had lied to Pharaoh, and James praises Rahab the Harlot. But for the proper interpretation of those texts, we appeal to St. Thomas Aquinas, who says these women were honored because they feared God, not because they lied. Also, James does not praise Rahab’s lie, but her faith. Beyond that, we urge people who think they can use Sacred Scripture to defend lying to take it up with the Holy Spirit, for the sakes of their own souls.
For those who think that we need to lie to defeat Planned Parenthood, there was another sting against them at the end of March. This time, Planned Parenthood’s claim that it needs federal funding because it provides mammograms to the poor was exposed as the lie it is. The sting? People simply called Planned Parenthood offices around the country to ask about mammograms, only to be told that Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms. The organization behind the sting? Live Action.
You do not have to lie to stop Planned Parenthood.
—Sean P. Dailey, for the editorial board of Gilbert Magazine
________________________________________
Truth
The Gilbert Magazine editorial began several years ago as an unsigned piece that represented the position of the editorial board. These essays were mostly written by individual members of the board and tinkered with by the others until a consensus could be reached. Lately, we have been printing signed pieces by different individuals, but these also continue to be written on behalf of and with the approval of the editorial board.
As you can tell from the two editorials presented in this issue, however, the board is not in agreement on the matter of the Live Action sting on Planned Parenthood. While all agree that the operations of Planned Parenthood are truly beneath contempt and deserve not only to be exposed but to be expunged, there is a fundamental disagreement about the undercover tactics used by Live Action to reveal the level of corruption within the walls of these clinics.
Activist James O’Keefe had great success with a similar hidden camera sting of ACORN that led to government defunding of that organization; there were many who hoped that the exposure of Planned Parenthood’s blatant disregard for the law would lead lawmakers to eliminate the huge public subsidies that have been poured into it. No such luck. Perhaps the saddest part of the story is that Planned Parenthood was not defunded but defended. Perhaps our debate in these pages is irrelevant: right or wrong, Live Action’s undercover work was apparently all for naught.
But as this is Chesterton’s magazine, it is our duty to explain G.K. Chesterton’s perspective on the matter.
To glean his opinion of current events, we have to find something that serves as a parallel from his time. Planned Parenthood has its roots in the Eugenics movement that Chesterton wrote about extensively. If we were to substitute the word “Abortionist” for “Eugenist” in the following passage, we could catch Chesterton’s chillingly accurate description of the extent of Planned Parenthood’s power and influence today:
Eugenists are not popular; but the Government of this country cares less and less for popular support. Eugenics cannot argue: but the decisions of [Congress] are less and less determined by argument, more and more determined by arrangement…The weakness of the Eugenic sect is an intellectual weakness. They do, indeed, go against a man’s moral conscience and almost against his physical instincts…But the excuse of the Eugenist is never clear, even as an excuse. The sacrifice of the Eugenist has no meaning even as a sacrifice. The strong standing paradox of their position is their peculiar power in government and their peculiar weaknessin discussion.
But how to topple the beast? How to expose not just his weakness but his filth? How to infiltrate his lair? Live Action did infiltrate Planned Parenthood and did expose its filth. “Good!” said the Pro-Lifers. But some added, “If only there had been a more truthful way to get at the truth.”
Chesterton is clear on one point for our discussion: equivocating is worse than lying. It is being honest in an attempt to deceive. This mental reservation Chesterton calls “Jesuitry.” There is, however, a form of deception, a role-playing, which, while unsavory, is distinct from lying. It is spying, and Chesterton admits that spying is a nasty business. But he also says that spying is one of the horrors of war. The fact that we are in a war should not be dismissed: it is the worst sort of war, for it is a civil war, a war without territory, a culture war: the logical result of what Chesterton calls “the interentanglement of modern civilization.”
It is also an information war. The good folks at Live Action have been reduced to spying in order to get information and convey that information to the world. At the very least they are investigating news that the media should be covering, or rather, uncovering. For this reason Live Action’s agents are despised as informers. Ironically, a journalist is supposed to inform. Instead an informer does. Chesterton observes, “A common informer may be paid if he tells the truth. A common journalist will be ruined if he does.”
But more importantly than doing what the Press is supposed to be doing, Live Action is doing what the police are supposed to be doing: uncovering crimes. Ultimately, it is a matter of taking justice into one’s own hand when the official branch of justice is apparently broken. And here Chesterton would applaud. Live Action represents the “honourable passions” of the public, though such passions may be undisciplined and such human judgments not always trustworthy. But, adds Chesterton, “It is enough to say that they are human judgments; in the sense that they are instinctive, ethical, and completely sincere. And it is enough to say the judgments in nearly all our Law Courts are inhuman judgments; not in the sense that they are cruel, but in the sense that they are cold, crushing, accidental, and meaningless.”
I do not think Chesterton would be drawn into our argument as it presently stands; rather he would draw us all out of it in order to see the bigger picture. He would offer an even more provocative perspective, inspiring us all to action, to bring the light of truth to a dark world and justice to those who are least able to defend themselves.
—Dale Ahlquist, for the editorial board of Gilbert Magazine
Hi Dale,
I had read Mark Shea’s own response and disagreement with Dr. Kreeft about the whole issue.(http://www.ncregister.com/blog/last-comments-on-lying-for-jesus/)
Kreeft was explaining the matter in which each person has the innate moral compass and tendency to do the right thing. In that, all the superficiality of legalism to be the only basis and dictated moral certitude of laws does not make it (those laws) the only exercise of what is right opposed to what is wrong (i.e. safeguarding the innocent and so forth.) So, if I’m not mistaken, the whole debate about Live Action was whether the truth (in defining what is a lie) was understood upon the same basis of authority of what is true, just, and what serves the greater-moral common good (for both sides.) Or, if there is disparity on the notion of truth between the Live Action and those who disagree (which begs the question: does this mean people may not abide on the same basis of authority and understanding of what is true, just, and what ultimately serves the greater moral common good?)
I think the latter is quite apparent and obvious to any observer. If you take the issue of King Henry VIII who tries to arbitrate truth and authority by way of parliament to declare him head of the Church, then you have someone who breaks away (quite deliberatley) from truth and justice (and hence the greater moral common good.) Also, (in A Man for All Seasons), Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) was asked by his daughter (when he was in the tower) to say one and think otherwise since God knows what is in his heart. Thus, each condition presents breaching with the truth and holding to a lie can be eternaly dangerous to Sir Thomas More, King, and country.
But, does this apply in all circumstances? Suppose you have morally corrupt authority seeking the whereabouts of someone and has the deliberate intent to do malice to the person, then you must beg the question of whether the perpetuator of danger has any idea or comprehension of the truth (justice and the greater moral good.) And in such a case, when there is a lie in telling the whereabouts of such a person in danger, you really don’t have adequate participation of the perpetuator (who has absolved themself of the truth) in dialogue telling the truth (or as Our Lord Himself has often said, “Do not lay pearl before swine.”)
Dale nimbly aced this argument, in my humble opinion.
Actually, Mr. Wohlstadter, Dale, all due respect and reverence toward my boss, quite nimbly danced around it. He said, in essence, “Desparate times call for desparate measures.” He did not say whether those desparate measures are in tune with Catholic moral teaching. He called the conflict a war, but he avoided the hard work of examining whether it met the Catholic definition of just war.
Dale concludes, “I do not think Chesterton would be drawn into our argument as it presently stands; rather he would draw us all out of it in order to see the bigger picture.”
Quite right. But what is the bigger picture? If you toggle up to my editorial, I have already brought us there — with Chesterton’s help. I wrote, “‘We have to touch such men, not with a barge pole, but with a benediction,’ Chesterton once wrote, speaking through Fr. Brown.” How much more could Live Action have accomplished, had it approached those Planned Parenthood workers with Christian charity in their hearts, rather than deception? They might have converted a soul. One soul. It’s not much, but it’s a start.
And that one soul could have led to another soul, and another, and over time dozens and hundreds and even thousands more.
THAT, not lying, is what I call a “more provocative perspective, inspiring us all to action, to bring the light of truth to a dark world and justice to those who are least able to defend themselves.”
Cheers,
Sean Dailey
I believe that lying is never permissible. I believe that participation in genocide is never permissible. I believe that, because of the imperfection of the human condition, there exist occasions where I must choose between one of two such impermissible alternatives. (Note that the Live Action performance doesn’t meet this test. They have the option of effecting change by sound argument using evidence already known. Therefore, I can’t support LA, but there are many other cases that do meet the standard I’ve mentioned.)
So, given the choice between “Lying for Jesus” and “Abetting Genocide for Jesus,” I’ll take the former.
Given the choice between being a “lying enabler” and a “genocide enabler”, again, I’ll take the former.
My point is that people who generalize this point of view by sarcasm “Lying for Jesus” or downright insult “Lying Enablers” are using arguments of CCC law extremely similar to those of the Pharisees – “How dare you cure this man on the Sabbath?”
First, Tom, here is the flaw in your analogy: The Pharisees classified something as a sin that was not really a sin. Jesus healing people on the Sabbath was not some sin that was somehow made okay be extreme circumstances. It was simply not a sin, period. Jesus was not a consequentialist.
Lying, on the other hand, always is a sin, even under extreme circumstances. Even if it is a small, venial sin committed in good faith by people with very good intentions, it still is a sin.
So it does not really work to compare lying for a good cause to Jesus healing on the Sabbath. The first is consequentialist reasoning. The second isn’t. Furthermore, for that analogy to work, you would have to explain how Jesus, who was alike us in all things save sin, could ever himself sin, or at least countenance it. Have fun.
Second, while you are right to acknowledge the “imperfection of the human condition,” you should not focus on it so much that you exclude the mercy of God. In flawed human imaginations, in flawed abstract “What if” scenarios, there may seem to be only two choices, the evil choice, and the lesser evil. But God never wants us to have to choose evil, even a lesser evil. He, in his mercy, will never allow us to be in a situation where the only choices are evil, and no matter which one we pick, we will still sin. If you think the only choices available to you are to either lie to Nazis or to let innocent Jews die, then you need two things: (1) more faith and (2), to learn how to hide Jews better. But especially you need more faith.
Cheers,
Sean Dailey
So what was Oskar Schindler to do with the Jews he employed? That was a real world situation, not imagined. If he remained silent, or told the truth, the Jews died. If he lies (which is what he did), they live.
There was no way to deceive in this instance. Either the Jews were essential to his work, and could not be replaced by more “desirable” Germans, or they weren’t. In fact they weren’t. Schindler lied, and the Jews lived.
With all due respect – it is your thinking that is flawed. It wasn’t God who put Schindler in the untenable position – it was the Nazis who did so. Thus, Schindler’s action was not consequentialism, but a choice between the evil of genocide and the evil of lying. He preferred to be a “lying enabler” rather than a genocide enabler.
I don’t always agree with Sean, but this time I think he’s absolutely right. It’s one thing to go into PP and ask questions about what services are provided, it’s another to attempt to set up a sting operation. The ends don’t justify the means.
Perhaps people should try reading moral theology manuals published in previous centuries. They might find the Church has actually spoken to these arguments already. I’m saddened that people like Peter Kreeft and Janet Smith don’t seem to be familiar with either those arguments or the CCC.
Thank you, Tom, for responding to my arguments with a complete red herring. But never mind. I have seen the movie Schindler’s List, and read the book. While it has been many years, I cannot recall any instances where Oskar Schindler lied. He got by with bribes – another matter entirely – not lies (as well as I can recall). Schindler started out a war profiteer, benefitting, as did all such men, from Jewish slave labor. Everything was on the up-and-up and completely legal: a legal business, legitimate contracts to provide enamel cookware to the German army, legitimate (not forged) work permits, and so on. As time went on and he developed real compassion for the Jews, he resorted to more bribes to keep them out of Auschwitz.
I do not see how his story has anything at all to do with the issue at hand.
Schindler was required to fill out forms that stated the Jews were either essential to his work and that such work could not be performed by more desirable Germans. He did so, and augmented the lie with the bribes you speak of. I’m glad you like the reality of movies.
In any case, the scenario is a real one, not a red herring. Your argument indicats to me that you don’t trust in a God of the living, except in the afterlife, and you defy your own reason, intellect, and most importantly conscience in order to follow the moral law, which I thoroughly admit is true. In Eden, the situation would never arise. Man often puts man in untenable situations. It is up to our consciences to resolve the situation when it occurs.
We are where we are. You call me a “lying enabler” with no faith. I am no more a faithless “lying enabler” than you are a “genocide enabler,” but, if your God encourages name calling and sarcasm, by all means, exercise your conscience and have at it. I’ll value your argument accordingly. I am a Catholic of good faith, and I believe that God gave me intellect, reason, and conscience to help me differentiate right from wrong in light of the human condition.
I did not call you anything. “Lying enabler” is your term, not mine. And if you make false accusations against me or any other commenter, I will not approve your comments.
I humbly apologize – I’m so used to hearing the terms “lying enabler” and “Lying for Jesus” that I made the assumption you accepted such terms. This was indeed an error, on my part, that I hope you will forgive.
Of course! No harm done.
I hate to be pedantic, but I said “God gave me intellect, reason, and conscience” and left out “scripture, encyclicals, and the CCC.” Of course, by conscience, I meant that an informed conscience must make use of all such material. I can’t just say, “My intellect, reason, and conscience back me up on this.” I hope that’s a given.
The philosopher wants us to define our terms. What do we mean by lying. It seems that there is a consensus that Live Action lied. But What do we mean by the word?
It cannot mean simply saying something that is not true, because actors would therefore be horrible liars.
There are a few common definitions that would open the question of whether Live Action lied at all. I reserve any judgment on the debate here until we have an acceptable definition of a Lie to work with.
The Definition I was taught was as a child is, “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.”
I would not presume to demand this definition. And I know that there are many more that the Fathers have given.
But I will go so far as to say, If Live Action lied, than it was an unacceptable act. No lie can be acceptable because no sin can be acceptable.
Though how can I know that they lied, until we agree what a lie is?
I should mention that I think all three editorials were well thought, but I agree with Sean (given the assumption that Live Action lied.) It is this last judgment that I reserve.
@Daniel Collins:
Darn you! That was the next step – ie “What is the value of the CCC in light of the fact that the current edition leaves out the “someone who has the right to know the truth?”.
Clearly, the CCC is a definitive teaching. The current argument, as I understand it, is that the current edition “clarified” the previous edition by leaving those words out. My take it on it is that the words were left out because it’s a given! That is not a popular view at the National Catholic Register, where the claim seems to be that the clarification means that everyone has a right to know the truth. To me, that implies that the former edition is in error, which cannot be.
Those who prima facie reject the truth (eg – I want to kill Jews – tell me where they are) don’t, in fact, have a right to the truth. How can you lie to someone who doesn’t accept truth to begin with?
I’d like, if i may, to interlope into this engaging conversation!
First, I’d be interesting in probing for further discussion the leading remark by GK Student in this post, but I’m afraid I’m not even certain how to approach it just yet because I’m not quite sure I understand. In any case, I think we’re in error if we equate the absence of the right to the truth in a particular case (such as exists in the examples you give) with the permission to lie in order to safeguard that truth.
Second, to address the ongoing dispute between Mr. Richard and Mr. Dailey. I think the Schindler example a fascinating one, and indeed not a red herring, but in fact a very germane example of equivocation. I saw the movie a long time ago, so I’m drawing most of what’s germane to the point here from the synopsis of his work offered by Mr. Richard above. But when it is argued that, “Schindler was required to fill out forms that stated the Jews were either essential to his work and that such work could not be performed by more desirable Germans,” I don’t think it follows that we can call this a lie prima facie. This is the real bone of contention in the whole Live Action debate, isn’t it? Is this a lie or something else? In Schindler’s case, I think it could still be argued that, inasmuch as his *real* purpose was to save those Jews, they *were* essential to him for that purpose, and so he told not lie to the Germans when he filled out the forms. Of course, this would be a classic example of the broad mental reservation, which Catholic doctrine has long held to be permissible and has sometimes been called “equivocation” (which is problematic, as that term seems to conflate broad and strict mental reservations, the latter of which is condemned by the Church).
In any event, if this distinction is not allowed, and if we could really imagine an “either-or” where we must sin in order to prevent a gross evil coming about, even if the sin seems a smaller matter – I would argue that we do nothing. If our only choice really is to sin or do nothing, then doing nothing is no sin, but the avoidance of sin itself. That becomes the object of the act of abstention, which precludes the possibility of it being a “sin of omission.” It’s important to remember that the true stakes in these situations are often unseen: no amount of physical evil can be used to justify or to argue in favor of the evil of sin which is in the spiritual realm and is potentially infinite in scope.
Doing nothing, or abstention, in Schindler’s case, constitutes material participation in genocide. It is a sin to stand idly by when your brother is being wronged and it is within your power to stop the wrongdoing. Now, I fully admit that is a dangerous slope, because, as I’ve said before, it’s an examination of conscience issue with respect to consequentialism, which is never permissible. Are you faced with two untenable positions, or is there a truthful way out? I don’t see the way out in Schindler’s case, and, therefore, I don’t view his decision as consequentialist. I view it as a conscientious decision enforced upon him by agents of Satan who are reductive of the human condition vis a vis the intent of God.
I see that you agree with this, so you call his answer on the form not a lie. To me, that is a form of sophistry, for he has provided his name to what Newman calls “the material lie.” There’s the rub – at what point does the material lie become sinful when spoken to those who don’t accept truth to begin with?
First, @Tom Richards: I don’t think you can find an analogue in moral theology to suggest that a case may be presented where deliberately choosing an evil is the only just recourse and that inaction in this event would be tantamount to sin or evil in and of itself. For one thing, this is because, in the case of sins of omission, there is always a positive *good* being passed up. If I may justly help someone (or a whole race of people) I must do so. But if my doing so is itself an injustice, I may not do so. I may never do evil so that good may come of it. This is not sophistry, it is just sophisticated moral doctrine – and thank God we have the work of reputable moral theologians over centuries, like Alphonsus Liguori, to testify to the fact. But the way, it is he whom so finely worked out the theology behind mental reservations which I’ve suggested as a defense of Schindler’s action. I don’t take lightly Newman’s critique; but only one of them is, as yet, a Doctor of the Church. And, furthermore, a Doctor of the Church primarily recognized for his contributions to the field of moral theology.
Second, @Daniel Collins & @Tom Richards: the Catechism in its reissue does not entirely leave out the notion which you quote above (i.e., the traditional notion that a “right to the truth” is part of the question surrounding the morality of lying); the theologians simply moved it to where it is more germane: the next section, having to do with “Respect for the Truth.” This comes after the “negative” section on offenses against truth.
Here, in para. 2489, we read: “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.”
This is important to observe because I think it ups the ante of the challenge for those who would argue that a right to the truth is prerequisite to a person’s ability to be lied to. The Catechism in this section (Section III of Article 8 under the Commandments) in every paragraph makes reference to the various recourses *other* than lying which people *should* use to protect the truth. So you must not only read around the rather clear condemnation of lying in the whole foregoing section, but also come up with a way of reasoning around this positive pastoral advice that seems so explicit in spelling out the positive obligation to safeguard the truth without condoning lying.
Third, @Whoever Happens Still to be Reading: I don’t know precisely how we’re working out this logic to determine that someone who is obstinate or invincibly ignorant to the truth, or morally set against it, or whatever else (i.e., the type of person who has forsaken his or her right to the truth) is thereby incapable of being told a lie. As far as I can see, this might imply that the person is incapable of being told the TRUTH – such as, for example, someone who would extract from a priest the secrets revealed in a confessional. To such a person it may be impossible to convey the truth, yes; but this by no means implies the contrary that it is also impossible to lie to that person. That’s not how the square of opposition in logic works, to my recollection. I could conceive of all kinds of ways one could lie to such a one, although there be no ways on could tell him the truth. In such cases, it seems that silence or a discrete diversion is the only way.
@Joey G:
If you believe that “I don’t think you can find an analogue in moral theology to suggest that a case may be presented where deliberately choosing an evil is the only just recourse and that inaction in this event would be tantamount to sin or evil in and of itself,” then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I believe I just presented such an analogue. I believe, in the case of a government that supports genocide, abstention, or inaction, constitutes material participation in that genocide.
Humans often put each other in situations that God would never deem permissible. Bad things do happen to good people at the hands of others. It is never God who forces the choice between one evil or another. I believe that is why Veritatis Splendor discusses the crucial importance of conscience in the exercise of daily life. (Note: I am not implying that VS supports lying – it most certainly does not – the point is that it discusses the value of conscience, which I am applying to a particular human situation.)
Thanks for the discussion.
First, an overview. The entire case against “lying for a good cause” comes from the magisterium of the Catholic Church and nowhere else. As Peter Kreeft points out, our common sense tells us to go ahead and lie when it’s convenient. As Tom Richard points out, our moral indignation tells us to lie in order to save ourselves or others from suffering. However, contrarty to both our common sense and our moral indignation, the teachings of the Church are quite clear that one must never lie, not even to do good; and that lying is telling a falsehood to lead someone into error. This is counter-intuitive; but so is “love your enemies”, so is “lose your life to gain it”, so is “blessed are the poor”. Ours is not a faith without Surprise, as Chesterton would tell us.
That having been said, there are only two ways for Lying Apologists to defend “lying for a good cause”.
1. Claim that the act they are defending is not lying.
2. Ignore the teaching authority of the Church or somehow discredit it.
I have found that Lying Apologists hop from one plank to the other, as suits them.
Also, I have been in the middle of this debate from the beginning, and my blog post here http://thwordinc.blogspot.com/2011/03/alarms-and-violent-decisions.html will give you the whole background and the upshot of where this all leads.
Now, to reply to some of the above comments (though Sean is doing just fine without my help).
GK Student, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Daniel, the definition you were taught as a kid is not the true and current teaching of the Church. If we start asking who has a right to the truth, we’ll convince ourselves that no one does, and so we’ll start lying to everybody. Look up Lying in the Catechism.
Tom Richard, you continue to argue the common sense position that we must commit small sins to avoid suffering ourselves or to save others from suffering. But St. Paul tells us, “Do not be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”
As to being a Pharisee, I am pointing out what the Church (i.e. Jesus) clearly and simply teaches. Lying Apologists, on the other hands, have been twisting Scritpure and turning sommersaults through the Catechism and building elaborate systems in order to condone lying. Which tactic sounds Pharisaic to you?
I am glad that Sean Dailey, senior editor of “Gilbert”, saw the light on this issue. He was, at first, in the pro-lying camp, but studied and prayed and ended up writing the one editorial that argues cogently from evidence, and that saves our magazine from the degrading slavery of being a child of the age.
As Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said, God does not want us to be successful, but to be faithful. The illusion of success given us by these shady tactics of deceit must never be allowed to compromise our commitment to the Faith.
Or our commitment to Him Who is Truth.
Thank you everyone for saying what I was taught was either right or wrong. The fact is that, I gave up believing what I was taught growing up a long time ago, and no one has answered my question.
.
I do not care what definition we use for the word ‘Lie’ that fact is that we are debating a point that has still yet to be defined within this argument. I do not even want to use the one I mentioned, I simply want to use one, so that we can actually discuss the issue.
I’m sorry if i was unclear, I only gave the one definition to begin the decision of what definition to use.
Acknowledging the value of conscience in light of the human condition makes me no more of a “lying apologist” than not doing so makes you a “genocide apologist.” The fact that you feel the need to use such terms is indicative of the value of your argument. But enough. I’ve discussed this issue with my confessor, and he agrees that my position is sound. Currently, I have written a letter to Archbishop Carlson that requests his assistance on determining whether or not I may believe as I do. Rather than continue listening to what I consider to be sarcastic and derisive name calling “in the name of Jesus”, I’ll await (and accept) his response.
Daniel, “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” Satisfied? Instead of griping that nobody’s answering your question, read what the Catchesim says about lying here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm .
Tom, I admit that “lying for Jesus” is rather rude, so I’ve begun to call the issue “lying for a good cause”. And I have no idea what to call those who argue in favor of “lying for a good cause” besides “Lying Apologists”. If you can think of another description for those who are defending “lying for a good cause”, please suggest it. You know I don’t mean to offend you; I’m trying to argue a point here, not use ad hominems or attack people personally. I’m arguing an idea, not attacking people. I hope Archbishop Carlson responds to you.
Kevin,
I have always been, and will always be, your friend, no matter where this goes. I know your intentions are good. However, I must object to your terminology. After all, I could easily take the position that preferring genocide to lying makes you a “genocide apologist.” We both know that is not true, just as you should know that I am not a “lying apologist.”
Ah, America. the magical land where there are only two solutions to every problem.
Sean, I never called him a genocide apologist. In fact, I emphatically said that “we both know that is not true.” I did use the term as an example of how ludicrous it is to apply a label of your own choice to someone who disagrees with you.
For someone who was so upset with me for saying that he used the term lying enabler, and received an immediate apology from me for accusing him of doing so, I must say your post surprises me.
Fixed it. Apologies.
Sean,
As to your continued insistence that my examples have no basis in the real world, I offer you the words of St. Augustine:
****
We should deter, even by our sins, those assaults which are perpetrated upon a human being so that he is defiled, and whatever is done for this purpose, namely, to prevent uncleanness, should not be called sin. For, that is not a sin which happens in such a way that one would be justly blamed if it were not done . . . . There would be no sin if action were taken to avoid the defilement. Therefore, whoever has lied in order to avoid such situations does not sin.
Tom,
I’m open to more neutral terminology. I’m willing to chuck “Lying Apologist” if the other side is willing to chuck “Pharisee”. But either way, we need labels for the following:
1. Those who argue that lying is justifiable in certain circumstances.
2. Those who argue that lying is never justifiable.
3. Those who claim that lying can not be defined, and that no concrete act can be said to be a lie.
I really have no idea how to refer to each of these camps in a clear short way without being offensive. I am open to suggestions.
1. Lying for Jesus.
2. Pharisees.
3. Hoosiers.
@Kevin O’Brien – I had just read the issue (at the time I had made the statement), tried to cram it all together, and defend the point of Peter Kreeft (along with posing a few questions.) So, my assessment and presentation was poorly done. In the meantime, I have completely read Mark Shea’s response and found there really isn’t a difference as much as people try to make out of it.
First, Peter Kreeft has correctly demonstrated the obvious moral tendency (to do the right thing) common to each person. And, those laws with consideration to judge such a moral tendency should not negate nor work contrary to people defending the innocent or those vulnerable to an injustice.
Second, Mark Shea did correctly clarify the definition and moral teaching behind the Catechism (in defining a lie) whereby he could direct attention to the “moral heresy” (Mark Shea’s comments) of consequentialism (which appears to be the parallel problem of legalism – Dr. Kreeft’s critique.) In fact, a comparison between consequentialism and legalism work’s like this: if it’s a right to lie to do what is morally good (consequentialism), then why should it not be a right for organizations like PP to operate as long as it’s acceptable in law and the ultimate purpose of getting rid of poverty (legalism)?
Finally in a final introspection of both arguments, the problem appears to be with the lone-view (the view absent of legal consenus) of those (like LA) who oppose the legality given to PP without jeopardizing the laws of state (which a lie can do.)
GK Student,
If you’re saying that consequentialism (the doctrine that end justifies the means) means both
1. Lying for a good cause is OK
and
2. Abortion for the reduction of poverty is OK
you are of course 100% correct. This is why consequentialism is condemned by the Church. If the end justifies the means, then I may lie to oppose Planned Parenthood and they may abort to end poverty.
(I am NOT saying lying is as serious a sin as abortion. Abortion is far worse, clearly. But the principle remains.)
And we Pharisees oppose you Lying for Jesus Freaks and we refuse to debate you hoosiers. How’s that, Sean?
Works for me, Kevin!
@Kevin O’Brian – Yes.
Iscariot gave up Christ (the Truth) with a kiss (simple as telling a lie) around the same time Christ said to St. Peter, “Those who live by the sword shall die bye the sword.” So, people who lie can kiss the truth good-bye and forget those who live by legalism will also fall under legalism.
I means consequentialism rather than legalism (in the above statement.)
Kevin, I’m sorry if I seemed “griping.” I know what the Catechism says. I know what Aquinas says, I know what Augustine says, I know what Kreeft says, I know what my pastor says, I know what I say, I now know what you say, but I don’t know what this forum says. How can I join an argument when I do not know what Tom mean by the word or what Sean means.
Consider two men debating the color of the sky. If one man thinks ‘sky’ means the thing we walk on, and the other thinks it means the thing above our head, they will never agree.
I see the very same kind of argument that happens on the internet all of the time- Between two groups who seem to disagree, and who cannot be reconciled. I imagine that there is a difference at theology at the heart of this, but we will never get to the heart of it, if both factions insist on shouting the word LIE, without any idea what they are talking about.
I do not mean to seem rude or “Griping.” My only desire is to include myself in the actual debate, but I cannot until we have universally defined our terms. Remember this is Chesterton’s Website, and we are talking about editorials in Gilbert Magazine. Do you think GK would let his opponent debate him with faulty definitions.
Kevin, consider your very own reenactment of the Darrow debate on ACS. You told the audience that G had a literal interpretation of Genesis because he was a Christian. Did Gilbert simply let that faulty definition of himself slide by. NO. Would Chesterton demand that everyone agree about what they disagree about. YES.
Obviously the Internet is not the best forum for the kind of debate that I want. It seems impossible that everyone involved will pull out of the debate, even for a second, in order unilaterally agree EXACTLY what we are talking about. Compared to the great intellects on this forum I am nothing, so I do not presume to ask any of you to accommodate the simple wished of a young “wannabe” philosopher, So I suppose that I must keep my peace on this subject, as firmly as St Thomas Moore, unless I feel able to include myself.
I am just slow…..we are thirty seven posts in, and I am on still on step one.
Daniel,
You’re not slow and even if you are, you’re still welcome to debate this with us.
The reason I seemed a bit impatient with you, is it’s quite obvious what lying is. The Catechims quotes St. Augustine: “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”
That’s it. It’s simple.
Now, there are those who say the Live Action actors were not trying to deceive (though clearly they were), or that they were “play acting” or “pretending” (a dodge, since pretense does not aim to deceive, and deception was the intent here); and after a while they’ll say, “Well, OK, it’s lying, but it’s for a good cause,” and then they’ll switch back to saying, “Well, how can we know if this behavior is really lying after all? Hmmm?”
I didn’t mean to impune your intelligence. I’m just wary about those who wring their hands and say, “How can we ever know what lying really is, after all? When I tell my little girl I love her drawing, is that lying? Oh, what a quandry!”
So no hard feelings, I hope, and please continue to join the discussion.
@Tom Richards, regarding our earlier debate/discussion: I agree wholeheartedly with the reasoning involved in the quotation from Augustine that you cite against Sean, but I don’t think we’re in stasis of argument here. Effectively, what Augustine is arguing for – in my reading – is a rudimentary form of double-effect. His language is underdeveloped on this point, theologically, and I don’t think I’m too bold to say so: a logical analysis of the first sentence finds a contradiction between the clause “even by our sins” and the final evaluation that the actions of which he is speaking “shouldn’t be called sin.” If you boil it down it’s kind of a tautology: what would seem to be a sin, when it’s not a sin, isn’t a sin. I can buy that. Thus, when an ectopic pregnancy is solved by the removal of organs which result in the abortion of the fetus, the sin of abortion has not been committed: the evil has been allowed, not chosen, and is a regrettable result of a good that is done. I have dealt elsewhere with whether I think double-effect can apply to the case of Live Action, and will happily give you the link. Here is only want to reiterate that Augustine takes pain to say that he is *not* talking about “sinning” but only what would seem to be sinning. In fact, in his treatises on lying, he makes very similar arguments for when misleading another might be justified.
In support of my own argument, I would offer this quotation from John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor. It comes in paragraph 52: “… the fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandments. The reason is this: the commandment of love of God and neighbour does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken. Furthermore, what must be done in any given situation depends on the circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen; on the other hand there are kinds of behaviour which can never, in any situation, be a proper response — a response which is in conformity with the dignity of the person. Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil. The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments.” I would emphasize, along with John Paul II, the weight of the last two sentences.
@Daniel Collins, please, stay with us! We’re all of us probably pretending to knowledge above our ranks and pay-grades here, but we may all still reason together as men and women of good will!
What you were taught as a child, I would argue, is still fundamentally true. As I pointed out, the notion of there being a “right to the truth” corresponding to a situation of truth-telling in morality is still preserved in the Catechism. The difference in the way the definition is now given is that this clause has been removed in order to be situated in the place where is belongs properly: to the positive obligation to truth, rather than the negative implications of the commandment not to bear false witness.
In any case, I think we would all agree here that the definition from Augustine, which Aquinas affirmed, is still valid: “Enuntiationem falsam cum voluntate ad fallendum prolatam manifestum est esse mendacium” – “It is a manifest that a lie is uttering a falsehood with the will to lead into error.”
So, upon the definition, I think we are all agreed. The questions that enter into the debate to complicate it, then, have been usefully enumerated by Kevin. It is urged variously that:
(1) Lying, so defined, may not always be wrong – even though the Catechism seems to say it is.
(2) Lying is not an intrinsically disordered moral action and thus may be so impacted by the remote intention of the person deceiving that the act is not a sin.
(3) The good consequences deriving from lying may outweigh the negative consequences and thus justify the lie; it may, indeed, in some circumstances, be the right thing – or the only thing – to do.
(4) What Live Action did is not a lie in any case.
(5) Or, contrary to all of the above, one may never lie, for any reasons, and that is what Live Action did.
I think, anyway, that this is a correct taxonomy of the positions held in the debate as I’ve followed it. If you still think we’re stuck upon the point of the definition we may return to it. But I would suggest that it is not the definition in its abstract parts that addles the debate, but rather its application. So we know what a lie is deductively; but we do not agree, inductively as it were, what is a lie. That is, the disagreement seems to fit in when we try to analyze specific actions according to the definition.
I would only add here that this project – of analyzing actions in a case-study sort of way – is not unbecoming of Christians nor is it a kind of “judgment” that should be reserved to confessors and Saints already victorious. Rather, it is prudent consideration for the pro-life movement in deciding what kind of action we may justifiably take in the future. And no one that I have seen has suggested that Lila Rose and her friends at Live Action are *guilty of sin.” That’s precisely the level of evaluation to which we cannot rise, since we can’t judge the heart of individuals.
@Daniel Collins – The problem with lying for the sake of drawing out or getting spoken evidence (i.e. in the case of LA getting the admission or confession of a crime) avoids the real purpose of justice and leads to the habit of equivocating the definition of a lie for the purpose of justifying methods of getting an un-intended confession or evidence (a confession/evidence not willingly given to those [LA] whom it would be otherwise avoided), which is plainly wrong. Why? Because, the enticement to commit a crime (by those who entice the idea, action, and conviction even under the conviction themselves to do no such thing) is collaborating the very incentive into the person’s very heart and soul (carrying on the very imprint of criminal behavior and temperament into the person’s will [even for a temporary moment.]) And as such, here begins the error of changing definitions (equivocating) for the sake of lawfulness along with the failure of preventing the very same for which criminal’s hold (the foundation of moral relativism [which is moral subjectivism]: i.e. there is your truth; and there is my truth.) So, the subjectivist appeal (the foundation of moral relativism, the equivocation of definitions, the heresy of consequentlialism, and the mis-use of legalism) is completely held by those who feel entitled to it for legal purposes without considering the case/faulty-foundation is really being made for the criminal.
Is it so clear Kevin? The whole argument in the very first article was that there are two meanings of the word, but I will concede the point for sake of progress on my part.
JoeyG, I think Socrates would disagree with you on definitions in the abstract obscuring the point, but I digress.
As for my opinion of the operation of Live Action, I think the were erroneous. They were morally unsound. They degraded the moral standing of the Prolife Movement. They did something sinful, and may have possibly sinned.
The consequential-ist argument holds no water here(despite any objective moral deficiencies of it) because the lie had little good effects and many bad effects (namely an opportunity for the Anti Life movement to charge us with Deceit.)
I know we are avoiding the term, but the phrase Lying for Jesus is more than a paradox, it is a contradiction in terms, like jumbo shrimp.
When we lie to promote our cause as pro-life members, we use the same tools as the abortionists. They lie to the women who come to them and to the public at large. I will never condone any one in our camp stooping to their level.
I can think of no time when telling an outright lie can be condoned. Do you have any faith in God’s omnipotence at all. Why use the feeble weapons of Satan- The Father of Lies, when the Truth is God Almighty’s. Do you doubt that God could crush Planned Parenthood, if we only had the conviction to ask him.
There is more power in one Mass than in all of the LIVE ACTION sting operations put together. The members of that organization would have accomplished more good with a single Our Father, than with their lies.
Even if I were hiding Jews in Germany, I would not lie. I may play Thomas Moore or use legitimate mental reservation, but I would not condone telling the soldiers a lie, ever.
To the woman who did the acting in the “Sting” I say “Get thee to a nunnery.” An hour spent in prayer with holy sisters, begging God for the salvation of the Unborn and the conversion of the Abortionists, would be much more efficacious than lying on tape.
I agree, Daniel. Well said.
However the point of Mr. Beresford’s editorial is easily seen through if one accepts the Catechism’s definition of lying. Telling your three year old that “your picture is beautiful” is not a lie for two obvious reasons
1. The picture may be beautiful as far as the pictures of three year olds go. If Johnny gets an A for writing “See Spot run”, this A is not the same as the A a grad student might get on a dissertation on Chesterton. The grade does not carry the same weight; it is an assessment proper to the ability of each student. So if giving an A to a kid learning his alphabet is not a lie, how is giving praise to your daughter’s stick drawing a lie? You are giving praise in context, proper to ability.
2. There is no intent to deceive or to lead into error. If your plan were to build up your kid’s ego such that after 18 years of home schooling, you had convinced him he was the best artist since Rembrandt, then this would be a way of leading him into error. To encourage your daughter’s stick figure drawing, hoping she will stick with art and develop her skills, art being the “signature of man” and one of our most noble endeavors, entails no intent to lead into error.
By contrast, as you yourself have seen, Live Action
1. Told active untruths (positive untruths)
2. in order to deceive the sting victims (leading them into error)
albeit with the ultimate end of ending abortions.
Mr. Beresford’s argument, therefore, falls apart, for the act he examines (praising a kid’s drawing) does not meet the criteria for “lying” and therefore does not introduce a second definition into the debate.
@Daniel Collins,
Please don’t misunderstand my position. I have staunchly from the start taken a stance against the activities of Live Action, for the pragmatic reasons you’ve mentioned – in terms of the effect on the pro-life movement and the illusory “good” claimed to have been achieved – as well as for the (in my opinion just as dire or more dire) reason that the concrete moral situation involved the deliberate leading into temptation of another individual. These folks behind the counter at Planned Parenthood are often misguided members of an exploited social class, ironically often belonging to the same social demographic against which Planned Parenthood has directed a campaign of eugenic attack for decades.
Also, I’m not sure where Socrates and I are in disagreement. I said that I don’t think it’s the definition itself that obscures the point but the applications to which it is directed in practice. This is not my maxim, but a long-standing traditional of the theology of the confessional within the Church. The distinctions and norms of the moral law such as we have them are all aimed at shaping individuals’ moral consciences: that is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. It is also why I hesitate to evaluate the culpability or sinfulness of any of the individuals involved, because I cannot presume to what what their level of knowledge was at the time they conceived of and perpetrated these “stings.” I also think there’s a good case to be mind for a feeling of a kind of compulsion of the will for those involved. The pro-life movement has relied long upon a kind of rhetoric that can sometimes lead to hasty moral decisions, through analogies of war and the like. I don’t mean to say that we’re not engaged in a real spiritual battle with diabolic forces behind the abortion industry, but that this raises the stakes in terms of our own obligation to form our consciences well as we choose which actions to undertake in combating these forces. Anyone who’s done sidewalk counseling or even just prayed outside a clinic with people going in and out knows the power of the emotions that can take hold. I’ve personally on occasion had to restrain over-zealous people who allow these emotions to get the best of them and lose their tempers and shout things or demonstrate in their demeanor a message which is not conducive to our cause. But I digress.
We are agreed upon the point that lying is a dubious recourse in any event. The quote I posted from JP2 above, from Veritatis Splendor, is a wonderful one, I think. The whole tenor of this debate on the part of its defenders has been characterized by attention to the “lower limit” of the law, the question of what we are *allowed* to do. But we, as Christians, should be concerned with the higher way which the New Law implicates: the way of agapeic love, which is also the way of sacrifice. It is interesting that Saint Paul, in describing such love, also gives many definitions – and these might really be the more practical distinctions and definienda to get after if we’re really investigating the moral worth of the situation under consideration: particular verses 4 to 6 of 1 Corinthians 13: “Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth.”
JoeyG I hope that you do not think I was Condemning the people. I have no power to look into their souls, I have no knowledge of culpability. The act was sinful, I do not know if it resulted in a sin.
Also I am sorry, I completely Misread you previous comments. Please disregard my Socrates quip.
Peter Kreeft had mentioned legalism as to his argument against any dissent with LA’s moral intuition. But, his premise of legalism isn’t quite founded with situations similar to hiding Jewish people, the work of spies preventing nuclear danger’s, and so forth. Because, as Mark Shea pointed out that PP workers are also citizen’s under the same protection of law, these cases (unlike those situations during WWII) must come under judicial review and taken to court. So, the credibility and activity of LA is a matter of law.
In the case of hiding Jews and the case of spies working to stop a threat to security, these cases are a matter where there aren’s sufficient laws nor the effective exercise thereof (except in the matter of moral intuition common to each man and woman [each spy willingly preventing terrible threats and person’s who hide the innocent for their protection.) In the case of hiding the innocent, the Jews weren’t being hid because there was legitimate enforcement of law (even bad laws) and one’s moral intuition would suggest lying to hide the helpless. To the contary, rogue member’s of society (criminal’s in position of authority) were going after Jews (and other innocent people.) And as such, those rogue’s didn’t have any true endorcement of law in as much as King Henry VIII didn’t have any true lawful endorcement for violating the Magna Carta and the king’s Coronation Oath through the arbitrated power being given by parliament (hence leading to being declared head of the Church.) So, the premise of legalism does not work in Dr. Kreeft’s argument (because PP isn’t in the power of state nor in any power of rogue authority going after its’ victims.)
If anything, PP mainly operates by the cooperation and consent of those willing to have PP’s services (willingly turning over the innocent.) Even more contrary to Dr. Kreeft’s premise, LA is trying to use the claims of illegality (a case of legalism) and enforce those laws upon the activites of PP. Afterall, LA is going to use this as a case and evidence in court.
This might help. It explains why some acts can be wrong always and everywhere, and the fact that lying is one of those acts:
http://thwordinc.blogspot.com/2011/05/moral-theology-101.html
I am not as adroit in these matters as most of you are, but reading through this debate brought to mind other circumstances that the Church has praised as being wise as serpents in the use of disguising oneself to deceive, and I am thinking of the Martyrs of the Christero Wars. I know that someone has mentioned that this does not constitute a just war, but i would like to see this clarified. In the same way that martyrdom doesn’t necessarily mean that blood needs to be spilled, does this not meet the definition of defending innocent human life!! Spying is a long standing traditional tactic in war. (Did not Joshua send spies into the promised land to gain information on the people living there and there is no mention as to whether they lied in order to keep from revealing who they were) that I would like to see someone spell out why this doesn’t meet the same standard. And when the priests were deceiving the Mexican authorities in order to bring the Eucharist to the faithful. There is the report of Saint Rafael Guízar Valencia telling officers he was a musician when asked if he were a priest, and played the accordion for them and convinced them of his deception. I don’t think anyone would condemn a military spy for deception in order to gain enemy information. I am only throwing this into the discussion, and it may have been already explained, but my time is precious and I don’t have the time to read every comment, but if someone does, please clear these points up from me. thanks
Can we define “lie”?
It seems that this debate rages on because an agreement on the definition of “lie” has not been reached. Kevin O’Brien and others quote the Catechism which is a “sure norm” of the faith according to JP2. I recall a professor of mine from Ave Maria University teaching our class that any teaching in the Catechism has the same authority that it had before being included in the Catechism. In my mind the question of the definition of “lie” still hinges on which version of the Catechism is right, the first one which says, that a lie constitutes in intentionally deceiving someone who has the right to the truth, or the second which says a lie intentionally deceives a neighbor (without the “right to the truth” caveat). One might think, well duh, the second version is the “correct” definition as it contains the revisions that the authorities saw appropriate. What then, if there comes a 3rd version that changes the definition slightly again?
I’m new. I apologize for not being as thorough as I would like to be and if I’ve brought up anything that has already been said. I don’t have much time to devote to the blog world as I have a 2 yr old that fills my day with “Wiggles,” swords, Dr. Seuss, peanut butter and jelly, and very little “adult conversation.”
In other words, a teaching, simply by merit of being in the Catechism, does not then gain authority that it did not have before being included in the Catechism. (If I understood my professor correctly). Point being that the sources of the teaching on “lie” are what need to be further examined to arrive at a working definition of “lie.” Or, I suppose at the end of the day, it is legit to use what we have in the Catechism today. Although… we know that we do have what we call the “development of doctrine.”
My persistence with legalism is the critique of Peter Kreeft’s point (why he thinks a “lie” by Catechetical definition – I’m not saying he’s taking a stance against the Catechism – isn’t really the issue since LA has a “moral intuition” common to every person.) And since he points out legalism as the error, Dr. Kreeft seems to address a sort of shallow argument against LA’s actions. However, Mark Shea (by Catechesis) exposes consequentialism being ignored by anyone arguing for LA’s actions. In many respects, much of the dispute is compromised by polticial commentary more than real rational and solid debate between Mark Shea and Peter Kreeft (at least inadvertantly by virtue of their arguments.) But getting back to the issue of legalism and the actions of spies & those who hid Jewish people, LA and PP are not operating under rogue circumstances whereby there isn’t sufficient law and matters falling outside of justice of the State. Rather, LA used a “lie” to draw-out evidence for a case of law. And since law is a matter of justice, a “lie” becomes a matter of question as to whether the integrity of justice was upheld by those who lied in order attain evidence for the court (which leads to the moral heresy of consequentialism.)
It would seem that at about the point Tom Richard quotes St. Augustine, all intelligent discourse is discontinued. What follows, from what I can read, is a petty and irrelevant agreement about derogatory labels (uncharitable and irreverent, I might add) between Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Dailey, against Mr. Richards, without any reasonable refutation against Augustine. Why?
There is a lot more to it than that, Robert, if you would go back and read it.
I did read it, Mr. Dailey. I agree with your position in the editorial, but I do not understand why you do not refute Richard’s Augustine reference. I have only this to add to the debate:
The Live Action deceptive sting operations against Planned Parenthood have little to do with ethical debate, and more to do with an economical one. It is not a matter of whether the ends justify the means, but whether the costs outweigh the rewards. For, lying in an attempt to expose a grave social evil could be nothing more than a venial sin, as it is categorized as an officious lie by the divine doctors. But as this lie proved to be inefficient, bringing only discredit to the Pro-Life movement, it must therefore be understood to have been ill-advised.
So, the tempest in the teapot continues to rage.
Boys and girls, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does NOT resolve the special cases of “speaking falsehood” in favor of one side or another in the centuries-long debate/discussion among the theological schools of the Catholic Church on what actually constitutes intrinsically evil lying and what does not.
I can and will cite chapter and verse to prove this point (again) if necessary.
But, instead, why can’t WE ALL acknowlege and accept this basic fact so that we ALL show due respect and charity toward those whose views do not correspond to ours on this subject?
The Church’s *Magisterium* does NOT resolve this issue and has left it open-ended for 2000 years.
If one wishes to put oneself “above” the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then by all means go right ahead and make the claim that this issue has been resolved for *everyone* by virtue of your own “personal magisterium.”
But, please forgive me if I stick with the *Church’s* Magisterium instead….
There is room for *multiple* views on what constitutes lying and what does not. Pick your poison folks, but please don’t *ever* try to insist that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has embraced *your* view while excluding another’s….
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
I know, after pastoral instruction, that I may continue to defend my position exactly as I have and remain in accord with Catholic teaching. At this point, I will say the following.
No one has the right to call someone who acknowledges the condition of man in the light of conscience a lying enabler, or any other derogatory term. If you wish to debate the issue, fine, but insult, and, more importantly, quoting the unquestioned truth of the Catechism to support your own personal position as to situational applicability, in the absence of magisterial authority to do so, are improper uses of the Catechism.
And YES–I will gladly debate anyone, anytime, anywhere, on this subject, publicly or privately….
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
You’re exactly right, Jim. That’s why the insults hurt so much. This is division, and scandal, within the church, that need not be. This whole thing has turned into “If you don’t believe this, then…” psuedo-pontificate rather than a friendly “what do you think and why” discussion.
Kevin wrote:
****This might help. It explains why some acts can be wrong always and everywhere, and the fact that lying is one of those acts:*****
Kevin–your blog is a bit of a straw-man argument, making it sound like those who take the view that there are special cases when speaking falsehood is a good moral choice are actually endorsing the intrinsically evil “species” called “lying” in the CCC.
That’s not how it works.
Your blog also makes it sound like every moral intention is completely separate from the moral object of an act, and this is erroneous. Some moral objects are completely dependent upon a specific moral intention that makes that moral object intrinsically evil, apart from any other consideration of moral intention.
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
@Robert Robbins: the reasoned refutation against Tom Richard’s quote from St. Augustine is here: http://www.chesterton.org/?p=2889#comment-573
I want no more whining about name calling and insults. If I see any posts that do whine about it, I will not approve them. Get over yourselves and stick to the topic at hand.
Thank you,
Sean Dailey
With all due respect, comment-573 does not constitute a refutation of the Augustine quote.
First of all, the comment itself states the following:
“Effectively, what Augustine is arguing for – in my reading – is a rudimentary form of double-effect. His language is underdeveloped on this point, theologically, and I don’t think I’m too bold to say so: a logical analysis of the first sentence finds a contradiction between the clause “even by our sins” and the final evaluation that the actions of which he is speaking “shouldn’t be called sin.” If you boil it down it’s kind of a tautology: what would seem to be a sin, when it’s not a sin, isn’t a sin. I can buy that.”
That, in a nutshell, is my position!
The reason that I can’t claim it as “victory” in the discussion is twofold:
1) There is no victory that can be claimed by either position.
2) St. Augustine is referring strictly to cases of male rape in this quote.
I would agree with comment 573 that the language is “underdeveloped,” but I would also point out that this contradicts the view of those who say that Augustine ALWAYS maintained that you should never lie to achieve a good result. He clearly says you should lie in order to avoid someone raping your own person. Interestingly, He does not apply the same standard to torture or murder, although he does allow that a lesser man than Bishop Firmus would not be guilty of severe sin in such circumstance. Is it not possible that Church theology has progressed since then, and acknowledges that murder, torture, and genocide are as significantly sinful as male rape?
A couple of things that should be clear by now:
1. The CCC does not teach against the Live Action sting operations because its definition of lying is intended to offer the faithful a generic description of the intrinsically evil species that involves “speaking falsehood” with a *particular* kind of intention that is essential to establishing the moral object of that “species.”
2. The CCC does not teach that *all* speaking falsehood is lying, nor that all speaking falsehood is somehow intrinsically evil.
3. The CCC’s originators *never* intended to address and resolve longstanding theological debates over moral issues by the phrasing employed in its definitions.
4. It is entirely demonstrable from the documents of the Church that pertain to the development and use of the CCC that the special cases of lying are not resolved one way or the other by the content of the CCC.
5. The Church’s *common teaching* on lying is present in the Catechism, but is NOT made “magisterial” by its inclusion there. It remains “common teaching”.
Hope this helps to clarify some things. Each of these points is aptly supported by the Church’s own documents.
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Thank you Sean for the link to JoeyG’s comment. I now know I didn’t read it all.
Respectfully, Deacon, I think you’re playing games with the CCC. You are playing games with its language by dismissing its teachings on lying as “a generic description” that “does not teach that *all* speaking falsehood is lying,” in contradiction of the very clear and plain language of the CCC. And you are playing games when you cay the CCC’s teaching is “not made ‘magisterial’ by its inclusion there.”
So, the next time I want to commit adultery or murder, may I claim that the CCC’s prohibitions against those acts are merely “generic descriptions” that are not magisterial? Again, respectfully, I think your argument is completely without merit.
This sounds like the ongoing gag in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie about whether the Pirates’ Code is real code or “just guidelines.”
You’re welcome!
Hi, Sean–you wrote:
****Respectfully, Deacon, I think you’re playing games with the CCC. You are playing games with its language by dismissing its teachings on lying as “a generic description” that “does not teach that *all* speaking falsehood is lying,” in contradiction of the very clear and plain language of the CCC.*****
Sean, then it should be easy for you to cite for me the *original* “magisterial” teaching on lying that is the magisterial *source* of the teaching found in the CCC–where *else* does the magisterium teach on lying?
You, see, as far as I’m aware, I can’t find any other *magisterial* source for the section on lying, other than the *common teaching* of the Church on the subject. You must have additional source material for me to consider?
Regarding the “very clear and plain language of the CCC,” in my quote I’m citing only HALF of the CCC’s definition of “lying,” Sean–the “speaking falsehood” part. Do you think the CCC actually teaches that ALL speaking falsehood is lying? I thought that, according to the CCC, you needed *both* halves of Augustine’s definition to define lying…
******And you are playing games when you cay the CCC’s teaching is “not made ‘magisterial’ by its inclusion there.” ******
Wow–then I’m “playing games” on the same team as two Cardinals of the Church–Ratzinger and Schonborn–who wrote in the “Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church” that being “in” the Catechism doesn’t change the “weight” of the authority of the Catechism’s content. The *same* doctrinal “weight” adheres to the teaching coming IN to the CCC as it has coming OUT.
So, that makes it simple–all you have to do is show me the magisterial “weight” of the teaching on lying as it existed *before* being included in the CCC. Just cite a magisterial source on lying prior to the CCC, and we’ll all know what level of magisterial teaching is involved….
*****So, the next time I want to commit adultery or murder, may I claim that the CCC’s prohibitions against those acts are merely “generic descriptions” that are not magisterial? Again, respectfully, I think your argument is completely without merit. *****
Well, Sean, I think you’re missing my point after all. I’m not trying to *deny* the truth of the teaching *in* the CCC–I’m trying to demonstrate that the teaching found in the CCC has “limits”–it captures the basic truth about lying, as it *is* the “common teaching” of the Church. But one cannot “elevate” the content and phrasing of that teaching beyond its *source*, just because it appears in the CCC. The teaching on lying in the CCC does *not* and cannot and was never *intended* to be a source of any *new* doctrine on lying that resolves long-standing discussions in the various theological schools.
I *believe* the teaching found in the CCC on lying, Sean. We *all* should, assuming we all agree (as we all should) that the teaching there is the basic and fundamental description of lying as exists in the common teaching of the Church.
But what is utterly inappropriate is any claim that the teaching that is there is somehow intended to *resolve* a totally *unsettled* debate over when/if “speaking falsehood” (HALF the definition of lying) is ever permissible.
Until folks actually do the homework and read the various documents pertaining to the purpose, planning, and implementation of the CCC, this simple truth may escape them. The CCC as a “universal catechism” captures *existing* teaching for the universal Church, so that it can be used primarily as a “sure norm” and source for teaching the faith via other non-universal catechisms developed later. In the documents of the Church, it’s spelled out *clearly* that the CCC is NOT a vehicle for resolving existing theological debates that have predated it….
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Tom, I am not going to answer any more questions, or allow another post by you, until you clarify what you wrote here:
http://www.chesterton.org/?p=2889#comment-592
Specifically, your first sentence: “I know, after pastoral instruction, that I may continue to defend my position exactly as I have and remain in accord with Catholic teaching.”
By “pastoral instruction,” I can only assume that you mean your pastor. Therefore, before I allow another post by you, I ask you to please post, in full, your question to your priest, and his reply, also in full. You cannot make such a claim here without backing it up.
Yours,
Sean Dailey
“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.” I have only now seen the irony in the title, “Gilbert Magazine: we quarrel, you decide” in relation to this moral theology thread. Irony intended, Sean?
@Sean & @O’Brien – Not too sound too repetitive, can someone illustrate where Peter Kreeft’s argument (accusing one side of legalism) is true and has merit along with Mark Shea’s argument (the actual danger of consequentialism) whereby there are actual dangers in lying? That is, when and where are LA’s actions prove to jeoparidize a real situation? Would it be worth the merit to at least touch upon how the moral outline of the Catechism shows a real and apparent danger in lying (expecially in the matters of justice and the state)?
Truthfully, Robert, I have been thinking the past week that I should change the headline. Little did I know it would be so prophetic.
Sean,
If that is your criterion, I’ll have to bow out. I can only say I’ve been truthful in that I may defend myself as I have.
I would also assure you that had I been pastorally instructed that my position was in error, or scandalous, to Church teaching, I would publicly retract my position. I think Kevin O’Brien knows me well enough to know that is true, as well. You may not, so I can’t blame you for dismissing me.
Thanks for what you have allowed to this point.
Comment: I am an avid reader of books authored by Peter Kreeft. And I do not really find, myself, easily persuaded by most arguments contrary to Dr. Kreeft (for the most part his arguments are very much sound.) However, humility (the all too common definition & habit to the acknowledgement of truth both in the Catechism and practiced by all the saints [including St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Blessed Pope John Paul II, and St. Thomas More. Did I mention Mr. Gilbert Keith Chesterton also practiced humility throughout his writing and life?] beckoned me to further read Mark Shea’s disagreement with Peter Kreeft (and where Kevin O’Brien’s blogs articulated futher.) So, here is where I can see an inadvertant dispute (seeing Dr. Kreeft & Mark Shea are not actually debating in an active-live forum) between two wonderful converts to the Churhc (just like GK.) Benedicte Deus nobis et Sancta Maria ora pro nobis. et Benedicte Johannes Paule Mangus ora pro nobis.
I am not dismissing you Tom. I simply cannot allow such a claim to be made without asking the claimant to back it up. It is a reasonable request. In any case, if you change your mind, please come back.
Sean
Well, I didn’t realize that this was still going on.
(That’s me testing HTML tags to see if I can use paragraphs more effectively here. What’s up with that, Sean!?)
@Deacon Jim – welcome back to the debate.
@Tom Richards, I hope you’re still following the discussion and can respond, because I have a question that I think would help to keep this conversation, as I call it, “in statis” – that is, operating under the same guiding principles and informative questions. My question is this: Would you say, based on the formation of your conscience, that the fundamental question regarding activities such as Live Action’s that the primary question of moral concern is (A) May we ever lie qua lying?; or, (B) Is what they did, strictly speaking, a lie?
@Deacon Jim – I *believe* your position and your notion of this being still an “open” issue revolves more around the second question than the first, am I correct? The question is, “What is a lie?” Right?
With relation to this last point, Deacon Jim, I’m still left – as I was in our last debate – scratching my head at your insistence upon the “intentionality” point here. I mean, we’re talking about this all in the abstract on the one hand, but we’re also concerned about Live Action, and I think sometimes our reticence to speak directly about that ‘case study’ is a challenge to the conversation, because our interlocutors have that in the back of their minds. So, I’m wondering what other ‘intention’ there is that you see behind one person saying to another person, “I’m a pimp” when that first person is, well, not a pimp, other than deceiving? I’ll grant that your point about the moral object of “lying” in the definitions is worth exploring, but I’m curious as to whether you really think it could bear upon this particular case?
@Deacon Jim, back to this point about intentionality. I think we need to be careful with language now.
You write: “Some moral objects are completely dependent upon a specific moral intention that makes that moral object intrinsically evil, apart from any other consideration of moral intention.” Now, you later wrote, “The CCC['s]… its definition of lying is intended to offer the faithful a generic description of the intrinsically evil species that involves ‘speaking falsehood’ with a *particular* kind of intention that is essential to establishing the moral object of that ‘species.’”
We really need to clear this up, I think. The first statement, as I read it, significantly confuses and possibly conflates the moral qualifiers of object and intention; it is, in point of fact, wrong to say that “some moral objects are completely dependent upon a specific moral intention that makes the moral object intrinsically evil” – that is not what we are to understand from “intrinsically evil” objects of actions.
So, philosophically speaking, I think it important that we distinguish between these various operations. For one thing, as we have said before in another place, Augustine’s definition, repeated in Aquinas and the Catechism, doesn’t really say, “the intent to deceive.” He says, “cum voluntate ad fallendum prolatam,” or, “with the will to impel to falsehood.” This is, as you say, a *kind* of intention. But only in the sense that all moral objects include a *kind* of intention.
I’ll admit that there is a bit of a trickiness to the language here, even in Saint Thomas. The will “intends” the good in its act of choice. So, what do we make of it? The easiest way I’ve found to understand it, although I ordinarily try to stay out of this terminology because I think it confuses things, is that the intention is the choice of the end, whereas the object-intention (the “voluntam” in the definition of lying) is the choice of the means. The point of the distinction – such as in CCC 1753, where the CCC says that some acts, naming specifically lying, can never be good based on intention – is that the intended end does not vitiate the proximate and deliberate action undertaken. Contraception is a good example: the moral object of contraception cannot be mitigated by any remote intention such as preserving the health of partner or self or prudently controlling one’s family size. There is an end-in-itself of contraception, just as there is an end-in-itself of lying, and these are what are held to be intrinsically evil “objects” of the act. And we say that they are deliberately “chosen,” note that the implication is really very simple. The thought of pregnancy may not even enter into the mind of either partner than contracepts: she may be taking the pill for acne, for example. Were she abstaining from sex while on the pill, the end of contraception wouldn’t attain and there’d be nothing sinful in her taking the pill (in most cases). But the moment she chooses sex, even though that’s what she chooses – and that is good – she also has chosen contraception. She might not be culpable, based on her level of deliberation, consent, etc. But the object implies because it’s *there* – in itself, sua natura.
Lying is an utterance of falsehood with the intent to deceive. You can hyphenate it if you like, between every word, to realize that it’s all of a piece. I think we all agree here that *material* falsehood, such as an actor saying, “I am Spartacus,” when he is, in fact, a Hollywood actor, is situationally determined not to be lying. Or, the remark, “Yeah, *reaaaal* funny,” with a wink and a sardonic tone, is communicative of truth inasmuch as it is certain to be taken as ironic and therefore this, too, is not a lie.
But, the point is that there are determining factors which change the very act chosen.
Put as simply as I can, it is nonsense that one might speak-falsely-so-as-to-deceive-without-intending-it. The “so-as-to” is the object-intention, the “in itself” part of the act that cannot be vitiated but this removed other intentionality. When the LA people went to the counter and said, “I am a pimp, and this is my prostitute,” or when they edited their videos after the fact and matched up recorded answers with different questions than the ones asked in those situations, they intended to save unborn children and they intended to bring about a more just social order. They also lied, unintentionally or no. Whether they are guilty and to what extent of the *sin* of lying, or whether it be a mortal or a venial sin, is a whole other matter. But the “in-and-of-itself” quality of the acts chosen clearly manifests the kind of intention that the Catechism means with “the will to deceive,” so far as I can see.
One more point, then I’m done monopolizing this thread – I promise. When I say above that Live Action lied, whether they intended it or not, I mean to say that the directed intention – in the Catechism’s sense of “intention” – may have been laudable enough. But there is a clear kind of intention implicated in the choose of the means, the kind of intention in the sense of the object-intention we’re speaking about. They needed to deceive the other person in the video, or else the sting doesn’t work. They wanted these women behind the counter to believe they were pimps and prostitutes, otherwise there’s no sense in the actions themselves and it wouldn’t have served the intended end. Such with the case of someone who chooses to use contraception but doesn’t necessarily have the contraceptive end in mind, but a more remote intention: the ‘unintended’ end is bound up with the act, and it is the act – in the case of intrinsically evil acts – which determines the moral quality of the act.
I say all this in order to distinguish what we’re talking about from that other phenomenon which we call a mistake. “I *meant* to fix the widget, but I broke it.” “I *meant* to threaten the thug, but the gun went off in my hand.” (Yet, interestingly, in many cases like this, we still hold people accountable for the consequences of unintended actions – think, for example, of ‘involuntary manslaughter.’) I don’t think that the actor *meant* to say, in this sense, that he was a shoe-salesman, but *accidentally* said he was a pimp. No; he said, “I am a pimp,” in order to be believed to be a pimp, in order to serve a more remote intention of discrediting Planned Parenthood. In his choice to say-I’m-a-pimp-in-order-to-have-the-other-believe-I-am-a-pimp, he spoke-falsehood-with-the-intent-to-deceive. (I hope you’re getting the gist of what I mean by this hyphenation: object-intention is hyphenated precisely in this way, it’s connected in a way that is ‘closer’ to the act, such as the intended end is not, and it is for that very reason that we hold the object of the act to be the primary determinant of the moral action.) But even had he not intended to mislead, which is absurd to speak of in the case of the actual interviews in the clinic, but might be tenable with regard to the tricky editing of those videos with regard to the intent to mislead the public who viewed them – still, I think, there’s a kind of accountability which justice would demand even then.
Still waiting for Sean to explain to me how I’m “playing games” with the Catechism by merely citing and siding with Cardinals Ratzinger/Schonborn and the official documents on the Church that pertain to the Catechism.
Sean, do you happen to have located the *magisterial* source for the teaching found in the CCC yet? I’m still unable to locate it. And there *must* be one, since you claim the teaching therein is magisterial. As such there must be a magisterial *origin* for it….
Just let me know, please….
JoeyG—it’s going to be a challenge to respond adequately to your posts to me, but I shall try to do so over the course of the coming couple days….
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Just a caveat–I forget how “tone” can seem amplified in a combox–Sean, I’m not trying to register too high on the “sarcasm meter” in my last post–just trying to lead toward reply, hopefully, or moreso an acknowledgment from you that there is no prior “magisterial” teaching on lying to be found….
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
I have not responded yet because there did not seem to be a need to. You are basically saying that the Introduction to the Catechism is more magisterial than the Catechism itself, which is utter nonsense. Second, the Catechism is itself magisterial, so why do I need to cite sources for what is in it? You can do that just as easily by turning to the relevant passages and following the footnotes. I am not going to do your homework for you. The teachings in the Catechism come from a variety of other sources, including Sacred Scripture, papal documents such as encyclicals, bulls, and whatnot, documents from ecumenical councils, the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and so on. But the Catechism is itself magisterial by virtue of being the Catechism. It was and is intended as a teaching tool for the faithful. Saying it has less authority than its introduction is just plain silly.
Sean–wow, now that’s just…absurd. You cast aside the work of Ratzinger and Schonborn–two of the most critical *originators* of the CCC!–as not possessing enough “authority” for you to consider their words as helpful in understanding the CCC????
You really really should do the homework of reading the documents that pertain to the nature and implementation of the CCC, Sean.
Sean, answer me this, then–IF it is as you say, and the *entire* contents of the CCC are now ALL “magisterial”, can you show me when and where the *entire contents* of the Catechism (and not just the document by JP II *promulgating* it) were officially entered into the Acts of the Apostolic See???
If the entire contents of the CCC itself are “magisterial” in the sense *you* seem to suggest, it should be easy to locate in the AAS.
As it is, what you will find, of course, is the *promulgation* of the CCC recorded in AAS. This is because the publishing of the CCC is an “act of the ordinary papal magisterium”, but the *contents* remain what they “were” before the publication. Those contents that *were* “magisterial” beforehand are *exactly* just as magisterial as they used to be. Those contents that were common teaching REMAIN that *after* the CCC.
Sean, we just need to be clear with what we’re dealing with here. I’m not saying this to diminish what we’re being taught, but rather to *understand* it.
Meanwhile, I note once more that neither you nor anyone else are able to produce *magisterial* teaching on lying for us to consider. Rather, just as with the Catechism of TRENT, it is “common teaching” we’re relying upon in order to understand the subject of lying….
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Thank you for sharing, deacon.
Deacon Jim,
I am really disappointed in Sean’s response to your post. His comment comes across to me as patronizing and sarcastic. Your argument deserves a real response.
What you have said makes perfect and thorough sense to me. It is exactly what I would have said if I had taken the time to read and think about the things that you did… especially Schonborn and Ratzinger’s input. I have a Master’s degree in Theological Studies from Ave Maria University (not that this makes what I say true, but I mention it in order to let you know that I do have some background on what the Magisterium has done and has not done.)
WELL DONE Deacon!
So well put, in fact, that I will only continue checking in on this conversation to see if Sean ever gives you a real reply acknowledging the excellent points that you made, because, at this point, I am satisified that the mystery of lying has never been settled definitively by the Magisterium for reasons that you cite above (sources before inclusion in the CCC).
(I think Sean is satisfied with saying that “the Catechism is itself magisterial”)
Thank you, all, for letting me, a nobody, post.
Rachel Schmidt, M.T.S
Rachel,
If I may, I think that the Deacon’s request to find the entrance of the doctrine on lying into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis not quite so reasonable as it seems, if only because that is not the only mechanism by which a doctrine may be understood to be part of authentic Magisterium.
For my own part, at any rate, I can only say that while in theological training as I seminarian, I was required to make a solemn Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity on several occasions. I took this very seriously, and it is partially because of this solemn declaration that I am very hesitant to prescind from the formulation of the doctrine of lying as presented in the Catechism.
In the CDF commentary on the Profession of Faith decreed in “Ad tuendam fidem,” it states: “The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: ‘Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.’ To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error” (Para. 10).
The catechism is, itself, a “sure norm” for the foundation of the teaching of the Bishops throughout the world, and I think that the teaching on lying presented therein counts, thus, at least as one of “those teachings on faith and morals – presented as true or AT LEAST AS SURE, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive.” In point of fact, I think there’s a good argument to be made that this teaching *does* even belong to the slightly higher level of teachings which *are* proposed to be held definitively, which can happen by an act which is “non-defining.” Of such teachings, the commentary points out that, “the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.” The inclusion of lying as an *example* in the Catechism’s approach to the matter of intrinsic evils (CCC 1753) would be highly improbable and even very imprudent on the part of the theological authors if this was a matter of mere theological opinion. Better to have used an example like contraception or abortion, if that were the case, rather than mislead people with an example which isn’t definitively and universally held to be pertinent?
Rachel,
If I may, I think that the Deacon’s request to find the entrance of the doctrine on lying into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis not quite so reasonable as it seems, if only because that is not the only mechanism by which a doctrine may be understood to be part of authentic Magisterium.
For my own part, at any rate, I can only say that while in theological training as a seminarian, I was required to make a solemn Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity on several occasions. I took this very seriously, and it is partially because of this solemn declaration that I am very hesitant to prescind from the formulation of the doctrine of lying as presented in the Catechism.
In the CDF commentary on the Profession of Faith decreed in “Ad tuendam fidem,” it states: “The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: ‘Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.’ To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error” (Para. 10).
The catechism is, itself, a “sure norm” for the foundation of the teaching of the Bishops throughout the world, and I think that the teaching on lying presented therein counts, thus, at least as one of “those teachings on faith and morals – presented as true or AT LEAST AS SURE, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive.” In point of fact, I think there’s a good argument to be made that this teaching *does* even belong to the slightly higher level of teachings which *are* proposed to be held definitively, which can happen by an act which is “non-defining.” Of such teachings, the commentary points out that, “the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.” The inclusion of lying as an *example* in the Catechism’s approach to the matter of intrinsic evils (CCC 1753) would be highly improbable and even very imprudent on the part of the theological authors if this was a matter of mere theological opinion. Better to have used an example like contraception or abortion, if that were the case, rather than mislead people with an example which isn’t definitively and universally held to be pertinent to the issue? It makes the teaching on intrinsic evil in the Catechism rather weak, doesn’t it, if we take the example given to be one which is not even definitively taught?
Rachel, my dear, how about some of this …
In Anglicanorum Coetibus, Pope Benedict decrees as law that, “the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate.”
John Paul II, in *Fidei Depositum*, says that the Catechism “is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium… [which he] declare[s]… to be a
sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument.”
Archbishop Levada, head of the CDF: “In the catechism the church intends to make a presentation of all and only that which she regards as the patrimony of Catholic doctrine about faith and morals which the Christian faithful need to believe and practice as
Catholics. The catechism is not the appropriate place to pursue the distinction of material into “infallible” and “non-infallible” — indeed, much of the church’s doctrinal tradition has never been formally defined as such, but is infallibly taught. Theological distinctions between “divine” faith and “ecclesiastical” faith are the work of theology, not catechesis, and would not be appropriate for the catechism.”
… I could go on. Ratzinger, himeself, in the intro to the Catechism says that the CCC must be accepted as a whole in the teaching it provides.
It is despicable to me that conservative Catholics are doing on this issue what the liberal Catholics have been doing for decades on sexual issues, playing games with the teaching rather than accepting it and following it.
There are only two means of excusing lying:
1. Deconstruct the Catechism
2. Claim the act in question is not a lie
To do the former is an affront to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Good God, people, have we come to this. We are willing to chuck assent to the plain Magisterial teachings our Faith for the sake of LYING???? At least when the liberals chuck it for sex, they’re having fun. But LYING???
Incidentally, I must give credit to Joey G. for the above points. He has also pointed out elsewhere that the teaching against FORNICATION contained in the Catechism has no more Magisterial weight than the teaching against LYING. Which is good news to many.
Deacon Jim has elswhere quoted to me a Church document saying that the CCC does not present “special theological viewpoints” but the Teaching of the Church.
Do you really, masters in theology in hand, want to celebrate that the Catechism has holes in it and may safely be ignored because parts of it derive only from the ordinary and universal Magisterium, while other parts derive from the extraordinary Magisterium? If the Catechism does not contain the clear and settled teaching of the Church, what does? Are we Protestants here? Is it up to each of us?
Even if we are, then, de facto Protestants, how can we ignore Scripture? How can we ignore the single most awful human moment in all of Scripture – Peter lying about knowing Christ? This was a lie told for the best possible reason – to save his neck! If lying is good in some cases and bad in others, then Peter lying about Christ was the best of all possibly cases – a lie to save one’s own life. And yet do all four Gospels celebrate this lie? Or do we see this lie as emblematic for all lies – a disavowal of our relationship with Him Who is Truth?
The third proposition of the *Professio fidei* states: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.” – all of which applies to the teachings in the CCC.
Dear Rachel–you have literally put a smile on my face and made my day!
You’ve helped remind me that perhaps I haven’t completely lost my mind after all!
May God continue to bless you in your pursuit of truth, Rachel–I’m sure you’ll continue to do Ave Maria University proud!
Deacon Jim Russell
Hi, Rachel–
Check out the quotes I offer below, which I’m told by Kevin O. actually prove his case rather than mine. This is largely because Kevin seems not to have understood that catechisms, indeed, *do* have certain limitations.
My claim is that the quotes below prove clearly that the CCC *limits* itself to expressing the “common teaching” of the Church on lying, while not delving in the realm of “theological opinion”, which is squarely where the Live Action issue resides–in the realm of the ancient debate over whether/when so-called “lying” is permissible.
What are your thoughts on the quotes below? Do they help–or hurt–the claim that the CCC refrains from teaching to us on “special cases” associated with lying that have been debated for centuries?
I mean, I think I’m being reasonable. I’m *told* the debate is resolved *against* Live Action’s actions, so to speak. But no one can show me the actual *resolution* by the Magisterium!
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Here are the quotes:
“The individual doctrines 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.”
[Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph; Schoenborn, Cardinal Christoph. Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1994, pp. 25-27]
“119 The greatest importance must be attached in catechisms published by ecclesiastical authority. Their purpose is to provide, under a form that is condensed and practical, the witnesses of revelation and of Christian tradition as well as the chief principles which ought to be useful for catechetical activity, that is, for personal education in faith. The witnesses of tradition should be held in due esteem, and very great care must be taken to avoid presenting as doctrines of the faith special interpretations which are only private opinions or the views of some theological school.” ….
[Congregation for the Clergy. General Catechetical Directory. 1971, no. 119. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_11041971_gcat_en.html
“In virtue of being a catechism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church collects all that is fundamental and common to the Christian life without ‘presenting as doctrines of the faith special interpretations which are only private opinions or the views of some theological school’.”
[Congregration for the Clergy. General Directory for Catechesis. 1997, no. 124. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_17041998_directory-for-catechesis_en.html
“Its [The Catechism’s] style, rather than being apologetic, is declarative. It aims at proclaiming the Christian truth with the certainty proper to the Church, endeavouring on the one hand to respect the different levels of certainty which the Church has of the several themes, and, on the other hand, to avoid theological opinions.”
[Editorial Commission on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Informative Dossier. 1992. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ccc_index.htm
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Kevin–just a quick question for the sake of clarity:
WHICH Catechism should we rely upon for the fullness of truth on the subject of lying–the *Roman Catechism* (post-Trent), which forbids even “jocose lies”, or the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which apparently does *not* forbid “jocose lies”??
God bless,
Deacon Jim Russell
Kevin–you also wrote:
****Incidentally, I must give credit to Joey G. for the above points. He has also pointed out elsewhere that the teaching against FORNICATION contained in the Catechism has no more Magisterial weight than the teaching against LYING. *****
Dude, the teaching against fornication and lying come from the *Ten Commandments*. The only reason I have even raised the issue of “magisterial weight” is to point out that the teaching you are using to accuse fellow Catholics of dissenting against the *Magisterium* on lying ISN’T EVEN MAGISTERIAL!
I for one find that to be just a bit ironic, if not distasteful….I just happen to think it’s useful to give the teaching in the CCC its properly designated “weight” in this conversation.
I’ve said over and again that “common teaching” is to be *believed*. As long as you don’t try to stretch it beyond its limits, such as trying to make it apply to the stuff of theological debate and opinion when the Magisterium hasn’t resolved said debate.
Deacon Jim, you have not lost your mind, a formidable and admirable mind. But you are dissenting from Catholic teaching on this issue, and you are turning sommersaults in order to do it.
Parenthetically, why is that every point the Catechism makes and the anti-lying contingent makes about lying is ignored? Professor Tollefsen, Mark Shea, Dawn Eden, Joe Grabowski, Scott Richert, and I, to name a few, have written volumes on this subject since it came up last winter. The points we make are utterly and completely ignored.
What we get instead are attacks on the authority of the teaching of the Church, assertions that telling a 2-year-old her drawing is pretty is a lie, implications that those on this side of the argument have “no truth in us” and so forth.
MRS. WASHINGTON: George, did you chop down that cherry tree?
GEORGE: I can not tell a lie. Then again, maybe I can. How authoritative are the teachings in the Catechism? Aren’t there conflicting traditions on this? Doesn’t Scriptue itself encourage lying? Isn’t the whole issue just too much for a common man to grasp? Let me get back to you on that, Mom.
Joey G and Kevin, I need some time to read more closely what you have written in order to respond more thoroughly; thank you for engaging my reflections.
Deacon Jim, back at ya, you put a smile on my face when I read your post that contented me on this topic and put in words what would have taken me two weeks to do.
Kevin, because of you, I am now looking into “Tivo-ing” “Phineas and Ferb” (see O’Brien’s article in the recent “StAR” periodical.) I admire your writing, your love for truth and our beautiful Catholic faith.
In a nutshell, I am not convinced that it would never be appropriate to deceive someone. For example, one who’s seeking to murder an innocent person. What about times of war? What if it is WW2 and you are hiding Jews? What if we have a war on the unborn?
Rachel, in the past four months, entire volumes have been written on the questions you ask in your last paragraph. You should do us the courtesy of reading up.
All, comments are for some reason turned off. I don’t know why. I have a question into our webmaster on it. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Deacon Jim Russell is a friend of mine, a good man, a good father, a good Catholic, a good deacon. He is angry that I said he is dissenting from the Church.
Let me clarify. I think he does not intend to dissent from the Church; he loves the Church … but I think that is in fact what he is doing (objectively speaking) when he teaches that the Catechism is not Magisterial in all of its parts (despite the varying Magisterial weight of its varying parts) and when he teaches that lying is not intrinsically evil – if that is what he’s teaching (perhaps I am misunderstanding him). That is not Catholic teaching and if he’s teaching against the authority of the Catechism or against what it teaches, he is teaching contrary to the Church.
If, however, he says the actions of Live Action are not lies, he is wrong, but he is not dissenting there, as that’s a matter of application of Church teaching and as in all matters of praxis is open to debate; whereas disagreeing with the sure teaching of the Church on matters of faith or morals is, in fact, dissent. So I stand by what I say. I hope I am wrong, and I hope I am misunderstanding what his position is.
I am sorry I offended him.
And, Rachel, instead of taking Sean’s advice, just watch more “Phineas and Ferb”. It would definitely be more fun and probably more productive!
Rachel–as I am merely a rank amateur and as you seem a bit new to this debate, I’d *highly* recommend Janet Smith’s recent treatment of this issue at http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/fig-leaves-and-falsehoods
I think it’s the best and most polished approach I’ve seen in print.
God bless
Deacon Jim Russell
We are on Chesterton’s Website, so let us quickly consider a new way of looking at this. Let us for one moment stop discussing whether the actions of LA were moral or not. Let us shortly consider whether they were prudent. I should say not. Look at the discord it has caused with in the ranks of Pro Lifers and the opportunity for an attack that it has given our enemies.
If we were fighting a physical war, no one would support the actions of LA. they would be called foolhardy and hotblooded, unbecoming a soldier. It would be seen as an action which accomplished very little and causes more harm than good. I think we can agree that, whatever abstract arguments over the morality of lying to protect or to spy, LA’s actions were not prudent and should not be applauded or imitated.
.
.
.
As for the now raging debate, I am so sorry that I asked for a more clarified definition of Lying. I did not envision anything quite like this when I asked, and actually I was hoping for something quiet different. Alas it appears that we are in the midst of a protestant debate. I have often observed how much harder it is to debate with a Catholic compared to a protestant, because the Protestant has only one book to quote from, while the Catholic has thousands. But the result is the same, we have gone many posts now back and forth with nothing but quotes from one source or from another. Why not be reasonable.
.
.
.
As far as I can follow, the argument currently is whether or not the CCC has clearly defined a Lie to a point where it is perfectly evident what the Church teaches. I say, let us now argue with our own words not some one else. I think that if we start using the mind instead of the paste button, we might get further in this debate.
I must amend my statement, It has been a while since there was nothing but quotes back and forth, something must have been wring with my screen, because after I sent the post, many more posts from other popped up. My apologize for jumping the gun
Kevin wrote:
*****Let me clarify. I think he does not intend to dissent from the Church; he loves the Church … but I think that is in fact what he is doing (objectively speaking) when he teaches that the Catechism is not Magisterial in all of its parts (despite the varying Magisterial weight of its varying parts)****
I’d quibble a bit over whether I’m trying to teach at all–but I am trying to express the truth. In any case, I don’t say that the CCC is Magisterial “in all of its parts” because that’s not what *Cardinal Ratzinger* says. Rather, he says this:
“The **individual doctrines** 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.”
So, what I “teach” is that the “whole” CCC has “weight” as a product of the ordinary papal magisterium. But the *parts*–the individual doctrines–aren’t elevated in “weight” by being IN the CCC. With Cardinal Ratzinger, that’s what I say–if a CCC statement starts as “common teaching”, then it *stays* common teaching once it’s in the CCC.
I say *none* of this to suggest that the CCC is not to be followed–it obviously is. I say the teaching on lying is *not* of magisterial origin but *is* common teaching. This is accurate to my knowledge, and it explains why the “common teaching” on lying expressed in the CCC is more than slightly different from the “common teaching” on lying found in the Catechism of Trent, for example. “Common teaching” is much more “pliable” than *magisterial* teaching.
Further, the teaching on lying found in the CCC is meant to be “basic” and is from the 8th Commandment, divine revelation. Not to be dismissed–but believed. We are arguing over the *interpretation* of what is to be believed and NOT whether to believe it….
****** and when he teaches that lying is not intrinsically evil – if that is what he’s teaching (perhaps I am misunderstanding him).*****
Perhaps indeed–I’ve never claimed that lying (the term used in the CCC for this kind of moral act) is not intrinsically evil. It’s not whether to believe this, it’s *how* to believe this, relative to the “special cases” debated over the centuries by *saints*, Church Fathers, and scholastics. The question is, can certain acts that “look like” so-called lying actually be morally upright and *not* intrinsically evil? Some faithful Catholics say yes, some faithful Catholics say no. And historically the Magisterium says nothing one way or the other to resolve *this* particular question.
*****If, however, he says the actions of Live Action are not lies, he is wrong, but he is not dissenting there, as that’s a matter of application of Church teaching and as in all matters of praxis is open to debate; whereas disagreeing with the sure teaching of the Church on matters of faith or morals is, in fact, dissent. So I stand by what I say. I hope I am wrong, and I hope I am misunderstanding what his position is.****
I can confirm your hope, Kevin, because I totally agree with the “sure teaching” of the Church on *everything*. But *our* discussion is in the realm of common teaching and in the realm of theological opinion.
1. Do we have to believe what it says in the CCC about lying being intrsinically evil? Of course.
2. Do we have to believe Live Action lied? Of course *not*.
3. Does the CCC even *address* issues of “theological opinion” regarding lying? Of course not.
4. Do I dissent from the Magisterium by pointing this out?
Of course not.
Is there anything left to say?
I hope not…
Deacon Jim Russell
I am so sick of people ignoring me. To everyone who has suggested Janet Smith’s article, I have been sending this rebuttal to her article by Brandono Watson. No one is apparently reading it or taking his arguments seriously. He undressed Smith and spanks her, so to speak. http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-smith-on-lying-ii.html
Please keep up with my blog on this, where I stand by everything I’ve written. You may reach it from my site http://www.thewordinc.org
http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-smith-on-lying-ii.html – this is Brandon Watson’s rebuttal to Smith. I guarantee you no one will read it. It shows how wrong she is.
Let’s see, I point to the Catechism and I am ignored. Others point to a private theologian and we celebrate. I smell an agenda here.
Anyway, please read my blog. My post on this is comprehensive: http://thwordinc.blogspot.com/2011/03/alarms-and-violent-decisions.html
I agree, Kevin. Janet Smith is no slouch, but she is not the Magisterium. And it is highly problematic that people treat her as infallible, yet deconstructing the Catechism. Hmmm…
Kevin–I read the so-called rebuttal. Starts out with an erroneous view on Smith’s citation of JPII, and goes downhill from there. But hey, just like Smith, he’s entitled to his opinion.
Ah, but here’s a novel idea–why don’t you provide THE Magisterial teaching that *settles* the ancient debate over whether something that looks like lying might actually be laudable.
It’s a new day–could be the lucky day someone actually *finds* that elusive statement from the Magisterium that lets us all go home and quit this ridiculous and interminable battle…
Deacon Jim Russell
“goes downhill from there”
Care to provide some examples? But we have already provided you with the Magisterial teaching. It’s the Catechism. I presume that if the Catechism can be ignored on lying, then I may also fornicate, murder, contracept, abort, blaspheme, steal, ogle my neighbor’s wife, and sleep in on Sundays.
Sean Dailey,
You posted the following: “Rachel, in the past four months, entire volumes have been written on the questions you ask in your last paragraph. You should do us the courtesy of reading up.”
Just so you don’t think I was being discourteous I wanted to let you know that I was not *really* asking these questions. I was simply supplying examples of my statement. I apologize that I was not more clear. But, since the comments were then turned off (I realize now by accident) and the situation left me feeling “blah” about the whole thing for the rest of the night, I realize that I cannot afford to take the time to be as thorough in my comments as posters on this blog want/deserve. I cannot provide a zillion caveats so that my true intention is not misunderstood. It’s hard for me to remember that you all don’t know me or my ardent love for Christ, His Church and the Truth.
If we were all in the same room together, I’m sure I’d love everyone of ya and want to be the best of friends as branches of the one Vine. This is why I seek you all out on the web because I know only a hand full of people in my real circle of life who could care less what the CCC or Magisterium says.
For the record, I marvel at the beauty and wisdom of the CCC and, God willing, would do anything the Church tells me to, and, I am always, ego aside as much as possible, looking for the Truth. Always.
Deacon Jim, thank you for the links, quotes, and suggestions, I will look into what you have advised as I have the other posters including you, Kevin, and your suggested reading.
Thank you,
Rachel
Thank you Rachel, I appreciate it. I apologize again for the comment glitch.
Sean
Hi, Sean–I’m content to let Brandon have his view without spending energy to critique it right now. BUT, if I’m a bit bored later today, who knows? I might take a stab at it…
And anyway I’d rather ask you about your reply above:
***But we have already provided you with the Magisterial teaching. It’s the Catechism.****
Oh goody. But, er, wait a minute: WHICH Catechism contains the “Magisterial teaching” on lying–the Catechism that *forbids* “jocose lies” or the Catechism that *doesn’t*?? Just let me know.
Oh, yes, and…if you don’t mind, won’t you please cite the Magisterial *source* of the teaching in the Catechism? That would be most helpful…
***** I presume that if the Catechism can be ignored on lying, then I may also fornicate, murder, contracept, abort, blaspheme, steal, ogle my neighbor’s wife, and sleep in on Sundays.****
Sean, why do you and Kevin insist on making this specious claim that when I beg you for the “Magisterial teaching” that actually “*settles* the ancient debate over whether something that looks like lying might actually be laudable”, I *must* be ignoring the CCC’s teaching on lying. That’s ridiculous.
I’ve *looked* in the CCC, Sean–*nowhwere* does the CCC address the question I just mentioned.
I’d appreciate it if you refrain from the continual sleight-of-hand that suggests when I ask for the Magisterial teaching on the lying/speaking-falsehood *debate*, I’m somehow ignoring the *general* teaching on lying found in the CCC.
But, I *would* hope for clarification as to which catechism we should look to, as stated above.
Deacon Jim Russell
My final comment here. Deacon Jim is begging for us to provide evidence that the Catechism condemns lying. Here it is.
“A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: “You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” [paragraph 2482].
Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord [paragraph 2483].
By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity [paragraph 2485].
CCC 1753, “A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means”
By the way, one final point, “what looks like a lie may in fact be laudable” is not what this debate is about. We concede that. We concede that not everything that appears to be a lie might in fact be a lie. Thus, if Deacon Jim and others want to make the claim that Live Action actors are not lying, they’re free to do so. They’ll have a hell of a time making their case, but they’re free to try.
It’s when such people attack Catholic teaching and tell us that the Church permits lying under certain circumstances that I get my dander up. To undercut the authority of the Magisterium or to claim lying may be done under special conditions are both examples of dissent from the Magisterium on this matter. Op. cit. See the Catechism, above.
Now I’m done.
Deacon, at this point, the only reason I approve your comments is that they are so ridiculous, they make Kevin, Joe, and I look better and better each time you post. I suppose, in that light, approving your comments is a sin against charity, but since the Catechism is not Magisterial, I guess I’m off the hook. Cheers.
Sean–why is it “ridiculous” to ask you *directly* to tell me *which* Catechism contains the Magisterial teaching on lying–as I do above?
Why don’t you just answer the question, so I know which I’m supposed to follow?
Why don’t you just answer the question of whether the Catholic Church’s “magisterial teaching” forbids “jocose lies”, or not?
These are simple things, Sean.
Deacon Jim R
Kevin–
You did it again.
Sleight-of-hand, just like Sean.
I ask for a specific citation from the CCC on the *debate*, not on “lying”, and I get your post citing the CCC on *lying*.
Then you post a reply appearing to say you *concede* the CCC does *not* teach magisterially on the *debate* about whether what looks like a lie may in fact be laudable.
Well then why are we going on and on? Then we don’t have a magisterial teaching that directly addresses and condemns what Live Action is doing.
Why is your “dander” up when I’ve said time and again, despite your accusations, I’m not “attacking Church teaching”???
In any case, I’m glad you agree with me that there is no Magisterial teaching in the CCC that addresses and condemns what Live Action is doing.
Deacon Jim Russell
Why? Because I don’t like your question. I don’t like your question because it smells like a set-up. I have been around long enough to know a set-up when I see one. It has been an unspoken assumption throughout this debate, by everyone, including you, that by “catechism,” we mean the second edition of the CCC. Now you are asking, “which catechism?”. This is sophistry, at best, a set-up, at worst, and in either case, patently dishonest.
Sean–it’s only a “setup” if you don’t like the *answer* as well as not liking the question…
And I would guess you don’t like the answer, since the answer is that *one* Catechism containing “magisterial teaching” on lying actually forbids jocose lies (the Catechism of Trent), while the “new” Catechism of the Catholic Church does *not* forbid “jocose lies”.
So it’s a fair question, isn’t it–does the Magisterial teaching of the Church forbid “jocose lies”, or not?
It’s going to feel like a setup because it is set up to give you an answer I don’t think you will like, considering at least some of your fellow Chestertonians are on record as stating that “jocose lies” are not forbidden by the Magisterium…
But such is the nature of discussion and debate, no?
Sometimes we don’t like the answers, but we just gotta face ‘em anyway…
Deacon Jim Russell
Deacon Jim,
My temporary retirement from commenting is over.
If you concede that the Church teaches with Magisteriall authority both what constitutes a lie and that we may never lie under any circumstances, I will
1. withdraw my claim that you are dissenting
2. acknowledge that application of this teaching is up to each indivdual and his conscience
Therefore, if you can claim Live Action is not lying, there is no reason to criticize them for lying. The debate moves on from plank one (Deconstructing the Catechism) to plank two (Redefining the Act in Question).
Dissent consists in taking a stand contrary to the Church’s Magisterium; it does not consist in applying the Church’s teachings, if one is applying said teachings with a good faith effort. I have said as much already even in this combox, but I wanted to spell that out here.
So the debate on Doctrine is over if you agree to the above.
Would the case of Jacob (one who supplant’s or deceives) be relevant to the matter of a lie due to him lying to his father to get his brother’s birthright and father’s blessing (Genesis 25 – 29)? Didn’t Jacob’s sons Simeon and Levi (Genesis Chapter 34) deceive Hamor, his son Shechem, and the people of Schechem to believe a Covenant made with the Lord would reconcile the abuse of Dinah (Jacob became distressed and God led him to Bethel to make an altar)? Under the same token, didn’t LA give the impression to PP their services would be needed to reconcile a case of abuse? And, didn’t LA simply use this to get at PP for covering up such abuses?
So, Deacon, this is what it has come down to — looking up obscure things like this to “prove” that lying is okay and that Live Action did not lie anyway, all in a dishonest effort to trap me?
I guess it is my fault for expecting honest arguments from people who make a case for lying.
GK Student, we’ve been over this elsewhere.
Per Aquinas, the characters of the Old Testament are praised NOT because of their lies but because of their FAITH. Moses killed a man. Do we praise him BECAUSE of this murder or IN SPITE of it?
The case against lying in Scripture is all over the palce, but especially in the threefold denial of Jesus by Peter, the most shameful human act in all of the Bible. If ever there is a situation where one should be allowed to lie, it would be to save one’s own neck. This is exactly the situation Peter was in. He lied. It was the worst moment in his life.
By the way, The CCC of Trent FORBIDS EVEN JOCOSE LIES. And they are right to do so, as this is Magisterial teaching and part of the Deposit of Faith.
So if you tell a falsehood in order to deceive another, even for FUN, or even as a JOKE, you are sinning.
However, if you tell a falsehood with no intent to deceive another, you are either an actor, a fiction writer, or a comedian trying to get a laugh. Joking is not condemned by the Church and never has been. LYING is, even lying to get a laugh.
So, again, our side has never said “Any one who speaks a falsehood is sinning!” This would condemn actors, fiction writers, comedians getting laughs from speech that everyone knows is false and no one is deceived by … and it may even include Live Action (I don’t think it does).
But we have said all along, over and over and over again, “Any one who speaks falsehood WITH THE INTENT OF DECEIVING ANOTHER” is lying and therefore sinning.
To lead another into error is the object of lying. And this is wrong always and everwhere, per the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
This is settled, whether Deacon Jim Russell ever admits it or not.
I’m willing to agree on this, and move on to examining the act in question, if he is. I’m also willing to withdraw my claim of dissent if he agrees to this and moves on.
It is the attack on the teaching authority of the Church that I cannot and will not abide.
Kevin–welcome back from retirement!
Okay, I follow what you are saying. And I’m hoping I can connect with you on your first point.
I may be able to do better than you hoped. Can you accept a concession by me along these lines:
“I concede that the Magisterium, through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and with the authority of Divine Revelation, teaches the faithful that lying (“Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor”) is a sin against the 8th Commandment, is intrinsically evil, and cannot be done under any circumstances.”
If that suffices, we may be able to progress beyond where we are now. If it does not suffice, let me know your objection and I will try to address it…
Deacon Jim Russell
Here is what I found, with some help from Kefvin: “To deceive by a jocose or officious lie, even though it helps or harms no one, is, notwithstanding, altogether unworthy; for thus the Apostle admonishes us: Putting away lying, speak ye the truth. This practice begets a strong tendency to frequent and serious lying, and from jocose lying men contract the habit of lying, lose all reputation for truth, and ultimately find it necessary, in order to gain belief, to have recourse to continual swearing.” – Catechism of Trent
So, yes, if you DECEIVE someone with a lie, even as a joke, it is a sin. If you cannot tell the difference between this and a joke, or a novel, or a play, then you have lost your faculty for reason.
Deacon Jim, sounds good to me, “one’s neighbor” being understood to be everybody.
Thank you, my friend. You’re on record now! And so am I. We all accept this teaching as Magisterial.
And, also on record, no matter how wrong I think you may be in applying this teaching to a given situation (including Live Action videos), your application of this teaching (even if wrongly applied) can not rise to dissent as long as you fully assent to this teaching.
Let us, then, move on.
But not today! I need a break. Karen will kill me if I’m on the computer a minute longer.
Sean wrote:
****So, Deacon, this is what it has come down to — looking up obscure things like this to “prove” that lying is okay and that Live Action did not lie anyway, all in a dishonest effort to trap me?
I guess it is my fault for expecting honest arguments from people who make a case for lying.*****
Dishonest effort to “trap” you? But I didn’t have any idea you’d feel trapped. You’re kind of shooting the messenger, Sean. The question I asked is not “obscure” at all. What’s dishonest about it?
I forthrightly acknowledged you might feel “set up” if you did not like the answer. I can’t help that.
It’s a question of vital importance to the claim that we have to follow the “magisterial teaching” on lying. It shouldn’t be that hard, and I see Kevin has addressed the question above already.
Kevin–
You wrote:
*****By the way, The CCC of Trent FORBIDS EVEN JOCOSE LIES.**** Oh really, I hadn’t noticed!
**** And they are right to do so, as this is Magisterial teaching and part of the Deposit of Faith.*****
Ohhhh….well I’ll bypass this for now….
*****So if you tell a falsehood in order to deceive another, even for FUN, or even as a JOKE, you are sinning. However, if you tell a falsehood with no intent to deceive another, you are either an actor, a fiction writer, or a comedian trying to get a laugh. Joking is not condemned by the Church and never has been. LYING is, even lying to get a laugh.*****
This is highly instructive and interesting to me, as I’m am thinking the distinction you make between a “jocose lie” and a “jocose…something else” sounds *verrry* similar to the approach used to distinguish between “lying” in a sting operation and “speaking falsehood without deceiving in a sting operation.”
But I have to check to see whether there is any hint of this distinction between “Jocose lying” and “jocose…speaking falsehood?” in the Augustine/Aquinas sources.
This is precisely why I wanted to bring this up–it raises the question of teaching consistency and how we understand what “clear” terms appear in catechisms…
Deacon Jim Russell
I have no problem with the answer, Deacon. “Jocose” to intentionally lead into falsehood vs. “jocose” to tell a joke/tell a story/etc. is a huge difference, and if you say you do not see a difference, you are being obtuse.
Kevin–
Maybe Joe G can clarify, but after reviewing some sources, I’m pretty sure your approach to the “jocose lie” is contrary to Aquinas, whom, I *think* would still consider a falsehood said in jest withou intent to deceive (such as when you affectionately referred to me as a liturgical dancer…
) as a “material lie” since it’s “at variance with the mind”, and therefore is still sinful lying….
It raises for me the question of the Trent Catechism treatment of jocose lies and whether there is sufficient evidence that would suggest we should interpret Trent’s prohibition as only referring to “formal jocose lies” and not “material jocose lies.”
Any other thoughts on this?
I think it does make a difference whether Trent and the CCC are *fully* in synch on lying, or only *partially* in synch on lying, for obvious reasons.
It would be good to consider whether Trent Catechism prohibits *all* “jocose lies* a la Aquinas (even those done with no intent to deceive), while the CCC doesn’t.
Deacon Jim Russell
Deacon Jim, if you accept the Magisterial definition we agreed on, “Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor,” then speaking falsehood only amounts to a lie when done to deceive. We have said this from the beginning.
I understand that you are saying Live Action actors were not intending to deceive, even if speaking falsehood. If you’re right, they weren’t lying and thus their acts weren’t proscribed by the CCC.
Remember, I WAS THE ONE WHO GAVE JAMES O’KEEFE THIS DEFENSE TO BEGIN WITH and I even believed it myself for a while. (I go over that here http://thwordinc.blogspot.com/2011/03/alarms-and-violent-decisions.html )
You can research the theology and magisterial teaching on this matter, but you don’t have to. The definition tells you what lying is. Without the intent to lead someone into error, you can’t tell a lie. This covers the case of a person speaking something false that he believe to be true, actors, fiction writers, etc.
My blog posts on this are quite comprehensive. I’ve been saying this from the beginning.
I know your basic argument now is “Live Action was not intending to deceive, thus they were not lying.” As I say, it was an argument I first advanced, a year ago. I get it. I disagree, but I get it.
It’s Plank Two. We can address it later. But I’ve got to GET OFF THIS COMPUTER!!!!
Sean–see my reply above to Kevin (which of course you will see since you’re moderator).
Aquinas considers any such speech at variance with the mind as at least a “material lie”, including a “jocose lie” not intended to deceive.
Joe G–want to chime in? I’m pretty sure of this comment on Aquinas, but I’m willing to see a correction…
Deacon Jim R
@Kevin – Thanks. But, (please excuse the devil’s advocate) if the audience who watches LA know LA is lying to the PP worker, then is the audience deceived? Doesn’t the audience know LA is lying? Or better, what is the deception of LA to the audience?
By audience, I mean the people who are apparently watching LA from the video of the whole event taking place.
@Kevin – There’s no immediate need nor any urgent sense to respond to my questions or comments. Also, I’m quite new to the articles and discussion (so I’ve missed a few things prior to the discussion.)
GK Student, there is no deception of the ultimate audience (the YouTube viewers) who are in on it. The deception is of the immediate audience, the PP workers who are not in on it.
Thus, in order to reveal the truth about PP to the YouTube audience (a noble end), the Live Action actors are deceiving the immediate audience in the process (an ignoble means).
It’s interesting how the gap of time between the two audiences makes this clear. The first audience of the spoken falsehoods were deceived by them (the PP workers). Months later, after editing and post-production, the ultimate audience who watched the videos was in on it and therefore not deceived. The first audience was deliberately deceived so that the second audience might watch and be enlightened. This is simply use of another, in the worst kind of reality TV way, or consequentialism pure and simple.
Now I am NOT saying that this deception by L.A. is ANYWHERE NEAR AS BAD as abortion or as covering up for underage prostitution. If it’s a sin at all (subjectively speaking), it’s probably venial (we don’t know the hearts of the actors involved so we can’t judge); it is an objective wrong, but not nearly as bad as the wrong done by Planned Parenthood day in and day out. No question. The two do not compare.
Still, without deception, the videos could not have been made. And we must avoid deception. We can not defeat the Culture of Death with a Culture of Deceit.
And, as Sean points out in his editorial, Live Action made an excellent video exposing PP in their lies about providing mamograms – without deceiving anyone involved! So we need not resort to lying, and indeed the Church tells us we must not.
Let us consider what it means to deceive someone. For example, if it tell my sister that there is a giant spider behind her; when there is in fact no spider at all, I am telling her something that is not true. Now, if I tell her immediately afterward (after the funny scream and jump), and always intended to tell her, that there was in fact no spider at all, was I telling a jocose lie?
.
The point I am making is, is it deceitful to try to make someone believe a untruth, even with the intention to rectify this immediately? I do not know if this would be applicable to the immediate case of LA, but it is an interesting thought.
.
I do not even have an answer myself, but I am interested in what Sean Kevin and the Deacon will say.
.
.
Is a prank sinful when the whole thing hangs on the prankee momentarily believing something that is not true?
@ GK Student: nothing for nothing, and I don’t know if this gets directly at the points your raising, but in point of fact, there’s been evidence produced – and I can track it down if you want a link – to demonstrate that the “audience” of the Live Action stings was deceived somewhat. There was a lot of tricky editing and changing of what appeared to be presented, matching statements made in conversation with questions from which they proceeded far from directly, and the like.
@ Deacon Jim et al.: First of all, Our Lady smiles on this day, I really do believe. I think the tenor of the debate has become a bit lighter and some of the air has cleared in this, and it really does console me to see it. Jim, I particularly commend you for your well-considered and directed comment @ http://www.chesterton.org/?p=2889#comment-666, and I commend Kevin and Sean for the subsequent gracious acknowledgements. Now, though, it seems, we are back in the fray.
On the jocose lie, Jim, I would direct you to S.T. IIaIIae, Q. 110, Art. 3, ad. 6: “Accordingly a jocose lie, from the very genus of the action, is of a nature to deceive; although in the intention of the speaker it is not told to deceive, nor does it deceive by the way it is told.” The important point here is the comment about the “genus of the action,” which Aquinas earlier equates with *formal* (rather than *material* falsehood): “[T]he essential notion of a lie is taken from formal falsehood, from the fact namely, that a person intends to say what is false; wherefore also the word “mendacium” [lie] is derived from its being in opposition to the “mind” (loc. cit., Art., responsa); whereas material falsehood is simply that what is said is false.
Now, in my personal opinion, I think that there are two reasonable readings of the notion of the “jocose lie” which might be offered, and which agree with the idea that a lie is intrinsically evil, and which are based upon this former distinction.
The first reading is this: that it may indeed be sinful on a venial level to ever, without good cause, be anything but clearly truthful. Remember that for long ages of the Church “vain speech” and “idle talk” were tsk-ed as barriers to the spiritual life. There’s a perfect argument to be made, from the standpoint of spiritual theology, that yes, indeed, any time we open our mouths it should be a decision of some gravity to us to speak at all, and to choose always our words carefully. This would, obviously, be a more *strict* reading of the developed idea of the jocose lie. But in the absence of a very authoritative definition of what it is to be “jocose” – which Aquinas distinguishes from “hyperbolical or any kind of figurative expressions,” which he quotes Augustine as defending according to the logic that “it states what those to whom it is tendered understand it to signify” – I think we can reason through the meaning of jocose; thus I offer a second reading.
The second reading – my personal preference – adheres strongly to the idea of “intending to say what is false” on the one hand, connected with “of a nature to deceive” on the other. Combining these two phrases – the first being the idea of formal falsehood which is the ‘essential notion’ of a lie, and the second being the ‘genus’ of lying as given in the discussion of jocose lies, I think we could distinguish all manner of speech-utterances (or acts, like a magician’s sleight of hand in a knowingly attended magic show) from this. When someone asked me, “Was the concert packed?” and I answer, “Yeah, there were like a million people there,” I have used hyperbole. I know in my mind there were *not* a million people there. But I haven’t lied, because I have answered according to a convention of communication which we both adhere to. I have, therefore, intended to speak what is *true*, but by a certain manner of speaking. Similarly, most jokes have a certain conventionality around them that defines a genre, just as when I pick up a fairy tale off the shelf rather than an encyclopedia, I expect the tale to convey truth *according to a genre convention* that is distinct from the encyclopedia – and thus, the author of the tale does not lie (in that particular respect anyway, although the ‘moral’ of the tale may be untrue which is a whole other bag of chips).
That’s my two cents anyway.
Correction, Kevin, Live Action found out about the mammograms by calling Planned Parenthood offices and asking about them, not with hidden cameras. Which is what I reported in the editorial.
What was interesting to me was the contrast between right and left, in thinking and maybe values, in the top two posts. So what is it about abortion that the left is so passionate about? I just don’t get it. If it is ‘standing up for woman’, there are at least as many woman emotionally hurt by their having an abortion as by not having one. What are you guys on the left really fighting for?
Anyway, obviously the left leaning writer’s focusing on the morality of lying itself is interesting, but not to be taken seriously if he is “pro life”. He either believes what pro lifers generally do or he does not. If he does, then why is pretending that there is any moral equivalence here?
Daniel, I think, per the Catechism of Trent, that such practical jokes are jocose lies. They’re mean, you know, even if the laughter soon follows.
Yeah, Sean, but I didn’t READ your editorial. I never READ posts I comment on. I’m too busy saying things I want to say! I don’t have time to read things other people say!
I am humbled that you trust me enough to defend me without reading me. Next time I’ll write favorably of porn and crack smoking, and let you defend me as a paragon of moral virtue.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Japes! Just to clarify, by “top two posts, do you mean the first two editorials in the post above?
Thanks,
Sean Dailey
@Mr. Macfarland,
As I’m not sure how distinguishing the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ really are as categories for ideologies, I wonder if you couldn’t clarify a bit more which is which in terms of the “posts” and also what import you assign to the respective terms? And, I don’t know that any “passionate” opinion has been expressed anywhere on this page other than that it’s wrong. I think everyone who’s written here would agree upon that point – that it’s wrong, always and in every instance. And, what’s more, a crime of the gravest proportions that calls out to God for vengeance. No disagreement there.
But our discussion has been about lying. It’s not a question of ‘moral equivalence,’ but of a foundational moral maxim, that one may not do evil in order that good may come about.
Joe, Sean, Kevin, et al.:
I believe the “jocose lie” example has served well, for both the Roman Catechism (Trent) and the CCC, to illustrate the insufficiencies of the common teaching on lying found in the Catechism(s). Regardless of whether that common teaching is “magisterial” (which we have debated too long), we have *no* magisterial teaching to rely upon when it comes to *how* to understand and apply these teachings with the *depth* necessary to address more complex questions associated with lying.
As Joe mentions above, in order to understand what the RC and the CCC “mean” by “jocose lie” (or by the *absence* of the term in the CCC), we go to *reason*, not magisterial teaching. Statements in both Catechisms require prpper interpretation, but that interpretations is NOT magisterial–it belongs to US, not the Magisterium.
We don’t really “know” what the Roman Catechism really “means” by the term “jocose lie”–whether it means both “material” and “formal” versions of it. And no “magisterial” source clarifies for us which view to hold. We are on our own on that point and must do the best we can according to conscience.
Now, apply this same rationale to the “Live Action” debate. No magisterial source is there to tell us *how* to apply the CCC teaching on lying to sting operations, shopping mall santas, spies, deceptive war tactics, etc. Rather, we must *interpret*. And our interpretations belong to *us*, not the Magisterium.
This is why I believe all this will only end badly, or *very* badly.
My approach above is *historical*, not theological. It rests on the *history* of what the Magisterium has done and has *not* done. That history is measurable and clear. And yet it does not seem to have been acknowledged or embraced by many with whom I’ve argued and debated.
Kevin, Sean, et al.: I made concession yesterday to make clear that I do not dissent from the Magisterium. Before I go further on this, I will need a concession from my dialogue partners that the *history* on this is clear, that our *interpretations* of the catechism’s teaching belong to *us* and not the magisterium, and that, as such, BOTH views of the Live Action sting question that we are debating are *equally* permissible by the Magisterium because both views arise *not* from magisterial or catechetical sources but from our *interpretation* of those sources.
I hope what I say above is clear enough for all to understand.
I will continue dialogue on the *theology* of this issue anywhere, anytime, anyplace, with anyone who concedes that the *history* of this issue makes clear that *both* views of the Live Action question can be held *without* departing from Magisterial teaching on lying.
Once the history is agreed upon, we can *disagree* about the theology all we want.
But until I see concession on this historcial point, I’m done–because without a common understanding of the history, any further theological debate will just end badly and miserably…
Deacon Jim Russell
Only one person addressed my argument. This is the rebutal:
Live Action did not deceive, it made truth manifest.
I too can quote from the catechism:
2468 Truth as uprightness in human action and speech is called truthfulness, sincerity, or candor. Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and in guarding against duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy.
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
2490 The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason.”284
2491 Professional secrets – for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers – or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.
QED
All of these arguments are thoughtful and cogent. But while we “discuss” babies are dying by the thousands and women are being mentally and physically damaged for life. I have been in the pro-life battle since before Roe v Wade….I have worked politically and in the community to educate people. Pro-abortion people know perfectly well what goes on…the media knows what goes on. Perhaps someone living at the North Pole may be ignorant, but no one else may be. A holocaust of monumental preportions takes place before our very eyes, every single day. Live Action knows this and you all do also….The government has given one group of people(mothers) the right to murder another group of people(their children). Blessings on the young people of Live Action! May they continue their good work in health and safety.
David,
I’ve been addressing this argument “Live Action did not lie” from the beginning and also in these comments. In short, your assertion that Live Action made the truth manifest IS ENTIRELY CORRECT and I AGREE WITH IT WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
There’s one itty bitty problem. In making the truth manifest, they lied. In order to achieve the end of enlightening the YouTube audience they deceived the Planned Parenthood workers. They used a bad means to achieve a good end.
And, for Deacon Jim’s assertion that the debate is now about applying Magisterial teaching to this specific case, I also heartily agree. Thus, if the acts in question are LIES, we may neither commit them nor condone them. David Beresford would agree with us here.
To reiterate, then, we all agree
1. That lying is deceiving others by asserting falsehoods, and
2. Lying is intrinsically evil and must never be done.
We are now arguing about whether or not these acts constitute lies. David simply asserts that they do not, offering no reason why they do not.
In fact these acts are lies and everyone involved in this debate admitted they were for the first week or so, until they realized they could not make this concession without ignoring or deconstructing the Catechism. Even Peter Kreeft frankly admitted the acts in question are LIES. They are false utterances designed to lead others into error (yes, ultimately into truth, but by means of error – a bad means to a good end). For David Beresford to demonstrate otherwise, he must do more then simply assert his claim.
By the way, David, please read my comprehensive post on this: http://thwordinc.blogspot.com/2011/03/alarms-and-violent-decisions.html in which I remind everyone that I was the one who came up with this argument (the acts in question are not lies) to begin with nearly a year ago. The argument on the surface is fine – not every utterance of falsehood constitutes a lie; but the prima facie evidence in this instance is that these acts are lies – lies done with the best of intentions, but lies all the same.
And to make clear the difference between assenting to Church teaching and applying it, see http://endofthemodernworld.blogspot.com/2011/06/truth-truth-truth.html
… and I beg your pardon, “QED”?
OK, it seems, after having noticed the QED, that you think you are doing more than asserting a claim, David, but proving it. So here goes.
Re. the Catechism:
2468 Truth as uprightness in human action and speech is called truthfulness, sincerity, or candor. Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and in guarding against duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy.
AGREED. HOW DOES CLAIMING TO BE A PIMP OR A HOOKER WHEN YOU ARE NOT FIT WITH THIS DESCRIPTION? IN WHAT WAY WERE THE L.A. ACTORS GUARDING AGAINST DUPLICITY OR DISSIMULATION WHILE BEING DUPLICITOUS AND DISSIMULATING?
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.
AMEN, BROTHER. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOT REVEALING THE TRUTH (KEEPING SILENT) AND ASSERTING A FALSEHOOD SO AS TO DECEVIE (TELLING A LIE).
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
AGAIN, AMEN. IF I ASK A PRIEST WHAT YOU TOLD HIM IN CONFESSION, HE MUST REMAIN SILENT. HE MAY NOT LIE.
2490 The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason.”284
RIGHT. WHAT ON EARTH DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH LYING?
2491 Professional secrets – for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers – or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.
DAVID, IF THIS IS A QED, I CAN ONLY SAY WTF?
Dave, Live Action did indeed make truth manifest, but it deceived and lied to do that. Live Action did not show itself “true in deeds and truthful in words.” The success of its stings hinged upon “duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy.”
Second, your side is fond of quoting from CCC 2489, regarding people who have no right to the truth. However, read in context, which you have provided, it has nothing to do with revealing the truth to bad guys like Planned Parenthood or Nazis. It is about avoiding the sin of detraction. If I know Person A is having an affair, and Person B asks me if that is true, in that situation, Person B has no right to the truth of Person A’s sin. Even more, I possibly commit mortal sin, against both charity and justice, if I reveal the truth to Person B. As an interesting aside, I also may not lie in fulfilling the requirements of CCC 2489. I have to be more creative than that.
Finally, the worst part of Live Action’s lies is that those lies had the effect of leading the Planned Parenthood workers deeper into sin, of undermining their-God given free will to choose good, if given the opportunity. CCC 2489 speaks of “charity and respect for the truth.” Yes, now we know that Planned Parenthood aids and abets teen prostitution and teen abortion and contraception. Is it really any surprise? In other news, water found to be wet. But if the Live Action actors had entered the PP facilities with “charity and respect for the truth” in their hearts, rather than intending to commit evil so good may come from it, how much more might they have accomplished? Could they maybe have converted a soul or two?
As I wrote in my editorial, we are called to be salt and light to everyone we meet. Can you justify exempting Planned Parenthood workers from that mandate? If not, then how can you justify Live Action’s tactics? As our Lord said, “Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me.” What good are we as Christians if the best we can do with the least of Christ’s brethren is help usher them into hell? How will we answer for that at the Judgment?
Remember, the majority of Planned Parenthood’s employees could very well be there because they have been lied to. Now the employees in the videos have been lied to by people who should know better. For shame.
@David Beresford, – none of the arguments above present the “Q” of “lying” as the point of the demonstratum. That is to say, all of these points we who disagree on lying have already admitted: that communication of the truth is conditional, that discretion is allowed, that some instances dismiss the duty to reveal the truth, that professional secrets and above all confessional secrets must be kept tenaciously. None of this – none – is a “slam dunk” for doing evil that good may follow. And in point of fact, there’s an apples/oranges quality to Planned Parenthood desk workers and Nazis invading a home. We may not see it that way. But consider it this way: if the Nazis were invading your home to kill the Jews hidden there, you might reasonably, as an act of self-defense and in last resort, shoot those Nazis. Correct? So do we *really* want to insinuate the moral exigency of THAT scenario over to the Planned Parenthood clinic scenario? Personally, I do not. Abortion is a terrible crime. We must do all we can to stop it. But “all we can” is limited. I do not consider myself at liberty to tackle a young girl going into the clinic to get an abortion, as I might tackle a terrorist running toward a cafe with a bomb. And to argue that the only difference is that terrorist will kill many people is howgash, and in fact mitigates the terrible nature of the crime of abortion. So, then, why are the two situations different? Why do I have recourses in one case that I might not in the other? Because of the moral immediacy and the element of formal participation. The workers behind the clinic are, as much as we might be loathe to admit it, removed from any *direct action* of evil in the moment in which these “stings” take place. In fact, the only action of evil which arises is the willingness to sin expressed on the part of the workers; and that means that they were *led into an occasion of sin* in addition to being *lied to.* We may not do evil so that good may follow; we may not objectify individuals working for the big bad corporation to get after the corporation. And, as I’ve said before, the sad truth is that these women are often minority women from low incomes who work or volunteer at these clinics, and are just as much victims of the eugenicist lies of the abortionists. What they need is *truth,* not to be lied to. I’ve met a lot of pro-lifers who have cheerleaded and grandstanded about these stings; it was an effective publicity move. But I have yet to meet or even to hear of a *single person* whose heart was changed and converted about the nature of abortion; whereas I have met people who have been able to use it to tsk their tongues and complain about the pro-lifer’s double-standard of morals. What real good has this done? Convincing people who already thought Planned Parenthood was evil that it is really evil doesn’t seem worth the harm of possibly hardening the heart of people who are in the middle of a terrible system of sin.
Lying doesn’t lead to truth. Now I’ll say QED.
@Jim, I can literally (I think) agree with *everything* you said in that last post except for one, the big petitio principii: “BOTH views of the Live Action sting question that we are debating are *equally* permissible by the Magisterium because both views arise *not* from magisterial or catechetical sources but from our *interpretation* of those sources.” I say yes and no.
I mean that the Doctrine seems clear, and yes – both views are interpretations of Doctrine, now that we’ve agreed about Doctrine and the history on Doctrine on this issue. But all this is to say that the Magisterium “permits” people to be wrong. Both views are “permissible” as regards the Live Action debate; but one is right and one is wrong. I will not accuse a person of heresy, apostasy, or dissent, because that takes the formal object of what one understands Doctrine to be, and here we have a different formal object: a mistaken understanding in the mind of what the Doctrine means as applied to a specific situation. So, we are indeed at a new “level” of debate following your concession; and I hope that this, my ‘concession,’ is satisfactory upon the point.
You are permitted to think Live Action did not lie without being guilty of heresy, apostasy, or dissent. But you’re still wrong.
@David Beresford (take 2):
Forgive me for using the “Nazis” analogy. I realize *your* analogy was about a little girl’s artwork – for my response to THAT, see http://http://arthuringlewood.blogspot.com/.
The reason I jumped to the Nazi analogy is because it’s a commonplace in this debate and one I sort of thought you might agree with; and, furthermore, it is one which is implicated by your use of the Chesterton quotation regarding Chinese torturers. Chinese torturers and Nazis are analogous enough for our purposes, no?
But I hope you don’t think I’ve “straw manned” your argument or “red herringed” or anything of the sort. What I’ve done is to try to show that the “good” that came of these videos (which is, in itself, somewhat suspect I think) was not even as closely related to the act itself as lying. To argue that the acts are okay because the good is the *ultimate* result (when in point of fact the immediate individuals involved were *deceived*) is deep in the logic of proportionalism and consequentialism. Hence my analogies: we need to be aware of the moral immediacy and not obscure means and ends.
Joe—you wrote:
***But all this is to say that the Magisterium “permits” people to be wrong. Both views are “permissible” as regards the Live Action debate; but one is right and one is wrong.****
This may shock you Joe, but I couldn’t disagree more vehemently with that statement. It’s not that the Magisterium “permits” a “right” and a “wrong” view on this—it’s that the Magisterium permits each individual the freedom of conscience to *form* their conscience as best they can in order to govern THEIR OWN actions, not to sit around and judge whether *other* people have condescended to “agree” with someone *else’s* conscience on this issue.
Implicit in this freedom and in the permissibility to believe *either* view is the opportunity for ALL to be “right” on this issue, not in a morally relativistic manner, but rather in the context of the *unity* of being believers in Christ, each trying his best to form conscience and choose accordingly, without the preoccupation of judging *others* when the Magisterium does *not* make such a judgment.
You also wrote:
*****You are permitted to think Live Action did not lie without being guilty of heresy, apostasy, or dissent. But you’re still wrong.****
Joe, there’s no gentle way to say this, so here it is:
I am “wrong” according to whose Magisterium? The Magisterium of JOE.
BUT I DON’T CARE….
I don’t say that to be rude, but to be truthful, ironically, and to be emphatic.
So, I’m “wrong” according to “your Magisterium”—that is, according to *your* conscience.
So what? I’m also wrong according to Kevin’s Magisterium, Sean’s Magisterium, Mark Shea’s Magisterium.
I also happen to be “right” according to Janet Smith’s Magisterium, and Kreeft’s Magisterium, and many others….
What I DO care about is whether I’m “right” according to my well-formed conscience, illuminated by and in conformity with the teachings—and teaching authority—of the Catholic Church.
What should we all be doing right now? Blathering endlessly about why *my* conscience is better than yours?
I hardly think so.
Rather, we should be PRAYING to end abortion and save lives. And we should be taking a page out of the playbook of THE Magisterium (of the Catholic Church) and keep SILENT about what everybody else is doing and just try to work really hard on making the right choices *ourselves*.
It’s taken me a *lot* of ranting and blathering on and on to get this far in my thinking, but I’m there.
Right now I can’t imagine a reason why I would post again on this subject, so I’m saying farewell, Godspeed, and please don’t think less of me for wanting to follow *my* well-formed conscience rather than anyone else’s on this.
Blessings,
Deacon Jim Russell
@Jim: you misunderstand me. I agree with all of what you’ve said again, except that you accuse me of judging you according to a parallel Magisterium. I’m saying that you are wrong in the means of reason and logic by which you evaluate the case of Live Action and the pertinent moral categories, whereby you perceive that the case does not apply to the teachings or is outside the teaching. You’re right about what the Magisterium teaches; you’re right and earnest about forming your own conscience accordingly. And you are certainly morally right in arguing your convictions and conclusions.
You said in your first post, “Once the history is agreed upon, we can *disagree* about the theology all we want.” Well, you take it much amiss when I’ve tried to do just that and nothing more. The whole basis of argument is that the two sides think the reasoning of the other or the methodology or the conclusions are WRONG. Otherwise, why argue? Otherwise, that is, we would agree. I don’t think you’re being morally relativistic, but if I can’t say I think you’re wrong, then no, we really can’t debate. There’s levels of right and wrong we’re talking about here, and I think you’ve taken me as trying to pronounce upon a level that I would never presume to pronounce upon. Yes, the Magisterium permits people, in a certain sense, to be wrong. We have to form our own consciences and to make discernments about what we can do and can’t do according to the application of a teaching and how it is applied. And in all this, we may be wrong. I get this all the time from people who argue about liturgy, usually using the deplorably weak translation of ICEL from the 1970s, but that’s besides the point. The Church may not say explicitly that there are precluded opinions on a given point, but I still think people are reasoning to the wrong thing. But I think *this* situation is more akin to when somebody argues that, “The Mass says such and such,” from the translation, when it really doesn’t say that. In those cases those people are wrong in an even more fundamental, albeit workable way. In this case, people look at Live Action and say they do not evaluate it to be a lie. I say that they are wrong in that evaluation, for reasons that really have nothing to do with the Magisterium and everything to do with reason, attending to evidence, and the like.
And, emphatically, this is not about judging others, Jim. It’s about evaluating action and providing recourse to better approaches. Very early on in this debate, on another website, I suggested that Live Action ought to have gone in dressed in normal clothes and said, “Suppose that this girl was underage and needed an abortion….” As far as I can tell, such hypothetical usage as a convention would *permit* the Planned Parenthood worker from reasoning to the truth, but also permit a shortcoming and a misunderstanding and ultimately the same kind of admission which they got with the sting. I’m trying to *help* the cause, Jim, and to indicate how what the Magisterium DOES say applies in cases on discernment. The statement about this being a “preoccupation of judging *others* when the Magisterium does *not* make such a judgment” is completely specious because the Magisterium doesn’t follow everybody around with a clipboard telling them when a teaching does and does not apply. Every act of discernment is open to some kind of judgment, and it doesn’t imply judging *others* to make commentary upon it when it’s in a public forum. And I have been very careful all along to say that I have no way of knowing whether Lila Rose and her companions are *guilty* of sin. But I argue that the course of action they espoused should be avoided in the future for reasons of prudence and discernment.
I have no Magisterium but the Church’s. I have my own conscience, however, and my own brain and skills of reasoning. It was according to those, and IN TERMS of those, that I said you were wrong. You’ve done the same thing to me by objecting, by the way.
Joe is right, Deacon Jim. We all agree on what the Magisterium teaches. It is up to us to apply that teaching in our daily lives. We can apply that teaching in a right way or in a wrong way.
By whose standards? Well, we know by Whose standards in our conscience.
I would like someone to address the points Sean and Joe made earlier. I am tired of our side answering the points the other side makes, and the other side ignoring our points and coming up with new ones that we are expected to rebut.
What do you, dear brothers in Christ, make of Sean’s point that we are not witnessing truth to PP workers when we use them as objects in these videos? I’m parapharasing him, please read what he said above and respond to it. What do you make of Joe’s claim (in so many words) that Christ would have dined with these sinners, not lied to them for political gain?
These claims go to the issue of Charity, which is at the heart of these matters. I grant you these workers may be our enemies – but what are we to do to our enemies (according to Christ) and how do the actions of L.A. comport with that?
I beg someone to respond before we get bogged down again in definitions and minutiae.
@Joe, the responsiveness to use a hypothetical situation to encourage someone to the truth would be a charitable approach (which the world doesn’t have since Christ said He came to save the world. Not to condemn it.) If LA had done so, they could have 1.) drawn the worker to the truth (a Socratic dialogue of sorts) and 2.) exposed the error of how the worker reasons to which jeopardizes the true regard of justice. In many respects, LA’s intent to do justice wasn’t a bad thing (to safeguard life.) However, their intent to do good ends up being underminded by telling a lie.
But, I will say this (in the context of Chesterton’s saying “a thing worth doing is a thing worth doing badly”), if they had not, at least, attempted to to the right thing, I don’t think the conversation (here) would have happened and no one would (especially here) have observed any room for improvement and engaging in a more charitable response to people with PP.
So with regard to what should had been done, LA made a mistake by lying to safeguard life; and, since they had made a terrible error in the attempt to safeguard life (just as or similarily to which St. Peter had err’d by denying Christ three times but with a thrice acceptance of Christ when He asked “Do you love me?”), they should pursuit to do to the right thing by rightly and correctly doing it (it is human to err; but love divine [Cardinal Ratzinger - Pope Benedict XVI - used this quote in his book: An Introduction to Christianity.])
Thank you for responding to my arguments. I am increasingly convinced that we are in some measure speaking at cross purposes, although I do admit that we have genuine disagreement here.
What can I say that I have not tried to say already? Sean, Kevin, Joey, all make excellent points and with charity. Of course, I disagree. Perhaps this will make my meaning clear, although I do not think it will convince:
If someone asks how much money I each year make then I am obliged to say “none of your business”. However, I can say this in many ways, for example:
I make $100,000,000/year
I make $100,000/year
I make $62,000/year
I make $100/year
I make $1.25/year
These are all ways of saying “none of your business” which the asker should realize by virtue of having asked a rude question in the first place. The fact that two of these are plausible does not make them lies any more that the $1.25/year is a lie, for the asker has forfeited the right to any answer but the truth which is some variant of “none of your business”.
This is the trajectory of my mind on this, I think it is consistent with the duties to truth demanded of me according to the Catechism, you probably disagree. This is why it is not a lie for a child to say to a rude caller on the telephone that “Dad is busy upstairs right now, can I take a message?” even if the Dad is not at home, for saying “Dad is not home” leaved the family vulnerable to potential burglars and betrays a family confidence of that condition of vulnerability. If we cannot agree on this point, we are not going to agree on much else regarding this matter either.
@David – If a child says, “My Dad is busy and upstairs”, then he or she would be 1.) neglected of parental care (if the parent is not home) and 2.) neglecting to be ensured a much better safeguard to an already vulnerable condition (it would be better no one was home and someone broke into the home, stole items, and the child is at a friends or other trusted person’s house.) Because, the persistent burglar only has to detect a pattern of who answers the phone and when he or she answers it. The burglar can come up to the door (as long as the burglar knows the address) and inquire upon the likely whereabouts of the parent. Though, the shroudedness and obscurity of the parents whereabouts may not necessarily suggest his or her (speaking of the parent) actual location. However, the obscurity is certainly suspectful to the criminal and can leave the child in a much more vulnerable condition whereby the burglar may pursuit much further than a mere phone call (don’t forget criminal minds have the same faculty to operate as good one’s – ask Flambeau and Father Brown.) Likewise with LA’s case, the lie may prove useful for the moment until it proves inefficient (and perhaps as defcient criteria) to really safeguard and defend life. How so? Just as in the child’s case, a lie can compromise the good will, good intention, and the effective facilitation of LA to work as a PL organization (afterall this lie of identity is how this PL organization trespassed onto property for which it would not have been allowed otherwise. Because, there are statues preventing any PL person to walk beyond a certain distance.)
I’ve heard arguments that it is like acting. On stage a performer says he is someone he is not to make the audience react how they normally would to that given situation. All Live Action did was act out a scenario and the PP workers reacted how they normally would. Live Actions intent was not like any other lie in which the final goal is selfish and wrong, rather they wanted to save the lives of innocent children. The motive and the method are both very different from a normal lie.