Stanek weekend question: Is lying allowed?
UPDATE 2/16, 7:25a: There is more commentary out on this topic. Interestingly, it appears Live Action’s investigative sting of Planned Parenthood is a moral dilemma primarily for Catholics.
Dr. Monica Miller has written an exhaustive commentary supporting Live Action here, while Dr. Robert George has staked out the opposite position here. Steve Kellmeyer can see both views but lands theologically on the side of Live Action. He brought up an excellent point:
The example Stanek should have brought forward, for it is the closest to being on point, is that of Nathan before David [II Samuel 12]…
Here we have a prophet of God who tells a story that is literally false – there is no sheep, there is no traveler. Nathan tells the story in a way designed to make David believe it is true, and designed to provoke David’s anger. David falls for the lie and condemns the man.
2/12, 3:35p: I’m going to step my foot in it this time, but I think this is a conversation that needs to be had.
Christian commentators have written a couple columns (here and here) maintaining the investigative stings Lila Rose and Live Action conducted were morally wrong. In a nutshell, according to my friend Dawn Eden and co-author William Doino, Jr.:
The Catechism is crystal clear about where lies originate: “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’” (2482). Catholics and others have a right to remain silent, and protect privileged information (2488-2492), but never to directly speak “a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” (2482)
Yet, despite the clarity of Catholic teaching against lying under any circumstances (without even an exception for undercover lawmen to deny their true identities), many pro-lifers are reluctant to give up what they see as a highly effective tactic.
Taken at face value, this teaching would seem to contradict Scripture.
Exodus 1:15-21 states God “was good” to the Hebrew midwives and blessed them with families of their own not only for disobeying but also lying to Pharaoh when he ordered them to kill Israelite baby boys.
Rahab the prostitute was given the honor of being in Jesus Christ’s lineage (Matthew 1:5) and listed in Hebrews 11 as one of the heroes of our faith for helping the Israelite spies hide and escape from Jericho, as told in Joshua 2. In the process she lied to searchers to throw them off the trail.
I Samuel 19 and 20 describe Michal and Jonathan spying on, sabotaging, and lying to Saul, who was not only their king but also their father, to save young David’s life, which turned out to be a good thing.
And Matthew 2:1-17 tells of God warning the Wise Men to directly disobey King Herod’s order to tell him where the infant Jesus was. God Himself gave instructions for humans to defy governmental authority to save Jesus’ life (even though as a result many other babies were killed).
Eden and Doino, Jr.’s post would also seem to me to disallow Christians from becoming FBI agents or law enforcement officers, who are sometimes called to conduct investigative stings not unlike Lila’s.
The teaching would also have stopped Christians from participating in the Underground Railroad, which was built on lies and deception to save the lives of slaves.
It would also render Corrie ten Boom and Oskar Schindler not heroes of the Nazi resistance, which was also built on lies and deception to save the lives of Jews, but villains.
So, what are your thoughts? What do you think are our limits?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Boy, this is a head-turner. At first I saw their point, but you answered it quite nicely.
One might also ask if fiction of any sort is a lie. Jesus said Himself that He told parables “lest they be converted”. In other words: “all in (His) good time” was the plan.
well I suppose Lila Rose was to go in there as an investigative reporter and point blank ask them questions about their practice of aiding and abetting sex traffickers and covering up for statutory rape and then expect them to tell all. They sound like the liberals who are saying how dare she deceive to get this information. I guess babies dying is better.
My husband, who is a retired military officer, and I had a talk about it and while I don’t know if this is the right answer, it is our honest answer.
If that were my daughter (and those girls are someone’s daughters) that were taken and forced into illegal sex trafficking I would not hesitate to act, or to let my husband act, in any way- short of denying God – to protect my child. Knowing that these people don’t sit around pondering the morality of their choices, knowing that they don’t have any problem lying and abusing children, knowing my child is in real danger, you bet I’d deceive them to get information to protect my child and get her back to safety. Maybe that’s a weakness, but I’d be lying to say I wouldn’t do it. I would.? Isn’t that my obligation as a parent?
The intent of Live Action is to expose the truth and protect children. http://www.acceptingabundance.com/2011/02/is-it-wrong-to-deceive-deceiver-and.html
If they are doing the wrong thing then I pray for them to have clarity and insight to do the right thing. There have been many times I realized later that my approach was wrong, but I know my intentions were right and so did God.
Lying to stop or prevent evil is a completely different thing from lying as evil or lying to protect or encourage evil. Lots of criminals are caught because the police are allowed to lie to them. “Your buddy over there in the next room? He just told us where the first three bodies are buried, so if you want any chance of escaping the death penalty, it would be in your best interests to tell us where you two hid the others.” People escape from abusive situations by lying. “I told her I slipped and hit my face on the table corner. I’m just running out to get milk at the grocery store and I’ll be back in twenty minutes.” People have saved their lives by lying. “Look, I told my friend Jenny I’d call her by five, so if you don’t let me call her, she’s going to know something’s wrong.” It is not morally wrong to lie in order to expose corruption or criminal behavior. Not by a long shot.
Interesting that Eden and Doino referenced the Catholic Catechism. They would do well to revisit Catholic history. During WWII, Pope Pius XII authorized the issuance of hundreds of thousands of bogus baptism certificates and visa applications for Jews so they could escape the horrors of the Third Reich.
Goodness, is all of Hollywood a lie? All marketing?
http://www.charmaineyoest.com/2006/01/reality_marketing_and_aristotl.php
Jack (and Charmaine)
Interesting that Dawn and William missed 2484 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states:
“The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in inself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.”
Acutally the commendmanet reads, “Thou shalt not bear false witness aganst thy neighbor”. Against what “neighbor” were the Live Action crew “bearing false witness”?
It is morally acceptable to lie to save lives.
You nailed it, Jill.
The greater good is in saving babies’ lives and in saving as many women as possible from the horrors of abortion. Lying to prevent evil (PP) is, in this instance, morally justified.
Janet, yes, my understanding of the original meaning of the 8th commandment is “You shall not testify falsely against your neighbor in court.” That is, you must not lie maliciously so as to hurt your neighbor.
That does not apply here, since the deception is intended to protect the innocent and expose real evil-doing. It does harm PP, but then the organization is not a person and hence not a “neighbor” and is a source of evil. You might complain that it harmed the fired PP staffer by taking away her livelihood, but she was definitely saved from working at an evil place, which is a good.
Lila Rose (herself a Catholic) said in an interview that she looks on herself and others involved as “representing” the actual young girls who are being abused either invidually or in sex-trafficking. They are trying to get the justice that they would try to get for themselves. So when she or others claim to be young girls who are abused, they are not just playing them as actors, in a moral sense they ARE them because they are working on their behalf. That’s one of the most interesting moral arguments I’ve ever heard. (Of course that leaves aside the question of just who the person playing the pimp is representing).
By the way, I don’t know of any case where the Catholic Church or the catechism has said undercover agents can’t lie about the identify, or that police stings, etc. are immoral.
I have to ask a question: What is the “lie” here?
A lie means telling a falsehood, in order to mislead and hide the truth. LiveAction is not covering anything up; they are uncovering. It would be a lie, if LiveAction doctored the tapes to misrepresent Planned Parenthood’s response. It would be a lie, if LiveAction pretended to be state auditors — viewing information that Planned Parenthood does not freely share with their clients. LiveAction’s reporters do nothing like these.
LiveAction is presenting Planned Parenthood with a client scenario. That’s very different from a “lie.” Planned Parenthood is free to react with virtue, or otherwise. If Lila represents them truthfully, then there is no lie.
I’ve seen all of the publicly released videos. There was no ”lying” in the Mona Lisa Project or in the Rosa Acuna Project. These were typical scenarios that Planned Parenthood routinely encounters.
I’m a little troubled by one aspect of the Trafficking Project…. every time the pimp asks “Is this confidential.” That implies a sort of mutual promise: “Hey — You don’t tell law enforcement that I’m a pimp, and I won’t record your remarks and broadcast them on You-Tube, okay?”
My answer to that is: the promise of confidentiality was limited to discussing legal activities. The requirement to report illegal actions that harm children always trumps the promise of confidentiality.
Planned Parenthood had many chances to call law enforcement, have the loose-mouthed pimp arrested for the crimes he confessed to the PP staffers, confiscate the cameras…. and post their heroic actions on You-Tube to discredit LiveAction.
So as long as we are moralizing…. let’s keep in mind that it is Planned Parenthood who is covering up the truth and spreading the falsehoods, not LiveAction.
the christians that protected Jews during the Holocaust lied. Irena Sendler was known to have forged baptismal certificates to fool the nazis to protect many of those Jewish children that she saved.
the promise of confidentiality was limited to discussing legal activities.
Most ethical practitioners I know explain the LIMITS of confidentiality when someone asks.
It would also render Corrie ten Boom and Oskar Schindler not heroes of the Nazi resistance, which was also built on lies and deception to save the lives of Jews, but villains.
I think this is entirely different than Lila Rose. Oskar and Corrie would have also risked their own lives if they’d revealed the truth. So in addition to considering whether they did any wrongdoing to save the lives of others, you also have to consider whether they had an obligation to martyr themselves in the service of truth. Lila isn’t in a position of martyring herself for the truth, at least not in the same sense that Schindler and the ten Boom family were. For sure she faces persecution, but not in the same sense that the ten Booms did.
A sting operation is not really a “lie”; it’s an attempt to prove that criminal activity is taking place by seeing how a person or organization will react when presented with a certain scenario. This is a technique commonly used by reporters and police officers to fight corruption and crime. It seem to me to be overly dramatic to ask if the “ends justify the means”, as if Live Action is committing some kind of grave sin or crime against humanity in exposing the criminal nature of Planned Parenthood. This is a sting operation, not torture or murder. Put it into perspective, people.
And of course Catholics are permitted to “refrain from telling the truth” if it’s going to prevent evil. If the Nazis show up at your door and ask if you’re harboring Jews, and Anne Frank is in your attic, you don’t show them where she’s hiding.
With respect to the Hebrew midwives and Rahab the prostitute, their lying is never approved of. Besides, the story told by the Hebrew midwives COULD have been true– probably not, but it’s not impossible. They at least tried to make their stories plausible so it could seem true. Rahab was a lowlife character, and it would have been within her character to lie, but the point of the story is that even though her morals weren’t too good, her fear of God was what saved her.
Jesus was pretty clear. Satan is the father of lies. By lies, I’m talking about making false statements one knows to be contrary to reality. The crux of the issue is not deception itself, but using false information to deceive. No number of precedents, no pragmatic need invalidates the word of God.
I am truly amazed and disheartened here and elsewhere by how quickly so many pro-life activists are to toss aside the ideal of truthfulness in order to achieve a short-term goal. Even if lying were permissible in some of the examples offered above, we are not talking here about hiding Jews from Nazis or misdirecting a murderous mob, or any other situation where someone is being ASKED for an answer that would be harmful to give. Lila Rose INITIATED these events. The sting operations were contrived and executed by her team. So this is not the equivalent of self-defense or any other kind of defense. This is the result of a conscious and sober decision to be deceitful. No matter how good the ends, even the more generous interpretations of Catholic teaching say you should misdirect only as a last resort if no other option is viable. In this case many other options were viable; Lila Rose chose lying not because it was the only option but because it was the easiest and perhaps most sensational option.
I don’t have a problem with “sting” operations; using deception to gain access to the truth that will, in turn, lead to justice. When Lila Rose and her group perform stings and uncover these things about PP, all well and good. But to do so and call it Christian is something else.
I am having a real problem with Christians doing this kind of activity as if it is a Christian activity. It isn’t, it is extremely worldly and gets results. But it is not Christian in its nature. And I think we should keep the two separated.
Go ahead, Lila, and do your thing, but don’t enlist the support of Christians to say that what you are doing is morally correct. I don’t believe it is, and shouldn’t be called so.
My biggest concern is the appearance of David Bereit right next to Lila and turning 40 Days for Life into this kind of activity. 40 Days is a vigil of prayer and fasting, not to be allied with this kind of underhand activity.
LiveAction doesn’t represent a church, though members are Christian. Lila Rose doesn’t ask specifically for Christian approval. I think that for political and harmful reasons, groups and individuals have been abusing ‘privacy’ and ‘confidentiality’ for decades now. I don’t see a problem with play acting because no one is inventing Planned Parenthood’s response. I would have no problem with someone entering the CPC’s to do the same thing. The big difference, of course, is that when a real pregnant woman leaves a CPC, her baby is intact. When a real pregnant woman leaves Planned Parenthood, statisticially she is no longer pregnant and her baby is dead. With a rate of 1200 abortions for every alleged adoption referral, it’s a pretty grim place for anyone to work.
As a general principle, I believe our default program should be to tell the truth, but even in that I often tell my wife and children not to ‘offer information’. Answer the question honestly, but do not answer more than you are asked. Or before you even attempt to answer always enquire, ‘Why do you ask?”
On the other hand, I cannot conceive of a situation where falsely accusing my neighbor, brother/sister, friend would ever be beneficial to them.
But history is replete with examples where telling the truth would put other innocent peoples lives at risk.
I have more liberty to ‘lie’ to save someone else’s life, than to save my own.
Lying to save someone elses life might even be considered a ‘selfless’ act, because I consider that other person’s life and well being above my own ‘self righteousness’.
I would rather rely on the God of mercies abiilty to forgive my sin of lying, if it were a sin at all, than to tell the truth and bring harm or death to an innocent person.
The ‘bent one’ lies because the TRUTH [Jesus, Holy Spirit] are NOT in him. Thus the bent one nature is conceived in lies. But the ‘bent one’ can tell the truth as effortlessly as he lies. [You know, the way b o does it.]
The blood bought, born again, sons of GOD do have the TRUTH in them and HE is able to make them stand without spot or wrinkle. [It says that in four different places in the new part of the ‘book’. [Eph 5:25-27, 1 Thes 3:18, 1 Cor 1:8 and Jude 1:24]
Matthew says: February 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm
“In this case many other options were viable; Lila Rose chose lying not because it was the only option but because it was the easiest and perhaps most sensational option.”
=============================================================
Matt,
If you do not KNOW for a fact that statement is completely accurate, then you are making a false accusation against your sister and/or indulging in gossip.
There is a specific commandment against falsely accusing someone and the ‘book’ says GOD hates the one who spreads divisions amongst the body of Christ.
Might want to tap the breaks and dial it back a bit.
Great points Jill. The way I understood it when I catechized is that lying is always wrong, but deceiving is not. This article explains it well.
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14015
SUZANNE says: February 12, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“With respect to the Hebrew midwives and Rahab the prostitute, their lying is never approved of.”
==============================================================
I am uncertain about how would go about determining GOD’s approval of a thing, but the ‘book’ does indicate that because the midwives ‘feared GOD’, HE established households for them.
Ex 1:15-22 15 Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, of whom one was named Shiprah and the other Puah,
16 When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live.
[And all the feministas shouted for joy!]
17 But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded, but let the male babies live.
[And all the feministas were sorely disappointed and dejected that the anti-choice midwives betrayed them.]
18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, Why have you done this thing and allowed the male children to live?
[And the feministas were ecstatic that the midwives would be severely punished and made an example for their acts of insubordination and betrayal.]
19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; they are vigorous and quickly delivered; their babies are born before the midwife comes to them.
[Then the Egyptian feministas were outraged because these two Hebrew dingbats had insinuated the Egyptian women were weak and helpless damsels.]
20 So God dealt well with the midwives and the people multiplied and became very strong.
[And the feministas were perplexed and even depressed and looked for comfort, solace, and diversion in indiscrimimante sex, drugs and wine bibbing.]
21 And because the midwives revered and feared God, He made them households [of their own].
[And the feministas reported everywhere that Hebrew women could not fend for themselves so God made them house wives.]
I am going to go out on a limb and speculate here that the hebrew word translated ‘household’ means a whole lot more than a mortgage free cottage with a white picket fence. In the patriarchial culture of the Jews, GOD openly rewarded these women with homes, lands and wealth of their own, apart from any thing belonging to a Jewish man.
Just think what God would have done if they had spoken the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them GOD.
Rahab is in the lineage of Jesus.
Gen 38:6-10 6 Now Judah took a wife for Er, his firstborn; her name was Tamar.
7 And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord slew him.
8 Then Judah told Onan, Marry your brother’s widow; live with her and raise offspring for your brother.
9 But Onan knew that the family would not be his, so when he cohabited with his brother’s widow, he prevented conception, lest he should raise up a child for his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He slew him also. AMP
Some people infer from this episode that God views masturbation or preventing conception as a capital offense.
If you read ‘the rest of the story’ you will read that Tamar deceived and seduced Judah by dressing as a prostitute to get Judah to ‘belly up to the bar’ fullfill his familial obligations to her.
But Tamar is also in the lineage of Jesus. It’s in the ‘book’.
I infer that GOD is not as religiously legalistic as some imagine HIM to be.
I also infer that it is not a safe place to be standing in the way of GOD’s divine will, plan and purpose. If and/or when you meet Judah, ask him. It cost him a first born and a second son and his pride.
I did not read these articles noted here, but the question is, Is it OK to lie to save lives?
This is a good question, and I do not pretend to have the answer. But let’s consider these facts.
Regarding Lila’s stings, the pimp – at least on tape – said he was in “sex work”. He did not give his name, he did not say he was a pimp. The girl who posed as a prostitute did not actually say she was an illegal prostitute. They did give false names. They weren’t asked what their names were. They weren’t asked to fill out an application. They asked for confidential information. In my view, the PP workers offered information freely and honestly based on their jobs responsibilities. The PP worker assumed what “sex work” was, and assumed who they were a pimp and a prostitute. So, since we are parsing and analyzing, “sex work”, truly, could mean alot of things. I will argue that he honestly IS in sex work.
Consider this: Would a person who serves his country as a spy, one who is attempting to uncover information to save lives and defend the innocent, are they immoral? I think not.
And certainly, let’s consider what has motivated this uncover sting. It is lies of PP. It is the immoral act of aborting babies. We Christians believe it is murder. Literally, millions have been killed, and MOST of them for nothing more than money and selfishness. LiveAction is exposing PP with truth what is truly their actions and their tactics. Beyond that, the sting activity really gets to the “hearts” of the workers, and the “heart” of the organization. Great Bible King David was a man after God’s own heart. God looks at the heart, and in an issue like this, we must look at the heart and the motives of the actions of PP and the actions of LiveAction. For me, it is not a difficult choice, and I don’t believe it is a hard choice for God, either.
Finally, Lila and her group never have claimed they are without sin. The opinion writer, Lila, you, me…none of us are without sin. We should not judge. What we know is that outrageous conditions have been exposed. The TRUTH has been witnessed with this work. God is always honored with the truth.
I applaud Lila Rose and her courageous activities. She is so young, and so convicted!
She, like each of us, will answer to God alone after she dies. And while He may hold her accountable for her deceit, the bravery and goodness of her intentions in exposing the evil of Planned Parenthood, beyond just their baby-killing, in my opinion will be greatly rewarded.
While I believe in telling the truth, I also believe in peacefully saving the lives of these mothers, teens and unborn children. Lila Rose is doing just this, and I think it’s a great disservice for some of us to get wrapped up in the fact that she play-acted being a prostitute.
I’d rather lie to save a life, then be silent to keep my righteousness intact.
I’m sure the pro-aborts are eating this up.
David Zwald says:
Consider this: Would a person who serves his country as a spy, one who is attempting to uncover information to save lives and defend the innocent, are they immoral? I think not.
Actually, I think to be a spy, even for the best of causes, does terrible damage to the soul of the one involved. As does being a long-term undercover policeman. This is true because they are living a life of deceit. It is undeniably immoral. Whether individuals might sometimes decide it is their duty is a different question. Which reminds me of the point that Dawn Eden and Bill Doino made in their piece in Busted Halo (http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/building-a-culture-of-lie) referring to Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe’s argument that Harry S. Truman’s decision to perform a heinous act (dropping the atomic bomb) was not excused by the possibility of future deaths.
I also really like Julie Culshaw’s point that part of the problem here is the mixing of religious and secular logic. Is deception an effective means in the secular world? Yes, sometimes. But should it be done under the mantle of religious activism? That’s where the backlash is coming from.
Great post Jill (and good to see that you and Rich made it home safe and sound from NZ!), I have actually written a comprehensive article on this very issue which will go live on my blog, Semper Vita, this coming Friday, New Zealand time (which will be Thursday in the USA).
Anyone who is interested will be able to read it here (when it goes live):
http://www.familylifenz.wordpress.com
Brendan Malone, NZ
If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. [NIV Mt 12:7]
The Lord decreed that no work was to be performed on the Sabbath (Ex 31:15) – and yet Jesus worked on the Sabbath. He goes on to state that he and his Father are always at work, which seems to contradict the idea of his ever resting on the Sabbath! The Pharisees and teachers thought they had it figured out, but they were proved wrong, because there is good that must be attained.
However, the core of what the Father and Jesus do transcends the decree, because the focus is on mercy and compassion.
One of the factors that must be seriously considered is intent, which is the crux of the matter. Intent is a major factor when justice is considered – there’s a huge difference between murder in the 1st degree and accidental manslaughter.
In this case, the intent is clearly selfless and merciful.
I read through one discussion where I saw Catholics saying that it’s not OK to lie to Nazis who come to the door asking if you’re hiding Jews; instead, when they ask “Are you hiding Jews?”, you answer, “I would be foolish to hide Jews” or “What makes you think I’m hiding Jews?”. What a joke. As if that isn’t also a deception! And what happens if the Nazi points a gun in your face and demands you give a straight answer? Are you going to tell the truth and forfeit your life along with the lives of the Jews you’re hiding?
Ironically, in his comment above, Matthew condemns all lying but then bears false witness against Lila Rose. If these pious Catholics wish to play games with people’s lives, then I suggest they carefully go through all of Live Action’s videos and find where Live Action specifically lies to Planned Parenthood. The videos I watched show the Live Action people claiming to be involved in “sex work”; they didn’t come right out and call themselves prostitutes except in subtitles added to the videos after the fact. So where’s the lie? And if you think that argument is ridiculous, isn’t that pretty much the same as saying “I would be foolish to hide Jews” or the like when the Nazis knock on your door?
These people are acting like it’s a mortal sin from the pit of hell to, for example, throw a surprise party for someone. Did you tell your best friend that you were going to the mall, but you’re actually taking him to the place where the surprise party is going to be held? LIAR!!! You LIED to your best friend! It doesn’t matter why or the circumstances – you’re going straight to hell unless you repent. Does that just about cover it?
On a side note, look at the pro-life movement splintering again over COMPLETE NONSENSE. No wonder we can’t effectively fight the pro-aborts.
Scrupulosity is a sin also.
Amen, Sister Cat: “I’d rather lie to save a life, then be silent to keep my righteousness intact.”
Brendan, hi! Oh how I miss my NZ friends… :( Pls forward me a link to your column when it goes live – jill@jillstanek.com. Cheers!
Okay, Bobby Bambino, you can join the conversation any time now.
We need our resident philosopher, theologian, catholic explainer-in-chief on the scene.
Lila isn’t in a position of martyring herself for the truth, at least not in the same sense that Schindler and the ten Boom family were. For sure she faces persecution, but not in the same sense that the ten Booms did.
you never know about this.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Lila has placed herself in grave danger.
Will do Jill – and we miss you too! ;-)
I agree Carder and I love when he’s through making his point or points he always says God love you!
The opposition regularly abuses the Bible to tell Christians not to exercise judgment, to excuse their own unethical behavior, and to hamstring the efforts of people to stop abuse and injustice.
Your referencing of examples of Biblical heroes, and others who used deception to save lives is a good and truthful tactic.
One could say it’s a lie not to stick my name directly on my blog, so that the content of my writing has influence without the distraction of having my name attached.
One could also say that my pseudonym on the internet, used for the same reason, is a lie.
I’m going to keep doing it and God, who is the ultimate judge, will sort it out.
angel, I agree that Lila may be in danger; I didn’t mean to suggest that she isn’t. Nor did I intend to suggest that the ten Booms acted out of self interest. While Lila may be in danger, she isn’t in a position to have witnessed others around her being carted off for imprisonment and near certain death sentence without due process for having engaged in the same behavior, as the ten Booms were. Therefore, I don’t think it’s fair to compare her situation to nazi resisters because the near certainty of martyring herself for the truth isn’t present the way it was for the ten Booms. You could make a case that it’s POSSIBLE, but it’s in no way certain to the degree it was for those who were hiding the Jews.
Jesus said we strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. We forget the important matters of the law such as justice, mercy and faith. We cannot lie but yet we can allow a child to be aborted or a jew to die in the holocaust? But somehow lying is bad?
you never know about this.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Lila has placed herself in grave danger.
I agree angel. That is why I have such high regards for Lila and others like Jill and Carla who are willing to put their name and face out there in spite of the real dangers that exist.
pharmer, Praxedes is not my given name. I have my reasons that I don’t use my real name and God understands those reasons.
Well that is very kind carder, but weekends are unfortunately not a good time anymore for me to get too involved in online discussions. I’d love to join in on Monday though. But really, I don’t know more than anyone else about this. I’ve been thinking about it a bit lately, and I do have some ideas that I would like to bounce off of people…
I realized something about all this discussion not too long ago. Lila Rose has been doing these videos for a few years now, and there has never been this sort of concern about her “lying”. Now there is! Why, oh why, is that?
Oh, by the way! George Soros and his “move.on” bunch are on the case, too – that is, they’re after Lila and are trying to shore up Planned Parenthood. Isn’t it funny, just ever-so-coincidental, that these two thing are happening simultaneously? Am I truly the only one to notice this?
I’m not saying that those concerned are “selling out”. But could some “scrupulousity” bugs been planted in their minds ever-so-slyly, and they unwittingly just grabbed that ball and ran with it? That is a possibility that shouldn’t be overlooked, in my humble opinion.
I thnk the methods used by Live Action fall into the ‘be wiser than serpents’ category. If lying were the only way to save my kids, I’d spin a yarn like no one’s business. We’ve had 38 years of negotiation. nice guy common ground tactics have done nothing. It’s time to get down and dirty. The proaborts are already busily twisting the perceived dishonesty of the actors in order to make prolife look bad, but that doesn’t change the fact that Planned Parenthood was outed and beaten at their own game. Police conduct stings all the time. Is it wrong when they pose as hookers to get serial johns off the streets?
Prov 26:4-5 4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. KJV
Prov 26:4-5 4 Answer not a [self-confident] fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.
5 Answer a [self-confident] fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes and conceit. [Matt 16:1-4; 21:24-27.] AMP
=============================================================
How do we know which is the ‘right’ response when the ‘book’ does not provide us with a clear cut answer?
Do we flip a coin, cast lots, consult a medium, or poll the audience?
How about none of the above?
How about we rely on Holy Spirit to lead us, guide us, teach us, counsel us and give us the words we need….when we need them. [Jesus said all these.]
Gal 5:18 But if you are guided (led) by the [Holy] Spirit, you are not subject to the Law. AMP
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. AMP
GOD is not predictable, but HE is reliable.
John 3:3-8 3 Jesus answered him, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that unless a person is born again (anew, from above), he cannot ever see (know, be acquainted with, and experience) the kingdom of God.
5 Jesus answered, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, unless a man is born of water and [even] the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. [Ezek 36:25-27.]
6 What is born of [from] the flesh is flesh [of the physical is physical]; and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
8 The wind blows (breathes) where it wills; and though you hear its sound, yet you neither know where it comes from nor where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. AMP
I’m hoping she wins some kind of medal. What she did reminds me of something I read this happened years ago when someone went into a mental institution to expose the abuse that was going on. The article spoke of something that had happened long before the article was written. I remember feeling so proud that we lived in a country that encouraged this type of journalism. I think she done what investigative reporters used to do and she probably had very little support. Hopefully some pro-life group will honor her. I admire the ten boon family but I see very little difference in their courage and Ms. Roses.
jm, I would say that you have it exactly right there. In the first place, it’s questionable whether or not a sting operation actually constitutes “lying”. Conducting a sting isn’t bearing false witness, it isn’t slander, it doesn’t deny some truth, and it doesn’t defame anyone. It merely presents a scenario to someone in order to provoke a response.
If Lila Rose were to lie ABOUT Planned Parenthood, and say, ”Planned Parenthood is killing old people in their clinics”, that would be bearing false witness. If Lila Rose were to lie TO Planned Parenthood about some fact or truth and say, “You need to close because a local church is plotting a terrorist attack against you”, that would be defamation. But that’s not what’s being done.
Lila Rose and company are merely going into Planned Parenthood and asking, if I have 14-year-old immigrant ”sex workers” in my employ, what can you do about getting them STD testing and abortions? And Planned Parenthood is giving their reply, which is that they would bend over backwards to get those 14-year-old immigrants their abortions. If this is somehow immoral when Lila Rose does it, would it suddenly become OK if she hired an actual pimp and prostitute to go into Planned Parenthood and ask these questions for her?
I honestly cannot believe that there is such hand-wringing going on over something that our American law enforcement does every single day in order to catch thieves, “johns”, and child predators. Are our US police departments inherently evil? Should Catholics not apply to become officers of the law?
By this standard, no Catholic man should ever watch television, visit a shopping mall, or, really, go out in public at all. Because in watching TV, visiting a mall, or going out in public, it’s only a matter of time before he looks at a woman with lust. And don’t try and tell me otherwise. That would be a lie.
I think it is a fine line – one that was not crossed.
Now, I wouldn’t be in favor of false bomb threats or anything – a lie to disrupt things there. I also don’t think people should lie to a woman going into the clinic.
I don’t think folks are wrong to question the way this is being done though – and I think it is causing healthy debate.
Is police and federal agent undercover work morally wrong? Certainly these folks do lots of lying. Its not like they can get information on criminal activities by speaking to the residents of the local convent.
Bounce away, Bambino.
Now tell me God loves me.
John Lewandowski, twice now you’ve called me out for my earlier comment,misrepresenting it and the question being raised. What I said, with poorly chosen words I regret but which do not amount I think to “false witness,” was that lying was not the only means available to Lila Rose. She had other options. To me it seems the benefits of the approach she chose were its expediency and its sensationalness. I of course do not know if she had different reasons. The tricky part here of course is that the result in the short term is good. Something evil has been exposed. But it’s not inappropriate to ask bigger questions. Your snide example that “a Catholic man should ever watch television, visit a shopping mall, or, really, go out in public at all” for fear of seeing a woman and having lustful thoughts shows how completely you are not getting the point. Lila Rose did not stumble into a tricky situation in which she had to decide whether to lie or not. She chose the situation. She made a long series of conscious choices to pursue this strategy which she knew in advance would put her in the position of lying. It’s a premeditated as premeditated can get.
Interesting that Dawn and William missed 2484 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church …
They missed something else too. As I recall, Lila came into full communion with the Catholic Church AFTER she began her undercover filming endeavors. If her methods of filming and her Live Action activities were considered scandalous or gravely immoral, she would have been expected to show some purpose of amendment before receiving absolution in her first confession and being permitted to approach the sacraments of initiation. She would have faced barriers to reception into full communion if she were actively engaging in gravely sinful conduct of a public nature or conduct that would be scandalous to her public presentation as a Catholic. That we haven’t seen the reparative public action she’d have been expected to make prior to coming into the Church makes it reasonable for me to conclude that those in a position of authority over her have already assessed her conduct as not gravely sinful. Of course that won’t stop others from pulling snippets out of the catechism to justify their own opinions.
Carder
Why would you doubt Gods’ love for you?
Fed Up
I imagine the Catholic Church is happy to have someone who is so pro-active when it comes to defending the unborn.
Lila Rose uncovered the depths and depravity of Planned Parenthood’s predatory nature and their willingness to aid and abett pimps that sex-traffic in minors. We saw Planned Parenthood managers and employees telling pimps to lie about the minors age and use judicial bypass to skirt Parental consent laws without any knowledge of abusive parents. Lila is a beacon of light and truth. And may God continually bless her actions and continued fight against the predators of our minors and against the killers of our society’s unborn children.
We need to make a distinction here – Catholic teaching can only come from dogmatic statements from Church councils and dogmatic statements from the popes (and this, of course, started with the teachings of Christ, followed by the Apostles who were the first pope and bishops). There are many cases when we need to be obedient (such as when our spiritual director or confessor tells us to do something), and there are other cases when we should listen (such as when the bishops make a statement or our parish priest tells us something in a homily). From what I can tell from above, the people condemning Lila Rose do not really have the authority to judge her one way or another. They are most certainly entitled to their opinion, but it is just that – an opinion. Of course lying is wrong, but not everything is always black and white. That is why we have good spiritual directors and the sacraments to utilize. I most certainly do not have the authority to judge Lila Rose one way or another, and I’m not going to waste my time trying to do so. One thing the Catholic Church is very clear on – abortion is murder. That is the black and white issue that we should all be focusing on. It seems to me that we should quit getting sidetracked, remain unified in our fight against the atrocity of abortion and the evil of Planned Parenthood, and leave the judgements of Lila Rose to her spiritual director and confessor and to God.
Blessed Miguel Agustin Pro SJ who was martyred in Mexico in 1927. He is up for sainthood in the Catholic Church. He would disguise himself as a police officer, show up at jails & tell them he was there to interigate prisoners & give them Communion instead. This is only 1 of a variety of disguises he used. Another time he was being chased by the police. He was in a cab, they were following in a police car. He saw a woman on the sidewalk up ahead. he had the cab driver slow down enough for him to roll out of the cab. A few minutes later as the police drove by he was seen arm in arm with the girl talking as if they were boyfriend/girlfriend. Clearly his presenting himself as someone he wasn’t to mislead the police to avoid arrest as well as minister to persecuted Catholics wasn’t seen as a hinderance to sainthood. So what is the difference between that & what Lila Rose is doing?
As someone pointed out, Lila has been doing these videos for 3 or 4 years now and there has not been any difficulty with them until lately. The difference now is that many pro-life groups have come out to support her and many are openly Christian in their mission statements.
So therefore the question of whether or not what she is doing is ethical by Christian standards.
It depends on whether or not you think the battle against abortion is a spiritual battle or not. I do. And to use human tactics such as deception and coverups to uncover wrongdoing on the part of PP, is trying to straddle two worlds.
Those who see us, we who claim to be Christian, employing stings and deception, can rightfully say “they will stop at nothing” – if we lie to save lives, what will stop us from using violence? Perhaps shooting one abortionist really would save countless lives, the logic takes us to that consequence. So the reputation of the pro-life movement is damaged by the methods of Live Action; it damages the credibiity of all of us.
We have seen what has worked in the spiritual realm; 7 years of vigils in Texas brought Abby Johnson out of Planned Parenthood; more vigils will bring other PP workers out; more has been done by the power of prayer than any number of stings, because those who come out are the most powerful witnesses to the truth. And they will change many other hearts. If God is behind the movement, as I believe He is with 40 Days, then we will see huge results. If God is not behind it, then what we see will not last. This is a spiritual battle, and we need to fight with spiritual weapons, not the weapons of the world.
Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? - Gal 3:3
There is a big difference between initiating acts of deception, as Lila has done, and using deception when backed into a corner and trying to save a life. The latter is like self-defence; the former .. well I think you can see the difference.
myrtle miller @ 12:43 – Carder is teasing Bobby Bambino.
Lila Rose obviously thinks lying is perfectly acceptable. She released at least one video with audio that had been altered to change the meaning of the conversation that was being surreptitiously recorded. And she continues to claim that Planned Parenthood aids and abets ‘sex trafficking’, despite the fact that PP reported the phony ‘pimp’ to the authorities.
Yessirree, lying is just peachy in the eyes of a good ‘Christian’ like Lila Rose.
Matthew, I can choose to watch TV, I can choose to go to the mall, I can choose to stay inside my house and put a blanket over my head. Don’t pretend that those actions don’t involve premeditation. You aren’t going out to commit sin, but neither was Lila Rose, even if you do keep bearing false witness against her by saying that she chose expediency over wisdom.
I think there is something wicked in this sudden piety against investigative journalism, which I have never seen discussed in Catholic circles before, and now I see it being compared to torture and murder. I just might question whether the people crying foul about Lila Rose’s sins might have some ulterior motive.
Julie Culshaw at 5:51am
Julie, how do you know that Lila’s group has abandoned the spiritual battle and is now operating exclusively on their own worldly wisdom?
May God bless you for your work with 40 days.
I am relieved that GOD is NOT a ‘christian’ and hold it to be a good thing that HE does not need ‘our’ approval to act.
It would be a good thing if ‘christians’ would try to be more like GOD instead of attempting to fashion HIM in ‘our’ imagae.
It would also be a good thing if ‘christians’ would understand JESUS did not come to start a ‘church’ or a new ‘religion’, but to forgive sin and ransom sinners, and give them the right and the power to become sons of GOD.
[This institutionalized religion concept is the tradition of men and the doctrine of demons.]
It is written somewhere that JESUS is the firstborn among many brethren and that GOD’s purpose is to bring many sons to glory.
[‘Brethren’ and ‘sons’ are used in a gender neutral sense. In the kingdom of GOD and body of CHRIST there is no distinction, Women are not second class citizens. In CHRIST all can come boldy before the throne of grace and obtain mercy.]
There is an old proverb that says, ‘One fool can ask more questions than a hundred wise men can answer.’ [Maybe that is why I have some marny questions. I am tasked with finding the one hundred wise men.]
The comments here are interesting…the one thing though that I keep noticing is the word “journalist”. I sure as heck wouldn’t call her a journalist. Activist yes – but not a journalist. (mostly pointing the finger at John’s last comment – which to me, explains why Catholics are okay having this sudden feel – again, this is not journalism).
meatbrain says: February 13, 2011 at 8:39 am
” Yessirree, lying is just peachy in the eyes of a good ‘Christian’ like Lila Rose.”
==============================================================
[I do not agree with meatheads assertiont that Lila Rose was lying or that PP did the right thing.]
My goodness it seems the ‘dead babies r us’ mob are developing an antipathy to perceived ‘lying’.
How long can it before they reach the point where they object to murdering pre-natal children?
Ex-GOP Voter says: February 13, 2011 at 9:07 am
“The comments here are interesting…the one thing though that I keep noticing is the word “journalist”. I sure as heck wouldn’t call her a journalist. Activist yes – but not a journalist. (mostly pointing the finger at John’s last comment – which to me, explains why Catholics are okay having this sudden feel – again, this is not journalism).”
==============================================================
Ex-RINO
I do not believe that Lila Rose has ever characterized herself as a ‘journalist’ or her work as ‘journalism’.
She may or may not have compared herself and her tactics to those used by undercover reporters. Others certainly have used that comparison.
The first thing a true journalist must do is recognize their own bias and do their best to keep that bias from seeping into their reporting of the facts before, during and after they have completed their work. Editors, who should also be governed by the same journalistic ethic, must be vigilant not to allow their bias to effect how the story is edited.
If Lila Rose made a video and did nothing to alter what the camera actually recorded, then the story is what it is.
If Lila Rose deliberately edited out portions of the video to present her ‘actors’ in a better light or the unknowing PP staff in a worse light then that would be calculated deception.
So go back and watch the edited version of the videos and compare it to the complete raw footage and make a judgement.
Then come back and share your ‘informed opinion’ with us and let us judge your work.
I don’t know if Lila considers herself or her undercover work as “journalism” or not…but her group “Live Action” does produce a free national prolife campus magazine called “The Advocate”.
http://liveaction.org/the-advocate/the-advocate-pro-life-campus-magazine
If you support her work you might consider making a donation to support its distribution to high school and college students.
The people who call Lila Rose a liar are the same ones who hide their head in the sand when they hear somebody is abusing a minor.
There ya go, Truthseeker.
Lila Rose and her Live Action group are great, and the opposition can only envy their brains and their gonadal fortitude.
It depends on whether or not you think the battle against abortion is a spiritual battle or not. I do. And to use human tactics such as deception and coverups to uncover wrongdoing on the part of PP, is trying to straddle two worlds.
A spiritual battle on a human playground. Prolifers are His hands here on the playground and we all play at a different position. Now some prolifers are upset with LiveAction for playing the game by the rules that the proaborts themselves set up. God continue to Bless Lila and LiveAction.
I just might question whether the people crying foul about Lila Rose’s sins might have some ulterior motive.
I agree John.
I am not saying that Live Action is engaged in this abortion issue as a spiritual battle. There is no mention of any religious reasons on their website and their methods are all quite secular. I have no problem with that or with what they do.
What I do have a problem with is Christians who have high profiles, such as David Bereit, and groups such as 40 Days that do proclaim to be Christian in their mission, supporting Live Action. It has the effect of giving a rubber stamp of approval to Live Action, when I don’t think they should be.
When Christians come out and back the actions of this group or similar actions, they have put themselves into the enemy’s territory and that is very damaging to their cause, our cause. Jesus showed us the higher way and remember he told Peter to get behind him with his thinking, and then Jesus walked the way of the cross.
When Christians take up the tools of lying, subterfuge, and deception to achieve their ends, they are no longer being Christian and their actions make all Christians look like hypocrites.
“When Christians take up the tools of lying, subterfuge, and deception to achieve their ends, they are no longer being Christian and their actions make all Christians look like hypocrites.”
Julie, Would you tell the truth to a killer if it meant that you would be unable to stop him from killing? Would you tell the truth to a pimp sex-trafficker of minors if it meant you would not be able to stop them from trafficking? For Jesus’ disciples here on earth the battle is both spiritual and material. Lila Rose is in a battle set on fire by the Holy Spirit and woe to them who would call it otherwise.
“…woe to them who woulkd call it otherwise.”
A little dramatic there truth??
What about lies of ommission Julie?
Where does quoting part of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about lying but leaving out the part that actually pertains to the subject at hand fall?
Walk the Way of the Cross and on the journey make the Sign of the Cross often. The evil one is always lurking.
Julie, are lies still lies when trying to get the truth from somebody who lies to people who speak the truth to them?
Interesting sermon post on this very subject titled, “Lying, Warfare, and Peace.”
http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1847%3ALying-Warfare-and-Peace&catid=76%3Aa-justice-primer&Itemid=1
I’m really kind of amazed that so many pro-lifers would have a problem with Lila Rose and Live Action because “lying is a sin.” How else would anyone possibly prove that Planned Parenthood is turning a blind eye to sex trafficking? Ex-employees go public with it and pro-chiocers would just say they were lying. Real pimps who are truly looking for birth control, STD testing, and abortions for underage girls forced to work in prostitution aren’t going to bring in a camera and share PP’s answers with the world. No one’s “good name” was slandered or libelled. Live Action didn’t lie about what Planned Parenthood employees were willing to support and overlook. Their actors misrepresented themselves in order to see how PP would truthfully act when presented with the situation. Although I’m obviously not God, I can’t quite imagine that He’s going to be angry on Judgment Day because some people willingly lied about themselves in order to expose corruption and evil.
Blech. If I were a wee bit wiser, I’d keep my mouth firmly shut on this one, and watch Bobby go at it… :)
I’m still puzzling (and, I’ll admit, struggling) over this issue, myself; it’s not nearly so cut-and-dried as it might seem. I’m fully aware of the excellent results that Lila and company have gotten, re: putting Planned Parenthood’s corrupt feet to the fire (and perhaps helping to convince recalcitrant lawmakers to defund PP, at last)… but… half a moment, here.
At the risk of annoying anyone and/or seeming to split hairs: we cannot abandon our search for God’s full truth, even if the search is hard, even if the opponent is incredibly foul, and even if the proportion between the seeming “small sin” and the “huge payoff” is so lopsided as to be ridiculous. We simply can’t let our hearts run away with our heads… now, or ever. If God’s truth is genuinely on the side of Lila and Co., I’ll be the happiest person here, I think (and one of the most relieved); but that’s never been the standard by which I live my life (i.e. choose what’s most appealing, and to heck with the details). I can’t, in good conscience, start now. If Lila is right, then her case should be able to be made unequivocally and without compromise, without “glossing over” any moral imperatives, and without falling into proportionalism (i.e. yeah, it’s a sin, but it’s a really SMALL sin, for so great a payoff… so God won’t mind!), which is a moral error, always and everywhere.
I’ll say again: I don’t have a clear answer to this (and my stomach turns at the very idea of bringing up a moral issue that would, at least in this case, give tactical aid to the filthy organization that is “Planned Parenthood”). But here are a few problems I see with some of the defenses for Lila’s efforts:
1) “It’s not immoral, because various good people [e.g. Ven. Pope Pius XII–one of my patrons, by the way, whom I love dearly!] enacted similar deceptions!” That doesn’t fly, and it’s a textbook fallacy known as “tu quoque”–“You [did it], too!”
2) “It’s not immoral, because the good to be gained outweighs any sinfulness of the act!” This is self-contradictory (though its presenters usually hedge on the sinfulness of the deception: they usually put “scare quotes” around the word “sin” or “immorality”, and often throw on the qualifier, “if it’s a sin at all”), and it simply doesn’t work; no one is morally free to choose evil at all, even if great good can result from it. To say otherwise is to say to God, “You designed the universe so badly that I need to sin [i.e. violate what You require] in order to do Your Will!”; and I don’t see the sense in that, at all. To paraphrase Jesus: “Could not Our Father send more than twelve legions of angels, to rescue the dying?” No one should use that to try to argue that PP’s mass-slaughter is somehow “morally licit”, mind you… but to suggest that we are ever “allowed” to sin, or that doing evil is ever justified in the name of “doing God’s Will”, is ridiculous. Again: if the deception performed on PP is not a sin (for whatever reason), then fine: issue solved (and Paladin relieved); but we can’t talk about “allowable sins”, and still stay morally coherent.
3) “It’s not immoral, because the government, police, etc., do this on a regular basis.” Again, that proves nothing, one way or the other; if such deception is non-sinful, then both Lila and the state are doing what’s allowable. If such deception is sinful, then it wouldn’t matter if every last government or agency in the world did likewise; it would still be wrong, and forbidden.
4) “Lying isn’t always sinful [e.g. “lying by omission”]!” This one, I think, might have the best chance of leading to truth… but several very clear qualifiers need to be put forth, beforehand. First, a “lie” is (properly defined as) any direct statement which is intended to deceive; technically speaking, there is no such thing as “lying by omission” (that’s more properly called “deception by omission”). It’s this definition of “lie” which the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares to be condemned by God (see references by others, above). “Deception by omission” is only sinful when the recipient has a right to the full information that is being withheld, anyway.
This fact, by the way, allows the practice of “wide mental reservation”–telling the literal truth, but holding back what the recipient has no right to know. An example is found in a story about St. Athanasius who, while in a boat on a river and being chased by Arian enemies, decided to turn his boat around and head toward his accusers; when the enemy sighted him [but didn’t recognize him], they called out, “Have you seen Athanasius?”, and Athanasius [who hadn’t quite reached their boat yet] called back: “Keep on your course; you will soon overtake him!”.
As I say… I’m still struggling with this one. I want very badly for Lila’s efforts to be morally justifiable… but I simply can’t trust moral choices to my feelings and passions, no matter how strong they might be. I’ll keep pondering…
My goodness it seems the ‘dead babies r us’ mob are developing an antipathy to perceived ‘lying’.
It seems to the pro-aborts, if you claim to be a Christian but support abortion, you are A-OK. However, if you claim to be a Christian and go undercover to expose deeds of darkness in the abortion industry, you are a horrible person and a big, fat liar. Do we really believe lying to save these children is as a great a sin as murdering them? The opposition must absolutely be rolling on the floor laughing at us, goading us, dangling this issue in front of us. “Oooh, you didn’t take the moral high road! You told a LIE to expose an organization that harms women and kills babies! Don’t you know your Bible says lying is a SIN?!”
Hey, babies will still be dying and young girls will still be victims of PP, but at least we’ll have our “moral high ground” to stand upon. Won’t we all be able to sleep well at night.
It is interesting to me that Jacob’s name means “deceiver, supplanter.” Jacob stole his brother’s birthright with a bowl of stew. He deceived his father Isaac to do it. And yet, that was God’s plan all along. He chose Jacob – Israel. He blessed him.
Jill has also listed some great examples from Scripture to show that God blessed many “deceivers” when they did their deceiving in order to bring about a moral justice. It’s not as if we’re saying, “Hey, Aunt Susie lied on her tax return, and she’s a Christian, so I can, too!” These are examples from God’s Word here. These are examples of people deceiving in order to save lives. The question is, would we lie to save lives? Would we do what those in the Underground Railroad did? Would we do what those German families did to protect the Jews? Those people are the ones history looks back on and says “they did the right thing by lying and deceiving in order to save lives.”
This questions should be made into a poll. The “weekly” poll sure hasn’t been updated in a while…
Kel wrote:
Jacob stole his brother’s birthright with a bowl of stew. He deceived his father Isaac to do it. And yet, that was God’s plan all along. He chose Jacob – Israel. He blessed him.
This is something of a random aside, but for what it’s worth: I’ve heard the explanation (that makes a good deal of sense, to me) that God specifically told Rebecca that He had ordained Jacob’s right to inherit the rights normally reserved for the first-born (cf. Genesis 25:23). After that, Jacob bought Esau’s birthright (which was Jacob’s by right, anyway, as per Genesis 25:23), “fair and square”, as it were; when Esau should have laughed at Jacob’s offer and fasted for the day (rather than let his passions of the moment conquer him). The episode with Esau at Isaac’s deathbed (where Isaac promises Esau the blessing) also shows that Esau had no intention of keeping his “deal” with Jacob (and, if Rebecca had told Isaac of the prophecy, even Isaac would have been violating the Will of God, intentionally!).
For what it’s worth…
“First, a “lie” is (properly defined as) any direct statement which is intended to deceive”
What Lila did was not with the intention of deceiving. Her intention was to bring forth evidence of the “truth” from the mouth of a predator’s partner in crime.
Truthseeker wrote:
What Lila did was not with the intention of deceiving. Her intention was to bring forth evidence of the “truth” from the mouth of a predator’s partner in crime.
Well… she (and each actor) was certainly trying to deceive them (i.e. the Planned Parenthood workers); the fact that she was trying to untangle PP’s own lies was a distinct issue. The two (deceiving, and trying to get truth out of someone) aren’t mutually exclusive. I can try to get the truth out of someone by lying to them, or I can try to get the truth out of someone by means other than lying; the fact that I’m questing after “truth” (even if it’s a good and valid goal, as in this case) says nothing about whether the original “play-acting” was deceptive or not (and it certainly seemed to be).
Now, maybe people might argue that “PP employees deserve to be deceived!” That’s another issue (and one that I think would be hard to defend… though it might be possible), altogether.
Thanks for your posts Paladin (and everyone else). This topic is getting way deep for me and I actually pray for Christ to keep me simple and to let me do good without knowing about it because I struggle with arrogance. Maybe I am too simple to understand this topic but now I am worried about my comments and don’t want to lead anyone into sinful thinking or behavior, myself included.
I went to Priests for Life site to see if I could find more about this. I found a post by Father Pavone about the immorality of using violence to end abortion. I know there have been a few who call themselves prolifers who have used violence to try to stop abortion and no one here has ever agreed with violent tactics.
However, prolifers are more divided on this topic and I’m hoping we can maybe get a priest or pastor to comment for us. Maybe someone from Live Action would let us know if this was discussed this with their spiritual leaders beforehand.
I also want to say, again:
1) I don’t pretend to have a clear answer on this, yet. I’m still struggling with it.
2) No one (very much including me!) is in any position to declare that Lila and co. are “going to hell”, “scandalizing the faithful”, or even “sinning”, without some incontrovertible proof, based on rock-solid principles. I’ve seen attempts on both sides (including the New Theological Movement, which holds that the “stings” are immoral, and where there was a rollicking debate!), and even those who start out with iron-clad claims seem to back-track, half-way through the debate.
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/02/it-is-sin-to-lie-even-to-planned.html
3) In short, don’t panic yet, y’all; just keep an open mind, on this.
Ex-GOP, what’s the difference between a reporter who goes into a sweatshop undercover, finds deplorable conditions there, makes videos of it all, and shows the videos to the world to put an end to the horrors… and Lila Rose going into Planned Parenthood? The answer is, NOTHING. Does it matter that the reporter has his own agenda, ie, opposition to poor labor conditions? Even if he’s an activist he’s still reporting the truth to put an end to injustice.
Saying that Lila Rose is not really a reporter is like saying that Joe the Plumber is not really a plumber. It’s irrelevant. The idea that she’s being dishonest because she’s using ”edited videos” is a meaningless left-wing talking point which is frequently used against conservatives. When you watch the news and they show, say, a surveillance video from a robbery, do you think you’re seeing the ENTIRE surveillance video, or just the important parts? Of course you’re not seeing the entire 8 hours (or whatever) of surveillance; you’re seeing an EDITED clip. EVERY video you see on the news is edited in one way or another. Just because it’s edited doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate.
And I repeat, I have never in my life heard Catholics object to sting operations on the grounds that they cause people to lie. I have never heard anyone make the argument that Catholics should refrain from police work because police officers involved in detective work are often required to misrepresent their identities. I know that sting operations are sometimes considered immoral on the grounds that they are similar to entrapment, but NEVER have I heard the argument that they are immoral because the police officer (or whoever) is required to adopt a false identity. Because of this I am very, very suspicious of these people all of a sudden casting aspersions at Lila Rose, when she has been using this technique for years.
John – if you think it is irrelevant – then stop your argument there – it doesn’t matter what I think, again, if you think it is irrelevant.
A trained journalist will go for a level of objectivity. I haven’t researched this fully – but how many places did she go to in all, and do we have links to the videos of all the places she went? Did she sit down and interview anyone?
Again though, it is irrelevant to you, so don’t worry about it.
I submit the following for your consideration. Michelle Obama suggests that you lie to your kids in order to get them to exercise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3wETtDDsk
Is this immoral?
Or consider that you suspect your teen of abusing drugs. You ask him directly, and he tells you that he’s not taking drugs. So you ask a friend to pretend to be a drug dealer and offer to sell drugs to him to see what his reaction will be. That is dishonest. And you’re lying to your own child. Is it immoral?
Finally, the example I gave earlier. You’re throwing a surprise party for your friend. You get in the car and tell him that you’re going to the mall, but you’re actually taking him to the party. You lied to him. If lies are evil under any and all circumstances, isn’t it wrong?
Should I confess to a priest that I once had a surprise party for my Mother, and when I was going to help set up the party, I told her that I was going shopping? Do I need to repent of this sin? Let me know.
Ex-GOP, it’s irrelevant because modern “journalism” is anything but objective. Everyone has an angle. As I said, your argument is the same as saying that Joe the Plumber shouldn’t be allowed to question Obama because he’s not really a plumber. It’s absurd.
I do agree with that John.
I do think there are a lot of political entertainment shows and sites – a twist on traditional journalism.
Indeed, Ex-GOP. There are many political activists who masquerade as journalists. Katie Couric, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite and three more famous examples.
Ex GOP Voter
It’s really not dramatic what he said if you really think about it. If you go to her site and read her story and the intimidation tactics Planned Parenthood used to keep her quiet you would probably have a different viewpoint. Anytime someone is trying to do the right thing like saving the lives of babies and he or she becomes a target that lets you know that they should be treated a little differently. There aren’t many people who would have the courage to do what she has done and when she describes planned parenthood as having a black heart I think she articulates what a lot of people know in their spirit but are afraid to say.
Myrtle – I have no idea what post you are referring too – I’m sorry.
I have no problem lying to save innocent human beings.
EGV
It’s the post you made at 12:53 p.m..
Late to the party here.
Dawn Eden’s mentioning Lila Rose in the same breath as Saul Alinsky and Fr. Euteneuer’s sinful behavior was nothing short of disgusting. She is actually shaping up to be a great practitioner of Alinsky’s tactics, which hardly become one involved in doctoral studies in moral theology. Her treatment of Christopher West last year seems not to have been an isolated event, but rather a manifestation of character.
Back to the original question, Jesus gives us a great teaching in Matthew 12: 1-14 on when keeping the letter of the law is an absurd practice which violates the spirit of the law:
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
I would recommend that Dawn read Dr. Christopher Tollefsen’s excellent article, which Jill linked. That’s how scholarship is done. I know Dr. Tollefsen, and while I’ll talk with him about my difference of opinion a la Jesus (above), at least Chris doesn’t pull an Alinsky and attempt to smear through vulgar association with sociopathic, criminal, or grossly immoral behavior.
There is a great difference between moral theology practiced with charity, and frigid Victorian moralization delivered thuggishly. Eden needs to read more Tollefsen.
We’re dealing with more than injured sheep here as well. So after Tollefsen, perhaps Eden can read a little Jesus.
Dr. Nadal,
I’m glad someone else expressed reservations about Dawn Eden’s approach and comments (regarding Lila, as well as Christopher West–her handling of the latter really steamed me!). I’m still wrestling with the topic issue, myself, but the sort of “throw Lila and co. to the wolves” approach really doesn’t sit well with me, if I might use a bit of understatement…
Paladin,
Another issue with Lila is that she practiced a form of integrity check that is common in law enforcement. Undercover work such as this does not typically fall under ‘entrapment’ if the scenario reflects an encounter that the individual could reasonably expect to encounter in the course of the work.
I agreed with Eden’s critique of West’s excesses, but disagreed with the manner in which it was done. We’re teammates here, and the great good that West has done merited him an exchange with Eden that should have been extremely private and confidential.
Absent that consideration, her thesis has been characterized by others as the work of a take-down artist with nothing to offer in exchange.
If Dawn’s only academic contributions are the equivalent of breaking knees, devoid of a context for her critique that is grounded in the larger good for someone’s life’s work, then she’ll find herself a pariah in no time at all. I’ve spoken with other Ph.D.’s and NOT ONE has expressed anything other than concern for Dawn’s academic performance on her master’s thesis. This latest piece may very well be her swan song.
I don’t have any objections to these techniques if she’s not editing in a way that changes the context. I would like Planned Parenthood to live up to its legal and moral obligations. If an undercover sting operations shows a problem with that, PP should welcome that information and fix the problem.
And indeed the unedited full footage does just that.
she has played fair and square – and caught PP red-handed. They consistently do not report underage reporting as they should – and I have seen that first hand for myself.
Time not to look away – time to de-fund! Hope to see lots of people praying for victims across the country tomorrow!
Hal,
You and I are in complete agreement here.
The problem with PP fixing the problem, however, is that they are founded on, and operate on the very principle of deceiving parents and preying upon children. The videos show who they are, not just what they do.
God Bless.
Let me ask this question: if the ends justify the means when it comes to lying, what other immoral actions are justified if they produce desirable results? Most people here are not willing to identify as having a utilitarian or consequentialist moral philosophy, but I’m not seeing anyone willing to defend dishonesty as morally acceptable on its own merits without taking into consideration the end result that it produces. And what if Live Action’s “sting” hadn’t uncovered anything seemingly untoward at all? Would Lila Rose’s deception still have been the right thing to do, even if it failed to bring about any of the desired results?
Joan
I’m not sure how to answer your question so I’ll ask one of my own. Then I’m going to do some homework. Do you think what Ms.Rose done was immoral? I don’t think any of what she done was immoral.I think she assessed a situation. Then she formed a very accurate conclusion. And then she took action that was legal. The only part that I see as immoral is that this type of action wasn’t done a long time ago. Who knows how many lives were spared because she is a very brave individual.
“And what if Live Action’s “sting” hadn’t uncovered anything seemingly untoward at all? Would Lila Rose’s deception still have been the right thing to do, even if it failed to bring about any of the desired results?”
joan,
Had PP acted properly at any one of the facilities, then Lila would have been obligated to report that video also and it still would have been the right thing to do. But what PP did is quite the opposite. The most egregious offered advice on how to use the girls as eye candy or from the “waist up” for two weeks after the abortion. But every one of them was offering advice to the sex-trafficker on how to skirt parental notification laws in order to commit abortion on minors. They even went so far as to tell the pimp that he could get her to fill out the paperwork, have the fourteen year olds say they are fifteen, and she could take care of the rest as far as getting a judicial bypass. I think this is grounds for the District Attorney to open up some of the past judicial bypass files and see if the parents were actually abusive.
Okay, let’s get this straight. 1 million abortions per year, millions more children frequenting PP annually in the US, and Lila is being made out to be the unethical one?
For using the same means of integrity checks employed by law enforcement?
Really??
Perhaps certain academics have the time and luxury to pick academic nits while our teenage children are butchered by these thugs at PP, but a young woman used the means preferred by law enforcement to expose definitively what we all pretty much knew all along, and now she’s the target.
I guess we haven’t gotten past killing prophets after all.
Wow. Great question. What would Jesus do? Jesus was with them as they uncovered Planned Parenthood’s egregious actions.
The spirit of the law is where it’s at. Live Action did a good thing, even if they did it twice on Sunday.
if the ends justify the means when it comes to lying, what other immoral actions are justified if they produce desirable results?
I don’t think it’s the ends we’re talking about here, but the intent. The intent was to see if PP was willing to aid and abet sex traffickers.
I’m with Gerard on this one. This is really all PP’s got – now Lila is the immoral one because she and others went undercover to expose these practices? Unreal. Not all lying is the same, folks. If I had to lie to save someone’s life or rescue them from a possibly life-threatening situation, you had better believe I’d do it.
Not all lying is the same, folks. If I had to lie to save someone’s life or rescue them from a possibly life-threatening situation, you had better believe I’d do it.
I’m with you Kel. That’s what I meant by picking academic nits while teens are kept in slavery and babies are butchered.
If play acting achieved ends justified by the means of play acting, will we pro-lifers eventually become pro-death as a way of saving life? That’s where the line leads if you follow it long enough, right Joan?
Well, play acting is a kind of deception, true, but LiveAction did not plant false evidence or make false accusations. The Judeo-Christian law is very specific about bearing false witness against a neighbor. LiveAction didn’t accuse with a lie. They role played, and Planned Parenthood stepped right in it. Planned Parenthood’s behavior was inappropriate whether the actors were real or just acting. PP behaved consistently badly. Over and over again.
After seeing what side joan falls on this topic, I have made up my mind what I think about Live Actions’ actions in their fight against abortion (abortion, which is also the ultimate abuse of women and children).
As I said earlier, Live Action is only playing by the rules the proaborts set up. Christ knows what’s in our hearts and Lila is working for Christ — joan is not.
Thanks for reassuring me Prolifers. You are the best!
Keep up the good work Live Action. We are praying for you!
Hey all.
This is such a great discussion and I am so glad to see everyone so charitable. What a nice change of pace!
First, let me say that it is my understanding that Catholics may hold to different opinions about this question. This is why there is so much confusion over teh question. I don’t think there Church has specifically addressed this issue in this great of detail and so it seems to me that one can hold to a variety of opinions and still be in good standing with teh Church. Thus I certainly do not condemn anyone who disagrees with me, and I respect any contrary opinion to my own. I am happy to be corrected and only wish to seek God.
That said, I lean more towards teh opinion that lying is always and everywhere wrong. Now Paladin made some excellent points in his 2011/02/13 at 3:39 pm post, and I second them all. I don’t claim to have the answers and realize how tricky this question is. But I also think he brings up very good objections to some of the arguments in favor of lying like “the Church did it during WWII” or “that would make undercover people liers.” So let me discuss you I think lying is always disordered.
I think a good working definition of lying would be using words or actions that are contrary to teh truth with the intention of deceiving someone. Thus acting (when people know taht you are acting and you intend your performance to be an act), being mistaken, sarcasm, using a psedo-name online, etc. would not be considered lying. But I think otherwise, that lying is evil.
People have mentioned the “hiding Jews” situation. I thus believe that it would NOT be morally permissible to lie and say you were not hiding Jews when in fact you are. This does not mean you have to answer them, nor does it mean you have to specifically say that you have Jews in the house. You can yell at them, fight them, do whatever it takes, not answer the door, etc. But you are not responsible for teh fact that they intend to do evil. You cannot do evil (lie) in order to stop ANOTHER from doing evil. Even though you do have the means to thwart a particular evil by lying, I simply think that this itself would be evil.
The point here is that arguing that you can lie to bring about a good cause is consequentialist, an ethic that Christians (and others) should never accept. Even if you can do good (save Jews’ lives), the ACTION of lying that you take is always the same kind of action as if you were lying in any other situation. The only difference in teh action taht you take when you lie to save the lives of Jews and lie to get out of having to go to school is teh consequence. The means are the same. Your free will is not being manipulated at all in ether situation. There is no principle of double effect. I think the only difference is teh consequence.
Let me drive the point home further by offering two thought experiments. Now my friend and fellow Pennsylvaniaian (is that a word?) John Lewandowski has brought up some issues above that if I am correct, would make it a sin to lie to keep a secret birthday party and other kinds of scenarios. While I don’t claim to have good responses to those, I do think that my above scenarios are MORE of a dilemma than the ones he has created. I thus believe that I am justified in “biting the bullet” and accepting those seemingly absurd scenarios of John as immoral in light of the fact that I think that the situations below are much harder to swallow.
Consider that in one situation we have a very good and noble consequence (saving Jews) and in another situation a bad consequence (getting out of school) which can be obtained by lying. What are the only (possibly) morally relevant differences? The consequences. The kind of action you are doing is the same- in both cases, you are lying in order to bring something about, either saving teh lives of Jews or getting out of having to go to school. But there is NO difference in teh action. The only difference is the fact that in one situation you have a good ends and the other you have an evil ends. And if we begin to justify an action based solely on the ends that are achieved, than we are embracing an ethic which is used to justify h-ESCR, abortion, and a host of other evils.
I think this scenario is even more problematic. Suppose Nazis come to your door, walk into your house, and find a Jew that you hid. Holding a gun to the Jew’s head, they say “We will pull the trigger unless you deny Christ.” Do you deny Christ in order to save that Jew’s life? As painful as it may seem, I believe the answer is clearly no, that we must never deny Christ no matter what. But I think that if you are willing to lie to save the life of a Jew, than you should be willing to deny Christ in order to save the life of a Jew. All the same arguments given in favor of lying to save the life of a Jew can be used in order to argue that you should deny Christ in order to save the life of a Jew. It would also be a lie that you are denying him- you aren’t *really* denying him, but just lying by saying you are, and thus is seems that if it is ok to lie to say Jews, than it is ok to deny Christ to save Jews.
Now please don’t get me wrong here. I am in NO WAY saying that I think I would have the courage to not lie if I was hiding Jews. Nor do I in teh LEAST condemn anyone who would lie or who has lied to save Jews. Not only is this moral question EXTREMELY unclear, but when it comes to saving Jews, there really is an element of almost being forced to lie. Thus, even if I am correct that it is wrong to lie to save Jews, I think that those who did lie to save the lives of Jews had very little to answer for if ANYTHING to God. They really believed what they were doing was right, it is very unclear if it is right or wrong, and they were put in an extremely compromising position. Again, though, as Paladin mentioned, we don’;t judge anyone. It isn’t our place, and we have no idea what is in the heart of another.
I would love to pursue this further if anyone has any objections and am happy to change anything I may see as being mistaken. God love you.
I have just come across something very interesting for all of you to consider:
“Tobiah went to look for someone acquainted with the roads who would travel with him to Media. As soon as he went out, he found the angel Raphael standing before him, though he did not know that this was an angel of God. Tobiah said to him, “Who are you, young man?” He replied “I am an Israelite, one of your kinsmen. I have come here to work.” Tobiah said, “Do you know the way to Media?”
The other replied: “Yes, I have been there many times. I know the place well and I know all the routes. I have often traveled to Media; I used to stay with our kinsman Gabael, who lives at Rages in Media. It is a good two days’ travel from Ecbatana to Rages, for Rages is situated at the mountains, Ecbatana out on the plateau.””
-Tobit 5:4-6
The Archangel Raphael identified himself as an Israelite in order to provide assistance to Tobiah. That was a lie, right? So did Raphael commit sin? Is that even possible?
People have mentioned the “hiding Jews” situation. I thus believe that it would NOT be morally permissible to lie and say you were not hiding Jews when in fact you are. This does not mean you have to answer them, nor does it mean you have to specifically say that you have Jews in the house. You can yell at them, fight them, do whatever it takes, not answer the door, etc. But you are not responsible for teh fact that they intend to do evil. You cannot do evil (lie) in order to stop ANOTHER from doing evil. Even though you do have the means to thwart a particular evil by lying, I simply think that this itself would be evil.
I don’t mean this offensively, but – are you serious? Do you really think the Nazis wouldn’t take silence, avoidance, et cetera as an admission that someone was hiding Jews in their house? Do you think they’d actually leave someone alone because of this? Or, is it a heck of a lot more likely that the SS would kick down your door, barge in, and find the Jews hiding in your cellar?
I can just imagine someone trying to explain this to God. “Yes, Lord, I let ten people be sent to concentration camps and murdered because I wasn’t willing to tell one lie to save their lives. I knew full well that the Nazis would kill the Jews if they found them, but I decided it was more important to avoid lying than it was to save people from being starved into living skeletons and then gassed to death. Aren’t you so happy with me, Lord? Yes, my refusal to answer may have tipped off the Nazis that I was hiding something from them, but at least I didn’t lie!”
Let’s face it, if you’ve got four armed Nazis kicking down your door, yelling at them or attempting to fight them is probably going to be pretty futile. Besides, what if you have to kill the Nazis to protect the Jews? Killing should be considered worse than lying, right? Do you not kill the evil Nazis who are going to torture the innocent Jews and then kill them, so you can sleep peacefully at night with the knowledge that you didn’t kill anyone?
If you know someone is trying to kill someone else, it should be morally imperative to do your best to save the potential victim’s life. Valuing the avoidance of lies at all costs over human life is just plain wrongheaded.
Bobby,
I’ve gotta disagree with you on this one.
Pius XII directed that Jews be hidden and that the Church do all in her power to deceive the Nazis in order to save Jewish lives.
In all of this talk of lying, what I am not getting is the scriptural injunction to substantiate such claims. The command regarding bearing false witness against one’s neighbor clearly deals with false allegation of a capital nature. Recall the story of Susanna in Daniel:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/daniel/daniel13.htm
The entire exercise of hiding Jews would have been an exercise in futility, if all the Nazis needed to do was ask if one were sheltering any Jews. False walls and concealment are deceptive by their very nature, and it is deception that is the crux of the argument here. A lie is nothing, if not a means of deception. Yet Pius XII asked all of his clergy, religious, and faithful to join in a mass deception of the Nazis. This was lie and death for all involved, and 80% of Catholic clergy and religious in Eastern Europe paid with their lives.
Your conflation of denying Jesus and lying to save a life needs some surgical separation. The Nazi who holds a gun to the Jew’s head and asks you to deny Jesus (or else) isn’t serious about not killing the Jew in the first place. If the individual is depraved enough to actually pull the trigger, then denying the entire Blessed Trinity, all of the angels and saints wouldn’t help at all. Even in the remote chance that it would, denying Jesus is a violation of the law that leads to death:
“Whoever denies me before men, I shall deny before my Father in Heaven.”
That is the gold standard for this discussion. Not all lies are deceptions. Some are denials, such as the one you suggest, and which have eternal consequences.
Did Lila sin by what she did? Play Jesus for a day and get to decide her eternal fate if she refuses to see her investigative journalism as evil. Could you send her to hell for all eternity for what she did? Doe feel a bit uncomfortable at the thought?
I couldn’t do it.
I don’t think that Lila’s videos or their motivation, or the manner in which they were obtained at all offends the majesty of God, and I daresay that we can become too doctrinaire about our philosophical methodologies and slide unwittingly into the same sort of Pharisaical legalism that Jesus railed against. I believe that this thread is a case in point.
We are arguing the method against itself, and not against the more powerful spirit of the law, which is our only escape from legalistic and juridical implosion.
“I do think that my above scenarios are MORE of a dilemma than the ones he has created.”
Bobby,
what does that have to do with lying itself though? Can lying be ok if it’s not a serious situation?
Thanks-
Bobby,
As an additional thought, the Church maintains the Just War doctrine, which permits humans to employ the most malignant of human evils, war, in order to save innocent human life from unjust aggression. We all know the horrendous wastefulness of war in blood and treasure, and yet the Church teaches us that it may be employed when all else fails in halting the unjust aggressor.
Word War II was such a war, one where over 65 million humans died.
Inherent in war is the deceiving of one’s enemy by lies, espionage, stealth, etc. Yes, the Church maintains that the war is intrinsically evil, but maintains that it may be necessary in order to prevent a greater evil, and thus permits its use.
Now we were discussing Lila…
Thanks everyone for the replies. I will try and give careful consideration, but obviously, I do not have all the answers and in some cases may agree with your points. In fact…
“The Archangel Raphael identified himself as an Israelite in order to provide assistance to Tobiah. That was a lie, right? So did Raphael commit sin? Is that even possible?”
I find this example of John L the best biblical evidence in defense of his position so far. This can not be explained by saying that “even though he lied, the bible never says God approves” like in some of teh other cases because indeed, as John points out, it is CERTAINLY not possible for an angel to commit a sin, as they behold the face of God, enjoying the Beatific vision. So there is no question that what Raphael did was moral. And in fact, I’m not at all sure how to respond. This is good evidence, and I’m not sure how one could try and say that this is not a lie, at least how I defined it, so that I may have an incorrect understanding of what constitutes a lie…
Marauder,
“I don’t mean this offensively, but – are you serious? Do you really think the Nazis wouldn’t take silence, avoidance, et cetera as an admission that someone was hiding Jews in their house? Do you think they’d actually leave someone alone because of this? Or, is it a heck of a lot more likely that the SS would kick down your door, barge in, and find the Jews hiding in your cellar?”
Yes, very serious. No, I do not at all think that it would “work” in the sense that they would leave them alone. Indeed, they would find the Jews. But the question is, is it morally permissible to do an action that (it seems to me) is intrinsically evil in order to avoid another evil? I don’t at all claim that to not lie means that you must give them the truth.
“I can just imagine someone trying to explain this to God. “Yes, Lord, I let ten people be sent to concentration camps and murdered because I wasn’t willing to tell one lie to save their lives. I knew full well that the Nazis would kill the Jews if they found them, but I decided it was more important to avoid lying than it was to save people from being starved into living skeletons and then gassed to death. Aren’t you so happy with me, Lord? Yes, my refusal to answer may have tipped off the Nazis that I was hiding something from them, but at least I didn’t lie!””
If lying is intrinsically evil in and of itself, yes, of course. Never do evil that good may come of it. This is the same kind of argument that is used to justify h-ESCR. If we can save 10,000 lives by killing one embryo shouldn’t we do it? Can we really stand before God and say that I chose the life of one embryo over 10,000 people? Of course. If you refuse to tell teh Nazis anything, you are not doing teh evil action. They are the ones who are engaging in killing teh Jews. Just because you have a means to stop them does not mean that the means is moral. Now maybe it is, but just the fact that I have some way to save a lot of innocent lives doens’t automatically mean that it is moral. This, again, is consequentialism which only looks at teh consequence of an action taken or not taken in order to understated the morality.
“Let’s face it, if you’ve got four armed Nazis kicking down your door, yelling at them or attempting to fight them is probably going to be pretty futile. Besides, what if you have to kill the Nazis to protect the Jews? Killing should be considered worse than lying, right? Do you not kill the evil Nazis who are going to torture the innocent Jews and then kill them, so you can sleep peacefully at night with the knowledge that you didn’t kill anyone?”
In this case, the principle of double effect applies as the ACTION you are performing is self-defense, physically stopping an unjust aggressor. But when lying to teh Nazis, the action is just that- lying. When they begin to attack, they have already put their aggression into motion- they are in teh middle of teh act of (potential) killing. Now you actually may eb onto something here, though. I think we may have to flesh out more carefully how double effect might be applied, but I think it needs to be more nuanced and carefully spelled out with the comparison with fighting back in self defense, which is indeed legit. So this might work.
“If you know someone is trying to kill someone else, it should be morally imperative to do your best to save the potential victim’s life.”
Right, if it is not intrinsically disordered. I certainly would not participate in an abortion if it meant I could save someone’s life. But again, you may be onto something here. i’d like to see this comparison in more detail with the moral action of self-defense to save a life. I dunno. God love you.
Gerard,
Again, though, when it comes to Pius XII hiding Jews, I’m open to teh idea that this could have been wrong. Think about it this way. The Church does not have a definitive teaching about whether or not embryo adoption is moral or not (though it seems to be going in a certain direction now). But anyone who decides to adopt an embryo, say it is moral, or say it is immoral, is not sinning because the Church has not pronounced on it. However, it either is a sin to adopt an embryo or it is a sin to say it’s a sin to adopt an embryo. Because the Church has not spoken though, people on both sides are not morally culpable. That is what I am open to thinking about Pius XII and others- that they are not morally culpable (if indeed it is a sin) because this theology has not been fleshed out yet. So I guess, if this is what you’re saying, just the fact that most of the Church did it does not provide, at least to me, sufficient evidence to say it isn’t wrong.
“Not all lies are deceptions.”
This is an interesting distinction… I guess I can’t see how one can separate the two…
“Did Lila sin by what she did? Play Jesus for a day and get to decide her eternal fate if she refuses to see her investigative journalism as evil. Could you send her to hell for all eternity for what she did? Doe feel a bit uncomfortable at the thought?”
I have no idea, and this is something I cannot do. Like I mentioned before, I’m not positive that anyone is even held culpable for lying to Nazis or possibly even this kind of investigation. Only Jesus can see people’s hearts. Anyone who rejects the truth and knows it commits mortal sin and goes to hell. Did Lila reject the truth as she knows it? I very highly doubt it. Again, even if I am write about lying and what she did is OBJECTIVELY sinful, it is sooooo unclear that it is objectivity sinful and I think this diminishes culpability to almost nothing, if not nothing.
I’m also not convinced that looking at this question is Pharasitical legalism. This is an important question. Jesus comes down very hard on Satan for being a liar from teh beginning and teh father of lies. Thus, I do not want to have ANYTHING to do with lies or Satan. Now in order to do this, I need to know what constitutes a lie and what doesn’t. I may very well be mistaken on this question, but I really think it is worth our time and energies to make sure we know exactly what Jesus was talking about when he talked about lies because i don’t want to have ANYTHING to do with them.
Also, about the Just War doctrine… here we see that war isn’t always and everywhere intrinsically evil. But I maintain that lying is always and everywhere intrinsically evil, so that is the big difference that I see there.
But getting back to what Marauder (and you)said, is there a way to distingish “lying” from “deception” like we do with “murder” vs “killing”? Murder is intrinsically evil, by killing is not. Can we make a distinction between “deception” and “lying” so that lying is intrinsically evil but deception is not while also making it so that someone hiding Jews is engaged in deception and not lying, making it a moral action? The truth is, I WANT the answer to be yes. I don’t at all want to be arguing that you can’t deceive the Nazis. But I must follow where I believe the truth to be. But if we can make a good, moral distinction here, than maybe… God love you.
Jasper,
“what does that have to do with lying itself though? Can lying be ok if it’s not a serious situation?”
No, I think I was unclear here. What I meant is that here we have two choices: either lying is always and everywhere wrong (positin I am somewhat defending) or there are certain things which some consider lies but which are not. Now in either case, people have given scenarios, situation,s or bible texts that try and prove their position correct. Personally, there are these scenarios that people have given on BOTH sides that I don’t know how to answer. I don’t know how to answer John L’s example from Tobit, so that seems like good evidence to say that not all deceptions are lies. But, I”m also convinced that lying to save lives is consequentialist, so that it is always wrong to lie. I don’t know how to answer that one either. So which one do I think is MORE problematic if i have to accept one or the other? Well, I have a lot to think about…
God love you.
If a man is holding a gun to your head with plans to rape you and he tells you to say you love him or he will kill you and your child, what should you do?
The Church might find her a martyr if she holds fast and refuses to answer but if she lies and says she loves him she may live and go on to work for Christ on Earth.
I know this example is not the same as what Live Action did. However, women and children are being raped and murdered and I see a strong, very young woman doing something about it. She has my support, love and prayers.
There is no doubt that PP is the world’s most evil organization. I do want to take them down, but I also want the methods to be moral. Thus, I would not support blowing up all their mills.
However, I don’t equate blowing up abortion mills with what Lila is doing. Like I said before, I think it is morally permissible for her to be doing what she is doing, just like it is morally permissible for someone to lie to Nazis, because whether or not it is moral is so unclear in Catholic theology. My claim is that objectively speaking, it may not be moral, but I am perfectly understanding that if one says they don’t have a good reason to think that this is true, I think they are morally justified in performing that action (see my example to Gerard about embryo adoption).
Great, interesting thread, Jill. Kudos to you.
Praxedes: If a man is holding a gun to your head with plans to rape you and he tells you to say you love him or he will kill you and your child, what should you do?
Good example. I think we all would draw the line somewhere, saying, “In this case it’s best to tell the lie.”
when it comes to Pius XII hiding Jews, I’m open to teh idea that this could have been wrong.
Bobby, I understand the spirit of what you’re saying. Doesn’t the Church teach (2242 of the CCC) that there is no obligation to obey an unjust law and that in some instances, the Catholic Christian is morally obligated to DISOBEY an unjust law?
“Doesn’t the Church teach (2242 of the CCC) that there is no obligation to obey an unjust law and that in some instances, the Catholic Christian is morally obligated to DISOBEY an unjust law?”
Yes indeed, FedUp. If I understand what you are asking correctly, then you are saying that the Church had a moral obligation to protect Jews even though there may have been some law otherwise. This I definitely agree with. I think I should have been more nuanced with the statement of mine that you quoted by saying that I am open to the idea that Pius and the Church may have been wrong IF their methods involved lying. Now I”m not positive about their means, but if all their means didn’t involve a lie somehow, than I think everything is fine, and indeed, think that even if I am right about lying that there would probably not be any moral culpability for it if they did (as I mentioned above) That’s what I meant. God love you.
Bobby Bambino says: February 14, 2011 at 11:37 am
“The Archangel Raphael identified himself as an Israelite in order to provide assistance to Tobiah. That was a lie, right? So did Raphael commit sin? Is that even possible?”
=============================================================
I am not familiar with the Angel Raphael and Tobiah incident, but that aside evidently ‘archangels’ have a will of their own.
satan, lucifer, beezeub exercised his/her/it’s will and GOD evicted it/her/him from the heavenly realm and relegated her/it/him to exist in this space and time realm and his/her/it’s visage, though formerly beautiful, is now quite hideous.
It says in the ‘book’ that 1/3 third of the heavenly host accompanied the bent one on his forced relocation. Did that third who participated in the attempted coup d’état do so of their own free will or were they also banished for their individual acts of rebellion?
If not then why did GOD banish them for following lucifers order?
If lucifer’s misbehavior was not ‘sin’ as human’s sin, then what was it?
Alas, here I go again asking more questions than a 100 wise men can answer?
But then again if GOD actually made the archangel an ‘Israelite’, then he would not be lying when he identified himself as such.
“But then again if GOD actually made the archangel an ‘Israelite’, then he would not be lying when he identified himself as such.”
Ken, later on in Tobit, Raphael identifies himself as “Azariah, son of Hananiah the elder”. While you might be able to say that God made Raphael an ”Israelite”, you can’t say that God made Raphael into Azariah, son of Hananiah. While it may be true that Satan and his demons have committed “sin” or whatever you would call it in their case, I think it’s generally accepted that Raphael never sinned.
“I don’t know how to answer John L’s example from Tobit, so that seems like good evidence to say that not all deceptions are lies.”
Bobby, that is indeed what I contend; that not all deceptions are lies. A deception is not necessarily sinful, while a lie always is. The word “lie” implies malice or treachery.
I just came up with another Biblical example of deception which is not sinful:
“Some time after these events, God put Abraham to the test. He called to him, “Abraham!” “Ready!” he replied. Then God said: “Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you.””
-Genesis 22:1-2
God Himself told Abraham that He wanted him to sacrifice Isaac. But it was a test to see how faithful Abraham was. God never intended for Abraham to go through with it. It was a deception, but obviously couldn’t be a sin.
I’m not sure how this didn’t come up before if it didn’t, but:
“Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. 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.”
-Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2483
The Catechism defines what a “lie” is for us; it is an act against truth intended to lead someone into error. That’s not what Lila Rose intended, that’s not what Gabriel intended, and that’s not what people who protected Jews from the Nazis intended.
The “someone who has the right to know the truth” clause is also interesting, but we don’t even need to get into that. It seems to me that Lila Rose is completely in the right here. Just as Jesus allowed work on the Sabbath under strict circumstances, so too can it not be sinful to create a deception, BUT ONLY if there is NO attempt to lead someone into error. That’s how I interpret it.
Thanks John. I am surprised that we hadn’t seen that that Catechism quote hadn’t come up before! It does appear that there does need to be a more nuanced definition of a lie, and especially some careful distinctions between a lie and a deception (though deception has a negative connotation). I still hold that all lying is always disordered, but now it is more unclear how one determines what is a lie and what is not. God love you.
Sorry… completely swamped, and no time for a fulsome reply, but: John, that quote from the catechism is incorrect. It’s from the earlier (French Translation) of the CCC, and the part about “having a right to the truth” was an error (and was deleted in the official version).
Praxedes says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Interesting that Dawn and William missed 2484 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states:
“The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in inself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.”
So many interesting ideas. This is a very difficult question which I don’t pretend to know the answer to, but it seems that this early comment by Praxedes has not been addressed much and I feel that this part of the CCC he/she quoted may have some bearing on the answer. That said, I wonder if what Live Action is doing is “lying” or “acting/pretending/role-playing” and if they are different in this case or one in the same. There are other sections of the CCC that should be considered, such as those on justice and charity and sin, and possibly others, IMHO. Just some food for thought.
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14015
Paladin, I quoted the Catechism directly from Vatican.va. Here’s the exact place I quoted it from:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8K.HTM
Directly from Vatican.va:
“2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. 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.”
My own Catechism, a 1995 edition, has the same language. After investigating, however, I see you are correct about the change in language in 1997. Somebody should probably inform the Vatican.va webmaster that they need to update their Catechism.
In light of this, I’m glad I didn’t make a big deal about that clause. “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error” is all I need to know. I just cannot accept that any time you say something that’s not true, regardless of intent or reason, it’s a sin. I mean, if Catholic parents tell their children that if they’re not good, Santa Claus won’t bring them any presents, is that an evil lie and a sin against God? I certainly hope not!
Some of you that are Catholic may be interested in the New Theological Movement blog which has posted 3 articles this month on the morality of Live Action’s tactics. There’s some interesting discussion in the comments section.
Fed Up,
I’ve read two of the three articles…. but I could probably re-read them all a few times and still not have a full grasp of them! Thanks!
I’ve read two of the three articles…. but I could probably re-read them all a few times and still not have a full grasp of them!
Dear Lord, Please enlighten Janet but continue to allow me to remain in dullardhood. . . . (:
Reading through those posts at Catholic Vote, and other places, it would seem that this debate about lying is a 2000 year old discussion among Catholics that has never been resolved. Always one to choose a side, though, I would have to side with the folks arguing that not all deceptions are lies. As I said repeatedly, I can’t see it as being a sin if you tell your kids that the Easter Bunny brought them chocolate, or if you tell your Mother that you’re taking her shopping when you’re taking her to a surprise party. That your chocolate candy was delivered by a rabbit is a lie from Satan’s mouth to your kids’ ears? Seriously?
I know that some of the greatest minds of the Church have argued that it’s better for every single member of the human race to be painfully exterminated and the universe smashed into oblivion than it is for one person to tell a single lie. Personally I find that argument to be completely absurd. It’s like Jesus’ hyperbolic metaphor about tearing out your eye to save you from Hell, but on steroids. I am willing to accept extra time in purgatory if my “deception” saves someone from death.
Praxedes,
A dullard? No way! Thanks for the prayer on my behalf. :)
John said:
“Just as Jesus allowed work on the Sabbath under strict circumstances, so too can it not be sinful to create a deception, BUT ONLY if there is NO attempt to lead someone into error. That’s how I interpret it.”
And I agree with your summation John. Thank you for researching that in the Catechism.
Paladin, where did you find that erroneous reference that John’s Catechism reference had been removed from the Catechism? Was it an article at the ‘Catholic’s for Choice’ site?
I am willing to accept extra time in purgatory if my “deception” saves someone from death.
Me too John.
I have faith that all the little innocent ones in heaven (including Abused Teens with No Choice) will cover the back of Lila Rose and her team if they end up in purgatory for a bit.
Truthseeker,
John admitted to finding a 1997 edition of teh Catechism with that phrase removed. I have a 1995 edition of teh Catechism here in my office and it too does not contain the phrase in paragraph 2483 about “has a right to the truth.” There are other sites which give the catechism but without that phrase. In fact, here is another part of the Vatican website that lists 2483 without that phrase
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm
Weird, because I know John’s link goes to the Vatican website as well, but DOES have that phrase. Now I”m not trying to make this a game of who can have the most catechism reference quotes, but I do want to emphasize that this is NOT something that comes out of some pro choice site or fake Catholic site. As John mentioned above, this is a 2000 year old discussion which is very difficult to resolve. No doubt that a Catholic may hold to either side and still be in good standing with the Church. But I think it is somewhat unfair to accuse Paladin of having found his information from a pro-choice website when he is discussing an issue that reasonable Catholics may disagree on. God love you.
:) Thanks, Bobby…
Truthseeker, if you know anything about me at all, you know that I don’t touch abortion-tolerant websites with a barge-pole (and my few attempts to go and debate them on their “home turf”, such as at *yech* RH Reality Check, were exercises in futility, frustration, and migraines… no, thank you!). I’m reporting what’s actually fact; the Catechism of the Catholic Church was originally written in French, but that wasn’t the “normative” edition (L: “editio typica”) which the Church could use for teaching purposes; it was a first draft, only (though it was published as a tan/grey-covered edition in 1994). The Vatican noted numerous errors with the text (some of which were significant), and a revised edition in Latin was finished in 1997 (I think), and released with a dark green cover. (They also released a small booklet foll of the corrections, which owners of the tan version could use as a supplement.) Apparently, the “right to know” phrase was one of the many errors, and it was removed. If you don’t have a copy of the new Catechism to confirm this, I could direct you to websites which supply the needed information.
As it stands: may I please be promoted up from “pro-choice Catholic” (pardon the contradiction in terms!), in your mind? :)
Okay,
Forget Lila for a moment. Can we all agree on this video being an acceptable use of lies??
http://www.youtube.com/user/billybobjr705
Here from the USCCB Catechism 2512:
“Society has a right to information based on truth, freedom, and justice.” Maybe the ones where you found it “missing” had actualy just been moved from 2483 to 2512.
According to the Catechism;
“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”
Live Action was not trying to lead anybody into error. They lead Planned Parenthood to speak honestly about their willingness to be accomplices in the abuse of minors.
Bobby, thank you for your comments. I am obviously not Catholic but I find a lot of value in what you have said (or what I’ve taken away from what you’ve said, at least). I think lying is not moral, but can be morally permissible in extenuating circumstances; just like killing is not moral, but can be morally permissible in extenuating circumstances (self-defense etc).
It seems to me that the natural order of justice would accomodate extenuating circumstances, even if our man-made concept/system of justice sometimes cannot fully articulate or put into practice the most minute and difficult-to-suss-out details of the Platonic form of justice. I find it difficult to believe that an objectively True order would conclusively judge people who chose either way on this issue. That’s just a gut feeling, which I know is like the opposite of the purpose of objective truth, but oh well. Basically I have contributed nothing to this discussion, but I just wanted to thank you for having it anyway!
Truthseeker gives us the definitive criterion from the CCC:
“in order to lead someone into error.”
The undercover actions of Lila’s team were designed to bring the truth to light, for the benefit of the PP staff, and for society.
It is interesting to note that the people who have taken up the position against Lila are all academics, which points to the dangers faced by scholars. We can get caught up in the world of the pure ideal, a world where fictional jews are betrayed by those who like young George Washington said,
“I cannot tell a lie”.
It’s easy to do our scholarship as we move fictional armies about the board, see fictional babies die, see theoretical children pimped.
It’s easy to stand and watch them die, because we know that they really don’t exist, except as theoretical constructs in our own minds.
Then we get to go home to our real families, whom we would watch slaughtered one-by-one by some modern-day SS troopers who come looking for them, because after all, we cannot tell a lie.
Or would we?
Again, I’m not trying to make any judgments about Lila or Live Action. I haven’t even watched teh video. I’m simply looking at the question of lying and what constitutes a lie.
Also, TS, I think you’re trying to argue for teh converse of 2512, which it does not say. Indeed, society has a right to the truth. But just going by that statement, it says nothing about those who do not have a right to the truth, which is what we are questioning.
I have to wonder if this confusion is partially due to we Catholics having our own definition for the word “lie”, just as we have our own definitions for other words, like “conscience”. “Conscience” to non-Catholics means Jiminy Cricket whispering in your ear; a little voice telling you not to do something bad. “Conscience” to Catholics means understanding and faithfulness to the Gospels and Catholic teaching. So to non-Catholics, a “well formed conscience” means that Jiminy Cricket is talking loud and clear, while to Catholics, a “well formed conscience” means that we follow Catholic teaching and not our own personal opinions.
I think you’re absolutely right, John. Even if we try to apply the Catechism definition, it still seems vague in some situations. I would agree that that really is the rub.
@John Lewandowski: I’m not going to get into a long debate on this, but suffice it to say that, as a non-Catholic, your post is very offensive indeed.
I don’t believe that anyone has spoken to the issue I mentioned way back. Which is, if pro-lifers are going to go undercover to get at the truth, what does this do to the reputation of the pro-life movement? surely pro-choicers can now say “look they will do anything, perhaps even shoot an abortionist” -
We have exhausted this topic of whether it is moral to lie or not, and haven’t reached a final conclusion. But what about what this does to us in the eyes of the opposition? or does that simply not matter?
This past fall, during our 40 Days vigil, I took to chalking Bible passages on the sidewalk. Short but pithy ones, there are plenty to choose from. My spiritual director advised me not to do this; in his words: “you are using the tactics of the enemy”.
That really spoke to me and that is what bothers me with Live Action. Surely deception and stings are the tactics of the enemy, should we be using them? I think it is clear what my answer to that is. But I would like to hear from others.
In her book Unplanned, Abby made a great deal of the fact that she could trust Shawn Carney and the Coalition for Life, because they had been consistently prayerful and respectful of her during those 7-8 years while she worked there. That is why she could turn to them. Does this not matter? I think it is huge.
What PP worker will ever turn to Live Action for help? If I were on the other side in this, I could never trust anyone from LA.
A former PP worker named Abby Johnson just joined the Live Action team!! :)
You won’t ever be able to come to some kind of consensus on this issue. We all have our own opinions on whether we think it was “lying” by LA or not.
When it helps to bring down PP will you be grateful to Live Action and applaud all of the work they are doing to expose PP? Or will you boo them?
Personally? I don’t give a flying fig what the opposition thinks of me and my abortion story of regret.
They hate me and I am fine with that.
PS
February 3rd was Prolife Chalk Day. Prolifers wrote their messages all over sidewalks with chalk. Why is that a tactic of the enemy?(Who is the enemy?)
Alice, I meant no disrespect to non-Catholics. Certainly a Protestant wouldn’t form his conscience to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I’m sure you would form it to the Bible. My point was about how we Catholics have our own definitions; it was not intended as an attack on non-Catholic Christians.
Julie, I addressed that to Joan but the thread is so long now I can’t find my comment. I asked basically if abortionists are worried that if we believe the end justifies the means in terms of deception, would we eventually believe that killing will help end abortion? Of course we don’t because killing people (besides being morally wrong) only makes martyrs of them. Case in point: Dr. Tiller.
Truthseeker wrote:
According to the Catechism, “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” Live Action was not trying to lead anybody into error.
(*sigh, again*) I hate situations like these… and every time I even open my mouth on this topic at all, I’m risking the ire of people who are impatient with theology/philosophy in the best of circumstances (much less in inflammatory topics like this, where people can be tempted to ask in exasperation, “what’s your problem with taking down Planned Parenthood, anyway??”)… but I have to point out that this statement is simply not true. LiveAction was certainly trying to lead the Planned Parenthood employees into the error of believing that the actors were actually a pimp and a prostitute, actually running a sex trafficking operation with illegal foreign sex-slaves, and so forth. If you want to say, “I don’t care about that; I care about the ‘bigger truth’ of Planned Parenthood’s death-and-sex business!”, then fine: just say it… but if so, then there’s no need to whitewash what LiveAction did (i.e. deceive the PP employees).
I’ll say again (and I’m sorry for those who weary of these constant qualifiers… but I can’t be too careful in an incendiary topic like this, where my previous qualifiers can easily get lost in the long threads of comments, and new commenters can’t easily find them):
I AM NOT SAYING THAT LIVE ACTION’S ACTIONS WERE WRONG.
I honestly don’t know. I’d be delighted if there’s some way to prove that their actions were morally licit (i.e. allowable/okay). I’m racking my brains in an effort to discern what’s right from what’s wrong, and I want Planned Parenthood stopped as badly as y’all do! Don’t shoot the messenger, eh? Please don’t attack, insult, flame, denigrate, scoff at, or lose all patience with people who are trying their very best to figure out what’s morally right, in this tangled situation, okay? Trust me… it’s not pleasant… and I’m not doing this (moral struggle) for fun. The issue of whether God forbids thus-and-so action isn’t going to be settled by hammering one opinion against another (and getting tempers frayed) or histrionics (where those trying to discern these matters are seen as “people who fiddle while babies die”). Such rhetoric is as thoughtless as it is insulting, and I’d ask that everyone refrain from it, and give each other the benefit of the doubt.
You think L.A.’s actions were justified? Well and good. You think they weren’t? Well and good. Just let’s not shoot each other over it, eh? As Bobby said: this is a murky, ill-defined area, and the stakes involved (in potentially using illicit means to achieve erstwhile good ends) aren’t as piddling as you might think.
(*rant over*)
Very well said, Paladin. When Bobby first posted that this was a murky area, I didn’t agree with him. Nor did I want to (no offense, Bobby). But I’ve concluded that he is correct and that it’s more unsettled than I had initially believed. Or wanted to believe.
CCC:
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
And then we read on….
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.
So the withholding of truth is not lying although there is disagreement among Church fathers as to this act of deception. Now, it gets confusing because of this:
2485 … The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity.
So, deception can be seen as leading our neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth. Speaking contrary to what you know to be the truth is NOT a lie in many cases because there is the issue of “right to know.” If I were to say that “No, there are no Jews in my house” to a Nazi officer asking me if there were, that would not be a lie (even if I had Jews hiding in my house) because they have no right to know.
So it depends on your definition of lying and that’s where the disagreement lies. Some would say that it is a lie to omit part of the truth, others would say that a lie is the deception in all cases, and still others that a lie is absolutely when you don’t tell the truth in all circumstances. But there are many many grey areas that the CCC states, like “right to know.”
I’m drawn to the statement of St. Raymond of Penafort, a master of canon law.
“I believe … that when one is asked by murderers bent on taking the life of someone hiding in the house whether he is in, no answer should be given; and if this betrays him, his death will be imputable to the murderers, not to the other’s silence. Or he may use an equivocal expression, and say ‘He is not at home,’ or something like that. And this can be defended by a great number of instances found in the Old Testament. Or he may say simply that he is not there, and if his conscience tells him that he ought to say that, then he will not speak against his conscience, nor will he sin.”
Acting is a form of deception. These sting people were acting. But not all deception is wrong. It’s based on “right to know.”
And it’s all about semantics. “Lying” and “deception” are sometimes thought to be the same thing when they are not. We use them interchangeably. So the “lying” we are talking about here is NOT the lying prohibited by the CCC. It is deception. We are all talking about deception, which in this case is allowed because of the “right to know” clause in the CCC. It is not lying. So, we’re all on the same page, just using the wrong words.
I’m coming in late here. However, I think this discussion is great.
I LOVE that LA is routing our PP! At first look, I say “I don’t care how they did it – I’m just glad they did it.” Then I read more comments & thought, “Hmmm… maybe there is something to all lies are morally wrong.” So I’m still thinking on it.
I asked my co-worker (he’s a First Baptist Forensic Chemist & I’m a Catholic Forensic Biologist) what he thought. His eyes widened in disbelief at the PP office manager’s responses. He & I are BOTH very glad we’re not God & don’t have to sit in judgement. However, since the FB philosophy on sins is that ‘a sin is a sin, is a sin & they’re all equal’ we differ significantly in our approach to sin. However, I got to asking him about undercover buys, the use of CI’s, etc in order to shut down drug dealers & such. So after initially saying that it was deception & wrong, he decided that it is a fine line between deception and absolute moral illicitness.
He brought up a good point though – its different when its for a job than for personal purposes. I outlined that Lila Rose has made this her ‘mission’ and therefore her ‘job’ to root out the dishonest and immoral practices. I likened it to actors (as some previous commentors have) when explaining it to him. This difference in perspective – job verses personal purposes & bringing to mind actors – seems to have changed his perspective.
Neither of us are theologians or extra-holy by any means. However, we’re both God-fearing faithful believers. Our consensus is that while its terrible that someone *had* to deceive this office manager (& others like her) in order to get these ‘answers’, their action is justified & not morally wrong.
Someone previously asked whether anyone thinks this will taint the pro-life movement (especially the groups associated with religion). My answer is no. We are already tainted in the pro-aborts minds. We are all, regardless of the truth, Bible-thumping, holier-than-thou, old men who are telling them what they can & cannot do with their bodies. The fact that there are atheists, self-professed sinners, and many more women than men, does not matter to the pro-aborts. The only thing that matters to them is that we are the enemy because we favor one of their ‘choices’ over the other. Yes, the pro-aborts will use this as another arrow in their quiver, but realistically, ANYTHING we do that achieves even a small victory gets twisted in their minds into another arrow. However, I do not see this as a problem for the pro-life movement at all. Simply because the more they twist, rant, & rave the more illogical and unpopular their position becomes. The more small victories we make equal small failures on their part. The war is long-standing. For a long time, the pro-life movement was standing in silence getting slaughtered. Now we are arming ourselves and defending the innocent as well as ourselves. This IS a Just War in my opinion. Letting the office manager assume what she wants is not losing the battle or showing weakness. Instead, it is a subtle victory for our side because *she* is ultimately responsible for her assumption. *She* is ultimately the one who BOTH legally and morally was in the wrong. We did not force her to deal with the ‘sex-workers’. We did not force her to give CRIMINAL advice to these ‘sex-workers’. She is the face of PP right now. Lila Rose is showing this illegal face to the world. God bless her!
I am open to the idea that Pius and the Church may have been wrong IF their methods involved lying. Now I”m not positive about their means, but if all their means didn’t involve a lie somehow, than I think everything is fine, and indeed, think that even if I am right about lying that there would probably not be any moral culpability for it if they did (as I mentioned above) That’s what I meant. God love you.
I am quite sure that the Vatican prepared thousands of false identity cards and passports for Jews.
Is this lying?
Alexandra said:
“That’s just a gut feeling, which I know is like the opposite of the purpose of objective truth, but oh well. Basically I have contributed nothing to this discussion, but I just wanted to thank you for having it anyway!”
You have contributed Alexandra. You have contributed your ‘gut feeling’ which can be. in a case of a Christian, another name for guidance from the Holy Spirit.
Paladin,
You seem way too concerned that the undercover role playing lead PP into error about who the undercover agents were. The whole purpose of the sting was to uncover how PP responds to customers who presented themselves as pimps who sex-traffic in minors. If team Lila Rose were actually pimps Planned Parenthood would not have responded any differently? Therefore team Lila Rose did not lead Planned Parenthood into error; at least not with respect to their response to LA’s ruse.
Paladin said:
“Please don’t attack, insult, flame, denigrate, scoff at, or lose all patience with people who are trying their very best to figure out what’s morally right, in this tangled situation, okay?”
Paladin, I guess my crack about Catholics for Choice was a pretty low blow. B<} But I have a question for you. If Lila Rose had hired actual pimps to go undercover would that have been more honest in your eyes?
Gerard Nadal says:
February 16, 2011 at 8:40 am
LOL!
Hello Janet
B<}
Truthseeker wrote (I’m conflating two messages, here):
Paladin, I guess my crack about Catholics for Choice was a pretty low blow. B<}
:) Forgiven; just remember that I’m on your side, eh?
But I have a question for you. If Lila Rose had hired actual pimps to go undercover would that have been more honest in your eyes?
First, “honest in my eyes” isn’t what I’m trying to find; my own personal tastes (which are almost exclusively sympathetic to Live Action, and unsympathetic to Planned Parenthood) have nothing to do with whether the actions are honest or dishonest, and I’m making a specific (and emotionally burdensome) effort to shut them up, while I try to sort all this out. Honesty is honesty, regardless of our feelings; and I (for the sake of my own moral integrity) need to have the factors clear in my mind, first, before I go farther toward a final conclusion. That’s why all this equivocation-based talk about “it isn’t dishonest, because it’s doing so much good against a corrupt organization that’s fundamentally dishonest, itself!” is just not helpful at all, and it’s logical nonsense. If you think it’s all right to lie in some circumstances, or if you think L.A.’s actions don’t fit the specific definition of a “lie”, then fine: people need to say that. But let’s have no more of this bloody nonsense about “a small sin isn’t a sin, if it enacts a great good”.
Secondly: I can’t imagine any possible scenario where a real “pimp and prostitute” would agree to any such thing, without either resorting to deception, themselves (which L.A. would enable and abet) or without participating in actual evil (i.e. if there were real sex slaves being discussed, and L.A. and company did nothing about it).
You seem way too concerned that the undercover role playing lead PP into error about who the undercover agents were.
I’m not at all sure what “way too concerned” could possibly mean… aside from the fact that you wish I didn’t give it the attention/weight I give it? Again: I’m trying to find out the FACTS, FIRST; and then I’ll try to evaluate their moral gradients. Is that so horrid?
The whole purpose of the sting was to uncover how PP responds to customers who presented themselves as pimps who sex-traffic in minors.
Of course. And I noted that lying seemed to be an essential means by which that end was achieved. I’ve seen no credible argument, to date, which convinced me that lies were not told; all I’ve seen, frankly, are more-or-less exasperated cries of “Who cares? I’ll deal with a lie, if it serves such a vastly greater good!” That’s a separate issue (and I sympathize, emotionally–you have no idea how painful this “search” is, for me, and I’ll thank people to take their fingers off the triggers of their flame-throwers; I really don’t need the additional pain of fighting off friends!)
If team Lila Rose were actually pimps Planned Parenthood would not have responded any differently?
I have no idea. My ultimate motive is to answer one question: “Did Live Action do anything immoral by what they did?” If the answer is “yes”, then–forgive me, one and all–no amount of emotional fireworks will change that fact… and I will then be forced to conclude that L.A. should not have done what they did, in the way they did it… and “effectiveness” be d*mned.
Here’s one of my serious problems with the “I’m okay with small sins if it helps save lives” view: it completely forgets why sins are sins, and it puts us in the position of “vetoing” whatever Laws of God displease us (or whatever laws seem to trifling to honour). If God forbids something, then it makes no sense to say that “God will be okay with having us do it” (He won’t be), or “God will understand” (He’ll understand, all too well). There’s a quantum difference between “falling into sin, through weakness” and “giving ourselves advance permission to sin”. That’s why my current task is to… (*deep breath*)…
…FIND OUT WHETHER A SIN WAS COMMITTED AT ALL…
…and figure from there. If L.A.’s actions were not sinful, then I will breathe a sigh of relief beyond imagining, I will cheer them on, and I might even donate financially to their cause. If they are sinful, then I will (with a very heavy heart) conclude that God does not approve of the action, and that He wanted us to find another way… and all the blithering proportionalist nonsense about “excusable sins” will affect it not one jot.
Seriously: have so few people thought this through? Do you not know that God could end all abortion in an instant, if that were His Perfect Will? We have no excuse to use illicit means to do ANYTHING. God doesn’t; neither can we “allow ourselves” to use them.
For those who find this too hard: I feel for you, and I’m heart and soul with you. I find this horrible… and I’d like nothing better than to stick my head in the sand and let things go as they will (and let other heads worry about the so-called “details of fine theology and morality”). But I simply can’t turn my back on what God seems to want me to examine. I didn’t ask for this. I only ask that you have mercy on an unwilling and sinful “prophet” as he seeks to stumble his way toward the Will of God… and to treat gently those others who are of like mind.
I’m not judging or condemning anyone for taking the opposing view. I ask the same courtesy for myself, and those like me.
Another excellent post, Paladin. You hit the nail on the head for what I’m struggling with: “We have no excuse to use illicit means to do ANYTHING.”
I’m hung up on CCC 2242, the call to refuse obedience to an unjust civil directive. The paragraph states that defense of rights must be within the limits of natural and gospel laws, not that disobedience must be. Unless I’m misunderstanding it, which I admit is entirely possible.
What if the only means of refusing obedience is to lie or deceive (lying to a nazi interrogator about the Jews in your attic) when telling the truth or silence are active or passive forms of obedience to the unjust directive?
For sure, hiding Jews isn’t the same thing as LA’s undercover filming. But it seems to me that a spiritual director could permit LA’s work as disobedience under 2242 because the Church does hold that Roe is an unjust directive. It’s also possible that other laws related to teen consent are considered unjust. If the call is to disobey, not find a moral means to obey, then seems to me LA’s actions could fall under 2242 as disobedience intended to bring to light the injustice by impersonating one who mistreats the vulnerable, so that unjust laws can be changed or just laws more strictly enforced.
Yes, Paladin, another excellent post. My head, heart and soul hurts thinking about all of this. I’m thinking Jesus is playing a bigger role in all of this than we can imagine and is responding to our cries for justice and we need to put all Trust in Him. I’m so thankful for the prolifers here who cause me to ponder, even though I too would prefer the head-in-sand idea. This topic is causing me anxiety and our Lord knows what is in our hearts.
I don’t believe any prolifer is here by mistake but by divine intervention in spite of us all being sinners. I know there are days when the Spirit is taking over because the sinful life I was living was actually easier (I absolutely still sin, probably daily, but I continue to pray for a decrease in any sin). Because of spiritual matters that have happened in my life recently, I feel compelled to do certain things.
Do we believe that Angels, Christ, the Saints, and the Virgin still give directives to humans? I do and maybe this is the case here. I believe there are many Saints working ‘behind the scenes’ both here on earth and in Heaven.
I only ask that you have mercy on an unwilling and sinful “prophet” as he seeks to stumble his way toward the Will of God… and to treat gently those others who are of like mind.
This is exactly how I feel Paladin.
Jesus stay near us as we try our best to do Your Holy Will, not our own.
Interesting ideas!
Just for the record, here are a few of my proto-theories about why L.A.’s actions *might*(!) be considered morally licit. These are foundational concepts, not actual comments on their work per se…
In moral theology, the example is often used of a man, whose wife and children are starving to the point of death, who takes (without permission) a loaf of bread from someone else who has plenty (and who, perhaps, has refused to give the bread when asked); and this example is often used (and for years, I thought the same) as an example of “an instance where stealing is morally okay.” There’s only one problem: stealing is expressly prohibited by Divine Law (i.e. God told us that theft is intrinsically evil—it’s a clear violation of one of the 10 Commandments—and we may never do it), so there’s no such thing as “permissible theft” in God’s eyes. How can we explain this? Are we forced to conclude that the “needed theft” (by which the man saves his wife and children) is sinful in God’s eyes?
No… but the reason is a bit surprising. The idea of “private property”, which is supported by Divine Law (otherwise, commandments against stealing would make no sense! This is one reason why communism/socialism is morally flawed, by the way), is not unconditional, and the definition of “theft” does not always engage with every “taking” of an item without the permission of the possessor. Strictly speaking, we are only stewards of the goods of the earth (including our bodies, and our very lives); all of this truly and absolutely belongs to God alone, and we have it only “on loan”, so to speak. As such, we are morally obligated to use those resources in keeping with God’s Will. Ven. Pope John II once said:
It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a “social mortgage,” which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.
Now, consider the man with the starving family. When he took the bread without permission, we’re tempted to say that he “stole it”; but that’s simply not true, in this case. Theft is the taking of what belongs to another, without permission; and in this case, the man was taking what rightfully belonged to HIM! To put it another way: the previous “possessor” of the bread was holding on to what was not rightfully his; he, in fact, was the thief of the story!
Does that make sense? This was not at all dealing with the ridiculous, illogical, and morally flawed idea of “a small sin being ‘excused’ by a greater need”; the action in question was not a sin at all; it simply didn’t fit the definition of “theft”, at all!
That, by the way, is my current and greatest hope for the “exoneration” of Live Action’s methods… that, somehow, it can be shown that their actions did not fit the definition of “lying”. There might be a few other avenues by which the liceity of their actions might be shown; I don’t really know. As I say, it’s still a work in progress (and by many minds far better and more skilled than mine).
I’ve heard the bread scenerio too.
Ven. Pope John II — What a ‘behind the scenes’ guy!
“That’s why all this equivocation-based talk about “it isn’t dishonest, because it’s doing so much good against a corrupt organization that’s fundamentally dishonest, itself!” is just not helpful at all, and it’s logical nonsense.”
Something else to ponder. Lets say I tell everybody I know that “I would always lie to a predator in order to deter them from pursuing their victim”. Now I come in contact with a predator and I deceive them in order to protect their target from harm. In my eyes, protecting the abused from the predator is the only honest thing I could do.
TS, part of the problem is that “honest” can be used in may different senses… and you’re in danger of blurring at least two of them. The avoidance of lies and deception, and maintenance of complete integrity between your thoughts, words, and actions—i.e. “letting your yes mean yes, and your no mean no” (cf. Matthew 5:37)—is “honesty”. I think I understand what you were trying to say, but: it’s a mistake to blur the true definition of “honest” with the slang-based definition that’s really a synonym of “I think it’s good”. (In logic, that’s called the fallacy of “equivocation”.) We already have words for “I think this is right”; we don’t need to water down the specific definition of “honest” in the process of finding a colourful way to say it.
If you mean that lying to a predator is “the only thing you could do in good conscience”, then it’d be more helpful to say that. I’d disagree that it’s provably necessary (or justifiable), but at least the definitions would be clear, and not muddled.
A Christian doing something against their conscience is betraying their faith. What could be more dishonest to a Christian than that? Speaking lies?
If Lila and Abby bring PP to its knees through their work will you just say, “Shame on them?”