Proposition: Lying To Planned Parenthood Is A Sin

[Lil Red]

[url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/can-you-lie-for-a-good-cause"]Mark Shea weighs in[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1297266103' post='2210572']
[url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/can-you-lie-for-a-good-cause"]Mark Shea weighs in[/url]
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm mostly in agreement with him. I don't think there is a moral justification, but if someone can show a robust one, I'd be happy to adopt it.

[Chamomile]

After reading the article, comments, this thread, etc., I'm now wondering about the issues of investigative journalism, war strategy, undercover cops, and so on.

I definitely agree with Mark Shea here:

[font="arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][quote]Had I been hiding Dutch Jews in my attic, I would have cheerfully lied to the Gestapo and figured out the fine moral issues later. [/quote][/size][/font][/size][/font]

If I decided it was a lie later on, I would go to Confession. But if I told the truth, the Nazi took the Jews, knowing what most likely happened to them - that would be a much more difficult road to recovery. I don't know how I would be able to completely psychologically exempt myself from the responsibility of their torture and death.

Even though I understand the moral arguments about lying, I find it very hard to not think of the brutality and imagery of an innocent child in a mother's womb being murdered when thinking of allowing Planned Parenthood to continue its operation.

But then again, we have the Psalmist that constantly prays to God as a "just man" and seeks deliverance from evil doers. And the Psalmist can get pretty intense with his desire to see his enemies thwarted sometimes, but I don't recall that we're ever encouraged to ourselves seek the vengeance that alone belongs to God.

Anyways, I don't know about this particular situation. But the information's out there now, so I pray it will be used to the best of all involved.

[kafka]

I agree with Nihil here.

Lying is the assertion of a falsehood, or a deprivation of truth from an assertion. Lying is instrinsically evil since it is not directed/ordered toward God who is Truth, or neighbor who created in God's image is by nature directed/ordered toward truth, or self who by nature is directed to proclaim truth. It is an object of human action independent of intention and circustamce.

No intention or no cirmcanstance without exception can change the instrinsic nature of depriving truth from an assertion or asserting a falsehood:

“A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.” (CCC, n. 1753).

“Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that ‘there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object’.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80).

“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. ‘As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?’. Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).

“For this reason – we repeat – the opinion must be rejected as erroneous which maintains that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 82).

“One must therefore reject the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species – its “object” – the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 79).



Conte makes a lengthy reply to the problem with the translation and use of the Saint Augustine quote in the CCC:
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/is-lying-always-wrong-part-3-saint-augustine/

Edited February 10, 2011 by kafka

[ExCorde]

I found another nice article on this:

[list][*][b][url="http://www.staustinreview.com/ink_desk/archives/orthodox_catholics_abandoning_ship/"]Orthodox Catholics Abandoning Ship [/url][/b][url="http://www.staustinreview.com/ink_desk/archives/orthodox_catholics_abandoning_ship/"]by Kevin O'Brien[/url][/list]It mostly questions the consequentialist idea of "the ends justify the means" and how people are being more (politically) conservative than (religiously) orthodox on the issue.

[Lil Red]

[url="http:/www.insidecatholic.com/feature/cancel-my-mental-reservations.html"]John Zmirak weighs in now[/url]

http:/www.insidecatholic.com/feature/cancel-my-mental-reservations.html

[kafka]

a lot of people are weighing in but very few seem to be correct at least from what I've read.

lying is the direct and voluntary(deliberate) deprivation of truth from an assertion. It is intrinsically evil since the direct choice of asserting falsehood cannot be ordered toward God who Truth, neighbor made in the image of God who seeks truth, and self made in the image of God and designed to proclaim truth. So no intented end can justify a lie. No good intention can override the instrinsic nature of a lie, no good consequence can override the intrinsice nature of a lie. There are three fonts of morality, taught by the Magisterium, in Veritiatis Splendor: intention, moral object (or moral species, intrinsic nature), circumstance (consequences). If one is bad then the overall act is immoral, sinful, evil.

The instrinsic nature of lying is revealed in the commandment, not to bear false witness. It is a negative precept, basically meaning one can never for any reason choose it without exception even if the act never reaches it's object. To choose to do it, would be a sin of commision, breaking the eternal moral law, (and natural law):

"In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent. But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids." (Veritatis Splendor n. 67)

If one chooses to use mental reservation, one must still assert truth (with good intention and foreseen good consequences outweighing bad consequences), which can be reasonably understood by the second party, for the act to be moral. Some good examples of moral use of mental reservation in Sacred Scripture are Abraham telling the king that he and Sarah were brother and sister which was in a real sense true since they were close relatives, and of the same people, and it can be argued that there is a true spiritual sense in the bond of marriage making the spouses spiritual brother and sister. And he had the good intention and good consequence of saving his life. Or Jesus telling his disciples that it was not yet His time to go up to Jerusalem, which was true since it was the will of the Father, that He was to wait, and go in secret with the good consequence of the Jewish leaders being not be able to take Him, so He could teach in the open.

In an evil and fallen world, in a world-age of the Crucifixion (as I call it) some finite human persons will inevitably come to a choice whereby he will have to suffer for the truth, and there is nothing to be done but hope in God, who will rescue the innocent in this life or rise them up in the next, the same God who will punish the evil deeds, if not in this life, certainly in the next. There will be vindication. That is what I believe.

Edited February 18, 2011 by kafka

[Lil Red]

[url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/last-comments-on-lying-for-jesus/"]and Mark Shea on the other side[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1298050013' post='2213615']
[url="http:/www.insidecatholic.com/feature/cancel-my-mental-reservations.html"]John Zmirak weighs in now[/url]

http:/www.insidecatholic.com/feature/cancel-my-mental-reservations.html
[/quote]
It was a good article, but ultimately I'm not sure he's backing up his central point, which is this:

If we viewed information as a good, one that must be traded fairly like any other, we would see that a question asked by someone with no right to the truth -- like a Nazi murderer, or a professional abortionist -- is like a demand made at gunpoint by a robber. If someone holding a gun in your face insists you write him a check for your life savings, is it wrong for you to sign the check "Mick E. Mouse"? He has no right to your money, so you've no business signing it over to him. There is no legitimate expectation of honesty in that context, so telling the truth in fact is a violation of justice on your part. A sin. If silence isn't an option, you have an active duty to confuse, mislead, or say something untrue. It doesn't amount to lying, any more than killing a robber in self-defense amounts to murder. Such literalism is as much, and the same kind, of heresy as pacifism.


Basically, he is simply asserting that one doesn't need to tell the truth because doing so would cause some amount of evil. He asserts that this isn't lying, but he doesn't back that up adequately, in my opinion. If he can do it, I'd be thrilled, but I don't believe he's there yet.

[Nihil Obstat]

Mark Shea writes very well.
This:
"I’m still thinking this one through and I’m not entirely happy. But I don’t see how to avoid the conclusion that lying is, in fact, intrinsically immoral given that the Church says it is (CCC 2485 “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”) The whole point of having a Magisterium is not that it is right where we are right, but that it is right where we are wrong. “By its very nature” means what it means, whether I like it or not. "


Basically summarizes my current position.

[Nihil Obstat]

"Believe me. I’d love to find a loophole here because my loathing for PP is intense. But, well, I can’t get around the fact that what I’m desperately looking for is a loophole in much the same way that every other clever person who wants to dodge the bleedin’ obvious meaning of clear language does whenever they want to do something they know perfectly well is wrong. So I’m forced, even in the attempt to bend language out of all recognizable meaning, back to the fact that I know what “lying” means, I know what the Church says, and I know this is lying for a good end, which is as wrong here as it is when faking up a miracle to save somebody’s soul."

[Seven77]

ECHO: The end never justifies the means

Also I think it is disgusting and reprehensible for one to pretend that he or she is involved in any kind of immoral, scandalous behavior.

[peach_cube]

This is from http://gerardnadal.com/2011/02/17/lila-is-it-moral-to-lie/

[i]This is what happened to the Pharisees. The letter of the law became the internal standard, leading to a myopic cyclone from which they could not escape. Consider Matthew 12:1-14

” At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, ‘See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.’ He said to them,

“‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat? Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests serving in the temple violate the sabbath and are innocent? I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. If you knew what this meant, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned these innocent men. For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.’

“Moving on from there, he went into their synagogue. And behold, there was a man there who had a withered hand. They questioned him, ‘is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?’ so that they might accuse him. He said to them,

“‘Which one of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable a person is than a sheep. So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.’ Then he said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’

“He stretched it out, and it was restored as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him to put him to death.”

So, though the letter of the law would prohibit any work on the Sabbath, Jesus reminds us that violating the letter of the law is common sense when it means saving life, or doing good; whether that means saving a sheep, or a teenage prostitute, or a Jew cowering in my basement.[/i]

[Archaeology cat]

*alert - not a theologian*

The problem I have with the above examples/arguments is that none of those things are inherently immoral. Eating, healing, rescuing an animal are all good things. That there were strictures on working on the Sabbath doesn't change the fact that these things weren't inherently immoral and thus I can easily see how there are exceptions. However, lying is inherently immoral. That's not to say that there might be times when it isn't a horrible thing to do, as in the example of lying to Nazis about harbouring Jews, but I do not see how it is permissible to seek out another and lie to them, no matter the intent or outcome. Surely there's another way to bring down PP. Just my non-theologian laywoman opinion, so I may be way off.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1298132182' post='2213834']

The problem I have with the above examples/arguments is that none of those things are inherently immoral.
[/quote]
Bingo. One may never do evil so that good may come of it. Not under any circumstances. There is no justification, ever. That's one of the most simple parts of Catholic morality.