Proposition: Lying To Planned Parenthood Is A Sin

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1298157672' post='2213934']
Lying "consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." Therefore, by teaching your students intentionally simplified concepts, you are teaching what we could very very strictly define as a falsehood, with the intention of leading them ultimately to a more complete understanding.
Further, it seems to me that most responsible teachers will tell their students "these concepts we're learning now are very simplified, because our knowledge of the atom has grown tremendously in the last 50 years, so you'll find in later years that much of what we're learning now isn't correct in a strict sense."
[/quote]

That sounds quite nice in theory, however in practice it would be a bit cumbersome. Should I give them a disclaimer on anything that involves cause and effect because of my knowledge of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? I don't think so. However if you drop the purpose of what I am saying (to lead them away from error) then I must be cooperating with evil and in need of confession.

I see a lie as something that leads one into error. Is this not correct?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298158598' post='2213941']

I see a lie as something that leads one into error. Is this not correct?
[/quote]
According to the Catechism this proposition is very flawed.
Or do you simply reject those passages?

2482 "A lie consists in [b]speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving[/b]."280 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."281

[...] "By its very nature, lying is to be condemned."

[Nihil Obstat]

At the end of the day, approving of lying in extreme situations is very similar in principle to the rape and incest exception to abortions. Abortion is evil, and lying is evil. Abortion is condemned by their very nature, lying is condemned by its very nature.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1298158947' post='2213943']
According to the Catechism this proposition is very flawed.
Or do you simply reject those passages?

2482 "A lie consists in [b]speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving[/b]."280 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."281

[...] "By its very nature, lying is to be condemned."
[/quote]
Right, but I cannot ignore what is said in 2483. So I take it to mean the lying has the intention to deceive and the purpose to lead one into error. How else should I interpret 2483?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298159633' post='2213951']
Right, but I cannot ignore what is said in 2483. So I take it to mean the lying has the intention to deceive and the purpose to lead one into error. How else should I interpret 2483?
[/quote]
I believe that we should interpret 2483 to indicate venial versus mortal.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1298159823' post='2213952']
I believe that we should interpret 2483 to indicate venial versus mortal.
[/quote]

I saw 2484 as the paragraph to help determine venial vs. mortal and 2483 as a clarification of what a lie is. I am not trying to be intentionally obstinate, however I truly would like to know if I am in error.

Edited February 20, 2011 by peach_cube

[kafka]

[quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298155330' post='2213924']
What is immoral about lying? I always thought that it was immoral because it would lead others into error. I fail to see how this "lie" is leading anyone into error. Just as undercover operations by the police and FBI are also not leading others into error, they are doing the opposite. When I teach about chemical bonding to my students I teach them electron shell theory. I know that electron shell theory is not a correct representation of the atom, thus I am must be lying to them. Do I need to confess my teaching methods?
[/quote]
the moral object. A direct and deliberate deprivation (lack) of truth in an assertion cannot be ordered or directed toward God who is Truth, the love of neighbor who, made in the image of God, seeks truth, or love of self who in the image of God is designed to tell truth.

And it doesnt matter if the object is never obtained, for example, the direct and deliberate deprivation of truth in one's assertion is actually true without the person knowing it:

A boy is told by his father to be home from a night out at the movies by eleven o'clock. The father falls asleep waiting up for his boy. The boy forgets what time he is suppose to be home, and ends up coming in at ten o'clock thinking he was late. The next morning the father asks a general question "Did you get home on time last night?" The boy not knowing what time he was suppose to be home answers, "Yes Father." The boy asserted a truth, he was home on time, however morally speaking he directly and voluntarily chose to deprive truth from his statement, since he forgot what time he was suppose to be home. He lied.

The object, or direction, or order---of asserting a falsehood never reached its object (depriving a statement of truth), since he asserted a truth, however morally speaking, in the eyes of God, the knowing choice he made is evil, deprived of goodness, since it cannot be ultimately directed toward love of God who is Truth, the love of his Father who desired truth and placed trust in his boy, or the boy's own self, whose nature is designed to proclaim truth.

You can use your teaching methods by informing your students that you are teaching them a theory (which is still conjectural, or have been refuted by a new and better theory) or informing them that you are using simplified models to guide them into a better understanding of things which are too complex for them at the moment. This sort of understanding between you and your students doesnt need to be over-emphasized, or constantly repeated. Just mention to them that you are teaching them a theory which they need to learn, which is incomplete. You would know how to fittingly inform them, you are the teacher. But if you presented the theory or simplified models to them as if perfect and complete knowledge (knowing that it isnt) then you would be depriving truth from your assertion and so lying.

Let us say that one knowingly chooses to make an assertion which is really false, but sincerely believes that it is truth. Would this be a lie? Morally speaking no. Since the object chosen is directed toward God who is Truth. The person sincerely thinks he is asserting a truth. His direct and deliberate choice is directed toward God who is Truth, love of neighbor who is seeking truth, love of self who is designed to proclaim truth. It is not even an objective sin.

This is all about moral object, the instrinsic nature of the knowingly chosen act, or what some call the moral species. It is the inherent order of the knowingly chosen act, in the sight of God. If the knowlingly chosen act cannot be directed toward God who is Goodness, Truth, Justice, Mercy, Love, or love of neighbor or self, then it is lacking in some way and so evil.

In addition to the moral object, there are two other fonts of morality which make up the morality of the overall act: intention and circumstance (reasonably foreseen consequences). All three must be good in order for the overall act to be moral (good intention, foreseen good conseqences outweighing foreseen bad consequences), but,[b] but [/b] a good intention or a good circumstance can never, never, never, change the moral object which is the intrinsic nature of the act. All three must be good:

intention
moral object
circumstance (a term in moral theology for consequences)

Edited February 20, 2011 by kafka

[peach_cube]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1298161105' post='2213966']
the moral object. A direct and deliberate deprivation (lack) of truth in an assertion cannot be ordered or directed toward God who is Truth, the love of neighbor who, made in the image of God, seeks truth, or love of self who in the image of God is designed to tell truth.

And it doesnt matter if the object is never obtained, for example, the direct and deliberate deprivation of truth in one's assertion is actually true without the person knowing it:

A boy is told by his father to be home from a night out at the movies by eleven o'clock. The father falls asleep waiting up for his boy. The boy forgets what time he is suppose to be home, and ends up coming in at ten o'clock thinking he was late. The next morning the father asks a general question "Did you get home on time last night?" The boy not knowing what time he was suppose to be home answers, "Yes Father." The boy asserted a truth, he was home on time, however morally speaking he directly and voluntarily chose to deprive truth from his statement, since he forgot what time he was suppose to be home. He lied.

The object, or direction, or order---of asserting a falsehood never reached its object (depriving a statement of truth), since he asserted a truth, however morally speaking, in the eyes of God, the knowing choice he made is evil, deprived of goodness, since it cannot be ultimately directed toward love of God who is Truth, the love of his Father who desired truth and placed trust in his boy, or the boy's own self, whose nature is designed to proclaim truth.

You can use your teaching methods by informing your students that you are teaching them a theory (which is still conjectural, or have been refuted by a new and better theory) or informing them that you are using simplified models to guide them into a better understanding of things which are too complex for them at the moment. This sort of understanding between you and your students doesnt need to be over-emphasized, or constantly repeated. Just mention to them that you are teaching them a theory which they need to learn, which is incomplete. You would know how to fittingly inform them, you are the teacher. But if you presented the theory or simplified models to them as if perfect and complete knowledge (knowing that it isnt) then you would be depriving truth from your assertion and so lying.

Let us say that one knowingly chooses to make an assertion which is really false, but sincerely believes that it is truth. Would this be a lie? Morally speaking no. Since the object chosen is directed toward God who is Truth. The person sincerely thinks he is asserting a truth. His direct and deliberate choice is directed toward God who is Truth, love of neighbor who is seeking truth, love of self who is designed to proclaim truth. It is not even an objective sin.

This is all about moral object, the instrinsic nature of the knowingly chosen act, or what some call the moral species. It is the inherent order of the knowingly chosen act, in the sight of God. If the knowlingly chosen act cannot be directed toward God who is Goodness, Truth, Justice, Mercy, Love, or love of neighbor or self, then it is lacking in some way and so evil.

In addition to the moral object, there are two other fonts of morality which make up the morality of the overall act: intention and circumstance (reasonably foreseen consequences). All three must be good in order for the overall act to be moral (good intention, foreseen good conseqences outweighing foreseen bad consequences), but,[b] but [/b] a good intention or a good circumstance can never, never, never, change the moral object which is the intrinsic nature of the act. All three must be good:

intention
moral object
circumstance (a term in moral theology for consequences)
[/quote]
So would the moral object of all our actions be directed toward God?

Edited February 20, 2011 by peach_cube

[kafka]

[quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298162517' post='2213981']
So would the moral object of all our actions be directed toward God?
[/quote]
If one were perfect it would be.

It takes a little while to truly grasp what the moral object is, because it is spiritual, and ultimately based in God who is the eternal moral law. It took me a little while. Think of inherent nature. Every nature is endowed with inseparable or permanent qualities, or a direction, or an order, or a structure which makes the thing to be what it truly is in reality. These objectively define what a thing is. The inner order of God is Father, Son, Spirit. The quality of the lion is feline. Water is H2O. A human person is soul, body, spirit. A family is father, mother, children. Without this basic structure, order, quality, direction, thing would either not exist, or transform into something else, or simply be deprived of what it should have. Acts also have natures. And this inherent nature of an act is either based in and directed toward the Divine Nature which is Goodness, Mercy, Justice, Love, etc. or it is not. If the act is by nature not based in or ultimately directed toward the Divine Nature from which also love of neighbor and self proceed from, then the act is deprived of some goodness it should have and so intrinsically or inherently evil.

The moral object is the inherent nature of the specific act one knowingly chooses (intention) to bring about an end (consequence).

so in the context of lying. One intends or knowingly chooses, a specific act whose inherent nature is ultimately deprived of its direction (or order) toward God, to effect some end. In this specific act, an assertion is deprived of the truth is should have in order to be based in and directed toward God who is Truth, or love of neighbor or self.

One can also analyze it by intended ends and intended means. Intentions are knowing choices and the other two fonts of morality proceed from the intention. The means and the end proceed from the intention. The means is the moral object, the end is the consequences effected by the intended means.

The three fonts of morality are a reflection of God, One in Three.

One overall act in three fonts (sources) of morality: intention, moral object, consequences

or some moral theologians like to use

intended means and intended ends.

The moral object is the means, chosen act, the consequences are the ends. Both proceed from the intention which is a knowing choice. All three are linked but the inherent nature of the moral object can never be changed. It is like the incarnation of the overall act. Once it is taken on it can never be changed.

it is pretty difficult to briefly explain all this but I'm trying.

Edited February 20, 2011 by kafka

[JenDeMaria]

I still feel that the equation in which a sting operation is equivalent to a lie is a bit awkward. The Puritans were famous for their rather ham-fisted proposition that all works of fiction, all stage-acting, all forms of imperfect truth are lies and to be condemned, to such an extent that even now, in the Bible Belt, people still refer to fibbing as "telling stories". Is a stage play a lie because it invariably relies on the investment of the audience in a deception? If not, how do you *formally* define the difference between a publicly-accepted work of fiction, such as a play, and a lie? What is the difference, if any, between improv street theater in which the purpose of the sketch is to "push the boundaries of reality" and a lie?

Here are some thoughts: Company A hires a personal shopper to visit various of its own store locations, act as a typical customer and later rank his/her experience at the retail location. Is this lying?

If a 13 year old walks into a convenience store and asks for a pack of cigarettes, even though he has no intention of actually purchasing them and only intends to discover if the merchant will check his ID, is this lying? Does it make a difference if he is doing this for the sake of a whim or at the prompting of a large anti-tobacco-industry group like Truth? Is there a distinguishing difference between the personal shopper in the earlier example and the 13 year old in the sting operation in the second?

A man-of-God approaches a political leader and tells him a story about a local citizen who butchered his neighbor's pet sheep, even though said-citizen had a large flock of sheep of his own, and when the political leader, a man named David, replies with indignation that the local citizen should be fined 10 times the worth of the lamb he slaughtered, the man-of-God reveals that there never was a sheep and that the political leader has condemned himself (2 Samuel 12:1-15) -- did the prophet Nathan tell a lie? Does it make a difference that he told a fictional story, presented as reality, to another person with the express intent of catching that person in an act of self-condemnation?

When Saint Athanasius, Doctor of the Church and Father of Orthodoxy by the way, was being hunted by the authorities who wanted to arrest him, and he turned back and met them coming towards him and answered their question "Have you seen Athanasius?" with "Go further on, he's not far from here" -- his statement was definitely meant to deceive. Was he lying?

Now here's a really tricky question: When Rahab hid Joshua and the other men who came to view Canaan and told the guards "I confess they came to me, but I knew not whence they were: And at the time of shutting the gate in the dark, they also went out together. I know not whither they are gone: pursue after them quickly, and you will overtake them." (Joshua 2:4) even though they were definitely hidden under the thatch of her roof and she definitely knew there were there and not fleeing through the gates, because she was the one who placed the flax over their bodies (Joshua 2:6) -- well, was this a lie? And if so, why would it be accounted to her as an act of saving faith (Hebrews 11:31) and a work of justification (James 2:25) if a false statement made with the intention to deceive can never, ever in any instance result in a moral good?

When King Solomon was confronted with two women, both of whom were claiming to be the mothers of a single child, and he called out for his sword and ordered the child to be cut in two, not because he intended to cut the child in two, but because he wanted his ruse to cause the real mother to cry out for her child to be saved, was this act of deception a lie? And if so, why is this imputed to Solomon as an example of wisdom?

And when God came walking through Paradise at the breezy time of day (Genesis 3:8-9) and called out to Adam "Where are you?", even though He was and is God who knows and sees all things and knew, without asking, where Adam was, don't we treat this [i]rhetorical question[/i] as an example of the kind of Fatherly wisdom which is not always 100% transparent but extends itself in a show of solicitation to allow the son to prove, through his response, whether his works are good or evil?

[havok579257]

[quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298160983' post='2213965']
I saw 2484 as the paragraph to help determine venial vs. mortal and 2483 as a clarification of what a lie is. I am not trying to be intentionally obstinate, however I truly would like to know if I am in error.
[/quote]


satan is the king of lies. God has never lied. Jesus never lied. The holy spirit has never lead men to lie. If the trinity has never lied and never would lie and satan is the king of lies, then it should be really easy to see why lying is wrong. By lying one is being like satan, not like Jesus.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JenDeMaria' timestamp='1298172584' post='2214004']
I still feel that the equation in which a sting operation is equivalent to a lie is a bit awkward. The Puritans were famous for their rather ham-fisted proposition that all works of fiction, all stage-acting, all forms of imperfect truth are lies and to be condemned, to such an extent that even now, in the Bible Belt, people still refer to fibbing as "telling stories". Is a stage play a lie because it invariably relies on the investment of the audience in a deception? If not, how do you *formally* define the difference between a publicly-accepted work of fiction, such as a play, and a lie? What is the difference, if any, between improv street theater in which the purpose of the sketch is to "push the boundaries of reality" and a lie?

Here are some thoughts: Company A hires a personal shopper to visit various of its own store locations, act as a typical customer and later rank his/her experience at the retail location. Is this lying?

If a 13 year old walks into a convenience store and asks for a pack of cigarettes, even though he has no intention of actually purchasing them and only intends to discover if the merchant will check his ID, is this lying? Does it make a difference if he is doing this for the sake of a whim or at the prompting of a large anti-tobacco-industry group like Truth? Is there a distinguishing difference between the personal shopper in the earlier example and the 13 year old in the sting operation in the second?

A man-of-God approaches a political leader and tells him a story about a local citizen who butchered his neighbor's pet sheep, even though said-citizen had a large flock of sheep of his own, and when the political leader, a man named David, replies with indignation that the local citizen should be fined 10 times the worth of the lamb he slaughtered, the man-of-God reveals that there never was a sheep and that the political leader has condemned himself (2 Samuel 12:1-15) -- did the prophet Nathan tell a lie? Does it make a difference that he told a fictional story, presented as reality, to another person with the express intent of catching that person in an act of self-condemnation?

When Saint Athanasius, Doctor of the Church and Father of Orthodoxy by the way, was being hunted by the authorities who wanted to arrest him, and he turned back and met them coming towards him and answered their question "Have you seen Athanasius?" with "Go further on, he's not far from here" -- his statement was definitely meant to deceive. Was he lying?

Now here's a really tricky question: When Rahab hid Joshua and the other men who came to view Canaan and told the guards "I confess they came to me, but I knew not whence they were: And at the time of shutting the gate in the dark, they also went out together. I know not whither they are gone: pursue after them quickly, and you will overtake them." (Joshua 2:4) even though they were definitely hidden under the thatch of her roof and she definitely knew there were there and not fleeing through the gates, because she was the one who placed the flax over their bodies (Joshua 2:6) -- well, was this a lie? And if so, why would it be accounted to her as an act of saving faith (Hebrews 11:31) and a work of justification (James 2:25) if a false statement made with the intention to deceive can never, ever in any instance result in a moral good?

When King Solomon was confronted with two women, both of whom were claiming to be the mothers of a single child, and he called out for his sword and ordered the child to be cut in two, not because he intended to cut the child in two, but because he wanted his ruse to cause the real mother to cry out for her child to be saved, was this act of deception a lie? And if so, why is this imputed to Solomon as an example of wisdom?

And when God came walking through Paradise at the breezy time of day (Genesis 3:8-9) and called out to Adam "Where are you?", even though He was and is God who knows and sees all things and knew, without asking, where Adam was, don't we treat this [i]rhetorical question[/i] as an example of the kind of Fatherly wisdom which is not always 100% transparent but extends itself in a show of solicitation to allow the son to prove, through his response, whether his works are good or evil?
[/quote]

Speaking a falsehood. With the intent to deceive. Apply those two to all your examples. Watch them disappear.

~Sternhauser

[kafka]

JenDeMaria,

No offense but your whole post is, in my eyes, rhetorical. There are no theological arguments. The examples, it seems to me, are presented to make an effect. And some of them are out of context. I could spend the time and analyze these in light of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, and the natural law but to what purpose?

One has to start with sound ethical principles drawn from the natural law and the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium in order to solve difficult moral problems. With Sacred Scripture one also needs the intellectual virtues infused with sanctifying grace as well as actual graces guiding reason to come up with a good interpretation and even then it is fallible.

Its not as simple as merely setting down examples with little if any commentary with rhetoric attached as an argument.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298174222' post='2214009']
Speaking a falsehood. With the intent to deceive. Apply those two to all your examples. Watch them disappear.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1298175032' post='2214021']
JenDeMaria,

No offense but your whole post is, in my eyes, rhetorical. There are no theological arguments. The examples, it seems to me, are presented to make an effect. And some of them are out of context. I could spend the time and analyze these in light of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, and the natural law but to what purpose?

One has to start with sound ethical principles drawn from the natural law and the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium in order to solve difficult moral problems. With Sacred Scripture one also needs the intellectual virtues infused with sanctifying grace as well as actual graces guiding reason to come up with a good interpretation and even then it is fallible.

Its not as simple as merely setting down examples with little if any commentary with rhetoric attached as an argument.
[/quote]
Yes to both of these. ^_^

[peach_cube]

So to be clear then, when Raphael passed himself off as a human being to Tobit, since it was a deception it was a sin. When Rahab helped the Jewish spies and Judith passed herself off as a prostitute to General Holofernes, both sinful? Yes or no.

Edited February 20, 2011 by peach_cube