Comments for Live Action and Telling Falsehoods at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 28 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Thu, 23 May 2013 13:48:42 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6107 I will be spending a lot of time in Purgatory, because I would lie to save a life (anyone's life.) My second thought, would we be spending this much time talking about lying if it had to do with anything else but Planned Parenthood and Live Action? Doubt it! We would leave that up to the same theologians who argue about angels on the head of a pin. - Psych Doc Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:51:15 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6105 St Augustine says in the De Mendacio “For that death which men are foolishly afraid of, who are not afraid to sin, kills not the soul but the body, as the Lord teaches in the Gospel; whence He charges us not to fear that death: but the mouth which lies kills not the body but the soul. For in these words it is most plainly written, “The mouth that lies slays the soul.” [Wisdom 1:11] How then can it be said without the greatest perverseness, that to the end one man may have life of the body, it is another man’s duty to incur death of the soul?” He also quotes Psalm 5 “You hate all who do wrong; you destroy those who tell lies,” where lying is singled out as a special object of God’s vengeance, for liars he not only hates, but also destroys. Lying, as opposed to other forms of deception (as evasion, equivocation and mental reservation) is a perverse misuse of the faculty of speech and is evil simply. Other forms of deception may be used for a sufficient cause, for not everyone is entitled to the truth. - Michael PS Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:37:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6100 Thank you, Professor Beckwith. I have mixed feelings about what LiveAction did. Those who oppose LiveAction's tactics may may be right that what LiveAction did was wrong, but I don't think their simplistic application of the Catechism is faithful to the Catholic tradition of moral reasoning. I take all of the Church’s teachings very seriously. I try hard never to utter any falsehood. Moreover, I love the Catechism, and it is our surest summary of Catholic morality at a general level. Out of every 10,000 times we speak, the Catechism is right 9,999 times in telling us that an intentional falsehood is wrong. But I don’t think the Catechism is a moral theology textbook designed to answer the morality of every situation. People are so worried about any hint of consequentialism or proportionalism or relativism (all of which are properly condemned) that they swing too far in the other direction — taking overly literal readings of the Catechism and using it as a prooftext to condemn as intrinsically evil acts that are not necessarily so, without every stopping to consider if the Catechism was really meant to be read that way in defining the moral object of various acts. I have a hard time, for example, believing that something that made it into the last draft of the Catechism and which then was omitted — the idea that lying requires that the recipient have the right to know — is necessarily and definitively condemned. To quote Jeffrey Mirus at Catholic Answers, “the Catechism is intended as a basic compendium of Catholic doctrine, assembled with due ecclesiastical care, and not as a collection of definitive infallible pronouncements permanently settling every question on every topic it covers. In other words, the change in definition does not mean the original formulation was wrong. But it does mean that the editors of the Catechism were not prepared to endorse it in an official Catholic reference work.” Indeed, I actually would bet serious money that if the question were squarely put to the Pope whether it would be wrongful to lie to protect a hiding Jew, he would say no. He may not have thought it was right to qualify the general moral lesson taught by the Catechism regarding lying, or he may not have liked the draft formulation that an intentional falsehood is not a lie when the recipient does not have the "right to know" the information, but I don’t think he would take the absolutist position. Also, putting aside for the moment the words in the Catechism, what does the Church teach in its actions? Do we really think, for example, that the Church condemns all undercover journalism, plain-clothes police officers working to infiltrate the mafia or Al Qaeda, military disinformation in a just war, secret shoppers, and the government’s testing of its security procedures by, for example, sending people with fake IDs to see if they get through airport security? It seems like we would have heard something about that from Rome or the bishops over the years. Many in this debate are treating the Catechism like Protestant fundamentalists treat the Bible. We’ve become so scared that if any sentence or clause in the Catechism isn’t read as the definitive, infallible, complete truth for all time and in all circumstances, then our entire faith and moral system will collapse -- consequentialism will reign and everything will be permitted. I have more confidence that our Church, faith, and Catholic moral reasoning are built on a surer foundation. - Alexander Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:05:04 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6096 Dear Prof Beckwith, i'm not sure if you are even checking in on your article any longer- i hope you can answer a question i have for you. please,this is not sarcastic. i want to know what a convert to Catholicism schooled in Protestant theology has to say. (i am a very little "regular wife/mother" who has trod-though far behind you!-some of your from Baptist-to-Catholic path, & i'm trying to learn more truth about the Faith everyday. i value your scholarship.) Exactly what does Jesus mean in the original language with full translation when He says, "Be shrewd as serpents and gentle as doves?" and why did He give us that very strange parable about the steward who was being "laid off" going around cutting the debts of his boss' clients? as my son just asked me this past weekend, "hey mom, which one is the good guy in that Gospel?" i told him before i answered i'd check with a Bible Scholar and he can check with our parish priest. i am a simpleton, no doubt! we live in the world. i thought Jesus sanctified our ordinary work and expects us to not loose our common sense. while we are in this life and death poker game, are we supposed to show all our cards? aren't we supposed to try and win the pot, convert the players and deliver the dance hall girls? is shrewdness a kind of lie or deception because all of the truth is not laid out before everyone present? what about what St. Paul speaks about when he is arguing the case for Christ among the gods with his "unknown god" discourse? i'm sure i am not clear- pretend i'm a 1st semester freshman- maybe you know better what i am asking. like Achilles, i do not want to go down the wrong trail of thinking. AND even more important, i do not want to direct my 12 yr old son down the wrong path. thank you for your time. - debby Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:16:15 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6092 Yes, Graham, it is frustrating, and apparently ever has been. Christ and His disciples are forbidden to lie,cheat, murder, fornicate or steal-- even to further His cause! The enemy, on the other hand, is inhibited by none of these scruples. It's as if we were made to fight with one hand tied behind our back, and forbidden to bite, kick, or gouge, while our opponent was allowed to weild two pound horseshoes in both gloves. It's disproportionate! It's unfair! It's God's will! - Billy Bean Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:21:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6091 Jephthe is also praised in the Epistle to the Hebrews -- does that mean that sacrificing one's daughter as a burnt offering can be morally justified? - dcs Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:50:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6090 If one wants to encounter institutionalized lying, I recommend three years in law school. The slander and libel against the Church, pro-life Americans, and those who emphasize the dignity and worth of the individual while multculturalism becomes yet another tool for increasing instrusive state power is an hourly event in the classroom. "Haters, bigots, misogynists, racists, sexists" are all terms of deceit intended to end not only discussion and argument but the presentation of facts. The Left, of course, lives in the past and lives to destroy reputation. I attend the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan. Whenever I mention it, of course, I hear the story of Fr. Coughlin. Yet the present pastor and monsignor is, I have on first hand authority, well regarded by the rabbinate in Southeastern Michigan (although I suspect these are conservative and orthodox rabbis, not "secular humanist rabbis." Live Action uncovers the truth and as important reveals as a lie this week's statement by the NY Times that Planned Parenthood serves "poor women in need of medical care and counseling." Surely the Philadelphia Story (see Jody Bottum's piece in the Weekly Standard) is yet another example of just what the abortion industry is. Yet there has been no national discussion of that house of horrors. Go to your local chain bookstore and see Black History month books aimed at children. They are still be taught history as if the Underground Railroad and the Civil Rights movement happened yesterday and things haven't gotten better. There are no books lamenting the holocaust perpetrated on black babies. We now live in a country of the Big Lie. What passes as moral fastidiousness is simply the picking lint off a Brooks Brothers suit. We can't afford it. This has nothing to do with Saul Alinsky and everything to do with a true moral imperative. By the way, at mass two Sunday's ago I signed a petition to stop yet another large PP abortion mill proposed for the northern suburbs of Detroit. Violence is never an option for us as Catholics, but it is the daily work of Federally-funded Planned Parenthood. Let's keep that in mind. Let's live in the present. - Graham Combs Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:20:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6089 Reply to Objection 2. The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, but for their fear of God, and for their good-will, which latter led them to tell a lie. Hence it is expressly stated (Exodus 2:21): "And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses." But the subsequent lie was not meritorious. - Matthew Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:23:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6088 Aquinas explicitly deals with the midwives passage, and notes that it doesn't say that God rewarded the midwives for telling a falsehood, but explicitly that He rewarded them for fearing God -- i.e., for disobeying Pharaoh and saving the lives of the children. Thus he denies that it has any implication that intentionally telling falsehoods is sometimes permissible. - Brandon Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:15:46 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6085 Master Beckwith, could you perhaps be using a too narrow definition of the word 'speaking'? :) - Robert Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:38:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6084 Hi Debby, I will go with you, Yes, this needs to be out there and shouted from the roof tops, I surely am wrong about what I said, thanks for taking the time to write. However, I am still confused as to the moral rightness of it all. I am glad to hear that you are aware of good reactions, from atheists no less, and I stand happily in error and in dire need of correction. I do hear your points loud and clear, but I am not quite able to grasp a full understanding of the entire situation. I would only remind us that God’s means are not our means. I was wondering today, when thinking about imitating Christ, if he would have done more than to speak the Truth, admonish these terrible sins and command us to go in peace and sin no more. Would Christ have pretended to be something he is not to entrap the pharisaical planned parenthood employees? It is a tough question for me and I appreciate all the comments on here and Dr. Beckwith’s meditation. Debby, I hope you are right about live action. I have never gotten to tell you, you always gush zeal, love and passion and I love seeing your spirit on this forum as you respond, always with kindness, even to those with whom you disagree. Pax Christi tecum, Achilles - Achilles Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:44:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6083 WJ: I'm suggesting is that in the two passages of Scripture what we find is a third option, namely, intentionally telling a falsehood to another when telling the truth, refusing to answer or employing causistry will not likely sufficiently impede one's cooperation in killing innocents. What I have found fascinating (and a bit shocking) in this discussion is how it does not seem to occur to any of the Catholic participants that Scripture may have something to say about moral theology. This is not to say that the CCC, Aquinas, and Augustine, and a host of others, may not provide guidance on such matters. But, for example, when I read Aquinas' and Augustine's accounts of the Hebrew midwives, they leave much to be desired. The CCC is not very helpful either, since it relies on Augustine's definition of a lie--"A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving"--which is both too broad and too narrow. It is too broad insofar as it would include the two OT cases, which were not condemned by Scripture as immoral (Augustine's less than persuasive hermeneutic not withstanding). And it is too narrow since there are ways that one could lie without speaking. No one would claim, for example, that mute people can't lie because they can't speak. - Francis Beckwith Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:16:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6082 Rahab was a sinner like all humankind. All of Rahab's tactics need not be approved of by God for her faith to be approved; one might as well say approved of her occupation. This does not necessarily decide whether the sting was a "lie" or a "stratagem". It merely observes that Rahab is a false precedent. - jason taylor Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:12:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6081 Many thanks to Mr. Beckwith for the Scripture texts. I looked for those in Mr. George's article, but I looked in vain. - Dan Deeny Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:54:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6080 "I am simply making the point that Scripture seems to be teaching us that if someone requests that you assist in murder by revealing a certain truth, you are not required to assist by revealing that truth. In fact, you may actually positively deceive the prospective murderer." I don't think that any moral theologian, on either side of the current debate, would contest this claim. Nonetheless, this (very helpful) clarification offers a different description of the act in question than that provided in the article. There, the question was whether the "intentional telling of a falsehood" is always a lie, and therefore wrong, or whether, in some instances, an "intentional telling of a falsehood" is not a lie at all. Neither the case of (1) refusing to answer, nor (2) employing casuistry to deceive without intentionally uttering a falsehood, is equivalent to what seems to be your position in the article: namely, that the "intentional telling of a falsehood" is sometimes not a lie. I'm not saying you're wrong, but merely that the point you're making in the article is not the point you're making here; and if the point you're making in the article is right, then we need criteria for distinguishing between the two cases. - WJ Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:27:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6079 Achilles, I usually agree with you. No Way on this one. "....those without formed consciences wouldn't really care..." you say. You are mistaken, brother. I am surrounded by people in the neighborhood, at basketball, little league, work, people who DO NOT THINK, but when challenged, Some-Times-Start-To. You know we live in a "sound bite" world. Like it or not it is a reality. SO, Live Action is providing a different "sound bite message" to those who are not camping out with us: even a few atheistic people I know are Shocked and Horrified by PP's activity- they had NO IDEA. Ya know, when Jesus came the way He did, lots of religious people were scandalized. And when you take a step back in history and try and place yourself in their shoes, their response is not surprising. It would seem that those who had been trained to think a certain way needed to be shocked into a New Way to think. Some responded in spite of their incorrectly formed conscience/preconceived ideas(I refer to Nicodemus, for one). The ends does not justify the means. That is true but we have to be careful how we apply "cliches" to life. After all, it could be argued that the brutal Death of God cannot be reasonably "justified" due to the heinous means employed. Can you really argue that the Centurion was only "doing his job?" Yet, didn't that very brutal participation bring about his declaration, "Surely, This Man is the Son of God." Would he have even discovered Jesus Christ without that military job? Maybe this is one of the reasons Holy Mother Church does not make definitive declarations regarding every aspect of the Christian's life. What is allowable for one may be the cause of sin for another (consumption of alcohol, dancing, music/movie choices, etc.). What matters is Love. Are we Loving God with all our hearts....and neighbor as self? I do not see anything but Love motivating Live Action. Courageous, Bold, Kenosis Love- and at 20something! - debby Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:53:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6078 I think some folks here and elsewhere are missing my point. I am not arguing for Live Action's undercover work. I am simply making the point that Scripture seems to be teaching us that if someone requests that you assist in murder by revealing a certain truth, you are not required to assist by revealing that truth. In fact, you may actually positively deceive the prospective murderer. Admittedly, this throws a monkey wrench into the theories of certain moral theologians. Their job is to figure out a way to incorporate the insights of Scripture. If they can't, then perhaps they should abandon their moral theology. Now, is Live Action in the sort of predicament in which Rahab and the Hebrew midwives found themselves? No. And for that reason, my points here are not being offered as a defense of Live Action. Rather, they are being offered as a counter to those who seem to have a too broad a definition of a lie. - Francis Beckwith Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:29:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6077 Another scriptural example to support Mr. Beckwith's argument is the Book of Judith, in which Judith goes to the Assyrians, lies to them that she is escaping from the Hebrews, and promises help to conquer Israel. She gains access to the king, gets him drunk, then slays him. She had even prayed to God beforehand, in sackcloth and ashes, "Let my guileful speech bring woe to the enemy..." - Christine Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:18:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6076 WJ, I don't know who would really be surprised by what lifesite uncovered, those of us who ahbor the murder of the unborn aren't surprised, and those without formed consciences wouldn't really care. It seems to me that there is always a price to pay if we slide towards "the ends justifies the means" mentality. This is a tough case to see clearly. I also think this is only fruit of the tree and perhaps our efforts should go towards roots and that we should proceed with absolute moral certainty. - Achilles Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:15:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/live-action-and-telling-falsehoods.html#comment-6075 Maureen, it may have missed the mark on "gentle as doves." - Achilles Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:10:11 +0100