Ever since the release of the Lila Rose – Live Action videos that exposed Planned Parenthood for their illegal practices (beyond the obvious immoral practices,) I have been following the debate over the sinfulness of subterfuge with much interest.
My esteemed colleague Mark Shea has treated on the subject twice in the last week (here and here.)
I have to admit that after reading Mark’s comments, the articles that he links to, and the catechism, the case seems cut and dry. And yet, I suspect that it is not. There remain some questions that I believe are unanswered.
I wish to be clear here before I continue; I am posing questions here, not making pronouncements. I am not making a defense of the particular actions of Lila Rose or Live Action. (Although I do suspect they may be justified.) Additionally, and please listen to me here, I am not advocating an ends justify the means defense. I wish to speak only about the idea that lying or deception is always wrong. The catechism seems, and may well be, complete and definitive on this point. Yet for me questions remain.
February 16, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Hmmm. Can't criticize everybody in the world who does wrong.
Planned Parenthood takes in 1/3 of a billion dollars from federal, state and local governments to take part in killing 1.5 million babies per year.
Live Action runs a sting that reveals that Planned Parenthood personnel are lawless and immoral greedheads who don't even blink at enabling the oppression of underage sex slaves.
I think I'll spend my energy fighting Planned Parenthood. I'll let someone else take the trouble to criticize Live Action and Lila Rose.
February 16, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Paul,
I am not sure if you read my whole post over at the Reg or not, but my point was elsewhere.
February 16, 2011 at 11:50 pm
When asked if you’re hiding Jews, you can alway say, “No” knowing that the Nazis will find and kill them if you were completely honest. However your “No” can still be true in the sense that “No, I am not hiding Jews – for you to kill” It’s a mental reservation. I am glad you attempted to address this issue. And while I won’t pretend to be a moral theologian, I can share my thoughts as follows
In the Hebrew Scriptures, an angel was permitted to test Job by killing his children and destroying his property. Cfr. Job1-2. That’s a hell of a lot more than posing to be a pimp.
Also, using the morality of the greater evil one may ask: which is more evil, to pose as a pimp to expose and curb the activities of an organization that murders unborn children or to do nothing? Answer: to do nothing is more evil than to pretend to be a pimp. St. Theresa of Avila said, “Those who make no mistakes, make nothing.” And at the end, Christians are judged with what they have accomplished with their time, talent and treasure. The one who did nothing and buried his one talent was punished for stupidity and sloth. God told him, “You could have deposited the talent in the bank for interest if you were not going to use it as capital.” Cfr. Gospel of St. Matthew 25:14-30.
And come to think of it, who is the victim of the false witness? Who is hurt by posing as a pimp? It would be the reputation of the poser because people would think he is a shady character. The 8th commandment was not against truth per se but against injuring another by the false witness. So, the poser sacrifices his own reputation to stop an immoral institution. And that is not bad because one can even sacrifice one’s very life to help another in the Christian ethos.
So, in my opinion, the ways and means used by Lila Rose is acceptable in and of themselves.
from http://www.divine-ripples.blogspot.com/
February 16, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Rick,
Attempted? Why I oughta….
February 17, 2011 at 12:01 am
Rick- I agree
February 17, 2011 at 12:11 am
@Patrick: I am glad you raised the issue is what I meant when I said "attempted to address it". No offense intended. It's late and English is my second language. Benedicite.
February 17, 2011 at 12:29 am
Leave aside the issue of deception per se. The Live Action agents clearly tempted PP workers to commit grave sin. there is no way that that's acceptable.
In brief:
1) It is clearly wrong to aid prostitution or child sex trafficing.
2) In Catholic tradition, taking an action that would constitute a grave sin is still a grave sin even if you fail to accomplish the tak (i.e. attempted murder is just as evil as actual murder).
3) So when the PP workers in the videos took steps to cover for what they believed to be a child prostitution ring, they committed a grave sin.
4) But they would not have committed this sin had Live Action not shown up and under a web of deception tempted them to commit the sin.
5) The fact the PP workers commit lots of other grave sins is of no relevance – it is not permissible to tempt another person into sin for any reason, even in the service of a good cause.
6) Thus Live Action has done something that is very wrong here.
7) The Nazis looking for Jews in your basement argument is thus not relevant. Even if we allow that deception is permissible in this scenario, it in no way involves using deception to tempt the Nazis into further grave sins.
February 17, 2011 at 12:58 am
Similarly to sd above:
Indirect killing with the intent to stop another evil is morally permitted. (ie indirect abortion is permitted)
So for lying, perhaps the key is a distinction between indirect lying and direct lying. If one is trying to save a Jew from the Nazis, the intent is not to lie but to save one from being killed; this is opposed to directly lying to save yourself from an embarrassing situation (etc).
For Ms. Rose, her setups are questionable since the situations themselves were lies in order to set PP personnel to create an immoral action that they thought was real. The setups were direct lies to create (an) evil action(s). (this is opposed to just acting where all know the situation is really a lie)
Gerry
February 17, 2011 at 12:58 am
I believe many of the initiators of this are simply envious that a group of youth has so easily rocked PP onto it's heels, something all the "prayer warriors" and pious hand wringers haven't been able to accomplish.
We don't choose the lesser of two evils? Give me a break. Thats exactly what we're exhorted to do when two prochoice candidates run for office. It's why the grading of politicians by NARAL receives scrutiny every campaign, we're encouraged to go for the less proabort pol.
Now we're supposed to find fault with what Lila Rose & Company are doing?
Noted.
As for tempting PP to commit grave sin, using that faulty logic we should be condemning every sting operation performed by every police force & law enforcement agency throughout the land. If this is such a critical issue why hasn't it been raised prior to now? Is deception somehow morally different when perpetrated by those in authority?
It's all about envy. End of story.
February 17, 2011 at 1:07 am
subvert wrote:
"As for tempting PP to commit grave sin, using that faulty logic we should be condemning every sting operation performed by every police force & law enforcement agency throughout the land. If this is such a critical issue why hasn't it been raised prior to now? Is deception somehow morally different when perpetrated by those in authority?"
1) While the use of deception to gain access to criminal suspects under certain controlled circumstances by law enforcement is legal, entrapment – the use of deception to encourage or tempt a criminal suspect to commit another crime is generally illeagal. So an undercover cop can pretend to be a drug user to get close to another drug user to observe him using drugs, but he manifestly cannot enable to commission of a crime in order observe the crime.
2) Catholci moral teaching isn;t based on what is legal and illegal under secular law anyway. If it were, abortion would be OK because the state permits that too.
February 17, 2011 at 2:52 am
What Lila Rose is doing is what the cops would be doing if Roe vs Wade never happened. Cops regularly use this kind of trickery to bust drug dealers. So go for it LR, and for all I care, Mark Shea can esteem himself to maximun death.
February 17, 2011 at 2:59 am
The issue isn't whether deception is acceptable. Clearly it is. The question is whether lying is acceptable to God. It never is. It's right there in the Catechism. The Catechism has defined lying, the catechism has condemned it "by its nature" therefore calling it intrinsically evil and therefore never acceptable.
I don't get what the debate is about. It's plain in the Catechism.
Killing when it's the result of double effect of using sufficient force of disarming an unjust aggressor is not intrinsically evil. That's why you can kill sometimes but you can never lie.
February 17, 2011 at 6:48 am
Nellie Bly and Annie Laurie did it. So did Walter Cronkite, Gloria Steinem, Carol Lynn Mithers, the Miami Herald, the Chicago Sun-Times, and "60 Minutes." In fact, some of the best investigative reporters in the history of journalism did it for the best of reasons — to inform the public about wrongdoing by business and government, to expose corruption that pollutes our way of life. And journalists who used deception to get the goods on the bad guys were treated like heroes.
Nellie Bly posed as an insane woman so she could expose New York City's notorious Women's Lunatic Asylum, and Annie Laurie disguised herself as an indigent patient to expose improper conduct by the staff of San Francisco's city hospital. They exposed so many corrupt practices in the two cities across a continent that the technique was given its own name: stunt journalism. Bly and Laurie's stories became classics of investigative reporting. Nobody seemed to care that even their bylines were pseudonyms.
Gloria Steinem became a Playboy Bunny to give readers an inside look at what the women employees of the Playboy Clubs had to go through to please the boss as well as the customers. Carol Lynn Mithers posed as a man to get a job on a sports magazine and published the results in a Village Voice article called "My Life as a Man." Walter Cronkite voted under false names twice in the same election to expose election fraud. Miami Herald reporters went undercover to expose housing discrimination. CBS's "60 Minutes" set up a bar called the Mirage, manned it with undercover journalists, and watched as various city officials demanded bribes for their services. The Chicago Sun-Times sent female journalists into clinics in downtown Chicago that performed costly abortions on women who were not pregnant. And in 1992, ABC News' "Prime Time Live" used undercover reporters and hidden cameras to document charges that some Food Lion stores sold tainted meat and spoiled fish.
So, the question becomes, did Lila Rosa, know that something was going on at Planned Parenthood, and could by no other means expose it? The answer is yes. In Washington state a Father called the Police when Planned Parenthood would not release his underage daughter to him. This kind of stuff went on all the time and the media largely ignores it. (think Kermit Gosnell and the fact that the State of PA Knew what was going on And ignored it. Allowing him to commit murder, time and time again, for decades. Their reasoning? Inspecting abortion mills clinics and requiring that they have basic safety standards would result in “putting up a barrier to women” and their ‘choice’.) Similarly Lila Rose knew Planned Parenthood deceived women and hurt minors so she investigated Planned Parenthood. The question that needs to be asked is the sin committed by the Planned Parenthood people as a result of the conversation a new instance of sin for them?
Or, is the sin committed by the Planned Parenthood people part of an already-established habit of sin that has infected and infused their thoughts and lifestyles? The latter is true.
If I am to read some of you correctly, you would then say Catholics could not ever work undercover, as journalists, etc.
February 17, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Yeah. Why don't "the theologians" attack the ongoing deception of the bishops, cardinals and pope regarding sex abuse of children justified because it might cause "scandal" (i.e. hurt the collection plate)? These same "theologians" who believe Lila Rose is morally unjustified probably believe Planned Parenthood employees are–just like they release statements every election that politicians who support abortion and Catholics who vote for these politicians are morally justified. I wonder if "thelogian"
is modspeak for pharisee and scribe…
February 17, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Great post. Here is another great post on the subject as well, taking a close look at what the Catechism actually says on the subject. Great thoughts.
February 18, 2011 at 4:05 am
aren't we to be "sly as serpents" when the need arises? Also, the priest in South America who dressed in different disguises to do Mass and give Communion and hear confession…argh, can't remember his name now. Even St. Paul "disguised" his true intentions to talk the talk of that new town he entered. Not to mislead, but to be heard.
February 18, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Shea says some of commentors are playing a "shell game." Taking constructive criticism has never been his strong suite. When Rome was in danger of being sacked, even the Pope at that time had to obfuscate to throw his enemies off his trail. NO ONE was interested in doing what Live Action did, least of all the gov't. For Shea to tsk-tsk about it now sounds like he's the one playing the 'shell game." That's what happens when a guy with a computer takes on the role of moral theologian. Since EWtn owns NCR now, I hope they take note. I just WISH there was some way to know how many kids' lives are being saved by Live Action's initiative. With friends like this, these unborn babies don't need enemies
February 19, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Good call, Pat. Turns out Dr Kreeft agrees with you …& so do I..
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14306&cpage=6#comments
February 19, 2011 at 9:22 pm
One must ask: Is all use of deception sinful? When does the practice of deception become sinful? In war time don’t submarines hide under the water? In police work don’t undercover agents pose as non-policemen? When Corrie Ten Boom hid Jews wasn’t she being, in a certain sense, deceitful, right from the get-go, long before anyone interrogated her? She pretended to the Germans to not be hiding Jews. The very act of hiding carries with it the will to deceive. Does peaking the deception make it sinful? Is that the test, when it is spoken?
What about a Joseph who hides his identity from his brothers as well as his ability to both speak and understand their language. This is intrinsically evil? What about Rahab, the harlot in Joshua 2 who hides Jewish spies, lies to the authorities about it, and earns a place in the bible hall of fame in Hebrews 11 for doing so. Augustine claims Rahab was wrong to lie but that she did not know better because she was a Pagan, not a Jew and did not know the 10 commandments. That seems weak to me, especially given her reward in the New Testament. Also, the law forbidding lying certainly belongs to the category of “natural”—things we can’t not know, laws that don’t require revelation for us to be bound by them. In other words even Pagans know it is wrong to lie. The golden rule (I won’t lie to you because I don’t want you to lie to me) does not require any “thus says the Lord;” it is written in the human heart. Yet Rahab is held up as a hero of the Faith in the NT and only a couple of things are known about her, she hid Jews and practiced deception to protect them. Mark dismisses the Rahab story way too easily, given her place in Hebrews 11, which is in the NT.
Was Strider sinful in hiding his identity from the Hobbits at Bree? Were the twin boys Cor and Corin in C.S. Lewis’s The Horse and His Boy sinning for masquerading for a good part of the story? All of the great stories of heroes masking their true identity now need to be banned?
When Jesus tells us to hide the fact that we are subjecting ourselves to the rigors of fasting by oiling our hair and washing our face, is he asking us to do something sinful? When the Christians let Paul escape down the walls of Damascus they did so at night, very much hiding their actions from the eye of the authorities. Isn’t that deceptive? Does one really think they were obliged, if asked, to tell the authorities which direction he went? Or . . . they needed to have command of sophiticated verbal trickery to tell a truth that does not help the authorities find him? Really? Where does this end?
To me it appears that using deception to protect the life of the innocent, far from being sinful, can even be virtuous.
The morality of a sting operation is certainly not the open-and-shut easy-to-decide sort of thing that Marks wants it to be. I am not at all convinced that it is intrinsically evil. The attempts to label it as such end up like those defending absolute pacifism. They seem clean and clear but don’t work out over time in real situations.
Tom in Ohio