This is a guest post from Deacon Jim Russell on the hot-button issue of the morality of the undercover work of Live Action:
In the midst of the Kermit Gosnell murder trial, the pro-life apostolate Live Action and its founder, Lila Rose, are back in the news again with evidence of the murderous tendencies of the pro-abortion culture captured on video via undercover pro-lifers posing as genuine Planned Parenthood clients. And with this new round of videos comes a fresh volley of friendly fire aimed at Live Action from fellow Catholics who claim that Live Action’s undercover tactics involve the intrinsically evil sin of lying. These voices claim that the “Church’s” ancient teaching against speaking falsehood with intent to deceive (lying), found as it is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, means that Catholics really ought not support the work of Live Action.
So, what is the truth about lying and Live Action? Is all so-called “lying” sinful? Should Catholics shy away from supporting or participating in undercover work? Let’s take a look.
What Does the “Church” Teach?
If you have heard that “the Church has always taught” that every act of lying—every act of speaking falsehood with intention to deceive—is evil, at least venially sinful, then you have heard an imprecise summary of the real history of Church teaching on lying. Later on we’ll examine the appearance of this teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But for now, let’s consider the actual history of what the “Church” has “always taught” about lying.
We would do well to remember that the moral question regarding whether lying is always wrong has been around since before Christianity and—not surprisingly—the authentic, living Magisterium of the Catholic Church has for 2000-plus years opted NOT to resolve the long-standing moral-theological debate. That’s right, for the last two millennia, the popes and bishops have refrained from declaring that the dominant theological opinion among Catholic theologians (that lying is always wrong) must be believed by the faithful and thus have refrained from declaring that the less rigorous theological opinion (that lying so-called is sometimes permissible) must be rejected by the faithful.
The truth is this: the Magisterium permits a faithful Catholic to embrace either the Augustine/Aquinas view (lying is always wrong)—a view that is referred to as the “common teaching of Catholic theologians”—OR the less rigorous view proposed by other saints, bishops, and theologians (that permit lying in special cases). A good Catholic can accept either one of these views.
In fact, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman made a significant comment on this topic in the mid-19th Century in his treatise “Lying and Equivocation,” found as an appendix in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua. He wrote: “What I have been saying shows what different schools of opinion there are in the Church in the treatment of this difficult doctrine; and, by consequence, that a given individual, such as I am, cannot agree with all of them, and has a full right to follow which of them he will. The freedom of the Schools, indeed, is one of those rights of reason, which the Church is too wise really to interfere with.”
Since Newman’s time to this very day in the 21st Century, if one surveys the moral theology manuals, textbooks, and both the “old” (online) Catholic Encylopedia and the various editions of the “New Catholic Encyclopedia” (including the most current edition on the shelves in your local library), one sees very clearly that the teaching that lying is always wrong is still considered the “common teaching” of Catholic theologians. It does not originate with the Magisterium—the pope and bishops—but rather with Church theologians, particularly two of the greats, Augustine and Aquinas. But even these two greats were not always 100 percent correct in their theological opinions; their theological works do not enjoy the same protection of the Holy Spirit given to the living successors of the apostles who are the shepherds and teachers of the Church—the pope and bishops.
And thus, to this day, the Magisterium has not taken the doctrine on lying beyond the current level of “common teaching of Catholic theologians.” [Note: A detailed examination of the “two traditions” on lying is found in Fr. Boniface Ramsey’s article “Two traditions on lying and deception in the ancient church” in The Thomist 1985;49:504–33.]
What About the Catechism?
But wait, doesn’t the appearance of this teaching on lying in the Catechism of the Catholic Church automatically “elevate” it from “common teaching” (which can be embraced or not) to something more, something “magisterial”? Doesn’t the Magisterium give us the Catechism?
The answer is this: while the papal magisterium did indeed officially promulgate the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church two decades ago, the “weight” of the teachings contained therein was not changed in any way by having the teaching included in the CCC. In other words, the CCC repeats existing teaching. It does not “change” the authority of such teaching in any way. Universal catechisms such as the catechism of the Council of Trent and the current CCC re-present existing teaching that ranges in certitude/authority from that which is infallible all the way to teachings still considered “common teaching of Catholic theologians” (which may be subject to change and revision and co-exist alongside other tolerated theological opinions).
Such is the case with the CCC teaching on lying. Follow the footnotes—they lead not to magisterial sources but instead to Augustine and Aquinas. Again, this is because the Magisterium has for 2,000 years been content to continue letting the theologians consider how to apply the generally accepted common teaching on lying to certain special cases in which it is not altogether clear that “speaking falsehood with intent to deceive” constitutes at least a venial sin.
To summarize: the Catechism does not “elevate” the common teaching of Catholic theologians on lying in any way—thus good Catholics may take the view that not all “lying” so-called is morally wrong.
Avoiding Unnecessary Division
Thus, let the debate and discussion over what really constitutes lying continue among the theologians. But by no means should we be accusing brother and sister Catholics who support Live Action of condoning “dissent” or sin, nor should we be accusing Live Action operatives of committing sin or tempting others to sin! Making such accusations goes well beyond where even the Magisterium has opted to go for the last 2,000 years. It does little good to foment unnecessary divisions among the faithful particularly in areas in which the faithful enjoy the freedom given them by the Magisterium (and the theologians) to take differing views on how to apply this teaching in special cases (such as undercover work).
My appeal to readers is this: set aside the divisive conversation that in some corners continues to overshadow the important work being accomplished by Live Action. As long as the faithful possess the freedom to form their own consciences either according to the common teaching or according to another tolerated theological opinion, we should maintain the bond of unity and be able to support the work of Live Action even if we personally disagree with the tactic of posing as a Planned Parenthood client. As individuals, we should not feel at all comfortable going beyond where the Magisterium itself has gone: we should not condemn or criticize the efforts being employed by other individuals who have formed their consciences according to moral principles tolerated by the Magisterium.
In fact, just as a reality check, ask yourself this question—after several years of rather open and divisive online debate about Live Action’s work, if such undercover work is not morally permissible, why have we not heard from any bishops at all who would seek to set the record straight and, for the good of the faithful, make clear that such efforts are unsupportable? Simple: Bishops everywhere are aware that undercover work of this kind (Live Action, police work, etc.) may be engaged in by the faithful if doing so is in accord with a Catholic’s well-formed conscience. Obviously, if such work is contrary to one’s well-formed conscience, then one should not engage in it. Both possibilities fall within the realm of what it means to be a Catholic who is faithful to the Church’s understanding of the issue of lying. But it is vitally important that those who take differing views on this issue should afford each other the kind of respect that ensures the unity of purpose that is crucial to the ongoing effort to save unborn lives. All forms of division resulting from debating this issue only serve to weaken us.
This reflection is intended to answer the question of whether a “good Catholic” can support Live Action’s undercover work—and the answer is obviously a resounding “yes.” In the interest of brevity I have left out some compelling pieces of evidence regarding the meaning, purpose, substance and “evolution” of the Catechism. I have also completely omitted consideration of the merits of the arguments in support of the common teaching that lying is always wrong (Augustine and Aquinas make some clearly reasonable claims) and of the arguments for the less rigorous view that permits lying in some cases (for which there is also a great deal of Scriptural, patristic, and theological evidence to consider). Suffice it to say that a compelling case can be made for the moral goodness of so-called “lying” in the context of undercover work and in defense against unjust aggression. And it may be possible to “harmonize” the two sides of this theological question in a way that respects the reasonability of both approaches. But the primary goal here and now is to give reassurance to all Catholics that Live Action’s life-saving apostolate falls completely within what is considered morally permissible in the Catholic Church.
And that’s the unvarnished truth. Perhaps now we would do well to spend less time in division and more time in “multiplication”—multiplying our prayers for those with whom we have argued and debated, for those who will struggle to understand the above “good news” clearly, and for the innocent unborn lives we are all striving to protect.
May 13, 2013 at 6:32 pm
>The truth is this: the Magisterium permits a faithful Catholic to embrace either the Augustine/Aquinas view (lying is always wrong)—a view that is referred to as the “common teaching of Catholic theologians”—OR the less rigorous view proposed by other saints, bishops, and theologians (that permit lying in special cases). A good Catholic can accept either one of these views.
This does not appear to be supported by the Catechism as stated. In fact the Catechism clearly picks a particular position on the issue. You will need to cite a source that says a Catholic can actually adhere to the minority view, as that view doesn't appear in the CCC and to my knowledge was actually removed in earlier drafts.
May 13, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Will reply to this tonight. God bless, DeaconJR
May 13, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Thank you for this post. I have been reading Mark Shea's rants against LA and was hoping someone would publish this position.
May 13, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Mark Shea's head just exploded.
May 13, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Be easy on poor ol' Shea. He has consigned himself to an eternity of admitting to the unfortunate ladies in his life that "Yes, dear, your butt looks big in that."
May 13, 2013 at 8:30 pm
It is a matter of right reason. Clearly, there is no immorality in lying to persons, who are involved in systematically killing children in utero (aggressors fatally attacking innocents) for the purposes of exposing the evil, and thus fighting it, and when no harm is thereby caused to any innocent person. The work Live Action is doing is about saving lives and souls by thwarting the evil doing of abortionists. God bless them.
May 13, 2013 at 8:48 pm
Thank you so much for this, Deacon Jim. There is a huge difference in the latest Live Action story. The woman was actually pregnant. She went into an abortion clinic. She asked them about the procedure. There is no lie there and no entrapment. I am a nurse. I interviewed for a job where I would have had to counsel patients seeking abortions "and make it sound nice."I listened to the instruction and knew I would not take the job nor counsel for abortion, ever. I did not lie by being there, nor did I encourage anyone to engage in immoral acts. This is the same thing.
I cannot agree with "some commentators" who are self-righteous and sanctimonious. Thanks again
May 13, 2013 at 8:52 pm
This makes me think of that elementary school shooting. A teacher hid some children. When confronted with a murderous psychopath aiming a gun at her, asking where the children were, she lied and said they left for gym class. She was immediately shot and the gunman left. The children are alive and she a sacrifice. Is she less of a hero because she lied? Those children are alive because of that lie. If that were my kids life that hero saved by a lie, I would pray for her suffering in purgatory to be as short as possible.
May 13, 2013 at 10:37 pm
In that situation it was the teacher's duty to do what she could to save the lives of the children, including lying to the person who apparently sought their whereabouts to harm them.
May 13, 2013 at 9:17 pm
Yeah, this is nonsense. Typical from Big Jim, and even more typical from the Archbolds.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm
May 13, 2013 at 9:18 pm
"2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray."
May 13, 2013 at 10:51 pm
Firstly, there was no "neighbour", as in a non-aggressor in the scenario; rather those being deceived were actively involved in systematically killing innocent and defenceless children. Secondly, no one is being led into error, and no one is being harmed. Thirdy, the purpose of the undercover exposé is "to communicate known truth to others" – both factual and moral. Fourthly, the deception is an inherent part of a morally licit act that reasonably amounts to an act of self-defence (defence in this instance of an innocent from ongoing deliberate lethal threats to innocent, defenceless children).
May 13, 2013 at 10:45 pm
I thought "everybody" in the Catholic world was aware of the "Anne Frank Dilemma" and the fact that this has been debated in the Church forever. I guess some people aren't. If you want a good treatment of the basics of the debate, here's a link:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=242
May 13, 2013 at 10:50 pm
All this energy invested in trying to defend completely unnecessary lies ordered toward tempting people to commit grave sins. Folly. Here's what Live Action could be doing instead. Morally responsible and with the same results. Instead of wasting time finding ways to say "Let us do evil that good may come of it" why not just do the sensible thing and neither lie nor tempt people to commit sin? Why the massive effort to do a worse job than need be done when there are better way that will actually yield better results?
May 13, 2013 at 10:55 pm
They are not tempting people to commit sin.
May 13, 2013 at 11:00 pm
I purposely avoid reading Mark Shea, now he's coming over here to argue? If he has a problem with this, why not address it on his blog?
May 13, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Anneg,
She also said her boyfriend was pushing her into the abortion. I actually hope that was a lie.
I disagree with the good deacon's analysis on the Church's teaching. Unfortunately, I do not find the silence of American bishops to be a compelling argument these days. Further, the catechism is published with the imprimatur. So, while everything in it might not be dogma, it is without error. It defines lying as an intrinsic evil, which means that there are no circumstances that can justify it. To say that a minority opinion is permissible is to say that the catechism has an error.
But let's take a step further. Another reason to oppose LA's tactics is prudential. They are doing harm. Truth is our greatest weapon in this fight. The pro-choice side is the side of lies, they are the side constantly trying to keep facts and the truth out of the larger discussion and away from women. But when LA embraces lying they give away one of our greatest weapons. The pro-choice side already claims that we are lying about fetal development and the practices of abortionists. Our credibility is harmed when one of the more prominent arms of the pro-life movement embraces lying. The pro-choice can just say, "Don't listen to them, they'll say anything for their cause. Just look at how they lie in those videos." And when the videos come out, filled with lies from the pro-life operative, the pro-choice has an easy defense, which they use: "They come in under false pretenses and lie to the counselor's face, what makes you think they won't twist the truth in the editing or presentation? It's all just part of their 'lying for the cause.'"
And it's working. Planned Parenthood actually uses the LA videos for fund raising. They turn to their donors and people on the fence and say, "Look at what we're dealing with, these people will say anything, tell any lie. We need your donation to combat their lies." And it has evidently been quite successful.
Meanwhile, we see the videos, but we never hear about the people they have convinced.
So, beyond Church teaching, that is why I oppose it. These tactics take away one of our strongest weapons and give the opposition just one more weapon. Because, you know, by their fruits.
May 13, 2013 at 11:30 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
May 13, 2013 at 11:56 pm
I'm calling BS on Mark's post, and his posts on his own blog, until he answers Steve Dalton's question.
If a gunman came into his house and asked "is your daughter here?" with obvious intent to do her harm, would Mark Shea answer truthfully or lie to protect his daughter?
I cannot help but suspect that he will not offer a straight answer to this.
Or his wife doesn't read blogs. Either way.
May 14, 2013 at 12:03 am
BTW, in case you don't want to go to Mark's blog (completely understandable) here's the his suggestion for LA to modify their tactics:
"The core of the problem is that this is the transaction being proposed by LA agents to PP workers: “I want to kill my baby. Will you help me?” That transaction is absolutely unnecessary in order to obtain the information being sought. It could be gained just as easily by asking, “I am pregnant, what do you offer to do for me?”"
I find this nit picking and Jesuitical. But, to each their own.
May 14, 2013 at 12:03 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 14, 2013 at 12:08 am
[THIS REPOSTING FIXES TYPOS AND POINTS OF UNCLARITY IN THE EARLIER ITERATION]
Deacon Jim's sloppy and irresponsible pretension to scholarship on this issue is a scandal to this worthy outlet and it's a shame they published it. This matter was debated publicly and openly in many fora in which the Deacon himself took part back in 2011 when the first news of Live Action's tactics came to light, and then – as now – Deacon Jim responded to well-researched and carefully-reasoned positions (such as my own) with haphazard sophistries and empty rhetoric. Rather than taking the Catechism's teaching at face value on this matter and dealing with the harder question of what we *ought* to do instead in order to achieve Live Action's results without violating Christian moral standards, consequentialist proponents of the goods wrought by this work (themselves questionable and yet to *really* bear fruit) instead decide to do a strained reading of moral doctrine on the matter and repose upon the easy solution of lying for a good cause. As such, they become nothing more than newcomers to the already too-long queue of cafeteria Catholics waiting to pick-and-choose any of the Catechism's many utterances (a practice which is an easy logical extension of the Deacon's reasoning), and assemble them in their own pre-determined and too-neat proportions.
Live Action lies to the very people who most need to hear the TRUTH of the Gospel, and this is reprehensible and heart-breaking in spite of their many good intentions (of which I have no doubt). If the Deacon wants to settle division he should join with the many responsible critical theologians and others (who have already covered this ground of debate extensively and thoroughly) in trying to figure out a better way forward, instead of doubling-down on the side of a tactic which, in addition to being morally questionable *at best*, has yet to yield a single, demonstrable, pragmatic result.
May 14, 2013 at 12:11 am
""a tactic which, in addition to being morally questionable *at best*, has yet to yield a single, demonstrable, pragmatic result.""
This is purposely thick and duplicitous, and, in fact, I think may be a lie told to further an agenda…
May 14, 2013 at 12:15 am
Mark has answered that question. He has said, essentially, that he hopes that he would have the presence of mind to defend his family without resorting to lying. But he also recognizes that he very well might find himself flustered and therefore resort to lying. If he did, rather than trying to justify his sin, he would go to Confession.
One of the consequences of the tyranny of relativism is that it confuses between sin and culpability. Just because we have low culpability, and therefore our sin deserves less punishment, does not mean that we have not sinned. I would think that, motivated as they are by the horror of abortion, even LA's premeditated lies come with rather low culpability.