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 14, 2013 at 12:17 am
Wine, you know there's a difference between dissembling and answering. Shame on you.
May 14, 2013 at 12:20 am
Let your yes be yes and you no be no. I heard that somewhere.
May 14, 2013 at 12:30 am
Steve:
Tell you what, if you are really into hugely emotionally charged "what ifs" designed to make people look like chumps, tell us what you'd do if you had to choose between watching your children be executed and offering a pinch of incense to the worship of Divus Caesar. Just a tiny pinch of incense. Just the itsy bitsiest white lie declaring your worship of the God King. Shouldn't be too much of a moral dilemma, right, since lying is always fine to save lives. I mean, who in the early Church even worried about such puritanical fuss budgetry?
While Steve ponders that, I will simply point out to those willing to listen that "What would you do in a panic situation to save a life?" and "Is it okay to lie in order to tempt somebody to commit mortal sin for the cameras?" are not really morally analogous questions. But as the conversation here is quickly demonstrating, mostly this thread is not about moral reasoning but about reinforcing unit cohesion and ringing the changes on "We don't listen to doodyheads, do we gang? No we most certainly do not! Down with doodyheads! They should stay on their own blogs and not come here when we were having a good 15 minute hate without them!"
Alrighty then. I'll leave you to it. Maybe Deacon Jim can write an essay explaining how, since the bishops have never excommunicated Biden or Pelosi, that also proves that everything they do and say is morally acceptable. That is, after all, one of his key points in defense of LA.
Folly. And all so unnecessary. LA could do all this without lying or tempting people to be accessories to murder.
May 14, 2013 at 12:33 am
I knew he wouldn't answer. Blowhard.
May 14, 2013 at 12:53 am
I'll bet even the great Mark Shea knows the difference between a white lie and apostacy. What a joke. Get a real job and quit afflicting people with your opinions.
May 14, 2013 at 1:34 am
How dare the Archbolds allow people to post made up hypotheticals about killing Mark Shea's grand daughter. Brothers, you are a disgrace and cowards.
May 14, 2013 at 1:45 am
Weirdo.
May 14, 2013 at 2:07 am
"It is a matter of right reason. Clearly, there is no immorality in lying to persons…"
Replace "persons…" with "infidels".
Isn't that essentially the Islamic jihadist perspective on lying? Surely that can't ALSO be the Catholic perspective.
May 14, 2013 at 3:03 am
Wow. Steve Dalton asked a reasonable and, in fact, obvious question which Mark Shea failed to answer, and now it's gone. I'm guessing that Mark asked for it to be taken down because Steve used a personal name. Well, it's the same name Mark splashes all over his blog every day.
Mark, if can't stand the heat you ought not to make your living as a blogger and you especially shouldn't put your family all over your blog.
May 14, 2013 at 3:03 am
Its not the Catholic perspective. Deacon Jim has a long history of making up Church teaching to suit his pathologies. Ask any female blogger he has been obsessed with. That Matt and Pat would give him space to make his argument speaks volumes about their intellectual capabilities and emotional issues.
May 14, 2013 at 3:11 am
Hi, Catholic Guy–
Sorry for the delay in replying, but I've been away from the computer all day today. You wrote:
***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. ***
And yet the CCC does not "pick" particular positions. Rather, it "repeats" existing teaching. And the modifications made to the edition typical (2nd ed.) of the CCC from the 1st edition are not made such that what appears in the 1st edition is somehow no longer true or tolerated. The way things worked out, the 1st ed of the CCC "repeated" a tolerated teaching including the "right-to-truth" concept when defining what a lie is. The 2nd omitted the "right-to-truth" concept because it is not congruent with the Augustine/Aquinas-inspired "common teaching". And a universal catechism is permitted to repeat "common teaching" while at the same time it is designed to avoid repeating other theological opinions–even those still tolerated by the Magisterium. Hope this helps. God bless, Deacon JR
May 14, 2013 at 3:16 am
More sophistry from Deacon Jim. And plenty of passive aggressive silence from Matt and Pat.
May 14, 2013 at 3:39 am
I wanted to offer a couple observations to points stated above.
First–and this is probably the most important–part of the reason the comboxes get bogged down is the sort of "reflexive" approach taken by those who wish to adhere to the Augustine/Aquinas side of the theological debate. That is, comments are "reflexively" made such that the very thing which is under debate–whether certain human acts involving falsehoods are actually evil–is presumed true and proven in the critiques of the opposing view. Thus, it will be said that undercover tactics are cases of doing evil so good may come from it when the very thing debated for *centuries* has been whether these types of human acts involving falsehood should be considered sinful or not.
Secondly, I would remind folks who find my guest post above (for which I owe CMR a debt of thanks)as an example of shoddy scholarship–this post is a summary post making an appeal for Christian unity among Catholics who need not divide over issues in which the Magisterium offers latitude. It is not an exhaustive treatment of this subject.
But I *have* committed to doing just that–treating this subject in all its facets–in a book-length project I will be working on at my own blog site. It is my intention to compose a "serialized" work on my blog that will, when completed, be repackaged into a free, downloadable e-book available to all. I will request an imprimatur and nihil obstat from my local ordinary when the full version is finalized from the blog posts.
I certainly welcome any and all commentary on posts at my blog over the coming months. I can say with confidence that there are abundant reasons why one should feel comfortable parting ways with Augustine and Aquinas on the essential and key question under debate (whether all deliberate spoken falsehood is sinful).
God bless,
DeaconJR
May 14, 2013 at 3:44 am
Does your Bishop allow you to blog? Huh. I thought he would have shut you down a long time ago, because, you know.
May 14, 2013 at 3:55 am
One other request: ad hominems by anonymouses are to be expected, I suppose, but I would ask to be taken seriously in my request for unity and not division on this topic.
If someone wishes to propose credible evidence regarding anything I've stated above, such that it makes clear I've misunderstood or misstated anything, I'm all ears. But please understand if I do not respond to the ad hominems other than to put them to prayer. God bless, DeaconJR
May 14, 2013 at 4:14 am
Keep praying big Guy. Maybe before you pray, you can explain how your history of creepiness has somehow not gotten you censured by you Bishop yet.
Jim won't push cause he is afraid I have proof. (Hint: I do.)
Oh, and I used to post under my name here until the genius brothers blocked me. But for some reason I can post as an anonymous. Some solid Archbold thinkology there.
May 14, 2013 at 4:15 am
Just noticed one more point needing response. Above it is stated:
***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. ****
This is untenable since a non-Augustinian/Thomistic "minority opinion" actually made its appearance in the CCC 1st edition.
Much more to be said on the CCC–but this is pretty important to point out.