Proposition: Lying To Planned Parenthood Is A Sin

[TeresaBenedicta]

[url="http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/02/it-is-sin-to-lie-even-to-planned.html?spref=fb"]Lying to Planned Parenthood is a Sin[/url]

STOP!

Please, [i]please[/i] read the link before posting.

I should like to keep this debate, as much as we can, concerned with the Planned Parenthood scenario.

I believe that we will end up having to discuss the root of disagreement, that is, the definition of a lie. Is a lie A) Deliberately telling an untruth to someone who has a right to know the truth or B) Deliberately telling an untruth [i]period[/i]? But I would like to at least keep the comments concerned with Planned Parenthood specifically. (So if you want to argue that a lie is defined by A, apply the circumstances directly to Planned Parenthood. Same if you hold B.)

Ready. Set. Go.

[Nihil Obstat]

Couple thoughts:


[quote]The pro-life movement, technically, is not at war with the culture of death – if we were at war, it would be justifiable for individuals to kill abortion doctors; but it is not, since we are not at war.[/quote]
Seems to be borderline circular reasoning.

[quote]Indeed, we maintain that they are gravely sinful, since the lies are told with the intention of causing serious harm (imprisonment and defunding) to Planned Parenthood and its staff. [/quote]
I don't believe that having PP workers imprisoned or defunded is serious harm by any stretch of the imagination. More like a moral good, which would make lies venial rather than mortal.


However I will not argue that lying is intrinsically sinful, and I have argued so in the past on this site.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1296780812' post='2208421']
Couple thoughts:
However I will not argue that lying is intrinsically sinful, and I have argued so in the past on this site.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you on that one. CCC 2485: "By its very nature, lying is to be condemned." That means that lying is intrinsically evil. To go any further means that we have to determine the nature of lying.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 4, 2011 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1296790480' post='2208495']
I have to disagree with you on that one. CCC "[b][url=""]2485[/url][/b] By its very nature, lying is to be condemned." That means that lying is intrinsically evil. To go any further means that we have to determine the nature of lying.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Good catch. 'Tis what I meant.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1296790832' post='2208497']
Good catch. 'Tis what I meant.
[/quote]

I thought it was a tad . . . uncharacteristic of you.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1296790884' post='2208498']
I thought it was a tad . . . uncharacteristic of you.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
I guess that's what happens when you type faster than you think.

[Sternhauser]

A whole lot of terribly flawed reasoning in those comments below the piece.

~Sternhauser

[Lil Red]

Here's another perspective on lying: http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-lying-always-wrong.html

(not saying I agree, just offering. not sure what i think about this situation)

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1296798697' post='2208548']
Here's another perspective on lying: http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-lying-always-wrong.html

(not saying I agree, just offering. not sure what i think about this situation)
[/quote]
I started reading it and I had to stop right away because of invalid logic.

Quote below, my comments in blue, my emphases in bold. Catechism quotations in green.


[color="#006400"]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.
[/color]
We can see that a lie is when we consciously withhold the truth from someone.
[color="#000080"]This is false. See below.
[/color] It can be a grave sin, depending on the situation. But, what about these situations where someone is lied to in order to bring justice? The Catechism says this:
[color="#006400"]2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet LANGUAGE. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.
[/color]
Notice the last line - we are not bound to give someone the truth, if they do not have a right to know it. So, building on these two paragraphs we can define a lie as = deliberately withholding the truth from someone who has a right to it.
[color="#000080"]To be honest, I'm seriously doubting the credibility of this author after reading this line. CCC 2482 [b]specifically[/b] defines a lie as "speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving". A lie is not deliberately withholding the truth, it is speaking a falsehood with the intent of deceiving. Note in that definition, the right to know the truth plays no part. Trust me, I tried very hard to find loopholes here with which to justify the Nazi at the Door scenario, but I just do not think it can be done.[/color]

One example I might give to illustrate this definition is the following:
-During World War II a Christian family helps their Jewish neighbors by hiding them in their house. Nazi soldiers come knocking on the door and ask if there are Jews inside. The Christians say there are not Jews inside. Did they lie? Not by the definition above, because the Nazis have no right to the truth.
[color="#000080"]By the definition given by the CCC in 2482, to say that "There are no Jews in my house" when there are in fact Jews in your house is a lie. It is a falsehood with the intent to deceive. It does not matter that the Nazi has no right to know the truth, that does not have any bearing on the definition of a lie.
I don't know if the blog author is simply ignorant of the entire passage, or manipulating it dishonestly to suit his or her ends, but the fact is that the article is a serious misrepresentation of Section 2 Article 8 of the Catechism.[/color]

[Papist]

[font="Arial"][size="2"]If Live Action were misrepresenting Planned Parenthood in an effort to save lives, I would say that they are doinggrave harm. But she is doing no such thing.[/size][/font]
[font="Arial"] [/font]
[font="Arial"][size="2"]Live Action is doing undercover investigative reporting. Live Action is presenting PP with situations that they are presented with on a daily basis and recording their responses. If PP were abiding by the laws of the states they are in, abiding the code of medical ethics, there would be no story. In fact, Live Action made it very easy for Planned Parenthood to do the right thing, yet PP repeatedly does not.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial"] [/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]However, there is something profoundly different afoot. The use of deception is an acceptable part of the art of war, of police interrogation, undercoverops, etc. It is essential in tripping up evil people in their lies, exposing them and bringing them to justice. Lila and Live Action, like many, is on the front lines of this fight against evil, where real babies lives hang in the balance.[/size][/font]

[font="Arial"] [/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]Again, by presenting PP with scenarios that they see daily, I see nothing wrong with that. Nor do I have a problem with airing the tapes of nurses who coach a sexually abused minor to change her story in order to score a $950 abortion. Such bottom-feeders ought to be exposed, and brought to justice. They are devoid of any love or decency, and have no place in medicine.[/size][/font][color="#555555"][font="Times"] [/font][/color]

Edited February 4, 2011 by Papist

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1296799200' post='2208555']
I started reading it and I had to stop right away because of invalid logic.

Quote below, my comments in blue, my emphases in bold. Catechism quotations in green.


[color="#006400"]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.
[/color]
We can see that a lie is when we consciously withhold the truth from someone.
[color="#000080"]This is false. See below.
[/color] It can be a grave sin, depending on the situation. But, what about these situations where someone is lied to in order to bring justice? The Catechism says this:
[color="#006400"]2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet LANGUAGE. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.
[/color]
Notice the last line - we are not bound to give someone the truth, if they do not have a right to know it. So, building on these two paragraphs we can define a lie as = deliberately withholding the truth from someone who has a right to it.
[color="#000080"]To be honest, I'm seriously doubting the credibility of this author after reading this line. CCC 2482 [b]specifically[/b] defines a lie as "speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving". A lie is not deliberately withholding the truth, it is speaking a falsehood with the intent of deceiving. Note in that definition, the right to know the truth plays no part. Trust me, I tried very hard to find loopholes here with which to justify the Nazi at the Door scenario, but I just do not think it can be done.[/color]

One example I might give to illustrate this definition is the following:
-During World War II a Christian family helps their Jewish neighbors by hiding them in their house. Nazi soldiers come knocking on the door and ask if there are Jews inside. The Christians say there are not Jews inside. Did they lie? Not by the definition above, because the Nazis have no right to the truth.
[color="#000080"]By the definition given by the CCC in 2482, to say that "There are no Jews in my house" when there are in fact Jews in your house is a lie. It is a falsehood with the intent to deceive. It does not matter that the Nazi has no right to know the truth, that does not have any bearing on the definition of a lie.
I don't know if the blog author is simply ignorant of the entire passage, or manipulating it dishonestly to suit his or her ends, but the fact is that the article is a serious misrepresentation of Section 2 Article 8 of the Catechism.[/color]
[/quote]

don't be so quick to judge the author or his intentions. Just because he comes to a different conclusion, based on interpreting the text a different way does not mean he is ignorant or manipulating it dishonestly. Its ok to disagree and have differing opinions on something without one side being the dishonest bad guys...

I only say this because I know the author personally.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1296844894' post='2208743']
don't be so quick to judge the author or his intentions. Just because he comes to a different conclusion, based on interpreting the text a different way does not mean he is ignorant or manipulating it dishonestly. Its ok to disagree and have differing opinions on something without one side being the dishonest bad guys...

I only say this because I know the author personally.
[/quote]
He did not interpret the text differently. He left out and ignored the most relevant passage that completely disproved his conclusion. This is not interpretation. It was either an honest mistake (i.e. ignorance) or intellectually dishonest.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i can see arguing that it's not 'lying' but just withholding what another doesn't have a right to know... when someone comes up to you forcing you to tell them something.
but to go up to someone else and fabricate... that seems like lying no matter how you slice it.

don't get me wrong though, i'd lie in these cases.

then again, i'm a proportionalist per ends and means and such.

[thessalonian]

In general I do agree that any lying, is a sin. That lying to those that we are opposed to is still a sin. However, I do think there is a purpose in sting operations that can justify one acting as a pregnant woman to expose deceit. The implications of the article are that undercover cops are immoral as well. I don't agree.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1296925827' post='2209034']
In general I do agree that any lying, is a sin. That lying to those that we are opposed to is still a sin. However, I do think there is a purpose in sting operations that can justify one acting as a pregnant woman to expose deceit. The implications of the article are that undercover cops are immoral as well. I don't agree.
[/quote]
Do the ends justify the means?