Proposition: Lying To Planned Parenthood Is A Sin

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1296940998' post='2209082']
I recant.
[/quote]
Works for me.

[southern california guy]

My initial reaction when reading the article for the first time was that the author did not like that Planned Parenthood had been exposed. I feltt that lying, in that case, prevented a greater evil from being perpetrated. And that would be the case when lying to the Nazi's. Yeah it would be a sin but telling the truth would case another person to be harmed.

However.. I didn't respond immediately. And while at work I thought about it and actually changed my mind. I think that Dairygirl has a very good point.


[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1296862157' post='2208869']
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.
[/quote]

I think that the problem is an that this is a case of the "ends justifying the means" and we have to be careful about rationalizing on this basis. I would lie about the Jew hiding in the attic, however I would not get involved with trying to set Planned Parenthood up -- so that I could catch them doing something wrong. And that's because I don't want to get into the habit of lying.

It's all well and good when you're the 'good guy' going after the bad guy, but things can get very uncomfortable when other 'good guys' decide that you're the 'bad guy' and start going after you -- and start using deception to catch you.

I moved to Utah because I felt the Mormons were, if nothing else, good 'conservatives'. I was tired of the 'liberals' in California and I thought that it would be a breath of fresh air to live with other 'conservatives' -- who were straight forward and honest people with integrity. But I found that the Mormons tended to be dishonest. However they were good at rationalizing. I'll give an example.

I worked as a local truck driver and there was a truckstop down in Centerville (A suburb of Salt Lake City) that I liked to shop and eat at. There were a group of teenagers outside the store and they tried to talk me into buying cigarettes for them "Hey my man, you look like a cool dude, how about buying us some smokes? It's cool.. It's not like we're asking you to buy us alcohol."

I didn't buy them cigarettes. I don't really believe in breaking the law -- even if it's only contributes to someones bad health. Anyway, I was in the store buying some Gatorade and some chips when this very upset woman with a short feminist looking haircut came storming in. She demanded to know why the clerks had turned her into the police for buying cigarettes for the 'kids'. The clerks insisted that they had not turned her in. She swore at them and left. And the clerks said that they wished that the 'kids' would stop 'doing that'. The teenagers were getting people to buy them cigarettes, they would get the persons license plate -- and then they would turn them into the police. Apparently they were part of a so-called 'good' gang called the "Straight Edgers" -- who didn't smoke, didn't drink, and didn't fool around. Yeah right, and there's a Santa Claus and a Tooth Fairy... On Halloween a group of Straight Edgers followed a Mexican teenager, who was taking some younger kids around trick-or-treating, and they jumped him and beat him to death. They argued that it was a case of mistaken identity and they had thought that he was a gang member..

It's uncomfortable being a non-Mormon in Utah. You'll find some of the people treating you with a degree of suspicion and contempt. I got pulled over by the police a number of times -- with no explanation. One time I was pulled over because I had "Looped the block." And I had. I'd driven by my house, spotted my garage door open, started to head for the store, became worried about leaving my garage door open, and looped back and shut it..

I know what was going on in Logan Utah with the police. A fifteen year-old girl had been raped and murdered. Ultimately they caught the guy when another girl he'd raped turned him in (He was LDS, on his second marriage, and the father of four kids.) He had raped a lot of women and girls in town. And apparently he's trying to appeal his life prison sentence (No, the Mormons didn't give him the death sentence..). Here's a link: [url="http://news.hjnews.com/news/article_64d0bc1a-29c0-11e0-9d28-001cc4c03286.html"]Cody Nielsen to appeal murder conviction[/url]

Believe me life is [b]MUCH[/b] more comfortable when you know that people are being straight forward and honest with you -- as opposed to playing games, or not being totally honest with you. It can add a lot of stress. Like an employer trying to catch you doing something wrong. But instead of him deciding that you're really innocent he instead figures that you just got away with it somehow and it makes him even more frustrated and determined. A group -- even with good intentions -- can do the same thing. And if they don't have a really good reason to go after a certain person or group -- they may even inflate the reason with a few "Little white Lies" to further justify their action. It's not a good practice to get into.

I'm with Dairygirl, in the case of hiding the Jewish guy from the Nazi's you're lie is not premeditated. It's not part of a plan to entrap somebody. It doesn't get you into the habit and mindset of telling lies or bending the truth.

Edited February 6, 2011 by southern california guy

[Catholictothecore]

I read the article earlier today, without reading the rest of the thread. I am glad I just did, as it is relieving to see so much. Yes, these are not "lies," as the malicious intent is not there.

[Catholictothecore]

I read the article earlier today, without reading the rest of the thread. I am glad I just did, as it is relieving to see so much. Yes, these are not "lies," as the malicious intent is not there.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Catholictothecore' timestamp='1296962404' post='2209204']
I read the article earlier today, without reading the rest of the thread. I am glad I just did, as it is relieving to see so much. Yes, these are not "lies," as the malicious intent is not there.
[/quote]
See my posts above. Intent is irrelevant in the definition of a lie. It is relevant in terms of the guilt of the lying party.

[MithLuin]

So, basically, rather than lying, she should find a pregnant 15 year old who has been abused by an older man and send her in undercover instead? It's not difficult to find pregnant teens. If you paid them to take a camera and trained them what to say, I'm sure it'd be effective.

The problem with framing moral dilemmas is that there is so often a lack of willingness to find the creative solution. If lying in a sting operation is sinful...then don't lie. I think people would be even more outraged with the results of these conversations if they knew it was a real victim. It's an actual crime, too, so prosecution should be a lot easier!

[i]'I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood.' ~ Faramir.[/i] Just one more reason why he's the most amazing guy evah.

There is much value to always speaking the truth. I can't say I'm that honest, but I feel it's...unwise...to just toss out integrity, even for a worthy cause.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1296962635' post='2209207']
See my posts above. Intent is irrelevant in the definition of a lie. It is relevant in terms of the guilt of the lying party.
[/quote]

But let's say that your lie caused harm despite your intention being good. Wouldn't you be guilty of the harm done regardless of your intention?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1296965511' post='2209223']
But let's say that your lie caused harm despite your intention being good. Wouldn't you be guilty of the harm done regardless of your intention?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
[/quote]
There are three elements to consider when looking at the morality of the action. We must look at the object chosen, the end or intention, and the circumstances of the action.
"The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts."

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. the object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. the end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. the intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.


The quote "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" addresses precisely what I'm defending, i.e. that the ends do not and can never justify evil means. If you focus on the intent and the end, it is a common trap to ignore the means, thus leading to the ruination of your own soul.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1296965834' post='2209224']
There are three elements to consider when looking at the morality of the action. We must look at the object chosen, the end or intention, and the circumstances of the action.
"The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts."

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. the object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. the end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. the intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.


The quote "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" addresses precisely what I'm defending, i.e. that the ends do not and can never justify evil means. If you focus on the intent and the end, it is a common trap to ignore the means, thus leading to the ruination of your own soul.
[/quote]

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought that you were defending lying -- in the cases cited -- by arguing that the people who lied weren't guilty because they had good intentions.

I think that I understand what you're saying. You're saying that the other factors affect the degree of the sin, right?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1296968608' post='2209237']
Sorry I misunderstood. I thought that you were defending lying -- in the cases cited -- by arguing that the people who lied weren't guilty because they had good intentions.

I think that I understand what you're saying. You're saying that the other factors affect the degree of the sin, right?
[/quote]
Oh dear Lord no, where'd you get that impression?
Lying is objectively immoral. Culpability may be diminished because of circumstances (in this instance in particular, I'm willing to speculate that culpability is limited to venial sin), but objective morality is not affected.

[Lil Red]

[url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/can-you-lie-for-a-good-cause"]Mark Shea weighs in[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1297266103' post='2210572']
[url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/can-you-lie-for-a-good-cause"]Mark Shea weighs in[/url]
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm mostly in agreement with him. I don't think there is a moral justification, but if someone can show a robust one, I'd be happy to adopt it.

[Chamomile]

After reading the article, comments, this thread, etc., I'm now wondering about the issues of investigative journalism, war strategy, undercover cops, and so on.

I definitely agree with Mark Shea here:

[font="arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][quote]Had I been hiding Dutch Jews in my attic, I would have cheerfully lied to the Gestapo and figured out the fine moral issues later. [/quote][/size][/font][/size][/font]

If I decided it was a lie later on, I would go to Confession. But if I told the truth, the Nazi took the Jews, knowing what most likely happened to them - that would be a much more difficult road to recovery. I don't know how I would be able to completely psychologically exempt myself from the responsibility of their torture and death.

Even though I understand the moral arguments about lying, I find it very hard to not think of the brutality and imagery of an innocent child in a mother's womb being murdered when thinking of allowing Planned Parenthood to continue its operation.

But then again, we have the Psalmist that constantly prays to God as a "just man" and seeks deliverance from evil doers. And the Psalmist can get pretty intense with his desire to see his enemies thwarted sometimes, but I don't recall that we're ever encouraged to ourselves seek the vengeance that alone belongs to God.

Anyways, I don't know about this particular situation. But the information's out there now, so I pray it will be used to the best of all involved.

[kafka]

I agree with Nihil here.

Lying is the assertion of a falsehood, or a deprivation of truth from an assertion. Lying is instrinsically evil since it is not directed/ordered toward God who is Truth, or neighbor who created in God's image is by nature directed/ordered toward truth, or self who by nature is directed to proclaim truth. It is an object of human action independent of intention and circustamce.

No intention or no cirmcanstance without exception can change the instrinsic nature of depriving truth from an assertion or asserting a falsehood:

“A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.” (CCC, n. 1753).

“Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that ‘there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object’.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80).

“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. ‘As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?’. Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).

“For this reason – we repeat – the opinion must be rejected as erroneous which maintains that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 82).

“One must therefore reject the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species – its “object” – the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 79).



Conte makes a lengthy reply to the problem with the translation and use of the Saint Augustine quote in the CCC:
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/is-lying-always-wrong-part-3-saint-augustine/

Edited February 10, 2011 by kafka

[ExCorde]

I found another nice article on this:

[list][*][b][url="http://www.staustinreview.com/ink_desk/archives/orthodox_catholics_abandoning_ship/"]Orthodox Catholics Abandoning Ship [/url][/b][url="http://www.staustinreview.com/ink_desk/archives/orthodox_catholics_abandoning_ship/"]by Kevin O'Brien[/url][/list]It mostly questions the consequentialist idea of "the ends justify the means" and how people are being more (politically) conservative than (religiously) orthodox on the issue.

[Lil Red]

[url="http:/www.insidecatholic.com/feature/cancel-my-mental-reservations.html"]John Zmirak weighs in now[/url]

http:/www.insidecatholic.com/feature/cancel-my-mental-reservations.html

[kafka]

a lot of people are weighing in but very few seem to be correct at least from what I've read.

lying is the direct and voluntary(deliberate) deprivation of truth from an assertion. It is intrinsically evil since the direct choice of asserting falsehood cannot be ordered toward God who Truth, neighbor made in the image of God who seeks truth, and self made in the image of God and designed to proclaim truth. So no intented end can justify a lie. No good intention can override the instrinsic nature of a lie, no good consequence can override the intrinsice nature of a lie. There are three fonts of morality, taught by the Magisterium, in Veritiatis Splendor: intention, moral object (or moral species, intrinsic nature), circumstance (consequences). If one is bad then the overall act is immoral, sinful, evil.

The instrinsic nature of lying is revealed in the commandment, not to bear false witness. It is a negative precept, basically meaning one can never for any reason choose it without exception even if the act never reaches it's object. To choose to do it, would be a sin of commision, breaking the eternal moral law, (and natural law):

"In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent. But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids." (Veritatis Splendor n. 67)

If one chooses to use mental reservation, one must still assert truth (with good intention and foreseen good consequences outweighing bad consequences), which can be reasonably understood by the second party, for the act to be moral. Some good examples of moral use of mental reservation in Sacred Scripture are Abraham telling the king that he and Sarah were brother and sister which was in a real sense true since they were close relatives, and of the same people, and it can be argued that there is a true spiritual sense in the bond of marriage making the spouses spiritual brother and sister. And he had the good intention and good consequence of saving his life. Or Jesus telling his disciples that it was not yet His time to go up to Jerusalem, which was true since it was the will of the Father, that He was to wait, and go in secret with the good consequence of the Jewish leaders being not be able to take Him, so He could teach in the open.

In an evil and fallen world, in a world-age of the Crucifixion (as I call it) some finite human persons will inevitably come to a choice whereby he will have to suffer for the truth, and there is nothing to be done but hope in God, who will rescue the innocent in this life or rise them up in the next, the same God who will punish the evil deeds, if not in this life, certainly in the next. There will be vindication. That is what I believe.

Edited February 18, 2011 by kafka

[Lil Red]

[url="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/last-comments-on-lying-for-jesus/"]and Mark Shea on the other side[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1298050013' post='2213615']
[url="http:/www.insidecatholic.com/feature/cancel-my-mental-reservations.html"]John Zmirak weighs in now[/url]

http:/www.insidecatholic.com/feature/cancel-my-mental-reservations.html
[/quote]
It was a good article, but ultimately I'm not sure he's backing up his central point, which is this:

If we viewed information as a good, one that must be traded fairly like any other, we would see that a question asked by someone with no right to the truth -- like a Nazi murderer, or a professional abortionist -- is like a demand made at gunpoint by a robber. If someone holding a gun in your face insists you write him a check for your life savings, is it wrong for you to sign the check "Mick E. Mouse"? He has no right to your money, so you've no business signing it over to him. There is no legitimate expectation of honesty in that context, so telling the truth in fact is a violation of justice on your part. A sin. If silence isn't an option, you have an active duty to confuse, mislead, or say something untrue. It doesn't amount to lying, any more than killing a robber in self-defense amounts to murder. Such literalism is as much, and the same kind, of heresy as pacifism.


Basically, he is simply asserting that one doesn't need to tell the truth because doing so would cause some amount of evil. He asserts that this isn't lying, but he doesn't back that up adequately, in my opinion. If he can do it, I'd be thrilled, but I don't believe he's there yet.

[Nihil Obstat]

Mark Shea writes very well.
This:
"I’m still thinking this one through and I’m not entirely happy. But I don’t see how to avoid the conclusion that lying is, in fact, intrinsically immoral given that the Church says it is (CCC 2485 “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”) The whole point of having a Magisterium is not that it is right where we are right, but that it is right where we are wrong. “By its very nature” means what it means, whether I like it or not. "


Basically summarizes my current position.