Holding up a mirror to Planned Parenthood
I'm very busy today, but I feel like this post is necessary to read and assimilate for everyone concerned with the fighting the moral war we've been fighting since Eve bit the apple. It's especially important for all Christians and other Pro-life people upon the release of the latest video from the Center for Medical Progress to agree that the undercover work they do is good and just and justified. Here's the meat of it:
Here are just a few of the implications of verbal pacifism. On that theory, the following activities would be intrinsically evil, just like using child suicide bombers against the Nazis — and it would be better to die, and let millions of others be tortured, raped or killed, rather than engage in them. In fact, doing any one of them would be a sin sufficient to damn one’s soul to hell:
Any moral philosophy that claims that all these activities are intrinsically evil has got some explaining to do. By insisting on premises that yield such repugnant conclusions, and claiming that the only alternative is a crass and unprincipled pragmatism, verbal pacifists are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
- Deceiving the Pharaoh who wished to kill all the newborn male Hebrews — as the midwives did in Exodus 1:15-21. (The Bible tells us that “God dealt well with the midwives.”)
- Deceiving priest-hunters by using assumed names, as Jesuit missionaries did when they ministered in Reformation England, and St. Miguel Pro did in Mexico in the 1920s.
- Deceiving the Nazis to rescue Jews from the gas chambers, as Oskar Schindler did.
- Distributing false baptismal certificates so that Jews could pass as Gentiles and escape extermination, as John XXIII did during World War II.
- Using false documents and false statements in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, like the conspirators working with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who were aided by Pope Pius XII (who passed their messages via Vatican couriers).
- Deceiving the brutal dictators who hoped to hunt down and torture leftist priests, as Pope Francis did while serving as Archbishop of Buenos Aires.
- Posing as a child in online forums in order to catch child porn distributors and pedophiles, as police routinely do — having found it the only effective means of capturing such predators.
- Pretending to be an Islamist, in order to infiltrate terrorist organizations like al-Qaida and ISIS, as CIA operatives do.
- Misleading criminal suspects about the evidence you have, as police do to obtain truthful confessions without coercion.
- Infiltrating an abortion business like Planned Parenthood to see if they are breaking laws about statutory rape and organ trafficking, as Live Action and the Center for Medical Progress did.
I was so glad to see clarity provided on the morality of some types of trickery that I sent an email to the author. Here's an abbreviated form of the email:
Excellent work, John! I honestly don't know what Mark Shea's deal is. What is really going on here is that people are holding up a MIRROR to the face of Planned Parenthood, they're looking in, seeing the ugliness and saying "YEP. THAT'S ME. THAT'S US. WE *OWN* IT, WE'RE PROUD OF IT." Picasso said something like "art is a lie which helps us see the truth". Well, what CMP does is ARTWORK.
Here's a few other points I've thought of in the past to counter Shea's absurdity and obsession:
These events are held up in sacred scripture as truly right and just. And of course there are many other examples from scripture and elsewhere in history.
- Acts 5:7-9: St. Peter dissimulates and sets up Sapphira for the Holy Spirit to whack her. So... St. Peter tempted her to sin?
- I Kings 3:24-28: King Solomon tricks a hooker into revealing that she is not the mother, and that she's OK with murdering an innocent child.
The second example is particularly apropos to CMP — they are basically being Solomon in the modern day.
Keep up the good work.
The prostitute in Jericho lied in order to let the two spies escape, and she and those in her home were spared.
ReplyDeleteRight. And there is David feigning madness to escape from an enemy king.
DeleteDesperate times, desperate measures. "For the sons of of this world are wiser in their own generation than the sons of light."
All those Fathers and Doctors of the Church who taught that lying is objectively evil sure do look silly for not knowing those Bible stories.
ReplyDeleteGoodness! So, are you saying that someone who hid Jews from the Nazis should have responded, "Oh, yes, they're in the back room," when the SS interrogated him? Or that the Jesuit priests who went undercover to bring the Sacraments to the English Recusants should have worn their clericals and used their real names?
DeleteSurely the Fathers and Doctors recognized that there are times when a higher moral exigency justifies such deceptions. As any confessor will tell you, It's Complicated. (That's why mortal sin requires more than just grave matter.)
I'm sorry, Tom, but your dismissive response strikes me as unnecessary snark and condescension. I am a friend, not a foe, of Mark Shea, but I do think that some of his positions and much of his rhetoric go way over the top. And I don't think thoughtful, reasoned objections to his positions should be airily and mockingly dismissed. John Zmirak is no lightweight, and he makes some compelling points.
The First Things article linked by Zmirak is worth reading as well. Janet Smith is no lightweight either and neither is Peter Kreeft who she quotes at one point.
DeleteThat I can legitimately kill someone who threatens my life but I can't lie to him simply don't square. Hopefully I'll never have to do either.
Hey, I have sinned by lying, I confess. There were no human lives saved when I did, no necessity. St. Thomas and St. Augustine were both at the top of the "language skills" industry in their own times and they took the teaching on lying to an extreme.
Diane:
DeleteI'm saying that Catholics shouldn't talk about these things as though Catholics haven't been talking about these things for twenty centuries. If you don't know what St. Thomas said about the stories of lying in the Bible, you shouldn't be talking about the stories of lying in the Bible as though they settled the question. That bulleted list Pauli quotes introduced the condescension to this conversation ; it reads like notes high schoolers brainstormed for a class presentation, not like something informed by the Catholic tradition.
Zmirak is worse than a lightweight. He is a conditional Catholic, who has written publicly about the contract he has signed with his faith and the conditions under which he considers himself free to walk away. I wouldn't even say he's an untrustworthy moral guide; the morals he guides people to are not Catholic.
Pauli:
DeleteEven if I had time and skill enough to offer a complete argument in a comment box, I don't have a complete argument to offer. That lying is objectively evil I take as firmly established by the Catholic tradition; I put my squishiness into the "What is a lie?" bucket, particularly around whatever distinctions there might be between lying and deception.
I put it to myself in this way: I'm sure St. Thomas is wrong, but I've never seen a convincing argument as to how he's wrong. I blogged about Janet Smith's Firth Things article when it first appeared, and it struck me as question begging with a side of half-baked theology.
Almost all defenses of lying I've seen are structurally consequentialist. Lying can have good effects; good effects are good; therefore lying is good (if not morally obligatory in some circumstances).
Well, maybe.
The impression I get is that many Catholics form their opinions apart from the Church, then choose such evidence from Catholic sources that support their opinions. (This isn't unique to the question of lying, of course, and I don't claim to be immune from doing this myself.)
I don't think we can trust natural moral instincts, not at least on their way to perfection by grace, when they tell us what the obviously right thing to do is. The counterexample that comes to mind is this: An anti-Christian government sends an army platoon to a village. They gather the villagers and tell them any Christian parent will have their children taken from them to be raised as good atheists by the state. Then, one by one, they ask each adult whether they believe in Jesus Christ.
Fair point, Tom. But how would you then analyze the undercover PP video matter then? Should they not have tricked PP, despite the benefit of exposing the evil for what it is?
DeleteOr should this perhaps be considered analogously to just war theory (at least the "just cause" and "right intent" legs)?
...To the second argument (viz. that war is a sin, as being "contrary to a divine precept") it must be replied that these precepts, as St. Augustine says ... ought always to be observed in relation to the disposition of the soul; that is to say, that man ought always to be ready, if necessary, not to resist or not to defend himself. But sometimes we must act otherwise for the common good, and even for the good of those against whom we fight. This it is that causes St. Augustine to say...: "There are many things that must be done against the will of those whom one ought to correct with a beneficent severity."
To the third argument the reply is, that those who wage wars justly have peace as the object of their intention, and so they are not opposed to peace, but only to that evil peace which the Lord did not come on earth to bring .... Hence Augustine says...: "For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged in order that peace may be obtained. Therefore, even in waging war, cherish the spirit of the peacemaker, that, by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back to the advantages of peace . . . ."
But how would you then analyze the undercover PP video matter then?
DeleteI'm not sure. For it to be morally licit, the act itself cannot be evil in its object, incapable by its very nature of being ordered to the good. Lying is evil in its object, because its very nature is contrary to truth, a property of being humans possess in a radical way since by our nature we are made in the image and likeness of God, Who is Truth.
Are these various sorts of deceptions *not* similarly contrary, by their nature, to truth? I don't know. I can think of arguments that they aren't evil in their object, and therefore can be good acts (under the right circumstances and with a good intention), but I don't know whether the arguments are sound.
I do know that an unsound, or rather invalid argument is that such acts of deception are not evil in their object because of the benefit of exposing PP's evil for what it is. That's consequentialism, and Veritatis Splendor put the kibosh on that but good.
I see what you mean, Tom. Thanks for elaborating.
DeleteI dunno. I still have problems with Tom'a argument. By this logic, no Catholic could work as an undercover cop or as a wartime intelligence officer. But surely many have, without incurring their wrath of their confessors.
DeleteWhat, if anything, does the Catechism say about this? Surely that is a more reliable guide than cherry-picked passages from the Fathers and Doctors? Not that anyone here is cherry-picking, but you know what I mean.
Ok, just to put this in everyday perspective: Who among us, when asked "Isn't he cute?" by the parents of a really ugly baby, responds, "No, he looks like a turnip"? If you say,"I do," I suggest you are giving us the business. And no, fudging about baby beauty is not consequentialism. It is charity. Why needlessly hurt someone's feelings? How is that remotely Christian?
Please forgive typos. Dang phone.
DeleteDiane:
DeleteI suggest you're still arguing backwards, from what people (including confessors) find it convenient to do, to infer that it surely is okay.
Mark Shea's anti-lying campaign is built upon CCC 2483: "Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord." Significantly, this was one of the paragraphs that was updated between the original French 1992 version and the editio typica of 1997, to reflect the fact that the idea you can only lie to someone "who has the right to know the truth" is contrary to the majority opinion (according to the old Catholic Encylopedia, it was all but unheard of among Catholics a century ago).
In any event, I doubt you'll find a credible Catholic theologian who says it's okay to lie sometimes, although their definitions of "to lie" do vary.
As for ugly babies, you're proposing a false dilemma. If we weren't in the habit of lying when it's convenient, we could develop the habit of answering questions in ways that didn't pit truth against charity.
Well, I'm not a Catholic, but I believe I see a way out of this ethical dilemma.
DeleteIt sounds like it comes down to something like this:
Q: Keith, are you willing to sacrifice your immortal soul (or whatever the actual Catholic penalty happens to be) to save the life of X?
A: Depending on the X, yep.
Done. Handled. Next.
You may have noticed the Muslims have a thing going on sort of parallel to this, only in their case, all they have to forfeit is their lives to achieve Y ends and then, supposedly, the afterlife payoff is pretty good.
Either way, sooner or later every human problem finds a solution.
Keith, if you ever decide to become Catholic, I'll remind you to come back here and delete your silly comment.
DeleteI suggest you're still arguing backwards, from what people (including confessors) find it convenient to do, to infer that it surely is okay.
DeleteSo, are you saying that a Catholic can't be an undercover cop? Are you saying that this is the formal teaching of the Catholic Church, trumping the counsel of confessors? I mean, I think this is a legitimate and very practical question.
although their definitions of "to lie" do vary.
Well, isn't this the crux of the matter? Do undercover investigations such as the one carried out by the Center of Medical Progress qualify as LYING?
If the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, shares Mark's condemnation of CMP's activities, why hasn't any bishop come out publicly and said so?
Instead, I get the impression that the bishops overwhelmingly support and welcome the CMP's findings as legitimate weapons in the fight against Planned Butcherhood.
ISTM that only Mark Shea is publicly attacking CMP for alleged culpable dishonesty. Doesn't this rather suggest that he is acting here as a self-appointed Magisterium of One? Yes, he may invoke the Catechism, but, as you yourself concede, it's a matter of interpretation. If the Catholic Church officially shares his interpretation, why don't its official representatives say so?
Maybe my ugly-baby example was faulty, but how about this one? Armed Bad Guys come to your house bent on rape, torture, and murder. They ask whether your wife and kids are inside, so they can rape, torture, and murder them. Your wife and kids are inside. What do you say? "I cannot tell a lie; my wife and kids are inside"?
The passages you cite from the Catechism do not address this contingency. So, what does? Surely there are official Catholic sources that address such a situation -- and surely said sources employ something approaching common sense?
The thing is, I think the points Tom raises are real and they are really well presented. If you watch the movie Donnie Brasco, you have to admit that undercover work -- although in the case of Joe Pistone had a good consequence -- can be highly problematic morally.
DeleteThe only way to justify what Pistone and other undercover people do when they are undercover is to look at it from a Just War perspective. When you are on a war footing you are allowed to perform actions which you are not in other circumstances.
I agree completely that Tom presents real points really well. :D And yes, I concede that undercover work can be morally problematic. (Espionage even more so.) But I just can't see how Mark is justified in condemning CMP, when the Church itself clearly has not done so. ISTM Mark is still taking WAY too much on himself. I'm sorry, Pauli, but I just can't get around that.
DeleteIf the Church officially condemns what CMP is doing, then let's hear about it. Let's ask our bishops -- not some dude on the Internet. (And yes, I know Mark's a respected apologist with a big megaphpne. But he's not a bishop. He's not an official representative of Catholicism. When the bishops condemn CMP's work, then I will take seriously Mark's condemnations. Until then, I have to say what 99% of my fellow Catholics seem to be saying: Mark's opinions are fine, but they are just that -- the opinions of a layman. NOT Gospel Truth. Not Magisterial Teaching.
Even if they are informed opinions, they remain opinions. Neither I nor any other Catholic is bound by them.
BTW, I like your Just War analogy.
Diane, I don't think the bishops will weigh in on this one way or the other for the same reason – and Zmirak points this out – Shea will not weigh in on "condemning the use of deception by police trapping pedophiles, CIA operatives fighting terrorism, or animal rights activists infiltrating factory farms." There are so few people are out there doing these things that you are going to sound like the worst kind of scold if you single them out when you aren’t condemning the evils these operations are meant to root out on a regular basis.
DeleteAnd of course there are even less people doing this kind of thing to expose abortion providers. CMP and Lila Rose are the only two incidents I know of, and Shea has decided to condemn both of them for lying. So this is really a great example of Shea rushing in where “angels fear to tread”, and revealing a strange prejudice in the process.
Speaking of angels, the Archangel Raphael told Tobit that he was "Azarias, son of the great Ananias, one of your kinsmen," in Tobit 5:13. Which, of course, he wasn’t. Of course he was on a war-footing with Asmodeus the Demon, and probably the rest of 'em as well. I doubt an Archangel would have lied just for the hell of it.
So this is really a great example of Shea rushing in where “angels fear to tread”
DeleteMy whole point in a nutshell. Thanks, Pauli!
So, are you saying that a Catholic can't be an undercover cop?
DeleteI'm saying the fact that Catholics are undercover cops doesn't prove that Catholics (or anyone else) can be undercover cops.
I don't know of any prohibition against undercover work as such; as Pauli suggests, silence on the subject isn't surprising and doesn't really constitute approval. Still, one would have to argue against it from first principles (as, for example, that lying is a direct offense against the truth) rather than from a closed-form Magisterial statement, and that argument has the added complication that the undercover agent is acting on behalf of the state, and the state can do things private persons cannot. (Which also means that CMP and LA aren't necessarily covered by the same argument that covers undercover cops.)
Armed Bad Guys come to your house bent on rape, torture, and murder. They ask whether your wife and kids are inside, so they can rape, torture, and murder them. Your wife and kids are inside. What do you say? "I cannot tell a lie; my wife and kids are inside"?
I always say, "You should be ashamed of yourselves." That's worked every time Armed Bad Guys have come to my house bent on rape, torture, and murder.
Surely there are official Catholic sources that address such a situation -- and surely said sources employ something approaching common sense?
I'm not sure what you mean by "official Catholic sources." Casuistry isn't usually a matter of Magisterial teaching, and different non-Magisterial but still official Catholic sources say different things.
As for "common sense," I would again urge you to learn from what has already been taught before you assert what "surely" has already been taught.
Oh, sorry, I forgot about the Roman Catechism -- published after the Council of Trent "to instruct pastors and such as have care of souls in those things that belong peculiarly to the pastoral office" -- which states, "Still more pernicious is the language addressed sometimes by friends and relations to a person suffering with a mortal disease, and on the point of death, when they assure him that there is no danger of dying, telling him to be of good spirits, dissuading him from confession, as though the very thought should fill him with melancholy, and finally withdrawing his attention from all care and thought of the dangers which beset him in the last perilous hour."
DeleteIt even goes so far as to teach, "To deceive by a jocose or officious lie, even though it helps or harms no one, is, notwithstanding, altogether unworthy; for thus the Apostle admonishes us: Putting away lying, speak ye the truth. This practice begets a strong tendency to frequent and serious lying, and from jocose lying men contract the habit of lying, lose all reputation for truth, and ultimately find it necessary, in order to gain belief, to have recourse to continual swearing."
And you can't get away from these teachings by saying, "Surely telling someone who's dying that they're in no danger of dying is just common sense charity," or, "It's just a joke, for crying out loud, no one's having recourse to continual swearing here," because the Catechism is quite categorical: "In a word, lies of every sort are prohibited, especially those that cause grave injury to anyone, while most impious of all is a lie uttered against or regarding religion."
Speaking of angel fearing to tread, my own objection to Live Action's videos lies less with the lies they told and more with the fact that they told those lies with the intention of tempting the ones they were lying to commit grave sin. Yes, the PP workers were in the habit of formal cooperation with abortion, but LA tempted them to commit the specific acts of formal cooperation documented on videotape, and it's specific acts, not habits, that constitute sin. Whether the solicitation of additional crimes amounted to entrapment, such that LA acted in ways our country has decided undercover cops may not act, I don't know.
DeleteTwo more things (sorry, I suppose this really belongs under an open thread post): I've written several blog posts about lying and truth-telling, some of which are tagged here.
And, in writing the last batch, I've come to the opinion that the problem with nearly all discussions and treatments of the question of lying is that they're focused on lying. The focus, says I, should rather be on truth. If we don't see what's so great about truth, we won't see what's so bad about falsehood.
...my own objection to Live Action's videos lies less with the lies they told and more with the fact that they told those lies with the intention of tempting the ones they were lying to commit grave sin.
DeleteBut did they? What I've seen in the videos were PP workers describing what they had already done, and PP bosses negotiating prices for transactions that were never going to occur in fact. Seems to me that there was little "formal cooperation", much less active participation, caused by the videos beyond that which had already occurred. Am I missing something?
Regarding entrapment in the criminal law sense, IIRC* the defense of entrapment requires proof that the accused was led to commit a crime that he would not have otherwise committed. PP is certainly in the habit of performing abortions and delivering the products of abortions for money. So in this sense, the videos don't smell like entrapment.
*And I may not, as it's been decades since I studied that.
I always say, "You should be ashamed of yourselves." That's worked every time Armed Bad Guys have come to my house bent on rape, torture, and murder.
DeleteBoth Tom and Mark Shea make good points, but I think this comment represents the kind of glibness about the subject matter that loses them points. They are a little too jocose about the extreme circumstances which have existed in human history (if we must use our new favorite word).
A good rule is to never lie. Most people will not have the life and death occasions where a lie might be permissible under the guidelines we are proposing (i.e., war footing).
I think perhaps there is a weakness in the language that is preventing us from getting to the substance. We have always heard "Thou shalt not kill," but it's really "Thou shalt not murder." Murder is always wrong, but killing isn't. Again: self-defense, defense of others and just war allow killing. If lying is seen as a sort of "murdering the truth" then yes, lying must be always wrong.
But if hiding the truth is used in defense or when one is on a war footing perhaps it doesn't deserve the name lying or the condemnation. Silence on this matter doesn’t constitute approval, I agree, but it does leave room for legitimate questioning.
Thank you, Pauli. And for the record, I think Tom's snark -- e.g., his response re common sense -- was unwarranted. It is just remotely possible that the people who disagree with him and Mark on this point are thoughtful and fairly well informed, not idiot children who must be scolded and hectored into submission.
DeleteSeems to me that there was little "formal cooperation", much less active participation, caused by the videos beyond that which had already occurred.
DeleteI think there's a difference between what LA did and what CMP did. LA said, "Here is a person who wants an abortion. Oh, and she's underage." The PP staff then willed to assist in procuring the requested abortion. CMP said, "We'd like body parts. What can you do for us?" The PP staff then described what they do and can do.
Maybe that's not a good way to summarize, and maybe there's no meaningful distinctions between the two. But the LA actions seem to me to be clearly intended to cause others to sin gravely; the CMP actions are, to me, murkier on this point.
Both Tom and Mark Shea make good points, but I think this comment represents the kind of glibness about the subject matter that loses them points.
DeleteI am obviously too glib, since I'm being criticized for my tone, but in this case I stand by what I wrote as a suitable response to Diane's thought experiment.
Armed bad guys bent on rape, torture, and murder, who are polite enough to ask me if my family is home? And who will go away if I say no, they aren't home? And this is a better example than an ugly baby?
As for,
What do you say? "I cannot tell a lie; my wife and kids are inside"?
Any issues of tone there? Does the difference between "Don't lie" and "Tell everyone everything" really need to be pointed out?
The PP staff then willed to assist in procuring the requested abortion.
DeleteWere abortions in fact performed as a result of the LA sting? If so, that's news to me.
Were abortions in fact performed as a result of the LA sting?
DeleteWell, in essence they had already sinned by expressing their willfulness to murder a child. So that's enough to make them guilty of sin.
But I haven't heard anyone explain to me why St. Peter and Solomon aren't guilty of leading people into sin by their leading questions. That's what interests me.
"The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." (Lk. 6:45) Personally I think that is enough to explain all these things. There's no "leading" even required generally.
Perhaps so, Pauli, but I don't see how that supports Tom's distinction between undercover actions "clearly intended to cause others to sin gravely" and undercover actions that are "murkier on this point".
DeleteRe: "murkier on this point," I suppose it's the difference between "I will to help you kill *this* baby" and "I will to sell you *some* baby." Is that a morally significant difference? Maybe, if the latter is a statement of habitual inclination rather than a distinct act of will.
DeleteAs for St. Peter and Solomon, there is a difference between testing and tempting, although I'm not sure how to define that difference. It might involve authority.
The people at Planned Parenthood were being tested in these videos, not tempted. And they failed -- big time. That's my original point. These videos are a mirror reflecting who they are. Somebody who does something over and over hardly needs to be tempted to do it again. Solomon knew that neither woman was a saint, but one was a lot more evil because she stole another woman's baby. His proposal was a deception which brought to light the evil and convicted her.
DeleteI'm not sure how to define that difference. It might involve authority.
DeleteSometimes authority comes straight from God, bypassing the intermediaries of Church and State. As in the case of Joan of Arc, for example, who made war on the English in the name of God.
The people at Planned Parenthood were being tested in these videos, not tempted.
DeleteI don't think they were even being tested, at least as it regarded willingness to perform or procure abortions. They are open and notorious about that -- indeed, they proudly advertise it.
If they were being tested about anything, it is about their willingness to ignore ancillary rules (underage patients, turning a blind eye to sex trafficking, selling body parts, etc.).
Sometimes authority comes straight from God, bypassing the intermediaries of Church and State.
DeleteAbsolutely. For that matter, every baptized Christian has a share in Christ's office of Priest, Prophet, and King. St. Paul says the saints will judge angels. The coronation of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth points, I believe, to our own roles as heirs of the Eternal King in the new heaven and new earth.
That said, I don't know what distinction between "tempting" and "testing" leads to the claim that Live Action tested but did not tempt the PP staff. It can't just be something like, the things good people do are good.
DeleteWe'd have to say LA tested both the PP staff's willingness to assist in procuring an abortion and their willingness to not report what they were obligated by law or regulation to report.
For the first one, assisting in procuring abortions was their job. A test can be passed, and it can be failed. Can we really claim that there was any expectation that the staff member would fail to agree to assist in procuring an abortion (which would be a pass, if this were a test)? If you want to find out whether a used car dealer is honest, do you first "test" whether he's willing to sell you a used car? Even if you argue yes, you have the problem of authority; when do private persons have the authority to test whether other people are willing to do their jobs?
As for the staff's willingness to not report what they are bound to report, that has more of the nature of a test, at least insofar as there's a real possibility (as far as I know) of passing. But if (as I say) the means to administer this test are immoral, then the test ought not to be administered.
Moreover, what would have happened if the staff did pass this test? Would LA have reported that PP has at least one staff member who has at least this much virtue? (For that matter, do we know that everyone LA tried this on failed?) In short, insofar as this was a test, was it a test of the rectitude of a person or organization, or was it a test in the sense that you test for some ore, tossing away the plain rocks until you find what you're looking for?
But if (as I say) the means to administer this test are immoral, then the test ought not to be administered.
DeleteSo in order for the recent videos to have been obtained morally, CMP would have had to actually be willing to buy fetal brains instead of merely pretending to be willing to buy fetal brains? That is absurd.
BTW, there can be no question whatsoever about the portions of yesterday's video in which the former PP worker describes what she saw while working there. (Hope there's not a non-disclosure agreement that she is violating that would makes her disclosure immoral, too. /sarc)
Seems to me that this passage is appropriate to the PP situation:
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.
So in order for the recent videos to have been obtained morally, CMP would have had to actually be willing to buy fetal brains instead of merely pretending to be willing to buy fetal brains?
DeleteI was trying to explain why I don't find it plausible to say LA was testing PP. The means I was referring to was, again, inviting an act of formal cooperation in grave evil.
I've said it's less clear to me that the CMP video involves temptation. I am more open to the possibility of a distinction between tempting and testing in this case. I'm just waiting for that distinction to be explained.
And an explanation is required, because lies of every sort are prohibited, and if someone said the sort of thing CMP said in order to score free concert tickets, I suspect we'd all consider it a lie.
if someone said the sort of thing CMP said in order to score free concert tickets, I suspect we'd all consider it a lie.
DeleteThis is the crux. If I get roughed up by cops over a traffic ticket that's police brutality. But if I get pulled in as an accomplice in armed robbery, and they rough me up to find out where my partners are hiding out, then that's allowable.
I think there is proportion involved and the intended outcome is important. That's why I'm not bent all out of shape about deception in undercover work, and that's why God wasn't bent all out of shape about the times I mentioned where good people deceived others when they were on a war footing.
But if I get pulled in as an accomplice in armed robbery, and they rough me up to find out where my partners are hiding out, then that's allowable.
DeleteSure. In Soviet Russia, is allowable.
I am a friend, not a foe, of Mark Shea, but I do think that some of his positions and much of his rhetoric go way over the top.
ReplyDeleteTo me, this passage is telling and should make any Christian question Shea's trustworthiness as a moral guide:
At 35:30 he quipped, “The issue is not and never has been figuring out how to lie well; the issue is figuring out how to hide your Jews well.” Then he chortled heartily.
I've listened to the podcast and Zmirak's description doesn't do justice to the effect. His "chortle" is a full-out belly laugh, and it betrays a derisive dismissiveness toward people who were heroes during the the Holocaust. The breezy way he treats the subject in that passage is deeply disconcerting.
How liberal nerds talk about the consequences of abortion without having to talk about abortion. Via Ann Althouse:
ReplyDeleteEA Global was dominated by talk of existential risks, or X-risks. The idea is that human extinction is far, far worse than anything that could happen to real, living humans today.
To hear effective altruists explain it, it comes down to simple math. About 108 billion people have lived to date, but if humanity lasts another 50 million years, and current trends hold, the total number of humans who will ever live is more like 3 quadrillion. Humans living during or before 2015 would thus make up only 0.0036 percent of all humans ever.
The numbers get even bigger when you consider — as X-risk advocates are wont to do — the possibility of interstellar travel. Nick Bostrom — the Oxford philosopher who popularized the concept of existential risk — estimates that about 10^54 human life-years (or 10^52 lives of 100 years each) could be in our future if we both master travel between solar systems and figure out how to emulate human brains in computers.
Even if we give this 10^54 estimate "a mere 1% chance of being correct," Bostrom writes, "we find that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one billionth of one billionth of one percentage point is worth a hundred billion times as much as a billion human lives."
Put another way: The number of future humans who will never exist if humans go extinct is so great that reducing the risk of extinction by 0.00000000000000001 percent can be expected to save 100 billion more lives than, say, preventing the genocide of 1 billion people. That argues, in the judgment of Bostrom and others, for prioritizing efforts to prevent human extinction above other endeavors. This is what X-risk obsessives mean when they claim ending world poverty would be a "rounding error."
But each life has zero meaning, so 0 + 0 = 0, 0 * 1,000,000 = 0, 0 to the billionth power is still zero....
DeleteThese people are truly crazy, and hopefully if they don't convert they will be committed at some point.
The hard part is figuring out whether something we do today reduces the risk of extinction 50 million years from now by 0.00000000000000001 percent or increases the risk of extinction by 0.00000000000000001 percent. Remember, 100 BILLION LIVES hang in the balance, so do it right!
DeleteProves the old adage: There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will state it.
But these people are actually more pro-life than we are, aren't they? I mean, they want to protect "life" before conception!
DeleteThe video released today will be an especially tough one for Planned Parenthood to glibly skate past. But of course they'll try.
ReplyDeleteH/T Breitbart.
Some pertinent commentary on today's video.
DeleteWOW. Thanks!
DeleteY'all, The Federalist has an interesting take on the CMP lying issue today, from a Lutheran pastor.
ReplyDeleteTom, the kind of pseudo-moral nit-picking that Catholics like you and Shea do is grotesquely asinine. Where were you, Tom, when JPII was unilaterally and arbitrarily revising Catholic teaching regarding the morality of capital punishment for murder? That circumstance has a lot more at stake than CMP and Planned Parenthood. The last time I checked, CMP isn't part of the Magisterium.
ReplyDeleteBesides, who the Hell is Shea to give lectures on morality to anybody?
If I may add, Tom, the kind of pseudo-moral nit-picking that Catholics like you and Shea do sacrifices the innocent on the altar of the kind of foolish consistency that Ralph Waldo Emerson accurately called, "the hobgoblin of small minds." Exhibit A: Mark Shea.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot do evil that good may result. Not even a little bit of evil, not even for a whole lot of good. That's not nit picking, that's not foolishness. That's Catholic dogma.
ReplyDeleteIf someone wants to argue that "Lies of every sort are to be condemned" doesn't apply to certain behavior given one set of circumstances and intentions, when it would apply to that same behavior given another set of circumstances and intentions, then their argument cannot be, "Look at the good that resulted."
As for Emerson, he wasn't arguing against foolishness, he was arguing against consistency. He followed his hobgoblin line -- admittedly, a happy bit of phrasing -- with, "With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." The rest of the paragraph doesn't improve. On the whole, not a sound authority on consistency.
It may still be, of course, that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of [at least some] little minds. But the problem is with the foolishness, not the consistency. Quoting the hobgoblin line at someone is simply begging the question if it's not followed up with an actual argument.
You cannot do evil that good may result. Not even a little bit of evil, not even for a whole lot of good.
DeleteBut that's not the argument, at least as I see it. The argument is whether the subterfuge is evil in the first place. And as in the just war context, I suggest that it is not.
Right. In that case, I might be wrong, but for reasons other than nit-picking or foolish consistency.
Delete"If someone wants to argue that 'lies of every sort are to be condemned' doesn't apply to certain behavior given one set of circumstances and intentions, when it would apply to that same behavior given another set of circumstances and intentions, then their argument cannot be, 'look at the good that resulted.' "
DeleteThat is pedantic excrement. If the whole point is to act morally, then projected results have to be part of the equation. Granted, unintended consequences can result. But not always, which is one of the assumptions you make. You also make the assumption that people cannot foresee good results from certain actions, such as lying to a Nazi about where Jews are hidden or a murderer about where an intended victim is. Expressing concerns about such behavior is intellectually and morally narcissistic. This is where the "foolish consistency" you dismiss comes into play. When you apply what you call dogma into the situations I described, you actually create more evil!
If you want more examples, just look at the whole "seamless garment" tripe promulgated by the late Cardinal Bernardin, which has been used to render historic Catholic teaching on morality of capital punishment effectively null and void. If you want another example, just look at Mark Shea, himself. He quotes that dogma all the time yet has no fear of using outright lies, deliberate distortions, crudifications and personal attacks to make his points. Save your sermonizing for him.
Finally, Tom, the one thing that destroys your entire position is this from another post:
Delete"But how would you then analyze the undercover PP video matter then?
"I'm not sure. ..."
Granted, I deleted the vast majority of your response but the mere fact that you don't know what to do in the face of obvious evil from a third party speaks volumes about your moral compass...or, perhaps more accurately, how broken it is.
Of course, the whole "ends-justifies-the-means" approach can, and often does, lead to great moral evil. Mankind is all too willing to deceive himself about his motives. But by quoting this "dogma" regarding CMP's actions, you effectively equate them to the worst moral evil, which is absurd.
The pedantic nonsense you advocate is nothing but straining gnats and swallowing camels. You know what Jesus said about the practitioners in His day, right?
If the whole point is to act morally, then projected results have to be part of the equation.
DeleteYes, projected results have to be part of the equation -- unless the object of the act is evil. An act that is evil in its object cannot be made good through the circumstances, intentions, or projected results.
Nor do the projected results, however good they may be, establish that an act is not evil in its object. Why don't you address that, instead of the moral and intellectual faults of people you disagree with?
The Church teaches us that lying is evil in its object and that lies of every sort are to be condemned.
Nor do the projected results, however good they may be, establish that an act is not evil in its object. Why don't you address that, instead of the moral and intellectual faults of people you disagree with?
ReplyDeleteVery simple.
First, ideas and actions have consequences. Ideas and actions also reflect the fundamental values of the parties expressing or acting upon them.
Second, we do not live in a world in which we can always choose between perfect black and perfect white. Sometimes, we must choose among alternatives that vary in different degrees of being unattractive. This is life. People who complain about situational ethics fail to realize that all ethics are situational. Morals, however, are not. True moral guidance involves developing the skills and mindset to determine how to deal with such situations. True moral guidance does not involve parroting cant, even cant from a supposed moral authority.
I'll give you two examples from Scripture. The first is rather simple: Jesus flogging the moneychangers and overturning their tables. In most legal contexts, what Jesus did would be considered assault and vandalism. Yet Jesus was a man without sin.
The second is far more problematic. Yahweh orders Moses to exterminate the Midianites in Numbers 31, even children; the only exceptions are virgin women. Yahweh orders Saul to exterminate the Canaanites in Samuel 15, with no exceptions. If some acts are "always evil," as you and the Catholic Church say, then how would you explain why a loving God who is the ultimate in both mercy and righteousness would issue such orders, which go far beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
as you and the Catholic Church say
DeleteWell, Mark and Tom may say it, but I'm not convinced the Catholic Church does!
Just today some colleagues and I were discussing the fact that you cannot work for a large corporation without indirectly, passively supporting your employer's commitment to gay marriage, insurance coverage for abortion, etc. You may not actively participate in support for any of these things -- but you still work for a company that supports these things. So, what should Catholics do? Not work for anyone except prolife mom-and-pops? Does any Catholic bishop say, "You can't, as a Catholic, work for Google or Microsoft"? Somehow I rather doubt it.
I think Mark and (perhaps) Tom may be being more Catholic than the pope in this case.
Diane, the reason bishops wouldn't say that is because they would be viewed rightly as moral nincompoops. But that is where Tom's (and Mark's) reasoning ultimately leads. In fact, the whole "seamless garment" approach, when applied to capital punishment, provides ample evidence that the Catholic Church has no problem with going over the cliff because of the ultimate conclusions faulty logic generates.
DeleteThe question of working for a large corporation is addressed by the moral teaching on cooperation with evil. I'm not sure what that has to do with the question of lying.
DeleteIf some acts are "always evil," as you and the Catholic Church say, then how would you explain why a loving God who is the ultimate in both mercy and righteousness would issue such orders, which go far beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
DeleteI haven't much studied such questions, and I don't have a ready response suitable for an antagonistic comment threat. The bar being set:
I don't know what act Jesus did in cleansing the Temple that I or the Church consider evil in its object. None of the Gospel accounts say Jesus flogged anyone, but even if He did the use of bodily force by those in authority against wrongdoers is not forbidden. As the Synoptics make clear when the scribes and elders challenge His actions, the whole point of this passage is that Jesus has authority over the Temple.
The "hard" Old Testament passages -- just like the easy New Testament passages -- have to be read from within the Church in the context of all of Divine revelation, which of course is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
If you decide to read the hard passages outside the Church, then sure, you may settle on some sort of voluntarism according to which God simply chooses which specific acts are evil and which are good. So yesterday a particular genocide was good, today all genocides are evil, and who can say what tomorrow might bring?
That's a problematic theology, and the problems with that theology don't go away if you aren't satisfied with other takes.
And if that sounds like I doubt you'd be satisfied with my take -- which, in a phrase, is that the literal meaning of those passages is not military history but the purification of God's people -- it sounds right.
Tom, your response is noteworthy for the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1. In the face of a legitimate challenge, belligerent or otherwise, you respond with more cant before showing the white feature. You don't even bother going into specifics about how a Catholic should interpret the cited passages "within the context of the Church."
2. Unbeknownst to you, you do a magnificent job of sabotaging you argument. Whether the passages cited are literal, allegorical or figurative is a separate issue. Here's the real issue: A loving, righteous God incapable of sin orders genocide as divine judgement, an order recorded in a source viewed as divinely inspired truth. That mere idea destroys your (and the Church's) position that certain acts are always evil.
That should be, "showing the white feather."
ReplyDelete