tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post4110390974374527708..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Lying to Planned Parenthood, or is it mental reservation?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-43225884660526091332011-02-14T14:39:33.832-08:002011-02-14T14:39:33.832-08:00to dcs
from baa-ba black sheep.
"I would add...to dcs<br />from baa-ba black sheep.<br /><br />"I would add that I think the whole business of entrapping pedophiles in such a way is distasteful, since no crime actually occurs until the police officer leads him to commit the crime. In other words, the police officer is responsible for putting another man in a near occasion of sin."<br /><br />So you would rather the pedophile actually take the innocence of a child and not get caught?<br />Get real and get a real life. It's the pedophile's desire to go online and look that brings him to the police officer. If he never went on line, he would not have committed a crime. If pedophile's have enough fear of getting caught, they will stop trolling. If the mouse wasn't out looking for the free cheese, it would not have found the mousetrap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-83917634237169142812011-02-14T14:31:33.431-08:002011-02-14T14:31:33.431-08:00Sorry Reginaldis,
I disagree with your logic. But ...Sorry Reginaldis,<br />I disagree with your logic. But since this sheep does not have the education of the shepherd, I can only offer an example. <br />The Pharisee and Levite who traveled by the man that was beat up and left for dead were correct. They did not want to defile themselves in view of the Law. <br />It was the unclean Samaritan that looked on the man, poured oil and water in his wounds, took him to the inn and did what he could.<br />In your view, the Pharisees and Levite did the right thing while the Samaritan sinned. <br /><br />To the best of my knowledge, Christ was more angry with the "knowledged ones" of the church than the common folk. <br /><br />Sorry, Shepherd, this sheep looks to the good that the Samaritan (aka Live Action) did rather than the those that correctly passed on the other side. Just my view, only God knows if we are Samaritans or Pharisees. But I chose to stand with the Samarian and LiveAction. <br />sign me a baa-baa black sheep ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-87964780841418626352011-02-14T07:51:56.642-08:002011-02-14T07:51:56.642-08:00I have offered a response to two articles publishe...I have offered a response to two articles published in favor of Live Action over at CatholicVote.org. <br />http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/02/lying-to-planned-parenthood-response-to.htmlFather Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-13550244402020318652011-02-14T07:43:49.649-08:002011-02-14T07:43:49.649-08:00@Left-footer,
It would be interesting to have an ...@Left-footer,<br /><br /><i>It would be interesting to have an Orthodox Rabbi's views on the meaning of the 8th Commandment.</i><br /><br />With all due respect, why? We are Christians not Jews. And modern Orthodox rabbis are the intellectual and spiritual heirs of the Pharisees, whose tradition was condemned by Our Lord.dcshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18424510747759223459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-6462859578087192282011-02-14T06:01:34.551-08:002011-02-14T06:01:34.551-08:00Regarding the question of how it is justified to k...Regarding the question of how it is justified to kill an unjust aggressor but not lie to him, it came to me that the key is the definition of lying and murder:<br /><br />For instance, every lie is an offense against God. Every murder is an offense against God. We are never justified in lying to another. We are never justified in murdering another.<br /><br />However, not all deception is lying, and not all killing is murder. There are cases where one is justified, perhaps even obliged, to deceive another. There are cases where one is justified, perhaps even obliged, to kill another. But lying is never justified. Murder is never justified.BobRNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-60548677571924431012011-02-14T05:53:27.332-08:002011-02-14T05:53:27.332-08:00@Matthew,
I think that what you have described is...@Matthew,<br /><br />I think that what you have described is a lie or at least strict mental reservation because there is no way that a police officer could say "I am a 14 year old girl" and for that to be true even in the broad sense. Of course, if the police officer used hypotheticals ("what if I told you that I was a 14 year old girl? What would you say?") that might be permissible. I would add that I think the whole business of entrapping pedophiles in such a way is distasteful, since no crime actually occurs until the police officer leads him to commit the crime. In other words, the police officer is responsible for putting another man in a near occasion of sin.dcshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18424510747759223459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-5559000903330629922011-02-14T01:22:48.592-08:002011-02-14T01:22:48.592-08:00Hi Reg,
Thank you for your posts on this topic.
...Hi Reg,<br /><br />Thank you for your posts on this topic. <br /><br />When I read the first post, my immediate response was to reject what you have proposed (re-proposed the Church's teaching, actually). <br /><br />But in reading the reasoning and examples you have given, I have been forced to reassess my position. I'm not surprised that I initially resisted the conclusion so violently; we live in a culture that constantly looks to rationalise graver and more sins and I regularly struggle with this particular sin (even to the point where I have said things that are untrue before I even think!)<br /><br />I still have much thinking to do on this matter to realign my thoughts.<br /><br />One thing I wonder about is the nature of the duty to repair a lie. Sorry to take the SS example, but say perhaps we have been asked where the Jews in our house are, and we have already told a lie (e.g. in the pressure of the moment or out of a long developed habit of dishonesty such as in my case), and reason that we have just told a lie and that this is sinful. <br /><br />My question is, are we bound to correct ourselves? Is our continued silence on the matter an act of complicity in our sin? <br /><br />Once again, thank you Fr for writing (righting) on this topic. It is a very merciful and charitable thing to do. <br /><br />God Bless your work in this ministry!Solomon's Chariotshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07627192487882198716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-13890474525807554452011-02-13T20:47:24.934-08:002011-02-13T20:47:24.934-08:00How is Live Action's actions any different tha...How is Live Action's actions any different than the following scenario:<br /><br />A police officer enters an internet chat room where pedophiles are known to enter as well for the purposes of eventually molesting children. In order to separate and draw out the pedophile, the police officer portrays himself/herself as a young girl (most pedophiles are male)and would identify themselves as a young child (needed to draw out the pedophile).<br /><br />Is this a lie? Is it a sin?Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-9592761746168597552011-02-13T17:59:30.488-08:002011-02-13T17:59:30.488-08:00I will note that the article you reference from &q...<i>I will note that the article you reference from "CatholicVote.com" is actually quite poor -- the author fails to make the important distinction between broad and strict mental reservation!</i><br /><br />@Fr. Reginaldus,<br /><br />Not only that, but the author fails to make the distinction between mortal and venial sin! She states that because the Church has never disciplined those involved in undercover work, excommunicated them, or refused them Holy Communion that there is no sin in such work. However, all she has done is show that undercover work falls short of mortal sin (and it is questionable that she has shown even that, since only public sinners are so disciplined by the Church, and undercover work by its nature is generally not public!!), not that it is not a sin at all. Those who are guilty of only venial sin can still approach the Sacrament without confessing beforehand. I am frankly surprised that a professor of moral theology would fail to make this distinction.dcshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18424510747759223459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-74744516249239741962011-02-13T16:36:28.390-08:002011-02-13T16:36:28.390-08:00@Anonymous (3:44pm) [who is also most inconsiderat...@Anonymous (3:44pm) [who is also most inconsiderate in not leaving any "name", "tag" or "id", at least at the end of the comment],<br />Since you did not identify yourself with at least a pseudonym, I will not respond to your comment.<br /><br />However, I will note that the article you reference from "CatholicVote.com" is actually quite poor -- the author fails to make the important distinction between broad and strict mental reservation! As I have shown, a broad mental reservation is ok (for a just reason), but a strict mental reservation is a lie (as condemned by Innocent XI)...<br />What LiveAction has done may be a mental reservation -- but it is a strict mental reservation, and therefore a lie.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56754655969943450672011-02-13T16:14:23.622-08:002011-02-13T16:14:23.622-08:00@David (2:16pm), (4:58pm), and also Left-footer (1...@David (2:16pm), (4:58pm), and also Left-footer (10:14pm),<br />You have claimed that a lie is only a lie if told to one who "has a right to the truth"...<br /><br />@Anonymous (10:42pm) -- who is most inconsiderate of others and did not leave a "tag", "name", or "id"; not even at the end of his comment,<br />You have claimed that a lie is only a lie when it is used to personal benefit...<br /><br />Both objections have been answered by "Complicated Life", "tired", "Matthew Siekierski", others, and also myself (in the original two articles)...<br /><br />First, I would ask you to re-read the articles and the relevant portions of the Catechism...all the answers are there.<br />Second, I would ask you to consider the method you are adopting for your arguments -- you are not citing texts (at least not citing them properly in context), you are not citing the Tradition, you are not citing Catholic theologians and saints...instead, you are stringing together a few scattered thoughts and vomiting forth your "new" ideas...What good does that do anyone?<br /><br />The inconsiderate "anonymous" does not deserve a reply...as he left no name...<br /><br />To David and Left-footer, I will state: A lie is defined as "the intentional deception through uttering falsehood", or "the intentional uttering of falsehood as truth"...the Catechism's definition and that of St. Thomas can both be synthesized in this which I have given.<br />Now, there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the definition of a lie which relies on the subjective state of the person to whom one lies -- IT DOES NOT MATTER whether or not they have a right to the truth, we cannot lie to them.<br /><br />HOWEVER, if they do not have a right to the truth, we need not tell them the truth -- in this case, for a serious reason, we can employ "mental reservation"... We can use ambiguous language which will deceive them, but we cannot lie (we cannot state a falsehood as truth in order to deceive them)...<br /><br />I want to impress upon you something more... please please please think about the way you are entering into this discussion...think about the way you are (ab)using the Catechism...think about your approach to the Church's teachings. Rather than trying to come up with your "clever" justifications, look to the Tradition, look to the faithful theologians of the past, look to the papal pronouncements (esp. that of Innocent XI)...make your judgment based upon the solid foundation of truth, rather than your own clever interpretation.<br /><br />That is all I have tried to do here...I do not offer these articles so much as my own thoughts -- I am simply presenting the Tradition of the Church to the best of my ability.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-65990105596215035032011-02-13T09:47:32.540-08:002011-02-13T09:47:32.540-08:00Anonymous:
No idea if I'm arguing with the sa...Anonymous:<br /><br />No idea if I'm arguing with the same guy, but I'll put in my last word on the matter here.<br /><br />Killing and lying are not analogous. Lying is intrinsically evil, killing is not. To lie is to fundamentally oppose the nature of God.<br /><br />I take no issue with them concealing their identity, but I do take issue when they blithely state a false identity. I would not be so quick to invoke God in this either.<br /><br />In such cases motive and circumstance can only further damn the action, they cannot redeem it. We may say it is only a venial sin in that case, but there is great danger in saying "only venial".<br /><br />The mass reading of the beatitudes for this Sunday dealt directly with that line of thinking. <br /><br />That is a good article, and I will consider it. I will not respond here though, I think I've cluttered up Reginaldus's combox enough.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-30016974428631131502011-02-13T06:44:24.237-08:002011-02-13T06:44:24.237-08:00If the legal taking of a human life is permissible...If the legal taking of a human life is permissible in order to prevent the criminal taking of an innocent life then how can legally denying the truth of one's identity/activity not be permissible in order to prevent the criminal falsification of the truth???<br /><br />The latter is exactly what Live Action (praised be to God) did: they legally concealed their identity (did not say they were from Live Action) <br />and their activity (did not say that they were engaged in undercover recording-note: they did this ONLY in states which permit citizens to do this)<br />in order not to intentionally and personally harm the people working at PP or to intentionally and personally benefit themselves but rather to expose the criminal activity of PP which violates the legal requirement to report child abuse. Gus<br /><br />P.S. A very well reasoned approach that is consistent with Church teaching and history can be fond at: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14015Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-26007694735417930522011-02-13T06:34:32.956-08:002011-02-13T06:34:32.956-08:00Regarding the question of whether there is a sense...Regarding the question of whether there is a sense in which Ms. Rose's statement "I am a prostitute" can be true, I have heard it said that Romans 12:5 supplies the answer. "So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." In other words, perhaps Ms. Rose is identifying closely with the prostitutes with this in mind. Personally, I don't find this argument very persuasive, but it was advanced by a priest that I very much respect. What are your thoughts?<br /><br />JasonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-64468488225101468642011-02-13T05:47:36.226-08:002011-02-13T05:47:36.226-08:00Anonymous:
I do not know how I can be clearer. Of...Anonymous:<br /><br />I do not know how I can be clearer. Of course testing is not lying. But what Live Action did was to clearly tell a lie. There is no lie per se in a simulated action. A lie begins when a purported truth is divorced from reality.I don't claim to know Christ's state of mind, I can only infer certain things.<br /><br />What about Mark 6:48? “About the fourth watch of the night, he came toward them walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them.”<br /><br />Again you are reading a lot into this simple statement. The intent ascribed is that he meant to pass by them. What he did next hinged on the free-willed actions of the disciples. <br /><br />It is simple really. Live Action claimed something was true, that was not true in a very clear fashion. They did not indicate, they did not allow someone to misunderstand, they did none of these things that can skirt the edge of truth but remain honest (if not always clear).<br /><br />I brought up no such example of undercover work. Was that directed elsewhere?<br /><br />I do not defend Planned Parenthood, and I think you are warping your perceptions a great deal to claim that I am. Besides, what has this accomplished? Will proving that abortion clinic managers engage in other crimes end abortion? Did Kermit Gosnell's arrest stop the practice? These young people have noble aims, but they are misguided. Abortion must be tackled in law, in the courts and in our open democracy. This can only be done by standing and proclaiming the truth and changing hearts and minds.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-61433416683912690472011-02-13T02:01:57.455-08:002011-02-13T02:01:57.455-08:00I don't know if this has already been discusse...I don't know if this has already been discussed earlier, but I would add my two-cents.<br /><br />First of all, I think Reginaldus is wrong to argue that police have the authority to do undercover work under the doctrine of broad mental reservation while laymen don't because it is the job of the police to manage social order. What do you do when the police are corrupt? The state authorities have, probably in many cases willingly, decided to ignore or not be bothered investigating the crimes of PP. Are citizens to simply mind their own business because the authorities have decided, "Move on. Nothing to see here"? If the state has reneged on its responsibility to keep social order (ie: stop PP from killing children, harming women and girls and providing cover for rapists and pimps), does that responsibility not then pass to the citizenry?<br /><br />Also, FYI: there are a number of states where it is perfectly legal for citizens to carry concealed weapons.BobRNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-8138288403051495282011-02-12T22:16:31.886-08:002011-02-12T22:16:31.886-08:00The new American Bible states it as follows: “he g...The new American Bible states it as follows: “he gave the impression that he was going on farther.” It is a short statement, as all gospel descriptions are, but it describes exactly the same thing that you are accusing Ms. Rose of doing. You conveniently skipped over Jesus’ state of mind, which is the cornerstone of a lie. In fact, he knew that he was not going on any further, but yet he purposefully gave the impression that he was. According to your standards, that is clearly and undoubtedly a lie. No less so than with Ms. Rose. How is it not? <br /><br />What about Mark 6:48? “About the fourth watch of the night, he came toward them walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them.” Are you suggesting that he did not know that he was not going to pass by them? Of course he knew. So Jesus lied with his actions as Ms. Rose lied. There is no difference. <br /><br />Your explanation with regard to police undercover work is equally fallacious. Of course a police officer posing as a drug dealer is lying according to your standards. He probably has no drugs to sell. Even if he does, he has absolutely no intention of actually selling them. What did you say? As long as he doesn’t actually say he is not a police officer he is not lying? That is absurd. Everything he is doing and saying is a lie according to your standards.<br /><br />The reason you cannot explain this is that your position is wrong from the start. Testing is not lying. <br /><br />What you are doing is very destructive. Planned Parenthood facilities are factories of death. Your attempts to defend them are not noble. You are stabbing courageous young people in the back. There is a legitimate and real difference between "testing" and "lying" which you have not accounted for.<br /><br />MKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-69280107348139395192011-02-12T20:38:43.621-08:002011-02-12T20:38:43.621-08:00Anonymous:
You are going far into equivocation t...Anonymous: <br /><br />You are going far into equivocation there and stretching a great deal of meaning out of that verse.<br /><br />"And they drew near to the town whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther..."<br /><br />Which means that Christ began to walk on, had they not stopped him he likely would have continued walking. There is no deceit in that, in seeing what people will do.<br /><br />You are right, that is testing; the input of a stimulus to observe the results. Whether this is a hypothetical question or initiation of an action, and it is not lying so long as there is no deceit on the part of the initiator. Christ often did this, to draw out the attitudes and hypocrisies of his day.<br /><br />But this has nothing to do with what has happened here! These people went in, claimed to be what they weren't and then made statements about people and situations that did not exist, with the express purpose of making another think they did. That is lying, and intent and object can only alter the gravity of the lie (however much you may wish it was otherwise).<br /><br />I do not think you need me to explain this to you, but it would have been testing if they had gone in and asked the manager what they would do in these situations. Even if they were taping, that seems more like bringing a witness in. However if they had been asked if they had a camera, then they would have to answer truthfully.<br /><br />Speak the truth in all things, trust God for the rest.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-85914423394217747632011-02-12T19:23:21.718-08:002011-02-12T19:23:21.718-08:00Actions speak louder than words. Surely you do not...Actions speak louder than words. Surely you do not deny that a purposeful action is the same, if not potentially even stronger, than the spoken word. A purposeful action can be a lie as surely as the spoken word can be. There is no reasonable question about that. The word of God is clear that our Lord acted as if he were going on, when he knew he was not. He was in fact testing his disciples. That is plain. "Testing" is most definitely not the same as "lying". A "test" is a planned purposeful act, for a good purpose, to determine whether someone is acting according to the proper law. This is different from a lie. The actions of Jesus prove this. You have been unable to respond to this point.<br /><br />I think it is fair to raise the question of motive. When it is so clear that these same arguments apply to undercover police work, why has this issue not been raised over the many decades that undercover police work has been done? Your own statements in the article show that you cannot distinguish police undercover work from the work of our Ms. Rose. Why have they been given a pass for all of these years, but now, suddenly, this accusation is brought out against the pro-life movement? <br /><br />"Testing" is not the same as "lying". <br /><br />MKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-81768515047626052502011-02-12T15:20:53.361-08:002011-02-12T15:20:53.361-08:00Anonymous @ 9:46,
The kingdom of heaven does not ...Anonymous @ 9:46,<br /><br />The kingdom of heaven does not need our lies. What Lila Rose aims to accomplish is laudable, her methods are not. Abortion is wrong in and of itself. While it is interesting to see our suspicion that evil leads into further evil confirmed, this will not bring it down. <br /><br />You say it yourself, the Church must stand up and speak truth to combat this. Adding to the cloud of deception will do injury to all in the end. If nothing else, at least our enemies should be able to recognize our honesty.<br /><br />As for the Road to Emmaus, you mistake misdirection for lying. Christ did not tell them, write for them or gesture in sign language that he meant to go on. That is simply how it appeared to them.<br /><br />Left-footer: <br /><br />Reginaldus will likely respond to this, but I'll take a stab if you don't mind. I am not a philosopher by vocation either, but morality is accessible to all of us I think.<br /><br />So it seems simple to me, the difference between revealing and telling. <br /><br />If I am a government employee and a very polite foreign spy asks me to divulge certain secrets I am under no obligation to reveal anything to him and will keep silent.<br /><br />If in the same situation I answer him directly and untruthfully then I have lied, that is I have created an untruth knowingly.<br /><br />Again in the same scenario if I chose to respond by: asking why he thinks I would know anything on the subject, or tell him that he could find better information elsewhere or pose the hypothetical that I could be a counter-intelligence agent and inform him of the risks involved in his query that is a form of misdirection and an attempt to avoid questioning that may compromise me.<br /><br />If my interpretation of Scripture/Catechism/Doctors is correct then it certainly poses difficulties. It may mean that we have been accepting of certain mistakes in the past, even going so far as to praise them. It may also be an utterly impractical standard to live by. This would not be contrary to Christ's calling however.<br /><br />If nothing else I will be thinking more closely about what I say and how reverent of truth I am.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-57770842352327180662011-02-12T13:14:01.904-08:002011-02-12T13:14:01.904-08:00Dear Father R. 2489 I quote from the Cathechism:
...Dear Father R. 2489 I quote from the Cathechism:<br /><br />" No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it." 283<br /><br />There is, of course, a semantic difference between 'reveal' and 'tell', but am not sure sure, as a non-philosopher, that there is a practical moral difference between 'not telling the truth' and 'telling a lie'. If we say the someone doesn't tell the truth, we usual mean that (s)he lies.<br /><br />If this has already been covered, my apologies. My eyesight is weak.<br /><br />-Left-footerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18154175028539882422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-34721392531551495642011-02-12T12:46:04.796-08:002011-02-12T12:46:04.796-08:00I posted essentially these same comments on the CN...I posted essentially these same comments on the CNA site. <br /><br />Lila Rose is testing not lying. She is testing Planned Parenthood to see if they are complying with the most minimal standards set by state laws that already allow abortions in the first place. It is not immoral lying when police officers pose as prostitutes or drug dealers to stop criminal activity. This practice has long been accepted by society and the Church. It is clearly good work that produces a good end. At least some of the police officers that engage in this work must be Catholic. Does the Church say they must resign or refuse to do this work? Why has this question not been raised before?<br /><br />If the whole Church had stood up in unison to uncompromisingly oppose abortion, abortion would have been stopped a long time ago. If this is true, it is actually a condemnation of the church, since it says that the church could have stopped this but did not. The church has really done very little but voice a contrary opinion and then quickly run for cover. The world is dead, but the greater punishment goes to those who knew. We finally have some young people who are willing to go out there ,and put their heads in the lion’s mouth, and take action. What happens? They are attacked from within the church.<br /><br />I Would like to pose a separate question. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus on the road to Emmaus at the end of the journey is said to have “appeared to be going further”. (Luke 24:28). Clearly Jesus knew that he was not going any further. Was he lying? This also happened in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus was walking on the water and Mark said that “he meant to pass them by”. (Mark 6:48). Again, clearly, Jesus knew that he was not going to pass them by. Other translations in both cases say he “acted” as if he was going further or passing them by. Was Jesus lying? I would like these passages reconciled with the proposed teachings on lying as applied to Ms. Rose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-76778716261734143932011-02-12T10:53:14.742-08:002011-02-12T10:53:14.742-08:00Bow-chika-wow-wow!
http://www.catholicnewsagency....Bow-chika-wow-wow!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-life-groups-video-stings-spark-ethical-debate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29" rel="nofollow">http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-life-groups-video-stings-spark-ethical-debate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29</a>Nickhttp://blogsofasoul.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-61464372022417972962011-02-12T00:17:07.050-08:002011-02-12T00:17:07.050-08:00Does there not smack a bit of protesting too much ...Does there not smack a bit of protesting too much amongst the comments? As a veteran liar, I've rationalized so many things with the same tiresome excuses (greater cause, larger evil, save someone's feeling). Those very justifications are themselves lies.<br /><br />One of the earlier posts rightly points out the examples of martyrs who could have used broad or strict mental reservation (what an endless lot of drivel that really is, don't you think?) to save themselves...I'll just go along to get along but I'll keep my faith underwraps because I'm sure its worth more to God and to the world if I go on living. We humans continue to mistaken believe that our actions really mean anything...that somehow through cleverness, devious thinking, prevaricating, arcane wordsmithing, we actually make a difference. Yet we all acknowledge that God does not grow greater through our prayers and acknowledgement of His goodness, even by our good actions. So how is it we think that our human-crafted plan of action will amount to anything more than sawdust? The best things we can offer for ending abortion, for example, is the intensity and common focus with each other in prayer. God's power will reveal itself in due time and process. I find it amazing that so much has been written about this...so many experts on lying yet how many admit that they lie regularly; that it has become a routine interaction tactic with its own 'levels' of acceptability, hurt, rationalization.TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-33042368589905201522011-02-11T23:35:13.087-08:002011-02-11T23:35:13.087-08:00@anaonymous
"Lying is intrinsically evil whe...@anaonymous<br /><br />"Lying is intrinsically evil when it is intentionally used to personally benefit the liar. Lying is morally acceptable when it is intentionally used to benefit someone other than the liar, especially the innocent who would unecessarily suffer but for the telling of the lie."<br /><br />As Complicated has rightly said- where are you getting this from? If you want to believe that LYING is sometimes OK then go right ahead, but this is NOT AT ALL the teaching of the CHURCH or of Her Founder, Jesus Christ. And yes, the faithful do have the uncanny ability to live within the Magisterium, rejoice in Her, and proclaim Her to the world. <br /><br />I fear, however, that your comment- precisely because it might very well be a perhaps 'common' approach to the topic can simply dismiss all the above discussion with a whimsical affirmation that has no grounding or precedent in the Catholic Faith. <br /><br />The limits seem to have been reached with all of this- lying is intrinsically evil. If Live Action is lying they should change their approach if they care not to lie. Let's not just start defining things ourselves- that has a particular name...relativism...if you don't agree with Catholic teaching which is very clear on what it means to lie and what a lie is, then fine- not really fine, but we all must choose. Please do not, however, start coming up with quasi-dogmatic statements that cannot at all be backed up by the Catholic Faith for you will lead souls astray.<br /><br />It is true that when we can no longer reason our position, the easy thing to do is simply define it as true, but this also has a particular name...ideology. <br /><br />This is not about who gets the last word on the comment box- so simply restating positions that have been addressed above does not really add to the ratio of the discussion. <br /><br />God Bless and Peace.tirednoreply@blogger.com