Mass media and the duty of parents

Parents should remember that they have a most serious duty to guard carefully lest shows, publications and other things of this sort, which may be morally harmful, enter their homes or affect their children under other circumstances.
                                                                         
                                                            - Vatican II, Inter Mirifica, 10


In the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the use of social communications, the Council Fathers treat comprehensively of the moral use of the mass media by all involved with them.  The quotation above, however, points to what is perhaps the most widely practical aspect of their teaching: the role of parents in their children's exposure to the means of social communication.  It is that most solemn duty that we will discuss briefly here.


When we speak of the means of social communication, we are thinking not only of television, film, radio, and the press (which the Council had specifically in mind), but also of the Internet (especially social networking sites), mobile phones, personal data assistants, and the many other technological spheres of human life where ideas are communicated en masse.  One is easily overwhelmed by the availability and extent of such means of communication and by their normalcy in the life of our young people.  It seems more difficult than ever for parents to fulfill their duty to govern and regulate the exposure of their children to the means of social communication.  And yet they must.

Lying to Planned Parenthood: A response to articles published at CatholicVote.org

There has been quite a debate raging on various websites and blogs regarding the moral status of the “sting” operations which Live Action has carried out on Planned Parenthood facilities. Some have simply posed the question (Mark Shea), others have come down on the side of Live Action, and others have argued that these operations are morally unacceptable (the offerings of Germain Grisez and Christopher Tollefsen, are particularly helpful). It seems that the debate first began (at least on-line) here at The New Theological Movement – our February 3^rd article, “It is a sin to lie, even to Planned Parenthood”, was published just days after the videos were first released (on February 1^st). In response to the extensive debate, both in our comment box and on other blogs, NTM published another (more extensive and theological) article on February 9^th: “Lying to Planned Parenthood, or is it mental reservation?” [on this same day, Mr. Shea and Dr. Tollefsen released their articles, Dr. Grisez spoke to Catholic News Agency on February 11^th; Dawn Eden and William Doino Jr. made a good offering on February 10^th]

It is my intention to consider two articles from CatholicVote.org which have attempted to argue that Live Action has not lied in these undercover operations. Before responding to these articles, I will first briefly summarize what was contained in the previous articles here at NTM. Though I have a license in sacred theology, my specialty is dogmatic theology – moreover, I am a parish priest and not a “professional” theologian. On this account, I will write with a simple style – but the arguments I make will contain all the power and force of Catholic teaching.

"I am the Immaculate Conception" and "I have been immaculately conceived"

February 11^th, Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes

We must be struck by the directness and immediacy with which Our Lady spoke to the young Bernadette at Lourdes: “I am the Immaculate Conception.” She does not say “I have been immaculately conceived,” but “I am the Immaculate Conception.” What does this mean? How is it that the “Immaculate Conception” can be a sort of name or title for the Blessed Virgin?

Lying to Planned Parenthood, or is it mental reservation?

In response to an earlier article, in which I contented that the “sting” operations carried out by Live Action against Planned Parenthood involved lies and are therefore morally unacceptable, I received many comments which involved the doctrine of “mental reservation” – that ambiguous speech can be used in order to deceive another for a just cause. Indeed, there are times when a certain type of mental reservation can be employed legitimately. Nevertheless, as I hope to show, the sting operations of Live Action are not cases of mental reservation, but involve direct lies.

Other comments noted that, if it were wrong for Live Action to carry out these undercover operations, it would seem that all undercover work would be immoral – thus ruling out undercover police work and international espionage. Below, I will contend that we need not conclude that all undercover work (especially when carried out by agents of the State) need be condemned in principle – however, in practice, it will almost always put the individual in a proximate occasion of sin such that great caution must be taken.

What has been most surprising to me is the manner in which many have simply accepted that Live Action has lied to Planned Parenthood, even admitting that lying is wrong, but nevertheless justify this action by claiming that Planned Parenthood is so evil and the pro-life movement is so important that we can commit the “small” evil of a lie in order to stop the great evil of abortion – this reasoning is of the Devil. Whatever our claim may be – whether or not we believe that Live Action has done wrong – we most certainly cannot adopt the old fallacy of “the ends justify the means.”

Salt makes me thirsty, and so do the Apostles

5^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Matthew 5:13-16

Jesus said to his disciples: “You are the salt of the earth.”

In his preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Galatians, St. Jerome wrote: “How few there are who now read Aristotle. How many are there who know the books, or even the name of Plato? You may find here and there a few old men, who have nothing else to do, who study them in a corner. But the whole world speaks the language of our Christian peasants and fishermen, the whole world re-echoes their words. And so their simple words must be set forth with simplicity of style; for the word simple applies to their words, not their meaning.”

Certainly, St. Jerome exaggerates (we hope) when he says that few now know of Aristotle and Plato, but the central point remains – the language of the Apostles is simple indeed, though the meaning is most profound. The simplicity and clarity of the writings of the Apostles is founded on the simple and pure language with which Christ himself taught his doctrine. And were else to we find such simplicity as in the Sermon on the Mount?

“You are the salt of the earth. You are the light of the world.” Such simple words, yet so rich and full of meaning! As did St. Jerome, I will attempt to express, in that same spirit of simplicity, something of the profundity of the simile of salt.

It is a sin to lie, even to Planned Parenthood

You are of your father the devil, … truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. – John 8:44

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has accepted St. Augustine’s definition of a lie: “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” (CCC 2482, De mendacio 4,5) Lying is a direct offense against the truth, indeed it is the most direct offense against the truth. Therefore, it is not merely a sin against the individual to whom the lie is told, nor is it only against the society whose stability is harmed, but it is a direct offense against God himself, who is Truth. “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.” (CCC 2483)

Yet, though nearly all people will admit that lying is generally wrong, there seem to be few who will hold that lying is always wrong. There are many cases and examples which seem to challenge the Church’s teaching that it is always wrong to lie – here we can name the famous case of the Nazis searching for Jews hidden in the attic.

Setting aside these very interesting case studies, we must first consider the teaching of the Church (which is founded in Scripture, Tradition, and also philosophy) – to this end, we will look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also to the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Having examined the foundations of the total prohibition of lying, we will consider the particular case of lying to Planned Parenthood in order to expose certain illegal (and immoral) practices of the culture of death.

The Purification of the Virgin Most Pure

The Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, Luke 2:22-40

When the days were completed for [her] purification according to the law of Moses, Mary and Joseph took Jesus up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.

The Feast of the Presentation of the Lord has been called the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary – and although the Marian nature of this feast has been completely lost in the reformed calendar, at least the date has remained: As the new mother went to the Temple forty days after having given birth, so too the Blessed Virgin Mother of God came to fulfill the Law through her Purification.

But why did Mary come to the Temple to be purified? Was she not already most pure? Had her Son defiled her in his most wondrous Birth? No, certainly he did not – in being born of the Virgin, Christ did no harm to her virginal integrity but rather consecrated it. Simply speaking, Mary had no need of purification, but she humbled herself (after the example of her Son) to follow the precepts of the Law which was soon to pass away.