Another thread on "lying".
#21
I still think that St. Thomas's gloss on Judith and Holofernes is the most appropriate analogy for this situation. Lila=Judith and PP=Holofernes. Though good came out of Judith's deception of Holofernes, St. Thomas still censures the sin involved in her deception.
Reply
#22
(02-21-2011, 10:12 AM)St. Drogo Wrote: I still think that St. Thomas's gloss on Judith and Holofernes is the most appropriate analogy for this situation. Lila=Judith and PP=Holofernes. Though good came out of Judith's deception of Holofernes, St. Thomas still censures the sin involved in her deception.

I think your analogy fails, that Lila/ Judith will never carry the head of Holofernes/ Planned Parenthood back in triumph to her people/ pro-lifers.  Planned Parenthood has deep pockets and powerful allies.

It's grisly imagery for pro-lifers to endorse, too, though there are great paintings of the event.  There are also great paintings of the Massacre of the Holy Innocents, which is most appropriately applied to the abortion issue.

I do agree with St Thomas re: censure of Judith's deception.  What does he say about her premeditated murder of Holofernes?  Was it justified?  If so, would he justify the murder of an abortionist, like the one who was shot at his church?  The abortionist did dreadful things but was the man who shot him justified in being judge, jury, and executioner?  Is Lila Rose justified in being a vigilante carrying out a sting?

Reply
#23
Fwiw (and to some it might not be worth much), here's what the new catechism says about lying (bold emphasis mine): 

Quote: 2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray. 

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

The last two bolded statements seems to cover those who are silent when confronted by the Nazis about the Jews in the attic.. but it does not excuse outright lying, only silence and discretion. I guess we can use our imaginations when it comes to discretion.

Reply
#24
I was thinking about this last night: IS spying and undercover operations morally permissible even for police or military? I know they've always done it, but that doesn't necessarily make it okay. In times of war, the "right" or "wrong" of spying is solely based on whoever's side of the war you're on, not on Gospel principles. In sting operations, the goal is to catch a criminal and that benefits the common good. But Jesus never told us it was okay to lie for the common good.
Reply
#25
Another thing to consider is gravity.  Simple deception probably does not carry the same gravity as say, lying that you saw your neighbor kill someone.
Reply
#26
(02-21-2011, 02:26 AM)Joshua Wrote:
Resurrexi Wrote:LOL I'm not a Puritan and wasn't arguing against booze. I was basically saying I think it's ridiculous (and definitely not morally justified) for cops to use deception to catch drug dealers, especially since many drugs aren't any worse (morally speaking) than alcohol when used in moderation. And, yes, a lot of illegal drugs can be used in moderation.

Equating a bartender with a drug dealer is a brand of stupidity I have neither the time nor the inclination to address.

Your calling something stupid doesn't necessarily make it so.
Reply
#27
(02-21-2011, 10:43 AM)Revixit Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 10:12 AM)St. Drogo Wrote: I still think that St. Thomas's gloss on Judith and Holofernes is the most appropriate analogy for this situation. Lila=Judith and PP=Holofernes. Though good came out of Judith's deception of Holofernes, St. Thomas still censures the sin involved in her deception.

I think your analogy fails, that Lila/ Judith will never carry the head of Holofernes/ Planned Parenthood back in triumph to her people/ pro-lifers.  Planned Parenthood has deep pockets and powerful allies.

It's grisly imagery for pro-lifers to endorse, too, though there are great paintings of the event.  There are also great paintings of the Massacre of the Holy Innocents, which is most appropriately applied to the abortion issue.

I do agree with St Thomas re: censure of Judith's deception.  What does he say about her premeditated murder of Holofernes?   Was it justified?   If so, would he justify the murder of an abortionist, like the one who was shot at his church?  The abortionist did dreadful things but was the man who shot him justified in being judge, jury, and executioner?   Is Lila Rose justified in being a vigilante carrying out a sting?

The analogy does not fail just because Lila will never be able to execute it to its fullness. Her intent to metaphorically slay PP completes the analogy. The decapitation of Holofernes was done in the milieu of a just war so the crime of murder does not seem applicable. At this point, I don't think that the pro-life efforts against abortion qualify as a war except in metaphor so actual acts of violence cannot be tolerated in good conscience. If the midwest were to secede, however, it might be a different story.
Reply
#28
(02-21-2011, 07:20 PM)St. Drogo Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 10:43 AM)Revixit Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 10:12 AM)St. Drogo Wrote: I still think that St. Thomas's gloss on Judith and Holofernes is the most appropriate analogy for this situation. Lila=Judith and PP=Holofernes. Though good came out of Judith's deception of Holofernes, St. Thomas still censures the sin involved in her deception.

I think your analogy fails, that Lila/ Judith will never carry the head of Holofernes/ Planned Parenthood back in triumph to her people/ pro-lifers.  Planned Parenthood has deep pockets and powerful allies.

It's grisly imagery for pro-lifers to endorse, too, though there are great paintings of the event.  There are also great paintings of the Massacre of the Holy Innocents, which is most appropriately applied to the abortion issue.

I do agree with St Thomas re: censure of Judith's deception.  What does he say about her premeditated murder of Holofernes?   Was it justified?   If so, would he justify the murder of an abortionist, like the one who was shot at his church?  The abortionist did dreadful things but was the man who shot him justified in being judge, jury, and executioner?   Is Lila Rose justified in being a vigilante carrying out a sting?

The analogy does not fail just because Lila will never be able to execute it to its fullness. Her intent to metaphorically slay PP completes the analogy. The decapitation of Holofernes was done in the milieu of a just war so the crime of murder does not seem applicable. At this point, I don't think that the pro-life efforts against abortion qualify as a war except in metaphor so actual acts of violence cannot be tolerated in good conscience. If the midwest were to secede, however, it might be a different story.


As an analogy of Lila wanting to be Judith slaying Holofernes/PP, it works better, and I compliment you on thinking of it.  Stylistically, I like it as an analogy, because it's more sophisticated and much more appropriate an analogy in this case than the over-used David and Goliath analogy, not that the latter doesn't have its uses. 

Since Judith, like Lila, used deception, was female, and trying to save her people from a larger army bent on destroying them, as PP destroys the unborn, it fits well, though she won't behead PP. 

But, getting back to the moral issues, remember that Judith went to the camp of the Assyrians intent on getting the enemy general, Holofernes, drunk, allowed him to think as they drank together that he would soon be enjoying the pleasures of sex with her, a beautiful woman, who had dressed carefully for her seduction scene.  When he passed out, she cut off his head and put his head into a bag her maidservant brought into the tent, a bag brought for the purpose.  I say that is premeditated murder, even "in the milieu of a just war."  Does St. Thomas sanction the killing of Holofernes in his gloss on the story?  If so, how does he arrive at his conclusion?


(Though she is, reportedly, planning to become Catholic, I doubt that Lila Rose even knows the story of Judith and Holofernes, which is told only in a deuterocanonical book and thus unknown to most outside the Church, and to many within it.  Most non-Catholics who claim to "know the Bible" don't know what a painting of the Massacre of the Holy Innocents is about, either, haven't heard of the event, and that story is in the Gospels!)



Reply
#29
On further reflexion, it does seem like murder, but St. Thomas makes no mention of that and only censures her for her dishonesty.

Edit: I am really bad about keeping track of what is and isn't in the Protestant Bibles. It wasn't that long ago that I discovered that Protestants don't consider Maccabees inspired.
Reply
#30
(02-21-2011, 09:52 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: On further reflexion, it does seem like murder, but St. Thomas makes no mention of that and only censures her for her dishonesty.

Edit: I am really bad about keeping track of what is and isn't in the Protestant Bibles. It wasn't that long ago that I discovered that Protestants don't consider Maccabees inspired.

Strange. Perhaps the Angelic Doctor felt that it was obviously murder and not justifiable, or that it was obviously justified and he didn't need to state that, that everyone would know what he meant. 

At least he censured the dishonesty, which is what concerns me about Lila Rose's actions, not just as an exercise in moral reasoning about whether her lies are justified but more for the practical effect.  People don't like lying or entrapment so I hope she will stop these "actions" and find honest ways to help the pro-life movement.  I am writing to various pro-life organizations and urging them to distance themselves from her actions.  Accept her help gladly, but not when it involves deceit.  I hope a good priest will guide her, too, to turn away from deceit.

(Re: deuterocanonical books.  What's odd is that the Jews kicked Maccabees out of their scripture when Chanukah is based on a major event in Maccabees.)

 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)