In the midst of Lila Rose’s greatest triumph, one that has dealt a deep and potentially mortal wound to Planned Parenthood, Catholic theologians and philosophers have raised the issue of whether Lila’s techniques are moral. The question is, “Did she lie?”
The articles written have ranged from thoughtful, deliberative pieces to hatchet jobs. I’m not linking to them here, because I don’t wish to fuel the fire that threatens to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Around the web, such hypotheticals have been raised as, “If I were sheltering Jews in Nazi Germany and the SS knocked and asked if I were sheltering Jews, I would be morally obligated not to lie. I would need to tell the truth.”
Unbelievable! And from people whom I respect greatly.
I have no desire to get into debates over what constitutes a lie or not, but simply desire to go on record as saying that I would lie through my teeth in order to preserve the Jews whom I would definitely shelter.
Would the majesty of God be so offended by such a lie that I would be damned for all eternity? I think not.
Jesus came to reveal to us the intimate, loving relationship that He had with the Father, and to tell us that we are called to share in that loving relationship. So what kind of Father did Jesus reveal to us? Consider this from Matthew 7:9-12
“Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread,or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.”
Let’s play with that one for a moment.
Would I want my children raped, beaten, tortured, murdered? Of course not. And if I who am sinful desire the good for my children, how much more does God? Would the majesty of God not require that we do all in our power to prevent a far greater sin from befalling the defenseless? It is at this point that the debate about the ends justifying the means comes in. In the case of Lila, in the case of sheltering Jews, I simply refuse to get caught up in academic standards that are held up as their own internal standard, leading to the implosion of charity.
This is what happened to the Pharisees. The letter of the law became the internal standard, leading to a myopic cyclone from which they could not escape. Consider Matthew 12:1-14
” At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, ‘See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.’ He said to them,
“‘Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat? Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests serving in the temple violate the sabbath and are innocent? I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. If you knew what this meant, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned these innocent men. For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.’
“Moving on from there, he went into their synagogue. And behold, there was a man there who had a withered hand. They questioned him, ‘is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?’ so that they might accuse him. He said to them,
“‘Which one of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable a person is than a sheep. So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.’ Then he said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’
“He stretched it out, and it was restored as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him to put him to death.”
So, though the letter of the law would prohibit any work on the Sabbath, Jesus reminds us that violating the letter of the law is common sense when it means saving life, or doing good; whether that means saving a sheep, or a teenage prostitute, or a Jew cowering in my basement.
Yet, our modern-day doctors of the law have taken it upon themselves to kill Lila in the media.
Perhaps it comes from seven years of working with teen prostitutes, but I cannot fathom how Lila is being pilloried. I’ve dealt with the horrors, the children who can’t sleep at night because of the nightmares, the children who have no soul left and are the walking dead. Like Jesus, I’ve kept myself from getting sucked into the vortex of detached academia and moved among the wounded. It is the only bulwark against Phariseeism. I’ll never forget the girl who told us one night when she couldn’t sleep that she must have serviced at least two thousand men.
She was sixteen.
But to put the issue to bed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
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.
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 undercover actions of Lila’s team were designed to bring the truth to light, for the benefit of the PP staff, and for society. Her actions were not designed to lead anyone into error, but OUT of error, and so they fail to satisfy the criterion of intent in #2483, highlighted above.
It is interesting to note that the people who have taken up the position against Lila are all academics, which points to the dangers faced by scholars. We can get caught up in the world of the pure ideal, a world where fictional jews are betrayed by those who like young George Washington said,
“I cannot tell a lie”.
It’s easy to do our scholarship as we move fictional armies about the board, see fictional babies die, see theoretical children pimped.
It’s easy to stand and watch them die, because we know that they really don’t exist, except as theoretical constructs in our own minds.
Then we get to go home to our real families, whom we would watch slaughtered one-by-one by some modern-day SS troopers who come looking for them, because after all, we cannot tell a lie.
Or would we?
I have to disagree with you on this one. I haven’t read the articles, haven’t even seen the video, and I’m not an academic, just a mom. I don’t think the point should be to bludgeon Lila Rose or anyone else, but to be very forthright and willing to be careful about permissible tactics. Sometimes this might have to involve discussions which seem very academic–but sometimes that is necessary even though it seems a little absurd given the emotional impact of these matters.
St. Thomas held, and I think the Church holds and teaches in the Catechism, that lying is always wrong (regardless of the ends) because you are using language precisely directly against its purpose (a little like ABC). Deception is not always wrong; it can sometimes be permissible to withhold the truth or to allow someone to take ambiguous words in a sense in which you don’t mean them.
Again I have not read the articles, but anyone who is actually holding that you would have the right to “tell the truth” to the Gestapo, doesn’t know Catholic teaching. The Gestapo has no licit “right” to the truth; far from it, hence you would be *obligated* to withhold the truth from them. One would hope that there would be a way to do this without directly lying (hence the classic “we have no Jewish dogs here”), and I’m sure that being confronted with a situation, many of us might just fall into the direct lie–however, that would be different than the deliberate, planned out lie. But we’re not talking about the gestapo situation–we’re talking about planned tactics of pro-life Catholics, not people whose houses are being stormed by armed military. I think it is a good and honest discussion to have, whether you take the view that there is such a thing as a “white lie” which sometimes ought to be used, or whether you think that any deception should be carried out by other means which do not involve direct lying.
I don’t think the lying was a mortal sin or anything, since I think in the PP situation it definitely was morally licit in that situation to deceive–because of the good reasons you mention. However, I do think it would be better, in future planning of such things, to attempt to deceive in ways which do not involve direct statements of untruth. For example, you could ask the PP worker in a sort of hypothetical way which would easily be misunderstood as a statement of fact: “What could you do for me if I were in this situation…etc”.
Rebecca,
I quoted the CCC. The Church defines the criteria for whether a action is a lie as follows:
“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” The key here is intent: “…in order to lead someone into error”
Where that is concerned, Lila’s intent was the opposit. It was to lead PP OUT of error by revealing the truth. Thus, according to the CCC, her actions do not satisfy the intent necessary to describe her behavior as a lie.
Gerard,
But the CCC is clearly referring to proximate, not ultimate ends. The direct, proximate intent was to lead them into error about who they were/why they were there.
Again, I think you *could*, licitly, intend to deceive someone in that situation, but *not* by using words directly against their purpose.
Again I’m reminded of the distinction between ABC and NFP…although obviously with ABC the sin is mortal, as opposed to this kind of lie. Anyhow, the likeness I’m seeing is this–often you could have someone using ABC with a really good end. For example, they want to have ten kids, but the mother has miscarriages if she gets pregnant too soon. You could come up with all sorts of very innocent even proactively good ultimate ends for using ABC. But finally, you are obliged to look at the proximate end, and to see the disorder *there*, in order to recognize that no, this kind of thing is simply out of bounds.
Rebecca, I see what you are saying, but the Church is talking about “moral error” or “error in faith” when it uses the word error.
Gerard, then most of what we all think of as lies would not, under your understanding, qualify as lies. Most lies are not told in order to lead people into moral error; everyone thinks that a lie is just when you deliberately say what you know is not true.
I should say: everyone thinks that a lie is when you deliberately say what you know is not true, with intent to deceive.
Thank you very much for your post. I wish more Catholic thinkers and theologians would weigh in on this as well! I think something that you pointed out helped me a lot. It’s the simple definition in the Catechism of a “lie”. What is a lie defined as according to Catholic teaching and do the actions of Lila Rose and the Live Action team satisfy that description. I am beginning to think even more that it does not.
Another argument I’ve heard is one that you didn’t touch on here. What would you say about the “Just War” angle of the argument? I’ve read one or two places where some are invoking the Just War principle in this case stating that even if Lila’s crew were truly lying, that it is justified here because we are at “war” with the culture of death. Others say that actors simple “playing a role” are not really lying. I would love to know your thoughts.
Great article, Dr. Nadal!
I wholeheartedly agree. We have done everything according to the law of the land to defeat abortion (which was implemented ILLEGALLY). Unfortunately, we have no choice but to defend the defenseless in these sort of ways.
We could just videotape minors going in for abortions, but that would violate our conscience. We could go into their records of abortions to find these young, tricked mothers, but the records do not exist (or are falsified).
Unfortunately, there is NO other way. And, if you are one to ever meet Lila or follow her work, it is very apparent that God is working through her and called her from the young age of 8 to fight abortion in America.
Things which would not qualify as lies, under your interpretation of the CCC, would be:
Telling the government you made much less than you actually did
A kid telling his parents he did his homework, when he didn’t
Me telling people I levitate and heal people, in order to convert them to the Faith
Dr. Nadal,
Thanks again for a clear-headed post. I agree. I’d take it one step farther, actually, and say that even if they were lying, well, it’s a lie in defense of lives! I’d want someone to lie for my child if it were her life at risk. I’d want someone to lie for me if it were my life at risk! The overscrupulosity is astounding here.
I’m not in favor of “the ends justify the means,” although that is in fact what I’m saying here. I don’t think there’s a principle that can be applied everywhere, across the board, which is why I think everyone is having such kittens over this. No analogy quite fits this situation. So why don’t we just judge it individually and see what we come up with?
Ask those who quibble with Lila this: would you lie to save a teenage girl from being drugged up and forced to pleasure men for the rest of her life? Would you lie to save the life of an unborn child? If the answers are no, well, then there’s something seriously wrong with those people.
In fact, they are choosing to keep their own souls scrupulously clean at the expense of someone else’s life, and in this situation, possibly even someone else’s soul. Jesus took on all our sins to save our souls. Oughtn’t we be willing to take on one small sin to save someone else?
Lila, to my mind, is somewhat like a modern-day Schindler. He lied within his own organization to save Jews. Would the Jews rise up in indignation against him because he lied? I think not.
Neither should we. Lila is a hero.
Thanks Calah, I agree.
People need to read those passages from the CCC at least four times to really absorb them.
Personally, I think this outburst is nothing short of insane in both content and timing. Scrupulosity is a mental illness, and I’ve seen quite a bit of it bandied about the net this week.
The feelings on this run pretty deep; and they should, since what Planned Parenthood is doing is deplorable.
Still, I don’t think what’s going on in the authentically scholarly debates (i.e., not the hatchet jobs but the insightful commentary by guys like Tollefsen, Kaczor, and Bradley) is something to scoff at. The issue might seem black and white to some — e.g., deceiving PP to save lives is just fine — but the very character of lying, and of its moral weight in sketchy circumstances, is something even the greatest Christian thinkers, like Augustine and Aquinas, have wrestled with quite uncomfortably.
Most importantly, denying the importance of reasoned debate on timely topics — provided it’s done charitably and not with the intention to detract or point fingers at as-yet-questionable actions (as Tollefsen, et al. are careful to ensure) — is a dangerous game. When taken too far, it leads to pious obscurantism. And this is really something we shouldn’t endorse.
I don’t know who you have in mind when you complain about “killing Lila in the media”? But if it’s me, I hope you have paid enough attention to the fact that I have repeatedly said I hope we get a million like her.
I merely also hope that she and they will pursue their noble cause without lying. It is already bearing pernicious fruit in the many prolifers who are embracing the notion that you can blow off the Catechism when it says “CCC 1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.” The spectacle of prolifers saying “What *else* can we do if we aren’t even allowed to lie?” is depressing. What about all the other prolife initiatives that don’t involve us lying? And, let’s be clear: we’re not talking about *deceiving* (which the Church says is legit sometimes). We aren’t talking about depriving somebody of information to which they have no right. We are talking about actively going out and seeking out somebody to lie to–for the greater good. It’s consequentialism and its the philosophical foundation of the pro-aborts. It’s extremely dangerous for Catholics to embrace the One Ring in order to destroy Sauron. That’s my great fear.
I am far from being a theologan but don’t we use this sort of undercover work to capture drug dealers, arms dealers, criminals and other sorts of malcontents to reveal their illegal activities? If it is wrong then the jails and prisons may have to be opened up all across the nation and over seas.
They were not lying. They were only acting.
And yes with regard to scrupulosity. America should spent the money on treating neurotics instead of PP and wars (and am dead sure it will produce awesome results).
Dear Dr. Nadal,
I heard a talk by Dr. Ravi Zacharias, about a Vietnamese POW Christian who was released from prison and attempting to illegally flee the country with about 50 others in a boat. When accosted by police and questioned he lied and was released. He felt the sinfulness of the lie (not just made to protect himself) and repented. He promised God he would trust Him. He was accosted again and told the truth. He was a fool. But…it turned out the 3 policemen pleaded to go along. They were the only healthy men on the boat and were needed to pilot it through the stormy seas. When we lie, we say that we do not trust so much in God. Many martyrs lives would be saved if they had trusted a little less in God and denied Him. The father of all lies will gladly help us if it will inspire more Christians to lie for good ends.
We have to remember if lying is a sin, we should want to avoid it even to save the entire world. Offending God, not dirtying our souls is the worst outcome from sin.
However, I’ve probably committed worse sins than many of you. So I don’t write this note from having achieved great personal holiness. I just appreciate it.
Thank you for bringing this up for discussion.
Sincerely,
Bob
[…] Nadal attempts to widen the narrow way created by the Catechism. Although he assures us that “I have no desire to get into debates over what constitutes a lie or […]
With Rebecca’s logic then DUI stops are “lying”. (even though they may save lives).
I’m with Lila and I pray that what she did, to expose the LIES of PP, but an end to tax payer money going towards murder.
Someone had an excellent point. Let us not forget that Abortion was made legal on the basis of lies told by Abortionist! We need to overturn Roe v Wade for the sake of Innocent lives.
I’ve been following this too and have been saddened at the things said about Lila. It seems people are changing around the definition of to “lie” to mean whatever suits their argument when we all know that God’s Truth is not something our words can fully express.
God knows what is in our hearts and it seems that rather than trying to figure out the answer to this question it’s time to pray about the path forward. These are important times!
If God the Father doesn’t want Live Action to do this any more than I have faith He will show them another way.
Dr. Nadal, your “take” is completely anti-Catholic and rejects the Church’s clear teaching on this matter. You are promoting the heresy of consequentialism and being extremely disrespectful to the Church’s authority (especially by saying “I… would lie through my teeth…”. Also, you imply that only sins that (you think will) send you to hell need be avoided if you are working for a greater good with this statement: “Would the majesty of God be s…o offended by such a lie that I would be damned for all eternity?” In fact, ALL sins offend God, and we should avoid sin primarily out of love for Him.See More
I have to say (at least) a few more things about your article, Dr. Gerard, because the more I read it, the more difficult it becomes to read.
I’m going to put things in your article in quotes:
“I have no desire to get into debates over what constitutes a lie or not, but simply desire to go on record as saying that I would lie through my teeth in order to preserve the Jews whom I would definitely shelter.”
Well right off the bat you are saying you do not want to debate what constitutes a lie, but then further in the article you discuss what does and doesn’t constitute a lie, therefore inviting, and for any good Catholic, DEMANDING correction on this matter. But you already know that lies are condemned in the Ten Commandments AND by the Church Herself, and strictly and unequivocally at that! So then you say you would lie through your teeth for a greater good such as hiding Jews! To say such a thing is scandalous and, as a respected doctor who has many people reading your blog, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying such a thing!
“Would the majesty of God be so offended by such a lie that I would be damned for all eternity? I think not.”
God is offended by ALL lies because God is pure Truth! And whether a sin will “damn you for all eternity” should not be the primary determining factor in your actions, but instead a complete love for God and for truth. God can work His perfect will for those Jews without our having to lie about anything!
““Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread,or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.”
Let’s play with that one for a moment.
Would I want my children raped, beaten, tortured, murdered? Of course not. And if I who am sinful desire the good for my children, how much more does God? Would the majesty of God not require that we do all in our power to prevent a far greater sin from befalling the defenseless? It is at this point that the debate about the ends justifying the means comes in. In the case of Lila, in the case of sheltering Jews, I simply refuse to get caught up in academic standards that are held up as their own internal standard, leading to the implosion of charity.”
Here you are simply promoting consequentialism, which is heresy. You are also implying that charity is sometimes not in harmony with Truth, which is also heresy. There is never a time when lying is the MORE charitable thing to do! To say that being deceiptful can cause charity to “implode” is the exact same thing as saying that Truth can take away from love, which is also heresy.
“This is what happened to the Pharisees. The letter of the law became the internal standard, leading to a myopic cyclone from which they could not escape. Consider Matthew 12:1-14…….
So, though the letter of the law would prohibit any work on the Sabbath, Jesus reminds us that violating the letter of the law is common sense when it means saving life, or doing good; whether that means saving a sheep, or a teenage prostitute, or a Jew cowering in my basement.”
Here you are comparing apples and oranges. Jesus condemned Pharisees for holding to the letter of the law even when it, in your words, caused charity to implode, or caused others harm, etc. But the difference is that the Pharisees were more concerned with the letter of the *Jewish Law*. The laws He was referring to were NOT the same as things like “Thall shalt not lie”. Lying is intrinsically immoral. The prohibition on lying is one of the Ten Commandments, which all relate to things that are sinful in and of themselves. Adultery, lying, dishonoring your parents, etc. etc. are all intrinsically immoral and therefore NEVER permitted.
”But to put the issue to bed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
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.
The undercover actions of Lila’s team were designed to bring the truth to light, for the benefit of the PP staff, and for society. Her actions were not designed to lead anyone into error, but OUT of error, and so they fail to satisfy the criterion of intent in #2483, highlighted above.”
Another poster on your blog already corrected you on this. The CCC passage is talking about proximate ends, not ultimate ends. And by your argumentation, you justify many, many lies, again as a poster on your blog pointed out. Here are your poster’s (Rebecca) words just as a reminder:
“But the CCC is clearly referring to proximate, not ultimate ends. The direct, proximate intent was to lead them into error about who they were/why they were there.
Gerard, then most of what we all think of as lies would not, under your understanding, qualify as lies. Most lies are not told in order to lead people into moral error; everyone thinks that a lie is just when you deliberately say what you know is not true.
Things which would not qualify as lies, under your interpretation of the CCC, would be:
Telling the government you made much less than you actually did
A kid telling his parents he did his homework, when he didn’t
Me telling people I levitate and heal people, in order to convert them to the Faith”
Please acknowledge this grave error of yours, Dr. Nadal.
“The undercover actions of Lila’s team were designed to bring the truth to light, for the benefit of the PP staff, and for society. Her actions were not designed to lead anyone into error, but OUT of error, and so they fail to satisfy the criterion of intent in #2483, highlighted above.”
Again, the CCC is referring to the proximate ends, not the ultimate ends. And again, if it’s OK to deceive when it is all for ULTIMATE ends, then I can tell lie after lie after lie if it gets me my job promotion or helps my life in some other way.
“It is interesting to note that the people who have taken up the position against Lila are all academics”
This is not really pertinent to the actual topic, but I have to say that this is a completely unsubstantiated, and frankly absurd, thing to say. I have seen countless people taking a position against Lila’s methods, and many of them are not by any means scholarly or even part of academia. I am one example. I could give you 100 more if you like.
“It’s easy to do our scholarship as we move fictional armies about the board, see fictional babies die, see theoretical children pimped.
It’s easy to stand and watch them die, because we know that they really don’t exist, except as theoretical constructs in our own minds.
Then we get to go home to our real families, whom we would watch slaughtered one-by-one by some modern-day SS troopers who come looking for them, because after all, we cannot tell a lie.”
Ahhh yes the old “You would do the same thing if you were in that situation” argument. Come on, my friend, think! While it’s likely true that most people who are completely against lying (as God is) would likely struggle to tell the truth when they feel that lying would bring a greater good, that does not therefore make lying acceptable! And you sound like an atheist when you say such things. That’s the argument many abortionists use to argue for abortion in the case of rape or incest. And it is flat-out wrong-headed thinking, I’m afraid. What *you* or *I* might or might not do in a given situation does not determine the moral nature of the action we choose to take, even under the greatest pressure.
I could go on and on about this. It’s very sad that you are arguing against the commandment not to lie.
I should note that you highlighted various parts of the CCC passages that implicitly refer to mental reservation. You should read up on that. I hope and pray to God that you have realized the error of your ways shortly and post a new article. This is unacceptable. You are leading many astray.
Dr. Nadal, please read the following:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2547
CCC 2485 “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”
Elizabeth (and Dr. Nadal),
On the “just war”, Mark Shea had this to say:
“Fourth, comparisons of Lila Rose’s sting to war or police work break down because, well, this is not war or police work. It’s not war because you are not authorized to spray your local Planned Parenthood center with machine gun fire, shoot bazookas into the offices of their national headquarters, or bomb the government institutions that fund them. You are a citizen. So are they. Your government has not declared war on them. No troops have been drafted to fight them. If you do take it upon yourself to shoot one of them, you will rightly and properly be arrested, charged with murder in the first degree, and jailed. Do not mistake metaphor for reality. For the same reason, comparisons with the cops don’t fly. The state had a right to arrest, detain, try and even execute Lee Harvey Oswald. That doesn’t mean that Jack Ruby does.”
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/last-comments-on-lying-for-jesus
I don’t want to get too involved in this, but I think it is important to note that the phrase “in order to lead someone into error” from paragraph 2483 was removed from the Catechism many years ago. It was found in earlier editions, but it is not in any current editions. Interestingly, the Vatican website links to BOTH versions
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8K.HTM
There are many other websites that show the Catechism but do not include that phrase. On the other hand, there are many websites that contain the catechism that DO contain that phrase. But I am quite sure the phrase has been removed, not added. I think it had something to do with a French edition, and then a Latin edition or something…
Alas, my version of the Catechism was printed in 1995 and it does not contain that phrase. Now this doesn’t mean that therefore lying to Nazis in order to protect Jews is evil, but it is important to note that those who wrote the Catechism realized they may have made an error and wanted to guard against that. God love you.
What a way for pro baby killers to change the subject. Did they mention how the Planned Parenthood worker told Live Action worker to lie about the age of child, the legal guardianship of the underage child and the age of the father of the child?
Which lie is the one that will save a life? Where is the outrage of the condoning sex traficing?
Mark,
I wasn’t discussing your thoughtful work in discussing killing Lila in the media. I had Dawn Eden’s hatchet job in mind, where she put Fr. Euteneuer’s sin in the same picture in order to make invidious distinction. I actually regard you and Chris Tollefsen in the same manner of highest regard and apologize if my commentary led you to believe that I was implicating you.
James,
I read all of your strident denunciations on Mark’s FB thread. Thank You.
James,
Some further thoughts. I take my work very seriously, and a reading of this blog will tell even the most casual observer that I am as loyal to the Magisterium as any. What is at issue here is whether according to the CCC Lila lied, and even if she did, is there a duty in charity to prevent grave evil from befalling children by using imperfect means. Regulars here know I rarely go after commenters, but in your case, I’m making a big exception.
I worked for seven years with children who were chewed up and spit out by the sex industry and the abortion industry. I didn’t just sit in my room with my Bible and my CCC. I’ve looked Satan straight in the eye, and my life was forever altered by the experience. I’m with Lila, and the truth be told, I think Jesus is much more with her than with your strident, super-scrupulous denunciations which border on mental illness. You are not a great thinker like Chris Tollesen or Mark Shea, nor have you much charity in your heart. Children are dying out there.
250,000 children are sex-trafficked in the U.S. annually. ANNUALLY!!! Do you have daughters, sir? I do. And a son. And I know damned well the evil that swirls about them, ready to consume them, and it’s getting worse, not better. Getting tied up in fits over Lila Rose and her methodology in the face of what is befalling our children seems to me the wrong focus. But I can have that conversation with Mark and Chris because we’re adults and know how to have adult debate. I’d suggest that you put out into the deep and get your hands dirty with an honest day’s work with children who have been pimped. Then come back and see if you have the stomach to hurl the sort of invective at me that you have over at Mark’s. Denunciation is not argumentation.
Grow up little boy, if not for your sake, then perhaps for the sake of a child whose life you might save.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let’s look at this situation again. First of all, Lila Rose did not lead anyone into an untruth. The two actors posed as a pimp and prostitute and were never asked if in fact this is what they were. They simply acted out a hypothetical situation in order to elicit a response to such a given situation. The response, of course, was shocking not the play acting. Would you call the show, “Candid Camera” sinful and denounce the actors who elicit the humorous responses as liars? Ridiculous!
James,
Shame on you for falsely accusing Dr. Nadal of “promoting the heresy of consequentialism and being extremely disrespectful to the Church’s authority.” Everything in this post is 100% faithful to Catholic teaching — as is everything Dr. Nadal writes. Please revisit the Eighth Commandment.
[The Church does not consider it wrong for persons to assume a “false” identity. For example, a Jew in Nazi Germany could attempt to escape the country by assuming the identity of a Gentile. The Jew could even change his physical appearance, forge false documents, use a false name and so on. When it comes time to get past the Nazi check point he may indeed “pass himself off” as someone else. And even should the Nazi guard ask him point blank: “Are you Mr. Schultz?” when in “fact” he is Mr. Rueben, the Jew may answer: “Yes, I am Schultz.” What the victim of injustice is really communicating, according to broad mental reservation is “I am Schultz insofar as this is my way of protecting myself against your unjust intention of killing me.” The Nazi guard indeed has no right to know the Jewish identity of the man trying to escape.
Please also consider that the Church certainly permits Catholic police officers and spies to assume false identities all the time. A female police officer may take the role of a prostitute, dress like one, speak like one, stand on a street corner and solicit a proposition etc. She may even have a fake name, get into the car with the person who propositioned her and continue the ruse. The point is that persons may take on another role or identity and allow those who “have no right to the truth” to believe that you are someone else. In your own mind you are saying: “I take on this role. Others, who have no right to the truth need not be let in on the role that I am playing.” The Catholic Church does not prohibit undercover police work and espionage, even though such professions often require the taking on of “false” identities.] # 1
# 1
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14015
[I am flabbergasted that anyone could accuse Lila Rose of “lying” because members of her organization pretend to be pimps and prostitutes in order to entrap Planned Parenthood workers who are aiding those involved in child exploitation. By such rationale, it would be a mortal sin for undercover policemen to pretend to be drug dealers or teenagers on the internet or all the other things they have to pretend to be in order to catch criminals.
And what about spies? Even the Vatican has employed a number of spies over the years, some of the better spies, I might add. And what about all the Jesuits who went to England in disguise in order to minister to the English Catholics? Was St. Edmund Campion supposed to walk up to the local magistrate and say: “I am a Jesuit priest and I am here to convert you.” NO. He pretended to be a jewel merchant. Why? Because St. Edmund, like Lila Rose, was dealing with unjust laws and criminal behavior, albeit the criminals had (and have) government approval. In a Catholic Church in southern Maryland there are several priests buried under the sacristy floor. They had come in disguise in the 16 and 1700’s to help the Maryland Catholics who under British law were not allowed to practice their faith. Some of the priests are buried under their aliases because no one knew their real names. They had come pretending to be merchants and traders.
What about the brave souls who work in the underground in Communist countries? You can be sure a lot of role-playing and mental reservation goes on there. What the Live Action people do in order to entrap murderers and child abusers is brave and should be commended. I do not see how any pro-life Catholic person could think otherwise. I think there might be is a bit too much hair-splitting going on in some quarters. Scrupulosity is not a virtue. It never ceases to amaze me what Catholics will find to pick on each other about….] # 2
# 2
http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2011/02/lila-rose-is-she-lying.html?spref=fb
James, Dr. Nadal is a courageous, faithful, pro-life warrior using his time and talents for the greater glory of God. Instead of shamefully wasting your time falsely accusing him, why not get yourself over to the nearest Planned Parenthood killing center, get on your knees and start witnessing for the innocent unborn.
When Jesus appears as the homeless man in the streets of NY City, are we bound to offer him help, or could we say to him, “you posed as someone else! If we knew it was you we would have helped you.” Somehow I feel Lila did not lie. She wanted to elicit a response from the Planned Parenthood workers in a particular situation.
Concerning lying to Hitler’s SS men, it is not a lie to tell them you a not hiding any jew, because Hitler’s law was an unjust law of seeking out the Jews for the purpose of extingusihing them. You do not have to obey an unjust law. One does not have the resposiblitity to “feed” into evil, but to “feed” into good, we have an obligation. Here is another thought to ponder, did Jesus lie when he remained silent to Herod’s questioning? Did Jesus withhold the truth when the Pharisees were telling lies against him? If Jesus withheld the truth , why did He do so?
From the writings of St Augustine, On Free Choice Of The Will, book 1, section 5, he states that an unjust law is not a law. A just law is a law in accordance with the laws of God.
Yesterday I read two online pieces with many comments about this. After a while, I thought my head was going to explode with all the pharisaic analysis. These people think too much, I concluded. Such men are dangerous.
Am I wrong that this would have been a five minute lesson 40 years ago in catechism class. And no one would have been unclear about the moral conclusions.
Worse still, is that this lowers a grace-filled activism (my opinion) into a newfound divisive theological confusion — such as war and just war and torture and the right to health care, and, even abortion have become.
So I thank you. You wrote exactly what I was thinking and more — you wrote just what I would have written if I had your skill and clarity. Beautifuly written. A great gift to those of us who were terribly disturbed by this very clever attack on Live Action’s work.
Doc u rock!!!!!!
Dawn..Excellent points!!!!
James,
A final admonition. I’m not leading anyone into error here. The readers of Coming Home are not mindless robots or undiscerning disciples.
I have no disciples here, no robots.
Here at Coming Home we have a family of discerning readers. Please don’t ever insult these great thinkers here by suggesting that they are somehow less discerning than yourself. If you hang out here long enough, you’ll be as humbled by them as I am. Further, just because I, or others here discern differently than you does not mean that we are guilty of heresy. Since you’re new here, I’ll clue you in to the rules of commenting.
This blog is an extension of my dining room table, and readers are expected to comport themselves accordingly.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Elena Maria Vidal, Gerard M. Nadal. Gerard M. Nadal said: Lila: Is it moral to lie? http://wp.me/pJSAY-1eP […]
From the notion that lying is magically transformed into “acting” when you are lying to the right people to the suddenly popular charge that criticism of lying and consequentialism is “pharisaical”, I deal with these and a huge number of other bad arguments in favor of Lying for Jesus here:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/last-comments-on-lying-for-jesus/
Oh, and I also deal with the bad argument that lying isn’t lying when you lie for Jesus.
Thanks for your civility, Dr. Nadal. You’re a mensch.
James:
If you are writing on my behalf, please chill. Dr. Nadal is a fine fellow and these are thorny issues.
Don’t forget, Lila is going to be on Glen Beck’s Fox channel in about 20 mins! Way to go Lila!!! 🙂
There’s nothin ‘thorny’ about this issue, it’s clear cut. …Shouldn’t you be smearing Sarah Palin about how dumb she is? [Edited. No name-calling please. GN]
If Nazis come for me, I’m shacking at Dr. Nadal’s house, ironically making his dining room table an extension of his blog.
[…] Comments « Lila: Is it moral to lie? […]
I just want to point out that lying, whether for Jesus or not, is wrong. Lying is wrong period, but what constitutes a lie is the question.
When Hitler’s SS men came to doors seeking out Jews, let us look at how jews were defined.( I use Hitler vs Jew for clarity)
“Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to Jews as parasites, liars, dirty, crafty, sly, wily, clever, without any true culture, a sponger, a middleman, a maggot, eternal blood suckers, repulsive, unscrupulous, monsters, foreign, menace, bloodthirsty, avaricious, the destroyer of Aryan humanity, and the mortal enemy of Aryan humanity… ”
Now if we view the knock on the door and the question being asked as ” Are you hiding any parasites or maggots in your house?” a person who lives in Christ, or the Truth, could not anser, “yes” because that is not the Truth. In Truth a Jew is a human and a child of God. So telling the Nazi, No, would not constitute a lie. It is actually speaking the Truth that Jews are human. Those who hid the Jews, if caught, were killed. I believe they are martrys because they defended the Truth of the human dignity of the jewish person. the Nazi’s believed the lie that the Jew was less than human. Now in that light, does one who is a Christian have a moral responsiblity to defend the Jew?
Since the Catholic Catechism has been mentioned, I’ll post thies one:
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.283
Did the Nazi’s have the right to know ?
Many comparisons have been made between the Lila Rose situation and the situation of Jews and protectors of Jews in Nazi Germany. Almost all of those comparisons have involved individuals who were already within the borders of the Third Reich’s authority through no fault of their own.
It is one thing to say that those trapped behind enemy lines had an obligation to hide the truth from the Nazi authorities who had no right to that truth (not only Jews, but also Catholic seminarians studying for the priesthood, among them a young Karol Wojtyla is memory serves), especially when lives were at stake. I believe that is a truthful statement, and will happily debate it with anyone who wishes to argue the point.
But let me posit a slightly different scenario, and one which I believe is much closer to Lila’s situation. What would the Church have to say about individuals living outside the borders of the Third Reich who, compelled to do something to help those who were being slaughtered due to the accident of their birth or the profession of their faith, entered into the borders of Nazi-occupied lands under false pretenses for the purposes of exposing the atrocities being committed and helping the victims of those atrocities get to safety? Certainly it can be argued that people acted justly, even heroically, in putting their own lives on the line when the danger had not come looking for them in the first place. It can also be definitely argued that walking up to a Nazi checkpoint and saying, “Hello, in all honesty I am here to help lead the victims of your oppression to a place where you can no longer hurt them” would have been a foolish way to go about it because there was minimal chance of success using such a tactic.
By the same token, Planned Parenthood would never have voluntarily revealed their true intentions, or the means they were willing to employ to accomplish those objectives, to anyone identifying themselves as a pro-life activist. Neither would going in and casually asking how they would behave in hypothetical situations have accomplished much, because they would have immediately become suspicious of the motives of the person asking such questions, and justifiably so.
What it boils down to here, in my mind, is whether or not Lila was acting to expose the atrocities being committed by those who exploit the innocent (and kill those innocents who have the poor fortune of not having yet been born) in order to bring those atrocities to the light of day? Does anyone honestly believe that Planned Parenthood employees would have risked tipping their hand to anyone they were not absolutely convinced supported their actions?
What is really being argued here, IMO, is whether or not it is necessary to get Planned Parenthood to admit its agenda and, if so, whether or not it is possible to get them to do so through scrupulously honest means.
I believe that many of those who have trashed Lila with impunity while giving Planned Parenthood a pass have betrayed where their intellectual sympathies truly lay (disclaimer: I know that there are some out there who have criticized Lila’s approach who also have a long track record of criticizing Planned Parenthood. Those who fall into this category should know that that last sentence was not aimed at them. The rest of you, you know who you are).
I also believe that many who have criticized Lila’s approach have lost sight of the fact that there is such a thing as a hierarchy of moral truths, and when two such truths come into direct conflict with one another (which, though we are loath to admit it, is a phenomenon that the devil often succeeds in bringing about), we must recognize that the moral choice lies in choosing to uphold the greater truth. In this case, we have two moral truths to consider. One says that we should avoid whenever possible situations where we feel compelled to lie. The other says that we have an obligation to not only speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, but also to do everything that we can within the bounds of reason and justice to stay the hands of those who would do them harm.
It is my contention that Lila Rose believed that in her situation these two moral truths came into direct conflict with one another, and she was compelled to act according to what she believed to be the higher moral truth. She believed that she was acting within the bounds of reason and justice, as did those who snuck into Nazi lands during World War II (and did so knowing that situations might very well arise where they would be forced to lie about their reasons for being behind enemy lines) in order to help victims of Nazi persecution. And for that, I believe Lila Rose should be commended.
It seems to me that those who insist that Lila Rose should have left Planned Parenthood be just so she could avoid having to tell a lie would do well to familiarize themselves with the Catholic teaching on the principle of double effect. Knowledge of this principle is good medicine against the temptation towards scrupulosity, which the Church considers an affliction rather than a virtue.
Gerard, what excellent points! I’ve thought about this long and hard and come to much the same conclusion.
My husband likes to say that everyone is looking at this all wrong. Lila didn’t choose “the lesser of two evils”, she chose “the greater of two goods.” That sort of changes the landscape, eh?
Uh, Gerald*. Sorry about the misspell.
Calah,
😉
“I believe that many of those who have trashed Lila with impunity while giving Planned Parenthood a pass have betrayed where their intellectual sympathies truly lay.”
Gerald, as morally scrupulous as you may be, at least in this one sentence I think you should indeed resort to the “lie.”
Lol @ pt, and thank you Calah 🙂
[…] In an earlier piece, Nadal says he doesn’t want to “fan the flames,” yet he excoriates the heroic virtue of approach of “I’d never lie” and he uses all the rhetoric of “the horrors Lila Rose is exposing are so evil that it’s stupid to question what she’s doing.” […]
The great lie is that the Church hired mercenaries to do what Christ Commissioned the Church to do. Jesus said the gates of the netherworld would prevail against it. Yet we hire either Republicans or Democrats to do what they say they will do for votes. It has been 38 years and 60,000,000 abortions later as we still pray for the right candidate, the right Supreme Court Justice, someone to come in and change things for us. Anytime you do a sting operation, your going to deceive the drug pusher, the pimps, the criminal element if your going to catch them. Does it bother you that Planned Parenthood has been caught doing a great evil? If you were to walk in and tell them you are from a prominent Catholic news source, do you think you would get very far? Not at all. If you want to say this undercover work was wrong, then you probably would not like Tobit very much either?
Oops, the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against the Church!!!
It seems to me that those who insist that Lila Rose should have left Planned Parenthood be just so she could avoid having to tell a lie would do well to familiarize themselves with the Catholic teaching on the principle of double effect.
The principle of double-effect only applies when the chosen act is morally acceptable. Since lying is intrinsicly wrong, double-effect cannot be appealed to.
I only just read your blog post today since I”ve been dealing with a family health crisis. Thank you for an interesting commentary.
I’m going to add a few of my own thoughts here.
First off, if I were in the PP management I would simply sit back and let prolifers hang themselves with this. Again. 😦
When this first broke, and I’m not sure who was the first to write about the morality of Live Action’s methodology, my first reaction was, why now? ( found out via fb)
This is certainly not the first sting Live Action undertook and yet it took this long for people with reservations to come forward?
At the same time I feel that activities such as Live Action’s methods will ultimately not be successful. They may win us a few battles but in the long run they won’t win us the war. I think we are too far gone down the slippery slope of abortion and contraception to win with ordinary “tactics”.
If we look back on the history of the prolife movement, Operation Rescue for example used the tactic of peaceful takeovers of abortion clinics. In the end this did not succeed.
I believe what God wants is a complete change of heart and lifestyle from a vast majority of people – living a life open to God and life. That means first, no contraception and no abortion.
I would also like to say that calling this blog author names because of his views is unproductive and sinful. He is entitled to put forth his view on this issue on his own blog! If you disagree fine but don’t say he’s a heretic or leading people into sin. We are adults (hoping so, anyway!) and ultimately responsible to make our own choices and discernment.
Now to catch up on the other posts!
Scott,
In this case the intended act was the exposure of criminal activity, not the lie itself. If you blow up a car carrying a suicide bomber and an innocent passenger in order to prevent that car from plowing into a building with 3000 people, the killing of the 2 occupants in the car, while the direct act, is not itself the intended act, but rather the unintended evil that comes about from the intended act of saving the lives of the 3000 people in the building.
Now, you can argue that the example of stopping the suicide bomber carries with it a greater sense of urgency than stopping what goes on on a daily basis in a Planned Parenthood clinic. To that I can only ask: is stopping Planned Parenthood’s day to day actions any less a matter of urgency to the babies that are going to be aborted there on any given day, or to the minors who are obviously being sexually exploited there on a regular basis?
I’d like to hear your thoughts, Scott, on the example I cited of the individuals who infiltrated Nazi Germany in order to help those who were being persecuted within the Third Reich’s borders, and had to lie about their identities and intentions in order to get around behind enemy lines. Were they acting immorally? Did the need to be scrupulously honest in all matters absolve them of the moral obligation to give help to those who needed it, especially the kind of proximate help that prevented an innocent Jew from being arrested and sent to Auschwitz, help which could be provided only by those working on the inside, and oftentimes in plain sight of the enemy?
Look, I am a firm believer in the fact that the reality of abortion is itself the most powerful argument in the battle to change hearts and minds. But the fact is that a large number of people worldwide are being deliberately blinded to the reality of abortion by those who would see abortion on demand as the law of the land worldwide. They are also being blinded to the reality that support for abortion leads to moral corruption of other kinds. When people see that organizations like Planned Parenthood engage in the systemic sexual exploitation of minors in order to ensure present and future business, it opens eyes about the corrupt nature of the abortion rights movements, which in turn open eyes about the intrinsic evil of abortion itself. And all human beings have a right to that truth (which is more than could be said for the right of Nazis to know the truth of the whereabouts of their intended victims…or of the right of Planned Parenthood to know the truth of every approach that will be taken to attempt to expose its jealously-guarded secrets of systemic moral corruption). This hampers the efforts of the enemy, which prefers to operate out of the way of prying eyes while presenting a facade of humanitarian concern for their fellow man. Armchair philosophers and theologians aren’t going to succeed in conveying this truth on their own. Neither will sidewalk counselors and those who pray in front of or picket abortion clinics. This battle is being waged on many, many fronts.
Therefore, we need to stop talking about this as only a crusade to change hearts and minds. This is no mere battle for hearts and minds. It is a battle for lives, and a daily battle at that. How quickly we lose sight of this fact as we debate the theoretical. While we all recognize the evil of abortion in this debate, have we become so desensitized to the sheer scope of the slaughter that we take it for granted that we should tolerate more than 4000 murders a day while working to change hearts and the letter of the law, a process that is at best only half-finished after 38 years of legalized infanticide? Even as we work to end this evil once and for all – and with it strike a serious blow against the enemy in the ever-present culture war – we simply CANNOT ignore the day to day battles being waged for the lives of individual children. And anyone who truly believes we are not engaged in a war against a well-armed and determined enemy needs to wake up. The weapons being used may be different, but we are not negotiating for peace here, at least not the kind of peace that leaves the work of evil unchecked.
As an aside, for anyone to call what Lila Rose did to the Planned Parenthood counselor entrapment is to concede the argument that the counselor was forced into a situation where she could only give one answer. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was no coercion whatsoever on Rose’s part. The counselor could have – and should have – taken the names of the people involved and then promptly reported the situation to the police (unless you think the risk of lying should have prevented the counselor from attempting such a thing, lol). Instead, the counselor offered not only to keep the (as far as she knew) very real case of sexual exploitation of minors confidential, she even offered to help aid and abet the continued cover up of that exploitation. In no way, shape, or form, did Lila Rose force that action upon the counselor. That’s not a case of entrapment. That’s a case of willfully loose lips sinking a ship…
James,
If God is so COMPLETELY against lying, as you state, then why did God reward Rahab for lying about the two spies to protect their lives, and the Jewish midwives for lying and refusing to kill the Hebrew boy babies? It is clear from reading the Bible that lying in defense of the innocent (regardless of whether the consequences are immediate or not) has God’s approval. The commandment says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST thy neighbor.” When you lie to protect the innocent, you are doing the opposite. I think it is YOU who is misinterpreting the “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.” statement, because clearly Lila Rose isn’t lying to lead someone into error, but OUT of it, as Dr. Nadal has stated. And by the way, what Planned Parenthood is doing IS a war, against women and children, and nearly all the casualties are on one side: the innocent. When will this stop? It will stop when we shine the light on the roaches who prefer darkness. So our government has not declared war on Planned Parenthood. It SHOULD HAVE, back in 1973. Just because our government no longer obeys God’s mandates for government does NOT mean we are required to sit idle and let everyone get away with it.
Gerald,
I have read accounts of people who smuggled entire suitcases of Bibles into communist countries. The suitcases were actually opened by border guards, and the Bibles were plainly visible. But God hid them by clouding their vision (presumably with false images). Was He lying? That’s a rhetorical question.
I agree that the outrage (and it really is rage) is absolutely selective and disproportionate, which I find to be most disturbing in all of this. Certainly, Live Action’s tactics are not a matter of Machiavellian ends and means, or even an example of consequentialist philosophy, no more than a defensive war against an unjust aggressor is unjust. I simply do not understand the rationale of those who vigorously maintain their support for just wars, but utterly condemn charitable deception, which is so often a moral duty in itself. It is likely they are just trying to remain consistent with their own previous blog posts in support of the Crusades, for example, though I honestly wonder if they are more servants of Aristotle than God, if you know what I mean. Some people are so impressed by the consistency of sophistical systems they forget that the truth is bigger than a tight circle of consistent reasoning.
The ultimate implications are, of course, monstrous. There is an inner inconsistency of thought here that cannot be simply explained away by a brief appeal to value the soul more than the body. Ultimately, such thinking would imply that anyone at any time has the ability and right to judge, like only the All-Mighty Himself can, whether someone you might instead protect was instead ready to die. Perhaps unsurprisingly, though they claim to be arguing against consequentialism, they end up arguing in favor of their own weird brand of it. Combined with the extremely weak statement that truth is worth more than human lives disturbs and should disturb any sane person of good will. That each of us is made in the Image and Likeness of God and are all part of the truth per se is enough to dispel that weird opinion; that such a weak argument should inspire a casual disregard for human life in regard to self-defense and war, yet a simultaneous absolute condemnation of even harmless fibs (like, “Yes, mother. The soup you made was delicious.”) is really too much.
Not only are Live Action’s tactics deception for the sake of innocent lives, and also, we should remember, in place of an impotent government in this regard that has adopted unjust laws no one is supposed to respect, but it is entirely of a different quality than malicious deception. There is an obvious temporal aspect in this case that is very important: Live Action does not at all intend to deceive indefinitely. They expose their own actions immediately after the mission is complete for all to see.
So I disagree with the incredibly inappropriate public outrage on many Catholic blogs. There is even a highly ironic argument to be made that it is morally illicit to unnecessarily harm the pro-life movement by generating a public scandal. It is one thing to contact Lila Rose privately, as we are clearly instructed to do in Scripture. It is quite different to make an internet sensation of it. That makes us all look weak and divided, and being unable to even agree on lying, appearing totally unfit for anything else. However, that does not mean I agree with the tactics of Live Action.
In my view, there are two very bad consequences of their tactics, which is why I disagree with them on a tactical level. First, they have by now encouraged Planned Parenthood and similar organizations to clam up for fear of undercover investigators uncovering yet more nefarious practices. The second unintended consequence is that now the focus has been shifted away from the murder of very young human life to other lesser crimes. Neither of these new realities help the cause at all. At best, it might hurt Planned Parenthood in particular, but not the institution of abortion itself.
My question throughout this shameful display has been what Lila Rose has to say for herself. I highly doubt the intellectuals really care what she has to say, except insofar as they might have a chance to continue the public ridicule.
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how easily the Enemy can turn us against each other. If people would study their Bibles more, they’d KNOW that there are times when God rewarded people who lied to protect the innocent. They’d be able to read the commandment clearly, and know what it means. It doesn’t mean that lying to protect innocent life is wrong. It’s not. Remember, the commandment says thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST thy neighbor. It never condemns bearing false witness FOR your neighbor.
The other thing pro-life people do is they turn on each other because they do not agree with the tactics of another group. There are those who want to go all or nothing. And then there are those who will accept any legislation that undermines abortion as long as it doesn’t give permission for abortion under other circumstances.
Cathy Callaghan (other co-founder of Feminists for Life) used to tell a story. A person dies, and the relatives are gathered at the undertaker’s office, and he says, “what shall I do with the body? Cremate it, bury it, or ship it home?” And the relatives respond, “Take no chances. Do all three.” The point is, instead of attacking each other, we need to focus on the Enemy, and that is the senseless axe-murder and poisoning of countless unborn babies made in the image of God, and the senseless medical rape and poisoning of their mothers. It is outrageous for us to turn on each other. We need EVERY tactic and EVERY approach to win this one.
What Lila Rose is doing is, in a sense, between her and God. Above all, she has handed us a priceless gift by revealing some other issues that other people can relate to. We need those other people to stop Planned Parenthood, and if they aren’t moved by the thought of tearing little babies limb from limb, at least they care about underage girls involved in sex trafficking. So to me it is UNCONSCIONABLE that we or any of us should attack Lila Rose. She deserves our deepest thanks and appreciation. Her job is very difficult, and the last thing she needs is for us to turn on her.
Now you folks who want to take the mote out of her eye and ignore the beam in your own, crawl back under the rock you came out from and leave her alone.