It’s been an interesting week in the Catholic blogosphere, to say the least.
The most damning evidence about Planned Parenthood has emerged in their 95 year history of eugenic genocide, complete with the evidence that they:
*May well have tainted the Virginia blood supply.
*Do not use the $350 million per year in federal funding for its intended purpose of providing health care for those without insurance or cash.
*Coached a pimp in how to lie about the age of minors in order to procure abortions.
*Showed a consistent willingness to aid and abet child sex-trafficking.
This coupled with the most pro-life Congress since Roe v Wade who were ramping up to defund Planned Parenthood, and the Catholic blogosphere erupts in spasms of indignation at…
Not Planned Parenthood…
But Lila Rose.
It is perfectly understandable that methodology is important. How we arrive at the end matters, and it is altogether proper to address methodology. But there is a proportionalism in the outrage that is frighteningly lopsided, to the the point of having handed Planned Parenthood Lila’s head on a stake. Of course, the question is, why?
The next question, in light of Lila’s past four years is, why now?
The last question is, why the magnitude?
To answer the more generic, “Why?”, and to return to matters of methodology, every discipline needs a method, and certainly this is true in science as well as morality and ethics. In biology, a poorly designed study yields data that are uncertain, especially if proper positive and negative controls are not employed. Data mean nothing if they are not held to an objective standard. The data are regarded as so much unintelligible gibberish in such cases.
In the Live Action sting, it is the contention of several (though not all) ethicists that Lila’s method failed the standard of the sacred sciences. It is contended that she used unjust means (lying) toward achieving a noble and just end (revealing the truth about what really goes on behind closed doors at PP). But in this case, the data are not unintelligible. They are not gibberish, as they are evaluated against the known standards in morality, law, medicine, and ethics. The behaviors are atrocious. So, in a worst case scenario, imperfect means were employed to yield a bumper crop of highly valuable, highly intelligible, and highly useful data.
The crux of the issue is whether Lila’s actions rise to the level of lying as defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and which I treated in another post which can be viewed here.
In several critiques of my critique, many have held to philosophical traditions, many very Catholic, but do not address the core of my argument. That core is whether or not the method has become its own standard, and does not address the issue that permeates the Gospels, namely that Jesus used the spirit of the law as the external standard for guiding observance of the letter of the law. In the passages I cite, he drives this point home by citing how David broke the law, defended His Apostles’ breaking of the law, and then went so far as to rub the pharisees noses in it by healing a man on the Sabbath in their synagogue. In all of this, the spirit of the law was cited as the rationale for determining whether the precept of the law as observed violated the higher spirit of the law.
Despite my repeated attempts to engage the clear teaching of Jesus on this, the matter has been consistently side-stepped.
Growing up in the 70’s I suffered through situational morality and ethics which basically left one rudderless. Everything was relative. Catholic intellectuals who came of age in that time and saw the awesome destructiveness of that are right to be wary of anything that smacks of situational ethics or morality today. But we can perhaps be too wary and err in the other direction. The disproportionate ink spilled over Lila would seem to suggest that perhaps a bit of that is in play.
Mark Shea, whom I read regularly and respect immensely, has written that he is concerned that the Live Action sting will set the pro-life movement off on a trajectory of dishonesty for the sake of short-term gain, becoming liars for Jesus. While this may anger some pro-lifers, I would caution that Mark’s concern is a valid concern, but I would also suggest that it has little soil in which to grow into reality.
Apart from the Live Action sting, there is precious little need in the pro-life movement for such undercover investigative techniques. In fact, the great strength of the pro-life movement today is that we have scientific evidence in great abundance to support us at every turn, whether it’s the sonogram technology revealing the intricacy and beauty of embryonic and fetal development, or the vast bodies of literature showing the psychological, oncological, gynecological, obstetrical, and infectious post-abortive sequelae. The truth is on our side. The proaborts have nothing but hackneyed bumper stickers.
So while Mark’s warning needs to be taken to heart, I just don’t see where pro-lifers would ever need to lie, and that brings us back to the central question which will not be resolved anytime soon:
Did Live Action lie?
Beyond that, the magnitude of the criticism of Lila Rose seems greatly misplaced, and more than a little ill-timed.
Finally, there has emerged a great deal of tension between the scholars and the troops on the front lines at the “clinics”, and not a little anger. Pure academia has its dangers, to be certain, as does pure activism. The former may seem cold and aloof, while the latter are left feeling as though they are being expected to bring a feather to a gunfight, and are tempted at times to use the most expedient means. I’ve worked on both sides, and see this from both perspectives. Not surprisingly, I see a need for a meeting in the middle. Such a meeting is not to suggest a compromise with morality, but rather to discuss whether indeed immorality was committed. Again, it is my contention that it was not. I also am waiting to see a comparable level of critique of Planned Parenthood from those who have taken exception with Lila.
Somehow, I surmise many will claim that their work is about critiquing moral methodology, hence the focus on Lila. To such a response I would say that a critique of Planned Parenthood’s moral and ethical methodology, based upon the sum total of Live Action’s four years of data, should keep these authors busy for months to come.
Coming Home 
[…] « Planned Parenthood Admits It Doesn’t Need Federal Money The Lila Enigma: Selective Outrage? […]
Excellent post, Gerard. I just finished going through Job these last couple of months, and frankly I thought this letter-of-the-law approach reminded me of Job’s 3 friends. Right in words and theology, but wrong about God. My parents also grew up in Nazi Germany, so that probably has a bit to do with my bias here too.
The difference between the laws Jesus “disobeyed” and the lying scenario, is that the laws Jesus set aside for a higher law, were positive laws. He, as the author of those laws, had the right to set them aside as well as to interpret them. The injunction against lying, as I understand, is not a positive law but a a part of natural law.
You may very well be right that the criticism of Lila Roses’ methods comes at a poor time and is disproportionate. I am finding the discussion interesting, and I think it is at some point necessary to hash it out, even if that point should not be now. I would like to say in defense of at least one of the bloggers who is critiquing the tactics, that she spends a great deal of time–well over half of the time, I’d say–blogging about the lies of the abortion culture; so I do not find her critique disproportionate.
Again I do think this is an important discussion to have and the critique should not simply be dismissed as pharasaical. It disturbs me a little that those who oppose lying on principle, are being pictured as people without common sense, or as legalists with no heart. Where does the mother described in the Maccabees fit in to the picture? She watched her seven sons, some of them maybe still children, die horrible, slow deaths, and then died herself, over what–a piece of ham? Why wasn’t she “pharasaical” for not having seen how very small a thing a piece of ham is, in proportion to the lives of holiness she and her sons might have continued to live. She was not a pharisee; she simply stuck to principles (in this case a positive Divine law which she had no authority to change) and she trusted God about whatever consequences there might be.
So I frankly think the pharisee comparison is a red herring and distracts from the one issue which ought to be addressed. Lying (that is, stating something you know to be false with intent to deceive), either is, or is not, one of those things which are inherently wrong. If it is, you can’t do it. If it isn’t, you can do it sometimes. St. Thomas Aquinas and others have been of the opinion that you just can’t do it. Maybe they were wrong, as they have been on other points, but that is something which ought to be shown. It appears that the catechism agrees with St. Thomas on this one, unless you interpret “error” in a very narrow way–but you need to argue to that interpretation.
For the record I think it is a wonderful thing that PP has been exposed, I think the tactic was a good one as far as the general deception went, and I admire greatly those who carried it out.
I have been reading all the comments on this issue with interest.
Rebecca, can you tell me how the work that Lila is doing is different than an undercover police officer? Or spies who need to work undercover in order to protect our country? Or different than the coragious Polish Irena Sendler who produced fake papers and posed as a social worker to carry out Jewish children in suitcases from the Polish ghetto to escape the Nazis?
I mean this question sincerely. I just don’t see the difference. Thank you.
So the lines have been draw between two camps- Fear of consequenstionalism effecting justice or fear of being scrupulous effecting charity. Is this accurate?
What a great mystery we are participating in.
Eileen: Some have put forth that even undercover police work may objectively be in error because they say it requires a lie.
I think it’s time to pray.
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/2011/02/pray-for-live-action-and-truth.html
Eileen,
As far as I know, an undercover police officer, the Polish woman, etc., would be allowed to deceive, but not directly to lie. There are many ways of speaking ambiguously, etc…I would think the false papers would also be permissible. I know it seems like hair-splitting, because as with birth control vs. NFP people are looking at the final purpose, and it looks the same…in both cases, lying vs. other deception, you are aiming to lead the person to think something not true. That purpose is quite permissible in many circumstances. However, direct lying, as I understand it, is not licit as a means to that end, because you are using words directly against their intended purpose–not just allowing someone to come to a wrong conclusion, but directly misusing the power of speech. And again, I would think that in these cases the sin would be venial, not mortal. Still we should avoid any deliberate sin.
Others, such as the mormons, on the other hand, believe that lying is fine as long as you have a good intention, and have no qualms about it, as far as I understand.
My question is; why didn’t these writers tackle this question years ago when the secular media was doing this? They were citizens just like Lila. They were in an investigative journalistic role, just like Lila. They were not licensed, just like Lila. They employed the same disguises and ruses just like Lila.
The most recent ‘sting’ that comes to mind is when reporters ‘lied’ to convenient store clerks in order to trap them into stealing winning lottery tickets.
To put Lila on the cross of their scrutiny at this time has only brought attention to something that would have otherwise been moot.
In my opinion, they have caused the scandal and are in some way culpable for sowing confusion… especially since at least one writer admits they are in some ways conflicted in their judgments of the situation.
Rebecca,
Thank you for your response. I just find it hard to believe that unercover police officers, spies, and lay people posing as social workers to smuggle children to safety never have to lie doing their work.
I could see if Lila and crew were lying for the sake of humiliating someone with no other purpose. But if the purpose is to expose illegal operations that puts the lives of girls in danger, and with the ultimate goal of ending the slaughter of innocent nascent lilfe, it just seems like legitimate work to me. If the government were doing it’s job and properly investigating PP, especially when they use federal funds, than pro-lifers wouldn’t have had to do the dirty work.
At this point, I just can’t buy the line that what she did was wrong. It is a very interesting discussion though.
Eileen,
I dont’ think I would characterize my position as “what she did was wrong”…I would characterize my position by saying “what she did was awesome, but some of the details need to be refined.” 🙂
IS IT JUST ME… or has EVERYONE missed the fact that Planned Parenthood has lied, lied , lied to tens of THOUSANDS of women over the years, leaving them shattered when they discover it was NOT a blob of tissue they flushed out of their body… but a real, innocent human being?
EVERYONE in the world is a poser. We pose as concerned citiziens when someone gets mugged in our towns, but won’t get off our fat butts to attend the Citizens On Patrol meeting. We pose as concerned parents, yet less than a dozen show up at the PTA meetings. We pose as advocates of physical health, yet scream ugly things at our children when they fumble a ball, or miss a shot during a game.
We color our hair, cake make-up on our faces, and spend hours tanning our skin. Few can even honestly tell their real age, or weight. The majority cheat on their taxes, or tithes. We are a society of closet drinkers, abusers, liars, etc, etc… so much so that most don’t even know who they ARE! And yet when a TEENAGE GIRL decides to stand up for OUR CHILDREN… and expose the abuse that is being doled out at OUR EXPENSE for the “good” of our children…. we start chanting mantras about lieing.
The only freaks of nature in this equation are the ones who sit back and hand out Miss Manners lessons. Check your own mirrors, dear people. YOU are the liars. Your whole life is probably a lie… and until YOU have the balls to stand up for your daughters and future family members the way Miss Lila Rose has… shut up, and sit down. Please!
The morality of Lila Rose’s actions to do this undercover work is smart to observe. Why would anyone not come up with a “real plan” to save the life of those least among us, being mutilated under a government that protects such an action. We must take the abortion issue more seriously it seems if we seem to fall to doubt that her actions of so called lying are unworthy and immoral. There are such obsessive puritans out there who cannot seem to realize the reality of what these people are doing in this abortion culture we live. This is not like the “Torture” issue where one is causing harm to another to try to get information from them. This is about saving lives and exposing the reality of what most people have fallen for as GOOD.
So, if we need to become case study “actors” if you will, and propose undercover work on our own to expose the horrors of such a government we live in that is catering to murder, rape, sexual demoralization, under the guise of “reproductive health care”, the cause is moral. You cannot think with this radical puritan theological obsession and dissect the so called “evil” of lying here. That is like trying to in a very psychotic way, try to hide yet again about the reality of abortion.
What would you do if you were in Nazi Germany, hiding innocent Jews in your basement closet, would you hand them in to murdering mosters to be mutilated as well?
Sometimes, common sense is what people need rather than a breaking down a situation in a “psycho-analysis” of Theological principles.
It seems like it would have been so much better to have this discussion apart from any actual scenario–I really understand the desire to defend those who did this really brave thing, and yes, it is absolutely nothing compared to the lies that Planned Parenthood tells. It’s a hard one because it was the actual scenario that brought up the question in people’s minds, but it seems like nitpicking at this point, because it is true that the lie was absolutely nothing when compared to the lies of PP.
I don’t know what I would actually do in the Nazi situation but I would hope that I could have the presence of mind and the actual grace of the moment to say something like “We have no Jewish dogs here”.
I truly understand the feeling that this is puritanical hair-splitting but I again would like to reiterate that even though what is going on with PP is emotionally overwhelming, we need to be careful about principles and understand the reasons for things. We ought, as Catholics, to have as firm a grasp as possible on why certain things are off limits to us, even though it may seem unimportant–if we do not, then we could end up making pretty big mistakes. When you are confronted with a Protestant couple who are for very good reasons spacing their children, and happen to be doing it using ABC, you need to be able to articulate why, although it doesn’t seem like a big deal to them, ABC isn’t the thing to do there. Again it is hard to make the comparison because ABC is always a mortal sin at least formally and lying is not necessarily a serious sin, but I am trying just to make the point that there are a lot of things which may seem like hair-splitting but are important principles to maintain.
I had this thought a couple of weeks ago outside an abortion mill…
Just before a woman went in, what if I whispered to her that they have bedbugs in there. Hearing that, I’m sure more women would leave than would go in.
But, I couldn’t tell a lie.
Then I thought….
What if I tell her that going in there (the mill) is worse than having bedbugs. Not a lie. I might even say this so that the word bedbug was a little louder and clearer than anything else so she might just hear only the word bedbug and leave.
Is saying that going into an abortion mill is worse than having bedbugs a lie because while true, I was deliberately trying to deceive?
No, that would not be a lie, Mary. In order to lie, you have not just to be intending to deceive, but you have to state something not true. You can deceive people with words by saying something which they are likely to take in a certain way. Sometimes it is wrong to deceive; sometimes it is good to deceive, depending on the circumstances.
That is why I have been saying that I have absolutely no problem with the deception aspect of going in there to PP and posing as a pimp and prostitute. I think it was an excellent tactic.
“I don’t know what I would actually do in the Nazi situation but I would hope that I could have the presence of mind and the actual grace of the moment to say something like “We have no Jewish dogs here”.”
wonderful.
I guess it goes without saying that our tax dollars and a sense of license goes to undercover cops all the time. I’m not really trying to “Justify” what the pro-lifer’s did, or speak for vigilantyism. They may or may not have an agenda in the eyes of the law, but sounds like what they are uncovering are real crimes, apart from the pro-life motivations.
[…] “Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the On the same topic: http://advenus.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/be-perfect-and-forgive/ Additionally you can look at this related post: https://gerardnadal.com/2011/02/19/the-lila-enigma-selective-outrage/ […]
Elizabeth Mills … BRAVO!!! I agree with you 100% Lila Rose is the true hero here .. she did not sit and wait for things to happen … she MADE them happen!! Who are we to judge Lila Rose??? God is the only judge … or at least the only one that matters.
I consider Lila Rose a true hero as well. I’m not interested in judging her.
Hurray Elizabeth Mills!! You are so right on! Remove the plank from our own eyes before we start on somebody else’s splinter. Lila Rose is a new Joan of Arc – and this country is so in need of a noble soldier for Christ and his little ones.
[…] named Gerard Nadal, whose name rings a bell but I don’t really know what he’s famous for, chimed in with a […]
Not being a Catholic, I can only address the question from a biblical standpoint. The commandment says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST thy neighbor.” This means that false witness in defense of your neighbor is not wrong. Rahab hid the spies, and lied to the people who were looking for them. God rewarded her. The Hebrew midwives preserved the lives of newborn boys, and lied and said that they were born too fast to kill. God rewarded them with households. In more modern times, Corrie ten Boom hid Jews, and when the Nazis came, she lied and said she didn’t have any. She has been rewarded by Israel and the world. Smuggling people out of harm’s way is a string of lies. Police engage in stings. Properly, police should have conducted the stings that Lila Rose conducted. They haven’t, to their shame. When the police don’t do their job, we, the citizens, may need to step in. Not to commit violence in the name of bringing people to justice, but to gather information to turn the tide of public opinion. There is nothing unethical or immoral about what she has done. She did it on behalf of our neighbor: the unborn and their mothers, and the victims of incest and sex trafficking. I don’t even think the idea she did something wrong should be discussed. It’s a no-brainer. I applaud Rose’s courage, and the courage of the people who work with her. Planned Parenthood has woven a web of deceit by lying about the consequences of abortion, the alternatives available, their mission, and numerous other things. They don’t have a leg to stand on. I get upset when people try to hold righteous people to a standard they don’t apply to the wicked. And it would sure help if people applied the Commandment PROPERLY instead of holding that you have to always tell the absolute, unvarnished truth, no matter who it hurts. As for Mormons, they lie to spread wickedness and lies about God. They’re NOT right, and don’t even belong in this discussion, unless you want to lump them with Planned Parenthood. The lies of Mormons kill a person’s eternal spirit.
Good grief! Who gave me an icon that looks like a swastika?????