Nothing like picking at a scab! Fr. Frank Pavone has recently weighed in with a video. It is presented here for the reader’s edification, however, I am NOT fighting this one out again! (I’ll post Muppet videos in response to challenges!)
Advertisements
The Jews took the Law very seriously and had to take the Law very seriously. Yet, didn’t God tell them to break the law and help their neighbor get his ox out of the pit -Sabbath or not, ‘Law or not’.
I’m pleased that Father Pavone is weighing in on the morality of this issue. As Christians we would be remiss (complicit) if we did not expose evil where we see it.
Fr. Pavone has probably been too busy trying to save the life of sweet Baby Joseph to have time to weigh in on the Live Action lying/deception conversation. I, for one, am very glad to have his perspective finally! I wish it would have come out sooner, but better late than never. I will challenge you on the fact that only challengers get a Muppet response. Wow, talk about showing partiality. Scooter is my favorite.
Elizabeth,
Here you go:
Eh, Elizabeth beat me to it! I’m partial to Beeker myself.
I put in a vote for Animal, because his inarticulate flailing seems apropos as a response to the lunacy of challenging Fr. Pavone.
I have nothing but respect for Fr. Pavone and his work, and I rejoiced when the law caught up with the guy making death threats against him. Also, I realize this is a brief video response and not meant to be a treatise, but here are a few lunatic observations (challenges if you insist):
1. When he uses the example of murder being intrinsicly wrong, he his right on the money. However, murder and self-defense are two different chosen acts. That is, if someone is attacking me, my chosen act would be stopping his attack, if I end up killing the guy, that is an unfortunate but morally acceptable consequence of my act. In other words the comparison to lying doesn’t work because it is confusing acts with consequences of those acts.
2. His example of confession is confusing because he didn’t say that he would actually say, “No.” or, “I don’t know if Joe stole the money”, he left it as a unanswered conditional. In any case, he has a double-obligation: not breaking the seal, and not lying. A tough spot to be sure, but not so insurmountable that one would have to rob Peter to pay Paul
3. He bascially says Planned Parenthood is really really evil (no argument there), therefore it’s ok to lie to them. This should not satisfy anyone.
If more people watched the muppets, with their “very special guest stars”, we would all be living more virtuous lives.
1. When he uses the example of murder being intrinsicly (sic) wrong, he his right on the money. However, murder and self-defense are two different chosen acts. That is, if someone is attacking me, my chosen act would be stopping his attack, if I end up killing the guy, that is an unfortunate but morally acceptable consequence of my act. In other words the comparison to lying doesn’t work because it is confusing acts with consequences of those acts.
This argument might apply if someone held up a shield to deflect an assassin’s bullet, which then bounced back and killed the assassin. But in the case where both the assassin and the victim were intending to kill the other – the act is the same. Rather, it is the context that is different for the two. The Father aptly stressed context given the same intent. Your counter-example was wishy-washy (and shouldn’t satisfy anyone).
2. His example of confession is confusing because he didn’t say that he would actually say, “No.” or, “I don’t know if Joe stole the money”, he left it as a unanswered conditional. In any case, he has a double-obligation: not breaking the seal, and not lying. A tough spot to be sure, but not so insurmountable that one would have to rob Peter to pay Paul
??? How so? ‘Splain, Lucy.
3. He bascially (sic) says Planned Parenthood is really really evil (no argument there), therefore it’s ok to lie to them. This should not satisfy anyone.
Didn’t hear him say that.
Sampson defending his family filled with the Holy Spirit slew the Lion.
Sampson defending his tribe, Israel, filled with the Holy Spirit slew a thousand Phillistines with the jawbone of an ass.
Kathleen is so right on!
I’m not making light of the situation here, and those who read my posts in the debate and the comments know that I came under withering fire. So, I’m not engaging the debate again. It will only be resolved in Heaven.
Random and Yank, here’s one to satisfy you both.
Ah, Beaker, we hardly knew ye. Me me, me me me me me me.
This argument might apply if someone held up a shield to deflect an assassin’s bullet, which then bounced back and killed the assassin. But in the case where both the assassin and the victim were intending to kill the other – the act is the same. Rather, it is the context that is different for the two. The Father aptly stressed context given the same intent. Your counter-example was wishy-washy (and shouldn’t satisfy anyone).
Let’s put it this way: A man discovers his wife is cheating on him, and he says, “I’m getting a gun, going to his house and blowing him away!” He does. Another guy is sitting at home and someone kicks his door in and brandishes a gun. The home-owner flees to another part of the house where his gun is. The attacker pursues, catches up and fires at him. In the exchange the attacker is killed.
Same act? Not at all. One is murder, the other is self-defense. It’s not just a word game. It is plain that the first is choosing murder and the second is choosing self-defense. That is, use of deadly force is morally neutral in and of itself. Lying does not have that wiggle room so to speak–it is wrong in and of itself. This is why so many are confused about Natural Family Planning and Artificial Birth Control. They look at the ends–no pregnancy in both cases–and wrongly conclude that they are morally equivalent. This is what I meant about confusing acts with the ends, or consequences.
??? How so? ‘Splain, Lucy.</i.
Firstly, I'd like to point out that I am answering as best as I can and as sincerely as I can. While I do have a sense of humor, it is hard not to read this as contemptuous snark and I'd ask you to please refrain from it. Now, I suppose someone could take my "should not staisfy anyone" comment as snark. It wasn't intended that way, but I'll try to watch things like that. Fair enough?
As to explanation, he didn't come and explicitly say that "I can lie to protect the seal of confessional", and that is where some confusion lies with me. I happen to believe one can ignore the question, evade the question, change the subject, and probably other things to avoid breaking the seal–but not lie and I don't believe there is any situation where anyone is required to do something intrinsicly wrong (lying being one of those things.)
Didn’t hear him say that.
No, he didn’t explicitly say that, but that is what is implied. It is after all what the whole argument is about, isn’t it?
Dr. Nadal:
So, I’m not engaging the debate again.
I won’t ask you to. I will respond to things as respectfully as I can if you allow me.
I could not open your link…please resend. thank you.
1. Let’s put it this way: A man discovers his wife is cheating on him, and he says, “I’m getting a gun, going to his house and blowing him away!” He does. Another guy is sitting at home and someone kicks his door in and brandishes a gun. The home-owner flees to another part of the house where his gun is. The attacker pursues, catches up and fires at him. In the exchange the attacker is killed. Same act? Not at all. One is murder, the other is self-defense.
Response: The act is, narrowly conceived: a man points a pistol at another man and pulls the trigger. In both cases, the intent is to kill. Agreed that one is “murder” and the other is not. This is an issue of definition based on context, not – I repeat not – a different act. Dear Sir, I chose my words carefully the last time. The same act can be defined differently based on the context, whether it is shooting someone or picking one’s nose. (I could give you an example of the latter…. but would come across as snarky.) I agreed with your conclusion in the first place, just not with the argument you used to reach it.
2. Response: My apologies to you for any perceived snarkiness on my part. I was merely confused by your final sentence here: “A tough spot to be sure, but not so insurmountable that one would have to rob Peter to pay Paul.” Although now I think I know what you meant. Sorry for my confusion.
3. No, he didn’t explicitly say that, but that is what is implied. It is after all what the whole argument is about, isn’t it?
Response: But that goes against your second point! He didn’t clearly advocate lying per se. He did leave it up to the imagination of his reader. But he also did mention the moral CONTEXT in which the discussion was framed. Perhaps it was less of a dilemma to him than it would be to you. For my part, I do wholeheartedly advocate blatant lying, if to protect the lives of innocents, and have nothing but praise for Dr. Nadal’s previous statements on this matter.
1. So we agree that going into a PP clinic and saying that you are a pimp when you are not is a clear case of lying? If so, then we are at the crux of the argument: whether or not it is acceptable to ever lie?
2. Good to have that cleared up.
3. “He did leave it up to the imagination of his reader.” That is exactly my problem. People are appealing to Fr. Pavone’s response as an “I win!” button and only a lunatic would challenge it. Context is important, but Church teaching is clear that lying is intrinsicly wrong, meaning that neither good intentions, nor the context can make it right. Same with abortion. Many may be sympathetic to a case of rape, incest or a mother’s life in danger, but abortion is always wrong, and those contexts don’t make it acceptable. The lying here I think is less grave than abortion (I don’t know anyone who disputes that), but it is still and intrinsic wrong.
1. So we agree that going into a PP clinic and saying that you are a pimp when you are not is a clear case of lying? If so, then we are at the crux of the argument: whether or not it is acceptable to ever lie?
Response: Agreed, it definitely was lying.
3. “He did leave it up to the imagination of his reader.” That is exactly my problem. People are appealing to Fr. Pavone’s response as an “I win!” button and only a lunatic would challenge it. Context is important, but Church teaching is clear that lying is intrinsicly wrong, meaning that neither good intentions, nor the context can make it right. Same with abortion. Many may be sympathetic to a case of rape, incest or a mother’s life in danger, but abortion is always wrong, and those contexts don’t make it acceptable. The lying here I think is less grave than abortion (I don’t know anyone who disputes that), but it is still and intrinsic wrong.
Response: I agree with your unease at how people are interpeting the Fr.’s response. It is not as clear cut as some apparently believe, and your point regarding this is valid. I also agree that lying is less grave than abortion, which (practiallyi by definition) allows lying in cases where NOT lying leads to more grave consequences. If we can agree on this latter — then we agree on everying. If we can’t agree that lying to avoid a graver consequences is acceptable, then we might not be able to resolve our points of view. Nonetheless, I do respect your point of view.