Fool for the Truth
In late February, in the midst of the uproar over Live Action's exposé of Planned Parenthood, I wrote a piece about the controversy for the About.com Catholicism GuideSite. Entitled "Justified Deception or Lying? The Case of Live Action v. Planned Parenthood," the piece argued that, whatever good intentions Lila Rose and her comrades at Live Action may have had, they stepped over the line, and their tactics could not be justified under Catholic moral theology.
But now, five or six weeks later, I'm beginning to have second thoughts. After all, the arguments of those who supported Live Action seem pretty persuasive. Not those, of course, that claimed that the end (undermining Planned Parenthood and thereby saving babies) justified the means; but those that argued that the means themselves were perfectly justifiable.
It all seems so clear now that, in retrospect, I cannot understand why I missed it. Perhaps it can be chalked up to my post-Vatican II idolization of popes, which led me into the error of believing that the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, released under Pope John Paul II and compiled under the direction of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, could be regarded as an authoritative document. These three paragraphs made it all seem so simple:
"A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" [paragraph 2482].
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 [paragraph 2483].
By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity [paragraph 2485].
Still, as the supporters of Live Action kept pointing out, even that postconciliar catechism noted that
No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it [paragraph 2489].
True, as I responded, that statement comes in a section concerned with the sin of detraction—that is, revealing the sins of another person to a third party—and not with lying to a person in order to save babies, but the more I thought about it, the more I wondered: Why can't this principle be applied universally?
And that's when I had my revelation. Had not Our Lord Himself said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set ye free"?
Think about it. What could truth mean in this context, other than moral truth? We know that abortion is wrong; we must act on that knowledge. To do otherwise is to fail to live up to our obligations as Christians.
But still—are there any limits on how we can act on that knowledge? Even the supporters of Live Action claimed that there are. Live Action's "lies" (as some of their supporters, such as Peter Kreeft, were willing to call them) or "justified deception" (as most of their supporters preferred to refer to Lila Rose's play-acting) were OK, but killing abortionists or even burning down a Planned Parenthood abortuary is not.
Now that I've seen the light, though, I think that they're missing the boat. Remember—Our Lord said that "the truth shall set ye free." But what does freedom mean, if not the right to do anything that we think is morally justified in order to advance the truth?
I'll admit: I still have certain qualms when it comes to murder or even to property damage. But until I saw the light, I had similar qualms about lying, and as some of those who supported Live Action pointed out, those qualms were nothing more than "scrupulosity." I wouldn't want to be accused of that again, so I'm scrupulously attempting to overcome my scrupulosity. In the meantime, though, I'll make sure to refrain from criticizing anyone who murders an abortionist or burns down a Planned Parenthood office, because such criticism of those who are just trying to do the right thing is not helpful—indeed, it might even amount to detraction, as one supporter of Live Action warned those of us who had mistakenly criticized them. (Actually, since he saw nothing wrong with Live Action's tactics—long before I came around—he really meant calumny, but, to quote the current occupant of the Oval Office, they're all "just words.")
Granted, the idea that we should be free to do anything that we think is morally justified has been misused by others, even by those who support abortion. But since we know the truth—abortion is wrong—we don't have to worry about whether any action taken on behalf of that truth might be wrong. We've been set free to act in whatever way we need to, in order to bring the scourge of abortion to an end.
And first and foremost among our actions, I've now become convinced, should be depriving those who have no right to the truth of that truth—even if we have to go out of our way to create opportunities to do it. Pro-lifers—no, even more broadly, Christians—have made a grave mistake. We have spent far too much time trying to convince others of the truth regarding abortion, not to mention the Truth of Christianity. And what has been their response? An obstinate refusal to acknowledge the truth!
Seriously—how many times can we be expected to try to convince the same person of the truth? Our Lord said we had to forgive our brother seventy times seven times; but He said nothing about the number of times that we have to expose our brother to the truth. That silence, as any Straussian knows, is significant. Clearly, it was Our Lord's way of signaling to those of us who know the truth that we have no obligation to expose those in error to that truth. They have chosen to deny the truth; who are we to deny them their moral freedom?
Moreover, it is at best naive to think that exposing inveterate sinners to the truth would make any difference. That's the fundamental difference between them and us, after all. We know the truth and act on it; they know untruth and act on it. Thus the best way to stop them is to play along with them, to respond to their untruth with untruth, so that they will continue to persist in their untruth, and we can then expose them to the world (or at least to those who know the truth).
If that seems a little close to detraction, then we simply need to look at detraction in a new light. While detraction is revealing the truth to someone who has no right to know it, those of us who know the truth by definition have a right to the truth. Simple, really—the truth has set us free to reveal the hidden truth about others to everyone who, like us, has a right to the truth. And we shouldn't worry that those committed to untruth might decide to do the same to us; after all, we have no hidden truths that we wouldn't want revealed.
There's only one thing that still bothers me—well, two things.
The first is that pesky line from Saint Paul—Romans 3:23, to be exact: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." I'm not sure why, but every time I read it, I begin to wonder whether anyone, including those who do know the truth, has the right to know it. Surely, either Saint Paul was wrong, or Christ came to reveal the truth to a world filled with sinners who had no right to it, and that would have pretty radical implications for how we as Christians should act toward those who do not yet know the truth, or even toward those who have rejected it.
I'm pretty sure, though, that Saint Paul must have been wrong. After all, I've never sinned, much less obstinately persisted in doing something I knew was wrong, and if you've read this far without closing this webpage, I'm sure you haven't, either.
The second thing that bothers me is that word, lying. Unlike Peter Kreeft, I just cannot bring myself to embrace it. Nor, for that matter, do I find deception (even when modified with the adjective justified) much better. The Oxford American Dictionary says that to deceive is to "cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage."
That sounds too self-serving to me. When I sign on with Live Action and, God willing, get the chance to record a video in a Planned Parenthood office with Lila Rose, I won't be doing it for personal advantage. Instead, I will be encouraging those committed to untruth to remain committed to untruth, all in the name of the truth.
So, after much thought, I have finally settled on the perfect word: fool. Yes, some dictionaries insist that it is a synonym for deceive, but in ordinary usage, it has a lightheartedness about it. Who gets upset when someone reveals that he was "just fooling you"?
It all seems so clear to me now, and I regret having wasted five or six weeks before coming around. Worse yet, I have so far blown the opportunity to fulfill my obligation to engage in almsgiving this Lent, by going out and committing acts of charity by fooling some Planned Parenthood employees.
But I'm not one to despair. Yesterday may have been the midpoint of Lent, but from Laetare Sunday to Easter 2011, there still three weeks left to go. And today is the first of a new month.
So let us not waste another minute. This April, fool for the truth. It's the best way you could spend the rest of this Lent. You can trust me on that—would I fool you?
Tagged as: Abortion, Lila Rose, Live Action, lying
Entries(RSS)
This is clever, but ultimately misleading. Truth, as understood in Scripture, means more than accuracy. It means accuracy plus loyalty. Rahab in the Old Testament was placed in one of those rare situations where she had to sacrifice one or the other, and she made a choice which God blessed.
Mr. Richert,
This is an excellent piece of writing for those of us who can see you grinning as you write it. Here is my solution to the abortion debate, the unnatural vice debate, the duopoly debate, the gays in the military debate, the financial crises debate, the tax cut debate, Southerners as traitorous scoundrels debate, the global warming debate, the public schools debate, the state's right debate, the Federal Leviathan debate, the end of history debate, the Israeli/PLO debate, the spreading of American democracy and freedom to Libya, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, Tunisia and the Peoples' republic of Massachusetts and Washington D.C. debate and any others that may seem pressing in the next 100 years. Read all about it and think of tactical retreat and wilderness survival. Thanks again, I'm out of here!! PAX! Your friend and patron, St.B
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/historical/volume2/benedictine/schools.html
"Truth, as understood in Scripture, means more than accuracy. It means accuracy plus loyalty."
No, actually, it means conformity with reality—not the reality of this world, but the reality expressed by and in He Who said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life." In Christ, as Pope Benedict (following St. Maximos the Confessor) explains quite concisely in his new book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, Christians have the example of how they are to conform themselves to the truth.
Man was created by God with a will naturally aligned toward the divine will. With the Fall, our will became corrupt. We still tend toward the divine will, but we're also drawn toward rebellion against it.
In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ drew His natural human will into His divine will, and in so doing not only offered an example to all men of the proper way to conform themselves to reality but restored our human will, to the extent that we unite ourselves to Him through faith.
Does that mean that we will never sin, or that, if we sin, we have no faith? No. And the same was true of Rahab, as both St. Thomas Aquinas and Saint Paul (Hebrews 11:31) went to great pains to point out. Rahab was rewarded for fearing the Lord; she was not rewarded for her lie.
To divide truth into "accuracy plus loyalty" and to claim that the two parts can be placed, at least in certain circumstances, in opposition to each other is, at best, to return to the status quo ante Gethsemane.
I can't tell you how many times I've come this close to firing off an angry reply to something before finishing it. Which is to say I just came this close to looking like an absolute dingbat.
Excellent work, as always, Mr. Richert.
The holy apostle Paul also stated, "those who profess themselves to be wise become fools." Trying to convince this demonic generation of government-educated (read: brainwashed or consciousness-raised) know-it-alls of the truth is no easy task. Our best remaining weapon is prayer. And thanksgiving.
If I am understanding MattSwartz correctly, he is saying that as a Christian he can take the Old Testament according to his own private judgment and use a selected passage to justify lying in a cause to which he thinks he should be loyal. And the reason we should believe he actually means this--since he could be lying here in a good cause--is exactly what? Great job, Scott.
Respectfully, as a Vatican II Catholic, turned atheist, turned Traditionalist, a satire on lying that quotes the new catechism is grating. Can one in complete honesty argue it is not a breach, full rupture, with the past? The section on Islam, just to name one area.
"Can one in complete honesty argue it is not a breach, full rupture, with the past?"
Can one in complete honesty argue that it is a full rupture with the past? Only if one believes that all of what I quoted was not held to be true before the current Catechism was released.
And respectfully, rather than being either a "Vatican II Catholic" or a "Traditionalist," perhaps we might be better off simply being Catholic. And I say that as one who attends, on average, a single Novus Ordo per year.
The section you quoted was completely orthodox, but that was not my point. The section on Islam in comparison with extra eccelesium nulla salus is a square peg in a round whole, not the pinnacle of honesty. Henry IV said "Paris is worth a mass." It is more than the Mass as well.
"The section you quoted was completely orthodox, but that was not my point."
No. Your point was that the Catechism is "a breach, full rupture, with the past."
If you did not mean to say what you said, you might have spent a few more moments choosing the proper words.
I think, with great respect for the sensitivities involved, that it would be better to stick to the point at issue rather than to enter into a discussion of Vatican II, particularly since the grounds for disagreement would be so narrow and so slender between Mr. Nicoletti and Mr. Richert.
Well, now that that lying for the sake of the Truth business has been put to rest, what do you propose we do about the excess children of Ireland?
This is the kind of cleverness in which I revel.
I believe it was the patron saint of public administration who asked our Lord, "What is truth?" before going out to the assembled mob and telling them that he could see no guilt in this Man. So, surely this is one of the central questions in Christianity. Thinking through Christ's dialogue with Pilate very carefully can give us some excellent food for thought on telling the truth.
Scott @9,
When the mother of the Sons of Thunder asked our Lord if her sons could sit one on his right hand and one on his left,Christ simply said maybe if our heavenly Father desires it and they can drink of the same cup from which I will drink.
One was thrown off the top of the temple in Jerusalem to his death and the other, who Jesus loved, was boiled in water and sent off to Patmos for a lonely life and death. Both ended up as simple Catholics. Be careful what you ask for.
Perhaps in all the above discussion Mr Richert's final but important point has been overshadowed; that Lent is still with us and we have sufficient time to focus our attention on prayer, forgiveness, denial of self and the pursuit of other virtues during this special season.
Whether we have done well to this point or whether we have allowed the secular interests to blunt our spiritual life, much time remains for each of us. As much as we all point out -rightfully so - where our society has gone off of its moorings, it is sometimes easy to forget that we must begin the cleansing at home. The Byzantine Communion prayer properly orients us, I believe, as it begins, "I believe and profess that you are truly Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, OF WHOM I AM THE FIRST."
#13 Ray Olson,
These things have a way of working themselves out.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (IRN) - Radiation believed to be from the nuclear plant disaster in Japan has been detected in Illinois.
The radioactive iodine similar to what was released in Japan was found in a grass clipping in the Joliet area by the Radiological Assessment Field Team, which regularly checks on vegetation, air, milk and eggs to determine if any radiation is leaking from Illinois’ nuclear reactors.
In this case, the grass clippings were taken as part of a drill for the emergency plan at the Dresden nuclear power plant.
Once that grass sample tested positive for radioactive iodine, an air sample in Springfield was taken, which also detected the radioactive material.
Robert, would you please enlighten me to the story to which you allude in #15?
@15 robert
The James you say who was tossed off the temple roof to his death was in fact James the brother of Jesus. Adelphotheos was Joseph's son by previous marriage. He was indeed bishop of Jerusalem, but neither the Greater, nor the Lesser James of the 12 original apostles. He was, however, the author of the epistle. John the beloved was indeed boiled in oil and survived, and I believe he ended up in Paphos Cyprus. I don't recall what happened to his brother. Probably crucufixion.
Thank you Mr. Toddard, Mr. Olson, and Dr. Fleming, for your kind words.
"Our best remaining weapon is prayer. And thanksgiving."
Very true. I think one of the worst aspects of the Live Action controversy is that so many of those who supported Live Action said, "At least someone finally did something about abortion." It's not just that such words denigrate those who have indeed spent time in prayer and fasting (as well as sidewalk counseling and sponsoring mothers so that they did not have to consider abortion); it's that those words inadvertently reveal that such people may not really believe that prayer and fasting are effective—even if they think that they do think so. As John Lukacs has often pointed out, there is, especially today, a rather wide gulf between what many people actually think and what they think they think.
"Thinking through Christ’s dialogue with Pilate very carefully can give us some excellent food for thought on telling the truth."
Very true, and very appropriate during Lent. And I agree with Harry Colin on the proper way to approach Lent. I would add that the Jesus Prayer and the Prayer of Saint Ephrem the Syrian are other gems from the Christian East that help instill in us the proper attitude.
Let me pose a related question for Richert or Fleming. In the current Chronicles, Tom Piatak mentions in his article 'Christophobia and its Discontents' on page 45 the story last year of a Montana woman who took a crowbar to some nasty, blasphemous art in Colorado. The anecdote is mentioned in a positive manner. I am much less inclined to condemn her actions, and I wonder if this might be a trickier case than with the legitimizing of civil disobedience done by the Live Action gang.
Although I am not as well read on theology as I'd like to be, I seem to recall that in some cases a Christian is required to speak against blasphemy or your silence can be interpreted as acceptance. I would be curious to know what you two think about this.
I believe I am correct in saying that Mr. Piatak was objecting to the double standard by which this woman had the book thrown at her, while Christophobic acts are protected.
One may applaud the healthy instincts of the lady truckdriver without defending her legal or moral right to destroy someone else's property. There are several bad aspects to this story, however. First, the lady was from Montana and not a local resident. If she really wanted to make a strong statement, she would desecrate a mosque in a Muslim country. Second, she says G*d told her to do it. If you look at her website, she knows for certain that we are in the end times and that she can just about do anything she wants to do. To be quite blunt, I'm glad she lives in Montana, because she would probably be willing to blow up my church--all that stained glass and all those idols. Good intentions do not justify the breaking of good laws protecting property, especially when we recall that we do not live in a Christian society. It is up to the people of Loveland do something about their stinking museum. By the way, in case anyone asks, the boys at the Boston Tea Party were hooligans who should have been jailed, and the thugs shot during the Boston Massacre got what they deserved. In those days, even revolutionaries believed in the rule of law, and John Adams acted as defense counsel for the soldiers who shot that great American hero Crispus Attucks. And, that creepy Florida "pastor" who burned the Koran? He is a self-seeking Jerks who now has blood on his hands.
The John Browns and Charles Mansons of this world always have higher law or noble purpose for breaking laws and hurting people.
I wasnt aware of her background. Thanks for finding that.
I wasnt arguing for her unlimited right to destroy property, but if she is using the CD defense I withdraw my semi defense of her. I might have had a different view if she admitted guilt, paid the fine, and moved on.
I wish that the lady trucker had claimed her "destruction" of that "art" was "art" itself. She was just exercising her creative impulses. While I do not condone destruction of property, it would have been amusing to see those postmoderns who think that any stupid and ugly piece of dung is "art" scramble to prove her wrong.
Mr. Gervaise@ 19
That is interesting conjecture about the Apostle James. Was the cup your James drank from before his death, the same cup referred to by Christ or were the early Fathers confused?
Toddard @18,
I was refering to the Gospel story about the Mother of James the greater and St. John the beloved. Sons of Zebedee and sons of thunder as referred to by Christ. The only thing we really know of James was that he was martyred in Jerusalem. One was beheaded and another was thrown from the top of the Temple. I probably have them confused. St John survived his boiling point and some say he died in Patmos and others that he was banished to Patmos and made his way back to Ephesus. I am not a scripture scholar but the tradition doesn't change as much as they would have us believe anyway. And as a historian once said, "Whether Napolean was a great leader of the French or a poor leader is more important than whether Waterloo occurred on a Monday instead of a Sunday.
If a society tolerates an organization like Planned Parenthood to begin with, then I'm not sure there's any point in trying to unearth dirt with undercover operations, even from a purely Machiavellian viewpoint. Anybody want to lay a bet on the abortionists going out of business?
Another way of describing the moral side of the problem is that it just can't be psychically healthy for somebody to make a habit of wearing a mask, pretending to be somebody else, seeking to receive trust for the sole purpose of betraying it. During an NCIS lecture I once heard, one of the agents described how many spies are actually relieved when they get caught, due to the stress of living a double life.
Certainly, when Odysseus finally gets home his self is intact, even though he's freely engaged in guile and deception along the journey -- but such a happy conclusion is not something anybody should take for granted...
If a society tolerates an organization like Planned Parenthood to begin with..'
Yes, in my mind this is the major point. There are signs of the times. Certainly one can not turn the clock back in a day or perhaps even desire it, but he can ask what time it is and act accordingly. This is no time for Christian protest, it is a time for the secret garden or interior Christian life. Sitting in jail for tax evasion while your family is fatherless, or seeking the attention of hecklers and gangbangers while carrying signs "for life" is not the correct reading of the times.
Those folks are no doubt more endearing to me than their detractors but they are simply acting imprudently about how to procede. Whatever good is done today needs to be done in secret.
Whatever good is done today needs to be done in secret.
On that note, a chapelet of the Rosary and some under-handed zoning techniques at the municipal office probably go further towards shutting down or preventing the opening of abortuaries.
Yes, but most of those prepared to do underhanded stuff can not stand to keep quiet about it and must boast that they did something good. Stick to the Rosary Chaplet and let the rest be handled by good pagans and sympathetic politicians. Raise a family, throw your money money off a bridge to the local river god, or quietly give it to an unwed Mother you may know who can really use it but don't add to the public burden with another project for reform.
@19
James the brother of John was, according to both Scripture and tradition, the first of the Twelve to be martyred. He was killed by Herod Agrippa "with the sword" (Acts 12:2)
An excellent april fools joke Mr Richert.
@ 27 Robert
There were 2 James among the original 12 apostles; the lesser and the greater. These monikers could have referred to their respective heights. One of them was a son of Zebedee, and I'm not sure which. I learned about James the brother of the Lord from Foxe's Book of Martyrs, and named a son after him. His day is October 23.
and I stand corrected about Paphos in Cyprus, that's where St. Paul was stoned. It has stained the town's reputation ever since. Patmos is correct.
@32: According to Michael Davies, we might owe one of our most beloved contemporary spiritual treasures on Earth to such sleight-of-hand. Careful.
named a son after him. His day is October 23.
You did well, Mr. Gervaise. I too named a son after James. The Sons of Thunder were known perhaps for their impetuosity but my James is the most phlegmatic of all my sons. We should pary for each others sons on October 23rd until our death in honor of what the Chronicles of Culture were like in our time.
I come from Egypt, where Christians have been ruled by a different religion since the 7th Century, & have learned to live as a minority since the 9th or so. This history has generated a different attitude in these Christians from the victorious Western Christians.
In the East, the operative quotes from the Bible are primarily "do not cast parls..." " .. be as wise as serpents..."
Ultimately, after centuries like that, it leads to a self-defensive narrow mindeness, and a lack of generosity, but allows survival.
In the West today, I see Christians faced with a secular enemy trying to wrest power from them, and on the way to total success. You are living what our ancestors lived in the 7th,8th & 9th centuries, when the Christian majority was being reduced to a 15% minority.
If you believe you can win, e.g., Spain, your response will be openly combative.
If you believe you have lost, like us, you have to retrench, and adopt the survival mode.
Scott Richert's article is an example of combative mode. It works only if thousands spontaneously do the same, thus overwhelming the opponent.
Otherwise, it elicits a repressive mode from the victors that quickens the destruction of the faithful remnant.
Obviously, I am not in a position to judge how the future will develop: 15th century Spain or 9th Century Egypt.
Written in prayerful warning, not out of malice.