Lila Rose, president of the pro-life activist group Live Action, has
issued a new statement responding to ethical concerns from several top
theologians and philosophers about her group's work.
Live Action's Catholic critics overwhelmingly agree with the group's
goal of exposing and de-funding Planned Parenthood. What troubles them
is the use of “sting” tactics, which employ false identities and
statements – such as claiming to be a pimp or prostitute – in an attempt
to show Planned Parenthood's willingness to cover up crimes.
Since Feb. 1, the group has been releasing a series of videos in
which Live Action's actors claim to manage a ring of underage
prostitutes. Planned Parenthood employees are shown agreeing to help
them confidentially acquire abortions and other services.
On Feb. 18, Live Action President Lila Rose provided CNA with a
statement responding to her critics, reproduced here in its entirety.
"Live Action is a small, pro-life grassroots organization, and one of
our primary goals is to unmask the lies of the abortion industry and
lobby,” she wrote. “We are not about deception; we are about the truth.”
“Some
Catholic intellectuals,” she acknowledged, “have a problem with Live
Action's practicing of established methods of investigative work.”
“We in no way mean to dismiss their opinions, but we are in profound disagreement with them.”
“At this time,” Rose concluded, “our team's energies and attentions
must be focused on advancing the opportunities our investigative
research has provided the Pro-Life movement. We invite you to join us
100 percent to work together with all our hearts to defend the lives of
the millions at stake.”
Among the Catholic intellectuals who agree with Live Action's
intentions, but not their tactics, is Professor Robert George of
Princeton.
George, one of the drafters of the strongly pro-life Manhattan
Declaration, called attention to the apparent conflict between Live
Action's investigative practices, and the authoritative teaching of the
Catholic Church, in a Feb. 15 essay entitled “Life and Truth” on the
Mirror of Justice blog.
Professor George acknowledged that the first edition of the Catechism
of the Catholic Church appeared to justify lying to someone who did not
have “the right to know the truth.”
However, the passage in question
was substantially revised under the direction of Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in his preparation of the
authoritative second edition.
“The firm teaching of the magisterium, reconfirmed in the Catechism,”
Professor George recalled, “is that lying is intrinsically immoral, and
is therefore impermissible even as a means of preventing grave
injustices and other evils.”
Among the Catechism passages in question are paragraphs 2483 and
2485. The first teaches that “to lie is to speak or act against the
truth in order to lead someone into error,” while the second upholds the
judgment that “by its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”
“I don't see how it is possible to avoid the conclusion that this
teaching requires of Catholics the submission of intellect and will that
is known as 'religious assent',” George stated.
“Catholics certainly, but non-Catholic pro-lifers, too, should reject
lying even in the greatest of good causes,” he concluded. “We must not
forfeit our standing in the debate as the tellers of truth.”
George's remarks agreed with the position of Professors Germain
Grisez and William May, two U.S. moral theologians who helped Pope
Benedict XVI revise the Catechism into its authoritative form prior to
his election to the papacy.
Both professors unequivocally told CNA on
Feb. 11 that Live Action's undercover actors could not present overt
falsehood as truth for the sake of a good end.
However, other highly regarded Catholic thinkers have expressed disagreement with this position.
Professor Janet Smith, who teaches moral theology at Sacred Heart
Major Seminary in Michigan, thinks that the question may not be as
settled as Grisez and May believe.
“I think if tomorrow, the Vatican announced that it wanted
theologians to debate thoroughly the question of the morality of telling
falsehoods to evil doers who threatened the lives of the innocent, a
large number of theologians who are now silent on the point would defend
the practice,” she wrote in response to questions from CNA.
“Right now,” Smith explained, “those who wish to defend the practice
hesitate to do so, because they fear appearing to question or reject
Church teaching, and fear producing an atmosphere that leads to
questioning or rejecting Church teaching.”
There may well be room, she indicated, for interpreting the
condemnation of lying in a different manner than Grisez, May, and
George.
“The formulation of the first edition (of the Catechism),” she
pointed out, “has not been officially repudiated, and I believe it is
not necessarily incompatible with the formulation of the second.”
She indicated that the question needed to be discussed more openly.
“In my discussion with theologians who practice religious assent to
Church teaching,” she recalled, “I have found many – even high Churchmen
– who believe it moral to tell falsehoods in some situations. They are
not, however, willing to write or speak publicly on the matter.”
Dr. Christopher Kaczor, a Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount
University, is a notable scholar of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas –
who held, along with St. Augustine, that “every lie is a sin.”
But
Professor Kaczor, who has defended Live Action in the current
controversy, pointed out that a lie was not necessarily easy to define.
“Although there are some Church Fathers who hold otherwise, I do
believe it is wrong – intrinsically evil – to lie,” Professor Kaczor
explained in response to questions. “But precisely what is being debated
is, what constitutes a lie?”
He referred to Bl. John Henry Newman, who considered the question in
his essay “Lying and Equivocation.”
The piece pertains, in Kazcor's
words, to the question of “how one is to understand what formally – not
merely materially – constitutes lying.”
In the essay, Newman noted there were “different schools of opinion”
in the history of the Church regarding “this difficult doctrine,” as to
which intentional falsehoods constituted lies in the full sense.
“A given individual,” Cardinal Newman wrote, “cannot agree with all, and has a full right to follow which he will.”
According to Kaczor, Newman also held that “what the Catechism of the
Council of Trent says about lying” – that Christians should “suffer any
inconvenience, rather than utter a falsehood” – was “meant for general
instruction of the faithful, and is not an authoritative adjudication
among rival theological schools.”
Pertinently, the question answered in that catechism also had to do
with the personal consequences of one's own truth-telling, rather than
the more complex case in which others would be made to suffer.
Like
Professor Smith, Kaczor suggested that falsehoods in that instance might
not formally constitute lies.
“About this matter, as far as I am aware, there is no authoritative
Catholic teaching, but rather more or less probable points of view,”
Kaczor said.
Probability, in this sense, refers not to the statistical
likelihood of an outcome, but – in the traditional language of moral
theology – to the possibility of following different permitted opinions
in regard to a disputed question.
Kaczor maintained that he follows Newman's analysis in considering
the question of lying to be a disputed one in some cases. He also
indicated that the Catechism itself, even in its second edition, was not
meant to resolve this difficult question with perfect clarity.
“I believe that the Catechism's recent revision reflects a desire on
the part of the revisers to have a more probable definition of lying
expressed for general catechetical instruction, rather than a less
probable definition,” he stated, referring to the degrees of certainty
associated with varying opinions in moral theology.
Kaczor did, however, grant that there may be a more serious problem
with telling the particular kind of falsehood that Live Action's actors
told – namely, the kind that could involve pretending to be a willing
participant in gravely immoral actions.
Although Live Action's purpose is to expose immorality, their actors
directly presented themselves, if only strategically and temporarily, as
committed pimps and sex traffickers.
“In normal circumstances,” Kaczor noted, “pretending that you believe
something is right, which actually is wrong, may be morally
impermissible.”
EU foreign ministers have
issued a statement condemning violence against Christians and calling
upon states to protect freedom of worship.
