Is it really a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter canadianguy1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

canadianguy1143

Guest
I came across this blog on my Facebook page:

networkedblogs.com/dLgTV

For those of you who aren’t aware of this. Live Action is a non profit organization that does undercover sting operations exposing Planned Parenthood illegal activities. Last year it was not reporting statutory rape cases. They have a new one that is about to come out.

Anyway for Suzanne Fortin who is a well known Canadian Pro Life activist, she doesn’t approve of the deception factor in these undercover sting operations. She considers it a sin under the 10 Commandments.

Personally I think she is way wrong.

What does everyone else think?
 
How exposing the truth can be sinful I don’t know? If a sting operation is the only way, so be it.
 
feargalmac said:
How exposing the truth can be sinful I don’t know? If a sting operation is the only way, so be it.
Click to expand...
Here we go… I always like reading posts on how lying in situations where it may be required is sinful. Usually, this starts by debating whether undercover police officers are sinning when they lie to a criminal; or how those that hid Jews from the Nazis during WWII were sinning by lying to the soldiers about the whereabouts of Jewish citizens.

Here is my view… If the person being lied to, in these types of situations, has no moral right to know the truth, then it is not a sin. So, in this case one must determine whether Planned Parenthood has a moral right to the truth concerning the operation which may expose their sin. If the answer is no… then go get 'em! If the answer is yes… then come up with a better plan.
 
To me its a form of idiotic fundamentalism. Its like saying that people who kill others in legitimate self defense are no different than murderers because you did kill another person. Context and circumstances have absolutely no bearing on the situation.

What annoys me about this is that it affects other people and they could be influenced by it. Abortion is a serious problem and it needs serious people to fight it.
 
Tietjen said:
Here we go… I always like reading posts on how lying in situations where it may be required is sinful. Usually, this starts by debating whether undercover police officers are sinning when they lie to a criminal; or how those that hid Jews from the Nazis during WWII were sinning by lying to the soldiers about the whereabouts of Jewish citizens.
Click to expand...
HAHA! So true. We should place bets on how long until the Nazis example comes up.

In regards to the general question itself:

It’s pretty iffy. On one hand, they are certainly being deceitful, but on the other hand, they are exposing a pretty horrible injustice in an attempt to correct it.

What about legitimate law enforcement stings? Are those sins? I think that might be a good starting point for trying to resolve this.
 
smichhertz said:
What about legitimate law enforcement stings? Are those sins? I think that might be a good starting point for trying to resolve this.
Click to expand...
Just saying “legitimate…stings” already biases the answer. It sidesteps the consideration of whether the sting really is legitimate. Just look at how different the question sounds with that one word omitted:
What about law enforcement stings? Are those sins?
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Just saying “legitimate…stings” already biases the answer. It sidesteps the consideration of whether the sting really is legitimate. Just look at how different the question sounds with that one word omitted:
Click to expand...
What I meant by that was only considering legal law enforcement stings as opposed to sort of a “bad cop” situation. So a cop doing some kind of sting illegally, wouldn’t really be anything up for consideration. But I take your point, the question could be interpreted to sound like it’s automatically classifying the sting in question as illegitimate.

Question rephrased:

What about when law enforcement performs a legal sting?
 
smichhertz said:
What I meant by that was only considering legal law enforcement stings as opposed to sort of a “bad cop” situation. So a cop doing some kind of sting illegally, wouldn’t really be anything up for consideration. But I take your point, the question could be interpreted to sound like it’s automatically classifying the sting in question as illegitimate.

Question rephrased:

What about when law enforcement performs a legal sting?
Click to expand...
I leave with one more post for the thread to consider… The book of Judith (especially chapter 10 and forward). Here we can see rather plainly that Judith does not speak the truth (because the Assyrians and Holofernes had no moral right to know the truth) but her deceptions are used by God and bring about a good.

Again, a sin is commited if a lie is told to someone who has a legitimate and moral right to know the truth (IE - a parent asking their child where they went). However, I believe that a lie told to another person who is without a legitimate and moral right right to know the truth is not sinful (IE - Law enforcement lying to a perp during an undercover operation or those who helped hide the Jews from the Nazis during WWII).
 
Tietjen said:
I leave with one more post for the thread to consider… The book of Judith (especially chapter 10 and forward). Here we can see rather plainly that Judith does not speak the truth (because the Assyrians and Holofernes had no moral right to know the truth) but her deceptions are used by God and bring about a good.

Again, a sin is commited if a lie is told to someone who has a legitimate and moral right to know the truth (IE - a parent asking their child where they went). However, I believe that a lie told to another person who is without a legitimate and moral right right to know the truth is not sinful (IE - Law enforcement lying to a perp during an undercover operation or those who helped hide the Jews from the Nazis during WWII).
Click to expand...
PS - The question many husbands dread to hear… “Does this dress make me look fat?” Does she have a right to know the truth!!! I’ll leave that one to the husbands to decide. 😃
 
I don’t think anyone has yet addressed what I think is the core moral question raised in the first posting. Are these particular “sting” operations moral? I don’t think it is so much a question of whether lying is involved. What is more relevant is whether the operation led PP people to do what they were likely to do anyway.

If the sting operators presented PP with a scenario that is not much different from situations that were likely to arise anyway, then the sting is entirely legitimate and moral. If the operation presented an extremely unreasonable scenario that would never have arisen naturally, then the sting would more properly be called “entrapment”. The morality of the sting cannot be decided without considering the details (means and methods) of the sting.
 
Craig said:
A lie is always a sin. I happen to agree with this analysis:

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/02/it-is-sin-to-lie-even-to-planned.html
Click to expand...
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 (CCC 2488).
Click to expand...
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 (CCC 2489).
Click to expand...
 
canadianguy1143 said:
Anyway for Suzanne Fortin who is a well known Canadian Pro Life activist, she doesn’t approve of the deception factor in these undercover sting operations. She considers it a sin under the 10 Commandments.

Personally I think she is way wrong.

What does everyone else think?
Click to expand...
Addressing “Whether every lie is a sin?,” St. Thomas writes:
Objection 3. Further, the deeds of holy men are related in Sacred Writ that they may be a model of human life. But we read of certain very holy men that they lied. Thus (Genesis 12 and 20) we are told that Abraham said of his wife that she was his sister. Jacob also lied when he said that he was Esau, and yet he received a blessing (Genesis 27:27-29). Again, Judith is commended (Judith 15:10-11) although she lied to Holofernes. Therefore not every lie is a sin.
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
Reply to Objection 3. …] Some, however, are commended in the Scriptures, not on account of perfect virtue, but for a certain virtuous disposition, seeing that it was owing to some praiseworthy sentiment that they were moved to do certain undue things. It is thus that Judith is praised, not for lying to Holofernes, but for her desire to save the people, to which end she exposed herself to danger. And yet one might also say that her words contain truth in some mystical sense.
Click to expand...
I would say Lila Rose does indeed have “a certain virtuous disposition” for fighting for the respect of women and for defending the unborn.
 
40.png
Tietjen:
… If the person being lied to, in these types of situations, has no moral right to know the truth, then it is not a sin.
Click to expand...
The rest of the post is very good also. This is not what the catechism says. however, moral theologians have debated this point for a long time. Supposedly, the first draft of the catechism had something along these lines included, but it was removed by the vatican during the final review. The Vatican was not yet ready to make this allowance, but it was considered. It is a very difficult question. I have one lie I told more than once, which I have always felt was justified and am not sorry. It certainly falls under the above condition, but I have never felt 100% comforablt with it, especially considering that the catechism does not allow for the above condition.
 
tafan said:
The rest of the post is very good also. This is not what the catechism says. however, moral theologians have debated this point for a long time. Supposedly, the first draft of the catechism had something along these lines included, but it was removed by the vatican during the final review. The Vatican was not yet ready to make this allowance, but it was considered. It is a very difficult question. I have one lie I told more than once, which I have always felt was justified and am not sorry. It certainly falls under the above condition, but I have never felt 100% comforablt with it, especially considering that the catechism does not allow for the above condition.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate your position on the subject of lying I disagree with it respectfully. The CCC does actually address the issue.
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 (CCC 2488).
Click to expand...
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. (CCC 2489).
Click to expand...
Also, I found this response by Fr. Serpa rather interesting as well. The poster asks if it is it morally permissible to engage in undercover police work? Father replies with this:
Hi,

Of course, it’s morally permissible. Are we to allow such valuable work only to non-believers? One always has to look at the context. The context here is that the work is police work and is engaged in to protect the innocent. We certainly do not expect the police to risk the safety of the innocent by doing or saying anything that would divulge crucial information to criminals. Their intention is not to withhold information that criminals have a right to, but to advance their own advantage in their pursuit of behavior that is harmful to society. Christian morality is based on the will and what one intends.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
(forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=178934)
Click to expand...
 
Tietjen, Thanks for the references, and I should have made it clear, I am not saying I have a “position” on the subject. I will have to do some looking into it. If I remember correctly, the commentary I read a while back highlighted some of those and pointed out that we were not required to tell someone everything, ommission is not a lie, but one is to be cautious about assuming it is ok to actually tell an explicit lie because a person does not have a right to the truth. That matter has long been under debat.
 
Geremia said:
But is not there a difference between lying and choosing to conceal truth? St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine: “Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says (Contra Mend. x).”
Click to expand...
Yes, you can withhold the information and thus not lie. However, this is not going to work in all cases. In the example of the Nazi asking you if you are hiding any Jews in your home, refusing to answer will have the same effect as answering “yes.” In the example of the undercover police officer this can also be the case. You can, of course, attempt to deflect the question by changing the subject, however, those who are intent on an answer to their question will most likely see through this and realize that you have not answered the question… thus, you will have, in effect, given away the truth.
 
Tietjen said:
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
Click to expand...
I see a small problem here. There’s a big difference between “revealing the truth” and downright lying. In the situation the OP stated, we are dealing with people who downright lied. They said they had prostitutes, they were involved in sex trafficking, etc. I don’t think these quotes from the CCC can be used to defend them.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top