Global…

warming/climate change/climate disruption: fake but accurate. The point is, you people need to be instructed on what to think, even if that requires lying.

And besides, as Catholics have been arguing for months, lying is perfectly fine when you do it in a good cause.

Wow. Prolie Catholics, Eric Holder, and global warming agitprop artists all on the same page defending the righteousness of lying in a good cause–or perhaps just defending the Orwellian redefinition of lying to something else when it suits them. How very postmodern! How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity, or bedfellows sleep strangely, or something.

Speaking of the Noble Lie, here’s Mike Flynn is having fun with AGW statistical hijnx.

  • Crispian

    Here’s another good example of Catholic Crazy:

    Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles commenting on illegal aliens:
    “Instead of receiving our thanks, you are often treated as criminals because you have violated current immigration laws.”
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/catholic-bishop-illegal-immigrants.html

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

  • Deacon Nathan Allen

    “Prolie Catholics”: a felicitous typo?

    • Mark Shea

      No. A deliberate one.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    I think this was more a dig against folks who try to justify lying in some circumstances, so we’ll focus on that. We all know that the final edition of the CCC tossed out that little blurb about folks being worthy of the truth. OK, I can see that. A loophole through which fleets could sail. But i noticed, in reading through the sections on lying, that this was in it nonetheless:

    “The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.”

    Granted, it doesn’t say ‘therefore some lies are fine!’. Quite the contrary. This follows some pretty straightfoward language about lies being lies being lies, and always wrong and always from the Father of Lies, and all that jazz.

    That’s good. But what this seems to suggest is that while lying is always going to be wrong, not all lies are created equal. Perhaps, just perhaps, a person at gunpoint in a panic telling a lie in the hopes of saving helpess Jews huddled in a hiding place, isn’t the same as a fellow telling his wife a pack of lies so he can oopsie his secretary every night.

    Maybe, just maybe, a young and passionate group of young people trying to end abortion any way possible, and therefore deciding they will decieve abortion providers isn’t the same as, say, an abortion provider lying to patients in order to increase a net profit through more abortions.

    All wrong, of course. But maybe not of the same level of gravity. Of course the CCC doesn’t give examples, so we can debate. But perhaps there is something there, enough to restrain oursevles from the suggestion that anyone who has lied, or perhaps thinks there could be a justification for lying, is no different than anyone else who has lied for any reason or justified it for any reason.

    Just a thought.

    • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com Scott W,

      If you read the most outspoken blog voices against lying like Ed Feser, Kevin, O’Brien and others, all of them somewhere freely concede that not all lies are equal in gravity, and not all who lie are equal in responsibility for it due to extenuating circumstances. But the problem is that we have quite a number of Catholics championing the error that some circumstances or careers require lying. Lying is always forgiveable, rarely excusable, and never acceptable.

  • Crispian

    I brought up illegal immigration because this is a case were our own bishops believe lying (and theft) are perfectly acceptable when it comes to illegals invading our country. When was the last time you heard a bishop tell illegal aliens that its wrong to break our laws, lie about their status, steal from our country and that they need to return to their home country? Never.

    • Mark Shea

      When will bishops get with the program and start siding with the rich against the desperate poor as Jesus would have us all do? Gotta keep our feet on the necks of the poor. It’s just so crucial.

      • Crispian

        Would Jesus have sided with the “desperate” single woman who had to have an abortion because having another child would send her into poverty? Of course not, anymore than He would have sided with the poor breaking our laws, lying and stealing in search of work. This has nothing to do with siding with the rich against the poor, in fact its mostly the rich who benefit from illegal labor by the very fact that it is illegal.

        It also seems to me that the bishops siding with illegal immigrants is nothing more than the consequentialism you so abhor. By the way, most illegals come here to seek better paying jobs and aren’t as desperate as you claim, but thats besides the point.

        Mark, I generally agree with your arguments about torture, the bomb, Lila Rose, etc… as perfect examples of consequentialism, but you seem to have a real blind spot on this issue. This weakens your credibility, I hope you’ll reconsider.

        • Mark Shea

          Um, yes he would. And he would see to it that she did not *have* to have an abortion. Your approach is to do nothing and blame the poor woman. And yes, it is precisely the rich who benefit from the labor of the desperate poor, yet all your opprobrium is directed at the poor. I’m impressed that you are such an expert on what makes desperate people act as they do–and why pastors think that mercy rather than draconian punishment is generally advisable in their case.

  • Crispian

    Yep, major blind spot. It’s a little amusing how you go on and on about people justifying consequentialism, yet here you are doing it too.

  • Brian

    Crispian:

    Mark is not arguing that it’s okay for the poor to lie their way into this country because it achieves the good of being able to work and support their families; that would be consequentialism. Instead, he is arguing that it singularly cruel and unjust to advocate that – as a punishment for telling lies and breaking immigration laws – peoples lives should be forcibly uprooted, while those who created the incentive for them to lie, and then profitted from their sin of desperation (all the while telling the American worker with his living wage and benfits package to shove it), should be essentially given a pass.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X