Yesterday I posted what ended up being my most controversial post in two years on Facebook. It was simply a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny [slander], good or just. The end does not justify the means” (CCC 1753).
In less than 24 hours, this post has generated 138 comments. Some of them from conservative Catholics who are angry at what the Church teaches.
Now, seeing that, and knowing what a firestorm we're in on the internet over this issue, I would like to summarize a few things and then make a new point.
The issue has arisen over the undercover video sting techniques of James O'Keefe and Lila Rose, aimed at exposing Planned Parenthood. This is a highly charged issue, as it appears to many people that Lila and James are being attacked or judged; it appears as if the voices of caution are standing in the way of the laudable goal of exposing Planned Parenthood; and it appears that the Catholic Church must be wrong in its moral teachings.
In fact, a number of typical defenses have arisen from those who are seeking to answer the moral theologians.
1. The consequentialist defense. The end justifies the means, so whatever means these journalists using are good, since their goal is good. (Answer: no, the Church is very clear that the end can never justify the means).
2. The warfare defense: all's fair in love and war and this is war; or at least this is a situation akin to war. (Answer: all is not fair in love and war; neither doing evil nor using bad means for a good end is justified in war; though there may be something more to this defense if pursued).
3. The double effect defense. The journalists are not intending to deceive. The deception is a side-effect of what they're doing. (Answer: on the surface this doesn't hold water, but again there may be more to this line of arguing).
4. The ad hominem defense: you are a Lila hater and a judgmental bigot. (Answer: I know James O'Keefe and I admire the intentions of both him and Lila Rose. But if they're doing wrong, we must be clear about that.)
5. The Protestant defense: "we are not bound by what the Catechism teaches" or "the Catechism is not magisterial, or at least it is only provisionally so, thus it may be ignored". (Answer: there are a LOT of Protestants in the closet in conservative Catholic circles.)
6. The equivocation defense: equivocaton is not exactly virtuous, therefore direct lying is good. (Answer: I personally say that equivocation is less than virtuous because it is close to lying. It is the taint of falsehood that makes equivocation smell bad. If equivocation is bad, it's because lying is worse.)
7. The nature of the act defense: what the journalists in these cases do is not lying. (Answer: this is possibly true and the best defense of the lot, though I'm quite skeptical.)
8. The anti-intellectual defense: those examining this issue from the perspective of moral theology are Pharisees - splitting hairs, wringing their hands, counting angels on the head of a pin, and mentally fiddling while Rome is burning and children are dying.
Well, we're trying to figure this out, so it's not a question of arguing about angels on the head of a pin, but of the pinning down of many heads so that we begin to think like angels.
Comments