More fine op-eds on the dust ups over the definition of 'lying':
One by Peter Kreeft HERE
And another by Francis Beckworth HERE.
Francis has some great scriptural references that demonstrates how God, in fact, blessed those who diverted killers by deceiving them.
In spite of this, Mark Shea has a story and he sticks with it HERE!
I was contemplating how to recalibrate our consciences in light of this new definition of the commandment not to bear false witness against our neighbor. It suddenly occurred to me that if Mark is right, generations of Catholics gave gone to hell in a handbasket over their lies about Santa Claus.
Wrap your head around it.
Has the Holy See been watching us all these years without a Santa Claus lies encyclical or kicking Santa's backside out of Church basements?
Are we all going down?
Should we alert the Confessors?
Ratched up a world-wide day of Penance?
Come on kiddies.
I'm shocked that smart Catholics are getting so caught up in the flawed definition of sinful lies.
Zmirak tries again to lay a theological foundation:
Lying is never okay. Murder is never okay. Lying, as the Church teaches, is an unjust deception. This entire argument has been over the definition of lying, and whether denying someone with manifestly no right to the truth, if need be by tossing them something else to distract them, amounts to sinful lying. The whole canard of "mental reservation" amounts to an attempt to deceive while fulfilling the LETTER of the putative law that we may never say things that are untrue, even to those who don't deserve the truth.
I will AGAIN use a simple metaphor. Truthful information is a good; let's use as a concrete example the formula for a medicine an inventor has developed. He wishes to sell this formula to drug companies who will use it for a medicine. But a drug dealer breaks into his lab and tries to get it from him at gunpoint. Instead of giving them the real formula, he gives them a fake one. That is the equivalent of telling untruths to the Nazis at your door, or to the abortionists you're investigating as a journalist. For this to be sinful, the thief would have to have the right to the formula. If the only way to keep him from getting what he has NO right to (the real formula) is to give him a decoy (a fake formula), I argue that it is just, and no more amounts to lying than it does to stealing.
Now, take this metaphor, abstract the principles in it, and apply it concrete situations. It will take the virtue of prudence, which I hope you have developed.
The lies people working at these death camps tell are exposed.
The lies our politicians have been telling to fund abortion are exposed.
Women have the opportunity to see what goes on under the surface.
Sinners are freed from committing these sins in the future, should they choose to take the opportunity with their free will.
When Christ said that every lie would be exposed, it is incomprehensible to me how Catholic teaching contorted into believing He meant exposing Lila Rose and Live Action.
The bearer of Light in this situation is Lila Rose.
You promised the Jews to hide them from their murderers. To keep that promise, you have to deceive the Nazis. Physical hiding and verbal hiding are two sides of the same coin, whether you call it lying, or deception, or whatever you call it. What it is, is much more obvious than what it is to be called. It’s a good thing to do. If you don’t know that, you’re morally stupid, and moral stupidity comes in two opposite forms: relativism and legalism. Relativism sees no principles, only people; legalism sees no people, only principles.