I’ve discovered another one. Objection Number Nine – Scripture, especially the Old Testament, condones lying.
Here’s my reply, also in the form of a letter to a well-meaning friend.
***
There is no question that we need to stand united and strong with those who have the guts to fight abortion. The problem is, as with the torture issue, that if we begin to adapt the techniques of the enemy, we become the enemy. The devil is the father of lies, and was a liar from the beginning. God is Truth. The Way, the Truth and the Life. We must live conformed to Him and His mind.
This does not necessarily mean that you are less than Catholic if you support Live Action – though honestly, it might. For if the Church teaches (as she does) that lying is intrinsically evil, and if the Live Action actors are lying (the prima facie evidence is that they are), then if we continue to support them, we are supporting them from a Consequentialist position (the end justifies the means), which is condemned by the Church.
My point all along has not been that Lila and James are necessarily lying (I think they are, but it’s debatable). My point has been that when a person says, “Well, I don’t care what the Church teaches on this issue; I’m going to ignore it,” then that person is at that point not in full communion with the Church – or you might say, “less than Catholic”.
My latest post addresses this more fully.
As to Scripture. A few points.
1. God never tells anyone to lie in the Old Testament.
2. Jacob, the father of the Israelites, was a liar and a thief. David, the precursor of Jesus, was a murderer and an adulterer. St. Paul, a prideful persecutor of the Church. Are these heroes of the Bible celebrated because of their vices or because of their virtues?
3. The Old Testament is not the fullness of revelation. We can not look to the tales it tells – almost all of them full of blood, gore and sexual sin – as exhibiting the fullness of revelation concerning morality.
4. With that in mind, when did Jesus ever lie? When would He ever lie? When did any of the martyrs lie to save their skin rather than die in honesty? When Peter lied it was the worst moment of his life. How easy when the emperor says, “Renounce Jesus Christ or die,” to simply lie and say, “I renounce Him!” But the martyrs never did that. And the lie of Judas and the lie of Peter were equally destructive of their souls – until Peter repented.
You know me well enough to know that I am NOT against effective action opposing the horrors of abortion. The problem is the devil tempts us with a compromise – look away from the inconvenience of Church teaching, don’t pick up that cross, just keep your eyes on me and I’ll get you there a lot quicker.
And if we take that bargain … we are lost, despite our good intentions.
How easy when the emperor says
This example of falsehoods, of course, is explicitly prohibited by the Gospels; by today’s Gospel, in fact. Since it is covered by its own prohibition, I find it unpersuasive when applied by analogy.
We can not look to the tales it tells – almost all of them full of blood, gore and sexual sin – as exhibiting the fullness of revelation concerning morality.
Well, this is true. But the OT argument I saw (I read Dr. Beckwith’s at The Catholic Thing, but I won’t presume that to be the one to which you refer) didn’t posit:
P: The OT depicts the telling of falsehoods
P: Judges, Kings, and Prophets in the OT told falsehoods
C: Therefore, telling falsehoods is moral.
Rather, it posited something like:
P: The OT depicts people doing things under divine direction.
P: The OT depicts other people doing things not directed explicitly by God, but as part of a course of action approved by God.
P: Some individuals who did things under divine direction or as part of a course of action approved by God told falsehoods.
P: Some of these persons who told falsehoods were blessed subsequently by God for the falsehood or an act related to it.
C: Therefore, some telling of falsehoods are moral.
Nobody expects every act in the Bible, regardless of by whom taken, to be an example of morality. It is generally understood, however, (at least, I have always thought it was, perhaps I am mistaken) that God did not instruct or reward vice. God may not have revealed the fullness of the law to the Israelites, but the new covenant is a fulfillment, not a rejection, of the old. I think the OT argument is more compelling than it has been given credit for here.
That said, thus OT argument may still be wrong. I sympathize with your reluctance to accept the arguments that have been raised: some of them are rank nonsense (although the credentials behind some others have started to pile a bit high). But I don’t think this criticism of this argument does the trick. I would welcome a further attempt, however.
Off the top of my head, I can name two instances in Scripture where lying is treated sympathetically. In one of them, it is strongly implied that God condones the lie, and in the other, it is certain.
The first is Exodus 1:15-21, where Pharaoh commands two Hebrew midwives to kill all the Hebrew baby boys. “But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. So the king of Egypt called the midwives, and said to them, “Why have you done this, and let the male children live?” The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and are delivered before the midwife comes to them.” So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God he gave them families.” It is just possible to maintain that God rewarded the midwives for their courage in resisting Pharaoh’s order while forgiving their (no doubt unintentional) immorality in lying. But the most natural reading of the text is that God approved all their actions in this matter.
The second is Tobit 5:12, where Raphael, an angel who has been sent by God to help Tobit’s son on his journey, is asked by Tobit his name and family, and replies, “I am Azarias the son of the great Ananias, one of your relatives.” Since Tobit is an unfallen angel, it is impossible for him to sin or do anything wrong.
The Douay-Rheims has this fascinating footnote on the Raphael-Azarias story:
“The angel took the form of Azarias: and therefore might call himself by the name of the man he personated. Azarias, in Hebrew, signifies ‘the help of God’ and Ananias [whom Raphael claimed as his father] ‘the grace of God.'”
Those equivocating Jesuits!
I’m not sure this resolves the problem, but it’s interesting . . .
“The angel took the form of Azarias: and therefore might call himself by the name of the man he personated.”
Hmm…Does that mean there was a real man named Azarias somewhere that the angel took the form of? The story would have taken an interesting turn if they had met the real Azarias on the road.