Wednesday, June 6, 2012

They like calling it acting "in persona aborted and unborn"


Just wow.

A defender of Live Action says this in the comment box of Creative Minority Report:

A priest consecrates the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ acting "in Persona Christi", with the intention of Christ. Lila Rose approaches the abortionist acting "in persona aborted and unborn" whose souls are enlivening her actions. In the covenant of the human being's rational, immortal soul, all permission is granted. Any law may be broken to save a life, but there is no law broken by Lila Rose any more than a firefighter who enters a burning building and seizes a frightened child and carries her to safety. Will you then say that the firefighter laid hands on the child unlawfully? No, Lila Rose is actually saving the abortionist's immortal soul and preventing him/her from going straight to hell. Now, that is doing God's work "in Persona Christi". Something about paying thithes on mint and ignoring and disobeying God, our Father in Heaven. Get real.

Mark Shea responds to this in an excellent post, right here. I don't often agree with Shea, but on this he absolutely nails it.

He has another earlier worthwhile post here.

22 comments:

love the girls said...

Mark Shea takes the argument in a direction only a fool contradicts.

Not because Shea is correct, but because some subjects are not discussed in public forums.

love the girls said...

Adding on :

Either Mark Shea is too stupid to know the kind of harm painting someone with that kind of brush can cause. Or he wants to cause it.

I learn toward thinking his past actions indicate he is enough of a low life creep to be the latter.

DeaconJR said...

Hi, Paul--will you permit me to offer a comment as to why Shea is most emphatically promoting error regarding the question of lying and Live Action?

Thanks, and God bless you,

Deacon JR

DeaconJR said...

I take that as a "yes." Thank you.

The bottom line with Mark Shea and the issue of lying is fairly simple: he doesn't understand what the Catechism of the Catholic Church really is.

He doesn't get the fact that Catechisms contain not only the teaching of the Magisterium but also (when direct magisterial teaching is lacking on a subject) the "common teaching" of Catholic theologians, so called.

The teaching in the Catechism on lying is such an example of "common teaching" that is, by definition, NON-magisterial.

The obvious "test" of this proposition is to look for footnotes in the CCC pointing us to a magisterial "origin" of the teaching on lying found in the CCC.

But there are none.

The reason there are none is because the question of whether all lying (so-called) is intrinsically evil has been a question debated by theologians for centuries (and debated even before Christianity).

Shea dooms his position by trying to claim a "magisterial" basis for the teaching on lying in the CCC. Sure, the CCC itself is *produced* by the Magisterium, but it's content is simply not all magisterial, nor is it the job of *any* catechism to "elevate" any statement to "magisterial" status.

Even a cursory comparison of the Catechism of Trent to the current CCC (on the topic of lying) will demonstrate these points, as the treatment of the subject is notably different in each, though both seek to express what was viewed as the "common teaching" in its own time.

Shea *never* appeals to any other "authority" on this topic *except* the CCC (the Catechism "alone"--sola catechisma).

Ironically, his vilification of Live Action is based entirely on a half-truth at best.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Paul Stilwell said...

Shea never said all lying is intrinsically evil.

DeaconJR said...

Hi, Paul--you wrote:

****Shea never said all lying is intrinsically evil.****

Actually, yes, he did and does. That, in fact, is the whole point, as he quotes from the CCC 2485: "by its very nature, lying is to be condemned."

This is the heart and soul of his position for the last two years.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Paul Stilwell said...

He quoted from the Catechism that lying by its nature - which is opposed to the truth - is to be condemned.

Once again, Shea never said that all lying is intrinsically evil.

DeaconJR said...

Paul--

Go to this early piece from Shea and count how many times he references lying as "intrinsically immoral" and says the Catechism teaches this.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/last-comments-on-lying-for-jesus

This was very early in the discussion, and he's just gotten more entrenched in the position since then.

I mean, I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong on this, and if you could show me that Mark doesn't beleive lying is intrinsically evil. That would mean that he--and the CCC--would leave room for lying under certain circumstances, correct?

Good luck.

Deacon JR

DeaconJR said...

In fact here's a direct quote from Mark: "But try as I might, I can’t bring myself to agree that lying, which the Church calls intrinsically evil, stops being intrinsically evil when done for a good end."

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/dawn-eden-is-right-darn-it

Paul Stilwell said...

Read your own words Jim. You said Shea said: "*ALL* lying is intrinsically evil".

You are at your usual slippery games.

Your argument hinges on the word "all".

Shea is saying that Lying *as such*, or "per se", or in and of itself, is intrinsically evil. It is not a good. There is no good behind it, as such.

This is what Shea is saying, and with which I agree.

What there can be are mitigating factors involved that lessen the evil of lying (which is an intrinsic evil) in that particular situation. Shea talks about mitigating factors, and you know it.

There can be mitigating factors. Like there can be mitigating factors with stealing (which is an intrinsic evil). Like, for instance, a war camp prisoner stealing some bread to feed a fellow starving inmate. It is not anywhere near a corrupt banker stealing money. But it is still stealing, with mitigating factors involved.

What Shea is saying is that mitigating factors do not turn something that is intrinsically evil into a positive good (such as a tactic to be employed by pro-lifers). They are just that - mitigating factors.

So, once again, Jim, Mark Shea never said that all lying is intrinsically evil.

Your whole contorted argument boils down to you trying to make lying, which is an intrinsic evil, into a positive good.

Paul Stilwell said...

But nice try, as usual.

Paul Stilwell said...

Oh yes, and Deacon Jim: once you've admitted that Shea wrote about mitigating factors that lessen the evil of lying under certain circumstances but that lying in and of itself as defined as a deliberate falsehood - a sin against truth - is an intrinsic evil (otherwise there would be no such things as mitigating factors in certain instances of lying, those certain instances which would come under the category "all lying"), yes, after you've been honest and done all that, please then provide the Magisterial documents that grant permission for lying under certain circumstances.

Thank you and good luck.

DeaconJR said...

Paul--

Either you do not properly understand the term "intrinsic evil" or you are striving mightily to avoid the appearance of being legitimately corrected by me, or both.

Because Shea says "lying is intrinsically evil," he necessarily says *all* lying is intrinsically evil.

Intrinsic evil has to do with the *objective*--not the subjective--realm of morality.

"Mitigating factors" have to do with the *subjective*--not the objective--realm of morality.

Apples and oranges--no mitigating factors ever--ever--mitigate the evil of an intrinsically evil act. They mitigate the *culpability* of the subject.

Send Shea an email--ask him yourself. If he didn't believe that all lying is intrinsically evil, there would have been nothing to discuss for the last two years.

Once you've cleared this up, you can go back to what I originally said and see if you agree with my "sola catechisma" assessment.
God bless you,

Deacon JR

Paul Stilwell said...

Oh yes, those Magisterial documents please, that grant permission for lying under certain circumstances?

No? Too bad for you, since you said we have permission to lie under certain circumstances.

Intrinsic evil is objective - duh.

Mitigating factors have to do with the culpability of the subject - duh. But they also have to do with objective circumstances. But you don't feel the need to mention that do you?

You know, like the example I used: the war camp prisoner who steals bread to feed a starving fellow inmate.

The intrinsic evil of lying remains with the subject of lying AS SUCH, or IN AND OF ITSELF, as I already mentioned. Which is another way of saying that lying can never be a good. Which is what Live Action defenders, such as yourself, claim. When I said "lessen the evil" I'm obviously referring not to lying as such, but to the fact that the lying within the circumstance (in which case we are no longer merely talking about lying as such but other factors involved) of Live Action doesn't mean that what they are doing is a purely wicked mortal sin, which is what Shea talks about.

So what are you saying exactly? I'm still right.

It's too bad isn't it, that Live Action are the ones who create the circumstances, making their lying premeditated, isn't Deacon Jim? Glad you agree.

Oh yes, and you admit that there can be mitigating factors involved with lying. Then how can there be mitigating factors if lying is not an intrinsic evil?

So Deacon Jim - is lying an intrinsic evil or not? Yes or no, please.

Oh yes, and those Magisterial documents that "make room" for lying under certain circumstances, please.

Thought I would ask again since your an expert at cherry picking pointillism.

Paul Stilwell said...

To clarify what I already said: "all lying" connotes the culpability of the subject by means of the one word "all", which again, is what your bogus argument hinges on. The one word. Lying as such, to repeat, is intrinsically evil. This is what Shea says. "All lying" is no longer about Lying as such (which by its definition is opposed to truth and therefore an intrinsic evil), but is about the various subject with their culpability and differing objective circumstances involved.

Oh yes, and once again, lest you merely answer just this comment. Please provide the Magisterial documentation that "makes room" for lying under certain circumstances.

And also answer this question: is lying as such an intrinsic evil?

Also answer this question: if there can be mitigating factors involved with lying, then how can lying as such not be an intrinsic evil?

How can there be mitigating factors involved with something that is not an intrinsic evil?

DeaconJR said...

Sorry, Paul, not interested in the word games you are now playing. I stated my case and properly articulated Shea's position.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Paul Stilwell said...

Of course you're backing out and don't want to answer those questions.

Nor do you wish to go any further in this discussion because in addressing my responses you would end up cornering yourself with your self-contradictions exposed and your argument exposed for the misrepresentation of Shea that it is.

Should one expect an honest argument from one who defends lying?

Nope.

Paul Stilwell said...

So, this is what Deacon Jim calls "word games":

Lying by its definition - which is to say, lying *as such* - is an intrinsic evil. In other words it cannot, by its very nature and definition, be a good.

"All lying", by the word "all", already connotes various instances of lying, and not lying *as such*. Because "all lying" involves human subjects, which involves the possibility of mitigating factors.

Thus we say that lying *as such* is an intrinsic evil, and that though a person has lied and we may find some mitigating factor involved, we can never say that mitigating factors can make that lie into a good.

In other words, it cannot be employed as a tactic for good ends in the fight against abortion.

Defenders of Live Action, like Deacon Jim Russell, say that it can be used as a good. For they say that there exists some magical "room" for lying to occur. Which is to say, there is magical "room" for people to premeditate lies as a tactic for good ends.

Oh yes, and if you cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church Deacon Jim will say you are being protestant. Though his argument itself depends entirely on the Catechism, or rather his manipulation of the Catechism, using it to say what it "leaves room for" rather than actually looking at what the Catechism explicitly states.

He also accuses Shea of using the Catechism as Magisterial ruling, when he himself, Deacon Jim, has done the exact same thing. Because he cannot procure any Magisterial documents that say there is "room for people to lie".

So should I take someone seriously who accuses me of playing word games when he himself takes someone who plainly cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accuses that person of a form of protestant heresy?

DeaconJR said...

Paul wrote:

****"All lying", by the word "all", already connotes various instances of lying, and not lying *as such*. Because "all lying" involves human subjects, which involves the possibility of mitigating factors.****

Compared to what I originally wrote:

"The reason there are none is because the question of whether all lying (so-called) is intrinsically evil has been a question debated by theologians for centuries (and debated even before Christianity)."

Even by your own erroneous reasoning, you would have to conclude that your "lying *as such*" is my "lying (so-called)."

But you didn't bother to *inquire* what I meant by the terms I employed. You merely invented your own interpretation, seizing on the word "all" and completely *ignoring* the phrase "so-called" while also ignoring the very *context* of the sentence.

I even produce a quote from Shea's opposing view, in which, *unqualified*, he states that lying is intrinsically evil. But even Shea doesn't really mean what he means--he *must* mean what *Paul* thinks he means!

I mean, seriously. All this to avoid admitting the truth (ironically)--you mischaracterized Shea's position and have derailed legitimate discussion by trying to defend the error.

If you actually want to address the points I raised rather than put me in a position of having to accurately articulate the opposing view, I'm all for it.

But, right now, I don't believe any reader of this back-and-forth will for a minute entertain the possibility that you are really properly articulating Shea's view on this. Like I said, email him yourself. He will tell you that he believes "all" lying--all "speaking falsehood with the intention of deceiving"--is intrinsically evil, just as I claimed.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Paul Stilwell said...

"The reason there are none is because the question of whether all lying (so-called) is intrinsically evil has been a question debated by theologians for centuries (and debated even before Christianity)."

I refer again to my above comments. Your argument hinges on "all".

Once again, the word "all" put beside "lying" means that we are talking about more than the mere definition, as such, because we are now including "all" instances, which includes all those human subjects and objective circumstances.

Which means we can talk about mitigating factors involved with the use of lying, which is, as such, an intrinsic evil, which means it cannot be a good, such as being used as a "tactic" in the war against abortion.

And once again you are expert at ignoring and cherry-picking.

And once again, Lying as such is an intrinsic evil. Answer this question Jim: is lying by its very nature and definition, is lying as such, an intrinsic evil? Yes or no, please.

If it is not an intrinsic evil, then how can there be mitigating factors involved? Answer.

Eh, Jim?

You also state there is "room" made for lying under certain circumstances and accuse Shea of not having Magisterial teaching to back him up. So please provide the Magisterial documents that grant permission, or "make room", for lying under certain circumstances.

Please answer those questions, together with providing Magisterial documents that "make room" for lying, in your next comment. Oh yes, and please address differences between "as such" and your scrambling and confusion of meanings by your inclusion of the one word "all".

Deacon JR said...

Paul -- I will try once more, in different words, to illustrate Shea's position versus mine:

Shea says there *is* magisterial teaching on lying, and it's in the Catechism, and it's the "ancient and obvious" teaching of the Church that *all* speaking falsehood with the intention to deceive is intrinsically evil.

I say (and document) the true history of the Church on this point and say there is *no* *magisterial* teaching on lying, since what the CCC teaches is the "common teaching of Catholic theologians", and that the "ancient and obvious" centuries-old debate among theologians has been *whether* all speaking falsehood with intention to deceive is intrinsically evil.

Please tell me you immediately see the difference in the two statements.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

Wade St. Onge said...

See why I refuse to "dialogue" with this man anymore?

He used the same tactic to get out of asking the "20 questions" in the West debate.

I hate to give him any publicity, but because "defenders" like him actually help me make my case, he will be featured in my book on the West debate (which I WILL be writing after all).