Replies

No offense, but that's the kind of arguing that Liberals do.

What? Just because I asked him why he's so upset? And you certainly didn't address the other questions I asked either:

Do you think the Holy Apostles cared one whit if they caused an agitation? Do you think Jesus cared that he stirred up the scribes and Pharisees?

I think homicide is just as evil as lying, and I can imagine cases where homicide is licit -- for example: I have very good reason to believe that that spare tire you're toting is actually a suicide bomb -- VERY GOOD reason.

Um.. I saw in a recent post where you have converted to the Church. Is your conversion recent? I don't mean to offend you, but the Church doesn't agree with you about lying being just as evil as homicide. Homicide and abortion are considered as crimes crying out to Heaven for vengenance. Lying is not on the same plane.

Catechism:

2484 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.

I hardly think Mr. Harvey's actions rose to the level of injuring anyone nor did he do grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

Abortion and homicide on the other hand:

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

On the other hand, Harvey confronted those who support what the Church has deemed a criminal practice. As I said earlier, they are aiding and abetting a crime. Who bears the greater sin here? Harvey or the Democrats? His sin was venial, theirs is mortal!

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

I hope that has changed your mind that lying is just as evil as homicide.

What? Just because I asked him why he's so upset?

Yes, precisely that. It's almost a "stopped beating your wife" question, and even worse, in a way, because it diverts the conversation away from the matter at hand to the psychology of LB, which doesn't strike me as especially relevant. It seems calculated to put him on the defensive, which may help you win a logomachy, but won't necessarily advance reason or truth.

Actually what I said was that homicide is just as evil as lying (you put it the other way around -- is "just as evil" commutative?), and I probably should have said "at least as evil". You failed to change my mind, but you did change my language, so that ain't bad.

I am not a "recent" convert in normal uses of "recent". I converted over a decade ago. And I've been reading this stuff, off and on, since, Oh Lord help me, 1966 - so 40 years! Get me my Geritol! NOW!

But let me say this. If you paid attention to what I was saying, you would have seen that I was arguing against LB. My argument structure was:

There are times when killing humans is licit, though it is always an evil.
If you (in the the sense of "you, my interlocutor", not you yourself) want to argue that one should never lie under any circumstances, how much more would you have to argue that one should never kill a person under any circumstances?
And if you argue that, then your suggestion that it is licit to abort a person who cannot survive outside the womb without major techno-med stuff needs to be reexamined. Not to mention the possibility of a just war and all that.

I think Saint Paul cared several whits if he caused an agitation. It's not always bad to cause one, and not always good, and maybe not always good not to care one way or another. Outcomes matter a little, and the purpose of fighting is to win, or else it's perverse, I think. I disagree with LB about the outcome of this action, but I don't think he's off the wall with his concerns. The question of injury to justice in a deliberative assembly is tricky, I think. Just as a solider in the middle of combat probably ought to think as much has he can ab out the outcomes of his acts of bravery, so a legislator needs to consider if stretching the parliamentary rules here might lead to his being unable to act somewhere else.

I've been doing this a while. I make mistakes, sometimes in thought, often in expression. And often I don't have time to choose my words carefully. Now is one such time. I have to feed some animals then clean myself up to go to a friend's wake. So I may seem brusque or make an error -- like writing "just as" when I mean "at least as", and I hope we won't have to go into whether I have certain feelings, like being upset, and why I have them (too much coffee? not enough Glenlivet?) but can look at the case before us, which is, as far as I can tell: Whether or not Mr. Harvey done good.

I'm inclined to think he did. I just don't think it's a slam dunk.