The Catholic Left and America the Evil

YouTube Preview Image 

Thomas Peters took  the usual suspects, including Vox Nova, on the Catholic Left to task for ignoring Lila Rose’s new expose last week about Planned Parenthood a\k\a Worse Than Murder, Inc.  Mark Shea joined in.  In response Morning’s Minion at Vox Nova went on the offensive and blasted everyone to the right of Joseph Stalin after a pro forma condemnation of Planned Parenthood.  Nate Wildermuth made a more interesting contribution:

 

Thomas Peters and Mark Shea and those of like-mind rightfully point out that abortion and contraception are not understood correctly by many ‘progressive’ Catholics. When I lived in the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House in Washington D.C., I participated in the vigils at Planned Parenthood, and asked a fellow Worker if she’d like to come. “Can’t do everything,” she said. “Not my thing.” And that’s the sort of answer that makes us think, “Wow, they just don’t get it.” The ongoing slaughter of children in the womb is one of the most frightening signs of the disintegration of Western Civilization.

And yet, standing so near the truth, Thomas Peters and Mark Shea and many of like-mind totally lose their minds. Example: they have likely Marched for Life in Washington D.C., but not before attending the idol-worshiping ceremonies that precede it, where the multitudes pledge their allegiance to a flag soaked in blood, to a Republic prostituted for Mammon, to a nation kneeling under a god called Constitution. “That’s just proper patriotism for the good parts of America,” they might say. But anyone who pledges allegiance to the American flag or gets goosebumps at the National Anthem just doesn’t get it: America is the greatest force for evil in the world in the history of mankind.

To get it means to be shell-shocked by the utter depravity of every aspect of the United States, to see that the game is up, that doom is allotted, and that abortion, war, poverty, and every kind of violence will continue unabated until the wrath and judgment of God is poured out upon this proud and blind people.

Like the blind men grasping at different parts of an elephant, we should waste less time denying what the other sees, and more time putting together the pieces, no matter how horrifying the conclusion.”

The highlighted sentence is highlighted in the original.  Besides displaying a shocking lack of knowledge about history and the contemporary world, I think Wildermuth’s comment, in an extreme form, indicates what motivates much of the Catholic Left in this country.  America isn’t merely a flawed country where some Americans do evil, but rather America is the greatest source of evil in the world.  It takes Catholic Left  hatriotism of America to its ultimate end: a good deal of Michael Moore mixed in with an Old Testament prophet condemning Israel whoring after false gods.  Wildermuth gets points from me for honesty about what motivates him if nothing else. 

In a way it is a very American sort of response.  Abolitionists prior to the Civil War sometimes decried the Union and the Constitution as a “Covenant With Death” because of  the existence of slavery.  Of course Lincoln never was in this camp.  While attacking slavery he never allowed this evil to diminish his deep love for this nation, and his hope that, eventually, the “better angels of our nature” would allow us to rid slavery from the land. 

America is imperfect, as every nation short of Heaven is.  Abortion is a great crime in our nation which cries out for redress, along with other evils.  However, to say that America is evil, let alone the greatest source of evil in the world, is mere useless hyperbole.  There is great good in America and Americans.  It is up to us to combat the evil and to aid the good, and never to give way to counsels of despair.

55 Responses to The Catholic Left and America the Evil

  • Mike Walsh says:

    The left’s motive is psychological. They are solipsists, adopting the narcissistic illusion that –since everything depends upon us– all we need do is change our own behavior for everything to turn out right. It is akin to the co-dependent strategy of the child of an alcoholic, who strives to achieve perfect behavior in order to motivate the parent to change. To think otherwise is to concede that the world is a chaotic place that we cannot control, and demands of us difficult choices, responses of limited effect, and –above all– the uncertainty of faith.

  • Brett says:

    Pro forma? Does that mean that MM’s condemnation of PP was insincere? Is he lying about his views on PP? Why would someone like MM, who has no compunction about sharing his views, feel the need to fudge here?

    Is it possible to be pro-life without making abortion the pre-eminent topic of one’s writing? (I write on the Eucharist far more than on abortion.) Is it even possible that one could be against abortion and disagree with the right about health care? Or must we assert that anyone who disagrees with the right about anything disagrees about abortion, even if they aren’t willing to say as much? MM doesn’t get to decide his own opinion on abortion, you will do it for him.

    It is one thing to disagree with MM (or any other fellow Catholic) on which public policy best serves the common good. It is another to imply his insincerity.

    If we at VN say nothing about abortion, we are pro-abortion. If we say something about abortion, it is not satisfactory if it does not toe the GOP line. Every post, and there are a lot of them, is just one more exception that proves the rule. There is a self-fulfilling prophecy going on here.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    Brett,

    Take a look at Morning’s Minions work at Vox-Nova. On the rare occasion that he bothers to even offer a mild rebuke of the abortion industry, he insists on following it up with a much harsher upbraiding of Republicans. Abortion to him is nothing more than a distraction from the bigger issues of government mandated health care and whatever pet leftist project he has in his cross-hairs.

    Nate’s comment is simply deranged. Can we put to bed the notion that we should take any of these fools seriously?

  • Art Deco says:

    Wildermuth’s comments are warped and bizarre and I think reflect his own idiosyncratic pathologies. I would tend to suspect that the ill motives of the the general run of the Catholic left are far more commonplace.

  • c matt says:

    I suppose there is a small grain of truth to the claim that the US is the greatest source of evil among nations. At present, it is the most powerful, and projects that power world-wide. No other country, except for China, perhaps, can project such power and China does not seem to be interested in doing so at this time, at least not in the same way as the US. But by the same token, the US is also arguably the greatest source of good among nations – no other country rushes to provide aid as much as the US. I don’t think it is necessarily inconsistent to be both – when you wield a lot of power, how you use it impacts for good or ill. It is manifestly unfair to only note the good or the bad. Just my own observation, but those on the right seem to overplay the good; those on the left overplay the bad.

  • Katherine says:

    MM voted for the most pro-abort President in our nation’s history.

    Have you mention this to the Justice Department? Given that MM is an Irish citizen and not entitled to vote, it seems you have accused him of a felony.

  • Brett says:

    I think any honest reader can see that MM believes the Democrats give us a better chance at reducing abortion in the US.

    A fair-minded person can disagree with his assessment.

    But I don’t think it is fair-minded to imply that he is faking a concern for the unborn.

    And we can work with those with whom we disagree much more easily than with those we don’t trust. Sowing distrust of pro-life democrats imperils the pro-life cause. It ensures that whenever the Dems take power, as they will every couple elections, the house and/or senate will be largely pro-choice because, no matter where abortion is on MM’s list of priorities, it is pretty low for most Americans.

    One can be wrong without being dishonest. I do it all the time. ;)

  • Paul Zummo says:

    Brett,

    At best you’re being incredibly naive if you think that the Democratic party has become more indebted to the abortion industry because of pro-lifers sowing “distrust” of pro-life Democrats. The Democratic party has done this of its own accord, and so-called pro-life Democrats have aided and abetted the Democrats by their continued blind allegiance towards the party.

    One can be wrong without being dishonest

    And some can be both.

  • Dale Price says:

    The main problem is that, unless you are a news portal or something like it, blogging is entirely idiosyncratic. You blog about what you blog about. Making an argument from silence is especially risky under those circumstances.

    I think it’s a lot more telling when the news media doesn’t cover a particular story (e.g., the serial killing spree of Kermit Gosnell) that otherwise pushes all the buttons which usually mandate close coverage.

  • Phillip says:

    “I think any honest reader can see that MM believes the Democrats give us a better chance at reducing abortion in the US.

    A fair-minded person can disagree with his assessment.”

    Actually, any truly honest person should. There is little in the Democratic Party that is intrinsically “pro-life.” One may argue that increasing “investments” in different social programs will result in decreased abortion rates. However, there is little evidence that such is the case as there is little evidence that increasing “investments” in most areas actually results in positive change (see education.) So one may hold that position but it is very weak and does not make one necessarily “pro-life.”

    But the Democratic Party is almost entirely in the hold of abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy and for some, including Obama, even after birth. This wholesale surrender to an intrinsic evil, which cannot be rationalized by “investments” of dubious value in other so-called “pro-life” issues, renders MM’s vociferous support of the Democratic Party offensive.

  • Blackadder says:

    Brett,

    It’s not that I think MM was lying about opposing Planned Parenthood. I think he is sincerely against Planned Parenthood and against abortion. But I don’t think he cares about it very much. It clearly doesn’t get him exercised the way that, say, a post by Thomas Peters criticizing Vox Nova does.

  • Nate Wildermuth says:

    Thanks for the re-post, Donald, and in its entirety no less. And perhaps you and your readers are correct — perhaps it is I who have lost my mind, rather than those who see abortion as a holocaust yet continue to believe in a holocausting nation. Time will tell.

  • No, I do not think you have lost your mind Nate. Frankly, I was quite surprised by the post. You and I have often differed over the years, but I have always respected the sincerity of your pacifism. The depth of your feeling against America shocked me. America is much more today than the evil of abortion, just as America was much more in the days of Lincoln than slavery.

  • G-Veg says:

    Brett,

    I made an honest go of being a Pro-Life Democrat. It cannot be done.

    I am a Pennsylvanian and I remember fondly Governor Casey. I was proud of his stand and furious as the Democrat Party’s retribution. I hung in there until 2006. I read every bio and supported pro-life dems at every turn. Then Governor Casey’s son, now Senator Casey, proved to me that there is no place for Catholic beliefs in the Democrat Party.

    It was with a heavy heart too that I switched my affiliation for I honestly believed that the calls to justice that theoretically underpin the Dem platform well articulated the Church’s preference for the poor. After more than a decade of blindness, I acknowledged that the entire platform was a fraud.

    What you believe about the Democrat Party is of no concern to me. I have heard every false argument imaginable about how one SHOULD be a Dem if one believes the Church’s teachings. Believe what you will but you shouldn’t be surprised to be called on it when the party that our fellow Catholics on the Left support runs utterly rampant over truth and right.

    For my part, the Republicans have my support as long as they are the better alternative to the Dems. I don’t believe that the GOP represents the only or even the right answer to many social questions… but the organization is certainly less wrong than the Democrat Party.

  • T. Shaw says:

    Brett,

    Maniac MM needs to be judged by what he does, not what he writes. Talk is cheap.

    Nate seems a nice guy and I bet he means well. He seemingly thinks his country is “holocaust nation” and anyone that pledges allegiance is evil, too. I doubt he means that. He possibly couldn’t dream up any other defense for catholic abortion sympathizers.

    I would draw to lefty caths’ attentions the parable of the pharisee and the publican in the temple. It was the humble sinner’s prayer that was counted.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • Art Deco says:

    rather than those who see abortion as a holocaust yet continue to believe in a holocausting nation

    Nate, that policy was imposed on our elected officials by our frigging judges. It is an indicator of the decay the bar in particular and the professional-managerial bourgeoisie in general. “The Nation” has not had much to do with it.

    Calling attention to the United States in this regard is peculiar. Abortion is regrettably lawful throughout the Occident and in the Far East as well. Malta has held out.

  • Pinky says:

    Dude, yeah, I know she was crazy. I’m glad you broke up with her. But it’s been months, man. You’ve got to stop talking about her. It doesn’t matter what kind of crazy stuff she’s into these days. It’s over. Move on.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    I really think it is outrageous and obscene to identify America as the (or as the updated post says “one of the”) greatest source of evil in the history of mankind.

    What western nation even has a pro-life movement with the numbers and influence of America?

    If one wanted to speak of the evil of the last few administrations, that would be a different matter. But that isn’t what is taking place here: the flag, the Constitution, the essence of America is what is being identified as “evil” here.

    One of the posters on the comment thread for Nate’s post made the following point as well:

    “Who is “we”? The country doesn’t have abortions. Pregnant women do, and each one is making an individual decision. I don’t see how those individual decisions can all be consolidated into one action and collective responsibility assigned”

    Precisely right. The evil of abortion was ultimately given to us by radical leftist and feminist SUBVERSIVES – adherents of an alien, foreign, anti-American ideology called Marxism and its variants – who burrowed their way into our academic and political institutions. The American people did not choose legalized abortion, they had it foisted upon them by the Supreme Court, which was in turn provoked to rule by a cabal of radical feminists who manipulated and use, and then discarded Norma McCorvey or “Roe” from the infamous decision – and who is now a famous pro-life activist, by the way!

    I agree that glory and honor must be given first to God, and obedience first to the Magisterium of the Church – having satisfied those requirements there is nothing wrong with recognizing the relative goodness of the United States.

    Speaking about the relatively GOOD conditions of the Church in America as opposed to Europe, Pope Leo XIII wrote:

    “The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance.” — Pope Leo XIII, Longinqua

    Leo went on to warn, however, that America’s condition of separation of Church and State was not ideal or preferred, and that the success of the Church would be even greater and more secure if she were rightly constituted. Being a majority Protestant nation, this couldn’t have happened then or now, but in principle it is true.

    Leo also said:

    “All intelligent men are agreed, and We Ourselves have with pleasure intimated it above, that America seems destined for greater things. Now, it is Our wish that the Catholic Church should not only share in, but help to bring about, this prospective greatness.”

    In a better era, when leaders were not consumed by envy and resentment, as well as false idealism and utopianism, this was an easily expressed thought by “all intelligent men.” And this when Catholics in America were still officially discriminated against in many places, and had to fight for respect in the public arena!

    So any argument that treats our fallen nature as if it doesn’t exist, or could one day be abolished, is simply asinine and ignorant to the good that actually does exist and can be preserved. And any argument that says we cannot appreciate – not worship but appreciate and even safeguard – our Constitution and our traditions as if it were a form of idolatry isn’t speaking like a Catholic, but rather a Jehova’s Witness.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    And for all that, I STILL have moral qualms about the methods of Lila Rose. There is something about the use of deception on that scale that bothers me, even if it is for a good cause. I cannot shake the “feeling” that it is immoral, even though I as much as anyone on our side would like to see Planned Parenthood destroyed.

    In fact I have to be honest – I would have less of a problem with the actual destruction of a Planned Parenthood, say by a fire (in which no one was killed of course), than I do with the use of deception and entrapment.

  • Nate Wildermuth says:

    Art, you really think that abortion is only happening in our country because of some accident of bad judges? As opposed to the ‘sexual revolution’ and countless other lies that infect the American Way of Life? Moreover, overturning Roe vs. Wade won’t stop the ‘elected officials’ in New York and California from letting the murder of babies continue.

    This is precisely what my post was about — missing the big picture, and thinking that except for a few bad people (usually over there), everything in America is basically fine. Everything isn’t basically fine. Secular humanism has the world by the throat, and the hand that squeezes has U.S.A. tattooed on it.

  • Nate Wildermuth says:

    Donald, I appreciate your thoughts. But I wouldn’t say that I hate America, any more than I would hate the Titanic. I just don’t think its going anywhere good, and would like to help people get off before the thing sinks.

  • “and would like to help people get off before the thing sinks.”

    And go where Nate? I can’t think of a place on this planet where I would rather live. Judging from the immigration rates to this country, both legal and illegal, I think a great many non-Americans around the globe feel precisely the same way as I do.

  • Nate Wildermuth says:

    I have a good many Christian friends and associates who are leaving the city to live in the country, try their hand at small-town agrarian life. Wendell Berry stuff. I think that’s the right start — not moving away from America, but moving into the places where America is at its best.

  • Art Deco says:

    Art, you really think that abortion is only happening in our country because of some accident of bad judges?

    The policy was imposed by the appellate judiciary and has been maintained by the appellate judiciary against the wishes of all but about nine state legislatures. Two thirds of the female population who have been in their child bearing years since 1970 have not participated in this practice and (as Fr. Neuhaus put it), 70% of the population disapproves of abortion in 95% of the circumstances in which it takes place.

    The elected officials could have used the tools at their command to discipline the judiciary. They did not. There should have been a popular mobilization to do that and restore the status quo ante 1967. There has been to some extent, but it has been stymied by the fact that the culture of the bar is simply very different from that of the general public, and the appellate judiciary has retained a prestige it certainly does not merit.

    The legal regime in question is permissive. A great deal of crime has been committed as a consequence, but it makes little sense to refer to ‘the United States’ as a ‘force’ for ‘evil’ ‘in the world’. The evil occurs in social life generally. The political dimension of social life is implicated only because of the misfeasance of the judiciary. For all that, the United States Government has not promoted abortion abroad in the world except perhaps through intermittent funding of United Nations agencies up to no good. And, again, it makes little sense to complain of public policy in the United States (much less the United States as a polity or society) when the evil in question is a feature of social life in the entire Occident and much of the Far East as well.

  • Art Deco says:

    I have a good many Christian friends and associates who are leaving the city to live in the country, try their hand at small-town agrarian life.

    Get real.

    In my part of the world, small towns and rural areas suffer very few violent crimes. One county I lived in had a population shy of 70,000 and a mean of about five robberies in a year. There has not been a homicide hearabouts since 1996. That is the advantage you have over the city. Otherwise, the degenerate aspects of the age are to be found here as anywhere.

    They do not publish birth notices in my local paper anymore. They did so as recently as a decade ago. There were certain conventions observed (e.g. placing the mother’s maiden name in parentheses) in these notices which told you bits of information about the families in question. You could tell from these conventions what share of births at the local hospitals were out of wedlock. In the catchments of our two small-town hospitals, the share was about 40%.

    As for agrarian life, forget it. One of the staff of Co-operative Extension at Cornell told me (again, over a decade ago) that there were fewer than 700 farmers in that county with 70,000 people in it. The displaced dairy farmer working in my office was pretty plain about it: the economics of agriculture have rendered it impossible for any but the most skilled and meticulous to make a living at it. It tore him up to sell his cows, but the milk business has very slim profit margins.

  • Dale Price says:

    The Titanic metaphor is actually reasonably compelling, and a far better argument than the “one of the greatest forces for evil.” Hubris and blindness are indeed driving us to a precipice, as surely as J. Bruce Ismay made sure the jewel of the White Star Line was going at top speed.

    But that makes Ismay (and Smith, and Murdoch, et al) tragic figures, not inherently malevolent. We should look at the potential ruin of America the same way Augustine faced the ruin of Western Rome–as a tragedy, and an evil in itself.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    “I have a good many Christian friends and associates who are leaving the city to live in the country…”

    My husband and I did that once, for about 3 years. It was very nice in some ways — we had fruit trees and I taught myself how to can fruit and vegetables.

    However, several things made it eventually unsustainable — namely, the fact that in order to pay the mortgage and property taxes and keep food on the table, at least one of us had to have a full time job that required a lengthy commute each day. This meant spending lots and lots of money on gas and car maintenance, not to mention on home maintenance and repair.

    As Art pointed out, very few people can make a living at farming anymore. Unless you are successfully self-employed and able to work from home, rural living these days can be more expensive in many ways than city living.

    Today I’d rather live in the city if for no other reason than I don’t have to be totally dependent on owning a car — I can walk or use public transportation if necessary. As for growing one’s own food — a valuable skill in a time of rising food prices — many cities now offer community gardens in which one can participate.

    It is true that rural areas tend to suffer less violent crime, but that doesn’t mean they are totally immune. For example, the worst recent mass murder in Central Illinois — in which a married couple and three of their children were killed and a fourth child seriously maimed — happened not in a major city but in a tiny rural village of less than 500 residents. Plus, when violent crime or other disasters (fires, car accidents, medical emergencies, etc.) do occur, it takes longer for first responders to arrive and longer to get to a hospital or other place of safety.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    As for the main premise/question posed by this post: of course America is and has been a force for BOTH evil and good, just like any other country made up of fallen and sinful human beings.

    And where else are you going to go that’s better? The only truly pro-life and Catholic country I can think of is Malta, but since it’s a tiny island in the Mediterranean, good luck trying to emigrate there or find a place to live (unless you can somehow wheedle an appointment as ambassador, of course).

    As for political parties, I think there is a middle ground between insisting that Catholics should ALWAYS vote Democrat and insisting that they can NEVER vote Democrat under pain of mortal sin. I end up voting Republican about 95 percent of the time anyway due to the fact that most (not all) Democrats tend to be pro-abort. However, I don’t think this is an ideal situation and I hate to see the Church or the pro-life movement become totally beholden to one political party.

    I think we should love our country (and our state and community) the same way we love our families and friends: not because they are perfect, incorruptible, sinless or always right, but just because they are ours.

  • Ioannes says:

    I do not agree with the sickening leftism and liberalism of Vox Nova or any of its comrades in the false gospel of social justice and peace at any price. I do believe that the United States was founded as a Christian Constitutional Republic and was once a good nation. But as long as we murder unborn babies as the right to choose, sanctify the filth of sodomy as equal rights, create and distribute pornography as freedom of speech, and commit general outright idolatry, then we can expect God’s wrath. In a way, the terror and horror of the Civil War was God’s wrath against the sin of slavery, and I predict that the liberals will never let go of abortion until that horrible event of five years in the 19th century repeats itself in the 21st. I do not want that to happen. I do not advocate that. But the satanic liberalism that Vox Nova ingratiates itself with leaves no other alternative except that the Lord Himself returns to Earth first. Jews in concentration camps in WWII were not freed till Germany had been devastated by the Allies. Unborn babies in their mothers’ wombs will not be protected till liberalism is likewise defeated in these United States. Let us hope and pray that happens WITHOUT the bloodshed of either liberals or conservatives. But history says otherwise, especially as long as godless liberals continue their demonic murderous spree against the unborn.

  • Phillip says:

    “As for political parties, I think there is a middle ground between insisting that Catholics should ALWAYS vote Democrat and insisting that they can NEVER vote Democrat under pain of mortal sin. I end up voting Republican about 95 percent of the time anyway due to the fact that most (not all) Democrats tend to be pro-abort. However, I don’t think this is an ideal situation and I hate to see the Church or the pro-life movement become totally beholden to one political party.

    I think we should love our country (and our state and community) the same way we love our families and friends: not because they are perfect, incorruptible, sinless or always right, but just because they are ours.”

    Perfect!

  • c matt says:

    Nate, that policy [abortion] was imposed on our elected officials by our frigging judges.

    True, but it could not have been sustained for nearly 40 years without the acquiessence of a siginificant segment of the culture at large.

  • Katherine says:

    I was aware Katherine that MM is an Irish import. Considering that he endorsed Obama in a has-to-be-read-to-be-believed post on VN, I assumed that he had become a naturalized American citizen.

    So in a public forum, you falsely accused someone of election fraud (a felony) based on a wrong assumption* on your part. I missed the retraction and apology, but based on your inaccurate comments, I’m probably done reading what you write.

    * When you ‘assume’ you make an ..

  • Katherine I will miss your readership in much the same way I miss my most recent kidney stone. Go elsewhere in your attempt to create mountains out of molehills and avoid discussing the actual topics of the posts. Don’t get weary dragging those red herrings.

  • Phillip says:

    It looks like my last post didn’t make it. Anyway, any thoughts on the Protect Life Act Donald? May make a post of it. Then we can see if VN will actually condemn some dems.

  • Retrieved your comment from the spam file Philip. If a comment has a link in it, Akismet usually thrusts it there. In the post you linked to Sam Rocha was being satirical, although much of what he wrote has been said seriously by various other Vox Nova contributors over the years. Vox Nova, with certain honorable examples, tends to be the home of individuals who would sooner eat ground glass than give aid or comfort to the conservatives or the Gop. If that means they have to studiously ignore abortion, they will. This does not apply to all Vox Nova contributors past or present, but that is the general tone of the blog.

    The Protect Life Act is a wonderful move by the GOP, as can be seen by the hysteria of leftist and pro-abort blogs in regard to it. Sam Rocha’s snide attitude when you asked him in the comment thread about the Act is typical of VN. If a Republican proposed it, best to go on the offense. Well done Philip! Rocha writes a satircal thread and you get him to go into protect the left mode, thereby undermining what he was attempting to establish by his post.

  • Phillip says:

    Thanks. I understand that Sam was being satirical though I was hoping he would be honest enough to admit that the Democrats are supporting evil in opposing the Protect Life Act. I guess I was misguided.

    As I said earlier, I think this is why some hold that VN is not “sufficiently” pro-life. I suspect for some there, one can cut out “sufficiently.”

  • Sue says:

    Okay, so the questioning of Lila Rose, I get it, I guess. She didn’t break any laws, but was it ethical for her to go undercover (since that is what investigative journalists do?)
    Was it ethical for undercover journalists to expose widespread corruption in Chicago? Like in this story…http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919328,00.html. So I guess the bigger question is “Is undercover investigative journalism ethical?” There is the ethical conundrum of whether the ends justify the means. If a journalist uncovers information that needs to be brought to the attention of the public, does that therefore justify the clandestine methods used to obtain that information? The concern is that the deceit on the part of the journalist sullies the critical information that is uncovered. Does a journalist dampen his credibility through the use of lies and chicanery?
    Journalism that relies on active deception and, more typically,passive’ misrepresentation to acquire information must satisfy at least the following three professional ethical requirements. First, the information pursued must be directly and strongly linked to a larger social purpose. Secondly, the public value of such information must clearly outweigh the injury caused by the deception and the privacy violation. Thirdly, undercover methods must not be resorted to where the information can be gathered by straightforward means. I would say Lila Rose met all of these requirements. The EVIL of Planned Parenthood far outweighs the deceit of her investigators.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .