Righteous Deception?

My pastors are going through a sermon series that is purposefully dis-comforting. They say it's supposed to be that way, being Lent and all. They are speaking on 4-deadly sins to which we Washingtonians (have I been here long enough to call myself that?) are particularly prone. Much of the focus has been on how deadly these sins are, and that has actually been good. They have been painful, but like a massage that digs deep below the surfaces of skin and muscle, they have been a kind of pain that brings healing. Repentance of sin leads to a sincere hope in God.

The first deadly sin was deception. When Dan preached on this, he used FBI Agent Robert Hanssen, who sold secrets to the Soviets more for the thrill of deceiving his peers than for the money. (You probably know that he is the subject of the excellent film, "Breach." Oscar nomination for Chris Cooper! Here, here!) Of course, he preached against more normal examples of deception, such as pretending to work while you're really sending personal emails or playing solitaire.

However, we might agree that not all cases deception are evil. In "Les Miserables," a nun whose defining trait was her sincerity, lied to Javert in order to protect Jean Valjean. She was not on the side of law, in contrast to Javert's pious lawfulness, but rather she showed Valjean mercy, somehow sensing he was a good man (I love the scene. Victor Hugo has a wonderful way of using more words than necessary to describe a single moment, and in umpteen paragraphs, we meet the nun at the point of her moral crisis. The build up is beautiful, and there is no way that we are not going to root for her to save Valjean's bacon).

A less morally ambiguous example: I think anyone who has taken Philosophy 101 has heard the Gestapo example. If you lived in Germany and 1942, and you were hiding your Jewish friends in your basement, it would be morally reprehensible not to try to deceive the Gestapo.

I now turn to the "Time" magazine from a couple weeks ago, which reported from the "front lines" of my country's abortion wars. Much of it centered on a particular Crisis Pregnancy Center (I learned that individual centers in this anti-abortion group are much more independent that I thought they were). It reported that some Crisis Pregnancy Centers engage in some fibbery of their own. The specific example was exaggerating the health risks of abortion based on data a couple decades old. When confronted about this, the woman indicated that transparency in this case was something they really had to think about.

This deception was the hot topic of discussion in the readers' letters a week later. Congressman Carolyn B. Maloney wrote that "while many CPCs are sincere, what I call 'counterfeit pregnancy centers' also exist... deceit and misinformation only serve to inflame both sides and emotionally damage pregnant women exploring their options. I have introduced legislation to crack down on the false advertising related to abortion services, and I hope it is something that can be supported by everyone, regardless of people's positions on abortion."

Maggie Nichols of Deltona, Florida counters, "a Planned Parenthood official (referring to the CPC fibs) quoted in your report stated, 'That's taking someones life and playing a really dangerous game with it.' Whose love does he believe is in danger? It is a significant injustice to pretend that there is only one life at stake in these cases. Pregnancy centers shouldn't misinform women--and neither should abortion providers."

I sympathize with the deception here. The justification seem to be, in order to save this child's life, misinformation is certainly necessary. Certainly scaring a woman out of abortion is a good tactic?

Yet something bugs me about that. At stake here is the moral high ground of the abortion debate, which has not only legislative significance, but significance in the hearts and minds of millions of young people enter the world of free thought. A month ago, I marched in the pro-life parade on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The majority of the marchers seemed to be Catholic youth groups. As I looked at all these children with hope, but not without sadness. I wondered what experience would bring them, how the world might deceive them. When the time came, what choices would they make. Marching is quite easy.

To truly be pro-life is to look after society's orphans and widows. To deceive the "widows" is not like deceiving the Gestapo. Life is at stake in both cases, but one must be embraced while the other must be thwarted.

I applaud the work of the Crisis Pregnancy Centers. The embrace the widows more than anyone else I'm aware of. They buy food and clothes and baby needs for those who cannot afford them. They give them counseling and comfort. They are the true evangelists in both an ancient and post-modern sense of the word I want them to not deceive, acknowledging that I am saying this as someone who is far from the realities at stake here. But there is a more powerful truth on their side. Technology has given them new, better ultrasounds. In the same Letter section, Kathie Thompson of Wilsonville, Oregon writes, "...since win has informed choice become a 'guerrilla' tactic? Abortion providers fear that a mother informed of her child's development will change her mind and decide not to abort. I hope your cover picture (of a woman's hand holding four model fetuses) is sufficiently intriguing to pregnant women that they will investigate, as much as possible, that precious life inside them. Ultrasound is not a 'stealth tactic.' It's a window into the womb that reveals undeniable life."

That is the opposite of deception.