Some time back I posted a set of links to some older works in Scholastic philosophy and theology available online via Archive.org. Fans of Scholastic moral theology will be interested to know that five volumes of The Casuist: A Collection of Cases in Moral and Pastoral Theology, a very useful series published about a century ago, are also available online. Here are the links: Volume 1; Volume 2; Volume 3; Volume 4; Volume 5.
Also available at the same site is Fr. Thomas Slater's similar work Questions of Moral Theology. Among the many articles of interest you’ll find within these resources, some readers might find especially interesting “Is It Ever Permitted to Tell a Lie?”, at pp. 44-49 of Volume 3 of The Casuist. This is an issue that I have addressed in a number of earlier posts (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). As my longtime readers know, I endorse the traditional view that (a) lying is deliberately speaking contrary to one’s true thoughts and that this is always and intrinsically wrong, even if not always gravely so, but that (b) broad mental reservation, even when it is hoped that that its use will deceive one’s listener, does not count as lying. A minority view within the tradition holds that a deliberate falsehood counts as lying only when the listener has a right to the truth. In an earlier post I firmly rejected this latter view, but I also emphasized that it has had defenders in the tradition and that it would be unjust to accuse those who hold it of somehow dissenting from Catholic orthodoxy. The article from The Casuist gives a good idea of how seriously this matter was debated by earlier generations of Catholic moral theologians.
Leslie Gore went to the all-women's college up the road from the all men's college I went to, at the same time. I saw her once. Looks like she hasn't aged much better than me; but the message is right on. I read the gender gap among women voters is closing, or closed. How that can be is beyond me. Because whereas teabaggers are a special breed to which facts matter not, I've always believed that, in general, women were smarter than men. Could detect men's bullshit from a mile away. Like when Debate Mitt pretended anti-woman Mitt never existed.
Oh, Chis Matthews gets a little riled sometimes. But this segment is full of climate/political truths. In particular, how a Mitt Romney win would make things incalculably worse.
Sigh. As Romney lies his way through Ohio, puts on phony "disaster relief"* events there (collecting food for the Red Cross despite being told they can't use food donations), teaches poll watchers how to deceive voters, tries to get a photo-op with Governor Christie (who, to his great credit, refused) surveying hurricane damage, I get an email from a reader who'd received an email claiming that Obama plans a literal holocaust in his second term.
When If Romney wins, I have no doubt it'll be because of bullshit beliefs like that; not to mention deliberately blind ignorance of who Romney really is: a constant liar, a holder of no core convictions, a likely tax-cheat, a man whose desperation to be president is so great there's approximately nothing he'd not do to get there.
And, sure, it'll be in part because Obama has disappointed liberals, dampening the enthusiasm of 2008. But (and I include myself to a degree among those disappointed), it in no way accounts for the effects of Romney's unshakable commitment to lying his way into the office, and the non-stop deceit and propagandizing by Fox "news" and the rest of the RWS™ committed to making it happen. Plus, of course, a measure of voter suppression added to the mix.
Talk about your perfect storm: a candidate with an absolutely unprecedented willingness to lie about himself and his opponent, a lazy mainstream press, an overwhelming amount of deliberate disinformation from a ubiquitous and dishonest right-wing media who've created a sizable number of endumbed voters, and a handful of billionaires happy to seize the opportunity to buy their way in under the unwatchful and uncaring eyes of the electorate made willing. Based on lies. If it's true that politicians have always lied, it's never been the case that all those factors have come together so impactfully at once, nor that the main candidate has been, at that moment in history, so entirely devoid of scruples, happy to cash in on it, willing to say or do anything, no matter how false.
The question -- the answer to which is nearly too horrible to contemplate -- is: how are so many people willing to cast a vote for Mitt Romney, the most egregious candidate ever produced by a major political party; how has it been so easy to deceive so many? Surely some who'll be casting their vote are doing so knowing what a liar he is. Is it because they believe the equivalent of the holocaust story? Are that many people really that stupid? And if they are, is it because they've been fully brainwashed by their favored media, or is it just an inbred hatred of the idea of a black guy in that white house?
And speaking of perfect storms, it's not a bad time to consider what sort of government response would be possible were Mitt Romney, who prefers to privatize FEMA while drastically cutting funding, (or said so in one of his incarnations), or teabaggRs who've already cut FEMA funding by nearly 50%, in power when the next one happens. _________________________________________________ * Turns out the event was even phonier than first realized. The guy has no shame, will lie about anything, use any situation to pretend he gives a crap. Really: the more I see of him, the more despicable he becomes. If a guy like that becomes president...
