A caution from Archbishop Chaput: dishonest mercy helps no one

[LongingSoul]

Yes, we will. It would be sinful. I really thought this was made clear numerous times. It is found at the conclusion of the main text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter:

“But it can be very wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place, by having stiffled the protest of the anemnesis of being. The guilt then lies in a different place, much deeper–not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth.”

That Cardinal Ratzinger says it is “very wrong” and that the “guilt then lies in a different place, much deeper” means it is an even worse sin.

Simply stated, God’s law inscribed on the conscience is the Objective Truth. As such, it cannot be wrong. I think this is likely what has not been understood. It is when the anemnesis of being (the voice of conscience) is “stiffled” that the certain judgment of conscience errs.

There’s the other irony involved here too. If we ignore the certain judgement of conscience and do something we believe is sinful but is in fact not a sin… we are indicted for disobeying out conscience but are infact sinless at that deeper holy court.

For example if I have been taught that wearing lipstick is sinful but I go ahead and do it, I have sinned by disobeying my conscience, but not at the deeper level.

 

[LongingSoul]

Thanks for pointing this out Thomas, I’m happy that my conscience lets me off the hook with masturbation. I was going with the church on this one because I think one should submit to the churches wisdom but know that you have pointed out that it is our conscience that is the final arbiter I can finally rest at ease and have at her! Thanks to you am free to follow my conscience.

Thank You!

As a practicing Catholic the rightful place for you to discern your conscience is with a priest in the internal forum. Someone without faith in the Catholic Church could justifiably draw on other authorities which teach on good and evil, but for yourself with faith and knowledge, that decision as you describe it, would be purely hedonistic selfishness.

In fact, the biggest flaw in minimising the place of conscience in acting, is to perpetrate the lie that we do have a purely private, secret, self alone occupied forum where all manner of evil can be undertaken. It encourages the sin of the Pharisees who believed that being seen to be obedient and holy was fine regardless of the festering sins of the inner life.

Experiencing the spiritual exercises I found to be a great help to self examine without hypocrisy. When you put yourself into the gospels and walk with Jesus and first saints of Christianity, you become very aware that there are no secrets from heaven. What you do in secret you may as well do in public in front of family and friends because you are being seen by the whole community of heaven anyway. It’s a great help in the temptation to harbour attitudes and sins that love secrecy.

So for someone of faith and knowledge the conscience should be discerned in the internal forum with a Priest. That may help you discern selfish desires from the belief that a thing is holy and good.

 

[Ender]

There’s the other irony involved here too. If we ignore the certain judgement of conscience and do something we believe is sinful but is in fact not a sin… we are indicted for disobeying out conscience but are infact sinless at that deeper holy court.

If you do something you believe is sinful you have in fact sinned, because the intent behind the act was disordered. It doesn’t matter that the action is in fact morally neutral (or even good). If the intent is sinful the act is sinful.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

If you do something you believe is sinful you have in fact sinned, because the intent behind the act was disordered. It doesn’t matter that the action is in fact morally neutral (or even good). If the intent is sinful the act is sinful.

Ender

If that is so, I would think it is the intent and not the act that is sinful. Can you provide something to support your position?

 

[Ender]

If that is so, I would think it is the intent and not the act that is sinful. Can you provide something to support your position?

The confusion here is caused by the semantic difficulty of distinguishing the components of an action from the action itself.*1750 The morality of human acts depends on: *

• • the object chosen; *
• • the end in view or the intention; *
• • the circumstances of the action.
    *The “object chosen” is the physical act itself, say abortion. The problem is that having an abortion also involves the intent and the circumstances, so “an abortion” can refer both to the object chosen and to all of the influences that went into the decision. There really is a terminology problem.

Giving alms is good, but giving alms to garner favor with someone is bad. In the latter case the object is good but the intent is sinful, therefore the act is sinful even though the object is not.

Some objects (e.g. abortion) are evil without exception, therefore any act involving such an object is evil regardless of the intention. This does not mean that any act that results in the death of a fetus is an abortion, any more than the shooting death of another person is necessarily a murder. The result of the act does not determine the nature of the act.
1756 There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.
Ender

 

[clem456]

If you do something you believe is sinful you have in fact sinned, because the intent behind the act was disordered. It doesn’t matter that the action is in fact morally neutral (or even good). If the intent is sinful the act is sinful.

Ender

I don’t think that’s exactly right.
If you intent to offend God, that is sinful. The object is to offend God.

If I believe it is sinful to run across the street and choose to do what I believe is wrong in order to offend God, that does not make the act of running across the street intrinsically evil. Running across the street is what it is. The act is not disordered.

My acting to offend God is disordered.

 

[Thomas_White]

The confusion here is caused by the semantic difficulty of distinguishing the components of an action from the action itself.*1750 The morality of human acts depends on: *

• • the object chosen; *
• • the end in view or the intention; *
• • the circumstances of the action.
    *The “object chosen” is the physical act itself, say abortion. The problem is that having an abortion also involves the intent and the circumstances, so “an abortion” can refer both to the object chosen and to all of the influences that went into the decision. There really is a terminology problem.

Giving alms is good, but giving alms to garner favor with someone is bad. In the latter case the object is good but the intent is sinful, therefore the act is sinful even though the object is not.

The question is really whether giving alms can be either a good thing or a bad thing. In other words, how could contributing to the collection of alms at Mass be a sin? Perhaps a person does so with the wrong intent, and I can see how that intent could be wrong but not that giving alms is itself sinful. I cannot see the giving of alms at Mass, in itself as an act, as possibly involving wholesale sinning. It doesn’t ring true.

Some objects (e.g. abortion) are evil without exception, therefore any act involving such an object is evil regardless of the intention. This does not mean that any act that results in the death of a fetus is an abortion, any more than the shooting death of another person is necessarily a murder. The result of the act does not determine the nature of the act.
1756 There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.
Ender

If the result of an act does not determine the nature of the act (object), how would giving alms at Mass be a sinful act? I am not persuaded that there is “intrinsic evil”.

Would perjury (object) be a sin if the intent were to protect national security in the interest of preventing a major terrorist attack? I am far more persuaded by Augustine’s argument that evil results from man’s misuse of the good (that is, that there cannot be intrinsic evil in God’s good Creation).

 

[Ender]

The question is really whether giving alms can be either a good thing or a bad thing.

In order to understand this it is vital to distinguish between the the components of an act and the act itself. It is especially important to distinguish between the act and the “object chosen.” Giving alms can mean either the act or the object of the act, and unless the two meanings are understood the point will never be clear.

Giving alms (the object of the act) is good. A specific instance of my giving alms may be good or bad. That determination depends not just on the nature of the object, but also on the intent that motivated the act in my particular case.1753 …an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

In other words, how could contributing to the collection of alms at Mass be a sin? Perhaps a person does so with the wrong intent, and I can see how that intent could be wrong but not that giving alms is itself sinful. I cannot see the giving of alms at Mass, in itself as an act, as possibly involving wholesale sinning.

The bad intention does not make almsgiving wrong. It makes this particular instance of almsgiving wrong.

I am not persuaded that there is “intrinsic evil”.

One problem that arises from such a position is that quite literally any action can be rationalized. If nothing is intrinsically evil then no act is out of bounds if I believe it necessary to achieve a worthwhile goal. This puts murder, torture, deceit, and every other sin in play.

I am far more persuaded by Augustine’s argument that evil results from man’s misuse of the good (that is, that there cannot be intrinsic evil in God’s good Creation).

I would be interested in reading what Augustine said on this point. Color me doubtful.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If you intent to offend God, that is sinful. The object is to offend God.

If your intent is to offend God, that is the intent, not the object. The object would be the way you chose to express that intent. If my objective is to sin, that is not the object as the church uses the term; that is the intent. The object would be stealing, getting drunk, or doing any particular thing I believe would offend him.

If I believe it is sinful to run across the street and choose to do what I believe is wrong in order to offend God, that does not make the act of running across the street intrinsically evil.

This is absolutely true. Nothing you do or intend can change the nature of the object of your action. A sinful intent, however, will make your specific action immoral.

Running across the street is what it is. The act is not disordered.

As an “object chosen”, running across the street is not immoral. A specific act of running across the street, however, will be disordered if the intent motivating the act is disordered.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

One problem that arises from such a position is that quite literally any action can be rationalized. If nothing is intrinsically evil then no act is out of bounds if I believe it necessary to achieve a worthwhile goal. This puts murder, torture, deceit, and every other sin in play.

I would be interested in reading what Augustine said on this point. Color me doubtful.

Ender

No surprise there.

It must be understood that with respect to “intrinsic evil”, the question is: “Did God create evil?” (Or is it the result of man’s misuse of the good?)

The link below provides an overview of Augustine’s thinking generally on the topic, including the role of free will. The question of the origin of evil is specifically addressed in Augustine’s Confessions.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy

 

[Ender]

It must be understood that with respect to “intrinsic evil”, the question is: “Did God create evil?” (Or is it the result of man’s misuse of the good?)

When the church speaks of intrinsic evils she is talking about acts, not things. This is not contrary to Augustine’s position.* He rejected the idea that evil exists in itself, instead regarding it as a corruption of goodness, caused by humanity’s abuse of free will.*
The church has defined certain actions as being intrinsically evil, acts of the will.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

When the church speaks of intrinsic evils she is talking about acts, not things. This is not contrary to Augustine’s position.* He rejected the idea that evil exists in itself, instead regarding it as a corruption of goodness, caused by humanity’s abuse of free will.*
The church has defined certain actions as being intrinsically evil, acts of the will.

Ender

I guess I don’t know why the use of the term “intrinsic evil” is necessary, and, it seems, only necessary for certain acts, when an any act is either sinful or it is not. But I agree this seems a terminology problem. Abortion, for example, is sinful and we know it.

 

[Ender]

I guess I don’t know why the use of the term “intrinsic evil” is necessary, and, it seems, only necessary for certain acts, when an any act is either sinful or it is not. But I agree this seems a terminology problem.

Any action involves both the object chosen as well as the intent, and if either is sinful then the action is sinful. If all that mattered was the intent then any act done with a good intent would necessarily be good, but in fact some acts are never good regardless of the intent. This is because the object of the act is evil in all circumstances; it can never be considered good. Otherwise acts such as murder and rape could be justified.

Abortion, for example, is sinful and we know it.

But is it always sinful? If it is, it is because it is intrinsically evil and not subject to the good intent of the person having it. If it is not evil in all circumstances then your assertion is not accurate, for it would not be the act of abortion itself that was evil but only the intent behind it.

Ender

 

[clem456]

Any action involves both the object chosen as well as the intent, and if either is sinful then the action is sinful. If all that mattered was the intent then any act done with a good intent would necessarily be good, but in fact some acts are never good regardless of the intent. This is because the object of the act is evil in all circumstances; it can never be considered good. Otherwise acts such as murder and rape could be justified.
But is it always sinful? If it is, it is because it is intrinsically evil and not subject to the good intent of the person having it. If it is not evil in all circumstances then your assertion is not accurate, for it would not be the act of abortion itself that was evil but only the intent behind it.

Ender

A person might intend to work themselves out of poverty and provide more adequately for their family, all of which is a good.

Having an abortion to accomplish that good is not acceptable.

In the effort to protect human life, which is a good, I am not allowed to attack and harm an abortion doctor, even if, it meant the saving of a life that day.

Evil means are not acceptable in the accomplishment of good ends.