Can a medical purpose justify an act?

[Ron_Conte]

There are three fonts of morality (intention, moral object, circumstances). In order for any knowingly chosen act to be moral, all three fonts must be good. If an act has an evil moral object, then that act is intrinsically evil and always immoral. Nothing in the other two fonts can justify the act, because three good fonts are needed for any act to be moral.

The font called intention is described in this way by the Magisterium:

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “the end in view or the intention” (n. 1750)
Compendium of the Catechism: “the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act” (n. 367)
USCCB Catechism: “the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act)” (p. 311)

So if an act is done for a good purpose, that purpose constitutes the font called “intention”. The intention is the purpose for which the subject performs the act; it is the reason why the person chooses that particular act.

No intention or purpose can transform an intrinsically evil act into a moral act.

Pope John Paul II: “If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain ‘irremediably’ evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person… Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).

Can a legitimate medical purpose justify an intrinsically evil act? The teaching of the Magisterium on euthanasia answers this question with particular clarity.

Euthanasia is murder “with the purpose of eliminating all suffering” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 65). By its very definition, euthanasia has a good intention, specifically the good medical purpose of relieving suffering. And yet the Magisterium has infallibly condemned euthanasia as intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral (Evangelium Vitae, n. 65).

Euthanasia is said to cause death “by intention” because the person choosing euthanasia intentionally chooses a type of act inherently directed at the death of an innocent human person. But the good intention (good intended end or purpose) of eliminating all suffering does not make the act moral, nor does it convert the death of the innocent person into an unintended consequence.

There is an important distinction here between the intended end (purpose) and the intentional choice of a certain type of act (an intrinsically evil act). A good intended end does not justify the intentional choice of an inherently disordered act.

If it were true that a good intention or a medical purpose justified an act, so that the act could not possibly be intrinsically evil, then euthanasia would always be moral. For euthanasia, by its very definition, includes a good medical purpose, to eliminate all suffering. But euthanasia is condemned by the Church as always gravely immoral.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also answers this question about legitimate intentions versus intrinsically evil acts: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC 2399).

Therefore, neither contraception, nor abortifacient contraception, nor abortion, nor euthanasia is justified by a legitimate intention. A medical purpose is simply one type of legitimate intention. No medical purpose can justify any intrinsically evil act.

 

[meltzerboy]

There are three fonts of morality (intention, moral object, circumstances). In order for any knowingly chosen act to be moral, all three fonts must be good. If an act has an evil moral object, then that act is intrinsically evil and always immoral. Nothing in the other two fonts can justify the act, because three good fonts are needed for any act to be moral.

The font called intention is described in this way by the Magisterium:

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “the end in view or the intention” (n. 1750)
Compendium of the Catechism: “the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act” (n. 367)
USCCB Catechism: “the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act)” (p. 311)

So if an act is done for a good purpose, that purpose constitutes the font called “intention”. The intention is the purpose for which the subject performs the act; it is the reason why the person chooses that particular act.

No intention or purpose can transform an intrinsically evil act into a moral act.

Pope John Paul II: “If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain ‘irremediably’ evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person… Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81).

Can a legitimate medical purpose justify an intrinsically evil act? The teaching of the Magisterium on euthanasia answers this question with particular clarity.

Euthanasia is murder “with the purpose of eliminating all suffering” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 65). By its very definition, euthanasia has a good intention, specifically the good medical purpose of relieving suffering. And yet the Magisterium has infallibly condemned euthanasia as intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral (Evangelium Vitae, n. 65).

Euthanasia is said to cause death “by intention” because the person choosing euthanasia intentionally chooses a type of act inherently directed at the death of an innocent human person. But the good intention (good intended end or purpose) of eliminating all suffering does not make the act moral, nor does it convert the death of the innocent person into an unintended consequence.

There is an important distinction here between the intended end (purpose) and the intentional choice of a certain type of act (an intrinsically evil act). A good intended end does not justify the intentional choice of an inherently disordered act.

If it were true that a good intention or a medical purpose justified an act, so that the act could not possibly be intrinsically evil, then euthanasia would always be moral. For euthanasia, by its very definition, includes a good medical purpose, to eliminate all suffering. But euthanasia is condemned by the Church as always gravely immoral.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also answers this question about legitimate intentions versus intrinsically evil acts: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC 2399).

Therefore, neither contraception, nor abortifacient contraception, nor abortion, nor euthanasia is justified by a legitimate intention. A medical purpose is simply one type of legitimate intention. No medical purpose can justify any intrinsically evil act.

Orthodox Judaism agrees with Catholicism regarding the moral evil of euthanasia, even if the patient is suffering intensely and requests to be put out of their misery. Medication cannot be used for the explicit purpose of killing the patient, but can be used to alleviate pain even if it inadvertently results in death. I believe the Church states this as well. However, although doctors should engage in what methods they can to keep their patient alive and reduce their suffering, extraordinary measures used to resuscitate a person need not be maintained if they are preventing the natural death process: for example, if a ventilator is artificially keeping a person alive, it may be removed to enable the death process to proceed naturally. Is this true according to Catholic teaching?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Orthodox Judaism agrees with Catholicism regarding the moral evil of euthanasia, even if the patient is suffering intensely and requests to be put out of their misery. Medication cannot be used for the explicit purpose of killing the patient, but can be used to alleviate pain even if it inadvertently results in death. I believe the Church states this as well. However, although doctors should engage in what methods they can to keep their patient alive and reduce their suffering, extraordinary measures used to resuscitate a person need not be maintained if they are preventing the natural death process: for example, if a ventilator is artificially keeping a person alive, it may be removed to enable the death process to proceed naturally. Is this true according to Catholic teaching?

Yes, Catholic teaching allows extraordinary measures to be withheld or discontinued, in some circumstances. Such an act is not intrinsically evil; it is not inherently directed at causing the death of an innocent person. However, the intentions must be only good. The intention cannot be to save the hospital money or maximize profits. And the reasonably anticipated bad consequences must not outweigh the good consequences.

When an act is correctly judged to be not intrinsically evil, one must still evaluate the intention and circumstances in order to determine the morality of the act.

 

[Nate13]

However, although doctors should engage in what methods they can to keep their patient alive and reduce their suffering, extraordinary measures used to resuscitate a person need not be maintained if they are preventing the natural death process: for example, if a ventilator is artificially keeping a person alive, it may be removed to enable the death process to proceed naturally. Is this true according to Catholic teaching?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html

When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.

So the answer would be yes to a degree. Food, water, warmth, shelter, etc… can never be denied to a patient. A feeding tube is considered normal care, but a ventilator as you mentioned is considered extraordinary care.

 

[ryecroft]

I feel like I’m taking the bait as I’ve read many of your posts before - and as far as I can tell, there really isn’t a question. But fore verything you’ve put forth - there are medical reasons to use ‘the pill’ that the church agrees with. Yes, it would seem that they say two seperate thing.
With Humana Vitae:
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.19

So there we have it, it seems what you stated could be applied, but it also seems what I stated from HV could be applied. You can disagree, but I’ll go with what HV says on this seeing as how I myself have a serious medical reason.

God Bless
Rye

 

[Jaaanosik]

Ron,
as mentioned in the other thread. Not everything is black and white.
It depends on case to case basis.
Under normal conditions an amputation is an intrinsically evil act. I hope you will not argue with that. But sometimes it saves a life.
God bless,
Jano

 

[Nate13]

I feel like I’m taking the bait as I’ve read many of your posts before - and as far as I can tell, there really isn’t a question. But fore verything you’ve put forth - there are medical reasons to use ‘the pill’ that the church agrees with. Yes, it would seem that they say two seperate thing.
With Humana Vitae:
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.19

So there we have it, it seems what you stated could be applied, but it also seems what I stated from HV could be applied. You can disagree, but I’ll go with what HV says on this seeing as how I myself have a serious medical reason.

God Bless
Rye

That is different from what he is arguing I believe. An example of what he is talking about would be a woman choosing to get her tubes tied because a future pregnancy might be dangerous. The point of his argument is to show that the act of contraception can never be seen as a method by which we can cure diseases. It might be a side effect of an action directed towards curing a disease, but it can never be the method itself by which a disease is treated. Does that help distinguish the difference? I do not believe he is disagreeing with Humane Vitae in any way.

For example this is how it would apply to euthanasia:

It is moral to undergo a surgery that has a 20% success rate, in order to try and cure an illness that is 99% sure to result in death if not treated. Death has a high chance of occurring in this case as a result of the action, but death is not what the act is intended to bring about and is therefore moral.

It is however intrinsically immoral to choose to end a life as the direct cure to the pain someone may be feeling.

Directly killing someone to relieve them from suffering is intrinsically immoral.
Directly using contraception during a sexual act to prevent pregnancy for whatever reason good or not is immoral.

In your case your talking about using the pill for a serious medical reason which is fine. You can truthfully say you have no intent to use the pill to prevent pregnancy if your condition did not exist (or I hope you do). If you were using it with that intent even if you were also using it for a medical reason, that would be immoral as well. Contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is intrinsically immoral.

 

[ryecroft]

That is different from what he is arguing I believe. An example of what he is talking about would be a woman choosing to get her tubes tied because a future pregnancy might be dangerous. The point of his argument is to show that the act of contraception can never be seen as a method by which we can cure diseases. It might be a side effect of an action directed towards curing a disease, but it can never be the method itself by which a disease is treated. Does that help distinguish the difference? I do not believe he is disagreeing with Humane Vitae in any way.

For example this is how it would apply to euthanasia:

It is moral to undergo a surgery that has a 20% success rate, in order to try and cure an illness that is 99% sure to result in death if not treated. Death has a high chance of occurring in this case as a result of the action, but death is not what the act is intended to bring about and is therefore moral.

It is however intrinsically immoral to choose to end a life as the direct cure to the pain someone may be feeling.

Directly killing someone to relieve them from suffering is intrinsically immoral.
Directly using contraception during a sexual act to prevent pregnancy for whatever reason good or not is immoral.

In your case your talking about using the pill for a serious medical reason which is fine. You can truthfully say you have no intent to use the pill to prevent pregnancy if your condition did not exist (or I hope you do). If you were using it with that intent even if you were also using it for a medical reason, that would be immoral as well. Contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is intrinsically immoral.

I’m sorry, I really did misunderstand. I guess I was kind of expecting the OP to go that way after having read other posts of his. I’m glad that’s not what’s going on.
God Bless and sorry for jumping the gun-
Rye

 

[Nate13]

I’m sorry, I really did misunderstand. I guess I was kind of expecting the OP to go that way after having read other posts of his. I’m glad that’s not what’s going on.
God Bless and sorry for jumping the gun-
Rye

No worries it gets confusing. Its hard to express these ideas sometimes concisely because “intent” is so intangible.

 

[Ron_Conte]

A medical purpose would constitute the first font of morality, also called intention. No act is ever justified by one good font. Three good fonts are needed. So if an act has a good intention, to treat or cure some medical disorder, that one good intention is not sufficient. Good intentions are never sufficient to justify an act.

We must also consider the moral object and the circumstances. What type of act is being chosen? A good type of act has only good in the moral object. And the bad consequences, as they can be reasonably anticipated, must not outweigh the good consequences.

HV 15 only allows a good means to a good end. The Magisterium infallibly teaches that the end does not justify the means. So it is never the case that a good intended end (a medical purpose) would justify any and all means. Contraception and abortion are both condemned by the Church whether as an end or as a means. So it cannot be said that, if the end is a medical purpose, the means need not be examined for its morality.

HV 15 allows a good means to a therapeutic end, but not an evil means: “provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” The term “directly intended” refers to the moral object; the term “motive” refers to the intended end (or purpose) of the act. The intentional choice of an act that is inherently directed at an evil moral object (an intrinsically evil act), regardless of the intended end, is the choice of an intrinsically evil means. This type of choice is always a sin, regardless of the purpose. So Humanae Vitae 15 actually states that contraception cannot be intentionally chosen, even for a therapeutic purpose. To do so would be to choose an intrinsically evil means to a good end.

It is a serious error in moral theology to speak as if a good intention, e.g. a medical purpose (motive), is sufficient to guarantee that the moral object is good. It is also a serious error to speak as if the reasonably anticipated bad consequences of an act are morally irrelevant if they are unintended.

Good intentions are not sufficient for an act to be moral.

 

[1ke]

So Humanae Vitae 15 actually states that contraception cannot be intentionally chosen, even for a therapeutic purpose. To do so would be to choose an intrinsically evil means to a good end.

Yes, BUT hormone therapy can be chosen even if it happens to come conveniently packaged in a round blister pack.

 

[1ke]

I’m sorry, I really did misunderstand. I guess I was kind of expecting the OP to go that way after having read other posts of his. I’m glad that’s not what’s going on.
God Bless and sorry for jumping the gun-
Rye

No, you did not misunderstand at all.

 

[Jaaanosik]

A medical purpose would constitute the first font of morality, also called intention. No act is ever justified by one good font. Three good fonts are needed. So if an act has a good intention, to treat or cure some medical disorder, that one good intention is not sufficient. Good intentions are never sufficient to justify an act.

We must also consider the moral object and the circumstances. What type of act is being chosen? A good type of act has only good in the moral object. And the bad consequences, as they can be reasonably anticipated, must not outweigh the good consequences.

HV 15 only allows a good means to a good end. The Magisterium infallibly teaches that the end does not justify the means. So it is never the case that a good intended end (a medical purpose) would justify any and all means. Contraception and abortion are both condemned by the Church whether as an end or as a means. So it cannot be said that, if the end is a medical purpose, the means need not be examined for its morality.

HV 15 allows a good means to a therapeutic end, but not an evil means: “provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” The term “directly intended” refers to the moral object; the term “motive” refers to the intended end (or purpose) of the act. The intentional choice of an act that is inherently directed at an evil moral object (an intrinsically evil act), regardless of the intended end, is the choice of an intrinsically evil means. This type of choice is always a sin, regardless of the purpose. So Humanae Vitae 15 actually states that contraception cannot be intentionally chosen, even for a therapeutic purpose. To do so would be to choose an intrinsically evil means to a good end.

It is a serious error in moral theology to speak as if a good intention, e.g. a medical purpose (motive), is sufficient to guarantee that the moral object is good. It is also a serious error to speak as if the reasonably anticipated bad consequences of an act are morally irrelevant if they are unintended.

Good intentions are not sufficient for an act to be moral.

Ron,
This is not always true. Cutting a limb is intrinsically evil with bad intentions and moral with good intentions to save a life.
God bless,
Jano

 

[LeafByNiggle]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html

So the answer would be yes to a degree. Food, water, warmth, shelter, etc… can never be denied to a patient. A feeding tube is considered normal care, but a ventilator as you mentioned is considered extraordinary care.

I don’t understand why a feeding tube is considered normal care while a ventilator is considered extraordinary. Both of them utilize about the same level of technology to accomplish. Both of them cost about the same. The ventilator pushes air down the lungs - air that the patient is unable to draw in on his own. The feeding tube pushes food down to the stomach - food that the patient is unable to draw into his stomach on his own. Both food and air are normally understood as basic to life. Why would food be considered normal and air be considered extraordinary?

Now a heart-lung machine is a different matter. A machine that circulates your blood for you has never been considered a small extension to a right that everyone has for life.

 

[fix]

HV 15 allows a good means to a therapeutic end, but not an evil means: “provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” The term “directly intended” refers to the moral object; the term “motive” refers to the intended end (or purpose) of the act. The intentional choice of an act that is inherently directed at an evil moral object (an intrinsically evil act), regardless of the intended end, is the choice of an intrinsically evil means. This type of choice is always a sin, regardless of the purpose. So Humanae Vitae 15 actually states that contraception cannot be intentionally chosen, even for a therapeutic purpose. To do so would be to choose an intrinsically evil means to a good end.

The act of contraception may not be chosen. Pills are not intrinsically evil. Only certain actions can be intrinsically evil. The choice to treat an illness that may suppress fertility, as an unintended consequence, is not illicit at all.

See Vatican note:

In the first case, the hysterectomy is licit because it has a directly therapeutic character, even though it may be foreseen that permanent sterility will result. In fact, it is the pathological condition of the uterus (e.g., a hemorrhage which cannot be stopped by other means), which makes its removal medically indicated. The removal of the organ has as its aim, therefore, the curtailing of a serious present danger to the woman independent of a possible future pregnancy.

 

[Nate13]

I don’t understand why a feeding tube is considered normal care while a ventilator is considered extraordinary. Both of them utilize about the same level of technology to accomplish. Both of them cost about the same. The ventilator pushes air down the lungs - air that the patient is unable to draw in on his own. The feeding tube pushes food down to the stomach - food that the patient is unable to draw into his stomach on his own. Both food and air are normally understood as basic to life. Why would food be considered normal and air be considered extraordinary?

Now a heart-lung machine is a different matter. A machine that circulates your blood for you has never been considered a small extension to a right that everyone has for life.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=401751&page=2

 

[LeafByNiggle]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=401751&page=2

Thanks for that link. That thread provided some interesting reading with some making my point better than I did.

What I gathered from that thread is that the prime distinction between intubation and ventilation is that one would die faster if the ventilation were discontinued. But I still don’t see why the immediacy of the death that would result has anything to do with deciding if a kind of care is ordinary or extraordinary.

One point that was made in that thread is that if the ventilation were removed then that act would not actually kill the patient. The patient would die because of the underlying condition with the lungs that prevented natural breathing in the first place. But withholding food would kill directly. But that situation could just as easily be described the other way around: If intubation were removed then that act would not actually kill the patient. The patient would die because of the underlying problem with the digestive system that prevented the patient from picking up the food on the tray in front of him and chewing and swallowing it on his own. (Assuming that normal food was placed before him.) However withholding air from the ventilator would kill the patient directly.

Even the point about the immediacy of death seems to have a problem. Someone with a severe lung problem may indeed die fairly quickly if ventilation is removed. But suppose someone has a marginal lung where he can breathe a little but cannot breathe well enough to keep his lungs from filling with water and he eventually dies in 3-4 days. That could have comparable immediacy to the removal of intubation.

 

[Nate13]

va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_risposte-usa_en.html

Mat 25:35
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070801_nota-commento_en.html

bioethicsinternational.org/blog/2010/02/10/bishops-change-feeding-tube-guidelines/

 

[ryecroft]

A medical purpose would constitute the first font of morality, also called intention. No act is ever justified by one good font. Three good fonts are needed. So if an act has a good intention, to treat or cure some medical disorder, that one good intention is not sufficient. Good intentions are never sufficient to justify an act.

We must also consider the moral object and the circumstances. What type of act is being chosen? A good type of act has only good in the moral object. And the bad consequences, as they can be reasonably anticipated, must not outweigh the good consequences.

HV 15 only allows a good means to a good end. The Magisterium infallibly teaches that the end does not justify the means. So it is never the case that a good intended end (a medical purpose) would justify any and all means. Contraception and abortion are both condemned by the Church whether as an end or as a means. So it cannot be said that, if the end is a medical purpose, the means need not be examined for its morality.

HV 15 allows a good means to a therapeutic end, but not an evil means: “provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” The term “directly intended” refers to the moral object; the term “motive” refers to the intended end (or purpose) of the act. The intentional choice of an act that is inherently directed at an evil moral object (an intrinsically evil act), regardless of the intended end, is the choice of an intrinsically evil means. This type of choice is always a sin, regardless of the purpose. So Humanae Vitae 15 actually states that contraception cannot be intentionally chosen, even for a therapeutic purpose. To do so would be to choose an intrinsically evil means to a good end.

It is a serious error in moral theology to speak as if a good intention, e.g. a medical purpose (motive), is sufficient to guarantee that the moral object is good. It is also a serious error to speak as if the reasonably anticipated bad consequences of an act are morally irrelevant if they are unintended.

Good intentions are not sufficient for an act to be moral.

Well, regardless of what you say, I think I’ll go with what two Priests and a Bishop have told me about taking the pill for health reasons. I think I’ll trust their interpretation of Humana Vitae before I’ll trust yours. They are made to be the shepherds by the Church. You really could wind up confusing people with what you say Ron - luckily, you won’t ever have to worry about taking or not taking the pill in order to help you live a fairly normal life.
God Bless
Rye

 

[Jaaanosik]

Well, regardless of what you say, I think I’ll go with what two Priests and a Bishop have told me about taking the pill for health reasons. I think I’ll trust their interpretation of Humana Vitae before I’ll trust yours. They are made to be the shepherds by the Church. You really could wind up confusing people with what you say Ron - luckily, you won’t ever have to worry about taking or not taking the pill in order to help you live a fairly normal life.
God Bless
Rye

Rye, don’t worry. It takes time for some people to realize what they missed. Some people are “unchangeable” so to speak.
Nothing you can do about it. Nevertheless, good what you said because other people will be able to see and make their own opinion.