B
Bookcat
Guest
This is moral theology forum not biology.
We are dealing here with moral, and metaphysical realities.
- Status
We are dealing here with moral, and metaphysical realities.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
And this is why it is still wrong. Because the evil of killing an innocent is still evil even if you have a good goal.
B
Bookcat
Guest
No it cannot – such is called abortion. It is morally abortion and a gravely sinful act. An intrinsic evil. One can never abort a child to save the mother anymore than can not kill the mother as the means to saving the child.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
So am I. In the case of a woman with cancerous uterus. To save her life the uterus is removed. It sterilizes the woman. Sterilization is a mortal sin. It is allowed because it the way to save the woman’s life. The physical act is the same. The intent is different. The end justifies the means.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Not according to the Church. It is allowed if it is the only way to save the mother.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
Uh, this is not true.
B
Bookcat
Guest
That it is not an abortion. It is also even a very different physical act ( I will spar the reader how surgical abortions happen).
In the case of the act of the need of removing the cancerous uterus in order to save the womans life the foreseen death of the child is very unintended. And un-intended side effect.
The killing of the child* cannot be the means* to the saving of the mother.
And there two very different moral objects involved.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Uh yes it is it’s called the principle of the “double effect”. If there is no other way to save the mother. It’s not the intent to kill the fetus but save the mother. The death of the fetus is an undesired, unavoidable outcome. The act is the same, the intent is different.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
The physical act is the same. A hysterectomy is a hysterectomy. It is the intent that is different. The end justifies the means.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
No, still not true. Let me explain:
If the child lodges in the fallopian tubes, the tubes can be removed. But this is not the direct killing of the child. This is the removal of a malfunctioning organ which unfortunately has the unintentional side effect of killing the child.
Killing the child is not the desired end. It is not the attempted means. It is an unfortunate and unintended side effect.
Abortion is not any act that results in the death of an unborn child, it is the direct and purposeful killing of that child. This is never permitted.
You cannot, for example (and I do not know if this is medically sensical or not, but it is an example of the distinction), give a mother a pill intended to kill the child while he is still relatively small because the growth of the baby will kill the mother. This would be directly killing an innocent human to bring something else about, and that is never allowed.
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi,Facite, “I have a questions here. When doing an evil act who determines the outcome of evil acts? When doing so how can you be sure good will come of it” ?Isn’t it logically fallacious to say that?
Another thing, I already made it clear in my first post that I know that the ends cannot justify the means.
I’m not getting my question answered though. I am still confused.
God Bless
onenow1
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
The act is still the same. The intention is different. Removing the fallopian tube is sinful unless medically necessary as it amounts to sterilization. It is the intent that is different, the act is the same. The end (saving the woman) justifies the means (removing the fallopian tube).
Or killing someone. It is morally justifiable if it’s in self defense. It’s not otherwise. It is the intent that is different. The act is the same. The end justifies the means.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The moral act is determined by the moral object primarily --and secondarily the intention and circumstance (all three need to be good) – and the intention and the circumstances need also be good but a good intention does not change the intrinsically evil act into a good act.
Yes intention is involved but it is not primary and a good intent cannot change say an act of fornication into a marital act.
B
Bookcat
Guest
We are discussing the moral act not the “physical act” - this is a Catholic Moral Theology forum. We are discussing in the forum Catholic Moral Theology.
What I noted above is regarding the moral nature of things. The ends do not justify the means. One can never do a direct abortion in order to save a life.
C
CatholicRaven
Guest
First, perhaps we should clarify: are we talking about acts that are intrinsically evil, or are we talking about acts that can be either good or evil, or are we talking about whether a person is fully culpable for a mortal sin committed with good intent?
Perhaps this will help:
USCCB.ORG:
Remember, too, that we need to have faith and trust in God. To choose to sin is to go against Him. To assume that we need to commit an evil act in order for good to come of it is like saying that God doesn’t really know what He’s doing.
Perhaps this will help:
USCCB.ORG:
Simply put, when judging the goodness of an act, we cannot separate the objective and subjective parts, and the circumstances of the act, from each other. When we do, it tends to get confusing!
Remember, too, that we need to have faith and trust in God. To choose to sin is to go against Him. To assume that we need to commit an evil act in order for good to come of it is like saying that God doesn’t really know what He’s doing.
B
Bookcat
Guest
"The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas. In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behaviour. To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. Consequently, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “there are certain specific kinds of behaviour that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil”.127 …
‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8).
The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether that object is capable or not of being ordered to God, to the One who “alone is good”, and thus brings about the perfection of the person."
~ Bl. Pope John Paul II
Encylical: VERITATIS SPLENDOR
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html
B
Bookcat
Guest
Not well the line of Paul in Sacred Scripture that was quoted by Bl. Pope John Paul II above:
‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8)".
‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8)".
C
CatholicRaven
Guest
Here you are separating the objective action from the rest of the act, and then claiming to judge the morality of the entire act. But that is not correct.
Let me put it another way:
The end (saving your own life) does not actually making the means (killing someone) morally good. As I understand it, it may simply mean that the person who committed the act is not morally culpable for the sin, because the evil was unintentional–they did not freely choose to do evil.
HTH.
And if I am mistaken or unclear, someone with more knowledge in this area will surely correct me.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
The moral act is precipitated on the physical act. Just as homosexual attractions aren’t sinful, homosexual acts are.
If you asked “Is killing someone sinful?” Catholics would say yes, but with caveats. The caveats are self defense or in “just war.” The same act " killing someone" has situations where it is justified. The morality of the act is situational based on intent and circumstances.
The means “killing someone” does have moral caveats that are justified by the end, meaning it is ok in these circumstances because these intents are moral where other intents are not. The end of saving yourself or killing an immoral enemy makes the killing justified. The end justifies the means.
B
Bookcat
Guest
See Pope John Paul II above.
- Status