Catholic morality - difference in deliberated and intended acts

[o_mlly]

The difference between deliberated outcomes and the intended outcome.

De liberatus – Latin, (down) from free will.

Intedere – Latin, aiming in a certain direction.

Deliberation is an objective process, that occurs in any and all actors.

Intention is a subjective process, that is specific for a particular actor and may differ for another.

The moral object of an act includes the physical act and all the reasonable foreseeable moral outcomes, that is, the ends in view.

These outcomes are known to any and all actors through operation of intellect.

The intellect moves foreseen outcomes to the will.

In the will, any and all actors then deliberate on all the outcomes and freely choose to act or not act.

Any and all actors who choose to act, act deliberately knowing and willing all foreseeable outcomes, because both are present to the intellect and the will.

No actor who acts can claim to have not deliberated and therefore not freely willed all the moral outcomes.

A particular actor may prefer one outcome as primary over another. That outcome then becomes that actor’s intended or primary end.

Any and all actors remains responsible, that is take merit or blame, for all outcomes, not only the intended outcome.

 

[Wozza]

If you have a point to make, you should do so. Maybe tack a ‘Therefore…’ at the end of your post and fill in the dots.

 

[Maximus1]

Holy smokes! That takes no account
of diminished capacity or conscience.
It defies any notion of a real human being. There is no expectation of outcome consistent with your post
I read the Gospels, I read Jesus interactions with people, and nothing suggests he conducted any type of evaluation like you propose.
Truth is Jesus was kind to sinners unless they took a position that lacked humility.

 

[Wozza]

Holy smokes! That takes no account of diminished capacity or conscience.

I think we should assume that that is implied. Diminished responsibility must obviously be taken into account. Just as it should be recognised that an actor cannot know all the impliccations of any given act.

 

[o_mlly]

Holy smokes! That takes no account
of diminished capacity or conscience.

Diminished capacity or the lack of formation of one’s conscience are subjective elements and weigh only on the culpability of the moral agent. Subjective elements do not change the moral objects of the act.

 

[Vico]

The difference between deliberated outcomes and the intended outcome.
De liberatus – Latin, (down) from free will.
…

deliberation (noun) 1. the act of thinking about or discussing something and deciding carefully (Webster)

For personal choice, see the Catechism:

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[Maximus1]

It is integral to any evaluate of sin.

 

[o_mlly]

These citations offered instruct on the nature of sin which always depends on subjective elements of the human act. The moral object, which on its own determines a human act as good or evil, does not.

CCC# 1859 ( IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN) and 1791 ( IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT) .

The relevant citations are #1731 and #1749.

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

**[1731] Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.

ARTICLE 4: THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

#[1749] Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

 

[Maximus1]

I am uncomfortable with your choice of the word " only".
Through Jesus and the Gospel we witness that he is pretty gentle with sinners. Our Church tradition has a sacrament where God forgives us our sins readily.
Our scripture, as in James 2, teaches us of the perils of the law of judgement, and the salvation of the law of Mercy. An idea that suggests that God’s interests is more in the way we are transformed by, rather than laden, then sunk via the weight of sin.
Without Culpability as a prime consideration, you cloud the value of," forgive us our trespassers, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Which is the way God wishes us to live.

 

[o_mlly]

I am uncomfortable with your choice of the word " only".
Through Jesus and the Gospel we witness that he is pretty gentle with sinners. Our Church tradition has a sacrament where God forgives us our sins readily.
Our scripture, as in James 2, teaches us of the perils of the law of judgement, and the salvation of the law of Mercy. An idea that suggests that God’s interests is more in the way we are transformed by, rather than laden, then sunk via the weight of sin.
Without Culpability as a prime consideration, you cloud the value of," forgive us our trespassers, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Which is the way God wishes us to live.

“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” I rely on the efficacy of our Lord’s intercession with my Creator for it is the only way I might be with them in eternity.

However, our acts remain good or evil independently of our ignorance. Catholic moral theology instructs us on knowing the difference of good and evil acts in order that we might lessen our offenses against God.

 

[Dovekin]

These outcomes are known to any and all actors through operation of intellect.

This is a bit of a stretch. Even with your prior qualification, “all the reasonable foreseeable moral outcomes” is not the same as all outcomes are foreseen.

In the will, any and all actors then deliberate on all the outcomes and freely choose to act or not act.

Any and all can deliberate on all outcomes, but few do. The same continues throughtout the rest of the text. Knowable is not the same as known.

 

[o_mlly]

The moral object of an act includes the physical act and all the reasonable foreseeable moral outcomes, that is, the ends in view.

These outcomes are known to any and all actors through operation of intellect.

This is a bit of a stretch. Even with your prior qualification, “all the reasonable foreseeable moral outcomes” is not the same as all outcomes are foreseen.

No stretch. The referent for “These outcomes” is in the preceding sentence, “all the reasonable foreseeable moral outcomes”. They are one and the same.

Any and all can deliberate on all outcomes, but few do. The same continues throughtout the rest of the text. Knowable is not the same as known.

The few who do not and do so through willful negligence remain culpable. The invincible ignorant are not. But these are also subjective considerations. The moral object of the act as good or evil does not change because of a particular actor’s circumstances.

 

[Maximus1]

I didnt comment on knowing the difference between good and evil, as a worthwhile endeavor.
The catechism you cited is well written and is informative in the sense of anyone who might have a question.
But those sections alone in my opinion are limited and paint a partial picture.
Like teaching a law school student Actus Reus and not it’s relationship to Mens Rea.
I am a person who thinks there is something to the saying, you don’t think your way into right living, you live your way into right thinking.

 

[o_mlly]

I didnt comment on knowing the difference between good and evil, as a worthwhile endeavor.
The catechism you cited is well written and is informative in the sense of anyone who might have a question.
But those sections alone in my opinion are limited and paint a partial picture.
Like teaching a law school student Actus Reus and not it’s relationship to Mens Rea.
I am a person who thinks there is something to the saying, you don’t think your way into right living, you live your way into right thinking.

The authority in the Catechism is in the footnotes. Suggest a reading of Veritas Splendor, specifically #67, 68, 69 and 70.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

 

[fhansen]

Any and all actors who choose to act, act deliberately knowing and willing all foreseeable outcomes, because both are present to the intellect and the will.

I like this. Except for a person with an unsound mind perhaps, we cannot say that the devil made me do it, or that I had no control or had no choice in, say, acting impulsively. If even in the moment, the mind has time to assess, and must, in fact, assess the rightness and wrongness of an act. That process, that assessment, occurs first; no moral act is totally spontaneous.

No sin can be committed unless a natural/innate desire is consciously & willfully directed to a wrong end. Ignorance can mitigate culpability but something besides nature must direct an action when one sins, or else the concept of sin is meaningless.

 

[Dovekin]

Any and all actors remains responsible, that is take merit or blame, for all outcomes, not only the intended outcome.

What does this mean in terms of the quote in VS 70?

mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.
Veritatis Splendor 70

Doesn’t this quote envision actors who do not have “full knowledge and deliberate consent”? Practically it states that those lacking deliberate consent are not responsible for a mortal sin.

If you are trying to say that anyone with full knowledge and deliberate consent is responsible for his actions, then I would not disagree. But that is not what it looks like. It looks like you are asserting that everyone has full knowledge and deliberate consent, and so are responsible for their actions. I certainly would not agree with that.

 

[o_mlly]

I like this. Except for a person with an unsound mind perhaps, we cannot say that the devil made me do it, or that I had no control or had no choice in, say, acting impulsively. If even in the moment, the mind has time to assess, and must , in fact, assess the rightness and wrongness of an act. That process, that assessment, occurs first; no moral act is totally spontaneous.

No sin can be committed unless a natural/innate desire is consciously & willfully directed to a wrong end. Ignorance can mitigate culpability but something besides nature must direct an action when one sins, or else the concept of sin is meaningless.

Yes. I agree, sin and evil are related but not identical. All sin involves some evil act, intention or circumstance; but all evil acts are not necessarily sins.

The removal of all culpability because of a particular actor’s circumstances does not change the morality of the act that is immoral in its object.

 

[o_mlly]

Doesn’t this quote envision actors who do not have “full knowledge and deliberate consent”? Practically it states that those lacking deliberate consent are not responsible for a mortal sin.

The judgment of a human act as mortal sin is different than judging whether that same human act is evil.

It looks like you are asserting that everyone has full knowledge and deliberate consent, and so are responsible for their actions. I certainly would not agree with that.

Yes. The statement does not say that all acts in which foreseeable and deliberated outcomes are sins. That is beyond human knowledge, except perhaps to only the sinner.

The actor remains responsible as a moral agent, although in some circumstance one’s culpability may be mitigated or removed. Even if no culpability attaches, the evil outcome of the act still exists and whatever its ripple effects remain real and both are the responsibility of the actor. " When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts . …"

 

[Vico]

These citations offered instruct on the nature of sin which always depends on subjective elements of the human act. The moral object, which on its own determines a human act as good or evil, does not.

CCC# 1859 ( IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN) and 1791 ( IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT) .

The relevant citations are #1731 and #1749.

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

**[1731] Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.

Freedom (“to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility”) does involve a subjective element. See Catechism:

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

 

[Maximus1]

I read it. I know the Prudential decisions that can be altered and those that cannot.
And I know an additional group of catechism sections involve conscience that Amoris Latitia advanced