Contingent/Prudential Moral Issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bubba_Switzler

Guest
I’m looking for more information on the concept of contingent or prudential moral issues. I first came across the term in Fr. Sirico’s essays (to follow).

The basic idea is that some teachings of the Church are straighforward such as the prohibition on abortion. There are no circumstances that make abortion a good choice. It is always correct not to commit abortion.

By contrast, there are other teachings that are contingent or prudential because while the Church teaches general principles it does not, and cannot, make precise demands because there exist many ways to satisfy the general principle. For example, there are many ways to care for the poor.

While this seems a natural distinction is not something I have really ever heard emphasized or explained. Among the questions I have is whether, and to what extent, contingency and prudence is a personal vs. social vs. political issue. Where does the concept originate? And where and how does the Church draw the line between developing guiding principles and prescribing specific moral choices?
 
Here are a few Fr. Sirico’s quotes:.
Let us take the recent occasions of public discourse by Catholics on these matters occasioned by an open letter issued by a group of Catholic professors, which argues that the budget proposed by House Republicans violates Catholic social teaching, and in which they come close to calling the Speaker of the House a heretic.
Click to expand...
There is evidence in this letter, and in some of the commentary surrounding it, of a failure to grasp the necessary distinctions in Catholic moral theology (of which, as the popes have noted, the social teaching is a branch). I pointed out in my original critique of the open letter that the Catholic professors’ statement neglected the important distinction between “non-negotiable dogmas and doctrines” and the “prudential and debatable give and take when it comes to applying the principles of Catholic social teaching.” Then I cited the Compendium of the Social Doctrine: “The Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions” (571). The use of the phrase “contingent questions” in the Compendium is quite deliberate. It means that it is simply inaccurate to say that Catholics who debate how to address poverty dissent from the Church’s teaching in the same way as someone who does not support the Church’s insistence on legal protection for the unborn.
Click to expand...
robertsirico.com/2011/05/not-whether-to-help-poor-but-how.html
Rerum Novarum was the first of the modern social encyclicals.[2] While certain foundational moral teachings are expressed in these documents, much of what they deal with are matters of a contingent and prudential nature.
Click to expand...
lewissociety.org/teaching.php

It appears then that these Catholic academicians who have written to Speaker Boehner do not understand the distinctions the Church herself makes between fundamental, non-negotiable dogmas and doctrines, and the prudential and debatable give and take when it comes to applying the principles of Catholic social teaching. Here Speaker Boehner need only consult the text of the Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching, which the authors of the letter say they have delivered to him, wherein he will read: “The Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions.” (no. 571)
nationalreview.com/corner/267005/boehner-s-catholic-critics-rush-protect-welfare-state-fr-robert-sirico

These quote various sources such as the “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life”
On the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a plurality of political parties in which Catholics may exercise – especially through legislative assemblies – their right and duty to contribute to the public life of their country.[16] This arises because of the contingent nature of certain choices regarding the ordering of society, the variety of strategies available for accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of political theory, and the technical complexity of many political problems. It should not be confused, however, with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values. The legitimate plurality of temporal options is at the origin of the commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly to Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this teaching that lay Catholics must assess their participation in political life so as to be sure that it is marked by a coherent responsibility for temporal reality.
Click to expand...
catholic.com/library/ChurchDoc1.asp

And “Compendium of the Social Doctrinie of the Church”
  1. The political commitment of Catholics is often placed in the context of the “autonomy” of the State, that is, the distinction between the political and religious spheres[1194]. This distinction “is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to the inheritance of contemporary civilization”[1195]. Catholic moral doctrine, however, clearly rejects the prospects of an autonomy that is understood as independence from the moral law: “Such ‘autonomy’ refers first of all to the attitude of the person who respects the truths that derive from natural knowledge regarding man’s life in society, even if such truths may also be taught by a specific religion, because truth is one”[1196]. A sincere quest for the truth, using legitimate means to promote and defend the moral truths concerning social life — justice, freedom, respect for life and for other human rights — is a right and duty of all members of a social and political community.
Click to expand...
When the Church’s Magisterium intervenes in issues concerning social and political life, it does not fail to observe the requirements of a correctly understood autonomy, for “the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends — as is its proper function — to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible”[1197].
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
 
The human Virtue of prudence is a very important virtue:

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. the prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

The virtues and grace

1810 Human virtues acquired by education, by deliberate acts and by a perseverance ever-renewed in repeated efforts are purified and elevated by divine grace. With God’s help, they forge character and give facility in the practice of the good. the virtuous man is happy to practice them.

1811 It is not easy for man, wounded by sin, to maintain moral balance. Christ’s gift of salvation offers us the grace necessary to persevere in the pursuit of the virtues. Everyone should always ask for this grace of light and strength, frequent the sacraments, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and follow his calls to love what is good and shun evil.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P65.HTM

There are various works that get into this virtue that can be of help:

Josef Pieper’s “The Four Cardinal Virtues” (Ignatius has a number of his works as does St. Augustine’s Press)
Fr. Cessario has a number of works on the Virtues (I think CUA press)
Jacques Maritain has various things in his works.

et al
 
Prudence still is to guide one even in how to live the issues that are very clear …
 
Bookcat said:
1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. the prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.
Click to expand...
This is the idea of prudence that I grew up with but it’s nowhere near as specific as what I found above. Here prudence is simply a synonum for good judgement. But unlike the sources I cited, it doesn’t explain why we use judgement instead of leting the Church tell us what to do each and every moment of our lives; it doesn’t explain the boundaries of general moral principles as set down by the Church and ordinary day-to-day judgement. Nor does it do much to explain what is required for good judgement (other than reason, which presumably all humans possess).
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This is the idea of prudence that I grew up with but it’s nowhere near as specific as what I found above. Here prudence is simply a synonum for good judgement. But unlike the sources I cited, it doesn’t explain why we use judgement instead of leting the Church tell us what to do each and every moment of our lives; it doesn’t explain the boundaries of general moral principles as set down by the Church and ordinary day-to-day judgement. Nor does it do much to explain what is required for good judgement (other than reason, which presumably all humans possess).
Click to expand...
Father is speaking of the virtue of prudence. (it is a Grand subject…not just a synonym for good judgement)

There are all sorts of works that go into the details …hence I noted some sources for you for further exploration…

Also read the on Conscience which Prudence guides…such as

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P60.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P61.HTM

Prudence guides us (and it has to be developed) in judging the best means (never evil means) to the good end. So yes one would inform oneself with the teachings of the Church and follow them…and yes study perhaps some good Catholic Moral Theology…prudence helps you to choose the means to living them etc …to putting them into life. (and there is not only acquired prudence but also supernatural prudence …infused prudence…) If you need to discuss more feel free to pm me as well.
 
The Church does not call us on our cell phone and tell us what to do each moment of our lives…we need to be always living “in Christ” and thus “walk in the Spirit” …if we have any prudence we need to use that (which does not mean that we are always going it alone…for prudence can often involve seeking the right counsel)…and the other virtues…and we have the help of the Holy Spirit.

Virtues that are acquired come through repeated good actions…and eventually it becomes second nature…connatural.

…if a person is asked a question about chastity …will such and such be against chastity? (not something that is explicitly noted as being so…like fornication or contraception) it can happen that he answers from the virtue of chastity…which includes his formation according to the teachings of Christ …thus the teachings of the Church…of course …but which he may not be even able to completely articulate here and now as to the details of why…

as St. Thomas says in this case “a chaste man judges chastely”. It comes from his possession of the habitus of chastity…from his life of chastity lived in Christ.

But this comes not at the beginning usually. Though some have this supernaturally in a unique way perhaps.
 
Bookcat said:
Father is speaking of the virtue of prudence. (it is a Grand subject…not just a synonym for good judgement).
Click to expand...
Alright, I did read through the material you cited and while they did elaborate well on the subject of prudence, there is something new in the sources I cited in the second post in this thread that is not contained in the sources you cited.

The idea is contained, perhaps, in the word “contingent”.
Bookcat said:
The Church does not call us on our cell phone and tell us what to do each moment of our lives…we need to be always living “in Christ” and thus “walk in the Spirit” …if we have any prudence we need to use that (which does not mean that we are always going it alone…for prudence can often involve seeking the right counsel)…and the other virtues…and we have the help of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
So let’s do a thought experiment here: why can’t the Church call us on our cell phone to tell us what to do each and every moment of our lives?

Contingency implies an answer: moral choices are at least in part contingent upon specific circumstances. We need prudence in order to make choices in our own lives because we experience unique lives. And the uniqueness is important to the moral choices we make.

(This idea is a close theological parallel to an important economic concept which explains why central economic planning doesn’t work and to the political concept that justifies democracy over dictatorship.)

Now perhaps I am reading something into the quotes in post #2 or perhaps I am missing the same concept in the sources you cited. But it is my distinct impression that this is an idea that is in my sources but not yours (and your sources are the ones consistent with what I grew up with so I presume they are what most Catholics think about on the subject).

(I’ll spend some more time on Holy Spirit Interactive. It looks very good. Thanks.)
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Alright, I did read through the material you cited and while they did elaborate well on the subject of prudence, there is something new in the sources I cited in the second post in this thread that is not contained in the sources you cited.

The idea is contained, perhaps, in the word “contingent”.
Click to expand...
Yes those sources just happened to use the word. Prudence by nature deals with contingent things.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
By contrast, there are other teachings that are contingent or prudential because while the Church teaches general principles it does not, and cannot, make precise demands because there exist many ways to satisfy the general principle. For example, there are many ways to care for the poor.
Click to expand...
You have answered your question with this observation. The Church identifies the ends to which we should work but the means chosen to achieve those ends are of necessity the responsibility of the laity to determine. The Church says to care for the poor - but she does not say we must increase the minimum wage. She tells us to welcome the stranger and identifies the rights of immigrants - but she is silent on building a barrier between the US and Mexico. She asks us to heal the sick but does not mandate universal health care - despite the opinions expressed by individual bishops.

Her task is to inform our consciences and identify our objectives but the way we choose to satisfy our obligations is left to us to determine. That is the task of the laity.

*Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role. *(Gaudium et Spes)

Ender
 
Ender said:
You have answered your question with this observation. The Church identifies the ends to which we should work but the means chosen to achieve those ends are of necessity the responsibility of the laity to determine. The Church says to care for the poor - but she does not say we must increase the minimum wage. She tells us to welcome the stranger and identifies the rights of immigrants - but she is silent on building a barrier between the US and Mexico. She asks us to heal the sick but does not mandate universal health care - despite the opinions expressed by individual bishops.

Her task is to inform our consciences and identify our objectives but the way we choose to satisfy our obligations is left to us to determine. That is the task of the laity.
Click to expand...
Well, this is what I understood from the sources I cited but it’s not something I recall learning in Catholic School and, in fact, I can’t find anything like it in the CCC. I’m most grateful to Bookcat for the Thomas Aquinas citations. If anyting it was implied that the only reason that you can’t call your priest to get the right answer on every decision is because there are too many parishiners to priests.

Am I the only one who missed this?
*Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role. *(Gaudium et Spes)
Click to expand...
There does seem to be a lot more emphasis on the role of the laity post VC2.
 
Some things are taught…but not parsed out or always taught with the same scholastic vocabulary…
 
As noted (I add this for readers) Prudence of course is not to say something that is evil is good (that is “false prudence”) but how to do the good hear and now…how even to in the hic et nunc to do most good…in living well (for a Christian…more fully…to live as a Christian …following teachings of the Church etc).

I here at my computer come with a whole host of aspects that are different than you sitting at yours…we both need to do the good…and avoid evil etc…but our way we live the truth (prudence looks first at reality…at truth…it sees …) may vary as I am married…and you may be single…I have such and such in my background and you have other aspects…both internal and external…

The situation or the circumstance does not determine the the ethic…does not determine truth or the good.

But yes the various contingent factors surrounding things will need to be taken into account ( and what is in him for that matter ) and the virtue of prudence helps us (if we have it to some degree) to do this…in finding how here and now -hic et nunc-" I " am to live this truth and do this good…

(as well as for the Christian …the infused virtue of prudence and of course the Holy Spirit himself)
 
Bookcat said:
As noted (I add this for readers) Prudence of course is not to say something that is evil is good (that is “false prudence”) but how to do the good hear and now…how even to in the hic et nunc to do most good…in living well (for a Christian…more fully…to live as a Christian …following teachings of the Church etc).

I here at my computer come with a whole host of aspects that are different than you sitting at yours…we both need to do the good…and avoid evil etc…but our way we live the truth (prudence looks first at reality…at truth…it sees …) may vary as I am married…and you may be single…I have such and such in my background and you have other aspects…both internal and external…

The situation or the circumstance does not determine the the ethic…does not determine truth or the good.

But yes the various contingent factors surrounding things will need to be taken into account ( and what is in him for that matter ) and the virtue of prudence helps us (if we have it to some degree) to do this…in finding how here and now -hic et nunc-" I " am to live this truth and do this good…

(as well as for the Christian …the infused virtue of prudence and of course the Holy Spirit himself)
Click to expand...
One thing I recall most distinctly is how thoroughly it was drummed into our little heads that “situational ethics” was not the Catholic approach. Now obviously cointingent/prudence is not equal to situational ethics but I suspect that our teaching went to one extreme on this issue and that’s why I was surprised to see those quotes I cited in #2.

What is, after all, the difference between situational ethics and contingence/prudence? I’ve run into this debate before. The facts of the situation are always relevant but the question is how. Some generalizations are possible but even these require matching to the facts of the situation. For example, murder requires a particular set of facts and absent these it might be, instead, self defense or negligent homicide.

The situation is even more important when it comes to such broadly open-ended directives as helping the poor.

But there is another aspect to prudence that I’ve also struggled with: to what extent does the Church direct us to be competent or even exceptional? Certainly the nuns, brothers, and priests who taught me demanded much but is that a Catholic teaching per se?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
One thing I recall most distinctly is how thoroughly it was drummed into our little heads that “situational ethics” was not the Catholic approach. Now obviously cointingent/prudence is not equal to situational ethics but I suspect that our teaching went to one extreme on this issue and that’s why I was surprised to see those quotes I cited in #2.

What is, after all, the difference between situational ethics and contingence/prudence? I’ve run into this debate before. The facts of the situation are always relevant but the question is how. Some generalizations are possible but even these require matching to the facts of the situation. For example, murder requires a particular set of facts and absent these it might be, instead, self defense or negligent homicide.

The situation is even more important when it comes to such broadly open-ended directives as helping the poor.
Click to expand...
The situation does not determine what is good or true.

Situation ethics made what was good depend (in the sense that follows) on the circumstances…thinking that the circumstances could make something otherwise evil…to be good. (erroneously!..hence your teacher was right to bring the incompatibility of this idea and truth home!)

Prudence sees what is good and seeks how to do it…the particular means to arrive at the good.

Murder and self defense are different moral objects.

A “situation” or circumstance can not change an intrinsically evil moral object into a good. But it can make a choice involving a good moral object sinful…

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM
 
Bookcat said:
The situation does not determine what is good or true.

Situation ethics made what was good depend (in the sense that follows) on the circumstances…thinking that the circumstances could make something otherwise evil…to be good. (erroneously!..hence your teacher was right to bring the incompatibility of this idea and truth home!)

Prudence sees what is good and seeks how to do it…the particular means to arrive at the good.

Murder and self defense are different moral objects.

A “situation” or circumstance can not change an intrinsically evil moral object into a good. But it can make a choice involving a good moral object sinful…

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM
Click to expand...
Your first quote included what I was meaning:
The object, the intention, *and the circumstances *make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

It’s not my purpose to defend “situatianal ethics” (I don’t pretend to be expert on it) and perhaps it is as narrowly defined as you’ve defined it.

My point is simply that we live in a world of particulars, not generalities. Murder is always wrong but whether a particular incident constitutes murder is, at least in part, a function of circumstances. And whether a particular act constitutes caring for the poor is even more contingent on circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top