Duress and culpability

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
See, this is where identification of the moral object (or whatever it is) is important,

If I say something that is not true to defend myself against an unjust aggressor, is it lying?

If I take a life, it’s not always murder. Sometimes it is justified. How can telling an untruth be any different? 🤷

If a killer asks me, “Where are the children?”, and I have previously hidden them in a closet, and I respond “Gee, I don’t know”, are you telling me that protecting those children with an untruth is intrinsically evil?
The intention to protect someone by telling a lie has the intended end of protecting the innocent; this is in the first font. The telling of the untruth (the deliberate and morally-direct deprivation of truth from an assertion) is the second font. Telling a lie has an evil moral object; the act is intrinsically evil. The circumstance that someone will be harmed if you do not lie is in the third font.

Taking a life is not always murder because murder is the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent person. Killing an attacker has a different moral object because he is not innocent. So if the person who is killed (comparing two examples) changes from an innocent person to a guilty attacker, then the moral object is changed – it is a different type of act.

Whereas telling a lie has the same moral object, it is the same type of act, regardless of a change in intention or circumstance.
 
The intention to protect someone by telling a lie has the intended end of protecting the innocent; this is in the first font. The telling of the untruth (the deliberate and morally-direct deprivation of truth from an assertion) is the second font. Telling a lie has an evil moral object; the act is intrinsically evil. The circumstance that someone will be harmed if you do not lie is in the third font.

Taking a life is not always murder because murder is the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent person. Killing an attacker has a different moral object because he is not innocent. So if the person who is killed (comparing two examples) changes from an innocent person to a guilty attacker, then the moral object is changed – it is a different type of act.

Whereas telling a lie has the same moral object, it is the same type of act, regardless of a change in intention or circumstance.
So, I could kill the person seeking to deprive the children of their lives in my example, but I couldn’t tell him an untruth to misdirect him to save their lives and his, potentially giving him an opportunity to repent of his evil ways?

That makes no sense in the real world at all. To protect the children I have to take a life? Conversely, are you actually trying to tell me that if I told the killer the kids were in the closet (since I didn’t want to lie) there would be no sin in sending him to kill them?

I am shaking my head in disbelief.
 
A person cannot lie in order to defend against assault of any kind, or even murder.
Lying is intrinsically evil.
Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.
Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances.
So lying to Al-Quada and the Taliban fighters about the location of American soldiers is intrinsically evil and immoral and therefore a sin. And a woman who is about to be date raped is guilty of committing an intrinsically evil and immoral act by asking her attacker to use a condom. If this is not your position, please correct me.

You are Amazing Ron!
 
So, I could kill the person seeking to deprive the children of their lives in my example, but I couldn’t tell him an untruth to misdirect him to save their lives and his, potentially giving him an opportunity to repent of his evil ways?

That makes no sense in the real world at all. To protect the children I have to take a life? Conversely, are you actually trying to tell me that if I told the killer the kids were in the closet (since I didn’t want to lie) there would be no sin in sending him to kill them?

I am shaking my head in disbelief.
If you lie, it is always a sin.
Use of violence in defense of the innocent is not always a sin.
You need not reveal the location of the innocents, you can be silent, or use force, or use mental reservation.
All hypotheticals aside…

It is the teaching of the Church and required belief that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, and that killing is not always immoral. It is wrong for you or other members to represent these teachings as if they were my unique ideas. If you reject the teaching that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances, then you are rejecting the teaching of the Church. If you reject the teaching that killing in self-defense is not intrinsically evil, and is not always immoral, then you are rejecting the teaching of the Church.

I can quote the Catechism and various magisterial documents on these points, but I already have done so many times, and all these quotes are just ignored. Instead of discussing the teaching of the Church, people are discussing their own foolish ideas, based on what seems right to them, without any theological basis.

Whoever believes that intrinsically evil acts are not always immoral, but are sometimes justified by intention or circumstances, has fallen into a serious doctrinal error which is directly contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on morality.
 
I can quote the Catechism and various magisterial documents on these points, but I already have done so many times, and all these quotes are just ignored. Instead of discussing the teaching of the Church, people are discussing their own foolish ideas, based on what seems right to them, without any theological basis.

Whoever believes that intrinsically evil acts are not always immoral, but are sometimes justified by intention or circumstances, has fallen into a serious doctrinal error which is directly contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on morality.
Ron, I understand what you are saying. What I am trying to wrap my head around is the definition of the act. You approach these cases with the act already defined, therefore the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

W/hen you define an act as “taking a life”, there is room for deciding if it is justified or murder.

When you define the act as lying, and not “telling an untruth” or something like that, and you make a determination “off line” that lying is always wrong, then the other two fonts don’t matter.

Where is the master list of pre-defined acts and their morality?
 
The act of lying is the deliberate and morally-direct deprivation of truth from an assertion. So when a person deliberately and knowingly asserts a falsehood (tells an untruth), he is lying; and lying is intrinsically evil and always immoral. But if you use mental reservation, you are not lying.

The act of murder is defined as the deliberate and morally-direct deprivation of life from an innocent person. But if you kill an attacker, you are not murdering.

All intrinsically evil acts are direct (i.e. morally-direct) and deliberate (i.e. voluntarily chosen, intentionally chosen). All evil moral objects are a deprivation of some good required by love of God, neighbor, self.

The intended end or purpose never changes the moral object.
The circumstances or consequences never change the moral object.
 
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Catechism…

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.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

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, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. 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. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
 
NEXT from the Catechism

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. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

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.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm#I
 
Let me ask you this:
If a woman is about to be date raped and she asks the creep to use a condom, is she committing a sin? If so, is it a mortal sin or a venial sin?
Maybe we want to ask a slightly different question, one that does not involve the word “condom”. Something that the married are not allowed to do is practice withdrawal. Let’s translate this to a rape context. Say the woman was hit by the man and mostly incapacitated, but she starts recovering part-way through the rape process and gets the strength back to shove him off right before the end. I certainly think she can shove him off at that point, without waiting.

What if there existed a vacuum device or washing device that could completely remove sperm from an area? Certainly a married couple couldn’t choose to use this device right after relations for contraception, but could the raped woman use it right after a rape to remove the unwanted presence of the rapist? I think a woman might like that, given that bathing is an appealing activity after rape, only bathing doesn’t remove everything.

Is rape an instance of “sexual intercourse”? Or is it another category of thing?
 
Is rape an instance of “sexual intercourse”? Or is it another category of thing?
If it is “sexual intercourse” it is very much illicit sexual intercourse, in which the criminal forces the victim into the act against her will, by overpowering her.

It is a violation of a person and her dignity. It is also, given the reality of HIV, potentially fatal.

Pushing the rapist off, or getting him to use a condom, seems like a very proportionate degree of self-defense. It is no less moral than if she pulled a gun on the creep and shot him. It would be proportionate, and in self-defense.

Frankly this is a no-brainer. Any attempt to split hairs on whether this instance of contraception is licit or not is nothing more than mental masturbation.

It is self-defense against violent assault, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Let me ask you this:
If a woman is about to be date raped and she asks the creep to use a condom, is she committing a sin? If so, is it a mortal sin or a venial sin?
This scenario isn’t reality.
 
If it is “sexual intercourse” it is very much illicit sexual intercourse, in which the criminal forces the victim into the act against her will, by overpowering her.

It is a violation of a person and her dignity. It is also, given the reality of HIV, potentially fatal.

Pushing the rapist off, or getting him to use a condom, seems like a very proportionate degree of self-defense. It is no less moral than if she pulled a gun on the creep and shot him. It would be proportionate, and in self-defense.

Frankly this is a no-brainer. Any attempt to split hairs on whether this instance of contraception is licit or not is nothing more than mental masturbation.

It is self-defense against violent assault, nothing more, nothing less.
I’m not sure rape is sexual intercourse, even if we call it “illicit”. And if it isn’t, then I’m not sure some of the quotes that can be brought to bear about contraception are meant to apply. I’m not trying to say anything about an instance of contraception being licit. I am wondering if these types of incidents are even categorizable as “contraception”. It seems quite off to say the woman causing the man to withdraw is “contraception”. It is clearly self-defense against unwelcome, violent intrusion upon her person.
 
This scenario isn’t reality.
With over a billion catholics worldwide, about half of whom are women, I would say that this scenario occurs hundreds of times every week!

According to catholic teaching, is the catholic girl who is about to be sexually violated during a date allowed to ask the creep to use a condom?

Ron said she is guilty of a grave offense if she asks her attacker to use a condom. Is this an accurate interpretation of church teaching?
 
getting him to use a condom, seems like a very proportionate degree of self-defense. It is no less moral than if she pulled a gun on the creep and shot him. It would be proportionate, and in self-defense.

Frankly this is a no-brainer. Any attempt to split hairs on whether this instance of contraception is licit or not is nothing more than mental masturbation.

It is self-defense against violent assault, nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, what you are proposing is an erroneous approach to ethics called proportionalism, in which no type of act is intrinsically evil and always immoral. The Magisterium definitively rejected this approach in Veritatis Splendor, and in the Catechism. The intention and the circumstances cannot justify any act that is inherently immoral, such as contraception, abortifacient contraception, abortion, murder, theft, lying, blasphemy, adultery. I’ve quoted VS and the CCC on this point many times, and the response is always to ignore the quote, and to respond rhetorically.

Proportionalism bases morality only on the purpose (the intented end) and on the circumstances. Nothing is always wrong, because in one situation or another, with one intended purpose or another, any act is considered to be justified. Either the concept of moral object and intrinsic evil is rejected, or the idea is that the intended purpose and the circumstances can change the nature of the act (and its moral object) to be no longer intrinsically evil. Proportionalism is a serious doctrinal error.

She may use deadly force against an attacker because killing an attacker is not intrinsically evil. She may not lie or commit any other intrinsically evil act, because such acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

An intrinsically evil act cannot be done for the purpose of self-defense, because intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. An intrinsically evil act cannot be done for a medical purpose for the same reason.
 
I’m not sure rape is sexual intercourse, even if we call it “illicit”.
A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. This is clear, for example, in Persona Humana. It is also implicit in other teachings of the Magisterium on various sexual sins.

Again, redefining an intrinsically evil act, within a particular circumstance, or based on a particular intention, has the effect of nullifying the teaching of the Church that certain kinds of acts are always immoral. If you can change the kind of act based on intention and circumstances, then you are left with the erroneous system of ethics called proportionalism.
 
It seems quite off to say the woman causing the man to withdraw is “contraception”. It is clearly self-defense against unwelcome, violent intrusion upon her person.
Contracepted sexual acts are always immoral. A woman pushing away a rapist is not a sexual act; this example is self-defense. It is a type of violence against an attacker in defense of an innocent person.

Whereas using a contraceptive during a sexual act is obviously a contracepted sexual act, not a type of self-defense. It is not a type of self-defense because the rape is not prevented or stopped by that act.

I think that this particular hypothetical is not very useful because it has a tendency to cause the reader to respond emotionally, rather than with faith and reason. And I notice that some posters are making emotion and merely rhetorical arguments, not arguments based on faith and reason. Perhaps we could discuss other hypotheticals on the subject of intrinsic evil and dire circumstances.

I would also like to point out to the readers of this thread that

the idea that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral,
regardless of your intended purpose,
regardless of any dire circumstances,
is the definitive teaching of the Magisterium and a required belief.

Those posters who are saying the contrary, no matter how emotional or clever their arguments might seem, are contradicting the teaching of the Church, and even teaching others this contradiction.

Pope John Paul II: “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.”

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “It is therefore an **error **to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. 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. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”
 
Without stepping into the frey here of this particular question…

I will note that the Church does teach that such acts as murder and theft…are different than the necessary killing in self defense and taking necessary food that is being unreasonably refused one…(they simply are not murder or theft…by definition…see the CCC)

actually in this case the moral object (as I pointed out in the other thread) is different…

it is NOT the circumstances that change the moral object here…for one can never steal or murder…but the very object is different itself by definition. (circumstances or intention can not change an intrinsically evil act into a good)

now I am not weighing in on the use of a condom in self defense…but it may be the case that yes it is a different moral object…and not a different circumstance. for fornication is a very different object than the marital act…and ‘perhaps’ this sort of object --in self defense is too-- as other Catholic theologians would I think argue…saying that Humanae Vitae spoke directly about contraception in the marital act …which of course destroys the marital act…

I do know that a person who has been raped may remove the attackers seamen to try to prevent conception out of self defense…

but in any case if it were the case that one could ask him to use a condom…morally …than it would be because the object is different…

but again I am not weighing in on that particular question …I would have to look into it further …“I” just do not know.
 
I think that this particular hypothetical is not very useful because it has a tendency to cause the reader to respond emotionally, rather than with faith and reason. "
I believe you prefer to find this particular hypothetical “unhelpful” because the outcome of applying your three font approach to the moral implications of the rape victim’s actions is absurd.

:cool:
 
Contracepted sexual acts are always immoral. A woman pushing away a rapist is not a sexual act; this example is self-defense. It is a type of violence against an attacker in defense of an innocent person.

Whereas using a contraceptive during a sexual act is obviously a contracepted sexual act, not a type of self-defense. It is not a type of self-defense because the rape is not prevented or stopped by that act.
If you believe that a woman who is being raped by a man is participating in a sexual act, then I don’t know what to say. Rape is an act of violence. The woman is being violated. How can you apply the same rules as someone willingly engaging in the act?
I think that this particular hypothetical is not very useful because it has a tendency to cause the reader to respond emotionally, rather than with faith and reason. And I notice that some posters are making emotion and merely rhetorical arguments, not arguments based on faith and reason. Perhaps we could discuss other hypotheticals on the subject of intrinsic evil and dire circumstances.
No, let’s discuss this one, because there is much disagreement. You are right, we need to be dispassionate in our discussion. However, there is being unemotional and there is being disconnected from reality. We are trying to help you connect your academic knowledge to reality, and you are trying to explain how the Church evaluates certain moral situations.
I would also like to point out to the readers of this thread that
the idea that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral,
regardless of your intended purpose,
regardless of any dire circumstances,
is the definitive teaching of the Magisterium and a required belief.
Those posters who are saying the contrary, no matter how emotional or clever their arguments might seem, are contradicting the teaching of the Church, and even teaching others this contradiction.
Ron, I’ve perused your web site and it’s contents of a highly speculative and wacky theological nature. Don’t attempt to accuse the rest of us of anything.

Besides, maybe we’re just speculating. :rolleyes:
Pope John Paul II: “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.”
Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”
Right, Ron, but I disagree on your definition of what the act is. Rape is not a sexual encounter. You can not apply sexual morality to it. Wouldn’t you say that rape is an intrinsically evil act?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top