Excused to follow moral law?

[josea]

Such an act is always wrong. One’s culpability may be lessened due to mitigating factors, but the act is always evil.

I absolutely agree…I have never said that the act is good, the act is evil, the culpability might be null.

Jose

 

[fix]

I absolutely agree…I have never said that the act is good, the act is evil, the culpability might be null.

Jose

I would say the lessening of culpability is not because we are dispensed from the moral law. It may be less because we are under duress and we may not be giving full consent.

 

[josea]

I would say the lessening of culpability is not because we are dispensed from the moral law. It may be less because we are under duress and we may not be giving full consent.

What this theologian (and I think not only this one) says is that when an heroic act is required we are “excused from the observance”…
I see the case clear for instance when the problem is to assist or not to the Church under particular circunstancies

But I do not know if this applies also for “evil acts” in this example woul be no to kill inocent people…

About the not be giving ful consent is clear to me…

I think we need here somebody to clarify this “excused from the observance”.

 

[fix]

What this theologian (and I think not only this one) says is that when an heroic act is required we are “excused from the observance”…
I see the case clear for instance when the problem is to assist or not to the Church under particular circunstancies

But I do not know if this applies also for “evil acts” in this example woul be no to kill inocent people…

About the not be giving ful consent is clear to me…

I think we need here somebody to clarify this “excused from the observance”.

I am no expert. It seems from my limit reading on the topic no one is ever dispensed from the natural moral law.

Please see this:

…The *negative precepts *of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.

… Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil.

The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:17-18).
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[MilesXpisti]

I am no expert. It seems from my limit reading on the topic no one is ever dispensed from the natural moral law.

Please see this:

Precisely that. Moreover, failure to oblige the negative precepts of the law results in culpability of sin, whether mortal or venial, and that said culpability can never be a failing of natural moral law, which is by definition inerrant, so it must follow that it is a failing on the part of the individual.

 

[setter]

What this theologian (and I think not only this one) says is that when an heroic act is required we are “excused from the observance”…

I think we need here somebody to clarify this “excused from the observance”.

We do not get to pick and choose our crosses or make allowable “exceptions” to moral law. Jesus is exactly calling each and every follower to faithful discipleship and if need be, heroic virtue, with the grace needed to follow His commands and demands of discipleship banking on His promise, “ Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.’” Mark 10: 27

 

[josea]

I was thinking a bit more about this and I did it by going through the Ten Commandments. I see that if to be faithful to any of them we need to put in danger our life or if we are in a particular situation absolutely afraid and threatened, the culpability of our acts can be reduced to none as if the law would not apply in those cases. I could not make a distinction between decrease in culpability or just that the “system” would not apply the consequences of breaking the law. In either case, the situation I see is as if the law would not apply. Think about if we are under threat and fear for our life or the life of a beloved person like a son and we are obliged to talk against God (first and second Comm.), kill an innocent person (fith Comm.), lie (eight Comm.) or are in need to steal when we there is no other way to survive etc… in all these cases might be doing “evil things” but I doubt that we are sinning. For instance, if we are in need and we need to steal to survive this would not be considered stealing as the first thing is to care for ourselves; I do not know if the nature of the act changes in this case but what I know is that it would not be a sin. The same should apply if a person is obliged to do evil by force. The person is not free in his choice and only an act of heroism would prevent this evil act to be done and that is what I think is explained in that text I presented.

 

[puzzleannie]

Here is the link to the issue dicussed:
The only problem is that is in spanish
foromoral.com.ar/images/215/Manual_Moral_(parte_2).pdf

Pag. 51. in the chapter:

",

llnk brings up 163 pages, there is no page 51, and no table of contents I will have to look around for the actual book. until then i will withhold further reply,the rest of you are doing great.

 

[Sixtus]

In a recent book about moral theology (P. Miguel Angel Fuentes I.V.E.) I have read that are circumstances in which one might be excused to follow the moral law, for instance, when it is not possible morally or physically to do it or when it is very complicated and a heroic act would be required. My question is:

Does this case apply, for instance, when a woman that knows that a new pregnancy would put in risk her life refuse to use NFP and goes for direct sterilization because she is ABSOLUTELY AFRAID of making a mistake when using NFP?

My interpretation here is that absolute continence or NFP would be a heroic act for this married woman.

What do you think?

Jose, I would recommend you to discuss it with a Priest. That way you would find out what is acceptable to the Church.

 

[josea]

llnk brings up 163 pages, there is no page 51, and no table of contents I will have to look around for the actual book. until then i will withhold further reply,the rest of you are doing great.

Sorry it is page 51 in your pdf file but the actual page is 214 of that document.

 

[josea]

Jose, I would recommend you to discuss it with a Priest. That way you would find out what is acceptable to the Church.

Well… I do not have this problem anymore, actually, it was just a theoretical question about moral acts.

 

[josea]

I read the “Veritatis splendor” and I could understand lots of things.

From other readings I learned that:

“Everything that isn’t free doesn’t enter the realm of morals”

So, an act that is not performed in freedom is not an authentic human moral act and can not be punished.

I think I understand now.

Jose