How are objective moral norms applied to the messy world of real people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RealisticCatholic

Guest
In Christianity/Catholicism, we call certain acts sins. Or at least, we call them “objectively evil,” “intrinsically disordered,” etc.

Moral acts are very important, and they form part of the picture of salvation — whether we choose God or hell.

However, it seems that there is a divide: the objective norms, in the abstract, on the one hand, and the world of real people on the other — with their various differences, personalities, concrete living situations, circumstances, and all the rest.

Just think of sexuality, to start with. We have the objective ideals on the one hand — and all the lists of sins that fall short of these ideals (e.g., masturbation, same-sex activity, etc.). But then we have real life with people who do not 100% fit into this abstract morality. People with varying personalities and passions, with different temperaments and habits. Some with same-sex attraction, even to the extent of desiring a same-sex partner. Etc., etc.

How do we harmonize the objective reality and the subjective situation of real life, all the while talking about “sin”?

How do we balance the abstract classification – the “object” of an act – with, say, the intention? Which is more important?
 
Last edited:
I don’t have a grand philosophical point but I think we reconcile the differences between these conflicting forces by adhering to the most important. That is fidelity to God through prayer, sacraments and will power. After all that is the mission, no combat no victory, no victory no crown.
 
Last edited:
"Whole of the law is summed up in love God and love neighbor…

The rest is commentary."

Something like that.
 
I hesitate to say that sounds right.

It’s a simple philosophy which appeals to me. There are over a billion Catholics and we can’t all be philosophers, Our Lords message was meant to be simple I think and I like that.

I’ve no doubt others will give you a more intellectual viewpoint. 😉
 
Kinda touches on my point. Or at least what you say reminds me of my issue: There are a billion Catholics. And yet some people in the Church want to have a strict adherence to the “law” (for lack of better word). I’m just finding it hard to find the connection between the objective morality/ideals on the one hand and the concrete situations/real people on the other.

This is why Amoris Lateia (spelling?) debate doesn’t make much sense to me. Pope Francis’ approach seems to be obvious, pastoral, and accompanying — as any approach should be when dealing with REAL people and REAL situations.

But that’s me. And the Pope…
 
Last edited:
RealisticCatholic said:
I’m just finding it hard to find the connection between the objective morality/ideals on the one hand and the concrete situations/real people on the other.
Click to expand...
That must always be the problem, that conflict won’t disappear because our five senses (not to mention our appetites) tell us one thing and our aspirations pull us another way. That is the nut to crack and I can’t see how that can be done without so called blind faith and obedience to the Church.
 
We do this by taking our subjective behavior and bending it toward the objective good, little by little.

We conform to the objective truth.

Some acts…outside of their intentions and consequences… are for example morally repugnant, like same sex behavior.
 
They should be applied compassionately, and with understanding of individual circumstances.
 
The Church teaches objective truth. That is what people should strive for. If they don’t, if they choose themselves over God, then that’s nothing new. In the days of Noah they did the same.
 
We are sinners and imperfect people and often fall short of fulfilling God’s will. This is why Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance so that when we do sin, we humbly admit our mistake and ask pardon and forgiveness from Jesus. Even the just man falleth (Proverbs 24:16). When we recognize our sinfulness and imperfections, we come closer to recognizing the truth about ourselves and the world around us created out of nothing by God and about God too, namely, that we are in truth totally dependent on Him for everything. The Divine Law in itself is perfect and clear. “The Law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul… The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (Psalm 19: 7-8). The messiness comes from the sinfulness and imperfection of us humans not fulfilling the Law. Of course, there are various circumstances in which the application of the law may not be so clear to a particular person who then needs guidance. For example, it is lawful I believe for a woman to take some form of contraceptives in certain circumstances for medical reasons. This is not the same thing as taking contraceptives to prevent conception of a human being.
From RealisticCatholic:
How do we harmonize the objective reality and the subjective situation of real life, all the while talking about “sin”?

How do we balance the abstract classification – the “object” of an act – with, say, the intention? Which is more important?
Click to expand...
‘One may not do evil so that good may result from it’ (CCC#1756). In reference to the negative precepts of the Divine Law or the Decalogue in which the object of a human act is intrinsically evil, there is no harmony or balance to consider or discern or compromising with evil as it were. Good and evil are contraries and they are related as being to non-being in which there is no middle ground as there is no proportion between being and non-being. In a human act that is intrinsically evil in its object such as adultery, fornication, murder, stealing, the only thing to discern here is how bad or grievous is the act by considering the circumstances and intention of the person performing the act. Or in other words, the culpability which may be greater or less of the person performing the act which appears to be the reasoning behind AL. The circumstances and intention cannot make a human act that is intrinsically evil in its object good. It is simply a bad human act (cf. CCC, St John Paul II encyclical Veritatis Spendor).
 
Last edited:
(continued)

The object of an act is not simply an abstract classification though this may be said in a certain sense to the interior acts of the intellect and will such as thinking. But we perform many human acts using our bodies and bodily members as instruments and such acts are called exterior acts which are directed by the interior acts of the intellect and will. Exterior acts are very concrete such as an act of adultery or an act of murder with the hand. The object of an exterior human act is essentially ‘what are we doing’, for example, walking, working, stealing, fornicating, etc.

For a human act to be morally good, the object, circumstances, and intention must all be good. If any one of these are evil or lacking in goodness, the act is considered morally evil. The object, circumstances, and intention are all important because in the concrete, there is no human moral action without them.
 
Last edited:
When we commit any sin, no matter how messy, we repent and seek forgiveness in the Sacrament of Penance. We keep every day growing in grace and toward perfection.
 
Ultimately, everybody has to make a choice for Him or against Him.

We can speak the truth in love, we can lift each other up when we fall, we can encourage, but at the end of the day, it’s up to the individual, and some folks simply make bad choices.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
This is why Amoris Lateia (spelling?) debate doesn’t make much sense to me.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, we finally get to the real point of the thread.

It should make sense if you think about it this way, a man can “accompany” the faith so much that he ends up with no faith at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top