Moral Complexities and Ambiguities

[vinessa]

In our RCIA class we talked about moral complexities and the stages of moral development. We had 2 seminarians in our group also, so their learning is quite current and the discussion was very good.

We talked about how moral questions often don’t resolve neatly into black or white, and that being Catholic is about more than just “obeying the rules”. For example, to the Pharisees, Jesus sinned when he healed on the Sabbath, because it was “against the rules.” Obviously our Lord thought differently.

The seminarians told us that priests are now being taught to support the process by which moral decisions are made, and to help guide people deeper, or further along in the stages of development, where the complexities and ambiguities we all often face are more faithfully addressed.

So I was wondering, how do you all deal with morally complex or ambiguous situations, where it’s damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t?

What brings this to mind at the moment is the Vatican’s call to be better and more caring stewards of this awesome and blessed green planet (adding ecological degradation to the sin list) – and how that doesn’t resolve neatly or cleanly with the prohibition on contraception. Both are concerned with Theology of Life – but what do you, or we, do when one call collides with the other?

In the NY Times green news today, I read the following which really struck me:

By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life.

That’s only 40 years away, and surely we’re not blind to the math. It’s adding 38% more people in only one generation, when already (today) there isn’t enough clean or potable water for everyone.

Now, we could pray for a loaves and fishes deal… Or we could close our eyes and pretend that having an unlimited number of children won’t “really” impact our planetary resources… Or we could practice contraception more thoroughly and ignore the impact on our spirits, and the seeds of selfishness, arrogance and independence that would grow in us as a result…

How do you make decisions when a situation is morally complex or ambiguous? What is your process? Do you self-justify or fall back on “rules” (like not healing on the Sabbath)? What happens when you pray? And how do you feel when you’ve finally decided, knowing that since neither decision was “right”, whichever decision you make, by definition, is wrong?

I’m curious to hear.

Thank you, and God bless.

 

[Ramalama]

Now, we could pray for a loaves and fishes deal… Or we could close our eyes and pretend that having an unlimited number of children won’t “really” impact our planetary resources… Or we could practice contraception more thoroughly and ignore the seeds of selfishness, arrogance and independence that would grow in us as a result…

Vinessa, this doesn’t sound very difficult to me. Certainly future population problems don’t justify the use of ABC or abortion any more than it justifies the use of murder to control the problem.

There are other, more difficult problems. I know little about it, but I understand there are many frozen embryos stored in clinics. It’s a sin to destroy them and it’s a sin to implant them. That’s a problem. Having no special ethical knowledge in this area, I’ll defer to the Church.

 

[vinessa]

To be clear Ramalama, I wasn’t talking about abortion. In the example, I was talking about simple contraception – for example an IUD, or a birth control pill. But again, it is just an example. My question is about complexities, where there isn’t a clear black or white.

So do I understand you to be saying that the planet and keeping its resources clean and available to everyone is not of concern to you, despite what the Church ALSO teaches about ecological degradation being sinful and anti-life?

 

[Ramalama]

So do I understand you to be saying that the health of the planet and its people (via water and resources) are not of concern to you, despite what the Church ALSO teaches about how ecological degradation is anti-life?

Of course not. I do however question those sky-is-falling predictions. Usually they take the current growth rate and simply run it into the future, assuming nothing changes.

But, back to the question, which I thought was, “How do we make decisions when the only two decisions possible both seem to be sinful.” I have difficulty with this too, hence the description of the frozen embryos. My only decision is to not sin. I’ve never been in a position, nor can I imagine a situation, where I had to sin.

 

[Sure]

Sounds to me as though your class needs a good grounding in the Catholic concept of intrinsically evil acts - that is, acts that can NEVER be morally done not matter what. Some intrinsically evil acts are:

Adultery
Fornication
Homosexual Acts
Masturbation
Abortion
Murder
Suicide
Physical abuse
Contraception
Rape
Stealing
Lying
…and others

The Church teaching is that these acts can never be done morally. No matter what the circumstances and no matter what “good” effects may stem from such acts. To use an outlandish example: If, by shooting and killing an innocent child you could guarantee saving the lives of 1,000,000 people, you would still be commiting an immoral act because murder is intrinsically evil.

You might want to bring a copy of Veritatis Splendor by John Paul II…I think it’s section 76 or so where he destroys the theological theory of “proportionalism” - namely, that there are no intrinsically evil acts and that each act needs to be evaluated separately. Basically, proportionalism says that, in my example above, it would be moral to kill the innocent child.

Remember this above all: It is never good to do evil, even if good may come of it.

 

[Corki]

To be clear Ramalama, I wasn’t talking about abortion. In the example, I was talking about simple contraception – for example an IUD, or a birth control pill. But again, it is just an example. My question is about complexities, where there isn’t a clear black or white.

So do I understand you to be saying that the planet and keeping its resources clean and available to everyone is not of concern to you, despite what the Church ALSO teaches about ecological degradation being sinful and anti-life?

You have fallen for the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

Take contraception. IUDs act by killing embryos - that’s their primary action. BC pills often act the same way, it is a secondary action. If those were the only two ways available to control population, you would still not be justified in endorsing them since they are murder. They are no more licit than just chosing a percentage of the people on the earth and ending thier lives to thin out the population. But wait, there are many other ways of controlling population! There is education on family size, increase promotion of ecological breast feeding, encouraging couples to delay marriage until they are older, NFP, etc., etc., etc. Maybe, if you weren’t trying to set up false dichotomies, you could find a moral way to reduce population growth.

Second falalcy is that overpopulation is the only, or even gravest, threat to the environment… (Not)

One must never support evil to do good. Period.

 

[HelenRose]

What brings this to mind at the moment is the Vatican’s call to be better and more caring stewards of this awesome and blessed green planet (adding ecological degradation to the sin list) – and how that doesn’t resolve neatly or cleanly with the prohibition on contraception. Both are concerned with Theology of Life – but what do you, or we, do when one call collides with the other?

Thank you, and God bless.

I am going to deal with only this question. If we as a society would treat our sexuality with the respect that the Church asks of us there would not be a problem with over-population.

This is one reason that sex and marriage go together. Also, a marriage that bases itself on mutual cooperation and communication can plan carefully for children and still remain within the teaching of the Church and still be good stewards of God’s Earth.

The problem comes when couples do not behave in a responsible manner toward each other or toward God.

 

[rpp]

You asked a general question inspired by a specific complex issue. Then you used an even more specific aspect to ask a very specific question.

Let me address.

A critical moral and theological precept is that we can never to evil, even if a greater good is the intent. That must guide our conscience when faced with what we perceive to be a complex or ambiguous issue. The principal of double-effect does permit some latitude, but nothing like what you are looking for.

Before I go on, I want to state that the Church has not declared any new sins. It has always been sinful to waste resources, accumulate wealth while others starve or murder people, no matter how old they are. The Church, as is her duty, looks at the current world and applies these unchangeable moral precepts to modern activities.

You talked about what many perceive as a problem with too many people. If this is indeed a problem (a point which I do not concede), there are numerous ways to address it. Some are more moral than others. In fact, nearly all are quite immoral. These include, abortion (forced or voluntary), genocide, war (nuclear or conventional), and so on.

Included in this list would be artificial birth control which is by its very nature, intrinsically evil. To answer your direct question, ABC is not a moral choice and can never be. People can always choose to abstain.

More moral choices would be a reasonable application of NFP as well as an increase of worthy vocations. Other things that people are doing now
include research into better farming methods and food production, improved water purification systems, better sources of energy and so on. These are all good things.

I recall reading when I was a kid that people were saying that by the year 2000, there would be nearly 7, perhaps 8 billion people and that mass starvation would be sweeping every continent and every country, including Western Europe and the USA. These articles were looking about 40 years ahead too.

 

[newbetx]

That’s only 40 years away, and surely we’re not blind to the math. It’s adding 38% more people in only one generation, when already (today) there isn’t enough clean or potable water for everyone.

Now, we could pray for a loaves and fishes deal… Or we could close our eyes and pretend that having an unlimited number of children won’t “really” impact our planetary resources… Or we could practice contraception more thoroughly and ignore the impact on our spirits, and the seeds of selfishness, arrogance and independence that would grow in us as a result…

How do you make decisions when a situation is morally complex or ambiguous? What is your process? Do you self-justify or fall back on “rules” (like not healing on the Sabbath)? What happens when you pray? And how do you feel when you’ve finally decided, knowing that since neither decision was “right”, whichever decision you make, by definition, is wrong?

I’m curious to hear.

Thank you, and God bless.

We need to be careful of what we are attempting to justify.

If you truely believe that if we (“Western advanced societies”) by the use of contraception will make the world a less crowded place, then in about 40 years, those that don’t practice contraception will either have moved here and outvoted our lifestyle or they will come and kill us for the resources we all need. History would point to this, at least.

OK OK… Kinda grimm. I know. Can God provide? Yes. We already make more food that most of the world can eat. Distribution is a big problem. That can be fixed, but it’s slow when there are those that want to get in the way of it for their own selfish reasons.

And its not that our Church says we’re required to have 10 or 12 kids,either. If you believe in your communication with God that He is telling you to have fewer children, use of NFP is acceptable. ABC is not required. If one truely believes that we should not have children, then do not marry. This is a choice, too. We can choose to serve others rather than having a family.

And by the way, selfishness, including using more than you require at the expense of others in need has always been sinful. So it’s not a new sin, but a focus on it.

How do I know when I’m between a rock and a hard place what the right thing to do is? For me, it’s: Can I sleep well? Did I bend over backwards to do the best for others? Did I view it as God might? Did I provide for my family their basic needs while being honest? Am I a good example? There are many hard decisions. If you chose wrong, it will become apparent. Then you make amends.

 

[vinessa]

Okay Sure, let’s take the list below. On it is Murder, an intrinsically evil act. But Jesus said that murder is more than what we typically think it is. We murder our brother when we are angry at him, “murdering” his spirit, or the relationship between us. However, I don’t see Anger on the list below. Or emotional or verbal abuse, just physical, although psychologists and clinicians all agree that verbal abuse is much more damaging, because it damages the soul or the spirit.

So some of this also has to do with how we define things. Thus, in my example, both situations are anti-life. Just like anger is like murder, so is ecological degradation. It’s a murdering of the planet that sustains us, a murdering of our neighbors (through pollution or competition for scarce resources), and can even be construed as suicide.

I wonder if we see planetary degradation as some kind of “lesser evil” because it’s less intimate to us and more removed? Yet so many more people are harmed by our mindless choices about production, consumption and wealth.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Sounds to me as though your class needs a good grounding in the Catholic concept of intrinsically evil acts - that is, acts that can NEVER be morally done not matter what. Some intrinsically evil acts are:

Adultery
Fornication
Homosexual Acts
Masturbation
Abortion
Murder
Suicide
Physical abuse
Contraception
Rape
Stealing
Lying
…and others

The Church teaching is that these acts can never be done morally. No matter what the circumstances and no matter what “good” effects may stem from such acts.

 

[vinessa]

Second falalcy is that overpopulation is the only, or even gravest, threat to the environment… (Not)

Corki, just your saying this is a falacy doesn’t make your statement true. Weighing all the evidence, there are more experts who say that the stress on our planet is dire than those who deny it.

Since what we’re talking about also is Life, a medical or healing analogy is useful. Just because you don’t see or feel cancer now doesn’t mean one isn’t growing. The most insidious, destructive diseases often don’t show symptoms until it’s too late. Or, a person with a disease can be functioning quite normally, until a threshold is crossed – the virus has multiplied enough, or the internal degradation has advanced enough. A “tipping point” is reached, and irreversible damage proceeds quickly thereafter.

You can witness this yourself with an ice cube. Lay an ice cube on a counter. At first it doesn’t seem to melt very fast. It stays pretty solid. Very, very slowly, the ice cube sweats, and eventually there’s a little bit of water down along the bottom. Until now the process has been very slow. But as soon as there’s a good layer of water on the bottom, the ice cube begins to melt much faster. You can think of this as a capillary effect also.

Anyway, the claim that our ecological situation will not be impacted by increasing our population by nearly 40% over the next 40 years, I believe, is blind to the prevailing evidence and expertise.

 

[vinessa]

I am going to deal with only this question. If we as a society would treat our sexuality with the respect that the Church asks of us there would not be a problem with over-population.

This is one reason that sex and marriage go together. Also, a marriage that bases itself on mutual cooperation and communication can plan carefully for children and still remain within the teaching of the Church and still be good stewards of God’s Earth.

The problem comes when couples do not behave in a responsible manner toward each other or toward God.

Very sane, Helen Rose, thank you.

The only problem I can see is if a married couple really enjoys sex and each other. It’s easy to forget the planet because most problems are “over there” (out of our sight) anyway, right?

I confess to being lazy and driving my car to work sometimes, when I could easily take my bike, and biking is better for both me and the planet.

I think we should start getting into the habit of bringing our ecological sins into confession also, if only to reinforce the understanding that our thoughtless actions are death-dealing.

Thanks!

 

[vinessa]

If you truely believe that if we (“Western advanced societies”) by the use of contraception will make the world a less crowded place, then in about 40 years, those that don’t practice contraception will either have moved here and outvoted our lifestyle or they will come and kill us for the resources we all need. History would point to this, at least.

I get it, and it’s true. I guess I meant more along the lines of, what do we promulgate, in addition to practicing? Already population in the US, with the exception of newly arriving immigrants, is pretty stable. But it’s declining in places like France and Germany – while rising still of course in Asia, India, Africa and Latin America. However, these third world places are where we also preach – so are the negative personal, social, and environmental effects of in-temperance really expressed in our missions? Is the obligation to be good planetary stewards strongly conveyed and modeled?

How do I know when I’m between a rock and a hard place what the right thing to do is? For me, it’s: Can I sleep well? Did I bend over backwards to do the best for others? Did I view it as God might? Did I provide for my family their basic needs while being honest? Am I a good example? There are many hard decisions. If you chose wrong, it will become apparent. Then you make amends.

Excellent. Very honest and helpful. Thank you.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Vinessa
There are so many issues here where to start?

False dichotomies come from earlier mistakes or assumptions which cause only bad results to appear as possible.

…
What brings this to mind at the moment is the Vatican’s call to be better and more caring stewards of this awesome and blessed green planet (adding ecological degradation to the sin list) – and how that doesn’t resolve neatly or cleanly with the prohibition on contraception. Both are concerned with Theology of Life – but what do you, or we, do when one call collides with the other?..

Catholics are not required to populate or over populate.

…the world population is expected to reach nine billion, …

and it may or may not happen this will not be a problem

… Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life.

That’s only 40 years away, and surely we’re not blind to the math. It’s adding 38% more people in only one generation, when already (today) there isn’t enough clean or potable water for everyone…

the world can easily sustain 9 billion

btw I hope you know the world has been hotter, and colder, and more productive and less productive. So we will build more water plants, and recycle better. Design more efficient people systems, etc, etc, etc. One of the new system may easily during your morning shower tell who is and is not ovulating, which is another means to control population.

My advice is do not stress we have a lot of smart people and we know a lot of options we can use when we need to. Like reducing commuting, eliminating inefficient gas vehicles, using more trains (less cars & planes) etc, etc

 

[1ke]

Vinessa,

The NY Times and other “mainstream” media love to promote the myth of overpopulation and cling to Paul Ehrlich’s dire predictions that have been disproven over and over again. I highly recommend economist Jacequeline Kasun’s book The War On Population and a visit to the website www.pop.org.

I also just ordered the DVD Demographic Winter but I haven’t received it yet. It is a fact that many nations are in a depopulation crisis and are paying their countrymen to have children.

Of course others have pointed out that if there were in fact a need to restrict population, contraception would always and everywhere be an immoral means of doing so.

Yes, we should be good stewards of our planet but we should never forget that God created this planet, indeed the entire universe, for Man. He commanded us to fill the earth and subdue it. We are in His care.

 

[FlatAffect]

God said “Be fruitful and multiply.” 9 billion may seem like a huge number to you but it’s probably a pretty small number to God. Do you honestly think after He based His whole creation on the basis of the human population multiplying, that somehow the Earth isn’t going to support the population?

 

[HelenRose]

Very sane, Helen Rose, thank you.

The only problem I can see is if a married couple really enjoys sex and each other. It’s easy to forget the planet because most problems are “over there” (out of our sight) anyway, right?

I confess to being lazy and driving my car to work sometimes, when I could easily take my bike, and biking is better for both me and the planet.

I think we should start getting into the habit of bringing our ecological sins into confession also, if only to reinforce the understanding that our thoughtless actions are death-dealing.

Thanks!

I really have little right to discuss contraception because I became a Catholic after child bearing age and I still have not totally come to terms with the issue. I have come to understand, however, why the doctrine is in place. This understanding was a big step forward for me.

It has been a learning process for me. I have discovered however, that as a grandma, there can never be to many grandchildren.

 

[1ke]

I have discovered however, that as a grandma, there can never be to many grandchildren.

This is how God feels about ALL persons. We are his beloved children, there can never be too many souls in Heaven.

 

[vinessa]

the world can easily sustain 9 billion. btw I hope you know the world has been hotter, and colder, and more productive and less productive.

It’s true Texas, we don’t have a crystal ball. But I’m 52 and old enough to remember the “big event” when we crossed over to having 3 billion on the planet. Now we are pushing 7 billion, in just my lifetime, and life is very different. Mind you, I’ve also lived in Cairo and in Europe, and consider it laughable when we in the US talk about things being “crowded” – we don’t know crowded by a longshot. But the problem is that it’s exponential math. Even when the rate of growth slows down, the parabolic graph keeps going up, and much faster than in the past.

One of the new system may easily during your morning shower tell who is and is not ovulating, which is another means to control population.

Unless you like to have sex before showering! Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

My advice is do not stress we have a lot of smart people and we know a lot of options we can use when we need to. Like reducing commuting, eliminating inefficient gas vehicles, using more trains (less cars & planes) etc, etc.

Or being mindful of the not only the size of our families, but how we consume. Do you realize that self-storage is the largest growing industry in the United States? People need more space to keep their junk. In the old days, on a neighborhood street, if John wanted to build a fence he would borrow a saw from Sam and a drill from Tom. Or Tom would borrow a hammer from John for one of his projects. Now everybody has to have THEIR OWN hammer, drill and saw. And we have to pay for storing these things we use only a few times a year, or sometimes only once, to say nothing of all the plastic toys from China…

I don’t know. As I said, considering the growth in my own lifetime, I’m not ready to call the population explosion a myth. I’m not hysterical with my hair on fire, but plain common sense says that something is going to run out one of these days…

 

[vinessa]

The NY Times and other “mainstream” media love to promote the myth of overpopulation and cling to Paul Ehrlich’s dire predictions that have been disproven over and over again. I highly recommend economist Jacequeline Kasun’s book The War On Population and a visit to the website www.pop.org.

I have looked at these, 1ke. I’m still wary. I research, but I always make up my own mind. I’m not one who decries the latest catastrophe du jour. But many minds, not only Paul Erlich’s, have flagged the issue. And common sense, as well as personal experience and observation, tells me that there is stress on the system. Can Las Vegas continue to water golf courses and run fountains in the desert, while Amtrak continues to decommission trains, and your mass transit system and mine are cutting back? It’s all a huge cocktail, but what I worry most about is water. Clean, safe drinking water for everyone. Not swimming pools for the Arizonans while the Mexican farmers who should be receiving a fair share of Colorado River water are unable to grow crops or live sustainably, without resorting to work in multinational maquilladoras, making more plastic junk for us to buy.

Of course others have pointed out that if there were in fact a need to restrict population, contraception would always and everywhere be an immoral means of doing so.

See, this is what I don’t get. If a married couple wants to limit the size of their family, they are already “contra” cepting. They are manipulating their relations to match the calendar, rather than relating truly, directly, and genuinely with each other in that moment.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating following every urge, no matter what. I am saying that genuine relating and oneness doesn’t work very well on a schedule. And manipulation is still manipulation. Between a loving, married couple, if using ovulation cycles is okay, why not a diaphragm? What is so sinful about using a diaphragm, especially if the husband helps and it brings them closer? I really don’t get this.

He commanded us to fill the earth and subdue it.

We have certainly subdued it.