Morality, is it embedded or taught?

[Gorgias]

You seem to be saying that the longer and louder conscience speaks over time despite continuously seeking wise guidance, prayer and reflection…the more likely we would commit sin not to change that aspect of our lifestyle.

If I understand you correctly, then no, that’s not precisely what I’m saying.

Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you – but it seems you’re saying “as long as I think and pray about it, then if I don’t change my mind, then I’m right to do what I want.” That’s not what I’m saying.

The issue isn’t “have I done my due diligence, so that I can feel justified in my actions.” Rather, the issue is always, “if I’m doing things at odds with what the Church teaches us are moral to do… then why I am doing them? What is it that is causing my disconnect with the moral teachings of the Church? Is there a reasonable argument I can make for saying ‘_I’m right, and the Church is wrong’?”

You must go with your conscience – but your conscience could be wrong. You still may be held culpable for sinning, even though your sin is being committed in accordance with your conscience.

(As a ‘way-out-there’ example, if your conscience is telling you that murder is OK, and no matter what you do to research or pray about the question, you still think it’s OK, then when you murder someone – even though your conscience is saying “go for it!” – you may still be culpable for the sin.)

 

[Gorgias]

Lets apply it to use of contraceptives for when a couple find themselves in unusual and dire medical straights or a mixed marriage situation where couples sincerely disagree for example?

Good examples.

I think I would ask the following questions:

• if the contraceptives are being used to prevent pregnancy, are there other means available to them that prevent pregnancy during the “unusual and dire medical straits” that do not include recourse to artificial (and potentially abortifacent) birth control?
• in the mixed marriage situation, is it possible for the Catholic spouse to not directly use birth control, whereas her spouse does make recourse to a form of birth control method that the Church considers morally illicit?

 

[Gorgias]

Killing is an evil, grave matter, a highly disordered objective action. The 5th makes that rather clear.
Yet the CCC clearly allows us to do this evil and engage in this grave matter in self-defence.

Actually, the word in the fifth commandment in Hebrew is “murder”, which implies not only action against a human, but also, with a particular intent. Self-defense doesn’t carry the implication of that intent.

 

[FiveLinden]

Catholic teachings says ‘embedded’. But it is hard to find a single moral belief held by all societies. So how can it be?

 

[fide]

Hi Joline

It sounds to me that you have a conclusion in your mind and heart already, to the question of the OP. I wish you had begun with an explicit statement of what we were to be talking about (contraception), with details of the particular circumstances that were your personal interest (still not stated, unless I missed it - sorry if I did).

I’m concerned that you might be looking for a way out of a place you don’t want to be, and the simple answer is one you don’t want to hear. There is a great danger of nuancing moral situations “to death” so to speak - to the death of all moral clarity, and moral truth - and ending up with moral relativism. This is wildly popular in the world, of course, and has sought a foothold in the Church from the beginning. I hope you are not being drawn in that direction: that is a path leading to nowhere but trouble. May the Lord lead you in your way.

 

[kill051]

Catholic teachings says ‘embedded’. But it is hard to find a single moral belief held by all societies. So how can it be?

It’s actually quite easy to find moral beliefs held by all societies. Loyalty to friends is commonly held to be a moral good. Theft is bad, murder is bad, fidelity is good, paying one’s debts is good, envy is bad, covetousness is bad, philanthropy is good, generosity is good. What’s difficult is to locate societies that don’t agree with the tenets listed above.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s quite a misunderstanding.

LOL! OK… help me understand what you meant, then, please!

Regardless of how the Jews might interpret the 5th C it is quite clear that the Magisterium believes the 5th C is most accurately interpreted/translated in accord with the heart and mind of Jesus as “Thou shall not kill” sorry.

With all due respect, I think you’re mistaken. From the Catechism:

[2261] The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

[2263] The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

Its also why those who take your somewhat old fashioned theological approach to this issue cannot understand Pope Francis’s recent developments to the CCC on Capital Punishment which allegedly breaks with tradition.

LOL! What you see as “old fashioned theological approach”, I see as “the orthodox teaching of the magisterium”.

Pope Francis’s recent developments to the CCC on Capital Punishment which allegedly breaks with tradition.

I disagree that it breaks with tradition. It adds to St Pope John Paul II’s comments on the matter.

 

[edwest211]

How do you explain current trends in Western society?

 

[fide]

Ah yes, so the water here you are finding a bit too shallow for you - I understand. “It’s lonely at the top”, so I’ve heard…

 

[kill051]

Joline:

But its always appreciated that the younger one’s are listening even if their responses are sometimes met with just a smile.

Wait – are you really saying that, since I asked you to explain what you meant, I’m a “younger one” who is to be given an indulgent smile?

Perhaps, with your self-perceived greater perspective, you might consider that you were being challenged to plainly state what you were really saying. If you can’t see that, then I’ll just give you an indulgent smile.

Don’t get bitter over this reality of life Gorgias, while we all foster equality of opportunity people themselves are not equal

Well, one thing I can say: I’ve rarely been insulted with such seemingly gentle words…

If ever you wish to get off your high horse and explain your meaning to us “young’uns”, I’d appreciate you condescending to our level…

Don’t worry, @Gorgias. I am one oldster who has no problem patiently explaining himself to anyone who will listen, and any indulgent smiles you get from me will be due not to condescension, but to intestinal gas!

 

[Gorgias]

So there is still plenty for us to talk about even if the point above is past its expiry date.

So, when I ask you difficult questions on these issues, will those subjects, likewise, go past their expiry date with you?

 

[Gorgias]

Like myself you are free to politely advise retirement on any topic at any time.
Yes, even when stumped.

I’m just gonna feel like Charlie Brown to your Lucy when you pull the football away, again…

Besides which, I don’t think it’s “polite” on a discussion board to initiate a topic and then say “nah… I don’t feel like talking about it anymore. I’m taking this ball and going home.”

 

[goout]

Like myself you are free to politely advise retirement on any topic at any time.
Yes, even when stumped.

The Blue Horizon beckons.

 

[goout]

Morality evaluates human acts. The evaluation of human acts is in reference to the good.
The ultimate objective good is communion with God. So in morality we orient our reason, will, and actions toward unity with the will of God.
At the end of the day, morality is not merely a set of rules, morality is personified in Christ. (If morality were merely a set of rules, we are all dead in sin, justly deserving…)

Probably the best current in depth exposition of morality is JP2’s Veritatis Splendor.

 

[Hodos]

I would say it is immorality that is embedded in our hearts due to original sin. Fortunately, through baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit who writes God’s law on our hearts and sanctifies us. You don’t have to train a child to misbehave. You have to work very hard to train a child to be obedient.

 

[kill051]

I would say it is immorality that is embedded in our hearts due to original sin. Fortunately, through baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit who writes God’s law on our hearts and sanctifies us. You don’t have to train a child to misbehave. You have to work very hard to train a child to be obedient.

Ah, but as C.S. Lewis reminds us, children already have a sense of justice and fair play without having been taught. ‘It’s not fair!’ and ‘You cheated!’ and ‘That’s against the rules’ are constant cries on playgrounds all over the world. Where did this sense of justice come from? God inscribes it on our hearts at conception. Baptism merely reinforces it.

 

[Gorgias]

Then continue our remaining two discussion points instead of doing exactly what upsets you in others - or hold your peace

LOL!

I should hold my peace so I don’t upset others, but it’s cool for you to do that precise thing yourself! Double standards are such beautiful things!

OK – to the content of your questions, since you’re in a mood to discuss:

With respect to the fifth commandment:

You mention that the CCC uses the language “kill”, and that I’m mistaken with the “murder” interpretation. How, then, do you address the CCC’s language at #2261 and #2263, in which murder is precisely the context of the fifth commandment? In addition, how do you address the actual wording of the fifth commandment in the original language, which really is ‘murder’?

With respect to the issue of contraception:

You mention a particular case – a person who has “a medical condition that has made pregnancies harder each time and have made tracking ovulation very difficult.” Do you see this example as representative, such that it should determine the content of moral teaching? Or, perhaps, as a rare enough occurrence that it should be dealt with at the level of pastoral discussions with one’s pastor, rather than forcing a change in the moral teaching of the Church?

 

[Gorgias]

I said the Church translating with the mind of Christ clearly believes “kill” is a far better translation 99% of the time given that neither English word fully encapsulates the meaning of Christ and the New Covenant.

This interpretation is problematic. At its heart, it claims that Christ is revisionist, by going back to the OT and re-interpreting ‘murder’ as if it were merely ‘kill’.

If you want to make that claim, then you have to explain away all the uses of that very word in the OT that mean ‘murder’. Here is one, for illustration:

Numbers 35:16 - “If someone strikes another with an iron instrument and causes death, that person is a murderer, and the murderer must be put to death.”

But, the Mosaic law perceives a difference between ‘murder’ and killing that is unintentional: “However, if someone pushes another without malice aforethought, or without lying in ambush throws some object at another, or without seeing drops upon another some death-dealing stone and death results, although there was neither enmity nor malice—then the community will judge between the assailant and the avenger of blood in accordance with these norms” (Numbers 35:22-24)

In the NAB, the footnote for this commandment in Exodus 20 states:

Kill: as frequent instances of killing in the context of war or certain crimes (see vv. 12-18 ) demonstrate in the Old Testament, not all killing comes within the scope of the commandment. For this reason, the Hebrew verb translated here as “kill” is often understood as “murder,” although it is in fact used in the Old Testament at times for unintentional acts of killing (e.g., [Dt 4:41]; [Jos 20:3]) and for legally sanctioned killing ([Nm 35:30]). The term may originally have designated any killing of another Israelite, including acts of manslaughter, for which the victim’s kin could exact vengeance. In the present context, it denotes the killing of one Israelite by another, motivated by hatred or the like ([Nm 35:20]; cf. [Hos 6:9]).

So, if your case is that it means all killing, then your case definitely doesn’t hold up in the context of the Decalogue. If your case is that Jesus changes the meaning to ‘kill’, then you still have to explain why His assertion in Matthew 5 isn’t against passionless killing, but specifically against the emotion of anger which is what leads to murder.

It would be a wise choice in their situation of seriously likely unfreedom.

Before we’d be able to discuss your opinion on this matter, you’re going to have to define what you mean by “unfreedom”. You’re using it in a precise (and unique!) way, without letting us know what you mean. So, when you say “unfreedom”, what does that imply to you, especially in the context of “free will” and “moral action”? What conditions, do you believe, lead to “unfreedom in moral choice”?

 

[Gorgias]

BTW: OT “Murder” has not been re-interpreted as “kill”. The OT was not written in English. Both words fall short of what the Hebrew word, in the full context of the Hebrew Commandment texts, means for the inspired writer. A minor point.

The Hebrew word implied “bloodguilt”. There is no bloodguilt for killing non-humans or for accidental (or self-defense) killing. Therefore, we really are closer to ‘murder’ in terms of what the word “means for the inspired writer”!

The standard moral theology meaning: more act of a man than a human act.

You’re going to have to expand on that a bit. “Acts of man” that have moral content are “human acts”. Perhaps you’d like to specify a bit more? (It’s awful difficult to discuss what you assert if you don’t tell us what you mean. )

Pope Francis devotes a large section of AL on this. Have you read it in full?

I have! Have you? The phrase “human act” doesn’t appear a single time there, nor does “act of a man”, let alone the term “unfree”. Perhaps you can cite the “large section” you’re referring to, here?