Natural Law Bias Against Action

[Bubba_Switzler]

I have long noticed a subtle bias in Catholic theology against action and wondered where it comes from. Catholic morality does, of course, recognize since of omission as well as commission, but they hardly seem balanced.

One example of this is the morality of sexuality. Homosexuality, contraception, and abstinence all frustrate procreation. But the first two are sinful while the last is virtuous.

Thomistic Natural Law makes the distinction between using sex contrary to it’s purpose and function and not using it at all. Here, at least, there is no sin of omission. And this is true of Natural Law generally.

The natural conclusion to be drawn is that, when in doubt, be passive to avoid sin.

 

[spiderweb]

It’s not being passive to avoid sin. Living chastely is a virtue by “commission”.

Being passive will most likely lead to sins of omission.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s not being passive to avoid sin. Living chastely is a virtue by “commission”.

If abstinance is activity and not inaction (pasivity) then what passivity could not be recast as active? Are you claiming that abstinance is uniquely active or denying a distinction between action and inaction generally?

Being passive will most likely lead to sins of omission.

My point is that activity and passivitiy are not equally balanced morally. One reason may be that we are responsible for our actions in a way that we are not responsible for our inactions, which is strongly suggested by Aquinas’ natural law: that a thing can be used against it’s nature. Another reason may be that there are always more things we could do than things we do as choosing to do one thing precludes many other possible alternatives.

 

[spiderweb]

If abstinance is activity and not inaction (pasivity) then what passivity could not be recast as active? Are you claiming that abstinance is uniquely active or denying a distinction between action and inaction generally?

I’m not a Thomist, so this is just my own thoughts.

Practicing the cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance requires some sort of action even if that action is seemingly passive. Abstinence falls under Temperance. It is actively practicing restraint. It is the action of not doing something that I want to do.

There are many actions which are morally neither right nor wrong. There are many passive actions that are neither right nor wrong. There are actions that can be right or wrong. And there are passive “actions” that can be right or wrong.

My point is that activity and passivitiy are not equally balanced morally. One reason may be that we are responsible for our actions in a way that we are not responsible for our inactions, which is strongly suggested by Aquinas’ natural law: that a thing can be used against it’s nature. Another reason may be that there are always more things we could do than things we do as choosing to do one thing precludes many other possible alternatives.

I think it depends on what you mean by being “equally balanced”. Do you mean moral culpability, as in more serious? Or do you mean just by actively doing something you are more likely to sin?

 

[JurisPrudens]

I have long noticed a subtle bias in Catholic theology against action and wondered where it comes from. Catholic morality does, of course, recognize since of omission as well as commission, but they hardly seem balanced.

One example of this is the morality of sexuality. Homosexuality, contraception, and abstinence all frustrate procreation. But the first two are sinful while the last is virtuous.

Thomistic Natural Law makes the distinction between using sex contrary to it’s purpose and function and not using it at all. Here, at least, there is no sin of omission. And this is true of Natural Law generally.

The natural conclusion to be drawn is that, when in doubt, be passive to avoid sin.

There are natural laws obliging to action. The Third Commandment (Keep the Sabbath Holy) is an active duty to worship God. St. Thomas held that the sin of Sloth violates exactly this Commandment.

 

[St_Francis]

I have long noticed a subtle bias in Catholic theology against action and wondered where it comes from. Catholic morality does, of course, recognize since of omission as well as commission, but they hardly seem balanced.

One example of this is the morality of sexuality. Homosexuality, contraception, and abstinence all frustrate procreation. But the first two are sinful while the last is virtuous.

Thomistic Natural Law makes the distinction between using sex contrary to it’s purpose and function and not using it at all. Here, at least, there is no sin of omission. And this is true of Natural Law generally.

The natural conclusion to be drawn is that, when in doubt, be passive to avoid sin.

Abstinence does not frustrate procreation.

Sexual activity performed in such a way as to preclude procreation is wrong because the sexual activity is performed, and some aspect has been included which frustrates the end or goal of the act.

Abstinence is not-doing the act. Some may abstain in order to avoid procreation, but how can they be said to frustrate the end of an act if they are not engaging in the act?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Abstinence does not frustrate procreation.

Let’s restate it in a more neutral way:

The choice of abstinance, like the choice of homosexuality and the choice of contraception is a choice which does not produce offspring.

Sexual activity performed in such a way as to preclude procreation is wrong because the sexual activity is performed, and some aspect has been included which frustrates the end or goal of the act.

Abstinence is not-doing the act. Some may abstain in order to avoid procreation, but how can they be said to frustrate the end of an act if they are not engaging in the act?

This, though, is my point.

According to this view, the act brings with it additional duties that inaction does not. This is fundamental to Aquinas’ system of natural law and it creates a bias against action.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There are natural laws obliging to action. The Third Commandment (Keep the Sabbath Holy) is an active duty to worship God. St. Thomas held that the sin of Sloth violates exactly this Commandment.

Yes, true, but my claim is not that there are no duties to act but that natural law is biased against action. On balance, net across all human choices, it is easier to avoid sin by inaction.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m not a Thomist, so this is just my own thoughts.

Practicing the cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance requires some sort of action even if that action is seemingly passive. Abstinence falls under Temperance. It is actively practicing restraint. It is the action of not doing something that I want to do.

Note that others in this thread are aguing the opposite, that abstinance is not action but inaction. What you are arguing is that there is some natural inclination which abstienance restrainst which is, then, an action (the restraint). I suppose that’s reasonable but it assumes a lot.

I think it depends on what you mean by being “equally balanced”. Do you mean moral culpability, as in more serious? Or do you mean just by actively doing something you are more likely to sin?

I meant the later. On balance, overall, this seems to be the case. Others have pointed to positive duties but these seem outweighed by the negative ones.

I think your above point is reasonable and I’ve seen it stated differently before: morality is often set against normality. People naturally do X and the moral code assumes such inclinations and then seeks to redirect them in a moral direction.

 

[Wesrock]

We have an obligation of charitable love towards fellow man according to natural law. Therefore, omission in the face of opportunity can be an active choice of rejection towards this end.

A man is under no obligation to have sex. However, if he does do the sex act, it must be in accordance with the final ends of both the reproductive system and its parts and the ends associated with our whole beings as sensory creatures.

Pursuit of God/truth is the highest good of a rational being, remember. It trumps pursuit of other ends so long as we maintain the health of body. One can be abstinent in order to focus oneself more on the spiritual and less on the worldly. One cannot walk past a fellow man in dire need, to which you can provide assistance, without rejecting God and his work and your ends as a sensory and rational creature.

Abstinance can help your pursue your spiritual ends over material. What we consider sins of omission harm those spiritual ends.

Homosexuality and contraception attempt to pervert God’s design and the intended ends of the human person. It is us declaring that we are the arbiters of right and wrong, not God.

 

[Wesrock]

Ultimately, the question is whether the choice leads to love of God, his creation (appropriately so), and his design, or away from it?

People question the teleological ends of hands in the other topic. Is it a misuse of them to type on a computer? No, of course not. If we want to consider their ends, they are for manipulating and grasping, for being useful towards our achieving ends of nutrition, learning, language, caring, or what have you. They help us to function towards our natural ends as nutritional, sensory, and rational beings. If we use them intentionally contrary to those ends, to unjustly harm others or ourselves, we are using them contrary to their purpose.

Still, the possibility that some body parts might not have a way to morally or physically misuse them isn’t contradictory to teleology.

 

[fhansen]

I have long noticed a subtle bias in Catholic theology against action and wondered where it comes from. Catholic morality does, of course, recognize since of omission as well as commission, but they hardly seem balanced.

One example of this is the morality of sexuality. Homosexuality, contraception, and abstinence all frustrate procreation. But the first two are sinful while the last is virtuous.

Thomistic Natural Law makes the distinction between using sex contrary to it’s purpose and function and not using it at all. Here, at least, there is no sin of omission. And this is true of Natural Law generally.

The natural conclusion to be drawn is that, when in doubt, be passive to avoid sin.

Augustine said that, **“Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation.” **
If perfect moderation can be defined as compliance with the natural law, which it can I would think, then abstinence is virtuous in the fight against concupiscence, in gaining self-mastery, in trying to more nearly approach moderation IOW.

 

[St_Francis]

Let’s restate it in a more neutral way:

The choice of abstinance, like the choice of homosexuality and the choice of contraception is a choice which does not produce offspring.

This, though, is my point.

According to this view, the act brings with it additional duties that inaction does not. This is fundamental to Aquinas’ system of natural law and it creates a bias against action.

A person can choose to have sex with a lawful spouse of his or her own, or not. Both are equally non-sinful, so there is no bias toward non-action here.

A person may choose to *sin, *by contracepting or by engaging in homosexual activity, but the bias is not against *action, *it is against *sin. *

Certain types of non-acts are sins also: not praying would be a sin against justice in that we are not rendering to God what is due to Him.

The problem with not acting is that it will slow down one’s progress in holiness. Consider a game in which you gain stars for good actions and lose moons for bad actions. Non-action would lead to a situation in which a person was left with only moons, while needing stars to win.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Augustine said that, “Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation.”
If perfect moderation can be defined as compliance with the natural law, which it can I would think, then abstinence is virtuous in the fight against concupiscence, in gaining self-mastery, in trying to more nearly approach moderation IOW.

This is an interesting point, I think.

If I understand, what you are saying is that it is easiser (and better?) to go to the extreme of complete abstinence than to be in perfect compliance with natural law.

This is based on the belief that avoiding concupiscence is a greater good than procreation.

Ultimately, the question is whether the choice leads to love of God, his creation (appropriately so), and his design, or away from it?

Or, to put it another way, asceticism is morally superior to compliance with the natural law because it somehow leads to a greater love of God. Is that right?

 

[Wesrock]

Or, to put it another way, asceticism is morally superior to compliance with the natural law because it somehow leads to a greater love of God. Is that right?

Asceticism is not in contradiction with the natural law. It can be useful in pursuing our highest end as rational beings.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Asceticism is not in contradiction with the natural law. It can be useful in pursuing our highest end as rational beings.

I didn’t mean to say it was in contradiction but now that you mention it, perhaps that is worth exploring.

I understand, of course, that Thomistic natural law puts knowledge of God at the tippy top as the highest end of rational beings. But it’s plain to see that if everyone followed the ascetic path the human race would come to a pathetic end.

So it’s hard to see how asceticism could be the highest good of man from natural law.

It is possible to see how asceticism might complement the natural law. Having a few celebrate priests is undoubtely a good thing and maybe having a few ascetic monks is too.

But I hope I don’t sound anti-clerical when I say that I’m skeptical that the priesthood is a higher calling than, say motherhood.

 

[fhansen]

This is an interesting point, I think.

If I understand, what you are saying is that it is easiser (and better?) to go to the extreme of complete abstinence than to be in perfect compliance with natural law.

This is based on the belief that avoiding concupiscence is a greater good than procreation.

No, compliance with the natural law would always be superior. Abstinence is better than little or no self-control whatsoever-and it at least tends towards right behavior.

 

[spiderweb]

I think it is safe to say that the two greatest sins are sins of omission; neglecting to love God and neighbor (Matt 22:37-39), and every sin falls under either one or both of these. Either by omission or commission, all sins are “How” we break these two commandments.

Every sin of “commission” also involves a sin of “omission” except that the sin of omission is implied as being attached to that sin. Example: Commission- Knowingly and willingly killing an innocent person. Omission- Neglected to love my neighbor. If there is a “bias” towards sins of commission it is because these types of sins choose evil over good, and in themselves they are in direct opposition to God.

Sins of omission also involve “action”, but the action itself may or may not be sinful. Example: Sleep in and neglect to worship God on the Lords Day. Omission- Neglected to give God what is his due. Commission- The act of sleeping which is not sinful in itself. Sins of omission typically involve putting a neutral or lesser good above a greater good.

I was trying to think of an example of how being passive or inactive would be better than being active but I couldn’t think of one. Could you give an example where being inactive doesn’t involve simply doing something different and still avoids a potentially sinful act/situation? I actually think it’s the opposite. I need to actively do something else (even if it’s just morally neutral) in order to avoid a potentially sinful situation even if that action is purely mental and not physical.

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

Note that others in this thread are arguing the opposite, that abstinence is not action but inaction. What you are arguing is that there is some natural inclination which abstinence restrains against which is then, an action (the restraint). I suppose that’s reasonable but it assumes a lot.

What exactly is that assuming?

I don’t believe others are arguing the opposite. They are saying the same thing, but in a different way. Sexual abstinence is only inaction as far as having sex. How the restraint of abstinence is practiced can be replacing sex with another action, like mowing the lawn, or just “willing” not to do it without doing any other physical activity. When a person goes on a diet, are they actively restraining from eating or is it passively doing nothing? If you get into a heated argument with someone and at some point you simply decide to “bite your tongue” and not say what you would like to say, are you just being passive, or are you actively restraining yourself. If it is passively doing nothing, then why is it so difficult? There is a reason why we use the phrase “exercising the will”.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No, compliance with the natural law would always be superior. Abstinence is better than little or no self-control whatsoever-and it at least tends towards right behavior.

Thanks for clarifying, that’s not what I had interpreted from your previous statement.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think it is safe to say that the two greatest sins are sins of omission; neglecting to love God and neighbor (Matt 22:37-39), and every sin falls under either one or both of these. Either by omission or commission, all sins are “How” we break these two commandments.

A fair point, but then…

Every sin of “commission” also involves a sin of “omission” except that the sin of omission is implied as being attached to that sin. Example: Commission- Knowingly and willingly killing an innocent person. Omission- Neglected to love my neighbor. If there is a “bias” towards sins of commission it is because these types of sins choose evil over good, and in themselves they are in direct opposition to God.

This is more more or less what I am noticing. As soon as you come down from the general top two commandments you encounter this bias. (Yes, I am aware of other detailed commandments to action, I am speaking overall on balance.)

Sins of omission also involve “action”, but the action itself may or may not be sinful. Example: Sleep in and neglect to worship God on the Lords Day. Omission- Neglected to give God what is his due. Commission- The act of sleeping which is not sinful in itself. Sins of omission typically involve putting a neutral or lesser good above a greater good.

I was trying to think of an example of how being passive or inactive would be better than being active but I couldn’t think of one. Could you give an example where being inactive doesn’t involve simply doing something different and still avoids a potentially sinful act/situation? I actually think it’s the opposite. I need to actively do something else (even if it’s just morally neutral) in order to avoid a potentially sinful situation even if that action is purely mental and not physical.

But I provided one already: abstinance.

What exactly is that assuming?

I don’t believe others are arguing the opposite. They are saying the same thing, but in a different way. Sexual abstinence is only inaction as far as having sex. How the restraint of abstinence is practiced can be replacing sex with another action, like mowing the lawn, or just “willing” not to do it without doing any other physical activity. When a person goes on a diet, are they actively restraining from eating or is it passively doing nothing? If you get into a heated argument with someone and at some point you simply decide to “bite your tongue” and not say what you would like to say, are you just being passive, or are you actively restraining yourself. If it is passively doing nothing, then why is it so difficult? There is a reason why we use the phrase “exercising the will”.

You are assuming all those natural inclinations and behaviors.