NJ archbishop sets rules for barring Catholics from Communion

[Thomas_White]

An act that is “intrinsically evil” means it is always evil, no matter the circumstance: like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, SSM, Euthanasia

Acts that are not intrinsically evil are the death penalty (although the cases where its allow is very few), war, etc. The CCC can help with this.

Intrinsic: belonging natural, essential

If an act is in itself intrinsically evil, did God then make this evil, you think? Or is it maybe that the evil is the result of man’s misuse of God’s good creation?

 

[Ender]

What does ‘intrinsic evil’ mean?

An intrinsically evil act is one which is never permitted under any circumstance. Abortion and euthanasia are examples of such acts.
*But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. *(JPII, Veritatis Splendor #67)
Ender

 

[Mongo]

For those who question how the priest could know whether an individual agrees with the Church; it isn’t necessary that he know what every individual believes. These rules are generally for public figures and for those who are living a lifestyle that is visibly contrary to the Church’s teaching.

It isn’t necessary for a Christian to assert each and every teaching of the Church. What is necessary is faithfulness. They can not deny the faith, and they can’t obstinately insist on doctrines that are contrary to the Church. It is expected that they will go to confession regularly to confess their sins, and if they don’t they should abstain from the Eucharist. If they don’t believe what the church teaches they should abstain. The rules for denying communion become important when a persons beliefs and way of life become a public issue that is clear to anyone who looks.

 

[TMC]

What does ‘intrinsic evil’ mean?

In America (and on this forum, in particular) intrinsic evil = things the GOP is against, prudential teaching = anything the Dems are against.

 

[shockerfan]

Intrinsic: belonging natural, essential

If an act is in itself intrinsically evil, did God then make this evil, you think? Or is it maybe that the evil is the result of man’s misuse of God’s good creation?

Not sure where you are going with this.

Sin is what man does when he goes against God. This is one of the possible outcomes since we have free will. Its not necessarily the result of man’s misuse of God’s good creation, as God did not create abortion or SSM or embryonic stem cell research or Euthanasia…man created that. Those acts are intrinsically evil, or to use your definition they are by their essence, sinful.

 

[Ender]

In America (and on this forum, in particular) intrinsic evil = things the GOP is against, prudential teaching = anything the Dems are against.

I think most Catholics would be willing to accept the definition of the term given by JPII (see post #64). Do you?

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

I think most Catholics would be willing to accept the definition of the term given by JPII (see post #64). Do you?

Ender

Well, it seems this concerns one’s perspective and perhaps the definition of the word. One can say abortion is always and without exception whatsoever evil. I understand if this is the meaning of abortion as an intrinsic evil. However, although the Church teaches that a fetus may not be allowed to die to save to save the life of the mother, it teaches that the reverse is equally true, that it is immoral to allow a mother to die to save the fetus. Morally neutral medical procedures to save the mother’s life are permitted even if it results in the death of the child. It is in this way that ‘intrinsic’ evil would concern the acts of man and not God. I understand the reason for the wording in the quote, but I also think permitting any exception whatever should be understood for what it is–an exception to the either/or teaching. The point was that God did not create what is evil. It is the work of man.

 

[TMC]

I think most Catholics would be willing to accept the definition of the term given by JPII (see post #64). Do you?

Ender

The statement in post 64 is void of any actual content. It is simply a restatement of the term in different words; it is not a list of actual policies. Nonetheless, some Catholics take statements like this and try to say they are a political endorsement.

The only place I know of with a list of intrinsic evils is Gadium et Spies # 27. I do not believe that list was meant to be exhaustive, however.

 

[Ender]

Well, it seems this concerns one’s perspective and perhaps the definition of the word. One can say abortion is always and without exception whatsoever evil. I understand if this is the meaning of abortion as an intrinsic evil. However, although the Church teaches that a fetus may not be allowed to die to save to save the life of the mother, it teaches that the reverse is equally true, that it is immoral to allow a mother to die to save the fetus. Morally neutral medical procedures to save the mother’s life are permitted even if it results in the death of the child. It is in this way that ‘intrinsic’ evil would concern the acts of man and not God. I understand the reason for the wording in the quote, but I also think permitting any exception whatever should be understood for what it is–an exception to the either/or teaching. The point was that God did not create what is evil. It is the work of man.

This now brings other conditions into discussion that aren’t directly related to what is or is not an intrinsic evil. As you said, a medical procedure necessary to save the life of the mother may be done even if it claims the life of the child, but this is covered by the principle of double effect. The prohibition against a deliberate abortion remains unchanged.

All of this goes to the political implications that have been brought up. It is often asserted that both parties have policies that contradict church teaching. I understand why this is claimed, but the claim lacks substance because most political issues do not face us with moral choices. It is only those that involve intrinsic evils that can truly be called moral.

Ender

 

[TMC]

Well, it seems this concerns one’s perspective and perhaps the definition of the word. One can say abortion is always and without exception whatsoever evil. I understand if this is the meaning of abortion as an intrinsic evil. However, although the Church teaches that a fetus may not be allowed to die to save to save the life of the mother, it teaches that the reverse is equally true, that it is immoral to allow a mother to die to save the fetus. Morally neutral medical procedures to save the mother’s life are permitted even if it results in the death of the child. It is in this way that ‘intrinsic’ evil would concern the acts of man and not God. I understand the reason for the wording in the quote, but I also think permitting any exception whatever should be understood for what it is–an exception to the either/or teaching. The point was that God did not create what is evil. It is the work of man.

I think a better description of the Church’s teaching is that unjustified killing is always and everywhere evil. One can debate the circumstances that make killing justified. Both parties in this country (and most Americans) are willing to “justify” much broader categories of killing than the Church does.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think a better description of the Church’s teaching is that unjustified killing is always and everywhere evil. One can debate the circumstances that make killing justified. Both parties in this country (and most Americans) are willing to “justify” much broader categories of killing than the Church does.

I agree. St. Augustine taught that God did not create evil, and that evil results from man’s misuse of the good. This is basically the way I understand it.

 

[Ender]

Both parties in this country (and most Americans) are willing to “justify” much broader categories of killing than the Church does.

You haven’t responded yet to my question about whether you accept JPII’s definition of an intrinsic evil. If you do then could you also identify which intrinsic evils each party explicitly supports?

Ender

 

[dans0622]

The letter from the Archbishop, dated September 22, 2015, states the following:

“Catholics must be in a marriage recognized as valid by the Church to receive Holy Communion or the other Sacraments.”

It is the difficulty of reducing to writing an intangible, a concept, that might ultimately result in legalism. With all due respect, and only to illustrate the point, would a literal reading of the sentence quoted above apply to the Archbishop himself?

That is, must a Catholic be married to receive Communion and the Sacraments?

I think the letter could have benefited from a few references to the Code (canons 843, 915, 916, 980, 1007…) and/or Catechism (don’t have that book on my desk) as well as a bit of polishing of the content… I think we do know what he meant but it’s not hard to say it in a more accurate way.

Dan

 

[TMC]

You haven’t responded yet to my question about whether you accept JPII’s definition of an intrinsic evil. If you do then could you also identify which intrinsic evils each party explicitly supports?

Ender

I believe I responded. It might not have been the response you wanted. I said that the statement is merely a restatement of the term. To me, that makes it hard to disagree with, but of little value in making actual decisions.

The list of evils supported by American politicians would be long. Unjustified killing is inherently evil. As I have already said, both parties support many killings, whole categories, actually, that are unjustified. Some members of each party support torture, which is inherently evil. In my view, many members of both parties support exploiting workers as commodities, which GS teaches us is inherently evil. There are many other examples, and these are not necessarily meant to be the best/worst examples.

Why? Are you trying to make a particular point? Surely you are not arguing that any particular political faction is evil and the other good. All politics is a mix of both, in my experience.

 

[Thomas_White]

I think the letter could have benefited from a few references to the Code (canons 843, 915, 916, 980, 1007…) and/or Catechism (don’t have that book on my desk) as well as a bit of polishing of the content… I think we do know what he meant but it’s not hard to say it in a more accurate way.

Dan

Yes, we do know what was meant. My comment was really to illustrate a point. What might a person who had no knowledge of the issue conclude from reading only those few words of the letter? That’s all–just an observation I thought was relevant in the discussion at that time.

 

[Ender]

I said that the statement is merely a restatement of the term. To me, that makes it hard to disagree with, but of little value in making actual decisions.

If the meaning of the term is so obvious that its definition is redundant then I wonder why you provided such a dismissive explanation of its meaning.

The list of evils supported by American politicians would be long.

No, it wouldn’t. What is normally identified as evil is not the act but the intention behind the act, which is a judgment of the politician, not his position. There are actually very few evils that anyone directly supports…although the list of foolish and harmful proposals people make would be very long indeed.

Unjustified killing is inherently evil. As I have already said, both parties support many killings, whole categories, actually, that are unjustified.

The church has no category called “unjustified killings”. She identifies the categories where intentional killing may be justified and then leaves it to the individual or the State to make prudential judgments about specific cases. That you and I may disagree about whether a particular killing was unjustified only means that I disagree with you, not that I disagree with the church.

Some members of each party support torture, which is inherently evil.

Neither party supports torture. “Enhanced interrogation” is not part of either party’s platform. My question was about policies each party explicitly supports that are intrinsically evil.

In my view, many members of both parties support exploiting workers as commodities, which GS teaches us is inherently evil.

Again, this is a judgment either about the outcome of specific proposals or the intent behind them. I see no indication from either party - or even from individuals - that supports this contention. No one is arguing in favor of exploitation.

Why? Are you trying to make a particular point? Surely you are not arguing that any particular political faction is evil and the other good. All politics is a mix of both, in my experience.

Politics is a mix of helpful and harmful proposals, and too often people who believe a proposal to be harmful act as if the person who proposed it did it intentionally to achieve the harmful effect. If you give up judging people there is nothing left but to admit that politics is not about moral choices but about practical ones. The exception to this is when a proposal involves a choice that is intrinsically evil…and there are very few such issues.

Ender

 

[shockerfan]

I believe I responded. It might not have been the response you wanted. I said that the statement is merely a restatement of the term. To me, that makes it hard to disagree with, but of little value in making actual decisions.

The list of evils supported by American politicians would be long. Unjustified killing is inherently evil. As I have already said, both parties support many killings, whole categories, actually, that are unjustified. Some members of each party support torture, which is inherently evil. In my view, many members of both parties support exploiting workers as commodities, which GS teaches us is inherently evil. There are many other examples, and these are not necessarily meant to be the best/worst examples.

Why? Are you trying to make a particular point? Surely you are not arguing that any particular political faction is evil and the other good. All politics is a mix of both, in my experience.

I would agree that there in people in both parties that support some evils, however, I don’t think you can just write off all political parties as being equal in this regard.
One party has support for abortion rights in their platform. One does not.
One party has support for SSM in their platform. One does not.
Yes, you can find individuals in both parties who support evil, but you don’t find both parties incorporating evil into their platforms at the same level.

Our Bishop articulated quite well how not all issues carry the same weight. You might enjoy:
prolifedallas.org/voting

 

[Jeanne_S]

How exactly would a priest know if a parishioner supports gay marriage? And of course, no one in a state of mortal sin should be receiving. How exactly does a priest know if one is in such a position?

As a prior post stated,the archbishop isn’t saying anything new,only very publicly stating Church Doctrine,which as a Shepard of the Church,is his responsibility.Ulimatlely the onus is on the individual to refrain from receiving the Euchrist is they fall into any categories mentioned.

 

[LongingSoul]

There was a case in Melbourne about 10 years ago when a group of pro gay parishioners decided to test our dear Cardinal Pell when he was just a Bishop. They came up the Communion line dressed in rainbow sashes to demonstrate their support of the homosexual lifestyle. He of course refused to give them Holy Communion and it made headlines around the country. I have never heard of anyone refusing Communion to these parishioners who before or subsequently came up to Communion. One priest in our diocese said that it impossible to know for certain if someone coming to Communion has not made it right with the Church before hand unless they demonstrate that fact somehow.

 

[Mongo]

How exactly would a priest know if a parishioner supports gay marriage? And of course, no one in a state of mortal sin should be receiving. How exactly does a priest know if one is in such a position?

It isn’t the priests responsibility to determine each Christians position on gay marriage or any other subject: an individual catholic isn’t required to assert each doctrine of the church. What is required is faithfulness. You can’t publicly or obstinately deny the faith. The rules are designed for those who have made their views or their situation public.