NJ archbishop sets rules for barring Catholics from Communion

[Mongo]

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.

That is the type of situation these rules are designed to deal with. They have planet themselves against the doctrine of the church, therefore of is the priests job to deny them communion.

 

[TMC]

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.

Not sure what you mean by this… but I am also not sure its really relevant.

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.

So you don’t believe that some things are intrinsically evil? If the intent is the measure, than very few (if any) political positions could be evil.

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.

Well, we disagree here. I believe it is clear that at bottom it is unjustified killing that is wrongful. The default is that intentional killing is wrongful, with justified killing being the exception. Thus, unjustified killing is wrongful. The Church does teach in some specificity on what may or may not be justified, but the underlying principle seems clear to me. Given the rest of your comments, perhaps our disagreement is purely semantic. I agree that in at least some cases (perhaps many) there is room for prudential judgment.

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.

I am not so sure that neither party supports torture, but of course that is not what I said. I said that many in both parties support torture. That is certainly true.

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.

Here we disagree. Again, if you are willing to always separate intent and effect, then almost no act is evil. But if you accept that some acts are intrinsically evil, than you have to look at the act, not the intent. Both parties support policies that are exploitive of workers in effect, if not in intent. (And I am not so sure there is no intent.)

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

And now we are back again to intrinsic evil. Let me be clear, I agree with your first sentence in your last para. You may well be right that intent is what really matters. But if that is true than there are no intrinsically evil acts. Perhaps inherently wrong is the better terminology. The woman seeking an abortion generally does not believe she is taking a life. The gay couple seeking marriage does not believe that such a marriage would be wrong. But the Church teaches that each of those acts is inherently wrong. So which is it? Are some things intrinsically evil or not? If so, what is your list and where does it come from?

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

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.

I agree with your first two sentences. It is what man does. In the next sentence God does not create intrinsic evil, and it is the work of man. What follows in the last sentence is the disagreement, and it concerns whether man can create what is intrinsic in nature by his actions. What I see as ‘intrinsic’ is what is natural in creation, and man did not create the world. The term ‘intrinsically disordered’ seems more appropriate as it refers to man’s actions. Nobody is saying man does not commit evil acts, but that evil is the misuse of God’s good creation (that which is intrinsic).

 

[shockerfan]

I agree with your first two sentences. It is what man does. In the next sentence God does not create intrinsic evil, and it is the work of man. What follows in the last sentence is the disagreement, and it concerns whether man can create what is intrinsic in nature by his actions. What I see as ‘intrinsic’ is what is natural in creation, and man did not create the world. The term ‘intrinsically disordered’ seems more appropriate as it refers to man’s actions. Nobody is saying man does not commit evil acts, but that evil is the misuse of God’s good creation (that which is intrinsic).

You seem to be misunderstanding the context of the terms. Let me state a different way.

There are acts which are by their very nature, sinful. This is the context of “intrinsically evil”. There are other acts which may or may not be sinful…their sinfulness depends on the intent of the actor.

 

[Thomas_White]

You seem to be misunderstanding the context of the terms. Let me state a different way.

There are acts which are by their very nature, sinful. This is the context of “intrinsically evil”. There are other acts which may or may not be sinful…their sinfulness depends on the intent of the actor.

Here is how I understand the terms:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual” acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law" [emphasis added] CCC #2357).

"God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of evil. He permits it however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures, and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it. For almighty God… , because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself" [emphasis added] (CCC #311).

 

[zz912]

The larger point is that in the U.S. neither the Democrat nor the Republican Party is in full agreement with Catholic teaching either. There are core beliefs of the Republican Party that Catholic teaching opposes, as is reaffirmed in Laudato Si.

I realize you are desperate to find something in the GOP platform which contradicts Church teaching, but there is none. Laudato Si did not make belief in AGW Church teaching nor doctrine. Church doctrine only states that we must care for the environment. Belief in AGW is just that, belief. And the science is dubious. Catholics are free to believe or disbelieve in AGW.

This desperation is palpable. But the truth is that the DNC is objectively opposed to Church teaching and works to promote intrinsic evils. The GOP does not.

 

[zz912]

While I agree from a strict moral viewpoint we shouldn’t promote a party that actively promotes anti-life issues, ISTM that both US parties do so, as do all Canadian mainstream parties, either implicitly or explicitly. Like your Republicans, our Conservatives promised much, but did little; it was really just targeting a certain electoral demographic, not initiating true change. But let’s be realistic, our non-vote isn’t likely to change the outcome by very much.

No, both parties do not promote anti-life issues. Only the DNC does.

Your other excuses (Republicans haven’t done enough and our votes don’t really matter) are just that, excuses to allow or support evil.

 

[zz912]

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?

Sounds like a wonderful discussion to have in another thread. No need to derail this one.

 

[zz912]

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

Feel free to list off the items in the GOP platform that are contrary to Catholic teaching or doctrine. It has already been done so for the DNC, but no one has been able to do so for the GOP.

 

[zz912]

However, although the Church teaches that a fetus may not be allowed to die to save to save the life of the mother,

This is not true. It is the direct killing of a child that is forbidden. Procedures that are done to protect the life of the mother (such as with an ectopic pregnancy) can have as an unintended consequence the death of the child, but it is not a direct killing of the child. These are morally licit.

it teaches that the reverse is equally true, that it is immoral to allow a mother to die to save the fetus.

Nonsense. Many mothers have foregone medical procedures (like chemotherapy) to protect their child, even knowing that they may or will die without it. Such a decision is completely morally licit.

Morally neutral medical procedures to save the mother’s life are permitted even if it results in the death of the child.

This is correct.

 

[zz912]

Here we disagree. Again, if you are willing to always separate intent and effect, then almost no act is evil. But if you accept that some acts are intrinsically evil, than you have to look at the act, not the intent. Both parties support policies that are exploitive of workers in effect, if not in intent. (And I am not so sure there is no intent.)

Could you list off some examples of policies that you believe exploit workers, and how the intent behind them was for exploitation?

And now we are back again to intrinsic evil. Let me be clear, I agree with your first sentence in your last para. You may well be right that intent is what really matters. But if that is true than there are no intrinsically evil acts. Perhaps inherently wrong is the better terminology. The woman seeking an abortion generally does not believe she is taking a life. The gay couple seeking marriage does not believe that such a marriage would be wrong. But the Church teaches that each of those acts is inherently wrong. So which is it? Are some things intrinsically evil or not? If so, what is your list and where does it come from?

There are some things, where it does not matter what your intent is, they are evil. There are other things, such as the minimum wage, where intent truly is a factor. Someone who favors raising the minimum wage to $15/hour probably has the intent to help those who are poor, even though such a policy usually has a negative effect on the poor. Should we ascribe personal sin to such a person? I would argue we should not.

 

[TMC]

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

Feel free to list off the items in the GOP platform that are contrary to Catholic teaching or doctrine. It has already been done so for the DNC, but no one has been able to do so for the GOP.

Your question reinforces the point of my post, which is that American conservatives simply deny the areas where their political beliefs conflict with the Church. Politics trumps religion for most Americans. This thread is ample evidence of that. That is also true for those on the left, but they don’t generally try to convince themselves otherwise.

 

[pnewton]

I realize you are desperate to find something in the GOP platform which contradicts Church teaching, but there is none.

You may well be correct, as far as the adopted platform is concerned. However, the statement was made about the Republican Party, which could also refer to members of the Republican Party, not all of which have been in line with Church teaching.

But we are allowed to judge not just on words, but on what actions people take. From Matthew 21:

*What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’

“‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”

“The first,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.*

 

[Ender]

So you don’t believe that some things are intrinsically evil?

Of course I do. I even gave examples (abortion, euthanasia).

If the intent is the measure, than very few (if any) political positions could be evil.

Exactly so. This is why the assertion that certain positions on the environment, immigration, health care, the budget etc are against church teaching are simply wrong. The church has no position on these issues.

Well, we disagree here. I believe it is clear that at bottom it is unjustified killing that is wrongful.

I don’t disagree that unjustified killing is wrong. What I reject is the implication that (in most cases) there can be any agreement on what is justified. That you may consider something unjustified doesn’t make it so. These are generally prudential choices, and making an incorrect choice is not the same as making an immoral one.

Here we disagree. Again, if you are willing to always separate intent and effect, then almost no act is evil.

If I chose an act with the expectation that the effect will be harmful, or with disregard for the likelihood of a harmful outcome, I have sinned. If I commit the same act with the reasonable expectation of a good outcome, then no matter how it turns out, my act is not a sin. Since most acts are not intrinsically evil it is only the intent (and to a lesser degree the circumstances) that determines its moral nature.

But if you accept that some acts are intrinsically evil, than you have to look at the act, not the intent.

Yes, if the act is intrinsically evil then the intent is irrelevant.

Both parties support policies that are exploitive of workers in effect, if not in intent. (And I am not so sure there is no intent.)

If there is no evil intent, and the policy is not intrinsically evil, then there is no sin regardless of the outcome.

You may well be right that intent is what really matters. But if that is true than there are no intrinsically evil acts

A noble intent cannot make an intrinsically evil act good, but an ignoble intent can make a normally praiseworthy act evil. If any of the elements of an act is evil the act is evil regardless of the nature of the other elements.CCC 1750 * The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.*

The woman seeking an abortion generally does not believe she is taking a life. The gay couple seeking marriage does not believe that such a marriage would be wrong. But the Church teaches that each of those acts is inherently wrong. So which is it?

“The judgment of conscience does not establish the law” (Veritatis Splendor #60)
“The Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth.” (VS #64)

Are some things intrinsically evil or not? If so, what is your list and where does it come from?

The church has been unmistakably clear that some things are intrinsically evil. “My” list is nothing other than what the church has defined.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You may well be correct, as far as the adopted platform is concerned. However, the statement was made about the Republican Party, which could also refer to members of the Republican Party, not all of which have been in line with Church teaching.

I’m willing to stipulate that people often fall short of their moral duties and get out of line with church teaching. I’ll even accept that, as the Republican Party is made up of people, this failure applies to it as well. Is this helpful in demonstrating the moral equality of the two parties?

Ender

 

[zz912]

Your question reinforces the point of my post, which is that American conservatives simply deny the areas where their political beliefs conflict with the Church. Politics trumps religion for most Americans. This thread is ample evidence of that. That is also true for those on the left, but they don’t generally try to convince themselves otherwise.

Still waiting for you to list off any examples. The fact you respond with condescension without responding to the substance of what I said shows the lack of substance to your own position.

If those on the right do support intrinsic evils or things outside Church teaching, then please list them.

 

[Thomas_White]

I realize you are desperate to find something in the GOP platform which contradicts Church teaching, but there is none.

I have no idea what the GOP platform might be and, frankly, I don’t care.

 

[zz912]

You may well be correct, as far as the adopted platform is concerned.

I am.

However, the statement was made about the Republican Party, which could also refer to members of the Republican Party, not all of which have been in line with Church teaching.

This is a ridiculous assertion. Specific members of a political party don’t set out the beliefs of the political party. People don’t join John Smith, GOP member, they join the GOP. There are many Catholics who believe in abortion, does that mean that people who join the Catholic Church support abortion? Of course not.

This is just a bunch of mental gymnastics and deflection to avoid the obvious reality that the DNC supports and promotes intrinsic evil, and support or votes for the DNC supports those evils.

But we are allowed to judge not just on words, but on what actions people take. From Matthew 21:

Of course. And the DNC actively works in implementing those intrinsic evils. And the GOP, while not perfect, has opposed them.

 

[zz912]

I have no idea what the GOP platform might be and, frankly, I don’t care.

You don’t care what the political parties stand for and promote? Do you think this is an acceptable position for a Catholic to take?

It almost seems like we are witnessing three of the five stages of grief in this thread: denial, anger, and bargaining.

 

[Ender]

I have no idea what the GOP platform might be and, frankly, I don’t care.

In that case perhaps you should not have made this claim:*There are core beliefs of the Republican Party that Catholic teaching opposes *(Post #50)Ender