Object of an act

[Bookcat]

You’re almost there. The question was: Why does the Church not teach the existence of intrinsically good acts?

From the above you claim an action with a good object can be negated by either evil intention or evil circumstance.

Now give me an example of an evil act that consists of a good object, with good intention and evil circumstance. Bet you can’t.

Hint: CCC #1754 “Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves…”

That, as I posted, leaves only evil intentions capable of rendering morally neutral or morally good acts with good effects into evil outcomes for the actor whose will is disordered. I think that is how VC would have responded. Right, VC?

to quote the whole line

Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

so it seems that the emph. is perhaps on the end part…

and the first part is perhaps focused on the moral object…which can not be changed by only the circumstances.

and earlier:

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.

but perhaps …it is that with a good act being made bad by circumstances…there is always an element of intention too??? not sure.

but still the main thing is the object…not the intention per se.

 

[Bookcat]

an the compendium has it this way:

1. What are the sources of the morality of human acts?

1749-1754
1757-1758

The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen, either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences.

1. When is an act morally good?

1755-1756
1759-1760

An act is morally good when it assumes simultaneously the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances. A chosen object can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety, even if the intention is good. It is not licit to do evil so that good may result from it. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself. On the other hand, a good end does not make an act good if the object of that act is evil, since the end does not justify the means. Circumstances can increase or diminish the responsibility of the one who is acting but they cannot change the moral quality of the acts themselves. They never make good an act which is in itself evil.

 

[Bookcat]

“Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” CCC

so it seems that the emph. is perhaps on the end part…that is what is zeroed in on.

and the first part is perhaps focused on the moral object…which can not be changed by only the circumstances.

so an intrinsically evil object can not become good by the circumstances.
nor does is a good object (as the object or the act referred too…say prayer) per se changed by only the circumstances. For instance prayer in the midst of an evil place does not change ‘the prayer’ into an evil object.

but

CCC 1755** A morally good act requires** the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.

an act of me bookcat …here and now…I need all three…a good object, a good intention and good circumstances.

If my act is a good object --say writing on the CA forum about theology in a way faithful to the Church with only the intention to help others understand theology but the circumstances of my doing so is that I take too long of a break from my work …and thus neglect my duties…

then it is not for me here and now…a morally good act (though writing about theology in a way faithful to the Church remains a good object **it **is not changed by merely the bad circumstances. it is still ‘a good’ for one to write about the theology in a way faithful to the Church.

whereas if I were to go and murder a person because he stole from me with the circumstance that he stole a relic of the true cross…that circumstance does not make the intrinsically evil moral object of murder into a good object.

perhaps this is what is meant…

just thinking it out…

hummm…wait a minute…I had better get back to work!!

 

[o_mlly]

to quote the whole line

Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

so it seems that the emph. is perhaps on the end part…

I quoted the antecedent phrase which may be exemplifed or elaborated by the consequent (which you quoted) but never delimited by it as you suggest.

Even so, give me the example – an act rendered evil which has a good objective, good intention and evil circumstance.

 

[Bookcat]

I quoted the antecedent phrase which may be exemplifed or elaborated by the consequent (which you quoted) but never delimited by it as you suggest.

Even so, give me the example – an act rendered evil which has a good objective, good intention and evil circumstance.

I did.

But in this matter…I am thinking it through…and it seems it may be as i noted in the last post.

 

[Bookcat]

I will repost it:

“Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” CCC

so it seems that the emph. is perhaps on the end part…that is what is zeroed in on.

and the first part is perhaps focused on the moral object…which can not be changed by only the circumstances.

so an intrinsically evil object can not become good by the circumstances.
nor does is a good object (as the object or the act referred too…say prayer) per se changed by only the circumstances. For instance prayer in the midst of an evil place does not change ‘the prayer’ into an evil object.

but

CCC 1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.

an act of me bookcat …here and now…I need all three…a good object, a good intention and good circumstances.

If my act is a good object --say writing on the CA forum about theology in a way faithful to the Church with only the intention to help others understand theology but the circumstances of my doing so is that I take too long of a break from my work …and thus neglect my duties…

then it is not for me here and now…a morally good act (though writing about theology in a way faithful to the Church remains a good object it is not changed by merely the bad circumstances. it is still ‘a good’ for one to write about the theology in a way faithful to the Church.

whereas if I were to go and murder a person because he stole from me with the circumstance that he stole a relic of the true cross…that circumstance does not make the intrinsically evil moral object of murder into a good object.

perhaps this is what is meant…

just thinking it out…

hummm…wait a minute…I had better get back to work!!

 

[Bookcat]

another:

Good object: marital act of husband and wife
Good intention: for unitive purpose and open to life
Bad circumstance: they are in a place where they can be observed

a place is certainly a circumstance.

and such an act would be therefore sinful due to the circumstance.

now granted …one could say that since they would have to ‘know and thus intend’ the being in that circumstance…it is not circumstance alone.

Still one would generally say it is the circumstance that makes it evil not ‘the intention’… which would be the **why **and for what reason they are engaging in the marital act. they are engaging in the marital act out of love and maybe even to try to have a baby.

and circumstance has to do with things like where, how much, when…

Circumstance comes from the latin circum-stare (stand around) they are the things that ‘stand around’ and act. And place is certainly a circumstance.

 

[Bookcat]

Yet another:

A nurse goes to the chapel to pray…

Good object: to pray
Good intention: to pray in thanksgiving for a grace
Bad circumstance: it is her time to work and she therefore neglects her patient

 

[Bookcat]

CCC 1755** A morally good act requires** the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together

…

All three need to be good…the object the intention and the circumstances surrounding the action.

 

[Ron_Conte]

A word of warning to faithful Catholics:

Many of the above posts on the fonts of morality,
on intention, moral object, and circumstances,
contain serious doctrinal errors, as well as
and severe misinterpretations of the Catechism
and of other sources.

 

[o_mlly]

it

is not changed by merely the bad circumstances. it is still ‘a good’ for one to write about the theology in a way faithful to the Church.

Your example is not an act with merely a good object, but a good and a bad object. Asssuming you intend the good object, the double effect principle requires a prudential judgement on the proportionality between the good object and the bad made prior to the act.

This is not an example of evil circumstance but an example of an act of intellect which proceeds the act itself. Either you judge the good object to outweigh the evil and act or not and act accordingly. ** Either way the act or non-act is not rendered evil by evil circumstance** because there is no evil act. The intellect informs the will which is then properly ordered to act or not. No evil results in either case - to decide to act or not act.

If your intellect properly informs your will that it is evil to neglect your job’s duties and you continue to post on CA, then **your intention is evil **for you now intend the evil object having judged its evil to outweigh the good but proceed to post anyway.

Therefore, an act which has two objects does not meet the criteria of the example – an act with only a good object, good intention rendered evil only by circumstance.

 

[Bookcat]

A word of warning to faithful Catholics:

Many of the above posts on the fonts of morality,
on intention, moral object, and circumstances,
contain serious doctrinal errors, as well as
and severe misinterpretations of the Catechism
and of other sources.

I would suggest faithful Catholics…(I too am a faithful Catholic…after all one does get a degree in theology from Franciscan University to be an unfaithful Catholic!) to read the Catechism, Veritatis Spendor and orthodox Catholic works of moral theology regarding these matters.

Also I would note that some of the last few posts are speculative in nature regarding a particular detail as is seen and understood within the context of the posts.

Though it remains that what the Catechism and other documents state is still the case and the Teaching of the Church. And is stated. The speculative part is how to understand a bit of it.

If anything in my opinions etc are not in conformity with the Teachings of the Church --I certainly renounce them!

And I again refer readers to the Catechism etc vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[Bookcat]

Your example is not an act with merely a good object, but a good and a bad object. Asssuming you intend the good object, the double effect principle requires a prudential judgement on the proportionality between the good object and the bad made prior to the act.

This is not an example of evil circumstance but an example of an act of intellect which proceeds the act itself. Either you judge the good object to outweigh the evil and act or not and act accordingly. ** Either way the act or non-act is not rendered evil by evil circumstance** because there is no evil act. The intellect informs the will which is then properly ordered to act or not. No evil results in either case - to decide to act or not act.

If your intellect properly informs your will that it is evil to neglect your job’s duties and you continue to post on CA, then **your intention is evil **for you now intend the evil object having judged its evil to outweigh the good but proceed to post anyway.

Therefore, an act which has two objects does not meet the criteria of the example – an act with only a good object, good intention rendered evil only by circumstance.

I will not get into this parsing for i provided much better examples later. I will though say that one should not presume some one is attempting to apply the principle of double effect! But rather just acting in a normal day to day way…

the principle of double effect is not the means of examining the three sources of morality…but rather a theory of how to justify the acceptance of an unintended side effect…when one wills a good object but there are more than one effect…at least one of which is bad.

also i post again this interesting post by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html

notice his first line: According to CCC 1755, “A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.” **If any of these three is lacking, the act will be evil. **

 

[Bookcat]

another:

Good object: marital act of husband and wife
Good intention: for unitive purpose and open to life and in celebration of anniversary
Bad circumstance: they are in a place where they can be observed

a place is certainly a circumstance.

and such an act would be therefore sinful due to the circumstance.

now granted …one could say that since they would have to ‘know and thus intend’ the being in that circumstance…it is not circumstance alone.

Still one would generally say it is the circumstance that makes it evil not ‘the intention’… which would be the why and for what reason they are engaging in the marital act. they are engaging in the marital act out of love and maybe even to try to have a baby.

and circumstance has to do with things like where, how much, when…

Circumstance comes from the latin circum-stare (stand around) they are the things that ‘stand around’ and act. And place is certainly a circumstance.

 

[Bookcat]

O …you wanted just one intention.

Ok.

Good object: marital act of husband and wife
Good intention: in celebration of anniversary
Bad circumstance: they are in a place where they can be observed

a place is certainly a circumstance.

and such an act would be therefore sinful due to the circumstance.

now granted …one could say that since they would have to ‘know and thus intend’ the being in that circumstance…it is not circumstance alone. Certainly for moral guilt --since without some sort of knowledge and consent there is not sin…yes there will be some sort of bad intention. But is that the ‘intention of the act’?? And if one were to just look at the act itself (thinking that they do not know even) and ask if it is good in all three…then the circumstance would be bad and thus objectively it would not be a good in all three aspects. again just thinking out loud.

Still one could generally say it is the circumstance that makes it evil not ‘the intention’… which would be the why and for what reason they are engaging in the marital act.

and circumstance has to do with things like where, how much, when…

Circumstance comes from the latin circum-stare (stand around) they are the things that ‘stand around’ and act. And place is certainly a circumstance.

 

[o_mlly]

another:

Good object: marital act of husband and wife
Good intention: for unitive purpose and open to life and in celebration of anniversary
Bad circumstance: they are in a place where they can be observed

a place is certainly a circumstance.

and such an act would be therefore sinful due to the circumstance.

now granted …one could say that since they would have to ‘know and thus intend’ the being in that circumstance…it is not circumstance alone.

Still one would generally say it is the circumstance that makes it evil not ‘the intention’… which would be the why and for what reason they are engaging in the marital act. they are engaging in the marital act out of love and maybe even to try to have a baby.

and circumstance has to do with things like where, how much, when…
.

Mmaintaining or willing intimacy is always and everywhere required for the goodness of the marital act as an objective.

CCC #1754 “1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act.”

Since intimacy is essential to the morality of the marital act, it cannot be labelled “circumstance.”

CCC #2354 "Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties (empahsis mine).

“Deliberately” is an adverb describing an act of will which relates to intention, not circumstance.

 

[Bookcat]

A nurse goes to the chapel to pray…

Good object: to pray
Good intention: to pray in thanksgiving for a grace
Bad circumstance: it is her time to work and she therefore neglects her patient

her only intention is to pray in thanksgiving.

no intent to neglect her duties.

 

[fix]

if the way the medication works is via abortion…then it would not be something one could do…for then it would be an evil means to a good end (you say it is the nature of a drug…) But i imagine you are not saying that it does…

a medication that renders one “sterile” that is unable to conceive… as a an unintended side effect of a treatment though…can be a very different object …which would need to be evaluated.

(but again there is more to this question when it can work as abortifacent)

it can be a bit complicated in working out a particular issue like this…

two places to work out this very real issue:

One is: ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183

where you can call and talk about all the particulars …

and the other is: popepaulvi.com/

for even if the use of whatever particular medication is licit…it may not be the best or only option…

they are both faithful to the Church and very good.

I am looking only at general principles as they apply in moral theology.

I am sure you have seen this post. The good priest is applying the principles you are discussing in this thread.

 

[Bookcat]

I am looking only at general principles as they apply in moral theology.

I am sure you have seen this post. The good priest is applying the principles you are discussing in this thread.

yes there can be a debate about it perhaps among some theologians …but perhaps the Church has covered it in some recent document?

one suggestion could be…that the couple during that time could then have a serious reason to also avoid using NFP …so as to avoid the miscarriage.

and also it could be noted that doctors can just willie nillie prescribe the pill for medical reasons…when there are other things that actually can be done! So it would be good for the person to contact the Paul VI inst.

 

[fix]

also i post again this interesting post by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html

That is a good explanation. I think his piece is saying what some of us are saying here. The intent and means that cannot change an intrinsically evil object into a licit object must be separated from the intent and means that are often imbedded in the object itself.