A
AndyF
Guest
In the analysis of what is the right thing to do, what considerations are to be made in regard to the personal good and the common good? Are we as individuals only responsible for our actions in a personal way?
For a case in point, elderly Charlie makes an appointment to his new doctor for a meet and greet. Having waited 8 months, when the day came he got dressed in preparation to go but got side tracked, and now, 1/2 hour late and just remembering, he called to explain his story. The receptionist refused to alter her schedule and re-booked him for a further 6 months ahead. Later, Charlie trusting that there was nothing that could be done, discovered through another receptionist, that she could have simply taken the next in line, and have Charlie fill in that person’s appointment time.
When his appointment came, the head nurse interviewed him for his medical conditions, Charlie somewhat miffed, took the opportunity to explain what he had learned could have been an alternative action that could have been made in his behalf.
Now on the face of it, it would seem Charlie should have extended some charity and refused to slander the receptionist, giving her a second chance. But Charlie also needs to consider the common good, and must ensure only competent people become receptionists. Charlie has also something ‘common’ with the population at large. He has responsibilities to the general population. A six month wait for an elderly chronically ill person may be the straw that marks his final days.
So the Church tells us that there arise conditions that will refuse rights for an individual, but may be conditions that permit the rights of communities, as they benefit the community. They are actions that are wrong in themselves but are permitted for the common good.
It raises a lot of questions. In a case where an action needs to be addressed immediately, does Charlie need to be conscientiously aware of what is right in the common good? Does he need a course in determining what constitutes a common good from a common wrong? Is the lay community sufficiently knowledgeable to determine this given the typical Catholic teachings of today?
But what does this mean for someone who deals in everyday cases? Can an individual simply always view cases as a common good context forgetting his individual analysis in every case? Can he represent the common good in every case?. Does it put a new light in applying the beatitudes, where now he ‘is’ the community with a whole new context and set of standards? Is their a conflict or can conflicts arise.?
Your thoughts?
For a case in point, elderly Charlie makes an appointment to his new doctor for a meet and greet. Having waited 8 months, when the day came he got dressed in preparation to go but got side tracked, and now, 1/2 hour late and just remembering, he called to explain his story. The receptionist refused to alter her schedule and re-booked him for a further 6 months ahead. Later, Charlie trusting that there was nothing that could be done, discovered through another receptionist, that she could have simply taken the next in line, and have Charlie fill in that person’s appointment time.
When his appointment came, the head nurse interviewed him for his medical conditions, Charlie somewhat miffed, took the opportunity to explain what he had learned could have been an alternative action that could have been made in his behalf.
Now on the face of it, it would seem Charlie should have extended some charity and refused to slander the receptionist, giving her a second chance. But Charlie also needs to consider the common good, and must ensure only competent people become receptionists. Charlie has also something ‘common’ with the population at large. He has responsibilities to the general population. A six month wait for an elderly chronically ill person may be the straw that marks his final days.
So the Church tells us that there arise conditions that will refuse rights for an individual, but may be conditions that permit the rights of communities, as they benefit the community. They are actions that are wrong in themselves but are permitted for the common good.
It raises a lot of questions. In a case where an action needs to be addressed immediately, does Charlie need to be conscientiously aware of what is right in the common good? Does he need a course in determining what constitutes a common good from a common wrong? Is the lay community sufficiently knowledgeable to determine this given the typical Catholic teachings of today?
But what does this mean for someone who deals in everyday cases? Can an individual simply always view cases as a common good context forgetting his individual analysis in every case? Can he represent the common good in every case?. Does it put a new light in applying the beatitudes, where now he ‘is’ the community with a whole new context and set of standards? Is their a conflict or can conflicts arise.?
Your thoughts?