Sets of Acts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
An immoral act is not justified by a prior, concurrent, or subsequent good act. An immoral means is not justified by a good end, nor is an immoral end justified by a good means. The end never justifies the means. Both the end and the means to that end must be moral for a person to avoid sin. A good act cannot cause a bad act to become good. A bad act cannot cause a good act to become bad. If a person commits two acts, one good and the other bad, the good act remains good, and the bad act remains bad.

Two or more knowingly chosen acts cannot be grouped together such that any act takes its morality, in part or in whole, from another act. Such an approach would contradict and effectively nullify the three fonts of morality, because the morality of an act would no longer be based on the three fonts as they apply to that act, but as they apply to a different act. The end result of this approach would be to justify an immoral act by using one or more fonts from a different act. To the contrary, immorality is never justified. The three fonts that are used to evaluate the morality of any act must be the fonts that spring from, and apply to, that same act. Whenever there is even one bad font, there is sin. Each knowingly chosen act must be good in all three fonts for the act to be moral.
 
It is never the case, in any area of human life, that one act can be justified by another act. Each knowingly chosen act must be evaluated on its own as to its morality. Each knowingly chosen act has three fonts; those three fonts and absolutely nothing else determine the morality of each act. A bad act does not become moral by being done in close association with a good act.

If an act is intrinsically evil when done by itself, it cannot become moral by being done before during or after another act, one that is good. It is a heresy against the teaching of the universal Magisterium to claim that an intrinsically evil act (an act with an evil moral object) can become good due to a good intention, or dire circumstances, or close association with a different act (one that is good). As long as the moral object remains evil, the act remains intrinsically evil. The only good choice is to refrain from that intrinsically evil act, no matter what the consequences.
 
Ron_Conte said:
It is never the case, in any area of human life, that one act can be justified by another act. Each knowingly chosen act must be evaluated on its own as to its morality. Each knowingly chosen act has three fonts; those three fonts and absolutely nothing else determine the morality of each act. A bad act does not become moral by being done in close association with a good act.

If an act is intrinsically evil when done by itself, it cannot become moral by being done before during or after another act, one that is good. It is a heresy against the teaching of the universal Magisterium to claim that an intrinsically evil act (an act with an evil moral object) can become good due to a good intention, or dire circumstances, or close association with a different act (one that is good). As long as the moral object remains evil, the act remains intrinsically evil. The only good choice is to refrain from that intrinsically evil act, no matter what the consequences.
Click to expand...
Is this just another one of your “a husband and wife can only copulate with no foreplay” issues again? Boy, you are really hung up on that…
 
teachccd said:
Is this just another one of your “a husband and wife can only copulate with no foreplay” issues again? Boy, you are really hung up on that…
Click to expand...
What kind of people think up these things?
People that aren’t married???
 
teachccd said:
Is this just another one of your “a husband and wife can only copulate with no foreplay” issues again? Boy, you are really hung up on that…
Click to expand...
These recycled pseudo-theological rants of his are really getting old. I wonder at what point they qualify for the same kind of moratorium that was put on blessings in Communion lines?
 
The teaching of the Catholic Faith is that
each and every knowingly chosen act is moral,
only if all three fonts of morality are good,
and each is immoral, if any one font is bad.

If an act is immoral due to an evil moral object,
nothing can cause that act to become moral.
It is a type of act that inherently offends God.

The three fonts of morality always determine if an act is moral or immoral.
Every act with three good fonts is a moral act.
Every act with one or more bad fonts is an immoral act.
There are no exceptions.

So if an act is immoral, due to one or more bad fonts,
combining that act with other acts in one set of acts
can never justify that immoral act. For its bad font remains bad.

To say otherwise is to deny the teaching of the Catholic Church
on the basic principles of morality.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The teaching of the Catholic Faith is that
each and every knowingly chosen act is moral,
only if all three fonts of morality are good,
and each is immoral, if any one font is bad.

If an act is immoral due to an evil moral object,
nothing can cause that act to become moral.
It is a type of act that inherently offends God.

The three fonts of morality always determine if an act is moral or immoral.
Every act with three good fonts is a moral act.
Every act with one or more bad fonts is an immoral act.
There are no exceptions.

So if an act is immoral, due to one or more bad fonts,
combining that act with other acts in one set of acts
can never justify that immoral act. For its bad font remains bad.

To say otherwise is to deny the teaching of the Catholic Church
on the basic principles of morality.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the concise lesson on morality. So then all foreplay in a marital embrace is immoral since any act outside of intercourse is immoral in and of itself. So basically it’s aim, fire and goodnight? You are really too much. I sure am glad that no preist has ever taught this. In fact the Church teaches that if a woman did not climax during the marital embrace it is perfectly o.k. to continue manually until she does.
Ron, you are too much…🤷
 
If you saw a man beating a small child ruthlessly, and you knew that you could stop him by tackling him, would you do it? Tackling someone to the ground is wrong. You are using a bad means towards a good end.

Is tackling this person the wrong thing to do? And if so, isn’t an evil means for a good end moral some of the time?
 
teachccd said:
Thank you for the concise lesson on morality. So then all foreplay in a marital embrace is immoral since any act outside of intercourse is immoral in and of itself. So basically it’s aim, fire and goodnight? You are really too much. I sure am glad that no preist has ever taught this. In fact the Church teaches that if a woman did not climax during the marital embrace it is perfectly o.k. to continue manually until she does.
Ron, you are too much…🤷
Click to expand...
What he says about the three sources is correct …though his language is different from what we use now in the Catechism vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm I would refer readers to Catechism (a very beautiful document)

How Mr. Conte understands what constitutes chaste or unchaste foreplay or when he parses out separate acts form a act that has a ‘moral unity’ (thus tries to makes chaste foreplay something it is not) is NOT what he Church teaches.
(this is a good source to understand what is chaste and unchaste in marriage twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html section h )
 
hellopeople said:
If you saw a man beating a small child ruthlessly, and you knew that you could stop him by tackling him, would you do it? Tackling someone to the ground is wrong. You are using a bad means towards a good end.

Is tackling this person the wrong thing to do? And if so, isn’t an evil means for a good end moral some of the time?
Click to expand...
Nope it is not.

This Tackling someone …is called “defending an innocent child” and the means are reasonable. Of course running the guy through with a sword is a different thing…that would not be reasonable…unless he was about to shoot the kid and kill him.
 
hellopeople said:
If you saw a man beating a small child ruthlessly, and you knew that you could stop him by tackling him, would you do it? Tackling someone to the ground is wrong. You are using a bad means towards a good end.

Is tackling this person the wrong thing to do? And if so, isn’t an evil means for a good end moral some of the time?
Click to expand...
The universal Magisterium infallibly teaches that the end never justifies the means.

Using violence is not intrinsically evil, and so is not always immoral.
Violence in defense of the innocent is moral, and so it is not a bad means.

This thread is about ethics in general.
All the basic principles of morality apply to all areas of human life.
There are no exceptions to the moral law for certain persons or for certain situations.
The moral law is eternal and unchanging.
 
PaulinVA said:
Ron, please define ‘act’.
Click to expand...
An act is a knowing choice.
Some acts are entirely interior, and are solely of the mind and heart.
Other acts are also exterior, reaching beyond the mind and heart.
But even exterior acts include an interior knowing choice.

Each and every knowing choice (of the free will and intellect) has three fonts:
  1. intention
  2. moral object
  3. circumstances
    All three fonts must be good in order for an act to be moral.
Each and every knowing choice is a distinct act, with three fonts.

This thread is not about sexual ethics, but about the basic principles of ethics that apply to each and every knowing choice without any exception. I will not respond to sexual ethics questions in this thread.
 
Bookcat said:
Nope it is not.

This Tackling someone …is called “defending an innocent child” and the means are reasonable. Of course running the guy through with a sword is a different thing…that would not be reasonable…unless he was about to shoot the kid and kill him.
Click to expand...
It is a means to an end though. Tackling someone is wrong…except in certain situations when the end is so great that it makes up for it. The church isn’t as cut and dry with this “no evil means to a good end” as people make it seem.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The universal Magisterium infallibly teaches that the end never justifies the means.

Using violence is not intrinsically evil, and so is not always immoral.
Violence in defense of the innocent is moral, and so it is not a bad means.

This thread is about ethics in general.
All the basic principles of morality apply to all areas of human life.
There are no exceptions to the moral law for certain persons or for certain situations.
The moral law is eternal and unchanging.
Click to expand...
So Violence is OK sometimes, but not at other times? If I were to tackle someone on the street for no reason, it would be wrong. If I were to tackle someone on the street that were mercilessly beating a child, it would be right. So what is the difference???..THE END you are trying to accomplish.
 
hellopeople said:
So Violence is OK sometimes, but not at other times? If I were to tackle someone on the street for no reason, it would be wrong. If I were to tackle someone on the street that were mercilessly beating a child, it would be right. So what is the difference???..THE END you are trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...
The moral object.

These two things are different moral events.

Like a dentist pulling a tooth is different than me strapping you down unwillingly and pulling one out with my pliers trying to get information out of you! (I know…ouch)
 
Bookcat said:
The moral object.

These two things are different moral events.

Like a dentist pulling a tooth is different than me strapping you down unwillingly and pulling one out with my pliers trying to get information out of you! (I know…ouch)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top