Sets of Acts

[teachccd]

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.

Even though that has been your agenda on previous threads? Why would you exclude sexual ethics on a thread where you give no purpose for your original post? Just killin’ time??

 

[Pug]

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.

Say I cut into a person with a knife. I think it matters if I intend to make more cuts and complete a surgery or if I am intending to cut the person and walk away. The morality of the first cut is related to where I am going with those cuts.

I agree if somehow there is a deadly fire and I can’t complete the surgical procedure, this does not travel back in time and make the first cut into an immoral act. The first act remains fine. Still, the first act takes its meaning from where I am going with it. That can be counted in the intention that I supply for it, though.

Is this what you are trying to talk about?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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 from 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 )

I wish he would address your argument, so that his atrociously irrational and puritanical one could be forever buried.

 

[Doc_Keele]

…or do what I do and ignore what are intuitively nonsensical ideas, whatever the source?

 

[Agrippa]

Ron Conte,

As pointed out in another thread, aren’t terms like “murder” and “stealing” conclusions for sets of acts. Murder isn’t just one act. One might have to drive the car, get the gun, walk to the victim, point the gun, pull the trigger, and get back in the car, and drive away.

One might have to break into the store, grab the merchandise, leave the store, and drive away.

So, don’t theological terms like “murder” and “stealing” describe sets of acts which, taken together, in context, denote sinful behavior?