The end doesn't justify the means?

[Wander]

Are there no expections to the rule? It’s true that even the most noble act cannot justify any means, but can it not justify some means? Venial sins are less grave than mortal sins. Is it the act of committing a sin to prevent another, no matter how grave, the problem?

 

[thistle]

Are there no expections to the rule? It’s true that even the most noble act cannot justify any means, but can it not justify some means? Venial sins are less grave than mortal sins. Is it the act of committing a sin to prevent another, no matter how grave, the problem?

GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

CCC 1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

CCC 1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. **One may not do evil so that good may result from it. **

 

[mosher]

Are there no expections to the rule? It’s true that even the most noble act cannot justify any means, but can it not justify some means? Venial sins are less grave than mortal sins. Is it the act of committing a sin to prevent another, no matter how grave, the problem?

I just want to make sure that we understand what the statement “the ends do not justify the means” actually means. What it is saying is that you cannot directly intend an evil act to bring about something good. So, yes, very simply one can never directly intend any evil ever. So, in effect the ends can never justify the means.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Wander,

What do you think of St. Peter’s denial of Christ? Was the ends, St. Peter, the man designated to establish Christ’s Church on earth, physically survived to do so by denying Christ.

I think that the man designated by Jesus to establish His Church on earth should have remained faithful to Jesus and not denied Him, even if it meant St. Peter’s death before establishing Christ’s Church on earth.

I think that St. Peter’s denial of Jesus Christ is the perfect example of how even the greatest ends never justifies the means.
NAB LUK 22:31 Peter’s Denials Foretold

“Simon, Simon! Remember that Satan has asked for you, to sift you all like wheat. But I have prayed for you that your faith may never fail. You in turn must strengthen your brothers.” “Lord,” he said to him, “at your side I am prepared to face imprisonment and death itself.” Jesus replied, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have three times denied that you know me.” NAB JOH 13:37

“Lord,” Peter said to him, “why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!” “You will lay down your life for me, will you?” Jesus answered. “I tell you truly, the cock will not crow before you have three times disowned me!” NAB JOH 16:30

“We do indeed believe you came from God.” Jesus answered them:
“Do you really believe?”
An hour is coming - has indeed already come - when you will be scattered and each will go his way, leaving me quite alone."

 

[psteichen]

Hello Wander,

What do you think of St. Peter’s denial of Christ? Was the ends, St. Peter, the man designated to establish Christ’s Church on earth, physically survived to do so by denying Christ.

I think that the man designated by Jesus to establish His Church on earth should have remained faithful to Jesus and not denied Him, even if it meant St. Peter’s death before establishing Christ’s Church on earth.

Steven: No one denies that St. Peter was a sinner. We all are. I’m sure Peter himself would agree with you that he wishes he had not denied Him. Luckily, by the grace of God, through the Church Peter first headed, founded by Christ, we are all given the gift of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Steven: No one denies that St. Peter was a sinner. We all are. I’m sure Peter himself would agree with you that he wishes he had not denied Him. Luckily, by the grace of God, through the Church Peter first headed, founded by Christ, we are all given the gift of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Hello psteichen,

Are we in agreement that it would have been better for St. Peter to have remained faithful to Jesus unto death at Christ’s crucifixion rather than to deny Jesus to insure he was still alive to start Christ’s Church?

This is the point I am trying to make.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The end can never justify the means. ( I do not care for that saying) This is only logical because the means is actually all there is. See the world existed before your birth and will exist after your death. Frankly if you never lived the world would be essentially the same. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. So how you lived is all there was which is the means. If the world elected you King what could you take with you? - nothing. If you die the poorest person ever what do you take with you? - nothing. In reading your post I question whether you are confusing other issues? A specific post may help you look at other issues which can be easily misidentified.