The morality of human acts

[Ron_Conte]

“Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1749.]

In moral theology, an act is an exercise of will and intellect, it is a deliberate choice of the human person. Each and every human act is subject to conscience and to the eternal moral law.

Each act has its morality determined by the three fonts (or sources) of morality:

“The morality of human acts depends on: – the object chosen; – the end in view or the intention; – the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the ‘sources,’ or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1750.]

“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.” [Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 367.]

“Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act… All three aspects must be good – the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances – in order to have a morally good act.” [United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, July 2006, p. 311-312.]

If all three fonts are good, the act is moral; it is at least morally-permissible without sin. If any one or more fonts is bad, the act is objectively sinful; it is an immoral act.

So often in discussions of morality among Catholics, this teaching is ignored. Everyone has their own idea about whether or why an act is a sin. But the Magisterium does have a definitive teaching on what makes an act moral or immoral: the three fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances.

 

[runningdude]

Hmmm… interesting

 

[AngryAtheist8]

“Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1749.]

In moral theology, an act is an exercise of will and intellect, it is a deliberate choice of the human person. Each and every human act is subject to conscience and to the eternal moral law.

Each act has its morality determined by the three fonts (or sources) of morality:

“The morality of human acts depends on: – the object chosen; – the end in view or the intention; – the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the ‘sources,’ or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1750.]

“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.” [Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 367.]

“Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act… All three aspects must be good – the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances – in order to have a morally good act.” [United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, July 2006, p. 311-312.]

If all three fonts are good, the act is moral; it is at least morally-permissible without sin. If any one or more fonts is bad, the act is objectively sinful; it is an immoral act.

So often in discussions of morality among Catholics, this teaching is ignored. Everyone has their own idea about whether or why an act is a sin. But the Magisterium does have a definitive teaching on what makes an act moral or immoral: the three fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances.

As I asked you in another recent thread Ron:

If you think freedom (to act as a moral agent) is so important, why do you advocate positions that would strip women of their freedom (such as the freedom to participate in the legal process)?

Link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm

 

[Bradski]

If all three fonts are good, the act is moral; it is at least morally-permissible without sin. If any one or more fonts is bad, the act is objectively sinful; it is an immoral act.

We can state that an act is sinful, but if it done for reasons which any reasonable person would describe as being for the better good, then does it really matter?

Is God going to punish you for protecting your family?

 

[lllj]

This still isn’t particularly concrete. It is easy to debate whether the intention of something is good or bad, or whether the moral object is good or bad.

 

[sw85]

This doesn’t capture the fullness of Catholic moral theology. What, after all, does it mean for an act to be “disordered” with respect to its object, as opposed simply to the intentions of the actor or the circumstances surrounding the act?

Here an understanding of natural law is required.

 

[Edward_H]

This doesn’t capture the fullness of Catholic moral theology. What, after all, does it mean for an act to be “disordered” with respect to its object, as opposed simply to the intentions of the actor or the circumstances surrounding the act?

Here an understanding of natural law is required.

An act that is disordered is one that is not ordered to pursuing the greatest good.

 

[sw85]

An act that is disordered is one that is not ordered to pursuing the greatest good.

I’m aware of what it means, I’m just saying the object/intention/circumstances schema doesn’t give us a means of understanding that. Because it’s not comprehensive and isn’t meant to be.

 

[Nate13]

As I asked you in another recent thread Ron:

If you think freedom (to act as a moral agent) is so important, why do you advocate positions that would strip women of their freedom (such as the freedom to participate in the legal process)?

Link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm

If I find a random crazy view on an atheist site can I assume you believe that as well? It looks like some Catholic tried to go through scripture himself and decipher what it meant. The lack of quotes from an authoritative Church source in the article should be a good tip that this is not the place to go for Church teaching. If you have any further questions on this topic start your own thread.

 

[Ron_Conte]

This teaching on the fonts of morality, and on the object as the basis for the moral nature of any act is Catholic doctrine. It is not an open question. Particularly on the subject of intrinsically evil acts, I would say that the teaching is infallible under the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Many documents teach this doctrine and many apply it to various types of acts.

An intrinsically evil act is an act that is inherently morally disordered. It is an act, a deliberate and knowing choice, that is immoral in and of itself, by the very nature of the act, regardless of intention and circumstances.

What determines whether an act is moral or immoral? Its object, that is to say, the proximate end toward which the chosen act is intrinsically ordered. There is a direct relationship between the chosen act and its moral object. If the object is evil, the act is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

In the case of direct abortion to save the life of the mother, the act is a direct killing of the innocent prenatal. The person committing this sin is deliberately choosing an act that is inherently ordered toward that evil end, killing an innocent. So the act is intrinsically evil, even though it has a good intention (the purpose for choosing the act), which is to save the life of the mother. The act is evil even in a dire circumstance, such as that the only way to save the life of the mother is to commit a direct abortion.

The moral object is not determined by intention or circumstances, but only by the inherent ordering of the deliberately chosen (willed) act toward its proximate end.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This teaching on the fonts of morality, and on the object as the basis for the moral nature of any act is Catholic doctrine. It is not an open question. Particularly on the subject of intrinsically evil acts, I would say that the teaching is infallible under the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Many documents teach this doctrine and many apply it to various types of acts.

An intrinsically evil act is an act that is inherently morally disordered. It is an act, a deliberate and knowing choice, that is immoral in and of itself, by the very nature of the act, regardless of intention and circumstances.

What determines whether an act is moral or immoral? Its object, that is to say, the proximate end toward which the chosen act is intrinsically ordered. There is a direct relationship between the chosen act and its moral object. If the object is evil, the act is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

In the case of direct abortion to save the life of the mother, the act is a direct killing of the innocent prenatal. The person committing this sin is deliberately choosing an act that is inherently ordered toward that evil end, killing an innocent. So the act is intrinsically evil, even though it has a good intention (the purpose for choosing the act), which is to save the life of the mother. The act is evil even in a dire circumstance, such as that the only way to save the life of the mother is to commit a direct abortion.

The moral object is not determined by intention or circumstances, but only by the inherent ordering of the deliberately chosen (willed) act toward its proximate end.

I notice that you still did not answer my question.

Do you value people’s (specifically women’s) freedom to act as moral agents or not?

If not, why?

If so, how does that square with your advocacy of policies that would strip women of most of their freedom?

 

[edwest2]

As I asked you in another recent thread Ron:

If you think freedom (to act as a moral agent) is so important, why do you advocate positions that would strip women of their freedom (such as the freedom to participate in the legal process)?

Link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm

If I may interject, the Catholic Church does not advocate any of this. It’s not like the occasional blog is going to change Church teaching on the dignity of women. That’s part of the problem with the internet: opinions. Opinions do not matter if they are based on nothing. I hope my fellow Catholics understand this. If we do not know or understand Church teaching, then we can easily look it up, and if we can’t find it, ask a priest. Call if you find that easier, and if he’s not readily available, arrange something with the person who answers the phone.

Whatever the issue is, it’s important to get the right answer before posting; “Oh my God! I heard the Church teaches (something bad, wrong)!!!” Or “somebody” told me the Church teaches xyz and I believe him. Please stop that.

Ask if it’s true. Ask for links to Church documents and published articles to credible sources. That instead of getting mad and upset over something you heard or thought you read or think is true.

That way, everybody gets it right.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

We can state that an act is sinful, but if it done for reasons which any reasonable person would describe as being for the better good, then does it really matter?

Is God going to punish you for protecting your family?

This needs to be taken on a case by case basis. It matters. If someone attempts to harm you or your family and your only option is to defend them and yourself, then you are correct to do so.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66"

Peace,
Ed

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cristiano]

As I asked you in another recent thread Ron:

If you think freedom (to act as a moral agent) is so important, why do you advocate positions that would strip women of their freedom (such as the freedom to participate in the legal process)?

Link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm

In this case freedom does not mean legal freedom but freedom of the will to make a choice between right or wrong. Abortion is immoral and legal, women have the freedom of will and the legal freedom to participate in it. Murder is immoral and illegal but people still have the freedom of will to do it, that is why we put murderers in jail they used their freedom to make the wrong choice.

 

[Cristiano]

This doesn’t capture the fullness of Catholic moral theology. What, after all, does it mean for an act to be “disordered” with respect to its object, as opposed simply to the intentions of the actor or the circumstances surrounding the act?

Here an understanding of natural law is required.

This is just the plain aristoteleian definition of a moral behavior, I agree with you that the Church builds a little bit more on it, but this is an outstanding rule of thumb.

 

[edwest2]

This still isn’t particularly concrete. It is easy to debate whether the intention of something is good or bad, or whether the moral object is good or bad.

At the end of the day, everyone, believer or not, needs a moral compass. For some, they may have some basic and true ideas but the rest falls into a fog. For those who believe there is no God and no judgment, and that they are their own judge in moral matters, then it does not matter, but it should. A stable, functioning society realizes that some men will kill, rob and cheat others to get what they want. That’s why we have laws that recognize that some people can and will deprive others of life, property and money for their own use. Society needs boundaries that say you should do this and you cannot do this, and if caught, you will be punished.

Even those who don’t believe know this. Debate is good, but only if it leads to solutions.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cristiano]

We can state that an act is sinful, but if it done for reasons which any reasonable person would describe as being for the better good, then does it really matter?

Is God going to punish you for protecting your family?

I think that here you are going against the principle of non contradiction. You are going against it because your definition might not be the definition of the first post. I usually prefer to use the term behavior (instead of act) as the sum of intent, action, and circumstances. In a discussion it is easy to confuse the act (behavior) with the action itself.

 

[edwest2]

I’m aware of what it means, I’m just saying the object/intention/circumstances schema doesn’t give us a means of understanding that. Because it’s not comprehensive and isn’t meant to be.

Most human beings live rather average or below average lives. If we’re lucky to have a job, we may be earning enough to get by or enough to live “comfortably.” Only a tiny percentage of the population owns 80% of the “wealth” in this country.

Catholic teaching is meant to be comprehensive, as it should be. If you read your Bible, you’ll see all of the sins committed back then are still committed today. Look at all the questions here. There are answers. And yes, there are comprehensive answers.

Example:

Abortion: The Church teaches it is wrong in all cases, but there are situations where the death of the unborn child is an unintended consequence of a legitimate medical problem.

“In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the action that is directly willed is to save the life of the mother by the removal of a pathological mass of tissue (not unlike a malignant tumor), which unfortunately contains, but not exclusively, an unborn baby, which has implanted in the wrong place. The bad effect, the death of the unborn baby, is not directly willed. Just as it would be morally permissible to remove a cancerous tumor from the mother, even if such treatment will kill the unborn child, so it is also morally permissible to remove a pathological and abnormal mass of tissue that contains an unborn child in order to save the life of the mother. The death of the child is an unwilled, indirect and unfortunate effect of a treatment used to save the mother’s life, and is further proportional in that if no action were taken, not only would the mother die but so would the unborn child.”

Church teaching must be comprehensive because Catholics want and should have the Church’s guidance regarding what is moral, including exceptional cases that do not affect most people.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AngryAtheist8]

If I may interject, the Catholic Church does not advocate any of this. It’s not like the occasional blog is going to change Church teaching on the dignity of women. That’s part of the problem with the internet: opinions. Opinions do not matter if they are based on nothing. I hope my fellow Catholics understand this. If we do not know or understand Church teaching, then we can easily look it up, and if we can’t find it, ask a priest. Call if you find that easier, and if he’s not readily available, arrange something with the person who answers the phone.

Whatever the issue is, it’s important to get the right answer before posting; “Oh my God! I heard the Church teaches (something bad, wrong)!!!” Or “somebody” told me the Church teaches xyz and I believe him. Please stop that.

Ask if it’s true. Ask for links to Church documents and published articles to credible sources. That instead of getting mad and upset over something you heard or thought you read or think is true.

That way, everybody gets it right.

Peace,
Ed

I know what Ron is saying isn’t Church teaching Ed.
I am asking him as an individual.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
As I asked you in another recent thread Ron:

If you think freedom (to act as a moral agent) is so important, why do you advocate positions that would strip women of their freedom (such as the freedom to participate in the legal process)?

Link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm

In this case freedom does not mean legal freedom but freedom of the will to make a choice between right or wrong. Abortion is immoral and legal, women have the freedom of will and the legal freedom to participate in it. Murder is immoral and illegal but people still have the freedom of will to do it, that is why we put murderers in jail they used their freedom to make the wrong choice.

You don’t think that freedom under the law and in society is important?