The morality of human acts

[Cristiano]

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

I think that freedom in a legal system if of the essence. However, in a Catholic forum the definition of freedom in relation to moral behaviors has nothing to do with the legal aspect. In Catholic theology freedom means the capability of choosing between good or evil. For example if I choose to have a sexual relationship with a person that is not my spouse I am exercising my freedom, if I am being raped then I am not exercising my free will even if in both cases it is a sexual act from a “mechanical” point of view.

 

[sw85]

Catholic teaching is meant to be comprehensive, as it should be.

Yes, but I’m saying the object/intention/circumstance schema is not the comprehensive totality of Catholic moral theology. Saying that an act, in order to qualify as “good,” must be properly ordered with respect to all three things is true, but it doesn’t tell me what “properly ordered” actually means. Why, for instance, is contraception a disordered object? That is where natural law comes in handy. Natural law defines the proper ordering of the intellect and will. The object/intention/circumstance schema describes the various ways we can fall short of ordering those faculties properly.

To the extent the OP is saying that the Church alone has authority to teach what does and does not constitute a sin, he is right. I am only saying there is more to the nature of the Church’s teaching than the above schema. Most people are entirely ignorant of that schema and don’t even seem to be aware of it – have zero problem summarily declaring Thomas Aquinas an idiot even though they themselves haven’t cracked the cover on a single one of his books and probably can barely even read. Personally, I’d be ashamed to go out and declare “I think X is a sin” and thus, by implication, declare that I’m better/smarter/holier than generations of sainted theologians who disagreed with me. But then again, I’m not an atheist/modernist.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, but I’m saying the object/intention/circumstance schema is not the comprehensive totality of Catholic moral theology. Saying that an act, in order to qualify as “good,” must be properly ordered with respect to all three things is true, but it doesn’t tell me what “properly ordered” actually means. Why, for instance, is contraception a disordered object? That is where natural law comes in handy. Natural law defines the proper ordering of the intellect and will. The object/intention/circumstance schema describes the various ways we can fall short of ordering those faculties properly.

To the extent the OP is saying that the Church alone has authority to teach what does and does not constitute a sin, he is right. I am only saying there is more to the nature of the Church’s teaching than the above schema. Most people are entirely ignorant of that schema and don’t even seem to be aware of it – have zero problem summarily declaring Thomas Aquinas an idiot even though they themselves haven’t cracked the cover on a single one of his books and probably can barely even read. Personally, I’d be ashamed to go out and declare “I think X is a sin” and thus, by implication, declare that I’m better/smarter/holier than generations of sainted theologians who disagreed with me. But then again, I’m not an atheist/modernist.

Well, we get a spectrum of people here. Some just want to rail against the Church, some want to have “lively discussions” without resorting to any credible sources, Church or scientific, and some are bored, while others have questions and really want answers. But in a few cases, I’ve seen posters, who are used to living in a sound-bite world, post that a Vatican encyclical in a link was too long to read.

And we must not forget that there are those who purposely want to mislead people.

You shouldn’t be ashamed to say X is a sin if you avoid the real shameful thing - posting personal opinions with zero documentation to back it up. Just check the Moral Theology section. Sometimes, questions appear like “Is this a sin?” I refer those people to credible sources of Church teaching and knowledge, not to show that I’m better/holier/smarter than anyone. There are some questions that are complex and I usually suggest the OP talk to a priest in person, or at least call a priest.

I don’t know everything. And there are threads I don’t post anything in because I really don’t know the answer.

And you’re right. Most people don’t know about what the Church teaches, or, and I’ve seen a thread that was basically titled: “Natural Law Doesn’t Exist - Get Over It.”, they don’t see the connection between natural law and Church teaching, which often combines the two. In matters of Divine Revelation, like Christ’s Divinity, and identity, there is no naturalistic basis, except that we are told that we can know God through what He has made so men are without excuse.

So, yeah. Opinions and nothing but opinions going on for pages and pages, with zero to back them up, irritate me. Along with “I heard this and think it’s true” or false claims about the Bible. I mean, people should be free to post, but what’s the point of opinions based on one individual, unsupported with anything credible, assertion?

You are right about the schema you mention, but too many just don’t want to do the research. A quick, easy and short answer is preferred. Too bad.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Christopher68]

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

The ideas espoused in the above link are hysterical. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, we get a spectrum of people here. Some just want to rail against the Church, some want to have “lively discussions” without resorting to any credible sources, Church or scientific, and some are bored, while others have questions and really want answers. But in a few cases, I’ve seen posters, who are used to living in a sound-bite world, post that a Vatican encyclical in a link was too long to read.

And we must not forget that there are those who purposely want to mislead people.

You shouldn’t be ashamed to say X is a sin if you avoid the real shameful thing - posting personal opinions with zero documentation to back it up. Just check the Moral Theology section. Sometimes, questions appear like “Is this a sin?” I refer those people to credible sources of Church teaching and knowledge, not to show that I’m better/holier/smarter than anyone. There are some questions that are complex and I usually suggest the OP talk to a priest in person, or at least call a priest.

I don’t know everything. And there are threads I don’t post anything in because I really don’t know the answer.

And you’re right. Most people don’t know about what the Church teaches, or, and I’ve seen a thread that was basically titled: “Natural Law Doesn’t Exist - Get Over It.”, they don’t see the connection between natural law and Church teaching, which often combines the two. In matters of Divine Revelation, like Christ’s Divinity, and identity, there is no naturalistic basis, except that we are told that we can know God through what He has made so men are without excuse.

So, yeah. Opinions and nothing but opinions going on for pages and pages, with zero to back them up, irritate me. Along with “I heard this and think it’s true” or false claims about the Bible. I mean, people should be free to post, but what’s the point of opinions based on one individual, unsupported with anything credible, assertion?

You are right about the schema you mention, but too many just don’t want to do the research. A quick, easy and short answer is preferred. Too bad.

Peace,
Ed

Then why do you consistently post about the Good Old Days in thread after thread, and back up your claims with nothing but personal opinions and experiences?