Thoughts on the gay cake case

[Pallas_Athene]

I thought I was familiar with what the Church teaches, and your version just seems wildly in error.

You might have thought so, but you are mistaken.

It isn’t possible to “decouple” an act from the perpetrator, the circumstances and the result because moral acts are always acts of some agent (perpetrator,) within a specified set of circumstances and always with a result.

Yet the catechism says that some acts are intrinsically evil, like masturbation and abortion.

As a matter of fact the catechism says two contradictory things. On one hand it asserts that all the circumstances, motives, means and end results must be considered when assessing an specific act. (I strongly agree with this.) On the other hand it says that there are means, which are intrinsically (in and of themselves) are “evil”. These contradict each other.

No, intrinsically evil acts are those where no possible motives, circumstances or ends could justify the act. It is that simple. The evil of an intrinsically evil act will never be warranted under any circumstances, motives or resulting good ends.

You say here exactly the same thing that I did. When you say that no possible circumstances, motives or good ends can justify a specific “act”, then you actually “decoupled” the act from the circumstances, motives and good ends - and look at the act in a standalone fashion. Don’t you get it?

The death of a person is only intrinsically evil when no possible motives, circumstances or ends could possibly justify it.

Then it is NOT INTRINSICALLY evil, it is evil, because… You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word: “intrinsically”. Synonym would be: “in and of itself”. Or “regardless of the circumstances”.

Now, you may not accept Snell’s claim, but your MERE ASSERTION that the values in any ethical system must be proven or derived from evidence has not been proven nor derived from evidence either.

That is NOT what I said, not even close. I simply said that there is NO OBJECTIVE epistemological method, which would decide that “ethical system A” is better than “ethical system B”. Subjective, yes, objective, NO. It all depends on the value system of the one who wishes to act as an arbiter.

Personally I place a very high value on individual freedom, which comes with the price of a significant amount of uncertainty. People in Singapore value stability at the expense of individual freedom. Which is “better”? There is no objective method to decide. It is all subjective.

 

[Rau]

…As a matter of fact the catechism says two contradictory things. On one hand it asserts that all the circumstances, motives, means and end results must be considered when assessing an specific act. (I strongly agree with this.) On the other hand it says that there are means, which are intrinsically (in and of themselves) are “evil”. These contradict each other.

No it’s not contradictory. You misunderstand. Read this:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

The morality of human acts is evaluated by considering the concrete act itself (and its moral object), the Intentions and the Circumstances. If the concrete act is intrinsically evil (ie. It has an evil moral object) it is always wrong to choose, and any such human act is immoral. Even if the concrete act is, per se, good, the human act may be immoral. For example, a charitable gift given in order to solicit favour, big note oneself, etc.

 

[Rau]

…When you say that no possible circumstances, motives or good ends can justify a specific “act”, then you actually “decoupled” the act from the circumstances, motives and good ends - and look at the act in a standalone fashion…

This is true IF you properly identify the (concrete) act. The Intentions and Circumstances help us, as observers illuminate the act. Illuminate what is actually going on. The act is not something you can view on film and say with certainty that you know what it is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You say here exactly the same thing that I did. When you say that no possible circumstances, motives or good ends can justify a specific “act”, then you actually “decoupled” the act from the circumstances, motives and good ends - and look at the act in a standalone fashion. Don’t you get it?

Well, no, actually. Merely because there are no possible circumstances, motives or ends which could justify an act does NOT mean there are no circumstances, motives or ends at all involved in the act. It is just that whatever circumstances, motives and ends involved in the act are, logically speaking, ONLY bad, always bad or overwhelmingly bad. No sufficiently good motives, circumstances or ends are logically conceivable or consistent with regard to the act. It is still the motives, circumstances and ends which make the act bad.

The concrete moral “act,” so to speak, has three dimensions to it: motive, circumstance and desired end. Those are what define the act for what it is - a moral one.

Pick any act, (in particular one having a moral character or with moral implications,) and try to describe it without reference to the three dimensions. You can’t do it. You certainly cannot say whether the act was morally good or bad without explicitly detailing those dimensions.

I shoot a gun. Morally good or bad? You can’t know that without reference to circumstances, motives and ends.

An unborn child is intentionally dismembered and removed from the womb of his/her mother. Good or bad? The Church says “intrinsically” bad because “in and of itself” such an act by a moral agent must be bad because no reference to any motives, circumstances or ends could warrant the act and possibly make it good. Ergo, bad because no motives justify the act, no circumstances could warrant it and no ends legitimize it. That does not mean, however, that dismemberment and removal of an unborn child is morally bad “in and of itself.” What if the unborn child was dismembered and removed by a propeller of a boat? Is the propeller “morally bad” for doing so? Culpable? No. The “act” in that case was an unfortunate mishap, not a moral act, at all.

 

[Rau]

Peter - do you take Catholic moral theology as your reference? I ask because sometimes your language strikes me as subtly different than the traditional expression.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Personally I place a very high value on individual freedom, which comes with the price of a significant amount of uncertainty. People in Singapore value stability at the expense of individual freedom. Which is “better”? There is no objective method to decide. It is all subjective.

Here, you confuse “value” with morality. Merely, because such things as freedom and stability are valued differently by different individuals or groups does not, ipso facto, mean that such “valuing” automatically takes on a moral character.

The question isn’t whether individuals or groups must value all things the same, the question is whether there are things which all human beings qua moral agents have an obligation to value and are held accountable for doing so within the objective moral order to which we belong by virtue of the fact that human beings belong to the class “moral agents.”

Moral agency is not a position which one can merely opt out of. Being a moral agent means we are obligated to act in accordance with moral principles AND we have a responsibility to come to know and live by those principles.

I might value providing my children with a modicum of fashionable goods, but am I morally obligated to do so? I would argue that I am obligated to provide the things they need relative to their well-being given current circumstances. The content of that obligation could change in different times and places, but the overall moral principle stays the same.

I suspect we have quite different things in mind when we use the word “moral.” For me, “moral” does not mean “valued.” Moral means having an obligation in the sense of what I MUST do or hold valuable, not that which is merely optional.

We might discuss whether anything is obligatory for all human beings. I claim that whatever is obligatory carries with it precisely the feature that makes it moral. You may claim nothing is obligatory for all human beings which is tantamount to claiming that a moral realm simply doesn’t exist. Which is what you seem to hold.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter - do you take Catholic moral theology as your reference? I ask because sometimes your language strikes me as subtly different than the traditional expression.

As far as I am aware, my position is very much in line with Catholic moral theology, following Aquinas from Aristotle (particularly Nichomachean Ethics)

If you wish to clearly show (another thread, perhaps) where the subtle differences are, I won’t be offended, but be prepared for an in-depth discussion.

 

[minkymurph]

The Ashers were set up. It was an anti-Christian attack. Those responsible for the provocation are the ones who should be sued for discrimination against religious freedom.

Let’s hope the Ashers win their appeal.

There is a consensus of opinion here they were set up - even among those who agree with the ruling. It’s a small world here and word gets around.

The company is named Asher after one of Jacob’s son’s. The family are McArthur and as they are well known locally, their views would be well known,

Rumour has it Gareth Lee went into the shop and ordered the cake when it was really busy. The case was also taken up by the Equality Commission so they met the legal costs, and it was a test case. Thus, Lee had everything to gain and nothing to loose.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is true IF you properly identify the (concrete) act. The Intentions and Circumstances help us, as observers illuminate the act. Illuminate what is actually going on. The act is not something you can view on film and say with certainty that you know what it is.

It is not difficult. Just an example: the “act” is grabbing a gun, pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger. The rest is the intent, the result and the circumstances. The “act” cannot be evaluated without the other parts, therefore the “act” is “morally” neutral. This is what the catechism says - and I agree. Then it changes the tune, and says that certain acts are “intrinsically” (“in and of themselves” or “per se”) evil (like abortion and masturbation) regardless of the intent, the result and the circumstances. How is it that you do not see the glaring contradiction here?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The concrete moral “act,” so to speak, has three dimensions to it: motive, circumstance and desired end. Those are what define the act for what it is - a moral one.

I shoot a gun. Morally good or bad? You can’t know that without reference to circumstances, motives and ends.

DUH! That is exactly what I am saying.

An unborn child is intentionally dismembered and removed from the womb of his/her mother. Good or bad? The Church says “intrinsically” bad because “in and of itself” such an act by a moral agent must be bad because no reference to any motives, circumstances or ends could warrant the act and possibly make it good.

The church is not omniscient. To say that there is no and there can be no instance when this act is “impossible” to justify would imply omniscience.

---

Here, you confuse “value” with morality.

Nope. The “value” is primary, the “how to get there” is secondary. Without a value system there is no ethical system.

The question isn’t whether individuals or groups must value all things the same, the question is whether there are things which all human beings qua moral agents have an obligation to value and are held accountable for doing so within the objective moral order to which we belong by virtue of the fact that human beings belong to the class “moral agents.”

Obligation? To whom? “Must” value? By what “command”?

I suspect we have quite different things in mind when we use the word “moral.”

That is obvious.

For me, “moral” does not mean “valued.” Moral means having an obligation in the sense of what I MUST do or hold valuable, not that which is merely optional.

Obligation? To whom? “Must” value? By what “command”?

We might discuss whether anything is obligatory for all human beings. I claim that whatever is obligatory carries with it precisely the feature that makes it moral. You may claim nothing is obligatory for all human beings which is tantamount to claiming that a moral realm simply doesn’t exist. Which is what you seem to hold.

Exactly. It does not exist in any objective sense. But I have already stated that ages ago.

 

[Rau]

It is not difficult. Just an example: the “act” is grabbing a gun, pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger. The rest is the intent, the result and the circumstances. The “act” cannot be evaluated without the other parts, therefore the “act” is “morally” neutral. This is what the catechism says - and I agree. Then it changes the tune, and says that certain acts are “intrinsically” (“in and of themselves” or “per se”) evil (like abortion and masturbation) regardless of the intent, the result and the circumstances. How is it that you do not see the glaring contradiction here?

In moral theology, the act you describe is not a moral act at all. Just a sterile picture of events devoid of moral meaning. I tried to explain previously. I can’t stay online long for now, but I will try and find some more material for you to read if you are interested.

BTW, how do you see that abortion needs an Intention or Circumstance to be morally assessed? Is not the abortion wrong regardless of the rest?

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is not difficult. Just an example: the “act” is grabbing a gun, pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger. The rest is the intent, the result and the circumstances. The “act” cannot be evaluated without the other parts, therefore the “act” is “morally” neutral. This is what the catechism says - and I agree. Then it changes the tune, and says that certain acts are “intrinsically” (“in and of themselves” or “per se”) evil (like abortion and masturbation) regardless of the intent, the result and the circumstances. How is it that you do not see the glaring contradiction here?

Again, it isn’t “regardless” of the intent, circumstances and ends, but because no intentions, circumstances or results can possibly justify the ends which will come about when the act is done.

Abortion is intrinsically evil because the end of killing an innocent human being can not be justified by any other “good” ends, motives or circumstances which a perpetrator might appeal to in order to justify it. Ergo, by elimination, abortion is “intrinsically evil” since there is no warrant which would justify it.

The point is that the actual end of abortion (death of an innocent human being) is what makes the act morally evil. The act is defined by its end as “killing of an innocent human being.” There can be NO decoupling where moral acts are involved precisely because acts by moral agents have the three dimensions as integral to what defines them as moral acts in the first place.

Moral acts are, by definition, those acts which are done for an end by moral agents acting according to certain motives in given circumstances. Again, “intrinsically evil” means the ends of such an act cannot be justified by any motives, circumstances or intended outcomes.

You claim that one would need to be omniscient in order to determine any act to be “intrinsically evil” since it would take omniscience to know that NO mitigating motives, circumstances or ends could exist. That would be an unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

On the other hand, it is the Church’s claim that the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals is precisely what it does have access to. You might dispute that claim, but surely not from the grounds that you are omniscient and know better. You certainly haven’t given any solid reasons for thinking the Church has erred with regard to what it considers intrinsically evil. Merely claiming that matters of morals are subjective doesn’t prove that they are nor that the Church is wrong because you happen to subjectively disagree and assert that moral values are merely subjective.

 

[PRmerger]

No one is advocating to refuse selling normal cakes to gay people. Christians should not have to participate in a ceremony that goes against their beliefs.

I have not yet formed my opinion on the “gay cake case”, but I wonder if Catholic bakers would/should refuse to bake a cake for a couple that’s previously divorced and now re-marrying.

That is, should a Catholic baker bake a cake for a ceremony that celebrates adultery?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Obligation? To whom? “Must” value? By what “command”?

By virtue of being a moral agent. Moral agents who do not live according to determinably moral principles become immoral agents, i.e., malevolent agents. There are moral consequences accruing to moral agents who do not live or act morally.

Yes, I know, “veiled threat.” Not really. Merely pointing out that all choices and acts have consequences - that is an aspect of what it means to be accountable in the moral realm. Choices and actions have gravitas. To act as if they don’t is to abdicate morality AND that, too, is a moral act with moral consequences.

 

[Rau]

It is not difficult. Just an example: the “act” is grabbing a gun, pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger. The rest is the intent, the result and the circumstances. The “act” cannot be evaluated without the other parts, therefore the “act” is “morally” neutral. This is what the catechism says - and I agree. Then it changes the tune, and says that certain acts are “intrinsically” (“in and of themselves” or “per se”) evil (like abortion and masturbation) regardless of the intent, the result and the circumstances. How is it that you do not see the glaring contradiction here?

The Catechism does not say that we can’t know if a human an act is evil without Intentions and Circumstances. If you read the whole, you will see that it is actually saying that the goodness of the act can’t be confirmed without checking all 3 components, since evil in any one condemns it as immoral. A per se good deed, ill-motivated, is immoral.

Only acts with a good moral object need have their other components evaluated to determine the morality of the act.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have not yet formed my opinion on the “gay cake case”, but I wonder if Catholic bakers would/should refuse to bake a cake for a couple that’s previously divorced and now re-marrying.

That is, should a Catholic baker bake a cake for a ceremony that celebrates adultery?

I suspect the answer would be a qualified “No,” because of what Doug Wilson points out about “glorifying professions” in his blog post.

dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/on-taking-your-chimp-to-the-beautician.html

So, then, what should our conclusion be? To refuse to glorify a detestable act is not sinful, it is both virtuous and courageous. This does not mean Christians believe that they have a responsibility to participate in a parallel economy, distinct from all “sinners.” The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness of it. We don’t get ethical cooties from standing on the opposite side of a cash register from a homosexual, or adulterer, or embezzler, or Republican congressman. If I can buy a roast from a priestess of Aphrodite (1 Cor. 10:25), then I can certainly buy one from a homosexual. And if we are on opposite sides of the counter, I can sell something to a homosexual. Fine.

So the professions in question, then, the current battleground professions, are the glorifying professions. They are the professions that say on their business card that “we make your event look good.” These are the photographers, the florists, the bakers, the caterers, the videographers, the graphic designers. Our job is to glorify what you are doing. The problem is caused when people demand that they use that expertise for an event that is perfectly appalling. It is like taking your chimp to the beautician, and blaming the beautician for the results. When there is social turmoil as a consequence, you can count on somebody suggesting that we fix everything with fines and sensitivity training for the beauticians. And that somebody will be part of the coexist crowd.

 

[Rosebud77]

There is a consensus of opinion here they were set up - even among those who agree with the ruling. It’s a small world here and word gets around.

The company is named Asher after one of Jacob’s son’s. The family are McArthur and as they are well known locally, their views would be well known,

Rumour has it Gareth Lee went into the shop and ordered the cake when it was really busy. The case was also taken up by the Equality Commission so they met the legal costs, and it was a test case. Thus, Lee had everything to gain and nothing to loose.

It was so clearly a set up. Of course they “should” have been more worldly wise, and said eg sorry we are very booked up that week, or we have staff illness. To avoid this. I think we will have a rash of similar cases now so time to lay down ground rules.

 

[PRmerger]

I suspect the answer would be a qualified “No,” because of what Doug Wilson points out about “glorifying professions” in his blog post.

dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/on-taking-your-chimp-to-the-beautician.html

Interesting excerpt.

And just to clarify–your “no” was in response to this question: “but I wonder if Catholic bakers would/should refuse to bake a cake for a couple that’s previously divorced and now re-marrying.”

Or to this one?

“That is, should a Catholic baker bake a cake for a ceremony that celebrates adultery?”

 

[friardchips]

It was so clearly a set up. Of course they “should” have been more worldly wise, and said eg sorry we are very booked up that week, or we have staff illness. To avoid this. I think we will have a rash of similar cases now so time to lay down ground rules.

Where is the line between being “wise” and “witnessing”?

 

[CompSciGuy]

Suppose that a Satanist group came into the shop and wanted a cake baked that had the words “Hail Satan” written on the front, with pictures of desecrated religious imagery and blasphemous text along the borders of the cake. Would the devout Catholic baker be required to bake such a cake or face discrimination charges? Maybe, maybe not.

And what if there was a gay baker and Westboro Baptist Church wanted a cake to celebrate the anniversary of the opening of their Church that had the words “God Hates F*gs” along on the front of it in huge bold letters, along with scripture condemning homosexuality. Would the gay baker be required to make this cake for them or face discrimination charges (since this is technically an expression of their religious convictions)

The point is, the governments are picking and choosing which sensibilities need to be protected and which ones don’t. And that is wrong. This is a free marketplace of ideas. And a free market in general, actually. A business owner should have the freedom to run his/her business however they see fit. If you don’t like it, then you have the right to go somewhere else, or to bring your experience before the public and let them decide the fate of the business.

There have been many similar cases in the United States. In almost every case it is a gay couple that specifically singles out a Christian business and then sues them when they refuse. This is called harassment and bullying. This isn’t even about social justice, it’s about subjugation and quelling the opposition, forcing all of society to adopt your ideology.