Where does Catholic act-based morality come from?

[catholic1seeks]

Thats nice.

They are not the Magisterium…

But some in the Magisterium have, as indicated by the first Catechism edition. It is likely those who edited it saw the implications of this on the overall moral framework. People could say “if lying is dependent on the circumstances, then why can’t this or that.”

 

[Bookcat]

Also, the Catechism says that a lie is a falsehood told with the intention to deceive.

Even more, the initial 1994 Catechism edition said “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.”

Sure but againt what is that not doing? It is not saying it ok to lie. It is getting at the question of “what IS a lie”. One can discuss what IS a lie. Sure. But that which is a lie is evil.

But some in the Magisterium have, as indicated by the first Catechism edition.

The Church issued the Latin Typical edition later - which is the actual official edition.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Is this an important observation? After all, not all Christians accept the true presence, go to Mass, believe that Jesus was God.

Morality becomes entirely flexible if there are no absolutes. It becomes easy to justify even the murder of a child - all that is required are circumstances where that act is seen to have sufficient benefits.

My emphasis was not necessarily individual Christians, but different Christian views. There is not just one Christian view on morality. Not just one approach. Not everyone outside Catholicism has the same understanding of natural moral law, or is influenced by Aquinas.

 

[Rau]

Also, the Catechism says that a lie is a falsehood told with the intention to deceive.

The initial 1994 Catechism edition said “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.”

This track is well worn on CAF.

The Catechism often includes common intentions and circumstances when explaining acts. As the CCC link I provided shows you, good Intentions or particular circumstances can not change a bad act to a good one.

 

[Rau]

My emphasis was not necessarily individual Christians, but different Christian views. There is not just one Christian view on morality. Not just one approach. Not everyone outside Catholicism has the same understanding of natural moral law, or is influenced by Aquinas.

Very true. Entire denominations don’t accept the true presence. And this should influence our thinking how?

 

[Bookcat]

So not all of Catholic morality refers primarily to a physical act. As you pointed out, in the case of killing and murder. It it does for sexual morality. Why the distinction?

That is not a distinction…

Similar to killing vs murder…

A couple can engage in the same physical act of sexual relations on two different days.

One one day it is a grave sin and brings them into the way of death.

The other day it is a holy act and unites them and helps them in their holiness.

The first time was while dating.

The second time was after they were joined in Holy Marriage.

Same physical act.

Different moral objects. Different moral realities.

First was fornication

Second was the marital act.

Does that part now make sense? Do you see where the premise was off there?

 

[Bookcat]

My emphasis was not necessarily individual Christians, but different Christian views. There is not just one Christian view on morality. Not just one approach. Not everyone outside Catholicism has the same understanding of natural moral law, or is influenced by Aquinas.

There are:

1. The Teachings of Sacred Scripture, and Tradition and the Church.
2. Various Schools of Catholic Morality or writers that are within orthodox Catholic thought.
3. Those outside full communion with the Catholic Church that are in harmony still with Catholic Teaching.
4. Those which are not within orthodox Catholic thought and Teaching.

 

[Art321]

Is this an important observation? After all, not all Christians accept the true presence, go to Mass, believe that Jesus was God.

Morality becomes entirely flexible if there are no absolutes. It becomes easy to justify even the murder of a child - all that is required are circumstances where that act is seen to have sufficient benefits.

Yep, which unfortunately has truly taken hold in our society and much of the Western World, and from what I have heard relativism is even gaining a hold in the East as well. Sadly. But as you said if they can justify the murder of the most innocent, it seems that they can justify just about anything…

 

[Rau]

That is not a distinction…

Similar to killing vs murder…

A couple can engage in the same physical act of sexual relations on two different days.

One one day it is a grave sin and brings them into the way of death.

The other day it is a holy act and unites them and helps them in their holiness.

The first time was while dating.

The second time was after they were joined in Holy Marriage.

Same physical act.

Different moral objects. Different moral realities.

First was fornication

Second was the marital act.

Does that part now make sense? Do you see where the premise was off there?

I think he is fixated on the fact that homosexual relations - physical act - is always wrong and that is a source of grief for him. He wants to see it as an act which can sometimes be moral - like killing is sometimes moral. In this latter analogy, he misunderstands “killing”, though I have explained that point.

We should add that, in terms of Catholic theology, sex before marriage and sex after marriage are utterly distinct Acts - notwithstanding they may be indistinguishable to the physical “observer”. In theology, we speak of “moral acts” - acts with moral content - not merely actions.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Very true. Entire denominations don’t accept the true presence. And this should influence our thinking how?

The teaching of transubstantiation and the real presence is simply not on the same level with what we are talking about now.

 

[Art321]

There are:

1. The Teachings of Sacred Scripture, and Tradition and the Church.
2. Various Schools of Catholic Morality or writers that are within orthodox Catholic thought.
3. Those outside full communion with the Catholic Church that are in harmony still with Catholic Teaching.
4. Those which are not within orthodox Catholic thought and Teaching.

Yes, this seems about right. So, what’s your opinion on my last post?

Of course surgery in of itself is not mutilation. It depends on the intent. Yet these days, people who have healthy biological bodies wish to have surgeries to live out an active disorder. Wouldn’t this classify as mutilation?

 

[Bookcat]

The teaching of transubstantiation and the real presence is simply not on the same level with what we are talking about now.

The point being that is - what does it matter to us what other Christians who do not have the benefit of the fullness of revealed Truth and the Teaching of the Church -think? I mean it matters of course in various ways -but that does not change the truth. Or how I am to live.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think he is fixated on the fact that homosexual relations - physical act - is always wrong and that is a source of grief for him. He wants to see it as an act which can sometimes be moral - like killing is sometimes moral. In this latter analogy, he misunderstands “killing”, though I have explained that point,

By the killing example, killing is a physical act. What makes it wrong are specific intentions and circumstances.

That is why I compare it to sexual activity. Sexual acts are identified physically as well; however, no matter the intentions or circumstances, if they are not ordered to life, they are evil.

 

[Art321]

Killing always brings about a physical evil, but the act is not always an immoral act.

Awesome! Yeah, this is something that I totally agree with. Though killing is not always immoral, it does bring about a physical evil…

Much appreciated!

 

[catholic1seeks]

The point being that is - what does it matter to us what other Christians who do not have the benefit of the fullness of revealed Truth and the Teaching of the Church -think? I mean it matters of course in various ways -but that does not change the truth. Or how I am to live.

What irritates me is this subtle arrogance we as Catholics sometimes feel about having the truth about every little theological item on the menu. We don’t have everything right, and the Church has never had everything right. The issue, then, is finding the distinctions about what the Church can get wrong, and why.

 

[Bookcat]

So, what’s your opinion on my last post?

Of course surgery in of itself is not mutilation. It depends on the intent. Yet these days, people who have healthy biological bodies wish to have surgeries to live out an active disorder. Wouldn’t this classify as mutilation?

Intent can be part and partial of the “nature of the moral object” (into the definition) - but an intrinsically evil action cannot be made to be good by ones intent.

 

[catholic1seeks]

That is not a distinction…

Similar to killing vs murder…

A couple can engage in the same physical act of sexual relations on two different days.

One one day it is a grave sin and brings them into the way of death.

The other day it is a holy act and unites them and helps them in their holiness.

The first time was while dating.

The second time was after they were joined in Holy Marriage.

Same physical act.

Different moral objects. Different moral realities.

First was fornication

Second was the marital act.

Does that part now make sense? Do you see where the premise was off there?

In the killing/murder and fornication/lawful sex, the distinction is thanks to circumstances, yes. But for the latter, we are still talking about sex that is open to life, I’m assuming.

My issue is with the physicalist nature of the sexual act itself.

 

[Rau]

By the killing example, killing is a physical act. What makes it wrong are specific intentions and circumstances.

That is why I compare it to sexual activity. Sexual acts are identified physically as well; however, no matter the intentions or circumstances, if they are not ordered to life, they are evil.

Shouting is a physical act too. But note the absence of moral content. To have sex is a physical act, but note the absence of moral content.

Purely physical acts are not the stuff of moral theology. They must bear moral content to be analysable.

 

[Art321]

Intent can be part and partial of the “nature of the moral object” (into the definition) - but an intrinsically evil action cannot be made to be good by ones intent.

Come again?

Given the example that I gave, it would seem that you agree with me then?

Could such actions be called intrinsically evil or just intrinsically disordered?

 

[Bookcat]

What irritates me is this subtle arrogance we as Catholics sometimes feel about having the truth about every little theological item on the menu. We don’t have everything right, and the Church has never had everything right.

It is not “subtle arrogance” to hold to the truth and to speak the truth or to state the the truth. Rather such is akin to humility. * Humility* is about truth.

Do we know all there is that can be known?

No of course not.

But can we know that such and such is the truth?

Yes.

Can we know that such and such is truth in an infallible way?

Yes that too can be the case.