Where does Catholic act-based morality come from?

[Art321]

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.

I could go into a huge post regarding this. So to be truly humble is to proclaim the Truth??

Never really seen it that way and this is truly beautiful. Given the example Pope Francis has given us, we must always strive to be merciful, yet to be truly we must also be compassionate while leading others to the Truth at hand! Many in the secular world love the former but not the latter! I’ve seen it countless times when people comment on Papa Francis talking about mercy.

 

[Bookcat]

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?

I will have to set aside if mutilation is intrinsically disordered -I believe there are various distinctions that have been made. I would think it is not in the intrinsically evil category but I am not entirely up on “mutilation”…not something that comes up often in discussion for me.

As to the first part - there can be built into a moral object often an “intention” that forms part of the nature of that moral object.

That is not the intention that is meant when the Church teaches that an intention cannot change a intrinsically evil action into a good.

So if X is intrinsically evil then no intention or circumstance can make it good.

---

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#1752

 

[Art321]

I will have to set aside if mutilation is intrinsically disordered -I believe there are various distinctions that have been made. I would think it is not in the intrinsically evil category but I am not entirely up on “mutilation”…not something that comes up often in discussion for me.

As to the first part - there can be built into a moral object often an “intention” that forms part of the nature of that moral object.

That is not the intention that is meant when the Church teaches that an intention cannot change a intrinsically evil action into a good.

So if X is intrinsically evil then no intention or circumstance can make it good.

---

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#1752

Yes, thank you for the response. As you quoted the ends never justify the means, for if we wish to help a person overcome their disorder we still must never resort to committing acts that would result to the destruction of something that is good and healthy which in this case would be the person’s body.

Such truths truly aren’t spoken today I’m afraid and such things are only growing in acceptance. When we try to proclaim the Truth to the world, we are called bigots and hypocrites. Is there truly nothing that can be done to open their eyes?

What comes to mind is what Christ said that “woe to him that calls evil good and good evil” and another quote that says many have ears, yet refuse to hear…

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, thank you for the response. As you quoted the ends never justify the means, for if we wish to help a person overcome their disorder we still must never resort to committing acts that would result to the destruction of something that is good and healthy which in this case would be the person’s body.
(

Distincitons must be made in the case of destruction of some part of the body. It is *not *intrinsically evil to do so. For example to cut off an arm to save the persons life.

One is not choosing an intrinsically morally evil means there.

Murder is intrinsically evil.

One can add adultery…blasphemy, fornication etc.

 

[Art321]

Distincitons must be made in the case of destruction of some part of the body. It is *not *intrinsically evil to do so. For example to cut off an arm to save the persons life.

One is not choosing an intrinsically morally evil means there.

Murder is intrinsically evil.

One can add adultery…blasphemy, fornication etc.

Yes, of course. As I said it depends on the intent here, which in many cases today are simply healthy bodies overall. When it comes to cut someone’s hand off simply because of an infection, by all means.

Yet if someone wishes to cut off their legs, arms, or genitalia simply because of a disorder of the mind then I would caution such actions are mutilation of the body and are becoming far more accepting as normal behavior when they are anything but… This is what I have been talking about…

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… But I think the issue here is that sometimes, the way we develop our language and philosophical system to understand things makes it impossible to *not *be consistent from the past. As in, even if there were reasons to think, say, lying were sometimes not inherently evil, current theological frameworks prevent us from seeing that to be so.

I don’t know why Bookcat replied like that.

You yourself gave an example, of Nazis being sent away from relatives of some of my Jewish ancestors.

One of the problems you should be asking about is not “current theological frameworks”, but that of probably rather vocal, moralising people that you know.

In relation to your other examples of sexual morality, God sees the hearts but humans see acts (if allowed to). Therefore the act is a piece of evidence that points in some degree in the direction of what is in a heart. But we don’t know the full picture so we don’t know in what degree. In the charismatic movement are tales of a spiritual gift of discernment operating when appropriate.

There is also the crucial point that some acts are disordered and degree of sin depends on many other factors. Some acts do point to the fact that a heart in is a frightful mess.

It’s absolutely vital to think out why we want to know all this about someone. Are we wanting to prove ourselves superior, mark them down and put pressure on them, or are we genuinely called on to give constructive guidance, or whatever.

In many catholic circles is a general spirit of casuistry and guilt-finding towards those with more overt “naff” behaviours, by implication portraying faction formers and blame givers as morally superior.

I mention these things because I am addressing the emotional background to your question stemming from the atmosphere you live in.

Factually, conduct comprises acts. You aren’t in a position to know anyone’s intentions until it’s too late. The expert viewpoints quoted in other responses are adding solidity to all this.

The kind of lie you mention is a different kind of case from cases of sexual morality. You don’t mention the lie of a politician or an advertiser.

Some pastors have got congregation members to have sex claiming it was an act of kindness, or teachers their students, with the same intentions!

Intentions look different sometimes, from different spots.

Tell us why you at the moment think you do, or do not, want morality held before you, and allow that you haven’t got to the bottom of the subject yet. Even if it’s not always bent into a tool to get at you, you may have had it drummed into you that it is.

Our view of how we feel about values should develop as we become autonomous and relinquish apron-strings. We must dig and delve to find out the true destiny of the Church and get free enough to mature and give up our lives for others in some way.

Jesus and the Apostles get left out of the picture when moralising is going on.

Who’s got a hold on you, when and where? What spirit will possess you and hold you firm for that?

If we want to commit ourselves to an attitude of legalism, what’s the pay-off? You might think that you are the opposite of that but you aren’t.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… no matter what goods may come from a homosexual relationship, every sexual act is inherently wrong. …

If good is in a relationship as friendship, good is in a relationship as friendship. A homosexual relationship comprises those acts. In cases where people are trying to pursue two parallel relationships with each other or a relationship with parallel aspects, the situation speaks for itself. Alloys are a whole science! A frightfully sincere and ideal person may keep another company and go to bed with him because he lets him.

Unclarity in the language of those who have been talking to you is misleading you.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

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

Sex is meant to be physical and boundaries are meant for respecting.

You might pretend that you are not flesh and blood, and catch the next person off guard in thinking they are not flesh and blood. There is responsibility!

Who has shown lack of responsibility towards you?

 

[Rau]

…no matter what goods may come from a homosexual relationship, every (same sex)sexual act is inherently wrong.

If you want to hold that consequences could perhaps make an act “moral”, then any conceivable act could be judged moral.

And BTW, what “goods” are there that may arise in a homosexual relationship that cannot arise if the sexual acts are absent?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I want to slightly rephrase part(s) of my earlier reply(-ies) and also add bits.

• “Christian morality” was meant to be launched against a context where the Church was filling young people with the Holy Spirit and was nurturing them in the way it modelled relationships. It’s not meant for megaphoning with.
• Weak areas in wider society are an indictment of the Church more than of wider society.
• In the hypothesis of the two blokes, who in their lives up to that point might have actually cared for them?
• Act and intent are part and parcel of each other. When people become convinced they are flesh and blood, they cut apron strings and become intentional. It’s a struggle and may happen at any age in life.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Catholic moral teaching concerns human acts. An act is an exercise of reason and free will; it is a knowing choice. Morality begins with the human act because we are persons, having reason and free will. The gift to us of reason and free will allows us to understand transcendent truths, such as good and evil, and allows us to freely choose. Therefore, these gifts of God make us subject to the moral law. For we understand right from wrong, and we freely choose one or the other.

The intention of an act is the intended end (the end in view); it is the purpose or reason for choosing the act. A bad intention makes any act a sin.

The circumstances of an act are judged, in moral terms, by the benefits or harm in the consequences for all persons affected by the choice. It is always wrong to act when you realize that your action will do more harm than good.

The moral object of an act determines its moral nature. When the object is evil, the act is intrinsically evil. This font is a little more complicated than the other two, but the details are important. The font called object is not the moral object alone. It is the knowing choice of a concrete act (the particular chosen act), but that choice always includes the moral nature of the act itself, and the moral object.

For example, there are a million different ways to commit theft. Each way is a concrete act. But all these acts are called by the same name, theft: that is the moral nature of the act, its moral meaning before the eyes of God. What determines this moral nature? It’s object – the end, in terms of morality, toward which the knowingly chosen act is intrinsically ordered. This inherent ordering of the act toward its object constitutes its moral nature.

An act ordered toward evil is intrinsically evil, and so it is always wrong to knowingly choose. Every concrete act of theft, despite all the differences in particular cases, has this same inherent ordering toward the moral object of theft: to deprive the owner of his goods.

When a person knowingly chooses any concrete act, he also chooses (at least implicitly) its moral nature and its object. For every act has an inherent moral meaning before the eyes of God, due to our gifts of reason and free will.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t know why Bookcat replied like that.

.

Like what?

Just to be clear - nowhere did I say that lying is ok.

 

[clem456]

Much of how Catholic teaching appraises what is sin is based on the notion of specific acts being “intrinsically evil,” or being wrong by their very nature – despite whatever the circumstances or intentions may be. This is especially true with regards to Catholic teaching on sexual morality. For example, no matter what good intentions spouses may have, sexual acts that do not allow for the creation of new life are objectively evil. Similarly, no matter what goods may come from a homosexual relationship, every sexual act is inherently wrong. Some have criticized this outlook as physicalism, which judges actions mainly on the biological or physical aspects of the action.

Where does this moral outlook comes from? Is it primarily rooted in a certain philosophy the church has adopted? St. Thomas Aquinas? Etc.

Can the understanding of Catholic morality ever change, say, from a act-based to intention based? Or in some other way? At least in some cases? After all, not everything in Catholic morality is judged immoral by the act alone. Mutilation is not in itself wrong, but it can be. Not all killing is wrong – though that is also a physical act, too.

It’s important to realize that a human being is a unity of body and soul. So Catholic morality cannot be physicalism.
Rather, Catholic morality accepts and appreciates that human beings have a physical reality created by God, in union with a soul created by God. We are not what we might call “New Age phantasms”, or merely bundles of emotions and feelings, disconnected from our physical reality.

This is reflected in the Incarnation. Christianity is uniquely incarnational. The fullness of God is made flesh. And we are made in God’s image.

So human beings are this unity of body and soul. We participate fully in the physical world. We are not separable…or divisible… body without will, or body without intention.
In behaving morally or immorally, we act. Actions are real. Substance is real. The body and all of creation has deep meaning and value.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Thanks to all for the replies thus far.

I guess I didn’t elaborate very clearly.

I don’t necessarily have issues with the basic framework for how we identify the morality of acts. I guess it’s the idea of* intrinsically *evil acts, as if something can always be evil.

And the other issue would be the particular way of understanding sexual acts. Whether or not you want to identify it as physicalism, the Church’s understanding has been criticized as such, for sexual morality in particular seems to be concerned with bodily functions over and against other aspects.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t necessarily have issues with the basic framework for how we identify the morality of acts. I guess it’s the idea of* intrinsically *evil acts, as if something can always be evil.

.

It can help to think to yourself of some rather serious things- are all the following gravely evil?

Murder someone
Rape someone
Do what the Nazi’s did in their camps
Commit adultery against ones wife

Yes of certainly.

These are all gravely disordered actions that can never be justified. They can* never *be good.

Even if someone does them in a way where they are not fully culpable for the grave sin…the matters themselves remain grave - evil -and can never become good.

 

[Bookcat]

And the other issue would be the particular way of understanding sexual acts. Whether or not you want to identify it as physicalism, the Church’s understanding has been criticized as such, for sexual morality in particular seems to be concerned with bodily functions over and against other aspects.

Yes certainly not any kind of physicalism.

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

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.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes certainly not any kind of physicalism.

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

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.

What is the definition of procreative aspect of the marital act if not “physicalism”?
It’s obvious it’s as physical as it gets.

 

[Bookcat]

What is the definition of procreative aspect of the marital act if not “physicalism”?
It’s obvious it’s as physical as it gets.

Read the post again. The entirely “same physical act”

At one time it will be the choice of hell.

The other it will be a good act - a holy act.

It is *not * the physical act that determines the moral nature of the act.

They are two different moral acts. Two different moral objects. Two different moral realities though the exact same physical act.

One is fornication.

The other is the martial act.

 

[Rau]

Read the post again. The entirely “same physical act”

At one time it will be the choice of hell.

The other it will be a good act - a holy act.

It is *not * the physical act that determines the moral nature of the act.

They are two different moral acts. Two different moral objects. Two different moral realities though the exact same physical act.

One is fornication.

The other is the martial act.

Fornication lacks the marital aspect, not the procreative. Your observation about the same physical act is of course correct. Physicality alone does not determine morality.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Read the post again. The entirely “same physical act”

At one time it will be the choice of hell.

The other it will be a good act - a holy act.

It is *not * the physical act that determines the moral nature of the act.

They are two different moral acts. Two different moral objects. Two different moral realities though the exact same physical act.

One is fornication.

The other is the martial act.

Your post is not about the definition of the procreative aspect.
This definition is as physical as it gets.
Is there any other moral teaching this physical?

The moral teaching is always in the context of the Natural Moral Law - it is good to live, it is good to procreate and to educate offspring, it is good to live in a society, it is good to pursue knowledge and truth.

The Church teaches it is a sin to do anything that threatens life under ordinary circustances - for example to eat too much. This is in the context of the Natural Moral Law.
The Church does not teach the physicality - how to eat and how much to eat.
… but the Church teaches how to have sex.

Again, is there any other moral teaching linked to the physicality this way?