Where does Catholic act-based morality come from?

[Rau]

I’ll repeat.
…life is good and it’s good to protect it, to stay healthy to support and to sustain life.

. That sounds good, but I don’t know if the natural moral law is adequately captured in those terms.

To put one’s health at risk is a moral act. What is the moral object of this act?

Risks sound like possible consequences of (pretty much every conceivable act) not acts themselves. On their own, they are no guide to morality. It occurs to me that pregnancy is risky, particularly at inopportune times. Lucky there is no positive obligation to as many children as possible!

 

[Jaaanosik]

. That sounds good, but I don’t know if the natural moral law is adequately captured in those terms.

Risks sound like possible consequences of (pretty much every conceivable act) not acts themselves. On their own, they are no guide to morality. It occurs to me that pregnancy is risky, particularly at inopportune times. Lucky there is no positive obligation to as many children as possible!

Good, there are unavoidable risks and there are unnecessary risks.
As discussed, measuring temperature is unnecessary risk.
Do you agree?
It’s just not natural.

 

[Rau]

Good, there are unavoidable risks and there are unnecessary risks.
As discussed, measuring temperature is unnecessary risk.
Do you agree?
It’s just not natural.

Flying is safer than driving. No guide to morality of acts though. Does this prove flying is natural and driving not?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Flying is safer than driving. No guide to morality of acts though. Does this prove flying is natural and driving not?

If you have to get from point A to point B then you don’t have a choice, you can not avoid it.
The temperature measurement is not in this category. It is not necessary.

Are you afraid to answer it? Simple, natural or unnatural?

To answer your question question they are both unnatural and the end justifies the means.
The safest way to get from A to B might be walking.

 

[Rau]

If you have to get from point A to point B then you don’t have a choice, you can not avoid it.
The temperature measurement is not in this category. It is not necessary.

Are you afraid to answer it? Simple, natural or unnatural?

To answer your question question they are both unnatural and the end justifies the means.
The safest way to get from A to B might be walking.

Or not to go! Is travel wrong unless it is necessary to preserve life? Is it unnatural? And I’m on holiday right now - away from home. Should I be feeling guilty right now? No…a holiday is good, even though not obligatory and entailing some risk!

 

[Jaaanosik]

Or not to go! Is travel wrong unless it is necessary to preserve life? Is it unnatural? And I’m on holiday right now - away from home. Should I be feeling guilty right now? No…a holiday is good, even though not obligatory and entailing some risk!

You are still avoiding to answer the question.

Hey, people do unnatural things all the time. I don’t have a problem with that when there is a reasonable justification. That’s what we do as human beings, it’s our human nature.
As I said I see the reality as it is. There is a limit to the end does not justify the means. It’s all about the double effect.

How is the holiday when you are posting here?
Let’s stop, go, enjoy your holiday!

 

[Rau]

You are still avoiding to answer the question.

Hey, people do unnatural things all the time. I don’t have a problem with that when there is a reasonable justification. That’s what we do as human beings, it’s our human nature.
As I said I see the reality as it is. There is a limit to the end does not justify the means. It’s all about the double effect.

How is the holiday when you are posting here?
Let’s stop, go, enjoy your holiday!

I’ve not answered your question because it has no meaning, no more meaning than “which colour is the holiest?”

The question to be asked is whether an act is good or evil.

I lost the capacity to “holiday” 7x24 some time ago. Thus I find myself tapping on iPhones at times. Fortunately, there are no prohibitions against discretionary activities on account of them entailing some risk, eg. Finger strain.

 

[davidv]

How women measure temperature ‘down there’ in order to make NFP work. Are the periods any disease? A healthy person measures temperature only when getting sick and definitely not between the legs. That’s not natural.

So you say. Why should you be believed?
Why is taking ones temperature immoral? Because has an “ick” factor?

 

[Bookcat]

It’s a simple question.
Is the temperature measurement natural or not?
It appears you clearly see that it is not but you are afraid to admit it.
I wonder why…

What?

Cause your arguing about something that has noting to do with anything.

It is a man made device. So?

Has nothing to do with the anything.

It is NOT about a means being *natural *or artificial.

Nothing to do with it. The use of a therm. by some is the use of a form of technology. Such has nothing to do with the morality of the matter.

One can engage in all sorts of “natural” forms of contraception. They too are gravely sinful. Immoral means.

1. As I have explained it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.
2. The word “natural” does not figure into anything. It is only a word that was by some as some recent point in time to promote some of the moral means to avoid a new conception when there is the right reason for such or to aid in conception when that is more directly sought.
3. It is a side question anyhow for NFP *does not *necessarily require taking *any temperature. *
4. The moral means to avoid a new conception is called “periodic continence”.

 

[o_mlly]

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. …
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.

To understand “intrinsically evil” acts, one may call to mind a verb which describes a morally neutral human act, e.g. eating. Now invent a word which qualifies that action to have an immoral or evil objective, e.g. over-eating or gluttony. Gluttony becomes an intrinsically evil (not necessarily a sinful act!). The same qualification can be used with any neutral human act: speaking (lying), intercourse (fornicating), taking (stealing), wanting (lusting), killing (murder), etc. Intrinsically evil acts are always subsets or qualified acts of a larger set of otherwise morally neutral human acts.

Therefore, the definition of an intrinsically evil act must have a minimum of two specifications: 1) a human act and 2) an evil object.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… 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.

Our body is our vehicle and when we decide for ourselves we want to become Christian God wants to fill us with the Holy Spirit. We don’t “waft” like Daleks. Our feet are on the ground and ache.

Don’t tell me that last time someone cheated you or stole from you, it didn’t impact you personally and concretely.

Why didn’t someone preach the Gospel to you?

The strange concatenation of a very untypical example involving the relatives of my ancestors and some very disturbed kinds of self-harm or harm of others weren’t shedding light on what your question really was to start with.

 

[e_c]

I will confess to having only skimmed a bit of this thread and apologize for jumping into the discussion, but here’s my answer to the original question, “Where does Catholic act-based morality come from?”

A few basic principles…

1. Creation is good.
2. Created things have in-built (“natural”) purposes which obtain for those things their proper good (“happiness”).
3. We can know these purposes and their order.
4. We can choose to respect them or not, which has “moral” consequences, and of course is done through acts (which may be interior or exterior).

I’ll stake a bold claim (that I am not prepared to defend, so please be nice)… Nearly all opposition to Catholic morality (throughout the history of moral philosophy and theology since the 1st century) contradicts in one way or another one of the above 4 principles, or is a fight over the particulars of #3.

There is much confusion these days over what “moral object” is. Let me use an example to illustrate.

I believe it was the very same Paul VI that both wrote Humanae Vitae and urged a group of religious sisters living in a dangerous area to take contraceptive pills to prevent pregnancy by rape. Can you see the difference between this act and “normal contraception”? This example strikes the very heart of the matter…

 

[Rau]

I will confess to having only skimmed a bit of this thread and apologize for jumping into the discussion, but here’s my answer to the original question, “Where does Catholic act-based morality come from?”

A few basic principles…

1. Creation is good.
2. Created things have in-built (“natural”) purposes which obtain for those things their proper good (“happiness”).
3. We can know these purposes and their order.
4. We can choose to respect them or not, which has “moral” consequences, and of course is done through acts (which may be interior or exterior).

I’ll stake a bold claim (that I am not prepared to defend, so please be nice)… Nearly all opposition to Catholic morality (throughout the history of moral philosophy and theology since the 1st century) contradicts in one way or another one of the above 4 principles, or is a fight over the particulars of #3.

There is much confusion these days over what “moral object” is. Let me use an example to illustrate.

I believe it was the very same Paul VI that both wrote Humanae Vitae and urged a group of religious sisters living in a dangerous area to take contraceptive pills to prevent pregnancy by rape. Can you see the difference between this act and “normal contraception”? This example strikes the very heart of the matter…

Of course a rape is an act of violence and aggression and it is proper to repel it in any way possible. To push the aggressor away after penetration is not wrong. To flush away the semen is not wrong; not the moral act of “contraception”, just a proper act of repelling what has no right to be there. The same for the pills.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In Catholic moral theology, natural specifically means the natural law. And the natural law is based on humans behaving in ways that are truly human, before the eyes of God our Creator. Use of artificial technology can be “natural” in the sense of natural law, in some cases, and in other cases, it can be “unnatural” – contrary to what God intends for human nature.

Human persons have free will and reason, and that is why our knowingly chosen acts are subject to morality.

CCC:
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 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.