CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - moral theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 27th April 2010, 11:44 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default

Give examples of moral and immoral acts and describe their moral objects.

Can an act have more than one moral object?

What determines whether a moral object is good or evil?

Can a knowingly chosen act have no moral object at all?
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 27th April 2010, 01:12 PM
sammy sammy is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: bastrop texas
Posts: 783
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Give examples of moral and immoral acts and describe their moral objects.

Can an act have more than one moral object?

What determines whether a moral object is good or evil?

Can a knowingly chosen act have no moral object at all?

1. Immoral act- theft. The moral object is the deprivation of something that belongs to someone else. Moral act- visit the incarcerated. The moral object is to acknowledge their suffering and lend support. Love of neighbor.
2. Each knowingly chosen act has its own inherent moral object.
3. A moral object is consistent with love of God, neighbor and proper love of self. An immoral object is opposed to love of God, neighbor and self.
4. No. Each knowingly chosen act even interior acts- such as thoughts, have an inherent ordering towards God or away from God.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 29th April 2010, 03:06 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default

Good answers.

I'd like members who are participating in this thread to try to list five sins that are intrinsically evil and five sins that are not intrinsically evil. Try to give a unique list that does not duplicate examples from other members lists.

Then we will discuss why one sin is intrinsically evil, and another is not.

Even though the term 'intrinsic evil' is not in the Bible, it is implicit in the teachings of the OT and NT. The ten commandments prohibits certain sins because they are the type of sin that is wrong in and of itself, regardless of your intentions or the circumstances. Jesus also lists various sins that are always immoral. So too, does St. Paul in the Epistles condemn certain sins that are morally illicit because the type of act in terms of morality (the moral species of the act) is contrary to the moral law, in other words, is contrary to the love of God, neighbor, and self.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 29th April 2010, 12:10 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default

intrinsically evil sins:
1. formal cooperation with sin
2. violence against the innocent
3. lust
4. slavery (narrowly defined)
5. usury as a type of theft

sinful but not intrinsically evil:
1. use of mental reservation in a grave matter without justification
2. any good act done with sinful intention
3. any good act done when the bad consequences can be reasonably anticipated to outweigh the good
4. failing to fast or abstain from meat during Lent
5. usury as a degree of excessive interest

Other examples?
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 29th April 2010, 02:04 PM
sammy sammy is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: bastrop texas
Posts: 783
Default

Intrinsically evil

1. Cheating on a test as a form of theft and deception.
2. Masturbation.
3. Overbilling for services as a form of theft.
4. The use of contraception.
5. pornography.

Potentially sinful but not intrinsically evil

1. Drinking alcohol
2. Going into a casino to gamble
3. Dining sumptuously
4. Dressing fashionably and expensively
5. Purchasing an expensive home.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 29th April 2010, 03:15 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default

All three fonts of morality are a type of end:

1. the end in view, i.e. the intended end, for which the act is chosen
2. the moral object, the end in terms of morality toward which the chosen act itself is inherently ordered
3. the consequences, i.e. the end results of the chosen act

Sometimes the intended end and the moral object are the same:

A physician gives a patient morphine (or other drug):
1. intended end to relieve suffering
2. the moral object: to relieve suffering

It often happens with good acts that the intended end and the moral object, or the intended end and the good consequences, are the same end. When an act is good, all three fonts are good, and so those fonts might be ordered toward the same good end.

However, sometimes the intended end and the moral object are different:

A physician gives a patient morphine (or other drug) overdose:
1. intended end to relieve suffering (but by the intended means of euthanasia)
2. the moral object: to relieve deprive an innocent person of his life

Now the problem here is that some persons will say that the moral object is to relieve suffering, and that therefore it is not a type of murder. Theologians call the moral object the 'proximate end'. In other words, the moral object is not the end for which the act is done (the intended end), nor is the moral object the end result of the act (the consequences). Rather, the moral object is the morally direct end toward which the act is inherently ordered. This end is called proximate because it is an end that is, in a sense, inherent to the act itself.

So an act of killing an innocent person might be done for a variety of different reasons (intentions), and might have a variety of different consequences. But the moral object of that act is proximate to the act itself, i.e. it is 'built in' to the act by its very nature. An act of murder is inherently ordered toward the deprivation of life of an innocent person, regardless of the intention or the consequences in a particular case.

This is what distinguishes the moral object from the intended end.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 29th April 2010, 03:45 PM
VKallin VKallin is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Port, Florida
Posts: 601
Default Intrinsically Evil

1. Cheating on your spouse

2. Cheating on your Income Tax

3. Desecrating the Holy Eucharist

4. Abortion as performed by a doctor

5. Abortion as requested by a potential mother

Not Intrinsically Evil

1. Not telling the whole truth

2. Gossip about a friend which is true

3. Becomming angry with your spouse or loved one.

4. Missing Mass on a Holy Day

5. Taking credit for the accomplishments of another.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 30th April 2010, 11:55 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default

.044. The Inherent Moral Meaning of Human Acts

All human acts (acts that are, or can be, knowingly chosen) have an inherent moral meaning before God. There are no knowingly chosen acts which are devoid of morality, or beyond the reach of the moral law, or irrelevant as to their morality, or good without regard to the eternal moral law. The eternal moral law is universal. All knowingly chosen acts are under the moral law. All knowingly chosen acts have an inherent moral meaning.

If a human person deliberately chooses an act that is inherently immoral, then his choice is an objective sin. Intention and circumstances are the first and third fonts. But all three fonts must be good in order to be moral. Therefore, intention and circumstances cannot justify the deliberate choice of an intrinsically evil act.

If a person asserts that a falsehood is true, because he mistakenly believes that it is true, then he is not lying. The act of lying is an intrinsically evil act, and intrinsically evil acts are always deliberately chosen. Since the person did not deliberately choose a lie, his act is not intrinsically evil. The deprivation of truth in his assertion is not the moral object of his act.

However, if a person deliberately chooses to lie for a good reason, in dire circumstances, he is lying. The deliberately chosen act is directed toward the deprivation of truth from his assertion, and so the moral object is evil. God is Truth. All lies offend God. Even if he asserts the truth, mistakenly thinking that he is lying, his act is the act of lying and is a sin, because the deliberately chosen act is directed toward the end of depriving an assertion of the truth.

Even when the act fails to achieve its moral object, if the moral object is evil, the act is in itself evil, and if the moral object is good, the act is in itself good. It is the inherent ordering of the act toward its moral object that makes the act good or evil inherently, not the attainment of the moral object.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 30th April 2010, 12:03 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default

contraception is intrinsically evil because it deprives the sexual act of its procreative meaning.

Which of these acts is the sin of contraception:

1. An elderly married couple are unable to conceive due to old age, but they continue to have sexual relations.

2. An unmarried woman uses the contraceptive pill for therapeutic purposes, and refrains from sexual relations.

3. A couple use contraception, but by chance conceive a child.

4. A married woman uses the contraceptive pill for therapeutic purposes, and continues to have sexual relations.

Intrinsically evil acts are always deliberately chosen acts, but this does not imply that the person deliberately chooses the moral object. The intended end of the person is the first font. The chosen act with its inherent moral meaning (as determined by the moral object) is the second font.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 30th April 2010, 02:36 PM
daytonafreak daytonafreak is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 572
Default

3 and 4 are both the sin of contraception
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.