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
  #1  
Old 9th May 2010, 02:44 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default intrinsic evil

Given that act 'A' is intrinsically evil:

1. is 'A' moral when done with a good intention?

2. if 'A' is chosen for a good purpose, could 'A' possibly cease to be intrinsically evil?

3. when the only way to avoid gravely harmful consequences is to do 'A', is 'A' moral?

4. if 'A' is done in conjunction with good acts 'B', 'C', and 'D', could 'A' possibly be moral?

5. is there any context or circumstance in which the deliberate choice to commit act 'A' could possibly be moral?

6. can a set of knowingly chosen acts merge, so that act 'A' becomes moral as part of a set of acts?

7. can intention or circumstances transform act 'A' into an act that is moral or justifiable?
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 9th May 2010, 05:49 PM
VKallin VKallin is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Port, Florida
Posts: 601
Default There are no circumstances

The answer is the same for all questions. If an act is intrinsically evil, then there is no set of intentions or results which could make it moral. Furthermore, there is no set of acts which includes an intrinsically evil act, which can mitigate the evil to make it moral. To be moral, all 3 fonts must be moral. If the 2nd font is intrinsically evil, the act will always be evil regardless of the first and third fonts.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 9th May 2010, 06:01 PM
alpha5 alpha5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 42
Default

It seems to me that some of these questions have a positive answer: 2, 7.
The instric evil of murdering another human being comes to mind.

"It is written (Ex. 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life." ~St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 9th May 2010, 06:15 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpha5 View Post
It seems to me that some of these questions have a positive answer: 2, 7.
The instric evil of murdering another human being comes to mind.

"It is written (Ex. 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life." ~St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Murder is the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being. The moral object is the deprivation of life from an innocent person. Murder is not justified by intention or circumstances.

Killing in self-defense is not intrinsically evil because it is not murder. The moral object of killing in self-defense is to defend the life of an innocent person (yourself, or even another innocent person).
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 9th May 2010, 09:12 PM
Shane Shane is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Given that act 'A' is intrinsically evil:

1. is 'A' moral when done with a good intention?

2. if 'A' is chosen for a good purpose, could 'A' possibly cease to be intrinsically evil?

3. when the only way to avoid gravely harmful consequences is to do 'A', is 'A' moral?

4. if 'A' is done in conjunction with good acts 'B', 'C', and 'D', could 'A' possibly be moral?

5. is there any context or circumstance in which the deliberate choice to commit act 'A' could possibly be moral?

6. can a set of knowingly chosen acts merge, so that act 'A' becomes moral as part of a set of acts?

7. can intention or circumstances transform act 'A' into an act that is moral or justifiable?
Answers:

1. No. It has an evil moral object, which cannot be changed by a good intention.

2. Again, no, because of the evil moral object.

3. No. Intrinsically evil acts must always be avoided, no matter the cost. No intrinsically act can ever justify a morally good end.

4. Again, no. The influence of other acts cannot make the evil moral object of A good.

5. No. Intrinsically evil acts can never be moral.

6. No.

7. Again, no. Neither intention nor circumstances can ever change the moral object of an act, which is evil in this case.
7.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10th May 2010, 12:09 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default

The answer to all the questions is 'no'. (I should have worded the questions so that some were 'yes'.)

An intrinsically evil act is inherently immoral because it is inherently ordered toward an evil moral object. Intention, circumstances, and other acts cannot change the moral object from evil to good.

Examples:

Direct abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

1. A woman has a surgical abortion as an end, because she does not want the child. This abortion is direct and intrinsically evil.

2. A woman has a surgical abortion as a means, because she is chronically ill and the pregnancy would present a severe danger to her life. Her intention is to save her own life, and perhaps the situation is that the child is unlikely to survive. But the abortion is nevertheless direct and intrinsically evil.

3. A woman is pregnant and has cancer. The prenatal is too early in development to deliver, and too early to wait for viability. She is treated with chemotherapy, which kills the prenatal. The act is not direct abortion because it is an act inherently directed at the health of the mother. The death of the prenatal is an unintended consequence.

The difference between #2 and #3 above is found in the inherent ordering of the act toward its moral object, not in the intention.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10th May 2010, 02:54 AM
ExCelciuS ExCelciuS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 711
Default

Hmm.., in theory it should be like that, but in reality sometimes it is hard and almost impossible nor super very confusing condition that we cannot avoid sin(e.g: lying..)

Lying is intrinsic evil (if I'm not wrong), but I'm not sure if we can never lie again now or in the future, sometimes there is a condition when we should lie, or do you have a solution Ron?

Should we use mental reservation to avoid lying?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10th May 2010, 12:14 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExCelciuS View Post
Lying is intrinsic evil (if I'm not wrong), but I'm not sure if we can never lie again now or in the future, sometimes there is a condition when we should lie, or do you have a solution Ron?

Should we use mental reservation to avoid lying?

Lying is intrinsically evil.

Lying is a venial sin, unless there is another factor that would make it mortal, such as a gravely immoral intention,

In difficult circumstances, a person may remain silent, or may use mental reservation.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
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 08:28 PM.


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