The last two installments of this series of post indicated that formal cooperation in abortion was a reason why pro-abortion politicians must be judged unworthy to receive Holy Communion and must, therefore, be denied the Sacrament by the minister. When Benedict XVI was prefect of the CDF he indicated that formal cooperation in abortion was a reason why the politician was unworthy. Indeed, that cooperation in the results of such immoral laws are the cause for serious concern among the Church’s ministers. In Evangelium vitae, no. 73, John Paul II raised the issue of these laws saying, “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.’” This quotation is from the Declaration on Procured Abortion, no. 22. Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 letter referred directly to this idea insofar as it spoke of campaigning and voting for the immoral law. Here is the relevant statement from the Declaration on Procured Abortion: “It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application.”
The interesting point about these texts from Evangelium vitae and the Declaration on Procured Abortion is that the issue is not so much the cooperation in one or more procured abortions, but the cooperation in the creation of intrinsically immoral laws. In the next post, the blog will take a closer look at this issue.
Works cited:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), No. 22: AAS 66 (1974), 744.)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Sin of the Politician or Public Official that Votes for Or Upholds the Validity of Permissive Abortion Laws
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Revisionist Moral Thought: Proporotionalism, Consequentialism, Relativism
This post is going to depart from the line of posts on Politicians and Holy Communion. I was asked recently by a priest to help with some questions he had about the various revisionist moral systems that had developed in recent years. I thought blog readers might want to consider some of the points I made in response.
"The first point I should make is that the problems with some of the new moral systems are fundamental problems that are essentially anthropological. I will explain this briefly. Morality is always about the pursuit of Happiness. In the Gospel, Jesus preaches the Beatitudes as His answer to the question about human happiness. Happiness, in this context, is the experience of the reaching the goal of human existence, and in Catholic theology, this goal is something we are attracted to and not something imposed upon our nature by extrinsic rules. Our supernatural end is obtainable only by grace.
"The problem for many modern systems is that they do not have a clear concept of human nature. There is no clear “starting point” for reasoning about what constitutes authentic human goods. Without a beginning point, it rather difficult if not impossible to describe how to get to one’s end or goal. In other words, it would be impossible to identify definitively what constitutes authentic or true “goods” for human beings since, under such systems, there is no clear idea of what would constitute human happiness. In Catholic thought the good is identified with those things that contribute to the fulfillment of human nature. On the other hand, revisionist moral theories are preponderantly dependent upon the subjective intention of the moral agent. In authentic Catholic thought, what the agent is actually doing can be clearly identified as contrary to man’s ultimate end in some cases. With intention as the primary determinant of right or wrong in revisionist theories, however, everybody can have their own subjective morality. The idea of the common good becomes nothing more than an idealistic platitude sometimes sought in democratic processes.
"This lack of a foundation in revisionist theories leads to conflicts in modern theories between the moral law (inscribed on the heart, which the Church helps to identify with moral definitions) and freedom, between freedom and nature, between salvation and morality, and between conscience and the moral law. (Servais Pinckaers is my source for this) The list goes on. But in the Church’s moral theology, since all of these things flow out of the creation of man in the image and likeness of God, there is no conflict among these, all of them having the same source. To put it another way, for revisionists, since there is no such thing as the human good, an act is not morally judged by its conformity to the good of human nature. It is judged by some other means of valuing such as the maximum expression of freedom, or a calculation of the consequences, or whatever one judges to be the best outcome in a particular situation, and so on. So one can see that one of the pervasive weaknesses revisionist systems is that there is not clear theory of value.
"So, modern theories attempt to explain human freedom, conscience, and law without them being tied to the concept of the “good” understood as that which is fulfilling of human nature. In Catholic doctrine and theology, freedom, conscience, law, etc., all derive from a common origin, that is the creation of the human subject. The moral law, in its many forms is an expression of the wise and providential ordering of the universe by the Creator. Moral law defines goods that human freedom and conscience seek as a means of attaining authentic human happiness when human nature is fulfilled.
"Relativism emphasizes the ability of the subject to decide what is good for himself. Consequentialism evaluates behavior on the basis of a calculation of the positive and negative effects of an action, though there is little agreement on how far one has to go with this or how one is to judge what is positive and negative. Proportionalism evaluates the act on the basis of the pre-moral or physical good outweighing the pre-moral or physical evil. All three of these deny the idea that, in theory, something is always evil. Thus, some revisionists have had to admit, for example, that one can never say that rape is always and everywhere evil, according to their thought, until one knows the circumstances and the intention. Catholic doctrine holds that rape is always morally evil no matter the circumstances or intention, even though the subject might not be morally culpable.
"It is out of that context that I can recommend certain reading. All of these books are available online.
The Splendor of Truth: Veritatis Splendor and the Renewal of Moral Theology, eds. Augustine di Noia and Romanus Cessario, Scepter Publishers
Morality: The Catholic View, by Servais Pinckaers
There is a good introductory textbook which is suitable for high school use which contains brief descriptions of these systems.
It is Our Moral Life in Christ, Aurelio Fernandez and James Socias."
"The first point I should make is that the problems with some of the new moral systems are fundamental problems that are essentially anthropological. I will explain this briefly. Morality is always about the pursuit of Happiness. In the Gospel, Jesus preaches the Beatitudes as His answer to the question about human happiness. Happiness, in this context, is the experience of the reaching the goal of human existence, and in Catholic theology, this goal is something we are attracted to and not something imposed upon our nature by extrinsic rules. Our supernatural end is obtainable only by grace.
"The problem for many modern systems is that they do not have a clear concept of human nature. There is no clear “starting point” for reasoning about what constitutes authentic human goods. Without a beginning point, it rather difficult if not impossible to describe how to get to one’s end or goal. In other words, it would be impossible to identify definitively what constitutes authentic or true “goods” for human beings since, under such systems, there is no clear idea of what would constitute human happiness. In Catholic thought the good is identified with those things that contribute to the fulfillment of human nature. On the other hand, revisionist moral theories are preponderantly dependent upon the subjective intention of the moral agent. In authentic Catholic thought, what the agent is actually doing can be clearly identified as contrary to man’s ultimate end in some cases. With intention as the primary determinant of right or wrong in revisionist theories, however, everybody can have their own subjective morality. The idea of the common good becomes nothing more than an idealistic platitude sometimes sought in democratic processes.
"This lack of a foundation in revisionist theories leads to conflicts in modern theories between the moral law (inscribed on the heart, which the Church helps to identify with moral definitions) and freedom, between freedom and nature, between salvation and morality, and between conscience and the moral law. (Servais Pinckaers is my source for this) The list goes on. But in the Church’s moral theology, since all of these things flow out of the creation of man in the image and likeness of God, there is no conflict among these, all of them having the same source. To put it another way, for revisionists, since there is no such thing as the human good, an act is not morally judged by its conformity to the good of human nature. It is judged by some other means of valuing such as the maximum expression of freedom, or a calculation of the consequences, or whatever one judges to be the best outcome in a particular situation, and so on. So one can see that one of the pervasive weaknesses revisionist systems is that there is not clear theory of value.
"So, modern theories attempt to explain human freedom, conscience, and law without them being tied to the concept of the “good” understood as that which is fulfilling of human nature. In Catholic doctrine and theology, freedom, conscience, law, etc., all derive from a common origin, that is the creation of the human subject. The moral law, in its many forms is an expression of the wise and providential ordering of the universe by the Creator. Moral law defines goods that human freedom and conscience seek as a means of attaining authentic human happiness when human nature is fulfilled.
"Relativism emphasizes the ability of the subject to decide what is good for himself. Consequentialism evaluates behavior on the basis of a calculation of the positive and negative effects of an action, though there is little agreement on how far one has to go with this or how one is to judge what is positive and negative. Proportionalism evaluates the act on the basis of the pre-moral or physical good outweighing the pre-moral or physical evil. All three of these deny the idea that, in theory, something is always evil. Thus, some revisionists have had to admit, for example, that one can never say that rape is always and everywhere evil, according to their thought, until one knows the circumstances and the intention. Catholic doctrine holds that rape is always morally evil no matter the circumstances or intention, even though the subject might not be morally culpable.
"It is out of that context that I can recommend certain reading. All of these books are available online.
The Splendor of Truth: Veritatis Splendor and the Renewal of Moral Theology, eds. Augustine di Noia and Romanus Cessario, Scepter Publishers
Morality: The Catholic View, by Servais Pinckaers
There is a good introductory textbook which is suitable for high school use which contains brief descriptions of these systems.
It is Our Moral Life in Christ, Aurelio Fernandez and James Socias."
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Campaigning and Voting for Permissive Abortion Laws Place the Politician in an Objective Situation of Grave Sin, i.e., Manifest Grave Sin
It is clear from the last post that the traditional moral teaching, presented in the earlier posts, prevails regarding the role of the minister in the administration of Holy Communion according to the 2004 letter of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. In fact, the future pope’s statement is utterly congruent with and reaffirms traditional moral principles on the administration of Holy Communion and the minister’s responsibility. The statement includes the pastoral element of meeting with the offender and instructing him or her on the recipient’s duty not to approach reception of the sacrament until the objective situation of sin is remedied. The instruction given by Cardinal Ratzinger precisely outlines the steps which must be taken if when the politician is in an objective situation of grave sin. This is an instruction to the ministers of the sacrament and it is precisely the kind of action which must be taken if the minister, himself, is to avoid the sins of immoral cooperation and scandal. The conclusion that one must make, following upon the statement is unmistakable: In keeping with the minister’s moral duties regarding the administration of the sacraments, he must deny the Holy Eucharist to those who do not remedy the public situation of sin created by campaigning and voting for permissive abortion laws.
When Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that letter, he characterized the sin of the Catholic politician who campaigns and votes for abortion as formal cooperation in the grave sin of abortion. In this case, the cooperation of the politician in abortion is the issue. This is an important point. A formal cooperator is one who agrees with the immoral act, either in the intention (the motive for having an abortion) or the object (the abortion as a means to an end) or both, of the person or persons who are the principal agents of the grave sin of abortion. According to the principles of cooperation, the formal cooperator is equally guilty of the sin as the principal agent because the cooperator adopts the evil outcome of the principal agent’s actions as his or her own. Thus, the politician who formally cooperates by consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion laws is guilty of all the instances of the sin of abortion that he or she seeks to permit through the campaigning and voting for the permissive laws. The critical factor for the minister of Holy Communion is that these sins are "manifest" by virtue of the public nature of the activity in the political life of the state. The minister has the right and the responsibility to take cognizance of this manifest state of sin.
When Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that letter, he characterized the sin of the Catholic politician who campaigns and votes for abortion as formal cooperation in the grave sin of abortion. In this case, the cooperation of the politician in abortion is the issue. This is an important point. A formal cooperator is one who agrees with the immoral act, either in the intention (the motive for having an abortion) or the object (the abortion as a means to an end) or both, of the person or persons who are the principal agents of the grave sin of abortion. According to the principles of cooperation, the formal cooperator is equally guilty of the sin as the principal agent because the cooperator adopts the evil outcome of the principal agent’s actions as his or her own. Thus, the politician who formally cooperates by consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion laws is guilty of all the instances of the sin of abortion that he or she seeks to permit through the campaigning and voting for the permissive laws. The critical factor for the minister of Holy Communion is that these sins are "manifest" by virtue of the public nature of the activity in the political life of the state. The minister has the right and the responsibility to take cognizance of this manifest state of sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
