Moral Theology Comprehensive Exam Review

all set okay so Peter Kooser and we will be focusing on moral theology let me just make sure I get the question is out for me okay so first is there is this handout which is the outline I'm going to go through the entire outline next week it won't be recorded but next week we'll focus on the question themselves but right now I will simply focus on the outline so beginning number one nature of human happiness in the ultimate purpose of life desire for happiness so God has created us with the natural desire for happiness it can only be fulfilled in God is filled in God as you were taught in dogmatic theology by the beatific vision where we see God analogously speaking in an unmediated way through a special gift of grace called the light of glory ultimate true happiness is not located in money power pleasure honor or achievements money power pleasure honor or achievements ultimate happiness is found in love of God and of course love of neighbour properly ordered the love of God two sources of human responsibility so so this this sorry it was this that says it should be just Roman numeral to so sources of human responsibility source of human responsibility will first start with the moral object followed by the intention followed by circumstances once again the moral object then intention also known as end followed by circumstances what is sort of like circling around that moral object and the intention of the doer first focus on the moral object to define that the moral object is not equivalent not reducible to the physical object physical act physical species if it is then we wouldn't be able to distinguish murder from killing and self-defense so be very cautious not to confuse moral object with physical object they are not equivalent they are different because the intention is also included along with a physical act which form a moral object so intentionality along with the physical act bring about the moral object and this is part of it is due to our give to the hilum morphic theory which was developed in the scholastic age relying on Greek thought were created being is made of highly physical matter and more faith form so as you know a moral act the matter like in a sacrament right the matter is the two people getting married man and woman for the sacrament of marriage and then the form is their intention their words so matter in forms of here again hilum Oracle theory and it applies directly to the moral object is it has physical matter and form and the form is defined by intentionality once again on that point the moral object is not reducible to the physical object act or species to do so would be to make the error of physicalism which then makes it impossible to distinguish different human acts such as murder and killing and defense it is also not reducible to intentionality is that clear with everyone so it's both in you cannot reduce the moral object to the physical act nor can you reduce the moral object to intentionality otherwise a person could commit adultery break the sixth commandment and say that my intention was good oh no that's not possible do you see what I'm saying you know so no it's not possible it's not impossible just because your intention was good to justify adultery for example committed adultery in order to prostitution have a fat sorry prostitution so a woman commits prostitution and then justifies it by saying I need money for my children we are compassionate to her very compassionate merciful and understanding but it doesn't make the act right if the circumstances might be atrocious she might be almost forced psychologically to do this but nonetheless the the end intention does not make the means okay so some physical acts necessarily include an intention regardless of what a person thinks his intention is so well I mean use this example it's a it's a hard one for modern times the use of a condom is that a person might say my intention is simply focusing on the union with my wife and that's the only reason why I'm doing it and to protect her from getting a venereal disease because I might have the venereal disease but nonetheless the act itself splits apart the unitive and Procrit event splits apart the babies and bonding which God wills to be united together because the primary end is procreation babies secondary end is the unitive so that's an example the best I can do without being more theologian to explain to you the more object once again it's a both/and moral object includes both a physical act and intention we can make an error by defining a mole object only by intentionality which then a prostitute can justify her ass or a person using a condom because of the good good a good intention they have so that be an error and error also would be to be overly physical in defining a moral object and forget intentionality so it's both and all of that once again is on your outline in addition the documents I sent you over 200 pages will have that in further detail let's now go to intention or end so one way is when we're thinking about these sources of Maria morality if we just think them in a categorical way where they don't relate to each other we got it wrong there's overlap there in forming one another and why we'll all three need to be good for the moral act to be good circumstances intention you all object so I need to go away from the camera a little bit hopefully otherwise if you get if you have indeed wrong because some of us are very image focused and we just think in categories they'll be very hard to understand the moral object and distinct and see that it includes both intentionality okay it's both and not to make the error either on the side of physicalism or emphasizing intentionality excessively or we just define involve object by good intention so now let's focus on intention which is the second source of human responsibility first the ends do not justify the means a good intention cannot justify a moral object that is evil such as adultery so a good intention cannot justify something that the Church defines as intrinsically evil moral object must be good along with circumstances and intention for them all act to be good looks focus on circumstances circumstances are secondary elements they cannot make an intrinsically evil act good nor can a intention make an evil act good we have covered these three sources of morality mole object circumstances and intention will now go forward and focus on omission a mission is sitting by refraining to act when one ought to sin of omission refrain to hat when one ought to violence how violence affects the affects the will and relates to culpability so violence does not directly affect the will an act that is violently forced is involuntary so if I'm a hundred percent forced to do something beyond my will such as and this can happen it could happen men rape men in prisons and that is terrible well if that man is raped in prison and it's completely involuntary of course he's not responsible for that and the same thing didn't happen to women fear a moral act that is done in fear is partly voluntary and partly involuntary this is very important distinction violence if it's can cause the Act to be involuntary 100 percent so persons not responsible for that now it was possible if their range etc it can now fear a moral act that is done in fear is partly voluntary and partly involuntary it makes sense no one's twisting their arm is not being violent it's out of an emotional response so it necessarily will be partly voluntary partly involuntary and the level of voluntariness and in voluntariness of course will will differ for an act to act ignorant this has to be done there this needs to be defined very carefully so how this affects the will and relates to culpability antecedent ignorance so there's different three types of ignorance antecedent consequent concommittant let's focus on antecedent antecedent ignorance is ignorance that a person is not guilty of it renders the act involuntary so let's give an example here is I look behind me and I looked at my car when mirrors I do everything I can to see that nobody's behind they when I back up but there's a little child wallet and I crushed that little child with the car wheels and I'm driving the car wheel the car questions the child and kills a child I was ignorant I had antecedent ignorant I did everything I could not to be ignorant so not culpable nonetheless evil has been done but I'm not culpable I'm not responsible for it so that's an example of antecedent ignorance consequent endurance is different is ignorance of a person who freely chose to be ignorant so if we stay with that example let's say that my grandmother is behind the car and I know that I should check the window D I should look behind me I know that I should look at the mirrors and then I think you know I'm just lazy No and I'm in a rush and I just sort of close my eyes and back up and I hit my grandmother so I would be responsible for that I didn't know if she was there but I could have done something so that I wouldn't been ignorant so that be consequent ignorance it does not render the act involuntary it may lessen the voluntariness it may be but not necessarily and we'd have to come up with different examples for that but right now I just focus on the principles and I know father Malini is very happy if I just focus on the Prince of and get and not so much other cases and examples so antecedent ignorance renders the act and voluntary consequent ignorance is when I choose to be ignorant and then I do something that I later very likely will regret but I could have prevented it or and then concomitant ignorance accompanies the act without influencing the will this is not voluntary ignorance but the person will act the same even if he does even if he knows does not remove culpability so here is an example calm commitment ignorant is okay I have a sword right and I like sword fighting I don't I'm just saying I like I like taking a sword and just putting it in the air and there is someone behind a curtain I don't know that person's behind the curtain and I'm just going like this and I go boom and it goes right into his throat now I find out I so that oh look I just plunged my sword into his throat and then someone asked me later if you had known that he was behind there would you still have done that and my response is it didn't make a difference not really care yeah I always do that it's his fault do you see what I'm saying so that be an examples of concomitant ignorance it's where I will act the same even if I know I just don't care it doesn't remove coffee belly do you see the difference I know I know it sounds odd and don't teach more theology so I know the principles but you probably could come up with better examples but that would be an example so there are three types antecedent where I do everything I can not to be ignorant or I don't have the possibility to to remove my ignorance I don't have the Catechism knowing into me introduces me to Jesus Christ in a credible way or moral teaching incredible way so I'm ignorant and if I have the opportunity of wood so it renders the act involuntary consequent ignorance is where if I had known I would have done that but I freely chose to remain in ignorance it could be out of laziness it could be out of fear because I might be that responsible for something and I don't want to read it I get nervous or no and concomitant ignorance doesn't make a difference if I knew if I didn't know I'd still do the same Act does that help hopefully okay now let's go to three moral determinants let me just look at that though three moral determinants object intentions circumstances object intention circumstances and we've already covered that nature of conscience man acquires early in life first principles foundational so first principle refers the foundational moral first principle is do good avoid evil the habit of repulsion from evil and attraction to good is called synthesis that's a habit so principle is I'm born with it do good avoid evil and then I as I live and I become older I develop a habit for avoiding evil and being attracted to good habet is called cinder esis conscience is an act not a habit this is very important especially when you are tested by a moral theologian conscience is an act not a habit it's an application of that habit a habit is a lasting quality and act as an event so my conscience becomes act i i activate that habit and then i'm making a conscious decision the practical intellect judgment and how to act with respect to good and evil is conscience it is an act not a habit let's move forward to cinder esis or am Beezus is deeper than conscience so right you have so if you go through different levels I'm born with first principle do good avoid evil I then develop a habit of avoiding evil and lease I'm supposed to and being attracted to the good in life that habit becomes become loose ingrained in me the more times I make conscious decisions which are ass now if I make conscious decisions that are evil conscience decisions it will necessarily affect the habit that supports it and gradually repeated acts and erroneous conscience this deeper level of cinder esis which is a habit can be gradually forgotten such as during World War two there were German Nazis or charge of death camps that killed Jewish people Catholic people Romani etc they were there's one famous case where a man is on file and he has to know he does not express any guilt so how can that be well can be this way he's born with first principle do good avoid evil he at one time you may hopefully have this habit of doing good and or sorry of being repulsed from evil and attracted to good but after many many conscience and acts he started forgetting that habit he started forgetting the first principle until finally it's almost incapable for him of knowing what is good and what is evil he enough no longer has any normal conscience has been forgotten so that's the best I can do with that now let's go to binding nature of an erroneous conscience first required to obey certain judgment of conscience even if erroneous let me repeat that again very clear I am required to obey a judgment of conscience if it's certain even if it's erroneous even if it's wrong I must obey my conscience if I have certainty and I'm not culpable for that as long as it is antecedent ignorance remember antecedent ignorance I've done everything I could all the possibilities that Providence has allowed me to for my conference and so we've covered if ignorance is antecedent then the person is not probable or evil committed but if ignorance is consequent than the person is culpable for evil committed so if I have an erroneous conscience and someone tells me that those acts you're doing are hurting you and others because that's the definition of sin sin leads the misery is disordered love and hurts you is going to hurt others you may think that you're doing good but you really aren't and I am confident that I am right I'm not doing evil I'm actually helping people so a person says will please read the Catalan Catholic Church please read this book by John Hardin and others which will help you to see that what you think is good a good act is actually an evil act and I think about it and then I views at that moment that refusal because I've been given this opportunity for good reliable sources would then cause my ignorance to be consequent because I'm not open to knowing further about the truth but if I'm never given an opportunity and often people aren't then it is antecedent ignorance I am bound to follow my well names conscience evil will happen but I'm not couple responsible for it but let's not forget that evil still is being committed and people being heard and including the individual but God does not hold that individual responsible formation of cops okay first now to go to binding nature of correct conscience it's required to obey certain judgement of conscience even if erroneous okay that needs to be affirmed now formation of conscience required to form conscience in accordance with truth soil so as to have a correct standard by which to judge so and we already covered different types of ignorance antecedent consequent commitment antecedent means given no opportunity to take away my ignorance I'm not responsible for that sinful act consequent is I am given opportunities and I refuse to to further in life my intellect with truth I'm responsible and commitment even if someone tells me it doesn't make a difference I'll still do it now so in light of those different types of ignorance we now go to formation of conscience the Catholic Church teaches we're required to form our conscience in accordance with truth both natural and revealed so as to have a correct standard by which to judge so as to make sure our conscience which is an act is in accordance with cinder ESA's which is a habit avoiding evil and doing good natural law let's first define law law is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good by one who has charge of a community or society law is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good by one who has charge of a community or society that comes directly from Thomas Aquinas there are four kinds of law eternal moral Devine natural law and natural law so let's focus on eternal law eternal law it are laws that are in God and God reveals those laws in two ways first one way he reveals it is through Sacred Scripture divinely revealed law as of course interpreted properly by tradition to find the revealed law and another way he reveals his law is through the light of Reason which we call natural law and natural law is natural not in respect to irrational creatures but respect to our natures because we have a reason and we can reflect on creation which is created by a reasonable creator and we can find discover with our reason certain laws within that reasonableness within the creation that reflects the reasonableness of a creator so eternal law moral laws divine law natural law discovered by reason distinguished from laws of nature which are proper to irrational creatures but natural law is not being defined in this way natural law refers to laws that guy had that that are in creation that reflect God's goodness his truth and that I because I have a reason unlike a rational creatures can bring my mind in correspondence with so let's focus on natural law again not in reference to rational creatures but in reference to rational creatures implies a creator that has written laws including moral laws in nature natural law according to catechism is eternal permanent immutable mutable means unchangeable throughout history so eternal law moral law laws of nature natural law eternal law laws all in God because God is the source of all law and then we have moral laws and those moral laws are revealed in Scripture but even apart from Scripture I can have access to moral laws than that to the natural light of Reason laws of nature are proper to irrational creatures and we've already covered natural laws difference between old law and new law the old law is the law of the Old Testament which taught what to do but didn't give us the ability to do what we're taught to do the new law teaches what the Old Testament taught and with greater intensity but give us gives us the ability to do what we ought to do and that ability is called grace it actually is more of a relationship it actually is a relationship it's a relationship of Jesus Christ with us where Jesus Christ has untreated grace second person Blessed Trinity we collaborate with that uncreated grace and from that perspective our collaboration is created so old law teaches us what to do but doesn't give us a relationship in order to do what we ought to do the new law gives us the means that grace to do what we ought to do let's now move forward to influence of grace on morals man cannot avoid sin without the help of grace initial grace cannot be merited after initial grace man can merit by participating in the perfect merit of Jesus so and we have covered this in dogma already of initial grace and after initial grace so before additional grace I cannot merit anything it's a pure gift after initial grace I have a relationship with Jesus then I can merit yes because I participate in this perfect merit now in moral theology we're going to add a little more which is I cannot avoid sin without the help of grace without that relationship with Jesus Christ with God if I just rely myself to do good and think I can do that that's called the heresy of Pelagianism which Saint Agustin thought 354 430 is when he lived he fought directly with Pelagius so we need grace to avoid sin even before the fall this is dogmatic teaching even before the fall man could not obey the Ten Commandments out of charity for a supernatural end without grace to achieve a supernatural end month man must have a supernatural help grace and that applies before and after the fall it's actually a lot of common sense in order to obtain a supernatural end which is beyond what nature can provide I need supernatural help that's another way of saying I need grace even before the fall because they could obey the Ten Commandments but there's another requirement is to do it out of charity for a supernatural end that they need supernatural help nature of virtue let's first read what the Catechism the Catholic Church says human virtues are first attitudes stable dispositions habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions or our passions and guide our conduct according to reason and faith and you are required to know cardinal virtues theological virtues infused moral virtues for cardinal dirt virtues prudence justice fortitude and temperance sometimes people identify justice as courage which is fine but I'm going to just focus on afford to not and not instead of prudence justice courage temperance will stay with the more traditional terms prudence justice fortitude temperance and not used fortitude these are Cardinal because they're considered hinge virtues that all other virtues depend on so prudence is right reason apply to action right reason apply to action justice the constant will to give each his due which includes God our parents our friends our country fortitude firmness and face of difficulties temperance moderation when attracted to by pleasure so you have temperance and fortitude they balance each other out when I am in face of difficulties I am constant and temperance when I am tempted to buy pleasure to over to indulge pleasure is not evil in itself but to be excessive then temperance helps me to moderate that so that pleasure I experiences properly word to God he created measure nothing intrinsically evil in it unless of course is embedded within and intrinsically evil act and of course okay so prudence justice fortitude temperance theological virtues these theological virtues directly relate to God and you can get it right from the word because it's from Greek Thais work they all part refers to God and a logical refers to words or reason so these are virtues that directly relate to God there are virtues that are infused in us by God and cannot be acquired they're not natural virtues so I can't think more and more and more and more and read lots of philosophical books with the expectation I'll have faith hope and charity that's a gift from what I can do is ask God for the gift of faith for the gift of hope for the gift of charity faith belief in God and all that he has revealed hope desire for heaven charity love God above all and all creation because of God it's a both/and but first of god above everything and creation because of God so we've covered four cardinal virtues theological virtues now we go to infuse moral virtues along with theological virtues God infuses within us as a gift moral virtues these moral virtues correspond to theological virtues they're distinct from acquired virtues they're distinct from acquired moral virtues God works these virtues in us without us as a Gustin says and the infuse moral virtues what they what they do is they ensure that our acquired human virtues are being done for us too for not the end but I need a supernatural aid in order for that to happen so these along with theological virtues were also infused with moral urges which transform the acquire acquired moral virtues so we follow the Ten Commandments out of love God for a supernatural end because of the supernatural health that we are given by God through the theological virtues and infused moral virtues nature of sin yes confused like theological virtues we practice we acquired yeah so I can acquire it I can acquire it but with infused moral virtues I can't acquire it it's given to me as a gift just as like theological gifts are given to me faith hope and charity so infused moral virtues will correspond to the honesty but but then honesty is being done for a supernatural end but in order for me to be honest for a supernatural end because it's about nature I need to have supernatural help so we're defying their supernatural help and we call it in this implied here infused moral virtues if we go back to even before the fall man could not obey the Ten Commandments out of charity for a supernatural and without grace so he needed theological virtues and infused virtues does that help so I could have I could be a perfectly this is this is theoretically possible I could be the most honest person you have ever met I could be the kindest gentlest sweetest soul that you've ever met but I'm doing everything I'm doing I have acquired all those virtues but I'm not doing for Supernatural and because I lack theological and infused virtues and when I die all of that doesn't mean that I can merit heaven do you see that but notice now once again I'm not immortal Odin so I don't want to go too deeply right now but accurate but coyness goes into this in much more detail and it's very humbling for us so yes acquired virtues are important but no no amount of a prior virtues gives me a right to say that I can have a supernatural end because acquire virtues are being acquired by my own natural effort but I need supernatural help to get a supernatural end to obtain a supernatural end and we're defining that here by infused moral virtues so all those habits are great let's say this person now converts it becomes a Catholic well grace builds upon nature and there's a whole lot there that Greece can now transform does that help okay if you do have any questions both dr. tool and father Mulaney know that this is not like my specialty in my field and you I recommend for now if you send me an email so I give them plenty of time to answer it accurately I've done my best right now okay alright let's now go to nature of sin sin is an offense against reason truth and right conscience another definition sin is an offense against God an utterance a deed or desire contrary to eternal law sustained Agustin has a very simple definition disorder love but I don't want you to it's good to have that definition but right now I want to focus more on the Catechism and of course a very domestic domestically precise definition of sin with respect where it emphasizes more its relationship to truth so an utterance a deed or desire contrary to eternal life four types of sins kinds of sins thought were deed omission you could just memorize that all make sense thought deeds were division and it corresponds to one of these questions here's all of us causes of sin the will is the direct cause of sin let me repeat that again my will is the direct cause of sin when I sin it is because my will is responsible for it exterior acts are indirect causes so let's say someone persuades me to do something okay that's fine but that's their the indirect cause I have to consent in order to do that evil act it can reduce my voluntariness that's true they might persuade me and come up with all sorts of rationalization of why I should do this evil act but nonetheless I'm the one who has to choose to do that out so direct cause is my will exterior objects which here we're also including people are indirect causes mortal and venial sin mortal sin destroys charity charity here's been defined as a theological virtue it severs that relationship that I had with God so venial sin wounds charity but is not separate to be subjectively responsible for an object of mortal sin there needs to be grave matter full knowledge deliberate consent so here we're making a distinction between mortal sin objectively considered and subjectively considered just because I see someone committing a mortal sin objectively speaking does not necessarily mean that they're subject ly responsible for that sin in a moral way they might be they might not be and it might be none of my business to discern it could be if I'm a parent I might or a confessor or spiritual director or someone who's helping trying to help a person out of addictive patterns and they're their counselor or something but often we are called the judge but we're called to judge something as wrong in itself and we leave the judgment of the of the person of the responsibility for that act up to God and that's what Pope Francis how I interpret his phrase when he said what do you say do not judge Who am I to judge I'm sorry I forgot the race on the plane trip so Who am I to judge so if you interpreted according to - here is that means Who am I to judge the person and his responsibility before God but of course he does not mean Who am I to judge an act to be good or evil objectively speaking of course he's on board ok so same as hi let me think of something else Jesus talks about forgiveness we are to forgive people who have done wrong to us right well he and he also tells us judge not lest you be judged the measure you measure out to others will be the measure measured out to you that in that same gospel passage he also talks about to forgive to forgive that your heavenly father forgives you right now I cannot forgive someone unless I first judged something as evil so right there Jesus himself is teaching us to judge to judge something as evil and not good only after that can I then forgive how can I forgive if I already assume that I cannot judge even what is evil from what is good so by affirming aware - and commanding us to forgive Jesus already is commanding us to judge judge something as evil and just something is good but once we have judged that we then forgive so we can't we can't forgive without first judging but in this case that judgment is on the act not on the persons culpability before God their responsibility for God that's the realm of God their intention that's none of my business ordinarily speaking sometimes as I said sometimes parents counselors spiritual directors confessors need to gingerly cautiously go into that God realm of intention a personal responsibility more often than not it's none of our business but it certainly is our business to look both ways before crossing the street it is our business to see that is an objective wrong child you should not do that because I love you and I don't want you to be hurt taking marijuana is gonna hurt you or stealing from a store it's going to hurt you that's wrong it's intrinsically evil it's gonna hurt you it's gonna hurt others and it might you might start having a habit of doing that and children steal and they have to be corrected we all know that little things like a little candy thing so parents are obligated to make judgment okay we've covered the distinction between mortal and venial sin I spent some time on that just so that we make a distinction between what is objectively mortal from what is subjectively mortal to be subject to be responsible for an object of mortal sin grave matter that's the moral that's moral object this which includes both intentionality and the physical species full knowledge I can't be ignorant remember we came up with a different distinction antecedent ignorance consequent and con commitment so I have to have full knowledge and then deliberate consent it's possible for me to commit a intrinsically evil act to know I'm committing evil act and yet because of a force of habit I don't have sufficient deliberate consent I'm struggling matter but nonetheless the person who does it again I don't you could give an example of alcoholism that'd be a good example okay so people struggle I've had a relative who will not name the relative definitely not my father no one you've met is John - okay but he struggled we could say that he struggle with alcoholism well it's possible that he really was trying to be sober and it's grave because we're not to lose our capability of reason he has full knowledge he went through Catholic schools he was blessed with that however he lacks deliberate consent and I think that was very very likely often he just had this very very vicious bad habit and he lacked a liver consent does that help people okay so I hope that his repeated acts of his alcoholism many times were not object or were objectively is sinfully morally wrong but subjectively it's likely he was not responsible for all of those paths that would constitute a mortal sin it didn't sever his relationship with God at least I hope because he died he may have died of liver very likely because it destroys your liver as you know yes that destroys okay so but that's not give you an example of that now there are a consequentialism the end or Consequences chosen can render an evil act even if the act is on the abstract pre moral order is evil in itself a good act hmm I'll do the best I can okay consequentialism first no that is an error okay so according to this error that the end or consequences of an act can render an objectively evil act as a good act that's an error wrong bad by some error consequences so according to this you look at the consequences if the consequences are sufficient then they can even render something that we consider objectively intrinsically evil good that's what it teaches now it teaches it with a little different vocabulary so instead of calling objective instead of using the term moral object okay so that's the term the Catechism uses they use the term abstract pre moral order so they pre more yeah so so we use the word immoral object that is used in the Catechism moral object right an immoral logic can be intrinsically evil and if the moral object is intrinsically evil no matter how good my intention is no matter how good the circumstances are it's wrong not error consequences says that disagrees they don't use the vocabulary moral object rather they use vocabulary of an abstract pre moral order I'm just saying what they teach well I it's fiction but but once again because you might be tested by dr. Toulon and others so if they might ask you this so so they define things differently they define it as there's an abstract be moral order and I respect that and it does teach us a teach us what is good and evil abstractly consider but when you start applying it to life if the consequence is a consequence or an intention can render that abstract pre moral evil a good Act that's what they teach that is contrary to the Catechism the Catholic Church okay so we already came up with the three moral determinants which are moral object intention and circumstances we don't use this language of a pre moral order we don't use that language we don't use the language of an abstract pre moral order this everything can be reduced in a nutshell to a premise that they hold which is the end justifies the means do you see that we hold that theme ends do not justify the means the consequences do not justify a moral object as intrinsically evil okay all right we'll go more into that next class and we can come up with examples but once again I know the father m'lady he taught me was my professor is that he really wants for you to understand the principle before we go into the cases but next week we can go with cases and that might help you to understand the principle okay that's because you're applying it now let's go to fundamental option first their various interpretations of the fundamental option an erroneous interpretation and you can find using John Hardin here an erroneous interpretation is that one cannot commit a mortal sin unless they subjects to flee reject God okay so what does that mean that means that according to this erroneous interpretation of the fundamental option at some point my life I have a conversion to Jesus Christ and the deepest love of my being I fundamentally choose him because of that even if I commit an objective mortal sin I'm not responsible for it unless I subjectively reject that fundamental choice for Jesus Christ john paul ii clearly taught that a person's moral dispositions can be completely changed by particular acts and in so doing he countered an erroneous presentation of the fundamental option the only question on the exam is to explain the error of the fundamental option the erroneous interpretation there are interpretations of the fundamental option that are not problematic but I don't have the ability to explain that I just will say that it is mentioned a magisterial documents and they're very cautious they say there's erroneous interpretations and then interpretations that are not problematic but for the purpose of your exam all you need to know and all I need to teach you is the erroneous interpretation okay and we can go into that more next week formal and material cooperation so form remember link form with will link material with physical acts right so form will intention end material with physical acts formal cooperation is when a person willfully cooperates and evil done by another material cooperation when a person does not willfully cooperate an evil done by another that provides material cooperation so if I may give an example let's say that and here he was a doctor who is performing an abortion okay and his assistant is by his side the doctor says give me a force or whatever the utensils are and his assistant gives him a forceps and the system is not being forced the assistant is cooperating and is cooperating in a way where she willfully consents with his evil act so her but she our form is completely in line with his act so now let's say that there's an immigrant who I'm just trying to come up with something it's imperfect but let's say an undocumented immigrant needs a job for their family and is it finds a job by sweeping outside of a hospital but it's not Planned Parenthood sweeping outside of a hospital and then find out later that the hospital in one section but it's not even where they're in charge of sweeping up is performing abortions so they are materially cooperating in some way but not formally and this undocumented worker is Catholic there they do they completely reject abortion they don't agree with it do you see the difference so there is material operation at some level happening by sweeping the sidewalk they need the money for their family but it's not formal cooperation okay now we're going to go further because we're going to make a distinction between immediate material cooperation and mediate so there's a further distinction but right now if you get this in their mind an assistant of an abortionist that assistant is directly and formally cooperating both of them are engaging materially in Horsham and both of them consent they think that abortion is a good thing and they agree to it even though it's intrinsically evil the undocumented worker sweeping the sidewalk in front of a big hospital and then find out in this section there's a force was put being performed does not formally cooperate because their will does not now let's go to an immediate MIT and that's called material cooperation formal my will consents material I'm doing something I am cooperating but not with my will now immediate material cooperation is always immoral always immoral an assistant who does not agree with the Act but assists a doctor in abortion so let's take that example there's a doctor and there's an assistant the assistant is immediately helping him hand me the forceps the assistant immediately is helping him so now that assistant could be telling herself the whole time that this abortion is long and I disagree with it but keeps on handing him and right by his side so it's immediate that is always a more now immediate material cooperation may be moral and that would be removed from the action like this person sweeping the sidewalk right but for to be moral the principle of double effect needs to apply now if we can just end there with respect to the case that I came up with and we'll go to the principle of double effect and we'll just focus on the principle itself I do have documentation here which will give which should give examples but I want to put aside the example I just gave where I made a distinction between formal and material cooperation and then made a further distinction between immediate cooperation which is always wrong even a person whose will doesn't agree but it's too close to the action and mediate material cooperation which is further removed this sweeper but could be moral if the principal double effect applies I want first now to let go of the case and focus on the principle so principle of double effect the moral act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent okay so the moral act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted there must be a proportionately great reason for pen admitting the evil effect at least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent so I do want to go just bear with me and I want to go to John Hardin and go to the principle of double effect because he has good examples [Applause] yeah yeah it's perfect so so here is um it's on page 140 so if we just focus and stay on the text because once again it's not my specialty here it is oh there it is okay we have an example a classic example of the principle of double effect is the treatment of ectopic pregnancy so okay well it's his example he gives okay so the fertilized egg implants in the wall of the fallopian - of the woman which means that the woman is at risk of dying because of her pregnancy so that fertilized egg is a human being so does the church require for her to die that's question okay so the church does not the principle double effect applies the removal of part of the fallopian tube to prevent or stop the internal bleeding of the what mother is not evil per se miss Murphy is removing the float drill to the preborn baby is not directly aborted the embryo will die for it is too young for viability outside of the mother's womb the purpose of the procedures not to abort their toxic pregnancy the purpose is to save the life of the woman all four conditions called for by the principle of double effect are met in this example okay I'm sure there's an example from warfare would also be an example yeah person who is torpedo and torpedo torpedo torpedoing yes an enemy ship and oh yes well the act in itself is not because it suggests work yes it's a just war but I mean if this ship sinks and their sailors in the ocean yes the opposing naval force has a moral responsibility to save the lives of those so I have a good example I know example because that might confuse people if I make that just jumping and this was totally now I just remember so people go to medical school right in medical school people need to study Anatomy so do artists okay but we'll focus on medical school is more convincing so if medical schools they focus on Anatomy and let's say someone who's a very sensitive conscience goes to confession and says you know I'm studying anatomy and mm-hmm you know I feel excessively attracted every time I look at the pages like looking at a pornographic magazine maybe I should stop stop Medical School so so here is you can ask them well first of all the moral act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent though the the pictures he's looking are not intended to evoke the response he's experiencing okay so that's be pornographic it's just presenting the human body objectively has no intention to bring this effect that he's experiencing so it is morally indifferent just picture of human body the good effect must not be obtained that means of the evil effect so the good effect is knowledge of the human body so that he can heal a human body that's a good effect it's not obtained by means of the evil fact which is disorder of attraction right it's obtained by looking at the page secondarily he has this evil effect but that's not the means by which he gets the good effect third the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted you can ask him well did you go to medical school for the reason to look at these pictures oh of course that and he went to be coming to confession in the first place anyway because so he's struggling with this so no I came to medical school because I want to be a doctor my father was a document mother was doctor I also have you know I'm attracted to the salary position the prestige it goes with it and of course I also like saving people I like helping people so the evil effect is not and must not intended for itself they're only permitted it's permitted there must be a proportionately great reason for permitting the evil effect so here it's more clear in medical school and art school but a medical school it's clear because we need good doctors especially these a very good Kathleen has come to confession we have many doctors who are willing perform abortions not many many but some so you have this there's a proportionately great reason for permitting the evil effect and he's not doing anything beyond mad so at least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent does that help people with that example that was told to me one time so so here is that would be an example of parental double effect I don't know I know because that was explained to me and I remembered it with clarity it made perfect sense to me by a reliable person but I don't know if you can apply how to apply that principle of double effect example I gave you with this undocumented outside of a large Hospital right you need to ask the mall theologian how it applies in that case okay yeah but the one I came with this safe and that's guaranteed that that's a good example of the principle of effective and then there are examples from warfare that John Hardin uses and I thought was here I was almost positive that he came up with a torpedo and there's like he doesn't intend thee the consequences of certain people on the ship yeah it's just to destroy the ship that's right so but next class I'll try to remember to and I'll have my computer with me to to bring John Hardin in the picture and good examples ok ok now let's move forward oh by the way it's good to focus on the principal double effect because I do I do know that many times during the moral portion of the exam this question has come up and students many times have not done well so pluck tried to master the principal double effect and I also speaking to Steven as well so please do so Church's teaching on the evil of contraception as opposed to natural family planning we actually already sort of covered this because we talked about the end of marriage so we were talking about babies and bonding unit of appropriative so through the end of marriage our primary end is proprietary secondary end less important is unity bonding mutual help Tara Ferry end to be fully accurate there is a territory end its least important its end is remedy for concupiscence that comes from revelation 1 Corinthians nine and you can also see it affirm than 59 of caste canoe be true but it's the least important so first procreation second unitive third can coop assess for as a remedy for compasses and that doesn't apply to all people fourth chief reason PI's the Levin says this the chief reason for marriage principal reason is mutual sanctification and perfection of the spouses so that's what makes it a sacrament otherwise we're just on the natural end we're just approaching marriage naturally so yes you have these three ends primary secondary tertiary but let's not forget the primary chief reason you'll find that in Ephesians 5 as well yes perfect yes that procreation and it's also to represent Ana sacrament away Christ's union with this church of these it was in Ephesians so the chief reason is mutual sanctification and perfection of the spouses is that called the metro sir it's you the adjective naturally news is in sacramental theology if you could find me the quotation for that then I'll look at the context parca sacraments by definition have a supernatural life so I'm just confused by it but baptism you can say it's a universal sacrament that's why a Muslim can baptize someone I think so too but I'd like to know the context and I want to be precise so yeah but but if you if you find it then next class we can talk about that but right now at the ends of primary and procreation unitive canoe peasants and the chief leaves and let's not forget that is sanctification perfection of the spouses they help each other they're their friends okay for a supernatural and to see the difference their supernatural and a contraception contraception is disordered since it prioritize prioritizes makes more important a lesser end over a primary the lesser end is unitive and makes that more important over rules appropriate event so marriage is a sacrament of Christ total unconditional self with himself as gift to the church not get sorry gift to the church contraception falsifies the sacramental dimension of marriage since either one or both spouses refrain for giving themselves unconditionally as a total gift in the marital heart so there the church is saying that and because of the chief reason the chief reason is mutual sanctification perfection espouses the sacrament is a sacred sign instituted Christ to give us grace and is also to be a sacred sign of course of heavenly reality so in that sense it falsifies the sacramental dimension of marriage so on that note we move to euthanasia and abortion euthanasia killing those who suffer to end the suffering is gravely immoral killing those who suffer to end the suffering is gravely immoral so that is not in reference to extraordinary means as Valentin who works in a nursing home knows very well discontinuing burdensome medical procedures that are extraordinary is legitimate however we have to give nutrition and hydration as long as the body can accept it you know I can't start forcing water on the person or so but as long as the body it kind of can't accept it then we ought to give at least some hydration and also for charity purposes like my mother was dying well you take a little sponge and you put it on her tongue just so that she doesn't suffer as much so ok so we have that use of painkillers even if they hasten death is legitimate as long as catechism the Catholic Church death is not willed as either an end or a means but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable so my mother did have to take in her dying days she had to take morphine and according to what I read Valentin morphine can hasten death right so here is it was not given in a huge dose of a little bit and it was given to Ana was it wasn't it was given only because the death was foreseen as inevitable she was going to die very soon within a couple days or maybe a week it lessened her pain ana was considered legitimate according to the caste of Catholic to church because it was not the death was not willed either as an end or means there's only for seen as tolerated as inevitable but sometimes morphine is given too much and then it's it's actually death as well as an and or means and Valentino's that happens in the medical world away it was were feeling you really isn't what most people to be die it would think is also for it's giving people but it's normally yeah so so what about the soldier on the battlefield he's going to expire is too much morphine well we need to make a distinction between objectively and subjectively right so because and I have I have actually served directly someone who had his whole torso blown apart and actually a few a couple one who is actually recently taken off the battlefield and I was called a me to the end was really painful to minister but it was very important I see what you're saying well I would say objectively it's wrong well a subjectively well objectively objectively it seems wrong but subjectively is the person responsible for it given all those conditions culpable a level of culpability that's rather than recruiting yes yeah and there's so many there's so many things occurring that does he have full knowledge of what he's doing does he does he have full intentionality emotional responses it's very tricky so father m'lady really recommends that moral theology doesn't focus too much on cases right so so we've we get on the principles and then apply it and then life is very very messy it's very messy but first we need to get the principles down and they need to be clear ingrained in our minds and our hearts and we need to own it so the principle is that discontinuing burdens and medical procedures that are extraordinary is legitimate use of painkillers even if faison death is legitimate as long as death is not willed either as an end or means but only foreseen and tolerate is inevitable it seems that the example you came violates that so which means that's the Catechism it's objectively wrong the same time was trying to say that I I can emotionally and by experience connect with that my service as a contract military chaplain but nonetheless faithful to the Catechism it seems it is a violation of it okay human life is sacred from the moment of and I also knew o matic by the way who lost his mind and I served him in a lockdown psych ward medics have very hard make many hard calls and he lost his mind because he came to this country and he saw basically someone murder before him so like he did graduate out of the lockdown psych ward and I saw him afterwards so human life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death abortion is a grave offense so I don't think we're going to have any problems on abortion here we're very pro-life which is a great blessing next class I will go over all of the questions to systematically go over the questions I hope this video especially for Steven was helpful god bless

Channel: PETER KUCER

Views: 717

Rating: 5 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: E-1hPOEnLuE

Length: 86min 28sec (5188 seconds)

Published: Fri Mar 01 2019