[Warning: long rant on religion and politics follows]
So someone recently made the statement that a Catholic who supported the the invasion of Iraq must be just as morally confused as someone who is pro-choice. Although I provided a clear and concise rebuttal to the originator of the statement ("your stoopid"), I thought I'd explore this statement in a little more detail.
First off, "moral confusion" is an imprecise and ambiguous phrase, so when I use it what I really mean (and what I assume the original commentator meant) is "morally incorrect." "You're confused" as I usually see it used in this context seems to be intended as a more polite way of saying "you're wrong," except it's not more polite because everyone knows what it means, and condescending because it implies the other person isn't emotionally capable of dealing with someone telling them they're wrong.
Let's summarize why someone might be pro-choice (this has been discussed at length on this blog):
1. Unborn babies aren't human, so abortion is not an act that murders a human.
2. There's nothing inherently wrong with murdering innocent people.
3. Unborn babies are human, but it's okay to murder them because they aren't born (or crossed some arbitrary development threshold).
Note that I am assuming that we all accept that something that is inherently immoral is always morally wrong (i.e., if under some circumstances an act is not wrong, then it was not inherently so: the ends cannot justify the means). Item #1 represents "moral confusion" by virtue of incorrect facts. It is morally correct under the premise that unborn babies aren't human, but biology indicates otherwise. Item #2 represents a point of view that most people do not hold, and I don't honestly think the original commentator believes that all those who support the war hold this view. Item #3 is only morally correct with the introduction of a new moral principle that specifically excludes humans of some developmental stage or status from the prohibition against murder. I have never seen a justification, much less a clear statement, of this new principle. This also requires item #2, although supporters of abortion rarely admit it. The only other possible position for someone who supports legal abortion is that it is the immoral murder of an innocent human and should not be prohibited by government. This is an unusual view of the role of government.
In order for supporters of the war to be guilty of the same moral confusion as pro-choicers, then it must be because they believe that fighting a war is not inherently immoral, and possibly that there is some special reason that the invasion of Iraq need not be justified according to traditional just war theory. But the Church teaches explicitly that waging war is not inherently immoral, and proponents of the war that argue it is justified within the traditional just war theory (whether you agree with their reasoning or not) do not require some new moral principle (example example example). Therefore, proponents of the war in Iraq (including one singled out by the original commentator) clearly do not suffer the same "moral confusion" as pro-choicers in any meaningful sense.
The only other context given with the original offending comment was that the "morally confused" should have realized, after five years of tragedy, that the original decision was unjust. This implies that the unintended, undesired, unforeseen consequences can affect whether a decision is just after it has been made, which leads to a ridiculous impossibility of making moral judgments, since all possible effects of a decision cannot be foreseen.
It is a logic error (and perhaps a lack of charity) to assume that those who seem to be wrong on a moral issue must be suffering from deficient moral reasoning. Anyone can understand how identical logic applied to different premises can lead to different conclusions.
The only other statement by the original commentator I wish to comment on is "it is a reflection of ideology, not considered thought, to think that." But how can one think that which is not thought? Please be more clear. Did you mean, "it is a reflection of belief not based on reason"? But that is false on the face of it: as I showed above, the position (support for the war) is reasoned from facts and moral principles. As far as I can tell, this statement means nothing.
Comments are welcome.
Excellent!
ReplyDeleteI too recently got into a discussion with some old friends about how you are a hypocrite if you protest Obama going to ND but didn't protest Bush going there since Bush is pro-war, pro-torture and pro-death penalty.
I linked to http://qando.net/archives/002062.htm to quickly end the pro-war accusation. The comment was of not retracted, but I felt I had nothing to add.
The pro-torture accusation I rebutted since the techniques used were arguably in a grey area. And it wasn’t as if they were widely used on everyone with a speeding ticket, so you couldn’t really accuse Bush of being “pro” when at worst Bush believed that water boarding should be “safe, legal and rare”.
As far as the death penalty goes, I tried to reason that there is no comparison between allowing the murder of helpless innocents and killing someone reasonably found guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. I tried my best to say they weren’t in the same moral category. To help illustrate my claim, I asked which sounds more depraved to you: “I killed only the adult males” or “I killed them all, the women and the children”? To which my very reasonable opponent said, “I find your comment to be extremely sexist”. As soon as I regained consciousness following that knock-out blow to my argument, I asked “in what way?” “Because you think that women must somehow need special protection or should be treated differently”. So I asked “So you really think there is nothing more depraved in killing women and children discounting of course any difference in quantity?” “Yes” I realized at this point that THIS guy was so damned blinded by ideology that he couldn’t even see through to the natural inclinations built into him to protect the women and the children. He apparently didn’t understand why Anakin mentioned it to Padme (or maybe it was because Anakin was guilty of being sexist for mentioning it?). I realized there was absolutely no way to reason with the guy especially since “sexist”, “patriarchal” and “medieval power grab”* were among the comments to follow. It truly was a disappointing end to what might have been a civil discussion.
*that was an accusation leveled at the Catholic Church for not allowing contraception or abortion.
From what I have gathered from reading Morning's Minion on Vox Nova, as well as other anti-this-war Catholics, they seem to think the belief that the war in Iraq is justified based on Just War doctrine is just as factually wrong as the belief that an unborn baby is not human.
ReplyDeleteWhile facts are always fact, we do not always have access to all of them. And when we do have access to all the facts, sometimes it is hard to distinguish which facts are true and which are not fact.
In the case of abortion, the fact of the baby's humanity is beyond reproach: even pro-choice doctors admit to it. There is seriously no counter-argument based on science and biology to disprove that a baby is a human. No one argues that the baby is an elephant or a squirrel.
With the war in Iraq, much of the facts are confused amongst a torrent of media drivel. Whether or not it is justified seems to depend entirely on which set of facts you choose to accept as correct. Do you accept the reported facts that Saddam was developing a WMD program and was in violation of his treaty with the UN? Or do you accept the reported fact that Saddam had no WMD ambitions and the sanctions were working? Obviously, only one set of facts is actually true, and it can be very difficult to decipher which. Very clear, logical, supported arguments can be made for both positions.
The anti-war Catholics who argue that supporting Pres. Bush is just as bad, if not worse, than supporting abortion seem to me to operate under the premise that the facts "proving" that the war is unjust are just as clear and beyond reproach as the Truth of a baby's humanity, and that no logical, rational, fact-based argument can be constructed for a just war in this case.
If the war is in fact unjust, as viewed from God's infinite all-knowing wisdom, then there can be an argument made for the "invincible ignorance" of those who support it: they honestly believed from the facts they had available that the war was just, and they did not know otherwise. A similar argument can be made that a girl who obtains an abortion may have been lied to and told that it was merely an "extraction of menses", and was unaware of the fact of her baby's humanity.
However, an educated Catholic (note how I leave breathing room for that unfortunately large number of Catholics who just plain don't know anything about their faith) has no excuse for not knowing about the evil of abortion. This is a very clearly defined teaching which the Church, really, just won't shut up about.
Concerning Pres. Bush being honored by Notre Dame, no comparison can even be made with honoring Pres. Obama, because IIRC, Bush was honored back in 2002, before any allegations of unjust war or torture could really even be made. The only thing you can fault him on is the death penalty, which is permitted by Catholic moral theology, albeit in rare circumstances. Again, you have an argument about the facts of whether or not his uses of the death penalty fit the bill for Catholic moral teaching. Neither argument can claim that its facts are obviously true and beyond reproach.
Tom, you sexist. How dare you believe that there is a difference between the "genders" and that they aren't interchangeable. A man brutally raping a woman is in no way worse than a male prison convict sodomizing another. To say otherwise would imply that women "need" men's protection. Also, guns are evil and women should not have them, since they don't need them to protect themselves, as they are perfectly equal to men in all things.
good point on the 2002 fact.
ReplyDeleteWell. Said. Joe. You've stated exactly what I was getting at in my argument.
ReplyDeleteTom: I gave up on appeals to emotion long ago, because that's how we get things like Sea Kittens.
As much as I normally can't stand Morning's Minion and his ilk, I really do think they have a point about the Iraq War vis a vis abortion.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about people on the left with abortion is that they want to deny ever having to make a moral judgment while, at the same time, making the moral judgment. Take Blackmun's decision in Roe v. Wade, for example. He says "the moral status of fetuses are unclear," and then goes on to say, "luckily we don't have to decide that thorny question," and goes on to give women the abortion license. The problem, of course, is that he HAS decided the issue -- against the unborn. He just doesn't want to admit it. The same was true of Obama. He'll beat around the bush (pun intended); the question of the moral status of the embryo is "above his pay grade." The problem with that is, of course, that you can't avoid the question. The embryo either is entitled to protection as a human being, or it isn't.
The same is true with the Iraq war. Either it is a just war, or it isn't. We ought not be moral relativists like Obama and the left and act like we can never determine the moral status of the war. The Catholic Church has set out guidelines in its just war teaching for how to determine the moral status of the war. Why do people on the right dodge the question, instead of attempting to apply that teaching in arguing for the justness of the war? I mean, I hear alot about Saddam having WMDs, and helping the Iraq people escape a dictatorship -- noble goals, to be sure, but how do those fit into the Catholic Church's just war framework? No one says. Just like the left on abortion.
I want to be very clear -- I'm not raising these points to be a rabblerouser, nor to cast aspersion on those who, like our resident whale biologist, have served nobly in our military (something I regard highly and wish I had an opportunity to do). I just think, in order to be an effective witnesses to the truth on the abortion issue, we have to have a consistent pro-life ethic. And that means admitting that the Iraq War fails Catholic Just War teaching.
One further point: We rightly put the onus on those who want to destroy a fetus or embryo to show that it does not deserve protection. If the moral status of the embryo/fetus is unclear, we should err on the side of protecting life.
ReplyDeleteThe same is true of war: if the facts are murky, that should counsel AGAINST the justness of the war, not for it. In every war there is going to be innocent people that die. Everyone knows that going in. That's why just war teaching tells us to be very, very careful when making this decision. It's not just you go to war and only kill the guilty bad people. That's not the reality of war, as the deaths of so many civilians in Iraq have attested.
Paul: I'm not arguing for moral relativism. The war is either just or unjust, and not so merely "from a certain point of view". My argument is that whether or not it is just or unjust, the facts are more open to interpretation than the case of abortion.
ReplyDelete"Why do people on the right dodge the question, instead of attempting to apply that teaching in arguing for the justness of the war?"
I despise this argument. It sounds like the politician who claims that his opponent only attacks him because he can't meet him on the issues. I despise it mainly because virtually every commentator on the right that I have listened to has applied Just War teaching to the war, in the months leading up to the war, while it was being fought, and after the conclusion. To claim that they have not, and are dodging the question is a straw man.
The Whale Biologist has linked an article providing details for why the offenses of Saddam's Iraq were lasting, grave, and certain. You can disagree with the facts or their accuracy, and you can disagree that they satisfy the criteria for a just war, but it is disingenuous to claim that Just War doctrine has not been applied.
In short, do not claim that those Catholics, having applied Just War doctrine and seeing a fit with this war, are not pro-life and are no different than Obama or Blackmun, who refuse to discuss the morality of abortion.
Lastly, I do not think that just because the facts are not crystal-clear enough to have convinced every last person does not necessarily mean that they are not clear enough to go to war. There were those who thought that we should not have fought World War II.
Except you are not applying the Church's just war teaching, Joe. Here's what the Catechism says on War:
ReplyDelete"AVOIDING war:
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. BECAUSE OF THE EVILS AND INJUSTICES THAT ACCOMPANY **ALL** WAR, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ANCIENT BONDAGE OF WAR.104
2308 ALL CITIZENS AND ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE OBLIGED TO WORK FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF WAR.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, ONCE ALL PEACE EFFORTS HAVE FAILED."105
2309 The STRICT CONDITIONS for legitimate DEFENSE by military force REQUIRE RIGOROUS CONSIDERATION. The GRAVITY of such a decision makes it subject to RIGOROUS CONDITIONS OF MORAL LEGITIMACY. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the AGGRESSOR on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and CERTAIN;
- ALL OTHER MEANS of putting an end to it MUST HAVE BEEN SHOWN to be IMPRACTICAL OR INEFFECTIVE;
- there must be SERIOUS PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. THE POWER OF MODERN MEANS OF DESTRUCTION WEIGHS VERY HEAVILY in evaluating this condition."
The emphases are, of course, mine. I don't see how a person, reading that passage honestly, can conclude that the Iraq war (comes close to meeting the letter and spirit of that passage.
I'm not pointing this out just to show how much better a person I am than you, Joe. I'm not. Unlike the Church's teaching on abortion, which is very easy for me to get behind, I really struggle with the implications of the Church's teaching on just war. As a lover of military history -- and this country's military history, in particular -- I find this teaching startling because it seems to call into question the justness of every war the United States has fought in its history. But that's what the Church teaches, and I'm obliged to honor the doctrine, whether I agree with it or not.
Oh, I ought really to have highlighted the "right of lawful self-defense" in section 2308. To me, that's where the whole Iraq war breaks down. How can one say the United States was exercising the "right of lawful self-defense" in fighting a pre-emptive war? It just makes no sense.
ReplyDelete2309 reaffirms 2308. It speaks in terms of "legitimate defense" from the "aggressor."
One final thought and I'll begone; well actually two. The first is that I love you all and I hope this disagreement does not get in the way of our friendships. As you guys are surely aware, I ain't infallible. So if I am wrong on all this, I appreciate you putting up with me.
ReplyDeleteThe second point is that I urge you to really take the issue of the justness of the Iraq War to prayer and wrestle with it. I will try to do the same.
Peace out,
PH
I do not see 2308 precluding the possibility of preemptive action. If my neighbor has stated his intention to kill me and is loading his firearm, I do not think I have to wait for him to shoot at me before I can defend myself.
ReplyDeleteBut if you want specific instances of aggression from Iraq, the article that Tom linked quotes the House Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force Against Iraq:
"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including... by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council."
Iraq had attacked the US military prior to the invasion. Whether or not that alone warrants invasion is, of course, highly debatable.
Do not think that I harbor ill will towards you, or that I am mad at you. If you honestly believe that war was not justified, I would think less of you for not arguing against it. My insistence that the facts in the case of the war are unclear derives specifically from an attempt to reconcile how different people that I respect so much and consider so wise disagree so radically on so severe an issue. Mark Shea is not an immoral idiot, nor is Hugh Hewitt. That alone makes addressing this issue complex.
Well, it's important to remember that the invasion was not properly a new "pre-emptive" war, although described by many as such, but a resumption of full-scale military operations post cease-fire. Saddam had been continuously engaged in flaunting the cease-fire, military action against the coalition, direct material support for terrorism, attempted assassination (against President H.W. Bush) basically since the end of the 1991 invasion. Invading again in 2003 was self-defense.
ReplyDeleteThe US worked for many years for the avoidance of war. UN 1441 was part of this process. Saddam's response made it clear by 2003 that all peace efforts had failed and that there was no international authority with the necessary competence and power.
All conditions seem to be met.
Hmm, well, F.U. News editors seem to be all competing in a dead-horse-beating competition.
ReplyDeleteAnd PH, there's always a Wii controller here for you whenever you want to come "school" us in Mario Kart.
Of course this aint going to be a problem with our friendship, Paul. I love you, man*. I will of course keep praying as well, and I do not treat the idea of war lightly but with the utmost concern that the Church demands of us. I especially respect the faith you put in Church teaching.
ReplyDelete*had to through in 'man' at the end just to keep the sentence macho.
I say the best 17 out of 32 Mario Kart races wins the argument!
ReplyDelete*gratuitously kicks dead horse in ribs*
Joe,
ReplyDelete"I do not see 2308 precluding the possibility of preemptive action." Well, possibly, but, again, we're talking about actualities here. And it was not like Iraq was holding a loaded firearm to our country's head. And the Joint Resolution does not say otherwise. Common on, let's be serious. The bottom line is that Iraq was no threat to us. Our military, as was shown, could pulverize Saddam's in a heartbeat. Given that fact, how could the invasion have been in self-defense? I do not see it.
Firing on our soldiers -- who are on Iraqi soil or in Iraqi airspace -- is a good deal different than actually presenting a threat to our nation. To say that simply firing on our soldiers necessitates the use of our "right to legitimate self defense" would make the restraints of just war teaching meaningless, as every Gulf-of-Tonkin incident would be license to invade a country. As you recognize, firing on our military personnel by itself does not warrant invasion.
*briefly looks up from the dead horse* I cannot believe we're still having this discussion. *resumes kicking*
ReplyDeleteAs President and Dictator-for-Life of this blog, I hereby ban all further discussion of the justifications of the war. That topic is 6 years late. The topic at hand is whether Catholics who support the war are just as confused as Catholics who support abortion.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I'm banning everyone who has disagreed with me on anything ever.
While I'm on a power trip, I also demand that all further posts begin and end with "Joe is the greatest, the greatest in the world." Failure to comply will result in me taking my ball and going home. And I won't like you anymore.
Dave is hereby censured for having the audacity to bring up an interesting topic of discussion that provoked meaningful, thought-out civil discourse, in violation of the Rules for Posting.
And lastly, on that note, you are all awarded negative points for failing to follow the rules for posting. I did not even see anyone address anyone else as "ghey". Fail.
P.S. You are ghey.
ha ha! Ban away, Joe. I ought not to have posted an after-the-this-is-my-last-post post, anyway.
ReplyDeleteHope ya'll's wifies and kiddies are doing well. Oh, and congrats on the baby, Joe! That is totally awesome.
As for you Mr. Whale proctolog ..., er biologist, you darn well better tell me the next time you are in Indiana.
PH
Ok, now that I came a day late, neuron short to this discussion, I want to bring up another half-dead horse that barely slipped under the radar in Tom's post: "It is similar to the mistake I see many Christians do with abortion by blending it with morality on contraception. I’m sure they think they are raising the gravity of contraception up to the gravity of abortion, but they in fact reduce the seriousness of abortion to merely the seriousness of contraception. The two don’t exist in the same moral league."
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE they belong in the same league! The contraceptive mentality is what LEADS to abortion, and most contraception IS ABORTIFACIENT.
Ok, discuss.
--Cari
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, typos in the previous two posts I removed. Here it is in somewhat better form.
ReplyDeleteJoe is the greatest, the greatest in the world.
Negative, Cari. Porn also leads to other sins too like cheating, but watching porn is not as bad as actually cheating on your spouse. But even that example isn't great since no one is actually murdered in that analogy, so I don't even have an analogy with as much gravity.
Anyone saying that contraception (not abortafacients) is equal in seriousness to abortion doesn't do the abortion argument any favors.
Now as far as converting people's lives personally, you do need to get them away from contraception since it is a gateway to worse sins like abortion as well as being a serious sin too.
You know pride is listed as one of the capital sins (CCC 1866) since it engenders other sins, but it is not listed among the "sins that cry to heaven". And no, even if you wanted to take "the sin of the Sodomites" to make the claim that sexual misconduct is equally as wrong as murder, do you really want to say that "injustice to the wage earner" is equally as wrong also? They do not have the same gravity.
Abortafacients regardless of marketing can't possibly be contraceptives (at least not at the same time) since you can't abort that which hasn't been conceived. And no I will not bend to your fertilization-vs-conception definitions. Conception will always mean to me that sperm met egg, fell in love with egg, dated egg, got cold feet, dumped egg, and only after egg met other sperm realized how good he really had it and begged egg to come back at which point egg takes sperm back and they live happily ever after.
So in conclusion, even if everyone else is mixed up in the head, when I say "contraceptives" and "contraception" I'm not talking about "abortafacients". When I say "abortion", I am including "abortafacients".
So Tom, you are basically saying that the term "contraception" only applies to condoms or other barrier methods, correct?
ReplyDeleteBecause the entire rest of the WORLD uses the term "contraception" for what is actually "early abortion."
If you are going to go around changing the terminology, then I agree with you. Barrier methods are not "as grave" as mini-abortions.
But from here on out I INSIST that you use the correct terminology, or else you will be challenged by Catholics all over the place, and infighting is divisive.
On a side note, your analogy about pornography raises an interesting point. You said that watching porn is not as grave as actually cheating, but Jesus Himself EQUATED looking at a woman with lust TO adultery, so theologically speaking, they are one and the same thing.
At this point, the only thing I challenge about your original statement is your TERMINOLOGY. To quote the inimitable Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that a word. I do not think a it means what a you think a it means."
--Cari
Joe is the greatest, the greatest in the world.
ReplyDeleteWelcome Cari! I hate to go all biblical on you but I think you're referring to Matthew 5:28 which says "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." That is, he's committed a sin of desire (against the 9th commandment), not actual adultery (the 6th). If the two were the same, a healthy male would be risking eternal damnation every time he went to the beach.
As for terminology, I have to agree with Tom. Words mean things. If the "whole world" (meaning a lot of people) uses the words in a way other than what they mean, then the "whole world" should be politely corrected. To do otherwise would be to surrender language to those who pervert its meaning, like the PC crowd. "Chairman" is not a sexist term!
Dave, adultery is adultery, whether in the heart or with the body. Though I guess if we are saying that some mortal sins are "worse" than others, I see your point.
ReplyDeleteI would LOVE to retake the language surrounding prolife issues. I would totally support an effort to get the terms "chemical abortion" to replace the term "contraception" when applicable. However, because neither the culture nor the medical community has embraced language reflective of the truth, it is difficult to have meaningful discussions about the topics. A clarification of language will always be needed.
In that sense, Tom's definitions are BETTER than the ones in common use. But they are not the widely-accepted ones, and that is my only criticism of his original statements.
--Cari
Dave,
ReplyDeleteRegarding adultery, you said:
If the two were the same, a healthy male would be risking eternal damnation every time he went to the beach.Yes, I think that's accurate and I think Cari is right. That's what I remember JPII teaching in "Blessed are the Pure of Heart." However, I think "lustfully" refers to "desiring to be one flesh."
This is also JPII's exegesis and teaching--teaching conducted during his Wednesday audiences. I don't know how much force it holds for our respective consciences.
Joe is the greatest, the greatest in the world.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I'm probably pulling Rule 6 again, but here goes anyway.
First on Iraq:
While there are certainly arguments that can be and were made that would (attempt to?) justify the Iraq war without bringing the ’91 Gulf war into the discussion, I want to focus on the treaty alone. Can we accept as a premise that during the ’91 Gulf War we would have been justified rolling into Baghdad and arresting/killing Saddam? Go ahead and throw moral conditions on it, but can we justify that act somehow? If no, proceed to discussion on adultery. If yes, us not rolling into Baghdad was a promise made on the condition that Saddam uphold his end of the cease-fire agreement, an agreement that was not morally required but was a generous gift by us to avoid further loss of life – primarily loss of life on their side since the us to them dying ration was somewhere between 1:100 and 1:1000. If one cannot justifiably enforce through military action a morally reasonable cease fire (please let me know if you think the Gulf War 1 treaty was unreasonable), then what reason is there to grant such one sided cease fires? It would seem to me that if I could justify rolling into Baghdad in ’91, but I couldn’t in 2003 even based on his numerous and blatant and immoral violations of our extremely reasonable ’91 cease fire, then we must have made a huge mistake in granting the cease fire in the first place.
This kind of moral reasoning (assuming you accept my earlier premises) kind of reminds me of squatter’s rights nonsense. Suppose I, out of charity, allow some homeless guy to become a tenant in a vacancy I have. But then suppose he either becomes a lousy tenant or I finally have a paying customer. If someone enacted a law that said “if you have a tenant that has been there for X days, you can’t throw him out regardless of the arrangement (even charity)”, well then it would have been stupid of me to have been charitable in the first place. With this kind of situation, I’m limited in the amount of kindness I can dole out not because of my resources now, but because I won’t be allowed to do the right thing in the future (the right thing being to provide for my family).
So in conclusion, if one will not allow me, Dictator of the world Tom Adams, to enforce my cease fire agreements with military action when they are so unreasonably violated, then I will never again make a generous cease fire agreement. Instead I will destroy their cities and rub salt into the ground so that I never have to deal with enforcing a generous cease fire agreement.
Next on adultery:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what to site, but it just seems like common sense to me that wanting to kill your neighbor in your heart is not as grave a sin as actually trying to kill your neighbor in action. So to with adultery.
Perhaps there is some confusion in the whole realm of mortal sin. I remember having a silly discussion with some FUS grads about mortal sin where their conclusion was "If they both send you to hell, what's the difference?". This sounds to me very much like a protestant “all sins are the same” philosophy.
The way I was taught (again, it'd take me to long to try to find what to site), all sins have a magnitude even if they do cross the mortal-venial border into mortal town. I think most would agree that "killing them all, the women and the children" is worse than adultery though both may be mortal. While Dante is certainly not scripture, I never heard anyone dispute his understanding of mortal sins requiring differing degrees of punishment. But then again, maybe the Church has taught against that and I was never sent the memo (my Pope-fax has been down for a year now).
So in conclusion, I don’t think it is correct to say that lusting after someone is just as grave as actually committing the act of adultery. I want to think, no offense to Mr. P, there must have been more to JPII’s teaching. I have found myself in the awkward position of disagreeing with JPII’s judgment 3 times (death penalty, Gulf War I, Gulf War II). At least those 3 times were matter of judgment and not faith and morals. If I’m wrong on the whole magnitude thing, I’m going to have to have a serious overhaul of premises.
Sorry that the adultery thing is a sideshow on the same forum as the Iraq war debate. I support the troops, and I believe we believed we had just cause to go to war or we wouldn't have. That's my opinion, and I don't get more technical about it.
ReplyDeleteAs for there being "graver" mortal sins than others, I think the distinction has to be made between the consequences of the sin on the individual and also on the people around him. If a man wants to kill his neighbor in his heart but doesn't, it is a mortal sin that will send him to hell if unrepented of; actually killing his neighbor is just as grave a sin as far as the sinner's eternal destination goes, but there is the added societal consequence that his neighbor is now missing from the race of living human beings. Obviously, that is why we have additional consequences in our justice system for such crimes--like jail, capital punishment, etc.
I don't know where it is doctrinally, but I believe in the tradition that there are different levels of hell just as there are different levels of joy in heaven. Every man will be rewarded or punished according to his choices, knowledge, etc., and he will be as miserable in hell or as full of joy in Heaven as it is subjectively possible for him to be.
--Cari
Joe is the greatest, the greatest in the world.
ReplyDeleteSince someone demanded during work hours that I site some Church source or my argument would fail to convince them, I decided "To hell with work!" and offer as evidense the first website that Google's "I feel lucky" button gives me:
Homestarrunner.comAn exerpt:
Some sins admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy, hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo), unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.
Gravity
While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John 19:11; Matthew 11:22; Luke 6), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. ii, a. 9; I-II.73.5).
I don't know if newadvent.com counts as "Church teaching" specifically, but if you really still want to argue, I can't source any better than they can.
But perhaps xkcd.com also has some clues:
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
So I may not have “proof” that the phrase “adultery is worse than adultery-in-heart”, but I think I did just demonstrate that there are differing degrees of gravity for mortal sin. I think my claim that adultery is graver than adultery-in-heart flows from reason as mentioned above.
Is researching "mortal sin" during work hours a sin? If so, venial or mortal?
That is a good source. However, when you and I had this discussion at work, Tom, our disagreement was not on the matter of gravity in general, but on the matter of the effect of sin on the individual's soul. You contend the graver the sin, the graver the effect on the soul. I contend that all mortal sin cuts one off from God's grace, whether you murder a thousand people or steal a million dollars. The effect on the soul, despite the difference in gravity of a MORTAL sin, is the same: "The first effect of mortal sin in man is to avert him from his true last end, and deprive his soul of sanctifying grace. The sinful act passes, and the sinner is left in a state of habitual aversion from God."
ReplyDeleteI will use the analogy of drowning. One is either dead or he is not dead (not allowing for "mostly dead" here). Whether you are deprived of oxygen for 20 minutes of 5 hours, you're still drowned and dead. Whether you swallow a bucket of sea water or 10 buckets, you're still drowned and dead. With mortal sin, whether you have committed 100 or 1000, you're still cut off from grace.
Also, in the case of adultery, how would you explain your source's statement:
"An efficacious desire, i.e. one that includes the deliberate intention to realize or gratify the desire, has the same malice, mortal or venial, as the action which it has in view...The pleasure taken in a sinful thought (delectatio, gaudium) is, generally speaking, a sin of the same kind and gravity as the action which is thought of."
This is EXACTLY what Christ indicated in His own statement on adultery.
Now, as far as EFFECTS (on the Body of Chrisy and society) go, obviously adultery with the body is graver than with the heart because it hurts more people (both spouses, the 'other man/woman,' any children involved, etc.) than adultery "with the heart." With that I can agree.
--Cari
A few typos there. Sorry. I meant Body of ChrisT. Not Body of Chrisy.
ReplyDelete--Cari
I’m not sure if you are changing the discussion slightly now. I may have made some false statements on the margins of the discussion, but in general the discussion was about the gravity of a sin. As far are some mortal sins graver being than others, I stand by that. Again, no one is arguing the that some mortal sins won’t send you to hell. Now we must admit though that a sin being graver must mean something with respect to the sinner committing it. What complicates the issue is when we try to muddle it up by not talking about mortal sins with “all other things being equal”. I already know that varying levels of intent, knowledge, malice… affect your soul overall. But, again, all things being equal, it says above that “murder is worse than stealing”. It doesn’t say to us humans but not to God/our soul which is what the “EFFECTS (on the Body of Chrisy and society)” appeared to imply to me.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, just the same as we can be in a state of grace or in an even greater state of grace (or do we not grant that some people can be in a greater state of grace than others? Please site), we can also be in a lesser or greater separation from grace. I don't see what the point of labeling some sins graver or less grave means if not to speak about their affect on our soul or to God.
I reject the drowning analogy since I don't consider grace/seperation from grace to be a merely on/off situation. I believe it has magnitude. And while there is no magnitude to death on earth, I'm not convinced that there isn't a magnitude to damnation where you can be more or less damned (ie rings of hell kind of stuff). If I'm wrong, please site.
Now the "efficacious desire" bit. Now you got me. That might actually tie the 9th commandment to the 6th solidly, but not at the expense of my premise which was that some mortal sins are graver than others. This might simply be a case of, "yes, but those thought-of ones are equal to the I-actually-did ones". I don't have anything to site to the contrary... for now.
Joe is the greatest, the greatest in the world.
ReplyDeleteSo going back to what started the porn-viewing vs adultery discussion:
I stand by my claim that mortal sins vary in gravity and that the sin of abortion is graver than fornication. And that is why I don’t like the abortion argument being muddled up with sexual morality.
Of course I suppose you could shoot back “But blasphemy* is graver still, and I don’t see you trying to stop that in society”… to which I say… touché.
Maybe I have different reasons for needing to separate out contraception from the abortion argument apart from the gravity of sin, but I haven’t come up with a formal argument on that yet.
*please don't argue that blasphemy isn't graver. Instead just show that abortion/murder is the gravest, or if you can't, then just substitute whatever you think is graver than abortion/murder**.
**Not sexual sins! Unless you can back it up.
I am the greatest, the greatest in the world.
ReplyDeleteAt some long-ago point, this became the most-commented FU-News post. Congratulations Dave for making it, and congratulations everyone else for contributing.
Concerning contraception v. abortion: contraception is a matter of the 6th commandment, and therefore does not fall under the purview of governmental regulation. Abortion is a matter of the 5th commandment, and is therefore something that any just government ought to eliminate.
Concerning the drowning 5 minutes vs. 5 hours, this is how I think of it. While this analogy works only for comparing dying in the state of mortal sin from one lesser sin or one graver sin, it does not take into account the possibility of redemption, which is possible at any point before death. If you compare brain tissue damage to health of the soul, the brain tissues of the 5-hour drowned soul are far more damaged than those of the 5-minute drowned soul. It would be far easier to repair the damage of the 5-minute drowning than the 5-hour one. So while someone who has murdered may be just as hell-bound as someone who has lusted, it is far easier for he who has merely lusted to repent. His conscience is less damaged.
And, no, I'm not citing sources. I'm the greatest, remember?