Ask a Question - or - Return to the Faith and Spirituality Forum Index

Question Title	Posted By	Question Date
Moral absolutes	Paul	Thursday, September 24, 2009
Question: The potential for serious harm or death mitigates the seven "love your neighbor" commandments to narrow their scope. For example, regarding the 5th commandment, killing someone is not murder if done in self-defense. For 7th commandment, taking property that isn't yours is not stealing if you are starving or in grave need of shelter. And regarding the 8th, telling an untruth to someone who does not deserve the truth is not a lie. This leaves us with the fifth. If such a situation arose that a man's wife is held hostage and the hostage taker claims he will kill the wife if he does not have sex with another particular woman, would this act of adultery be justified? If the man believed the only way of saving his wife's life was to commit adultery, would this be justified and would it even be called adultery? I'm not asking if the act would be good, but justified. If yes, what does this say about the idea of adultery being a moral absolute?
Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM Dear Paul: Moral theology and civilized philosophy states that the "ends does not justify the means". No matter how good the end result may be, we cannot get to that end result through methods that are evil, unethical, or immoral. The Catechism states: I. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS 1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men"). The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. 1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. This teaching and moral absolute must be the governing factor in determining specific cases of actions and their ends. Thus, your analysis is incorrect. Some of the error is in misunderstanding moral theology. For example with the Fifth Commandment. The Fifth Commandment is not suspended just because one is defending oneself. Rather, we have to take into consideration the principles of moral theology. We have a right and even a duty to defend ourselves, but we cannot "intend" to kill the intruder or attacker. Rather, the the principle of "double effect" applies whereby in the course of defending oneself killing the other person becomes necessary as the only possible way to defend oneself. The intention is to stop the attacker, not to kill the attacker, but killing the attacker may be required in order to defend oneself. The Catechism explains: 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not." 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. 2264 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. ... The 7th Commandment is not suspended because one is starving and in need of shelter. One cannot commit a sin even if the commission of the sin leads to a good end. This is the excuse many inner city criminal use. They believe they have no choice but to steal in order to survive. This is false. To sin to survive is an act of faithlessness and lack of trust in God. God promises that He will provide if we depend upon him. Read the Sermon on the Mount. Concerning the 8th Commandment, again the commandment is not suspended for any reason. So what can we do in certain critical circumstances? St. Thomas More gives us an example. One can look for a technical loophole, as he did, that allows one to do something without compromising the truth. Thomas More tried to find such a loophole where he could technically give his affirmation to King Henry VIII's request for a signed oath, while yet not compromising his Catholic faith. More could not find that technical loophole and thus refused to sign the oath and was illegally executed as a result. In a biography of St. Thomas More is this notation: In 1534 he was one of the people accused of complicity with Elizabeth Barton, the nun of Kent who opposed Henry's break with Rome, but was not attained due to protection from the Lords who refused to pass the bill until More's name was off the list of names. In April, 1534, More refused to swear to the Act of Succession and the Oath of Supremacy, and was committed to the Tower of London on April 17. More was found guilty of treason and was beheaded on July 6, 1535. His final words on the scaffold were: "The King's good servant, but God's First." The method of the Saint can be applied in other dilemmas. For example, during World War II there were many Catholics who hid Jews in their houses and property. When the SS troops came knocking on the door asking, "Do you have any Jews here?" what should we say that will not be a technical lie, but will also help to save our Jewish friends? The question is, "Do you have any Jews here?" Well, the Jews we are hiding may be in the barn out back thus they are not "here" in the house. We can tell the soldiers that they are not here and that will not be a lie, as they are not "here", in the house. Is this a deception? Yes, because we know what the soldiers want but are using a loophole in the definition of "here" to avoid telling them where the Jews are at. Is is a lie? technically no if we interpret "here" in the way we have in this illustration. There are some who would say that this is too much "splitting hairs" and a lie is a lie is a lie, that any deception is a lie, that knowing what the soldiers mean when they asked their question and thus not answering it with that understanding is a lie. The Catechism tells us that "No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it." Certainly the SS soldiers do not have the right to know where are Jewish friends are at so that they may kill them. In the same paragraph of the Catechism (2489) it is stated that "the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not to be known or for making use of a discreet language." Here the Church is telling us that we can be silent when asked the question or can use "discreet" language (tricky rhetoric) that technically tells the truth, but at the same time does not reveal the truth to those who ought not know it. Thus, if there is no technical way to avoid telling the truth to a person who does not deserve to know it, our only choice is to say, "I will not tell you" or be silent. On the 6th Commandment the scenario you give is not adultery should the person decide to do what he is told. Thus, the 6th Commandment is not violated. Rape or other force whereby a person has sex against his will is not adultery. It is not a sin. If someone puts a gun to your head, or to a loved one's head, and says, "do this or you die", you are under duress and being forced at gunpoint. No sin is committed. Sin must be voluntarily willed. Adultery and the rest of the Ten Commandments are moral absolutes. But, as it is with all of Scripture, one cannot just pluck out a few verses and interpret them in a vacuum without understanding the whole of scripture and the principles of moral theology. Thus, such principles as that double-effect and the nature of an action under duress must be part of our analysis. God Bless, Bro. Ignatius Mary Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below: Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum. Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum

Question Title

Posted By

Question Date

Moral absolutes

Paul

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Question:

The potential for serious harm or death mitigates the seven "love your neighbor" commandments to narrow their scope. For example, regarding the 5th commandment, killing someone is not murder if done in self-defense. For 7th commandment, taking property that isn't yours is not stealing if you are starving or in grave need of shelter. And regarding the 8th, telling an untruth to someone who does not deserve the truth is not a lie.

This leaves us with the fifth. If such a situation arose that a man's wife is held hostage and the hostage taker claims he will kill the wife if he does not have sex with another particular woman, would this act of adultery be justified? If the man believed the only way of saving his wife's life was to commit adultery, would this be justified and would it even be called adultery?

I'm not asking if the act would be good, but justified. If yes, what does this say about the idea of adultery being a moral absolute?

Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM

Dear Paul:

Moral theology and civilized philosophy states that the "ends does not justify the means". No matter how good the end result may be, we cannot get to that end result through methods that are evil, unethical, or immoral.

The Catechism states:

I. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

This teaching and moral absolute must be the governing factor in determining specific cases of actions and their ends.

Thus, your analysis is incorrect. Some of the error is in misunderstanding moral theology. For example with the Fifth Commandment. The Fifth Commandment is not suspended just because one is defending oneself. Rather, we have to take into consideration the principles of moral theology. We have a right and even a duty to defend ourselves, but we cannot "intend" to kill the intruder or attacker. Rather, the the principle of "double effect" applies whereby in the course of defending oneself killing the other person becomes necessary as the only possible way to defend oneself. The intention is to stop the attacker, not to kill the attacker, but killing the attacker may be required in order to defend oneself.

The Catechism explains:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2264 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. ...

The 7th Commandment is not suspended because one is starving and in need of shelter. One cannot commit a sin even if the commission of the sin leads to a good end. This is the excuse many inner city criminal use. They believe they have no choice but to steal in order to survive. This is false.

To sin to survive is an act of faithlessness and lack of trust in God. God promises that He will provide if we depend upon him. Read the Sermon on the Mount.

Concerning the 8th Commandment, again the commandment is not suspended for any reason. So what can we do in certain critical circumstances?

St. Thomas More gives us an example. One can look for a technical loophole, as he did, that allows one to do something without compromising the truth. Thomas More tried to find such a loophole where he could technically give his affirmation to King Henry VIII's request for a signed oath, while yet not compromising his Catholic faith. More could not find that technical loophole and thus refused to sign the oath and was illegally executed as a result.

In a biography of St. Thomas More is this notation:

In 1534 he was one of the people accused of complicity with Elizabeth Barton, the nun of Kent who opposed Henry's break with Rome, but was not attained due to protection from the Lords who refused to pass the bill until More's name was off the list of names. In April, 1534, More refused to swear to the Act of Succession and the Oath of Supremacy, and was committed to the Tower of London on April 17. More was found guilty of treason and was beheaded on July 6, 1535. His final words on the scaffold were: "The King's good servant, but God's First."

The method of the Saint can be applied in other dilemmas. For example, during World War II there were many Catholics who hid Jews in their houses and property. When the SS troops came knocking on the door asking, "Do you have any Jews here?" what should we say that will not be a technical lie, but will also help to save our Jewish friends?

The question is, "Do you have any Jews here?" Well, the Jews we are hiding may be in the barn out back thus they are not "here" in the house. We can tell the soldiers that they are not here and that will not be a lie, as they are not "here", in the house.

Is this a deception? Yes, because we know what the soldiers want but are using a loophole in the definition of "here" to avoid telling them where the Jews are at. Is is a lie? technically no if we interpret "here" in the way we have in this illustration.

There are some who would say that this is too much "splitting hairs" and a lie is a lie is a lie, that any deception is a lie, that knowing what the soldiers mean when they asked their question and thus not answering it with that understanding is a lie.

The Catechism tells us that "No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it." Certainly the SS soldiers do not have the right to know where are Jewish friends are at so that they may kill them.

In the same paragraph of the Catechism (2489) it is stated that "the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not to be known or for making use of a discreet language."

Here the Church is telling us that we can be silent when asked the question or can use "discreet" language (tricky rhetoric) that technically tells the truth, but at the same time does not reveal the truth to those who ought not know it.

Thus, if there is no technical way to avoid telling the truth to a person who does not deserve to know it, our only choice is to say, "I will not tell you" or be silent.

On the 6th Commandment the scenario you give is not adultery should the person decide to do what he is told. Thus, the 6th Commandment is not violated. Rape or other force whereby a person has sex against his will is not adultery. It is not a sin. If someone puts a gun to your head, or to a loved one's head, and says, "do this or you die", you are under duress and being forced at gunpoint. No sin is committed. Sin must be voluntarily willed.

Adultery and the rest of the Ten Commandments are moral absolutes. But, as it is with all of Scripture, one cannot just pluck out a few verses and interpret them in a vacuum without understanding the whole of scripture and the principles of moral theology. Thus, such principles as that double-effect and the nature of an action under duress must be part of our analysis.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary

Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below:
Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum.
Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum
Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum
Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum
Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum