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

Question Title	Posted By	Question Date
Moral object	Paul	Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Question: Bro. Ignatius Mary, You mention that if one takes something that isn't his it always violates the 7th commandment and never can be justified. But this is contrary to Tradition and to CCC 2408 that states in "obvious and urgent necessity" a person may take something that belongs to another; taking into account that while there is a right to private property it is not an absolute right. You also mention that while it is never right to intend evil so that a good may come from it, it is justifiable to intend sex with someone else's wife if your wife's life is thretened. You justify this because the coercion involved changes the moral object and it is no longer adultery. The apparent inconsistancy in your two answers leaves me a bit confused. On the one hand it seems that if coercion changes adultery into non-adultery or morally-neutral copulation, then necessity would change stealing into non-stealing or morally-neutral taking of another's property. On the other hand, if the moral object of taking another's property can never be done then it seems the moral object of adultery can also never be done. You can't do an evil (adultery) that a good may come from it (wife's life saved). In both situations death would be the probable result of staying true to the moral absolute - but isn't that the better option than to intend a mortal sin? Or is there a principle that states danger of death always changes the moral object of the act?
Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM Dear Paul: You are correct about the 7th Commandment, and I was wrong. Thanks for the correction. Paragraph 2408 states: 2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others. But, there is more to this. The Catechism says, "to put at one's disposal and use the properly of others." This seems to be to be different from actual theft. If I needed to get my daughter to the emergency room and the only vehicle available was my neighbor's car, this teaching would seem to say that I could take that car because of the immediate essential needs. But, I am not taking the car permanently. I will be bringing it back. If I was hungry and in need of a winter coat, and there was no possibility of attaining those goods anywhere, then I might take some vegetables out of some one's garden, or take a coat hanging on a hook or a clothes line. But, I would intend to pay for those things as soon as I could. If I was homeless and needed shelter to ward off the cold, I may sleep in someone's barn, or in someone's car, and in fact, I have actually done that many years ago when I was homeless. While I did not do it then, today I would leave a note for the people apologizing for the intrusion at the very least. Just as it is with the Bible, we cannot take a paragraph out of the Catechism ans isolate it. It must be interpreted in light of ALL of Church teaching. While emergency situations may exist whereby we make use of other's property that does not excuse keeping the property permanently, or in the case of consumables, to eventually pay for it. A person of morals and integrity would surely do this. On the issue of adultery, you are wrong. Stealing and adultery are apples and oranges. You attempt to tie these two scenarios together does not work. A person who is forced to have sex with someone not his spouse is not adultery by definition. He does not intend this sexual encounter. The encounter only exists because he is forced into it. If forced sex is adultery, then rape is adultery. If we are to consider rape as adultery, then we are Arab Muslims, not Christians. In Arab countries a woman can be convicted of adultery because she was raped. This is nonsense and evil. A man forced to have sex to save the life of his wife is no more an adulterer, and no more "intends" to have sex, than a rape victim. Force is force. Father Hardon's Catholic Dictionary states, in its article on rape: Rape can be committed by the use of physical or moral force, including fraud and deceit; likewise, in a sin committed with a woman who has not the use of reason, whether mentally deranged or under the influence of drink or drugs. A woman being ravished must offer internal resistance absolutely, in not consenting with the will; and such external resistance as is possible without endangering her life or reputation. We learn from this several principles that apply to your scenario (which, by the way, is the rape of a man, as all forced sex is really a rape). 1) this sexual force can be based on physical or moral force. It can even be based on fraud and deceit. 2) internal resistance is to be had, not consisting with the will 3) external resistence should be offered only to the level that it does not endanger life If a woman being raped does not physical resist because she is in fear of her life then an adulteress? Of course not. She does not intend the rape. It is happening against her will even if her resistance can only be made internally. In your scenario life is at stake. Either do it, or the wife dies. We can presume the husband does not want to do this, but does it out of fear for his wife's life. The force applied to the man is physical (a gun to the head of his wife) and moral (the moral obligation he has to protect his wife's life). What is he to do? Say no I will not do it and watch his wife's head blown off? especially when the Church says that a situation like this is not sin even if it were adultery because of diminshed capacity (CCC 1860, 2352b, 1735, 2355, 2352b, 2125). But, this is not adultery as adultery requires the intent to cheat on one's spouse. This scenario is a case of a form of rape, not adultery. The issue of adultery should not even come up with a scenario of this sort. Adultery is absolute sinful. But, your scenario is not adultery be any measure of the imagination. 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 object

Paul

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Question:

Bro. Ignatius Mary,

You mention that if one takes something that isn't his it always violates the 7th commandment and never can be justified. But this is contrary to Tradition and to CCC 2408 that states in "obvious and urgent necessity" a person may take something that belongs to another; taking into account that while there is a right to private property it is not an absolute right.

You also mention that while it is never right to intend evil so that a good may come from it, it is justifiable to intend sex with someone else's wife if your wife's life is thretened. You justify this because the coercion involved changes the moral object and it is no longer adultery.

The apparent inconsistancy in your two answers leaves me a bit confused. On the one hand it seems that if coercion changes adultery into non-adultery or morally-neutral copulation, then necessity would change stealing into non-stealing or morally-neutral taking of another's property.

On the other hand, if the moral object of taking another's property can never be done then it seems the moral object of adultery can also never be done. You can't do an evil (adultery) that a good may come from it (wife's life saved). In both situations death would be the probable result of staying true to the moral absolute - but isn't that the better option than to intend a mortal sin? Or is there a principle that states danger of death always changes the moral object of the act?

Question Answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM

Dear Paul:

You are correct about the 7th Commandment, and I was wrong. Thanks for the correction. Paragraph 2408 states:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.

But, there is more to this. The Catechism says, "to put at one's disposal and use the properly of others." This seems to be to be different from actual theft. If I needed to get my daughter to the emergency room and the only vehicle available was my neighbor's car, this teaching would seem to say that I could take that car because of the immediate essential needs. But, I am not taking the car permanently. I will be bringing it back.

If I was hungry and in need of a winter coat, and there was no possibility of attaining those goods anywhere, then I might take some vegetables out of some one's garden, or take a coat hanging on a hook or a clothes line. But, I would intend to pay for those things as soon as I could.

If I was homeless and needed shelter to ward off the cold, I may sleep in someone's barn, or in someone's car, and in fact, I have actually done that many years ago when I was homeless. While I did not do it then, today I would leave a note for the people apologizing for the intrusion at the very least.

Just as it is with the Bible, we cannot take a paragraph out of the Catechism ans isolate it. It must be interpreted in light of ALL of Church teaching.

While emergency situations may exist whereby we make use of other's property that does not excuse keeping the property permanently, or in the case of consumables, to eventually pay for it. A person of morals and integrity would surely do this.

On the issue of adultery, you are wrong. Stealing and adultery are apples and oranges. You attempt to tie these two scenarios together does not work. A person who is forced to have sex with someone not his spouse is not adultery by definition. He does not intend this sexual encounter. The encounter only exists because he is forced into it.

If forced sex is adultery, then rape is adultery. If we are to consider rape as adultery, then we are Arab Muslims, not Christians. In Arab countries a woman can be convicted of adultery because she was raped. This is nonsense and evil.

A man forced to have sex to save the life of his wife is no more an adulterer, and no more "intends" to have sex, than a rape victim. Force is force.

Father Hardon's Catholic Dictionary states, in its article on rape:

Rape can be committed by the use of physical or moral force, including fraud and deceit; likewise, in a sin committed with a woman who has not the use of reason, whether mentally deranged or under the influence of drink or drugs. A woman being ravished must offer internal resistance absolutely, in not consenting with the will; and such external resistance as is possible without endangering her life or reputation.

We learn from this several principles that apply to your scenario (which, by the way, is the rape of a man, as all forced sex is really a rape).

1) this sexual force can be based on physical or moral force. It can even be based on fraud and deceit.

2) internal resistance is to be had, not consisting with the will

3) external resistence should be offered only to the level that it does not endanger life

If a woman being raped does not physical resist because she is in fear of her life then an adulteress? Of course not. She does not intend the rape. It is happening against her will even if her resistance can only be made internally.

In your scenario life is at stake. Either do it, or the wife dies. We can presume the husband does not want to do this, but does it out of fear for his wife's life. The force applied to the man is physical (a gun to the head of his wife) and moral (the moral obligation he has to protect his wife's life). What is he to do? Say no I will not do it and watch his wife's head blown off? especially when the Church says that a situation like this is not sin even if it were adultery because of diminshed capacity (CCC 1860, 2352b, 1735, 2355, 2352b, 2125). But, this is not adultery as adultery requires the intent to cheat on one's spouse.

This scenario is a case of a form of rape, not adultery. The issue of adultery should not even come up with a scenario of this sort.

Adultery is absolute sinful. But, your scenario is not adultery be any measure of the imagination.

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