Questions to the Moralist - Personal Web Server - Boston College

More documents

Recommendations

Info

You have a good insight on Christians practicing yoga—many do so to achieve exercise and health benefits or to calm their mind---and this is fine. What would NOT be good if one were to do yoga or play Zen music with a view to worshipping non-Christian gods, and I don’t think that this is the issue in your case. One should try to avoid giving “scandal” to others, and while I am not sure just how someone might be “scandalized” by your playing the flute music, perhaps if you were to perform in a Buddhist temple or join a temple Zen group then this might provoke scandal. But doing this on your own, or in the company of other Christians would be just fine as far as I can see. Hope this helps! Hi Father Jim! I'm having a problem with the concept of ontic evil or physical evil. I tried to find it in your book Morally Complex World but I was not able to find it. Aside from being enlightened by your explanation, I would also like to know if it still falls within Catholic orthodoxy or is it just merely a theological fad similar with the case of Liberation Theology in Latin America. Thank you very much. Regards, [Your Former Student] Fr. Bretzke replies Thanks for your question. I did take up this issue rather briefly in Chapter 2 of my book in the section discussing the actor who mistakenly fires what he thought was a stage prop pistol with blanks (but which in fact was a real gun with live ammunition), and again (quite briefly) in the section in the Glossary on Palliative Care but perhaps I could recapitulate the points I hoped to have made there. First of all, the concept of ontic evil certainly falls within Catholic orthodoxy and is definitely not “just merely a theological fad similar with the case of Liberation Theology in Latin America.” Leaving aside for the moment whether a theological movement that wrestles with serious social evil is a “fad” or something more important, the notion of ontic evil has a centuries’ long tradition in Catholic moral theology. In Latin the traditional term employed for ontic evil was malaum physicum and/or mala moralia and mala praemoralia. All of these Latin terms are discussed in my Consecrated Phrases: A Latin Theology Dictionary (cf. p. 81). The terminology recognizes the important distinction between a moral evil (which always “requires” a moral agent acting with freedom and intention) and other evils which occur in the world 6
(though without the moral significance involved in an intentionally chosen act performed in freedom which has as its object a moral evil). For example, an earthquake clearly involves a lot of “evil” and “suffering” but we would not call that “moral evil.” Accidents likewise can involve real pain, suffering, and therefore “evil,” yet they lack freedom and intention and so are not termed moral evil. The term ontic evil is a bit more contemporary than “physical” evil since contemporary English now tends to restrict “physical” to that which is corporeal, whereas a lot of “ontic evil” (such as the death of a loved one due to cancer, etc.) involves psychological suffering (and so nowadays we do not usually speak of that suffering as “physical evil.”). But the concept is nevertheless the same with the traditional term of Mala moralia, mala praemoralia and/or mala physica. Some moral theologians employ the term “pre-moral evil” but I try to avoid that expression since it is poorly understood by the general population. To many it sounds like something on the way to becoming moral, just like “pre-school” refers to the period of time before one starts kindergarten or grammar school. At least, in my view, “ontic evil” clearly indicates that the term must mean something “special” since it is a term that is not in general usage, and so hopefully when we stumble across it we will take pains to find out what it means (and this I think is the point of your question). Ontic evil is also an important concept in the principles involved with “doing evil to achieve good,” the principle of the double effect and/or compromise with evil. Again these are principles that have long been established in the Catholic moral tradition and Thomas Aquinas uses them in a wide variety of circumstances, including just war, using deadly force to repel and unjust aggressor and a host of other examples. One of the classic cases taken in moral theology is that of the ectopic pregnancy (sometimes also called a tubal pregnancy). In this medical case the fertilized embryo does not implant in the uterine wall and instead lodges itself in the fallopian tube where it continues to grow. If left untreated (and if it does not spontaneously abort) this pregnancy has statistically zero % chance of a live birth but a very, very high percentage chance of causing the death or very serious injury to the mother. In cases like this all credible moral theologians acknowledge that removal of the ectopic fetus is morally allowed since there is no moral intention to directly abort the fetus, but rather its death comes about as an ontic evil of treating the pathology of the fallopian tube which has the ectopic fetus lodged within it. The death of the fetus in this case is a very real evil, but it is not a moral evil since its death is not directly intended and there is no “freedom” to do otherwise and still save the live of the mother. Regardless of what is done or not done the fetus will always die. In cases like this if there is serious (i.e. “proportionate” ) reason to cause or allow the evil to occur then the evil remains “ontic” and is not “moral.” If, on the other hand, there was a lack of proportionate reason (say in the case of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy which otherwise was healthy and viable) then a termination of that sort of pregnancy would be called a direct abortion and this would be morally evil. All of the traditional moral manuals treat this topic, usually in the context of the discussion of the principle of the double effect. Hope this is of some help. 7
Page 1 and 2: Questions to the Moralist These are
Page 3 and 4: Dear Former Student, While post-rap
Page 5: Lately I have took up the shakuhach
Page 9 and 10: a.) Whether or not there is parvity
Page 11 and 12: of what is done or not done the fet
Page 13 and 14: Dear Fr. Bretzke I just want to ask
Page 15 and 16: My site there might be turned off,
Page 17 and 18: Dear Fr. Bretzke, I teach sophomore
Page 19 and 20: ministries of counseling know far t
Page 21 and 22: Fr. Jim Here are my questions: In a
Page 23 and 24: q: what does it mean when CDF in is
Page 25 and 26: Thanks for the reflection. I'm not
Page 27 and 28: Fr. Bretzke replies: Thanks, and if
Page 29 and 30: that various relationships are not
Page 31 and 32: decision, to go out, and the relati
Page 33 and 34: here are a few questions that I fin
Page 35 and 36: the women that have had an abortion
Page 37 and 38: do not know if it also holds true w
Page 39 and 40: Dear Father; I have this question t
Page 41 and 42: a way of human knowing. However, "i
Page 43 and 44: Fr. Bretzke replies: In short, I co
Page 45 and 46: person to do more evil things. It c
Page 47 and 48: Fr. Jim Fr. Jim, Hello! Good day! T
Page 49 and 50: this reason many moral theologians
Page 51 and 52: sacraments. But we CANNOT say that
Page 53 and 54: the huge statistics on innocent dea
Page 55 and 56: eason Thomas notes that the more we
Page 57 and 58:
hastened. yes we can treat pain agg
Page 59 and 60:
Fr. Bretzke replies: Thanks, I hadn
Page 61 and 62:
pastorally speaking, following the
Page 63 and 64:
> The Forum will endeavor to make p
Page 65 and 66:
Why is masturbation a sin? I don't
Page 67 and 68:
positivism," i.e., one must hold as
Page 69 and 70:
I may always be in my lifetime [pas
Page 71 and 72:
not always accurate. On the other h
Page 73 and 74:
Dear Father, Last Sunday in my apos
Page 75:
[forthcoming] Index 75
show all

Questions to the Moralist - Personal Web Server - Boston College

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?