Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:
Italian
English
Good morning,
I recently wrote to you about negative moral precepts, if I am obliged to believe as a believer, but now my faith is put to the test, because in the encyclical (papal infallibility) Veritatis Splendor, it is written:
“These are the acts that, in the moral tradition of the Church, have been called “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are always so and in themselves, that is, for their very object, independently of the further intentions of the person acting and of the circumstances. For this reason, without in the least denying the influence that circumstances and especially intentions have on morality, the Church teaches that “there exist acts that, in themselves and in themselves, independently of the circumstances, are always gravely illicit, by reason of their object”.”
And then in the following encyclical, the Pope corrects himself by saying: “However, in the face of the many and often dramatic cases that individual and social life present, the reflection of believers has always sought to reach a more complete and profound understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes.
There are, in fact, situations in which the values proposed by God’s Law appear in the form of a true paradox.”
These two paradoxes would be legitimate defense and the death penalty.
There is a beautiful and strong contradiction, where is papal infallibility? The Church now seems to me more of a help to improve ourselves more and more morally, yes to bring us closer and closer to God, but my reason blocks me if I think that I must believe that the Church is infallible…
Thank you for your attention,
Best regards
Priest’s answer
Dear friend,
1. that negative moral precepts always oblige and in any case is not first of all an argument of faith.
Human reason alone understands this.
According to St. Thomas, it is the first principle of moral action that imposes itself on everyone’s conscience: do good and avoid evil.
Everyone acts with a view to do a good, even if sometimes it is only fictitious, as in the case of evil. He who steals seeks a good for himself. But his action is bad, it is evil.
2. Therefore, it is not appropriate to speak of a crisis of faith in the face of such a clear and evident principle of moral action, of the fundamental principle of ethics, of all ethics.
This principle is so evident that it cannot be demonstrated, in the same way that it cannot be demonstrated that the sun shines on a day full of light or that it rains or is windy. These are realities so evident that they cannot be demonstrated, but shown.
3. Then, according to you, there would be a contradiction between what the encyclical Veritatis splendor and the encyclical Evangelium vitae state.
Veritatis splendor in one of its central passages speaking about intrinsically evil acts states: “Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator” (VS 80).
4. Evangelium vitae presents two particular cases such as those of legitimate defense and the death penalty that do not contradict the affirmation of Veritatis splendor.
There would be a contradiction if one were to say that defending oneself legitimately is an evil. But who can affirm that defense in the case of unjust aggression is an evil and constitutes a violation of the moral principle that evil can never be committed?
5. It is also noted that the encyclical speaks of paradox.
But paradox is not a contradiction
Clicking the word paradox on Google, this is what is said about it: “A proposition formulated in apparent contradiction with common experience (the principles of the Stoics) or with the elementary principles of logic, but which upon critical examination proves valid“.
6. Here is what the Pope says: “This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense. The demanding commandment of love of neighbor, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself ” (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defense out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.
Moreover, “legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason” (EV 55).
7. St. Thomas explains the legitimacy of defense against an unjust aggressor by resorting to the principle of indirect voluntary action.
Indirect voluntary action means that what one wants first and foremost is the good of one’s own person or even of one’s family or society.
One does not want to kill the aggressor in the slightest.
But the aggressor, by persisting in his violent aggression, puts himself in the condition of being killed since the one who is attacked has the right and also the duty to defend himself.
It is a paradox, but not a contradiction.
Furthermore, it is the paradox caused by human wickedness, not by the law of God or by natural law.
I could say that it is the same paradox for which the so-called forces of law and order, which are actually armed forces, are necessary to defend oneself and society!
8. Finally, it would be truly strange that the Magisterium, when dealing with topics of such capital importance, such as those of the two encyclicals mentioned, contradicts itself. Would this be the wisdom of the Magisterium?
Do you think that the Pope would have corrected himself without realizing it and contradicted himself?
Without disturbing faith, even from a human point of view, do you think that theologians and consultants of the first caliber consulted to draft and review the encyclical have discredited themselves in such a clamorous way?
And that no one up to now, even in the secular sphere, would have noticed?
As you see, sometimes it is enough not to understand the exact meaning of a word, such as paradox, to draw wrong conclusions.
However, I congratulate you because you show that you have read these two documents of the Magisterium of the Church.
I urge you to continue like this. They provide you with extraordinary nourishment.
I bless you, wish you all the best and remember you in prayer.
Father Angelo