|
L e t t e r s
I LOVE YOU, YOU LOVE ME
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 9
 September 1994 
|
|
|
THE moral quality of actions is
the sum total of the actions' effects upon people in the ordinary
world of experience. There is a question [among] many people of many
different religions. This question is, "Can ethical judgments
be made without regard to the effects of an action upon other people?"
The answer to this question must be no. Ethical judgments are worthless
apart from the helping or hurting of people. The notion of moral right
and wrong apart from people is absurd. Moral good is thus an extrinsic
predicate, not an intrinsic property.
Some people are of the opinion that the morality of an action
is determined by some quality innate in an action and thus is independent
of the action's effects. This is simply not true. To call an action
always wrong, as in such cases of murdering innocent people, defamation,
etc. only means that the net result for the common good is always
negative no matter what the situation, and thus may never be done.
Do not fall for the old error that because certain entities
have a purpose it is wrong to use them in ways contrary to that purpose.
Conformity to nature has no connection whatever with right or wrong.
That a thing is unnatural does not mean it is blamable.
It must be admitted that actions which neither harm any person
nor the common good fall outside the scope of moral judgment. The
twin maxims that we may rightly do anything that harms no one, and
that interfering with such actions is always wrong, are absolutely
certain and true beyond question. Moral rules can only be justified
when the general welfare is more than negligibly affected.
In conclusion I submit to you three Bible passages: Matthew
22:34-40, Romans 13:8-10, and Galatians 5:14. My view that actions
are to be judged only according to their effects is firmly supported
by these and other passages, while the concept of intrinsic ethics
independent of actions' effects is in irreconcilable conflict with
it.
Thomas M. Walton
St. Cloud, Minnesota
"Yes, but . . ."
I AM a geologist who recently married
a Catholic. This Rock was one of our wedding presents--it
was given to us by a Catholic geologist friend. I soon discovered
he didn't give us a geology journal. I have received the May issue
and have read a few back issues. On this limited basis I'd like to
make a few comments.
Your journal is at its best when presenting the strengths
of Catholic experience rather than bashing the Fundamentalists. I'm
a fan of Thomas Merton, because of the simplicity and beautiful clarity
of his writing. No doubt he was a "good" Catholic, but his
writings focus on the joyful transforming experience of God, not the
rules and regulations.
Not all Protestants are Catholic-bashers. One reason I love
my wife is because of the depth of her faith and how she lives it
on a daily basis. In our marriage ceremony, my best friend from college,
a Presbyterian minister, concelebrated our marriage with two Catholic
priests. (Admittedly it was a long ceremony, but we plan to do it
only once.) The atmosphere was one of inclusion, not exclusion. No
doubt there are some Fundamentalist groups who target Catholicism
for their propaganda. But focusing on their being wrong doesn't add
much to your arguments for being right.
When you argue too strongly for the Catholic Church, your
arguments tend to take the same form as those I heard from the Fundamentalists
in the church where I grew up. Both are arguments based on authority
rather than experience. In the Fundamentalists' case, the basis of
authority is the Bible: in the Catholic case, it is the authority
of the Church. I can almost hear you saying, "Yes, but . . ."
Yes, I've heard the arguments about who is truly an authority, but
I want to see some evidence that the theory makes a difference when
applied to everyday life. When I see supposedly devout Catholics (or
Fundamentalists) who live lives without joy, depressed and unable
to express love, what they say about their faith doesn't carry much
weight. On the other hand, my wife's joy, love, and commitment to
her faith does. (Why else would I go through four weeks of Natural
Family Planning classes?) I think your article, "Catholic Evidence
Training Guild" [April and May 1994] expressed it well: "Universal
truths require stating, but as they are universal they do not require
to be reinforced by argument: They can make their appeal without any
great assistance from us, and the only obligation on us is to state
them to the best of our power."
I thanked my friend for giving us This Rock. Articles
like "The Catholic Evidence Guild" and "Uncovering
Mariolatry" [May 1994] can only increase the respect honest non-Catholics
have for your journal. And respect is, of course, the foundation for
a lasting relationship.
Dale H. Easley
New Orleans, Louisiana
Pope goes down swinging
I CANNOT support your mission of
backing this pope, because he has: (1) legalized altar girls (feminism
gradually), (2) allowed homosexuals to rule diocesan chanceries, (3)
promotes and prays with pagan religions and voodoo priests (Assisi,
Benin, Togo, etc.).
Three strikes--you're out.
A concerned Catholic
No address
A heresy not so silent
I DO not disagree with the thrust
of Fr. Harrison's article, "Our Silent Heresy," which appeared
in your May 1994 issue, that some Catholics may have moved Mary up
the level of a goddess. Such is surely wrong and those Catholics have
to be corrected. (Although, I have been around many Marian clergy
and laity over the last seven years and somehow I have been blessed
not to find any of these goddess adherents. Where are they, anyway?)
What I am really concerned about, however, is the obverse
side of the silent heresy, which to me seems to involve a greater
number of Catholic clergy; namely, the failure to give Mary the attention
she truly deserves. She is the greatest human saint, blessed by God
since her conception. She is God's (solely) human masterpiece, his
handmaid.
With a world that sees each day greater physical abuse of
women and children along with more abandonment of spouses and children,
why is it that Catholics, especially Catholic women, do not look more
to Mary as their model, as their protector, as their advisor and friend?
If more Catholic women modeled themselves after Mary, would not more
Catholic men resemble St. Joseph? Can not even honest people see a
jewel?
What hang-up is it that causes many women to shun Mary, to
not honor their spiritual mother? I have my thoughts on this, but
will not share them at this moment. Perhaps other readers may be honest
and explain why they downplay or ignore the Mother of God, the Queen
of Heaven, in their daily spiritual lives.
Do women want sons and daughters that respect them? Then
mirror Mary. Do they want husbands that cherish, protect and love
them? Mirror Mary. God the Father commanded, "Honor your father
and you mother." The dying Jesus said that Mary was our mother.
So what's the hang-up?
Stephen M. Weglian
McLean, Virginia
Apologetics in India
GREETINGS in the all-powerful, all-wise
and all-loving Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ. Praise his name forever.
I must thank you, and I cannot help saying that I am overjoyed
to receive the 1993 issues of This Rock. Thank you also for
the complimentary subscription for 1994. Not only does This Rock
make very interesting reading, but what is more important, it does
help us to build up our faith.
I have already spoken to a few of my Catholic friends and
they are quite enthusiastic about doing something to build up the
faith, and to help to keep Catholics in the one, true, and apostolic
Church.
What we do need, and I am sure you will give us in abundance,
are prayers for this project and for our pro-life work, which is moving
at a snail's pace.
Kevin L. Fernandes
Bombay, India
Murder by omission
IN response to the letter of Mr.
James J. Harris of San Diego, in the June 1994 issue, with regard
to his statement that the definition of the immoral act of abortion
"usually" involves a direct assault on the fetus: There
is, as we all know, such a thing as a sin of omission.
Mr. Harris argues that a woman who has been raped has no
"a priori" moral obligation to nourish the life of a fertilized
egg which resulted from involuntary intercourse. She therefore commits
no sin by taking the "morning after" pill, which prevents
a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall.
However, let us take a look at this hypothetical baby nine
months later. Suppose the woman who had been raped decided to carry
her baby. Suppose further that the families of both Mr. Harris and
the woman are shipwrecked, and he and the baby wash up on a deserted
island. Now, the baby (let's say it's a girl) is certainly not the
result of voluntary intercourse on the part of Mr. Harris, let alone
of her mother. Using his reasoning, Mr. Harris could argue that he
has no "a priori" moral obligation to care for the little
girl until help arrives. After all, to care for her could possibly
cause him to have painful memories of the shipwreck, in which he lost
his wife and children; and anyway, he wouldn't commit any "direct
assault" on the child.
The extreme guilt that Mr. Harris would thereafter feel would
not be chiefly the result of having let the little girl suffer, or
of his having contributed to her family's grief. It would be the result
of his deliberate, conscious decision to omit taking action which
would have preserved a human life.
Mark W. Johnson
Altadena, California
Malachy's prophecies true
I DISAGREE with your negative assessment
of the accuracy of the St. Malachy epithets designating the three
most recent popes, proposed in the June 1994 issue ("Quick Questions").
Flos Florum, meaning "flower of flowers,"
refers to the lily. This symbol of purity, associated with the Blessed
Virgin Mary and her most chaste spouse St. Joseph, is highly appropriate
for Paul VI, whose pontificate is best remembered for the promulgation
of that widely-contested encyclical on marital chastity, Humanae
Vitae. I believe that Cardinal Montini's coat-of-arms contains
the fleur-de-lis, too. Furthermore, Paul VI's given name was
Giovanni Batista, and we all know the reason for the martyrdom of
St. John the Baptist was his vociferous denunciation of marital infidelity.
I am surprised you had not heard of the retrospectively correct
interpretation of De Medietate Lunae, circulated upon the
death of John Paul I. This phrase can also be translated as "concerning
the mean (or average) term of the moon," which is of course 30
days. It is remarkably uncanny that this smiling pope occupied the
chair of St. Peter for only one month! Moreover, Cardinal Albino Luciani's
name signifies "white light."
Finally, De Labore Solis, or "concerning the
toil of the sun," does have a clear connection with the reign
of John Paul II. What is the most obvious work of the sun? To shed
light and heat over the inhabited regions of the earth! And how has
Karol Wojtyla been laboring throughout the years of his pontificate?
Traveling tirelessly around the globe, spreading the splendid light
of truth and the warmth of divine love on mankind! Have you observed
the way his very face radiates? This Marian pope, who took the motto
totus tuus, is surely under the special protection of the woman
clothed with the sun.
St. Malachy's astonishing papal prophecies have (thus far)
proved to hit the mark. Hence, I conclude that they probably constitute
an authentic private revelation.
David P. Lang
Franklin, Massachusetts
|
