I Love You, You Love Me
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