What Makes an Action Morally Good?
Such great saints as St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, teach that for an action to be morally good, and hence pleasing to God, and thus have value in and for the Social Reign of Jesus Christ, it must have a threefold goodness: it must be an act that is not evil in itself, good in its end, and not evil in its circumstances.
It must be not evil in itself:
Every moral action can be classified as to its kind; some actions are good in themselves, these are termed good according to genus. Some actions are neither good nor bad in themselves, and are thus are neither good nor bad according to their genus. Finally others are evil in themselves, and thus are evil according to their genus.
Good actions in themselves are in according with the natural, moral, divine, evangelical law and with right reason. Some examples of these are all those actions which practice the virtues opposed to the sins condemned in the 10 commandments.
Neutral actions are those which are neither good morally in themselves, nor bad morally in themselves. All such actions, like walking, eating, going to sleep, all kinds of honorable working, such as farming, carpentry, writing, etc. are neither good morally in themselves, but only can be good or evil as regards circumstances or ends for which they are undertaken.
Evil actions in themselves are those which fall under the condemnations of the 10 commandments or which transgress any moral or supernatural virtue.
It must be good in its end:
That is must have a good objective, have a good motive, have a good intention.
It must have a good objective, this is absolutely necessary. When considering the purpose that we ultimate have in doing anything, we must consider and choose a good one; anything short of pleasing God, would deprive the action of a meritorious value; but anything which is merely naturally good, and not offensive to God, would still be good morally and naturally, however, it would fail to be entirely good, and hence would be in some sense evil, if as Catholics we did not intend it at least generally (that is as part of a Catholic life, in fulfillment of our duties) toward God.
It must also have a good motive, because that which triggers us to action, our motive, is really another name for the proximate end or purpose for which we act; and thus our motive in acting is also our intention for acting; because even when the action is good, such as giving to charity, if we actually in the moment of giving do it for vainglory, the moral value is corrupted and we commit a sin.
This is because the end or objective, or motive for any action, is the ultimate, supreme, global form under which the value of the action obtains a possibility to be good or evil. If this ultimate form is evil, then all under it is evil. That is why good intentions are necessary if we wish to work for the Reign of Christ.
It must not be evil in regard to its circumstances:
Even a good act or a morally neutral act, when either is done for a good end, can be sinful if we fail to do it in the proper circumstances. Thus a priest who offers the TLM on top of a garbage can, would sin, because though he did a good thing in saying the mass, and had a good intention, of pleasing God, where he did it, was improper and undignified and conducive to offend the Divine Majesty which deserves the best and to scandalize and give bad example.
In considering the circumstances of our actions, we must take care that we never actually act, if our acting violates the just rights of another, whether that other be God or a human or angelic creature, or the rights any one of them may have over lesser creatures. Thus we cannot given to charity what does not belong to us, if we wish to avoid sin and merit something.
Christ or Antichrist: Which Kingdom am I working for and in?
Today more than ever we need to be sensitive and responsive to this question, because whether we serve Christ or the Antichrist is only something which we can recognize spiritually, that is judging by the teachings of our faith. But in action, when we consider the moral value of it, we have a ready ruler by which to judge whether our action was part of the Kingdom of Chirst or served the Antichrist, in these 3 simple requirements for any action to be good: good in itself morally or at least morally neutral, good it its end or objective, and good in its circumstances or at least morally neutral.
Thus for example, one would not be serving the Lord Jesus, but rather the Devil, if one advocated murder, insurrection, thievery, adultery, etc. to advance the Reign of Christ, the rights of the Church, or the restoration of Sacred Tradition.
It must be not evil in itself:
Every moral action can be classified as to its kind; some actions are good in themselves, these are termed good according to genus. Some actions are neither good nor bad in themselves, and are thus are neither good nor bad according to their genus. Finally others are evil in themselves, and thus are evil according to their genus.
Good actions in themselves are in according with the natural, moral, divine, evangelical law and with right reason. Some examples of these are all those actions which practice the virtues opposed to the sins condemned in the 10 commandments.
Neutral actions are those which are neither good morally in themselves, nor bad morally in themselves. All such actions, like walking, eating, going to sleep, all kinds of honorable working, such as farming, carpentry, writing, etc. are neither good morally in themselves, but only can be good or evil as regards circumstances or ends for which they are undertaken.
Evil actions in themselves are those which fall under the condemnations of the 10 commandments or which transgress any moral or supernatural virtue.
It must be good in its end:
That is must have a good objective, have a good motive, have a good intention.
It must have a good objective, this is absolutely necessary. When considering the purpose that we ultimate have in doing anything, we must consider and choose a good one; anything short of pleasing God, would deprive the action of a meritorious value; but anything which is merely naturally good, and not offensive to God, would still be good morally and naturally, however, it would fail to be entirely good, and hence would be in some sense evil, if as Catholics we did not intend it at least generally (that is as part of a Catholic life, in fulfillment of our duties) toward God.
It must also have a good motive, because that which triggers us to action, our motive, is really another name for the proximate end or purpose for which we act; and thus our motive in acting is also our intention for acting; because even when the action is good, such as giving to charity, if we actually in the moment of giving do it for vainglory, the moral value is corrupted and we commit a sin.
This is because the end or objective, or motive for any action, is the ultimate, supreme, global form under which the value of the action obtains a possibility to be good or evil. If this ultimate form is evil, then all under it is evil. That is why good intentions are necessary if we wish to work for the Reign of Christ.
It must not be evil in regard to its circumstances:
Even a good act or a morally neutral act, when either is done for a good end, can be sinful if we fail to do it in the proper circumstances. Thus a priest who offers the TLM on top of a garbage can, would sin, because though he did a good thing in saying the mass, and had a good intention, of pleasing God, where he did it, was improper and undignified and conducive to offend the Divine Majesty which deserves the best and to scandalize and give bad example.
In considering the circumstances of our actions, we must take care that we never actually act, if our acting violates the just rights of another, whether that other be God or a human or angelic creature, or the rights any one of them may have over lesser creatures. Thus we cannot given to charity what does not belong to us, if we wish to avoid sin and merit something.
Christ or Antichrist: Which Kingdom am I working for and in?
Today more than ever we need to be sensitive and responsive to this question, because whether we serve Christ or the Antichrist is only something which we can recognize spiritually, that is judging by the teachings of our faith. But in action, when we consider the moral value of it, we have a ready ruler by which to judge whether our action was part of the Kingdom of Chirst or served the Antichrist, in these 3 simple requirements for any action to be good: good in itself morally or at least morally neutral, good it its end or objective, and good in its circumstances or at least morally neutral.
Thus for example, one would not be serving the Lord Jesus, but rather the Devil, if one advocated murder, insurrection, thievery, adultery, etc. to advance the Reign of Christ, the rights of the Church, or the restoration of Sacred Tradition.
posted by Br. Alexis Bugnolo at 9/06/2006 08:39:00 AM
11 Comments:
Brother Bugnolo,
Under which of these three conditions does the celebration of or assistance at the Novus Ordo Missae fall under?
Tony,
A moral question regards always in some manner actual acts, and thus I cannot speak about the intentions of the one saying or attending the NO. Lets assume for the sake of argument that these are good, omnibus paribus, that is, they intend only to please God.
This intention obviously cannot exist if one knows that what one is doing or in what circumstances one is doing it is displeasing to God.
But the NO is enacted in manners displeasing to God, such as with lewd dress, nudity or music, mockery (priest in clowns suit), in profane places, etc.. Obviously no one can have a good intention about that, and thus those responsible and those tolerating this are commint sin by attending, there is no ifs or buts about it, because even if they are not responsible, by their silence in attending, that is by their toleration of it, they consent to sin, and thus sin. One must leave any mass even the TLM or stop the matter offending God immediately, as much as one can, and if he cannot leave, when such things occur.
Regarding the act itself; there is the act of confecting by means of words or in a form unworthy of God or unfaithful to Christ's intentions (such as saying "for all" when Christ taught priests to say "for many"). To confect under such circumstances is always a mortal sin of infidelity, objectively speaking, since there is no way to reconcile the intention to validly consecrate with such a formula (which nevertheless is sufficient for a valid consecration) with the most solemn and grave duty to confect the Sacraments according to Christ's declared intentions, especially when this precise change of substituting "for all" for "for the many" is condemmned by the Catechism of Trent, in no uncertain terms, and with sound arguments.
But as the rite itself, which the priest and people say, since it is based on Dom Odo Casel's erroneous theory that Christ's actions can really be present during a rite, which is nonesensible, irrational, contrary to all sound philosophy, and the cause of superstition and vain observance, in that it directs our religious devotion to where it ought not principally be directed, to enact or participate actively in such a rite is always, when knowning this, a mortal sin against reason and praeter fidem, that is at least not in accord to the faith; if one holds Casel's theory as valid, then it would also be contrary to the faith and ipso facto heretical.
And so, objectively there is no moral good in attending or participating in the NO.
However, with the NO enacted, and communion distributed, one passing by could still morally and uprightly receive, since once confected the Sacrament is nothing other than the Lord Jesus, and one can always posit an act of reception of communion without regard to the priest who confected, who distributes or in what rite it was validly confected, or circimstances in which it was confected, that is, saving the considerations of what St. Alponsus speaks of in
http://utregnetchristusiesus.blogspot.com/2006/09/whether-can-it-be-licit-to-receive.html
And, if anyone should say that the Bishops have approved, that matters not a bit, since they have no authority to permit abuses, let alone sins. Or if one says that the Vatican publishes or allows, that matters not a bit, since every good Catholis knows not to attribute to the Church formal complicity in the toleration of sins, and likewise, that the Pope has no power to permit sin, even locally, and is protected by God's grace from obliging sin universally, that is of one and every catholic. The NO is not a universal disciplinary action of the Apostolic See, since no one form of the NO in any given language is prescribed for every catholic, nor are were bound by an single formal decree to accept it as a morally upright disciplinary enactment.
And the same time I would add this: that the Mass is not the only context of moral action.
We should beging asking the question regarding the morality of actions, in regard to our own actions, and our own personal duties of life: in our family, home, workplace, going to and fro from work, in our shopping, recreation, social and political life.
If we concern ourselves only with questions of morality when it is a question of what others are doing, then we are no better than the pagans, Moslems and Jews, who only think of the morality of the actions of others, not themselves, since their religion is but an excuse for religion.
God fobid that we misuse our Holy Catholic Faith like that, for we would surely receive a more woeful sentence in the hour of our judgment, which is fast approaching.
Matt,
Please, what actually did happen at the Mass of which you speak?
Brother Bugnolo,
You wrote:
"But the NO is enacted in manners displeasing to God, such as with lewd dress, nudity or music, mockery (priest in clowns suit), in profane places, etc.. Obviously no one can have a good intention about that, and thus those responsible and those tolerating this are commint sin by attending, there is no ifs or buts about it, because even if they are not responsible, by their silence in attending, that is by their toleration of it, they consent to sin, and thus sin."
Does this mean that if someone in lewd dress attends Mass when I do, that my attendance is sinful? And what if the cantor sings a hymn with doctrinal error?
Does my attendance become not sinful if I say something after Mass? During Mass?
What if the lewdly dressed person sat down after me and behind me and I am not aware of his presence?
N.B: If someone posts a question that is insufficiently posed, insteat of posting their question, I will post a question to them in reply, and thus you may from time to time see me responding to comments that are never published.
Dear Mike,
You wrote:
"Does this mean that if someone in lewd dress attends Mass when I do, that my attendance is sinful? And what if the cantor sings a hymn with doctrinal error?"
What I said about circumstances that would make attendance at Mass inappropriate must be understood sanely; thus if a woman immodestly dressed attends the same mass as you, it is sufficient to move away to another place in the Church, to both guard you own chastity and pubilcally notify the other bystanders that you donot approve.
What I meant by lewdness however, was this, that in the NO the priest himself celebrates lewdly dress (yes it has happend), or has in the sanctuary some one person or persons lewdly dressed. In such an occurance you are morally obliged to respond, but the response depends on the gravity of the circumstances, which would be very different.
In regard to the minister, obviously if he approaches the altar without the full accompaniment of priestly vestments, there is already a grave problem; if he approaches without his stole, I would say that one must not attend his mass, even if it is a TLM, because the stole, as every priest knows, is the sign of his priestly ministry, and he who would approach the altar to offer Mass without his stole is by sign objectively signifying that what he is about to do does not depend upon his priestly ministry (regardless if his intentions are otherwise), because we must judge by the common normal signs. Obviously in a concentration camp, one could attend the mass, because the circumstances would allow that the stole not be used, for obvious reasons.
But, even if the priest wore the stole, if he failed to wear a chausable and an alb, and was lewdly dressed, I say you should not attend his mass, even if it is a TLM, because he is gravely offending the Divine Majesty by appearing lewdly before the Face of God, and to consent to that by attending would be, in my opinion to irrevocably merit to share in the Divine Wrath that befalls such a priest; because in attending mass we to a certain extent morally align ourselves with the priest in the objective manner in which he offers the mass, because he is the one who offers, while we by attending only consent to his offering; we cannot make it better an offering by our attendance, that what it already is.
REGARDING THE CASE OF A CANTOR: Whenever a song is sung during Mass, it is a public commendation and proclamation of agreement with the ideas in the song. If they are doctrinally erroneous, God is gravely offended and the dignity of the entire congregation is called into question. The cantor should be interrupted, as peacefully as this can be done; if the matter is heretical, the cantor should be expelled from the service; if neither can be done, those aware of the matter, should leave. A good and holy priest, will interrupt what he is doing, if he can, and address the matter himself, or likewise the acolyte of master of cerimonies: however, in most places it can be safely assumed that what is being sung is being sung with the consent of the minister, and if that is correct (one can judge this by the habitual practice that occurs there, if this incident is common or extraordinary) then one should leave, because the congregation is not holding fast to the faith, and by participating one is sharing in the Divine Wrath that their embrace of heresy or err merits.
If you believe the priest is unare, mention it to him if possible during mass, if not after mass, mentioning the immorality of the matter; if he corrects the matter, you have done a great good; if he fails to, I recommend going elsewhere for mass.
You write:
"Does my attendance become not sinful if I say something after Mass? During Mass?"
Attendance only becomes sinful when you consent to the unworthy circumstance by thougt, word, or deed, either in thinking, speaking, or acting, or in failing to think, speak and act.
I have suggested how to respond, to do nothing in such circumstances, when one IS aware of the gravitg of the matter, is a sin of omission, and grave according to one's awareness. Most people at mass are somewhat asleep and are not aware of what is going on around them, and by this lack of awareness do not sin, though, unless this lack of awareness is on account of their immersion in prayer, this lack of awareness may be sinful or the result of not examining their conscience carefully.
But in most cases, when grave things arise of the kind you mention, the best solution is the meek one, of just walking out and leaving all together.
But the matter must be judged according to the specific circumstances at hand. If the Priest, for example, merely gives an offensive homily, e.g. berates a good catholic publically, or advocates support of a political party that is not entirely catholic, one can simply leave for the duration of the homily, and then return afterwards. Likewise if the homily contains some err against right reason, science, history, or certain philosophic erros that do not touch the faith directly; but in the case of heresy, one must leave, even if the heresy only touches matters that have not been defined, such as the existence of angels.
Br. Bugnolo,
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/09/animists-in-cathedral-look-at.html
I'm not sure if a mass was attempted, but at the cathedral they performed all manner of animist worship including the placing of a dead black chicken on the altar.
Matt,
I cannot say from such little evidence.
In some countries it is the habit to bring toward the Altar the offerings given to the priest, such as food and clothing; and this is an ancient custom. So the chicked could be for him. But to put such offerings on the altar, however well intentioned, is a profanation of something sacred, namely the altar, for it equates merely natural offerings with the Son of God, who descends there and is offered to the Father there. And such, when one intends to offend God, or the sanctity of the altar, is always a mortal sin, according to St. Alphonsus.
To ignore that it is an offence, would in my opinion, habitually, and with knowledge, also be a mortal sin, because it would necessarily involve an act of intellectual denial of the truth of the holiness of the place.
in attending mass we to a certain extent morally align ourselves with the priest in the objective manner in which he offers the mass, because he is the one who offers, while we by attending only consent to his offering; we cannot make it better an offering by our attendance, that what it already is
If there is a circumstance where there is no alternative mass, would one be relieved of one's obligation? I would assume that this would only be the case of a severe problem, especially with regard to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I would think in the case of a less severe abuse, such as problematic hymns or homilies, that one should continue attending but continue to take steps which evidence one's lack of consent to the abuse.
"In some countries it is the habit to bring toward the Altar the offerings given to the priest, such as food and clothing"
From the context of the ceremony it was clearly a pagan worship practice (the people who placed the chicken there were practicing their animist religion).
Matt,
Regarding the chicken:
When I read the article you cited, and perhaps I did not read it carefully, I did not see any evidence of that. I just saw a statment saying that a chicken was placed on the altar. You must beware of what secular journalists, who know not God, claim about the religious affiliation of others; some journalists think all who have chickens with them are pagans, when, as I said, many good catholics give chickens in the 3rd world to their priests, in lieu of the mass offering, which they cannot afford.
Regarding the obligation to attend mass: this obligation is not per se of divine right; that is you have a grave obligation to worship the True God in a Catholic Manner every Sunday, in virtue of the 10 commandments; But it is the Church which mandates that you fill that obligation by means of attending a Catholic Mass.
If the Church does not provide a catholic Mass in your locale, it is obvious you are not bound to go to mass.
The Saints say 1 hours travel is the obligatory limit.
In cases of immorality of any kind, when grave, you are obliged not to attend the mass; the lack of another mass does not excuse your obligation in such cases not to attend.
But here you get into questions that involve so many circumstances and correct judgments, that you'd be better off not seeking their answers on a blog, but asking a holy and learned confessor.
Post a Comment
<< Home