Humanae Vitae And Embryo Adoption

[TeresaBenedicta]

Interesting as your post about "morally neutral" acts is, I'm not really going to respond to it because it doesn't really have anything to do with my argument. Whether or not an act can be morally neutral has no real bearing on what I argued.

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1299211693' post='2217717']
[b]The moral object of embryo adoption is clearly a good[/b] which is compatible with love of God since God is Life and love of neighbor, since the frozen embryo is helpless and in dire need and love of self, the adoptive mother is given a chance to love and raise a child. The object is that the human person enslaved in a cryptogenic state be made free and given a chance of live birth and be given an adoptive mother for life. To be given a chance at life is clearly a good. To be given a mother for life is clearly a good, just like a foster child is adopted (I was one myself).
[/quote]

The "object" or the "act" within embryo adoption is the embryo transfer, not "the human person enslaved in a cryptogenic state be made free and given a chance of live birth". What you have said is an effect of the embryo transfer. I dealt with the counter-argument of double effect in my previous post.

If embryo transfer is intrinsically evil, then embryo adoption cannot be good, despite good intention.

[kafka]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1299205973' post='2217694']
Some might argue double effect. However, it is not entirely clear that this situation can fall under the principle of double effect and, really, it cannot if embryo transfer is intrinsically evil (for one can never directly choose an evil action). Inherent to the transfer of a frozen embryo is the act of becoming pregnant. It is conceivable for a doctor to remove a dangerous cancer without harming the patient’s eyes. Or, in the typical example given about a pregnant woman with uterine cancer, we know that the removal of the cancer is morally neutral precisely because it is morally licit to do so in circumstances when the woman is not pregnant. However, it is impossible for a woman to have an embryo transferred to her womb without getting pregnant. Thus becoming pregnant is not a side effect or a “result of her choice” but rather is very much intrinsic to her choice. It is not the case of a double effect.

Pregnancy, being so interconnected with natural conception, cannot be separated from the conjugal act. IVF artificially separates the two, making the distinction between pregnancy and conception a real one. It is a real evil, however. Just as IVF artificially separates conception from the conjugal act, which is inherently evil, so too does the separation of pregnancy from its natural foundations in conception constitute as inherently evil.
[/quote]
Double effect is not taught in Veritatis Splendor. It is incomplete and imperfect. The three fonts of morality are taught in Veritatis Splendor. These subsume the principle of double effect. The three fonts of morality are a perfect way of evaluating all moral actions and they are in fact a reflection of the Trinity. (I dont have the energy to analyse this now.)

The harm done to the order of moral sexual act, to conception, to the implantation, to live birth in the circumstance of an embryonic adoption is what the theologians call a physical evil, a harm or disorder not intended by God in creation. It is not a moral evil, since the adoptive mother did not knowingly choose to disrupt this order by a morally evil means, namely artificial procreation. A physical evil can be tolerated in the concrete act as long as the moral object is good making the inherent order of the concrete act is good. The force used in the moral act of defending the innocent is a physical evil. Physical evil can be tolerated as a good means to a good end, if it is assumed to a good moral object, e.g. the death of Jesus on the Cross was a good moral object assumed to the harm done to his life as a salvific means to a salvific end.

[kafka]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1299212401' post='2217722']
The "object" or the "act" within embryo adoption is the embryo transfer, not "the human person enslaved in a cryptogenic state be made free and given a chance of live birth". What you have said is an effect of the embryo transfer. I dealt with the counter-argument of double effect in my previous post.

If embryo transfer is intrinsically evil, then embryo adoption cannot be good, despite good intention.
[/quote]
I'm describing the moral meaning of transfer. The proximate end of the transfer is the opportunity of freedom and life for the prenatal. The transfer is a good object in the eyes of God. It is deliberately and morally-directed toward a chance at freedom and life. This is clearly a good which is compatible with love of God, neighbor, self and can ultimately be directed toward the final end: God.

The moral meaning is like the soul of the concrete act.
The way in which the act is done is the body of the concrete act. The moral meaning is infused into the concret act of transfer.

Edited March 4, 2011 by kafka

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1299212969' post='2217730']
Double effect is not taught in Veritatis Splendor. It is incomplete and imperfect. The three fonts of morality are taught in Veritatis Splendor. These subsume the principle of double effect. The three fonts of morality are a perfect way of evaluating all moral actions and they are in fact a reflection of the Trinity. (I dont have the energy to analyse this now.)

The harm done to the order of moral sexual act, to conception, to the implantation, to live birth in the circumstance of an embryonic adoption is what the theologians call a physical evil, a harm or disorder not intended by God in creation. It is not a moral evil, since [b]the adoptive mother did not knowingly choose to disrupt this order by a morally evil means[/b], namely artificial procreation. A physical evil can be tolerated in the concrete act as long as the moral object is good making the inherent order of the concrete act is good. The force used in the moral act of defending the innocent is a physical evil. Physical evil can be tolerated as a good means to a good end, if it is assumed to a good moral object, e.g. the death of Jesus on the Cross was a good moral object assumed to the harm done to his life as a salvific means to a salvific end.
[/quote]

On the contrary to the bolded-- in embryonic transfer, the adoptive mother does indeed knowingly choose to disrupt the order of procreation by [i]choosing[/i] to become pregnant by a means outside of the conjugal act.

Concerning your first paragraph-- you're going to ignore hundreds of years of Catholic moral tradition simply because double effect isn't specifically taught in [i]Veritas splendor[/i]? St. Thomas Aquinas has been proclaimed by the Church as principal teacher and defender. You deny his teaching on double effect?

I don't know if we can really engage in proper debate, seeing as we're coming from two completely different schools of thought. And I don't want to take this thread off topic by discussing exclusive use of [i]Veritas splendor[/i] (which I haven't studied fully enough to engage anyways).

We're not even on the same ground to engage in proper debate.

[kafka]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1299213895' post='2217735']
On the contrary to the bolded-- in embryonic transfer, the adoptive mother does indeed knowingly choose to disrupt the order of procreation by [i]choosing[/i] to become pregnant by a means outside of the conjugal act.
[/quote]
I see your point but I dont think it has merit. The order has already been disrupted for the child. As far as the adoptive mother. The choice she makes is not contraceptive. The sexual act is directed at procreation but the actual procreation is distinct, since God actively infuses the soul at conception.

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1299213895' post='2217735']
Concerning your first paragraph-- you're going to ignore hundreds of years of Catholic moral tradition simply because double effect isn't specifically taught in [i]Veritas splendor[/i]? St. Thomas Aquinas has been proclaimed by the Church as principal teacher and defender. You deny his teaching on double effect?

I don't know if we can really engage in proper debate, seeing as we're coming from two completely different schools of thought. And I don't want to take this thread off topic by discussing exclusive use of [i]Veritas splendor[/i] (which I haven't studied fully enough to engage anyways).

We're not even on the same ground to engage in proper debate.
[/quote]
I can tell by your arguments you do not have a good enough understanding of Veritatis Splendor.
It is an act of Magisterium
and it is the crowning glory to this point in time of the Church's teaching on moral principles.

I recommend you and everyone reading this, read Veritatis Splendor several times.

As far as the remark about double effect. That is exaggerated. You can tell I'm faithful to Church teaching. Why jab? I said double effect is incomplete and imperfect. The three fonts of morality taught by the Magisterium eclipse double effect. Aquinas is not the source of the Magisterium's teaching, Tradition and Scripture are. Aquinas aids the Magisterium, but you know there is such a thing as development of doctrine. Aquinas' teachings are a living expression of Tradition and Scripture, yet they are infallible and imperfect.

Read Veritatis Splendor.

As for me I am done with the debate for now. I more or less expressed all my points. I am intellectually certain of them. I am confident that they are basically true. People can decide for themselves who is right.

Edited March 4, 2011 by kafka

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1299215665' post='2217744']
I see your point but I dont think it has merit. The order has already been disrupted for the child. As far as the adoptive mother. The choice she makes is not contraceptive. The sexual act is directed at procreation but the actual procreation is distinct, since God actively infuses the soul at conception. [/quote]

It's not about the child-- it's about pregnancy taking place within the conjugal act. Not outside of it. Pregnancy is an inherent aspect of procreation. Separation pregnancy from procreation is inherently evil. The choice the adoptive mother is making is to become pregnant outside of the conjugal act.

[quote]I can tell by your arguments you do not have a good enough understanding of Veritatis Splendor.
It is an act of Magisterium
and it is the crowning glory to this point in time of the Church's teaching on moral principles.

I recommend you and everyone reading this, read Veritatis Splendor several times.

As far as the remark about double effect. That is exaggerated. You can tell I'm faithful to Church teaching. Why jab? I said double effect is incomplete and imperfect. The three fonts of morality taught by the Magisterium eclipse double effect. Aquinas is not the source of the Magisterium's teaching, Tradition and Scripture are. Aquinas aids the Magisterium, but you know there is such a thing as development of doctrine. Aquinas' teachings are a living expression of Tradition and Scripture, yet they are infallible and imperfect.

Read Veritatis Splendor.

As for me I am done with the debate for now. I more or less expressed all my points. I am intellectually certain of them. I am confident that they are basically true. People can decide for themselves who is right.
[/quote]

With all due respect, I don't appreciate the condescending tone you took here. I do not deny the importance of [i]Veritatis splendor[/i], nor would I ever discount it. But I am saying that all of moral philosophy and theology is not reduced to [i]VS[/i] alone. And there are multiple interpretations of [i]VS[/i]. I'm personally going to go with the interpretation that is in line with traditional moral thinking, particularly that of St. Thomas Aquinas, whom the Church gives preference to in regard to teaching and holds him 'principally as teacher' (Code of Canon Law 252) for the following reasons:

1) He 'illumined the Church more than all the other doctors. In his books, one profits more in only one year than in the study of all the others during his whole life (John XXII, Allocution in the Consistory, June 14, 1323).'

2) He 'most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church, in a certain way he seems to have inherited the intellect of all (Cajetan, Commentary on Summa Theologiae, II-II, 148, 9, 4. Quoted by Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, 10).'

3) The 'Church has proclaimed that the doctrine of Saint Thomas is her own (Benedict XV, Fausto Appetente Die, 4b).'

4) God has willed that by the strength and truth of the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor 'all the heresies and error that would follow will be driven away, confounded and condemned. (Saint Pius V, Mirabilis Deus, cf. Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, 13)'

5) His knowledge is of undeniable and fundamental importance for the right interpretation of Sacred Scriptures, so to transcend the sensible and to reach union with God; to build the edifice of Sacred Theology upon the solid basis provided by a profound knowledge of the philosophy of being -- 'a philosophical patrimony perennially valid. (Code of Canon Law, 251)

[kafka]

I apologize for the condescending tone.

grace and peace to you.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1299213895' post='2217735']
On the contrary to the bolded-- in embryonic transfer, the adoptive mother does indeed knowingly choose to disrupt the order of procreation by [i]choosing[/i] to become pregnant by a means outside of the conjugal act.
[/quote]

If it is morally acceptable for a married, infertile couple to adopt a child that has been born, why is it intrinsically evil for them to adopt an embryo?

Think about this specific situation: A very devout married couple finds that the husband is infertile, but the wife, by all known medical investigations, appears to be capable of carrying a child. They are immigrants to the USA; they have green cards, so are living and working in the USA legally, but by law cannot adopt an American child or adopt internationally. They don't care about gender or race, they just want to be parents, but they would never consider IVF because, as devout Catholics, they know it is intrinsically evil. They have accepted God's will. While they are sad about their condition, they remain faithful to each other and the church and regularly serve the community.

The adoptive mother would not knowingly choose to disrupt anything. They did not choose to be infertile. If they had a choice, they would conceive the natural way. Frozen embryos have already been conceived - the biological mother & father made the choice to disrupt the order of procreation, not the adoptive parents.

[kafka]

I missed something in Dignitas Personae. It seems that the second font of morality is stated. The bolded is the moral object of the knowingly chosen act.

"It has also been proposed, [b]solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction[/b], that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above."

the bolded is the moral object of the knowingly chosen act.

A woman chooses to have a medical procedure done to her transfering the prenatal embryo into her.

the object of the medical procedure is to allow a very young human person to be born (who is otherwise condemned to destruction). The medical procedure is morally-directed toward the life and freedom of the young human person. This is a good proximate end. A good moral objet. It is in itself independent of intention and circumstances good. Very good.

This is the object of the medical procedure and it is a good. On the woman's part who would become the adoptive mother, it is an act of selfless love and mercy toward neigbor of the highest order.

another passage of Dignitas Personae:

16. The Church moreover holds that it is ethically unacceptable to dissociate procreation from the integrally personal context of the conjugal act.

It is intrinsically evil to dissociate procreation from the conjugal act. All moral sexual acts must be unitive, marital, procreative. In the case of the medical procedure of transferring the embryo, procreation has reached its term. The baby is conceived. And the mother's choice to have the medical procedure done is not morally-directed at dissociating procreation from the conjugal act. The act in itself morally has nothing to do with the sexual act which is unitive, marital, procreative. It is morally directed toward the toward the life and freedom of the young human person.

And as far as I can see there is nothing which states that gestation cannot be dissociated from the moral sexual act. The object of procreation has already been reached. Gestation is a whole new phase and new set of acts for the mother. It is morally distinct from the sexual act. There is a natural order after procreation, gestation, but it may be disrupted if the knowingly chosen concrete act is inherently good. A mother can choose to have a prenatal removed in an early delivery for the salvation of the prenatal. A C-section is moral even though one of the bad consequences is a physical harm. After live birth a mother can give up the child for adoption if the good consequences outweigh the bad. This is a harm to the natural order but the act of giving up for adoption is not intrinsically evil in and of itself.

The fact that the adoptive embryonic mother is not the genetic mother is a bad consequence to the knowingly chosen act of having the prenatal implanted. There is a harm and disorder here but it is not of the moral object, the second font of morality. It is of the circumstances of the knowingly chosen act which is everything circling the concrete act other than the intention and moral object, eg. consequences, effects, situation. The good consequence of allowing the person to be born surely outweighs this bad consequence.

Edited March 4, 2011 by kafka

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='tgoldson' timestamp='1299247839' post='2217823']
[b]If it is morally acceptable for a married, infertile couple to adopt a child that has been born, why is it intrinsically evil for them to adopt an embryo? [/b]

Think about this specific situation: A very devout married couple finds that the husband is infertile, but the wife, by all known medical investigations, appears to be capable of carrying a child. They are immigrants to the USA; they have green cards, so are living and working in the USA legally, but by law cannot adopt an American child or adopt internationally. They don't care about gender or race, they just want to be parents, but they would never consider IVF because, as devout Catholics, they know it is intrinsically evil. They have accepted God's will. While they are sad about their condition, they remain faithful to each other and the church and regularly serve the community.

The adoptive mother would not knowingly choose to disrupt anything. They did not choose to be infertile. If they had a choice, they would conceive the natural way. Frozen embryos have already been conceived - the biological mother & father made the choice to disrupt the order of procreation, not the adoptive parents.
[/quote]

The reason it is intrinsically evil for the married couple, despite circumstances and intention, to adopt an embryo is because the moral act that occurs in such an adoption is [i]the transfer and implantation[/i] of an embryo, thus making a woman pregnant outside of the conjugal act. The mother in this case is knowingly choosing to become pregnant outside of the conjugal act-- not as a side effect, but as a direct result of the choice adopt an embryo into her womb (thus becoming pregnant).

[findinghumility]

This is an interesting conversation and topic for certain. A friend and I have talked some about this as it was the focus of one of her graduate level classes. The impression she has gotten over her months of research is that there are unknowns that make a definitive claim to the morality of embryo adoption to be very very difficult to give at this point which is why the church has not spoken out and likely will not speak out any time soon.

All of the books contributors were very consistently wanting to honor the life of the frozen embryo but how that could best be done was the point of great discussion. Like what has been discussed here you have this counterbalance of two options. Either you break the unitive aspect of procreation by implanting the embryo, or you don't implant that life and it goes unfulfilled.

The part of the discussion that I don't *think* has bee brought up here yet...(with 3 little ones causing chaos I haven't been able to read through too thoroughly..sorry!)...is the concept of not knowing what future technology will bring. The contributors to her studied texts who held true to the need to keep the unitive act of procreation intact, believed, in general, that we do not have reason to believe that in coming years it won't be possible to bring those lives to fullness without the need to break the procreative bond between husband and wife through implantation. They believed that since there was no definitive determination that those embryo's would not be able to be fulfilled in the future without compromising the unitive act that we must choose to wait and see what may come about in future years rather then jump into condoning what they viewed as a morally questionable act.

I do think there are many more issues that come into play when you start thinking about how to best fulfill those lives even if you determine that implantation should be a morally acceptable way to do so. Most times embryo's are frozen in groups. At this point that can not be undone which gives those babies a much worse chance of all making it to birth, vs if they were frozen separately. Maybe in the future science will be able to separate them and give them a better chance for survival. In addition the question rises if it is morally acceptable for a woman who has struggled with infertility to even use this method to get pregnant as there would likely be greater statistical risk her body would not sustain the pregnancy vs a women who has had no problems with fertility and has already carried children to term.

I guess while I personally would love to believe with all my heart that embryo adoption is morally acceptable at this point I just don't know that....I WANT to believe it....I WANT for those babies to come to live as they should....but I can't disregard the unknown scientific advances of the future either....and I know for certain if faithful and trusted Catholic theologians can't come to a decision based on too many unknowns, I certainly shouldn't expect to "know" I'm right whatever my belief at this moment.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='findinghumility' timestamp='1299252275' post='2217856']
This is an interesting conversation and topic for certain. A friend and I have talked some about this as it was the focus of one of her graduate level classes. The impression she has gotten over her months of research is that there are unknowns that make a definitive claim to the morality of embryo adoption to be very very difficult to give at this point which is why the church has not spoken out and likely will not speak out any time soon.

All of the books contributors were very consistently wanting to honor the life of the frozen embryo but how that could best be done was the point of great discussion. Like what has been discussed here you have this counterbalance of two options. Either you break the unitive aspect of procreation by implanting the embryo, or you don't implant that life and it goes unfulfilled.

The part of the discussion that I don't *think* has bee brought up here yet...(with 3 little ones causing chaos I haven't been able to read through too thoroughly..sorry!)...is the concept of not knowing what future technology will bring. The contributors to her studied texts who held true to the need to keep the unitive act of procreation intact, believed, in general, that we do not have reason to believe that in coming years it won't be possible to bring those lives to fullness without the need to break the procreative bond between husband and wife through implantation. They believed that since there was no definitive determination that those embryo's would not be able to be fulfilled in the future without compromising the unitive act that we must choose to wait and see what may come about in future years rather then jump into condoning what they viewed as a morally questionable act.

I do think there are many more issues that come into play when you start thinking about how to best fulfill those lives even if you determine that implantation should be a morally acceptable way to do so. Most times embryo's are frozen in groups. At this point that can not be undone which gives those babies a much worse chance of all making it to birth, vs if they were frozen separately. Maybe in the future science will be able to separate them and give them a better chance for survival. In addition the question rises if it is morally acceptable for a woman who has struggled with infertility to even use this method to get pregnant as there would likely be greater statistical risk her body would not sustain the pregnancy vs a women who has had no problems with fertility and has already carried children to term.

[b]I guess while I personally would love to believe with all my heart that embryo adoption is morally acceptable at this point I just don't know that....I WANT to believe it....I WANT for those babies to come to live as they should....but I can't disregard the unknown scientific advances of the future either....and I know for certain if faithful and trusted Catholic theologians can't come to a decision based on too many unknowns, I certainly shouldn't expect to "know" I'm right whatever my belief at this moment.[/b]
[/quote]

Great post. What you've said here greatly echoes how I feel about the entire issue. It breaks my heart. I did months of research and spent a lot of time with it. And I'm definitely not "set" in what I'm arguing here (but I do think the arguments need to be made), because I recognize that so many Catholic theologian don't have a consensus (although many have strong opinions on the matter). I was blessed to be taught by one of those well-known Catholic moral theologians while writing this paper, and to have two others on campus to talk to, including Grisez.

[kafka]

I think I've figured out a better refutation of Theresa's idea.

A moral object is an end. It is the proximate end of the overall act. Once the object is reached the concrete act is completed. Once the concrete act is completed it cannot inherently order a consequent act in a set of acts. Every knowingly chosen act without exception has its own intention, moral object, and circumstance. Once a concrete act reaches its proximate end, the moral object, it no longer exists, only the consequences of the act. Moral objects are ends. They do not keep on going. The inherent order of the concrete act determined by the moral object culminates when that object is reached. One the object is reached the act ends and the object ends. Therefore moral objects of one act in a set of acts cannot inherently order consequent acts. This would be a serious error. If this were not true, then one could justify one evil act is a set of good acts.

The moral object of a sexual act is three-fold: unitive, marital, procreative. Once procreation occurs, the third moral object the procreative is terminated (as well as the unitive, and marital) The concrete act of sexual relations has morally reached it's proximate end, it's object. Since the act is completed it does not inherently order gestation. Gestation is its own set of acts (morally speaking). The mother knowingly chooses to do good concrete acts to aid in the develepment of her prenatal. Gestatative acts are not unitive, marital, and procreative. Concrete gestative acts are inherently ordered toward the life birth of the baby. Their moral object is live birth.

This I think is it.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1299260439' post='2217895']
I think I've figured out a better refutation of Theresa's idea.

A moral object is an end. It is the proximate end of the overall act. Once the object is reached the concrete act is completed. Once the concrete act is completed it cannot inherently order a consequent act in a set of acts. Every knowingly chosen act without exception has its own intention, moral object, and circumstance. Once a concrete act reaches its proximate end, the moral object, it no longer exists, only the consequences of the act. Moral objects are ends. They do not keep on going. The inherent order of the concrete act determined by the moral object culminates when that object is reached. One the object is reached the act ends and the object ends. Therefore moral objects of one act in a set of acts cannot inherently order consequent acts. This would be a serious error. If this were not true, then one could justify one evil act is a set of good acts.

The moral object of a sexual act is three-fold: unitive, marital, procreative. Once procreation occurs, the third moral object the procreative is terminated (as well as the unitive, and marital) The concrete act of sexual relations has morally reached it's proximate end, it's object. Since the act is completed it does not inherently order gestation. Gestation is its own set of acts (morally speaking). The mother knowingly chooses to do good concrete acts to aid in the develepment of her prenatal. Gestatative acts are not unitive, marital, and procreative. Concrete gestative acts are inherently ordered toward the life birth of the baby. Their moral object is live birth.

This I think is it.
[/quote]

Hm. I'll have to chew with this a bit more. My first impression is that I'm inclined to agree. Give me a bit to think on it more.

[kafka]

[quote name='findinghumility' timestamp='1299252275' post='2217856']
The part of the discussion that I don't *think* has bee brought up here yet...(with 3 little ones causing chaos I haven't been able to read through too thoroughly..sorry!)...is the concept of not knowing what future technology will bring. The contributors to her studied texts who held true to the need to keep the unitive act of procreation intact, believed, in general, that we do not have reason to believe that in coming years it won't be possible to bring those lives to fullness without the need to break the procreative bond between husband and wife through implantation. They believed that since there was no definitive determination that those embryo's would not be able to be fulfilled in the future without compromising the unitive act that we must choose to wait and see what may come about in future years rather then jump into condoning what they viewed as a morally questionable act.
[/quote]
This would fall into the circumstances of the overall act, the third font of morality, not the second. One problem with waiting is that a frozen embryo will not live forever. And I dont have my statistics with me, but the longer the frozen embryon is kept frozen, the less chance it has of gestating.

[quote name='findinghumility' timestamp='1299252275' post='2217856']
I guess while I personally would love to believe with all my heart that embryo adoption is morally acceptable at this point I just don't know that....I WANT to believe it....I WANT for those babies to come to live as they should....but I can't disregard the unknown scientific advances of the future either....and I know for certain if faithful and trusted Catholic theologians can't come to a decision based on too many unknowns, I certainly shouldn't expect to "know" I'm right whatever my belief at this moment.
[/quote]
Some good Catholic theologians are intellectually certain in their own personal belief concerning the act in itself.