Moral culpability

[Sojourner]

OK, so homeschoolmom and I got in a discussion over lunch at Target this afternoon. She was talking about a news report she'd seen about a male television reporter who was investigating an abortion provider. He provided a urine sample, then sent a female co-worker in with the sample and lo and behold he was pregnant!

So hsmom and I began talking about the moral cupability a woman in this position would face -- if she thought she was pregnant, decided to get an abortion, and went through with the procedure, but really wasn't.

I say she's still culpable for the act as if she had really had an abortion because of the intent factor and the actual commission of the actions necessary to go through with it. I won't speak for hsmom, but she didn't agree.

[homeschoolmom]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

The moral theologians agree with Sojourner. The sin begins once you decide to do it, not when it's completed.

[Era Might]

Yep. "You have already committed adultery with her in your heart" and all that.

[homeschoolmom]

I didn't totally disagree with Sojourner (unlike her post suggests) I said, (and I quote), I'm not sure.

And I wasn't.

[Sojourner]

Ok, I just said "didn't agree." I didn't indicate a [i]degree[/i] of disagreement (i.e., didn't say "totally disagree")



Maybe what I really meant was that she didn't instantly agree ...

[Era Might]

If she willfully wanted to get an abortion, I think it would clearly be a sin in itself. But if she was "considering" it, struggling, not sure whether abortion is ok or not, then in that case there may not be full moral culpability.

[homeschoolmom]

But is she guilty of "getting an abortion" or "wanting to get an abortion"?

[Sojourner]

I think "getting an abortion."

She went through the procedure as if she'd been pregnant, even though she was not.

[Jaime]

You guys went to Target?


Why do I miss all the fun stuff?

[homeschoolmom]

My husband said I can't play with you anymore.

[Jaime]

Why?

[homeschoolmom]

You have a big head.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1016776' date='Jul 3 2006, 05:43 PM']

Why?
[/quote]
She's been crying for hours about losing Settlers to you. It's been awful.

[cappie]

Something written some time ago might help in the debate....

The Question of Culpability and sin
Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121 (CCC, 1849). Catholicism regards sin as a generally bad thing. It’s not looked too highly upon, and there is quite a bit of discussion over what is a sin and what is not, and many people are offended by the judgments arising from such discussions. Comment sometime in a crowd you believe such and such to be a sin, and someone will likely be incensed that you are judging him because the act in question is something performed regularly by the objector. Lawyers and telemarketers are unusually susceptible to this, but thankfully, the Pope has forbade us to associate with them freely. (I am kidding, the Pope only warned us to sprinkle them liberally with Holy Water and wear sprigs of garlic.)
To judge an action as a sin is not the same as labeling a person as culpable for that sin, even if that person commits the act labeled as sinful. One may commit a sinful act and not have sinned. Not because the act itself is different, but because something internal to that person mitigated his culpability. Alternatively, one’s culpability may be reduced, but not completely gone.
Note the word “internal”. It is exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) to judge an individual’s culpability for the sinfulness of a particular act. We see the external, may have some insight to the internal, but the latter is limited to a degree that one usually may, at most, merely speculate as to someone’s culpability.
“Moral Theology” by Fr. Heribert Jone (TAN Books), divides things quite simply for us:
The knowledge must embrace:
1. The action itself: The so-called ‘motus primo primi’ are not human acts and consequently have no moral character, e.g., thoughts imagination and tendencies which are elicited by the intellectual or volitional faculties of man before he becomes aware of them, e.g., an impulse of anger, aversion, etc.
2. The object of the action with all its proximate circumstances: An action is human, and therefore, good or bad, only in so far as its object is known. If one kills another knowing him to be his father, he is guilty of patricide. If he thinks his victim is a stranger he is guilty of homicide. If he believes it is an animal which he may lawfully hunt, he commits no sin at all.
3. The possibility of not acting or of acting otherwise: Only when this possibility is recognized can there be free consent of the will, without which neither good nor evil deeds are imputable.
Anything interfering with these three things is termed an “obstacle”, and can reduce or eliminate the imputability of an act. These include fear, threats of violence to the agent (that’s moral theology talk, there) or, habit, mental disorders, etc. (Jone, 4). The involvement of the will is paramount in deciding the culpability for a sin, and it is easy to imagine cases, and thereby cut people some slack for actions they may not be responsible for. What I mean to say is, don’t assume someone is a Hell-bound sinner just because he performs the actions of one. What I am absolutely NOT saying is to allow such situations to remain thus; but when trying to inform someone of the evil nature of an act, be charitable, and be ready to catch someone who may crumble with remorse at the reality of his deeds. Christianity is not a hit and run exercise, nor is it always tidy and full of hymns, pancake breakfasts and coffee socials. Sometimes, Christianity is about cleaning away the blood the drying of tears, the mending of the wounds of this world. Like MASH, but sans all the wit.
The purpose of discussing sin is not to condemn individual people, but to enlighten all people, to give them the opportunity to not merely avoid sinning, but to actually DO good (having to will the good results of an act to have them imputed to you is another topic, but comes from this one). When the Church comes out and says this or that is evil, she has not just declared all people committing that act are next on the Charcoal Express, she is merely doing her job, which is to teach us all how to attain Heaven, not merely by avoiding offending the Big Guy, but by pleasing Him as well. I highly recommend picking up Fr. Jone’s book. It’s arranged like the Catechism, which makes it very handy.

Jone, Fr. Heribert. (1961). Moral Theology. (Fr. Urban Adelman, O.F.M. Cap., J.C.D., trans.) Rockford: TAN.