The Three Fonts Of Morality

[kafka]

'But on what does the moral assessment of man's free acts depend? What is it that ensures this ordering of human acts to God? Is it the intention of the acting subject, the circumstances — and in particular the consequences — of his action, or the object itself of his act? This is what is traditionally called the problem of the [b]"sources of morality"[/b]' (Veritatis Splendor, n. 74)

A font is a source. The three fonts of morality are the three sources which determine the overall morality of all human actions in the eyes of God. They are:

[b]First Font: Intention[/b], the knowing choice of the person to do something (morally). The second and third fonts of morality proceed from this first font which is the subject's knowing choice. This font is subjective.

[b]Second Font: Moral Object[/b], what the person knowingly chooses to do is summed up as the moral object, however it goes by many different names depending on the teaching document. It is the concrete act with an inherent order (or disorder) determined by the moral object which is either objectively good or evil in the eyes of God. The moral object is the end of the concrete act itself. This object or end is contained in the inherent order of the act. If the object is good, the inherent order is good. The moral object also gives the concrete act in itself it's moral meaning. It is otherwise known as nature (by analogy) of the act, moral meaning, moral species, the moral essence, inherent order or disorder, the means and so on. When acts are said to be intrinsically good or intrinsically good, this refers to the second font of morality. This font is objective. Nothing, no intention or no circumstance may transform the inherent order of the concrete act determined by the moral object which is either good or evil, light or dark in God's eyes. If an act is intrinsically evil, it remains so to all persons, at all times, in all places and in all situations, without exception.

[b]Third Font: Circumstances[/b], everything else pertaining to the knowingly chosen act other than the intention and moral object. These include the consequences, or effects, the situation, and so on. All the reasonably foreseen good consequences must outweigh the reasonably foreseen bad consequences in order for this font to be moral. This font is subjective since it includes the intended end, but it is also objective since one must weigh all the reasonably foreseen consequences intendend or not.

Ven. Pope John Paul II goes on to teach these three fonts in great detail in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

"Consequently the moral life has an essential "teleological" character, since it consists in the deliberate ordering of human acts to God, the supreme good and ultimate end (telos) of man." (Veritatis Splendor, n. 74)

[i]Telos[/i] means final end. Each of the three fonts has an unique end in reference to the overall act. These three ends, must be compatible with the love of God, neighbor. They must also to be directed toward the final end of all persons and things: God, who is Truth, Love, Mercy, Justice and so on.

First Font: the unique end of the first font is called the intended end. This is the purpose for which a concrete act is knowingly chosen. It is possible that there be more than one intended end in the person acting.

Second Font: The unique end of the second font is called the proximate end. This is the moral object. The end toward which the concrete act is directed. This end is objective. It is either good or evil, depending on whether or not it is compatible with love of God, neighbor, self and able to be directed toward the final end: God. It is possible for there to be more than one proximate end (moral object) for example a moral sexual act has three: unitive, marital, procreative.

Third Font: The unique end of the third font is called the remote end. It is called remote since the person must perform the concrete act itself before the actual consequences which include the intended end may be effected. An exhaustive rational calculation of the consequences of one's knowingly chosen act is not possible. It can be more or less obscure or in some cases or it can be very clear. Still a moral judgment can be made in good conscience as to whether or not the good outweighs the bad and this is accomplished by prudence, or applied wisdom. If the reasonably foreseen good consequences outweigh the bad consequences the remote end is good.

All three ends unique to each font must be compatible with love of God, neighbor, self and able to be directed toward God as the final end.

[kafka]

One thing I forgot to add to the analysis of the third font, the circumstances, is that the sincere moral judgement that the good consequences outweigh the bad is usually made at the time of the act is knowingly chosen. And in some circumstances the consequences are weighed beforehand, e.g. whether a nation should wage a war.

The third font is interesting since Catholics in good conscience may in some circumstances weigh and judge the good and bad consequences differently. This is expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Obviously there is also an objective aspect in weighing good and bad consequences. Conscience does have a primacy but within limits. It does not have absolute primacy. It is fallible and finite and dependent. Conscience is subject to God, and the primal moral principle proceeding from God: love of God, neighbor, self as well as all the other moral principles:

Ratzinger: "Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgment regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good."

A sincere and good conscience is guided by love, faith, hope and the seven gifts of the Spirit. In the eyes of God, this illuminated conscience holds a primacy over a conscience which is not guided by these virtues.

Another interesting thing to consider regarding the consequences of the circumstances is that sometimes they are far-reaching. Two extreme examples would be the sin of Adam and the salvific death of Jesus. Some of the bad consequences of Adam's sin extend to the entire human race since he is our first father in the natural order. And the good consequences of Jesus' salvific death extend throughout all space and time, to all persons, and all things, since the act is mystically, irrevocably, and thoroughly united to the Divine Nature.

Edited March 6, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

I just finished editing a lengthy post about the three fonts of morality on my new blog. It is my take influenced by different things I've studied and meditated on.

http://embryoadoptionisgood.blogspot.com/2011/03/introduction-and-three-fonts-of.html

It is not the say all end all but I did cram a lot into it. It is in a sense a bit abstract. But it is very important. The Magisterium teaches the three fonts. I did add a couple of examples and I'm going to start applying the principle to embryo adoption in subsequent posts.