Orthodoxy Quiz

[kafka]

Which one is right and why?

1.
A. Some human acts are morally neutral before God.
B. No human acts are morally neutral before God.

2.
A. It is sometimes moral to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil.
B. It is never moral to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil.

3.
A. It is possible to know that an act is immoral without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.
B. It is impossible to know that an act is immoral without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.

4.
A. Immunity from error in Sacred Scripture extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God, or of moral and religious matters.
B. Divine inspiration extends to all of Sacred Scripture so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

5.
A. A law is only intrinsically unjust if it requires one to commit an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion or euthanasia.
B. A law can be intrinsically unjust merely by permitting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion or euthanasia.

6.
A. It is never licit to cooperate formally in evil, even when acting under duress.
B. It is sometimes licit to cooperate formally in evil, when acting under duress.

7.
A. Christians are not absolutely required to hold as errors, those conclusions of science that are contrary to doctrines of faith.
B. Christians are absolutely required to hold as errors, those conclusions of science that are contrary to doctrines of faith.

8.
A. It is impossible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood.
B. It is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood.

9.
A. The sinner is able to freely refuse some of the prevenient graces of God.
B. The sinner is unable to freely refuse any of the prevenient graces of God.

10.
A. The state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death; without it salvation and eternal happiness are entirely impossible.
B. The state of grace is not absolutely necessary at the moment of death; salvation and eternal happiness are nevertheless possible by the mercy of God.

11.
A. An act of love is sufficient for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace, when formal Baptism is lacking.
B. An act of love is not sufficient for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace, when formal Baptism is lacking.

12.
A. At the act of consecration by a priest, the substance of bread is changed in substance into the body of Christ.
B. At the act of consecration by a priest, the substance of bread ceases to exist and is replaced by the substance of the body of Christ.

13.
A. The Magisterium teaches that the Virgin Mary suffered temporal death and was raised from the dead, prior to her Assumption.
B. The Magisterium does not teach that the Virgin Mary suffered temporal death and was raised from the dead, prior to her Assumption.

14.
A. Speculative theology and philosophy are not relevant to the understanding of faith and the formulation of dogma.
B. Speculative theology and philosophy are important to the understanding of faith and the formulation of dogma.

15.
A. Non-infallible expressions of the Magisterium of the Church should be received with religious submission of mind and will.
B. Non-infallible expressions of the Magisterium of the Church must be received with the full assent of faith.

(I will post succinct answers, buttressed by Sacred Scripture and/or Magisterial teachings in subsequent posts.)

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
1.
A. Some human acts are morally neutral before God.
B. No human acts are morally neutral before God.
[/quote]
B is correct. There are in fact no such things as morally neutral acts.

Sacred Scripture does not explicitly or implicitly teach morally neutral acts and neither does the Magisterium.

{36:27} Turn away from evil and do good, and dwell forever and ever. (Psalms)

{15:15} He added his commandments and precepts. (Sirach)

The commandments are divided into positive and negative precepts. The positive precepts are summed up as “do this”, representing the inherently good acts per se, which we are to do. The negative precepts are summed up as “do not do this”, representing the intrinsically evils acts per se, which we are never to do without exception. There are no neutral precepts.

{15:18} Before man is life and death, good and evil. Whichever one he chooses will be given to him. (Sirach)

Life is the state of sanctifying grace. Death is the state of actual mortal sin without sincere repentance. Good and evil are before man to choose; neutral is not a choice in this inspired passage of infallible and inerrant Sacred Scripture.

Nowhere in Veritatis Splendor, the crowning achievement of Magisterial teaching on moral fundamentals, are morally neutral acts explicitly or implicitly expressed. Rather the moral object of the second font of morality is always said to be good or evil:

"The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God."

"Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object . . ."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

"A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together." (CCC, n. 1755)

USCCB Catechism: "Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act.... All three aspects must be good -- the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances -- in order to have a morally good act." (United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, July 2006, p. 311-312.)

There are three fonts of morality taught by the Magisterium: intention, moral object and circumstances. All three must be positively good for the overall act to be good, moral or licit. The CCC teaches that the moral object must be good, as does the USCCB. If the second font is neutral how can the overall act be moral if all three fonts must be good? Each font is distinct. Each is independent of the other. Together the three make up one overall act. The intention and/or circumstance cannot transform the intrinsic order of a concrete act. This is impossible since all three fonts have ends independent of each other.

In conclusion, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium teaches morally good and evil acts, not morally neutral or morally indifferent acts. Objectively, an act in itself is good or evil, light or dark. A knowingly chosen objective act is evil since it is lacking in good that ought to be present, in accord with the will of God. All acts by all persons ought to be a reflection of the God who alone is Good and who is the basis of all morals. Yet where there is no lack of goodness, there is only goodness and no neutrality. Where there is no evil, there is simply goodness and that is all. And a morally neutral act could not be possibly directed toward God as the final end.

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
2.
A. It is sometimes moral to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil.
B. It is never moral to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil.
[/quote]
A is correct. But why? Toleration is a good moral object. To tolerate evil is just, merciful and loving since human persons are limited, fallen and sinful. God tolerates venial sins without the punishment of Hell or even a severe punishment on Earth. But the Magisterium teaches three fonts of morality, so the intention and circumstances still must be good. The third font is the circumstances “the circumstances — and in particular the consequences. . .” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 74). In some circumstances, the good consequences of tolerating a lesser moral evil outweigh the bad consequences of the greater evil which would be brought about had not the lesser moral evil been tolerated.

Magisterial support from Humanae Vitae, n. 14:

"[b]Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good[/b], it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general".

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka

[Laudate_Dominum]

15/15 here.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
3.
A. It is possible to know that an act is immoral without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.
B. It is impossible to know that an act is immoral without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.
[/quote]
A is correct. There are three fonts of morality: intention, moral object and circumstances. If the moral object is bad, immoral, evil, illicit then the overall act is always bad, immoral, evil, illicit since the will cannot transform evil into good. So it is possible to know that a act is immoral without taking into account intention and reasonably foreseeable consequences. And the immoral object it should never in fact be chosen for any reason whatsoever without exception.

“The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 79)

“If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself.” (Veritatis Splendor)

[CatherineM]

I'm on summer vacation. I do have a take home final I didn't finish, but my husband hid my textbooks when I got sick. I'll get back to you in September.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
4.
A. Immunity from error in Sacred Scripture extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God, or of moral and religious matters.
B. Divine inspiration extends to all of Sacred Scripture so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
[/quote]
B is correct. The Magisterium has infallibly taught this, yet Catholics still boldly reject the teaching to this day.

Pope St. Clement I: "Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an [b]unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.[/b]" (Letter to the Corinthians, chap. 45).

Pope Leo XIII: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, [b]are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error,[/b] but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

Pope St. Pius X condemned the idea that "Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error." (Lamentabili Sane, 'Syllabus of Errors,' n. 11).

Pope Benedict XV: "St. Jerome's teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error…. But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church -- nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning -- who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this point…. Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…." (Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16, 18, 21).

Pope Pius XII: "they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters." (Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius XII: "The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that 'the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.' In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical 'not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.' When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine,[b] by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as 'obiter dicta' and -- as they contended -- [/b]in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893,[b] justly and rightly condemned these errors[/b] and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules." (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1).

7. Second Vatican Council: "everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit…." (Dei Verbum, n. 11).

Second Letter to Timothy
{3:16} All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice,
{3:17} so that the man of God may be perfect, having been trained for every good work.

Infallibilty (without possibility of error) and inerrancy (without error) proceed from divine inspiration. Because Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired, it is infallible and inerrant on all that it asserts without exception and so it may be used for teaching, reproof, correction, etc. But if it were not divinely inspired, it would not be infallible and inerrant on all that it asserts, and so it would not be useful for teaching, reproof, correction, etc. since error is not useful for these things.

{11:7} The eloquence of the Lord is pure eloquence, silver tested by fire, purged from the earth, refined seven times.

seven is the number for completion and perfection. Silver is the sacred author purged from the earth and fire is the charism of inspiriation. There is nothing fallible and errant in the word of God who is Truth.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1304994785' post='2239428']
I'm on summer vacation. I do have a take home final I didn't finish, but my husband hid my textbooks when I got sick. I'll get back to you in September.
[/quote]
I should be done by tonight, but a couple are difficult and I might not be able to find support in Magisterium for all of them.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
5.
A. A law is only intrinsically unjust if it requires one to commit an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion or euthanasia.
B. A law can be intrinsically unjust merely by permitting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion or euthanasia.
[/quote]
B is correct.

Evangelium Vitae

'In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".' (n. 73)

JPII teaches that a law permitting an intrinsically evil act is an intrinsically unjust law. The law in and of itself is evil.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
6.
A. It is never licit to cooperate formally in evil, even when acting under duress.
B. It is sometimes licit to cooperate formally in evil, when acting under duress.
[/quote]
A is correct. Why? To formally cooperate in evil is to choose the one and same evil moral object of the cooperative person.

e.g. The acts of a doctor, a nurse cooperating with the doctor, and the mother are all morally directed toward the killing of an innocent prenatal in an abortion. Duress can never transform an evil moral object into good, just as the will of a human person cannot.

I cannot think of any Sacred Scripture or Magisterium for support at the present.

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
7.
A. Christians are not absolutely required to hold as errors, those conclusions of science that are contrary to doctrines of faith.
B. Christians are absolutely required to hold as errors, those conclusions of science that are contrary to doctrines of faith.
[/quote]
B is correct. If a doctrine is infallibly taught by the Magisterium, then to accept this doctrine with the full assent of faith implies and includes one absolutely rejecting all contrary conclusions without exception. If one did not absolutely reject all conclusions to the contrary one's act of faith would be lacking and divided whereas it must be be full and complete. Full assent of faith is all or nothing.

Vatican I

On Faith

1. If anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God: let him be anathema.

On Faith and Reason

2. If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the Church: let him be anathema.

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
8.
A. It is impossible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood.
B. It is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood.
[/quote]
A is correct. The knowledge of reason cannot advance beyond the knowledge of faith.

Vatican I

On Faith and Reason

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathem

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka

[truthfinder]

About # 1, what about things like combing one's hair. Could you explain why that would not be morally neutral. Or maybe I'm just really confused. Thanks

[kafka]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304989406' post='2239378']
9.
A. The sinner is able to freely refuse some of the prevenient graces of God.
B. The sinner is unable to freely refuse any of the prevenient graces of God.
[/quote]
B is correct. Why? Actual graces are divided into two subtypes: prevenient graces and subsequent graces. Prevenient graces go before the act of the will. They are free and gratuitous prior to cooperation. So a sinner cannot refuse prevenient graces and this is what in fact makes a sinner guilty before God. God freely and frequently gives prevenient graces innumberable times throughout a persons life when they are needed, but the sinner after receiving that initial prevenient grace, refuses to cooperate with subsequent grace by avoiding the sin. All sinners have prevenient grace prior to their sin.

Here are teachings concerning prevenient grace:

Ecumenical Council of Trent

CANON III.-If any one saith, [b]that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost [prevenient graces][/b], and without his help [subsequent graces], man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Dei Verbum

To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must[b]precede[/b] [prevenient] and assist [subsequent], moving the heart and turning it to God,

Council of Orange (non Ecumenical Council)

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, [b]but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God[/b], he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

Catechism of the Catholic Church

"Every time we begin to pray to Jesus it is the Holy Spirit who draws us on the way of prayer by his prevenient grace."

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka

[kafka]

[quote name='truthfinder' timestamp='1305000367' post='2239504']
About # 1, what about things like combing one's hair. Could you explain why that would not be morally neutral. Or maybe I'm just really confused. Thanks
[/quote]
combing one's hair is not instrinsically evil. It has a good moral object which is basically to look good and presentable. It can, theoretically, with a good and loving intention enlivened by actual grace-be directed toward God as the final end, just as eating can and just as getting one place to another (transportation) can, etc.

{10:31} Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever else you may do, do everything for the glory of God.

But the act of combing one's hair does not need an actual grace to perform. So it is not in and of itself meritorious, like prayer. It is a good act one can do without actual grace.

That would be my opinion.

Here is another nice quote from Veritatis Splendor:

The human act, good according to its object, is also capable of being ordered to its ultimate end. That same act then attains its ultimate and decisive perfection when the will actually does order it to God through charity. As the Patron of moral theologians and confessors teaches: "It is not enough to do good works; they need to be done well. For our works to be good and perfect, they must be done for the sole purpose of pleasing God". (n. 78)

Edited May 10, 2011 by kafka