The Principle of Totality

22 Saturday Sep 2007

Posted by Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. in Medical Ethics, Moral Theology

On September 14, 1952, Pope Pius XII gave an address to the First International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System. On that occasion, the Holy Father discussed the Principle of Totality at length and in the contrasting terms spelled out in this question. The principle itself is the general notion that, since parts are ordered for the good of the whole, they may be disposed of, if necessary, for the good of the whole. The application to a human person is that “parts” (i.e., organs, digits, etc.) may be mutilated, severed, removed, or otherwise debilitated if, by so doing, one benefits the person. For instance, in the case of a cancerous organ which cannot otherwise be treated than by removal, it would be morally permissible to remove the organ (thus sacrificing a “part”) in order to save the life of the man who would otherwise be in serious danger of the cancer becoming systemic. In the Holy Father’s own words, “by virtue of the principle of totality, by virtue of his right to use the services of his organism as a whole, the patient can allow individual parts to be destroyed or mutilated when and to the extent necessary for the good of his being as a whole. He may do so to ensure his being’s existence and to avoid or, naturally, to repair serious and lasting damage which cannot otherwise be avoided or repaired.”[1] The Holy Father articulates the reasoning behind this: “Each of the members, for example, the hand, the foot, the heart, the eye, is an integral part destined by all its being to be inserted in the whole organism. Outside the organism it has not, by its very nature, any sense, any finality. It is wholly absorbed by the totality of the organism to which it is attached.”[2] Continue reading →

The Principle of Double Effect in Contemporary Medicine

22 Saturday Sep 2007

Posted by Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. in Medical Ethics, Moral Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Sometimes the same act causes both a good result and an evil result at the same time. The question for the moralist is “Should such an act be performed?” The answer is that is can be, but only if four conditions are met: First, the act itself must be good or indifferent. Second, the good effect must not be caused by the evil effect. Third, the good effect and not the evil effect must be directly intended by the agent. Forth, there must be a proportionality between the good and evil result (i.e., the good must outweigh the evil). An illustrative example would be the use of the opium derivative, morphine, to ease pain in terminal patients. It is known that this drug also decreases respiration, thus it may expedite the death of the patient. It is also highly addictive, which would render it inadvisable to give to patients likely to live, as they could become addicts. If the terminal patient is in severe pain and competent medical professionals have determined that death in immanent, then it is perfectly permissible to administer the morphine even though respiration could be decreased and death thus brought on quicker.

The first condition is met, as the administration of morphine is not an intrinsic evil. The second is met, as the pain is not mitigated through death or decreased respiration, but by the analgesic effect of the drug. The third condition would have to be in the mind of the health-care professional. As long as he had in mind the alleviation of pain and not the euthanising of his patient, he would fulfill this condition. Forth, the good of the mitigation of severe pain (which could, after all, lead the patient to theological despair) is commonly considered to outweigh the evil of a decreased respiration leading to a quicker death.

(For more on Double Effect see the this on-line article by a Catholic Psychiatrist.)

The Natural Law in Medical Ethics

22 Saturday Sep 2007

Posted by Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. in Medical Ethics, Moral Theology, Natural Law

≈ Leave a comment

The natural law tradition as explicated by Saint Thomas Aquinas is foundational for Catholic medical ethics. Here is a very brief description of the Natural Law theory of Thomas Aquinas as it affects that field of moral theology. Included in the description are (a) the historical antecedents of Natural Law, (b) the remote and proximate foundation of Natural Law, (c) the specification of the first principle and precept of Natural Law, (d) the formulation of the specific principles of Natural Law, and (e) the limitations as the movement to made from general principles to contingent action, and (f) the response of the Natural Law position to a particular issue in medical ethics.

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.” Continue reading →

Catholics, Non-Catholics, and the Natural Law

30 Thursday Aug 2007

Posted by Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. in Apologetics, Moral Theology, Natural Law

≈ Leave a comment

Given the general decline in public morals, and given the fact that, as an institution, the major promoter of the natural law is the Catholic Church, some are led to conclude that the natural law is a “Catholic thing,” or that it only binds Catholics. The natural law is Catholic inasmuch as it is an integral part of the Catholic moral system, but it is not a subject of the supernatural revelation that Christ bequeathed to His Church. It is something given to all men as strictly binding.

Even Catholics are confused about this and think that, as long as a non-Catholic follows his conscience, he is not bound to the natural law. But this goes against scripture (as well as the notion of what a conscience is): St. Paul said “when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves” (Romans 2:14). This is generally interpreted to mean that those who did not have the benefit of the revelation of the Old Testament (specifically the Mosaic Law) were still naturally endowed by their Creator with consciences capable of judging good and evil. The next verse goes on to say that these pagans show “the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another.”

That the moral law binds all men is a truth of the Catholic Faith universally believed. While many churchmen are confused and confusing on the issue, the Church still officially teaches this (indeed she cannot cease doing so). Vatican II, in its Gaudium et Spes, speaks of this law written on the heart: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.”[1]

This conciliar passage footnotes passages from St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica (II-II, q. 32, a. 5 ad 2; and q. 66, a. 2) where the Angelic Doctor affirms that all human beings, not only Catholics, know the eternal law of God to the extent that they know the universal principles of the natural law. So the council fathers clearly had in mind the universality of the natural law. The teaching is not unique to St. Thomas: “The general teaching of theologians is that the supreme and primary principles [of the natural law] are necessarily known to every one having the actual use of reason.”[2] This is why everyone knows, for instance, that murder is wrong.
To the non-Catholic who may claim that natural law does not bind him because it is “Catholic,” I would propose the following:

“Do good and avoid evil” – the first precept of the natural law – is found in the legal codes, philosophical works, religious books, and literary monuments of all civilizations, ancient and modern.
Many of the secondary precepts of the natural law – e.g., prohibitions of murder, theft, and adultery – are found in those same historical records, such as the Code of Hammurabi, the ancient Babylonian legal code.[3]
Much of modern literature, which seeks to be “value free,” is filled with stories of the bitterness of guilt which visits those who violate their consciences in matters of the primary and secondary precepts of the natural law.

In short, the common experience of mankind acknowledges the universality of the natural law.

But there is more. Obedience to the natural law is necessary, but it is not enough to make man truly right or just. Supernatural revelation is needed to make man right, both to heal him of Original Sin and to elevate him to attain his final goal, which is a supernatural end. The natural law, which is naturally knowable, can help to bring someone into the Catholic Church. Especially nowadays, as fewer institutions stand up for the natural law, those with a good will, who earnestly seek to keep that law, can see that the law written on their heart corresponds to the moral law defended by the Catholic Church.

According to Dr. John Haas, “The approach of the natural law helps us enter into dialog with other peoples who may not share our particular religious beliefs. The natural law and the doctrine of the Catholic Church tell us that the Church’s basic moral teachings, whether they have to do with euthanasia, contraception, or the ways in which one wages war apply to everybody.”[4]

This truth can help us to evangelize. How? First, it is foundational, as we have said, that the natural law applies to all men and that all have a knowledge of its fundamental precepts. Second, the Church’s moral teachings conform perfectly to this law. Therefore, since all men know these principles in some degree, they will see the basic moral teachings of the Church as good and reasonable; therefore, the natural law provides a moral terminus a quo from which to begin in our conversations with non-Catholics.

Building upon that, we acknowledge, with St. Thomas and most other theologians, that there will be confusion about the application of the secondary principles of the natural law. Now, as St. Thomas teaches in the Summa Contra Gentiles, those who desire knowledge also desire to flee ignorance[5] and that which is imperfect desires to be perfected.[6] Therefore, people in pursuit of greater clarity, knowledge, and understanding of the law that is written in their hearts – if their pursuit be accompanied by a resolute good will – will see the reasonableness of those moral teachings of the Catholic faith, teachings which clarify the secondary precepts of the natural law.

This, of course, could be a grace leading to their conversion.

Footnotes

[1]Gaudium et Spes, No. 16. Translation on Vatican web site: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html (emphasis mine).

[2]The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX, (Robert Appleton Company: 1910) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm.

[3]Class notes, “Lecture 2: Natural Law.” http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c00502.htm.

[4]Ibid.

[5]III, 50, 6.

[6]III, 50, 2.

The Three Integral Parts of a Moral Act (and a bit of fun)

30 Thursday Aug 2007

Posted by Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. in Moral Theology

≈ Leave a comment

The three parts of a moral act: object, intention, and circumstances. I was instructed to explain them in terms of three scenarios. I had a little fun. Here was the assignment: “Albert kills Ernest. Describe three different imaginary situations based on intentions and circumstances (who, what, where, when, by what means, how) that make it (1) murder, (2) self-defense, (3) heroism. Explain how this sort of analysis differs from situation ethics.”

The goodness of a moral act is determined by three elements: object, intention, and circumstances. At least one of these must be good; others may be indifferent; and none may be evil. A defect in any of these renders the act morally evil.[i]

First scenario, murder: Albert Malefactor breaks into the home of Ernest Innocens in the middle of the night. He is armed with a stolen .45 caliber pistol and his intention is to steal the Innocens family jewels. While in the family den, trying to crack the safe, he is happened upon by Ernest, who was awaken by the noise of the forced entry and wanted to protect his household. Albert is surprised by Ernest and pulls his gun. When Ernest threatens to call the police and moves to the telephone, Albert shoots him.

In this scenario, the object, killing an innocent man, is bad. The intention was also bad, as the motive for the killing was not the protection of some good, but the preventing justice by covering another crime, robbery. Finally, the following circumstances are bad: (who) the man shot was an innocent individual seeking to protect his home; (what) Albert was killing to conceal a crime; (where) Albert was in the home of someone else, trespassing on his property; (how) his presence in the home was by an illegal (and immoral) forced entry; (by what means) a stolen firearm was used.

Second scenario, self defense: Albert Vigilantius is in his home asleep. He hears a noise downstairs. He knows this could be a dangerous situation for him and his family, as last week, there was a robbery / murder at the Innocens family home down the street. Albert takes the precaution of taking out his .357 magnum revolver, which he keeps concealed in the top of his closet. Quietly exiting his room, where Mrs. Vigilantius is still sleeping, he walks down the hall, past his children’s rooms and goes down the stairs to where he heard the noise. Ernest Latronus is in the process of stealing various articles of value from the family safe, which he has successfully opened. Albert commands Ernest to stand up and put his hands in the air. Ernest, not seeing that Albert has a gun, pulls out his .22 pistol and turns around to shoot him, but his reflexes are too slow. Before he can aim the weapon, Albert discharges three rounds from his .357 into the intruder’s solar plexus, killing him instantly.

In this scenario, the object is indifferent, as the taking of a human life is not necessarily predicated to good or evil. It is a morally neutral act which may be rendered good or evil by intention and circumstances. The intention is good, as it is the preservation of life, namely Albert’s life and that of his family (from the secondary precept of the natural law “preserve life” and the duty of the father to protect the life of his family). The circumstances are all indifferent or good: (who) a murderous robber with evil intent is killed; (where) Albert was protecting his own household; (how) he did it dispassionately (note: had Albert had a partial motive of revenge for the Innocens family which was murdered last week, this would not necessarily transform the act into an evil one, given what was said in the footnote); (by what means) he used a legally registered armament; (when) he shot the criminal after warning him and after the criminal made an attempt on his life.

Third scenario, heroism: Brother Albertus Heroicus is an twelfth-century member of the Knights Hospitallers, the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. He and the brothers in his Preceptory are assigned to guard a small Marian shrine on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where pious pilgrims come to pray and make votive offerings to Our Lady.

On a certain day, a band of fifteen Muslim intruders enter the shrine brandishing their scimitars. At their head is Ernesto Ibn Tariq, an Italian Crusader who apostatized to Islam. Brother Albertus is the only one of the Hospitallers in the shrine because most of his brethren have been dispatched to give relief to the victims of an epidemic near Aleppo. Those few remaining are chanting vespers in the Preceptory chapel and are quite unaware of what is happening in the shrine. Brother Albertus’ only fellow Christians in the sanctuary consist of a group of pilgrims who have arrived from Spain.

As the sinister Ernesto dismounts his charger to survey the situation, he has one of his men remove Brother Albertus’ sword from its scabbard. With savage cruelty, the apostate informs all present of their fate: the men are to be slowly killed and the women will be sold into Arabian harems. As for Brother Albertus, he will be released as long as he makes no resistance. One of the band seizes a male pilgrim and makes him lay his head on the altar, where he will be decapitated. Fervently praying to Our Lady to give relief to her faithful servants, Brother Albertus notices that one of the Muslims has carelessly leaned his scimitar against the credence table in the sanctuary. On a hook in the wall next to it is tied the rope that extends up to a pulley secured to the ceiling. From this pulley hangs the shrine’s 100-pound solid brass oil lamp, and Ibn-Tariq is standing right under it! Catching the eye of one of the male pilgrims, Brother Albertus signals to him that something daring is about to happen.

With a cry of “Deus vult!” the warrior monk grabs the scimitar and slices the rope, wheeling around and decapitating the two Muslims who motion to stop him. Within seconds, the male pilgrims have immobilized the three of the brigands, and the remaining seven ride off into the night. Ibn-Tariq lays dead at the altar rail, crushed by the sanctuary lamp and flanked by his two headless accomplices.

In this scenario, the object is indifferent, as the taking of a human life is not necessarily predicated to good or evil (same as above). The intention is good, as it is the preservation of life, namely the lives of the innocent pilgrims. The circumstances are all indifferent or good: (who) a murderous apostate and his formal accomplices – all of whom had the intention to sell women into harems – were killed; (where) Brother Albertus was protecting the house of God; (how) he risked his life, whereas he could have avoided any danger to himself and gone free; (by what means) yes, he damaged the shrine’s oil lamp, but the principle of double effect clearly justifies this, as the damage was not intended, the good effect did not depend on the evil effect, the intended object was the good effect, and the good effect outweighed the evil effect; (when) he acted on the spur of the moment and could not try to talk the malefactors out of their misdeed.

It is the circumstance of how that render the act positively heroic.

This kind of reasoning by which we analyze the moral goodness or evil of an act by object, intention, and circumstance differs greatly from situation ethics because situationism has no objective criteria. It applies only the very subjective concept of the “norm of love.” In Catholic moral theology, an evil object could never be rendered good (not even by a good intention), whereas situation ethics knows no evil object. Everything is reduced to intention (“the norm of love”). So, for instance, Catholic moral theology would never countenance adultery; whereas situation ethics would.

[i]Exceptions: if a slight impurity of intention (e.g., praying publicly to edify and to get a good reputation), or a minor evil of circumstance which is not sufficient to transform the act (being distracted while praying) enters into the act, it is still a good act, albeit only partly good, and not entirely good. Cf. J. McHugh, OP and C. Callan, OP, Moral Theology Vol. 1, New York 1958, pgs. 27-28.