www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Unions Between Homosexuals

I have never heard of "proportionalism" nor the fact that it is a "heresy". I don't even understand the word. And I'm not sure how it would respond to the points I'm making about moral theology. Could you point me to some documentation?

Blessings!

AMDG
Dear Dr. John and Steve,

The universal moral norm, "no stealing," specifically forbids taking what belongs to another against his reasonable will. It does not forbid taking a gun from an insane man or taking the bread for one's children. This is because property by nature is subject to the common good. Nevertheless, there IS a universal moral norm that forbids taking what belongs to another against his reasonable will.

There were several heretical 1960's seminary textbooks which gave scenarios like this: A doctor in a concentration camp decides to abort the babies of imprisoned women, to save those women from execution (the punishment for pregnancy). Can she do it? Is it the most loving thing in that situation? According to Christian ethics, NO. According to those proportionalist textbooks, yes.

I would suggest a prayerful reading of Pope John Paul II's magnificent encyclical letter "Veritatis Splendor." He goes into all the modern arguments for this loosy-goosy morality, and devastates them with Scripture and Tradition. The bottom line is that no Christian may directly choose to do something evil. Ever. This is not to be confused with the law of double effect, which permits one to choose something that is good, or morally neutral, and has an evil but unintended side effect. Even in those cases, however, the good to be accomplished must outweigh the side effect.

I'm sorry for the quick use of the term "heresy." I've got the kerosene ready if you don't recant, though.

God Bless.

LatinTrad

And "proportionalism"?

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,
I suspect that by "proportionalism", LatinTrad means "relativism". That the morale choices in any given situation may change, relative to, that situation. Example, it would be a mortal sin to steal $10 from a homeless person who is depending on that last $10 for food, where to steal $10 from, say a multi-millionaire, would be only a venial sin (I use "mortal" and "venial" since we all know their definitions)
denise

AMDG
Actually, proportionalism is the term given to the theory stating that the overall good or evil in a given action must be assessed from the proportion of good & evil in its consequences (and not from the intrinsic nature of the action). Thus it is also called "consequentialism."

Denise, I don't think that example illustrates "relativism." It is true that stealing 10 bucks from someone who depends on it to live is a far greater sin than stealing 10 bucks from someone who does not. But that is because the nature of the action is different, NOT because morality is relative.

IN Jesus and Mary,
Lt

Dear Latin Trad:
I stand corrected!!
I better get my dictionary out before I speak!
(by the way, what does AMDG stand for? excuse my ignorance)
denise

AMDG

Denise,

AMDG is "Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam," or "Unto the greater glory of God."

Feel free to speak any time!!

Denise,

Good points. Many of the marriages had wives that could not bear children. Even Sarah had her laugh at such an idea. God showed that He was still in charge, not the impossibilities of nature. But God also never demonstrated miracles contrary to nature (e.g., two men marrying and one getting pregnant). What was 'sacramental' was that which came from nature. Marriage between a man and a woman is sacramental because like wine, wheat, water, oil and lamp-light, it was used and elevated for the glory of God and the sanctification of man/woman.

A union between homosexuals is a natural disturbance. It is a perversion and abomination of sexuality.

Joe

Right on, Cantor Joe.

I'm still a dyed-in-the-wool academic. I would like a reference to the "theory" and it 'heretical' status so that I can read the texts and determine both their validity and their relevance to the discussion. Unfortunately, I've been burned too many times by debaters who make propositions that are 'of whole cloth' to demonstrate the validity of an approach.

Further: I am more than aware of the man/woman dyads that are present in the Scriptural texts, and I appreciate the realities that are symbolized by them. At the same time, the absence of same-gender dyads is considered to be validating that this situation is 'non-normative'. However, I must ask, for the sake of theological symmetry, about the absence of models for vowed communities. If the male/female dyad is considered as 'normative', then the absence of models for same-gender religious vowed communities must also be considered as 'non-normative'.

If an 'exception' can be made for vowed communities, can not there be an exception made for those outside this paradigm?

Blessings!

PS: My suspicion is that I will be regaled by the proposition that X is always sinful, regardless of circumstances. Thereby prescinding from the logical theological proposition and the need to respond to it in a theological manner. Theology for some folks is relevant until the debate is engaged and then there is a retreat to the "God said it" POV.

It's a Prot thing.

Scary for Catholic and Orthodox faithful. We're used to scrapping things out, not kowtowing to the Divinely Anointed oracles of the self-anointed "preachers" who have a divine ministry that came from a telephone call or a 'vision' that calls them to ministry.

My response is: "by their works shall you know them". If they love God and neighbor, then they're OK. If they're out stoking the burning-at-the-stake fires, then we have to cut them off as charlatans.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

I am not sure that I understand some of the points of this discussion. However, if I may, can address a simple question, about other models? I am not convinced there is an absence of models for the monastic life, in community. The classic texts I suppose would be the Prophet Elijah, and the School of the Prophets found in 4 Kings. The holy Fore-runner is in this ascetic tradition. In addition, in some respects, the apostolic community of the 12 comes to merit some symbolic consideration.

However, the point is, that these "Sons of the Prophets" were hardly sexual unions of any kind. The "School" or Sons of the Prophets (together with the monastic life they prefigured) are signs of the kingdom, the world to come, where there is "no giving in marriage". The bond between them was a common radical commitment to God, and his law.

The radical nature of their 'sign' value as "counter-signs" to this world, is the way they accept that the dispensation (in the sense of 'divine plan') for the whole world, is clearly marriage (one man and one woman). The counter-sign, is particularly dramatic only in this context.

For the Christian (especially for the monastic who read these texts), they symbolized purity, and the angelic state, where all passions (may I say especially sexual ones?) are surrendered for the sake of the Kingdom of God. They became the pure of heart, so as to see God.

So I do not completely accept that the monastic is an 'exception' to the norm. The life of the monk is hardly an 'exception' but rather a gift, and sacrament which points to the Kingdom of Heaven, where different rules (with regard to sex and marriage) will apply. It is clearly a matter of love, and its radical completion, in Christ.

I am not sure if I addressed your question exactly, but I was certain that the gift of the monastic life, is a very different question, to the issues otherwise raised in this thread. I am not sure that the association is helpful or prudent.

Dear LatinTrad,

Again thanks for your concern for my safety! I put away my asbestos suit years ago. I was much younger when I might have needed it!

In your response, you said:

"The universal moral norm, "no stealing," specifically It does not forbid taking a gun from an insane man or taking the bread for one's children. This is because property by nature is subject to the common good. Nevertheless, there IS a universal moral norm that forbids taking what belongs to another against his reasonable will."

What you have just said exemplifies my point, and if I understand correctly, Dr. John's point exactly. The law says Thou shalt not steal.

Of course I understand that it is morally correct for the poor person to take the bread needed to sustain life. The law is the law and we have to clarify what steal in relationship to property and the common good means in order to apply it. You have added the words forbids taking what belongs to another against his reasonable will.

The point is that you have interpreted the law. You have added explanations to it so that its meaning is clear.

That is the nature of moral theology. It is appropriate behavior on the part of theologians under their mandate to do so. They use reason and knowledge from other areas to explain how the universal law pertains to a particular situation.

Theologians work hard, if I remember correctly. At least the ones that I know do. I respect their work

The notion of proportionalism was an attempt on the part of some theologians to find a way to analyze the objective moral rightness and wrongness of actions in what were called conflict situations. They developed a procedure to determine execptions. It was an honest attempt to revise the principle of double effect and the teaching on intrinsic moral evil.

I think that it is quite unfair to reduce their thought to this:

"Proportionalism is the heresy that eschews universal moral norms for the following criterion: always do the most loving thing in the situation you're in."

Their thought, as I recall it, was much more complex and was an honest attempt to find a way to help people become mature Christians and to analyze their moral problems in terms of the universal law. They tried to find a way to apply the universal immutable law in our most mutable world. Whether they achieved their end is up for grabs.


They did not suggest, as you seem to be saying, that one should just "follow Jesus' love." (Though that certainly seems like sound advice to me!)

They did not say to throw out the law.

They tried to help people learn a way to analyze behavior in the light of the law and other theological constructs.

I do not recall hearing that their thought was identified as heretical. If it was, could you please point me in the direction of the document that asserted that?

I agree with you that without clear moral laws such an ethic has no intellegibility whatsoever.

If I remember correctly, the problem is the assertion that propotionalism was an attempt to find ways to apply the clear moral laws in the daily muck of life.

If I have misunderstood or misremembered, I stand ready to be corrected.

But, fair is fair. The work of the theologians involved is being mispresented here especially in your earlier postings, I think. They definitely were not loosey goosey about anything.

Your later posting comes closer to dealing fairly and in an intellectually rigorous way with their approach. This is what you posted:

"Actually, proportionalism is the term given to the theory stating that the overall good or evil in a given action must be assessed from the proportion of good & evil in its consequences (and not from the intrinsic nature of the action). Thus it is also called "consequentialism."


Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Just as an aside, I do not remember this theory being adopted in Eastern Christian circles. Do you?

Hope that kerosene container has a strong cork!

You are quite right. In the end we must not follow any self-anointed 'anyones'. We must follow Christ, and listen to his word. You are right, by their works we shall know them. How do we know who loves God? If they say they do? I think not.

Love is not a feeling, as much as a grace and a decision. Whosoever loves God, will keep his word, and also with God's help, obey his commandments. No one who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom, only the one who does the will of the Father.

Burning at the stake is out of fashion (thanks be to God). It is a shame that morality (carefully discerning right from wrong) is also unfashionable today.

So much of the problem in the Churches today, and the crises they face, might be attributed to the abdication of moral responsibility.

I wonder if an analysis of the theological education we have received since the council might be timely? I would say, that many educated since the 60's have received a reasonable scriptural education, and some have studied the dogma tracts with profit. Pastoral theology has been radically reformed for the better, and liturgical and sacramental studies are much broader in their grasp of how God is sanctifying his Church.

For myself, I recall that the other main area of theological education was "morality". Though I am an example of one, I took only one single 'moral' course in my entire formation, and it was a shockingly poor course. I wonder if others with better experiences in 'moral' courses could speak?

I think that the challenge is to recover an orthodox Moral Theology, from its basic foundation to its particular applications, and then work to re-present it to our clergy and people, as an imperative.

As an academic too (or as one impersonating an academic) I don't know how to 'chime in' on these questions, as important as they are. The discussions we are having, on topics such as raised in this thread, show so many divergent foundations and attitudes, that it is hard to really speak, or respond directly to the points made. Am I fair to suggest that we are using vocabularly differently, and starting from divergent philosophical world-views.

I can certainly appreciate Fr. Elias' perspective. I too underwent the theological perspectives that were presented in our courses. And I very much appreciate the fact that I was taught to think about issues rather than just cite canons or scriptural quotations.

Fr. Elias notes: "So much of the problem in the Churches today, and the crises they face, might be attributed to the abdication of moral responsibility."

I agree. The problem lies in the fact that persons are led to believe that it's either "this or that" as 'mandated' or that the responsiblity to make assessments falls squarely upon their shoulders.

This appears to be the current situation among God's people today. Either do what is mandated or hunker down and think and pray.

Fr. Elias further notes: "I wonder if an analysis of the theological education we have received since the council might be timely? ..... Pastoral theology has been radically reformed for the better, and liturgical and sacramental studies are much broader in their grasp of how God is sanctifying his Church."

I think that this is right on target - many 'layfolks' are now intimately involved in the sacramental life of the Roman Church and are making their voices heard about the ways that the liturgical/sacramental life of the community is being expressed.

Fr. Elias further notes: "For myself, I recall that the other main area of theological education was "morality". Though I am an example of one, I took only one single 'moral' course in my entire formation, and it was a shockingly poor course. I wonder if others with better experiences in 'moral' courses could speak?"

I took the "mandatory" morals course. Paralleling your experience, it wasn't exactly the stellar experience of the semester. Since I have always been intersted in medical/health issues (I wanted to be a doctor - but this was NOT within the parameters of my religious order formation) I did take courses in ethics, including medical ethics, at Harvard Divinity School. Prof. Dyke was wonderful and he was always presenting a panoply of situations which we were forced to "judge" and then give rationales for our perspectives. I got my butt kicked on more than one occasion. But I learned that morality is not the Periodic Table of the Elements.

It is so interconnected with people that any and all judgements must absolutely and positively be connected with the graces of the persons involved. And that we, the 'pastors' and 'counselors', must be drenched in prayer and reflection - and absolute fear/terror in the realization that we are assuming responsiblity for these souls.

Fr. Elias further notes: "I think that the challenge is to recover an orthodox Moral Theology, from its basic foundation to its particular applications, and then work to re-present it to our clergy and people, as an imperative."

Absolutely. The problem consists of the "particular applications". What may be viable for one person might not be viable for another. And it is the responsibility of the cleric to make this determination, at the expense of his own soul. And this is truly terror-making. Should one make a recommendation to one person based upon whatever mandate, and should that person falter, then it is not the individual's failing, but rather that of the 'pastor' who 'pastored' the person to his/her current situation. And one cannot fall back upon the Nazi: "I was only following orders". This just doesn't work.

Fr Elias further notes: "As an academic too (or as one impersonating an academic) I don't know how to 'chime in' on these questions, as important as they are. The discussions we are having, on topics such as raised in this thread, show so many divergent foundations and attitudes, that it is hard to really speak, or respond directly to the points made. Am I fair to suggest that we are using vocabularly differently, and starting from divergent philosophical world-views. "

I have mentioned before, in a discussion on "law", that we seem to be using the term "law" (for example) in different ways. And the divergence in our understanding seemed to be leading to apparent divergent interpretations of the term.

The problem apparently lies in the fact that some participants in the discussion are 'theologians', while others are pious members of the faithful. A specific term will have a clear meaning for the theologian; for the non-theologian, it will have an analogous meaning, but one that does not parallel that of the trained theologian. And the discrepancies will lead to conflict. Not for real theological reasons, but rather for semantic variations. While the theologians will, in general, go nuts to integrate various propositions into an organic (theological) whole, the non-theologians will seek to concretize their propositions and ignore the totality of the theological science. And thus, we end up with problems.

Blessings!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 700 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: 2002 | IP: Logged |

Ah�. no! The problem is that too many people wish to replace God�s Commandments with the notion that it is sometimes ok to do what is wrong. A choice to engage in immoral activity is neither a responsible nor God-directed choice. I think that you misunderstand what Hieromonk Elias has stated.

No. It comes from Christ and His Commandments.

Agreed. Real prayer and reflection is open to the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit never leads us to violate the Commandments.

Quite true. And in no case should the application of Gospel values to a given situation violate the Commandments. If it does, then it is not something led by the Spirit.

Yes, some of us are quite stupid. I am probably the most stupid. But I do realize that some things are always wrong because God has told us that they are wrong. The Holy Spirit never leads us to make decisions to embrace immorality.