Father,

Apparent contradictions make me uncomfortable. On the one hand you state that the physical object and the moral object of a moral absolute are identical. On the other you admit that they are not identical, such as the taking of a contraceptive pill (the physical act) being done for the purpose of healing uterine pathology (moral act), which is not contraception.

So again, since the physical act can be different from the moral act in a moral absolute, and since a moral absolute can not be judged by virtue of the object ALONE, then would we have to admit that the intent and/or a circumstance must be added to the physical object in order to understand the moral object (or the moral act) as being absolute?

Thank you for the clarification.

What I stated was that in the case of actions that are always morally unjustifiable, the physical and moral object of the actions (the "what" of the act, as in WHAT am I doing?) are identical. In such actions, the intention (WHY am I doing it?) and the circumstances (HOW, WHEN, or WHERE am I doing it?) are irrelevant to the fact that the actions are morally unjustifiable by the object alone (the WHAT). In the case of actions such as taking contraceptives for medically indicated reasons, the physical object differs from the moral object. In fact, in such cases, it is a misnomer to call the pills "contraceptives." In such cases, the WHAT of the act is healing uterine pathology. By itself, this WHAT is morally permissible. One would need to consult the intention and circumstances to assure that the action is good in all its sources.

COPYRIGHT 2009

Click here to send this Question and Answer to a friend