That last bit may surprise you. One often gets the impression, listening to bishops and others who claim to represent the Catholic Church on various matters, that one must always and everywhere obey the law unless one is absolutely certain the law does not apply or that a higher law overrides a lower law. This is the only safe path!
Yet such a rigorous position was actually condemned by church authority during the debate with Jansenism (look it up if you are bored) in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. While one can never accuse the Catholic leadership of laxity when it comes to the teaching of morality (whatever its quite evident failures may be in the matter of its own behavior), the church came down firmly on the side of those who contended that one only needed a solidly probable opinion (seriously solid, based on firm theological reflection by competent moral teachers) to decide that the law did not apply in a particular case. Those who said that one must choose the safer course (tutior means safer in Latin) or even the safest course of always obeying the law (the absolute tutiorist position) were condemned in papal pronouncements related to the Jansenist heresy.
By the way, the church at that time also said that one did not even have to choose the more probable opinion! If there were good reasons for an opinion that favored freedom, even if there were better arguments against it, you were free.
This may all seem rather technical when life is simple, but is life actually so simple? Do not men and women of good will, men and women raised in the Christian tradition and familiar with the scriptures, do not many of them disagree on any number of points, not just of belief but of behavior? Much of the heat generated by religion in the political realm seems to arise from an erroneous belief that all Christians (or all Jews and Christians) believe the same thing about issues like abortion, marriage, medical research, creation and on and on and on. Too many seem to be absolute tutiorist in a way -- the only safe way it to vote in accord with MY interpretation of whatever-the-issue may be. Or in accord with MY understanding of what MY church says. Or what some of those who lead or claim to lead MY church says. Or what MY church says the Bible says. Or what MY pastor says the Bible says. Or what I think the Bible says.
One reason that absolute tutiorism is unacceptable in Catholic theology is that it undervalues the mercy of God and implies that salvation depends totally on fallible human understanding and actions rather than on the grace of an all-knowing and all-loving God. God is just, one of the holy ones has said, not because God sticks to the rules but because God also takes into account human error and confusion.
I for one find this absolutely reassuring!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello. Thank you for this post. But how would you reply to the one who says even if a divine obligation is not certain but only doubtful, still we should impose the obligation on ourselves because it is better to err on the side of keeping God's laws than not?
ReplyDeleteWe are certainly free to choose to follow what appears to us to be the safer path out of a desire to more perfectly -- not perfectly, but more perfectly -- follow God's will. What the church teaches is that we cannot impose such an obligation on others, After all, we may in fact be in error. St. Teresa, I understand, made a promise to always do that which appeared to her to be more perfect, but she was very careful to consult with learned and spiritual advisors whenever this might have an impact on others. At any rate, I believe the idea would be to do the best one can out of love, not out of fear or out of a desire to earn divine favor. The shockingly Good News is that God already loves you.
ReplyDeleteDamien, thank you for your reply. I'm sorry I am only now responding. It seems to me that if someone has even a slight doubt that what they are doing (or contemplating doing) might be contrary to God's law, it is wrong to do it. For as one would not be considered to value the friendship of another, who, without just cause would be willing to perform an action possibly displeasing to him: therefore neither should one be thought to value the friendship of God, who is willing to do what is possibly displeasing to him. This reasoning seems to show, in other words, that not only the most perfect way, but the only right way, to act if one has even a slight doubt that something is contrary to God's law, is to take the safer way, the way of not risking violating God's law. Where am I erring in my reasoning?
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteI understand your quandry. One problem is that you may assume that God holds us accountable for errors made in good faith, that is, when we are not sure. Remember, we are talking about cases where there is real doubt. If there is doubt, then we cannot know what is the safer way because we do not know what God wants. That is the problem. If we are not sure what God wants us to do, then no matter what we do, we may be in error. If the matter is of no importance, then it must not matter to God anyway. Minor things like what I choose to order for lunch. Any item on the menu would probably not violate God's law, unless one thinks kosher laws and such apply.
More serious matters might mean either choice may violate God's will, but there might be no way to avoid a choice. The classic example is the person running into a burning building and having to choose which of two helpless, innocent persons to save, knowing that leaving either behind will mean leaving that one to die.
The main problem, however, is the premise that God is displeased by our violation of some divine command which is not clear to us under the circumstances. This issue only arises in specific circumstances where one cannot know for sure what to do. If one could know, then one would be bound. One does not know and therefore ... So an overarching principle must apply, but it is not specific to the case, just to our general approach to life in conformity with God's will.
The scriptures, for example, tell us that we know what God wants of us: to act justly (which is often difficult to know for sure), to love kindly (which sometimes is not easy to distinguish where there are conflicting perspectives) and to walk humbly with our God. (Micah 6:8) Walking humbly would seem to indicate not only a desire to obey but a trust that it is God who saves, God who redeems and not we who somehow work out our salvation by keeping the rules perfectly. The just man falls seven times a day. And so on.
At any rate, the teaching of the church's magisterium -- if that is a matter that weighs with you -- is clear on this point, and that is the topic addressed in this post, not what limited human reason -- yours, mine, Jansen's or Augustine's -- might understand.
If this is a matter of painful concern for you and not just an intellectual issue, and if you wish to pursue the question further, I suggest you contact a good moral theologian, not a random blogger who relies on fast-fading memories of theology courses taken long ago. You might want to address with such a guide how you view God, what you understand by mercy and justice and grace.
You might also want to read St. Therese of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church, on merciful love. Her co-religionist and fellow saint, Teresa Margaret of the Sacred Heart, wrote practically nothing, but one saying of hers that is preserved is this: "We swim in God's mercy like fish in the sea."
Best of luck with this problem. If it is any consolation, the church at one point silenced theologians on all sides of the grace debate because it believed that the arguments clarified nothing and only served to disturb the faithful. You might want to read the history of the theology of grace, in fact, to get a better sense of how this has been addressed and the limitations of the solutions offered on all sides.
It may not fit your image of God, but personally I believe that there are lots of things that God doesn't care about they way we think. But what do I know?
Damien,
ReplyDeleteWow! Thank you for writing so much. You said that in these cases we do not what God wants. But it seems to me the line of reasoning I presented shows that God wants us to not do something that might be contrary to his law. That is what the reasoning seems to show to me anyway. In cases of perplexed conscious, where any course one takes will be contrary to a law, it seems clear that the correct course is to do what one believes will result in less material evil. If one cannot determine which one that is, then one must simply choose one. But the moral systems (tutiorism, probabilism, etc.) are dealing with the different situation where there is doubt about the existence or applicability of God's law. And the reasoning I presented seems to show that in these cases, out of love for God, we must submit ourselves to the doubtful obligation. Again, "For as one would not be considered to value the friendship of another, who, without just cause would be willing to perform an action possibly displeasing to him: therefore neither should one be thought to value the friendship of God, who is willing to do what is possibly displeasing to him. " Does this clarify things any better? If so, where do you see the error? And, again, I appreciate very much your kindness on this; and you are right that it is a matter of personal distress to me. Also, I have a strong sense of God's mercy, but precisely for this reason I don't want to displease him. Thanks for your thoughts!
Michael,
ReplyDeleteAgain, I suggest you continue this conversation with someone who can be of direct assistance. We are not operating at all from the same premises, and hence are unable to come to a meeting of the minds. My very point is that we DO NOT KNOW what God's will is in these particular cases and therefore we cannot choose an absolutely safer path! ANY path we choose in this case can be in error, and so we must choose as best we can and trust in God to accept our desire to do right and account it to us. Since I do not know God's will IN THESE CASES BY DEFINITION, I cannot avoid doing an act which, in your terms, is "possibly displeasing to him" qua act.
That is the crux of the problem: I do not know. My doubt is real, not feigned. I am not trying to get away with something. I am trying to do the right thing but cannot decide AND -- something that I may not have made clear before -- even church authorities and theologians do not agree on what is to be done in the particular case facing me. The doubt is not merely my personal confusion; it is general uncertainty even among informed moral thinkers. We may want to think that there is only unanimity on all matters, but this is an illusion and the church itself, while often seeming to assert unanimity, acknowledges that there are many gray areas where there may be consensus but not certainty. (Not talking about revealed truths which are understood as certain -- though still open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, even within the magisterium.)
Also, I must assure you that I am not a believer and I find it difficult to try to argue a position that I do not personally hold, for reasons having nothing to do with the particular question. I am trying to explain what I understand to be the orthodox Roman Catholic position.
I wish that my remarks could have been somewhat helpful, but since you state that this is an issue of personal distress, please seek assistance from someone who can directly help you. Whatever else God may wish, a loving God does not wish you to suffer internal torment over this. Your time and energy will be better spent finding a good spiritual counselor you can consult face to face. I know it can be difficult to find such a guide, but they are out there. I wish you the best of luck finding one.
May you be well, may you be happy, may you know the peace and love of God in the depths of your being and may it reflect in your eyes and words to those around you.
Damien
Damien, thank you for your reply. I hear you saying we don't know what God wants us to do in doubtful cases. At least I think this is what you are saying. But the reasoning I presented seems to show, to demonstrate as an argument, that God's will in these cases is that we oblige ourselves to the doubtful obligation. So you say we do not know God's will in these cases, and I get that that is your position. What I am asking is how do you therefore refute the reasoning of the argument that seems to show that we do know his will in these cases, namely, to follow the doubtful law?
DeleteIf I am annoying you, I'm sorry. That is not my intention at all. I just can see that you are very thoughtful and wise, so I am hoping you might see what I cannot see about the argument, namely, how it is fallacious. You said you are not a believer. I assume you mean not a believer in the Catholic Church, not that you are not a Christian at all? Well, I am not Cahtolic. In fact, I am a unitarian (i.e. non-trinitarian) Christian. This makes it all but impossible to find people to talk to about really anything regarding my faith. In other words, finding a Christian counselor is not realistic for a 'heretic' like me. And I hope this does not scandalize you.
Anyway, though you are humble about your own ability, everything you have written has been very helpful to me. I appreciate you in other words!
Michael,
ReplyDeleteMy own beliefs, such as they are, tend towards Eastern traditions such as Taoism. Wherein I learn that the one who knows, does not speak; and the one who speaks, does not know. Taking that seriously, I believe I had said too much already!
I have not found your questions annoying, although I have felt annoyed at myself for not being able to express things more clearly.
And finally, in the words of my favorite country song by Lee Ann Womack:
"I hope you never lose your sense of wonder;
You get your fill to eat but always keep that hunger.
May you never take one single breath for granted.
God forbid love ever leave you empty handed.
I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean.
Whenever one door closes I hope one more opens.
Promise me that you'll give faith a fighting chance,
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance --
I hope you dance."
Damien, you did not say too much, and thank you for what you said. By the way, my blog is www.mindingthetruth.com. It's devoted mostly to debunking what I see as seriously erroneous representations of the original Christian (what I take to be) revelation. My training is in the exegesis of the ancient Jewish documents. I think I will re-read and save what you have written here as I try to deal with the issue (a moral doubt) I am struggling with right now. Again, thank you for all you have said.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the information on your own blog. I will certainly check it out.
Peace,
Damien
Damien, I hope you are well. I wanted to tell you that I think I have debunked the line of reasoning we were discussing. You will recall it was an argument for rigorism. I think the problem with the argument is it fails to recognize our cognitive limitations and therefore leads to moral paralysis. But this is surely not God's will for us. In other words, if we only ever do what we believe certainly does not violate a precept of God, then given our cognitive limitations, we would find ourselves unable to do hardly anything. But God does not want us bound like this. Or, at least one can argue this in rebuttal of the argument.
ReplyDeleteI think where we were talking past each other is that I was focused on does X violate a precept of God, whereas you were focused, better and rightly, on is X God's will for me here and now. For example, in my dilemma, I am trying to determine whether I should continue in a business I have created. My concern is that my prices (by necessity) may be too high. Internal analysis shows they are most probably not, and some moral theologians I have consulted agree. So I have been focused on, is it permissible to continue this business even though I have a slight doubt that my prices are too high (unfair). This is where the moral systems come in. Rigorism says no, tutiorism says no, but the other systems--probabiliorism, equiprobabilism, and probabilism (and compensationism)--say yes. But, it seems to me, you were stepping back and looking at the bigger picture and would have me ask simply, Is it God's will for me to quit this business or not? This bigger question includes the narrower questions about which moral system is true and whether my prices are fair or not, but it is really the final level question. In my case, I think I would say I do not know if God wants me to or not because I do not know which moral system is true. I think rigorism is almost certainly false, but I am not sure it is. But this means that I am not sure what God's will is. If I was certain rigorism is true, then I would be sure is will is to quit my business.
Now are we on the same page? Am I finally understanding what you were getting at?
I believe you understand and have expressed where we were missing each other. You were indeed focused on the general principle, whereas I was looking at the question of God's will in this moment.
ReplyDeleteOften I have found in my life that when I get tangled up, it is because I am looking too narrowly and therefore asking the wrong question -- perhaps (and I do not know!) whether the price of something is too high, when the real question is why am I doing this. Sort of asking whether the deck chairs on the Titanic should be fore or aft when the real issue is the iceberg we just hit.
I discovered with the help of some wise and experienced elders that God's will may include several options for me, and that I create an obstacle thinking I can only walk ahead or walk back -- when actually, I can step off the path completely and strike out in another direction.
There is almost always another way, not just yes-no, this-that.
Best of luck with your process. May the coming year be one of blessings and peace.
Damien, in my case I actually would rather not do the business but I continue because I believe it may be God's will. As you will recall, I am a unitarian Christian theologian. I believe the most I have to offer the world is scholarship in this vein, but I must support myself in this financially as I do not have any offers from others to pay me to do so (a small chance given my beliefs). I would much rather be an airplane pilot, or a mechanic, or something of that sort. But I feel "called" to do this. And the business enables it. It also enables my wife to work with me at home, which she enjoys and which is a blessing to her because she has physical/health issues. All this said, I take your point about possible third ways. We have been thinking of them to be sure, as this whole thing has brought me to the brink of despair--mainly because I don't know whether I should not only quit going forward but also refund thousands of transactions in the past. That would be something that would take years to do. It's been, frankly, a horrible psychological ordeal. We started this business and loved it, but then I started having these doubts. And now over a year later I am still wrestling incessantly with this. Everyone else things the doubts are silly, that I am "scrupulous." Be that as it may, I cannot shake them. Just price theory is hopeless it seems to me. I don't know if you've ever studied that, but trying to determine what a "fair price" has turned out for me to be one of the most difficult questions I have ever tried to answer. I still don't have an answer. I wish I did! ANYWAY :), you said you take seriously the dictum to not speak much, but, my friend (if I may), your words are the most helpful I have received on the topic of doubt and God's will--and I've talked to some really smart people. So thank you. I am so glad I finally got what you were saying. Thanks for bearing with me! :)
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteIf you read the blog -- not sure that the regular stuff would be of interest -- you will note that I am taking a break for reflection right now. Which means I should be silent! But I will add one more thought.
Years ago, it occurred to me that one way God revealed God's will to me is through my own desires. I had always assumed (been taught!) that my wishes and desires were suspect and most likely contrary to God's will. It was a revelation to see that God can actually want the same thing I want!
You believe God gave you reason. Did your God not also give you desire for happiness, peace, joy, fullness of life? I realize that it is only in the Oneness of the Nameless One that all is reconciled. But give some thought to the possibility that the Nameless One is speaking to your heart through your own deepest yearning. I am willing to bet that no business -- successful, unsuccessful, stressful -- can fulfill that yearning. Seek what does and the Nameless One will be with you on the way.
Pax tecum.
Thanks Damien. Peace to you too, friend.
ReplyDeleteDamien, bringing all your reflections together, perhaps we can say that when one (hic et nunc) does not know what God's will is, then one should do what one wants to do--that that, in other words, is what God's will is. I think that brings it all together!
ReplyDeleteI will stop disturbing your silence now! And I will try to explore more of your blog.
Michael