John and Andrew

Today, I was meditating on the two disciples who followed John the Baptist and, then, when John pointed out Christ as the Messiah, moved from the prophet to the King.

Andrew is mentioned in Scripture as being a follower of John, and John writes intimately on things which most likely came from the words of John the Baptist.

In the Tradition of the Catholic Church, Andrew and John are accepted as the two apostles who originally followed and, were then mostly likely, baptized by John.

John's baptism was one of repentance, and as the ancient Father, Hippolytus states, repentance opens the gate of heaven for grace.

Therefore, these two men, the first martyr for the Faith, and the last Apostle to live on this earth, came to God through repentance, like the rest of us.

John the Baptist represents for us metanoia, and the humility of conversion. John points out that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. The Precursor opens the gates for the Trinity to come into the lives of men and women who are open to humility and repentance.

Mary is the model of humility, but John comes in second on the humility scale. He was so aware of sin, he who was born without sin, that he noted that he was not worthy to tie the laces of Christ's sandals.

John the Baptist influenced two of the great Apostles. If we follow their example, of humility and repentance, we shall be led to the Bridegroom, as Hippolytus notes.

I think we can safely call John the Baptist the Groomsman of Christ, the Bridegroom, leading others to the great Wedding Banquet which is not only in heaven, but begins with the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, in our hearts, in our minds, in our souls.

Happy Feast Day to the Knights of the Order of Malta.

Added to this meditation of mine today, is that the Church must declare Mary the Mediatrix of all grace as John was freed from Original Sin in the womb and born in the perfection of grace through the presence of Mary.

BTW, here is Origen on one aspect of St. John the Baptist and his relationship to Christ.

It may be said that John's earlier testimony to Christ is to be found in the words, He who comes after me exists before me, for He was before me, and that the words, For of His fullness we all received, and grace for grace, are in the mouth of John the disciple. Now, we must show this exposition to be a forced one, and one which does violence to the context; it is rather a strong proceeding to suppose the speech of the Baptist to be so suddenly and, as it were, inopportunely interrupted by that of the disciple, and it is quite apparent to any one who can judge, in whatever small degree, of a context, that the speech goes on continuously after the words, This is He of whom I spoke, He that comes after me exists before me, for He was before me. The Baptist brings a proof that Jesus existed before him because He was before him, since He is the first-born of all creation; he says, For of His fullness all we received. That is thereason why he says, He exists before me, for He was before me. That is how I know that He is first and in higher honour with the Father, since of His fullness both I and the prophets before me received the more divine prophetic grace instead of the grace we received at His hands before in respect of our election. That is why I say, He exists before me, for He was before me, because we know what we have received from His fullness; namely, that the law was given through Moses, not by Moses, while grace and truth not only were given but came into existence through Jesus Christ. For His God and Father both gave the law through Moses, and made grace andtruth through Jesus Christ, that grace and truth which came to man. If we give a reasonable interpretation to the words, Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, we shall not be alarmed at the possible discrepancy with them of that other saying, I am the way and the truth and the life. If it is Jesus who says, I am the truth,then how does the truth come through Jesus Christ, since no one comes into existence through himself? We must recognize that this very truth, the essential truth, which is prototypal, so to speak, of that truth which exists in souls endowed with reason, that truth from which, as it were, images are impressed on those who care for truth, was not made through Jesus Christ, nor indeed through any one, but by God—just as the Word was not made through any one which was in the beginning with the Father;— and as wisdom which God created the beginning of His ways was not made through any one, so the truth also was not made through any one. That truth, however, which is with men came through Jesus Christ, as the truth in Paul and the Apostles came through Jesus Christ. And it is no wonder, since truth is one, that many truths should flow from that one. 

Knowledge of Divine Things Twenty-Two--Fides et Ratio Fourteen

This post may help readers understand most succinctly the entire purpose of this series.

St. John Paul IL neatly explains the three types of theology he wants to emphasize.

In the last post, he referred to dogmatic theology as needing a basis of rational discourse. This is obvious.

In fundamental and moral theology, the same basis must be the basis of learning and application. This section of the encyclical must be some of the most beautiful words in the entire text.

Fundamental theology is that which examines God in Revelation to the Catholic Church, specifically as the keeper of the truth as set down by Christ. Fundamental theology deals with the very foundations of the faith, such as the call of Peter to be the first Pope, and so on.

Dogmatic theology, referred to in the last post, has to do with the formal teachings of the Church, the dogmas, It is a science of the interpretation of dogma.

Moral theology, (and we have a dire lack of superb moral theologians at this time), deals with ethics of all types: sexual, social, medical and so on.

67. With its specific character as a discipline charged with giving an account of faith (cf. 1 Pet 3:15), the concern of fundamental theology will be to justify and expound the relationship between faith and philosophical thought. Recalling the teaching of Saint Paul (cf.Rom 1:19-20), the First Vatican Council pointed to the existence of truths which are naturally, and thus philosophically, knowable; and an acceptance of God's Revelation necessarily presupposes knowledge of these truths. In studying Revelation and its credibility, as well as the corresponding act of faith, fundamental theology should show how, in the light of the knowledge conferred by faith, there emerge certain truths which reason, from its own independent enquiry, already perceives. Revelation endows these truths with their fullest meaning, directing them towards the richness of the revealed mystery in which they find their ultimate purpose. Consider, for example, the natural knowledge of God, the possibility of distinguishing divine Revelation from other phenomena or the recognition of its credibility, the capacity of human language to speak in a true and meaningful way even of things which transcend all human experience. From all these truths, the mind is led to acknowledge the existence of a truly propaedeutic path to faith, one which can lead to the acceptance of Revelation without in any way compromising the principles and autonomy of the mind itself.⁹⁰

Similarly, fundamental theology should demonstrate the profound compatibility that exists between faith and its need to find expression by way of human reason fully free to give its assent. Faith will thus be able “to show fully the path to reason in a sincere search for the truth. Although faith, a gift of God, is not based on reason, it can certainly not dispense with it. At the same time, it becomes apparent that reason needs to be reinforced by faith, in order to discover horizons it cannot reach on its own”.⁹¹

Moral theology has perhaps an even greater need of philosophy's contribution. 

Hence the problems in the synod....

In the New Testament, human life is much less governed by prescriptions than in the Old Testament. Life in the Spirit leads believers to a freedom and responsibility which surpass the Law. Yet the Gospel and the Apostolic writings still set forth both general principles of Christian conduct and specific teachings and precepts. In order to apply these to the particular circumstances of individual and communal life, Christians must be able fully to engage their conscience and the power of their reason. In other words, moral theology requires a sound philosophical vision of human nature and society, as well as of the general principles of ethical decision-making.

I state that all the misconceptions of the relationship between men and women in marriage and the lack of understanding regarding sin in homosexual relations which was expressed last October in Rome stem from this very problem of the lack of a sound philosophical vison of human nature and society, as well as of the general principles of ethical decision-making.

to be continued...

The fifth and sixth medical ethics isms-Deontology and Rights Theory

Deontology departs from pragmatic philosophies of ethics. The extreme of Deontology would be those who follow Ayn Rand's Objectivism.  Deontology is all about motives. One can make a decision out of duty, but the right or wrongness of that decision is based on one's motives. 

I have been talking about this with two people this weekend. Motives are one thing and actions another. If you have read Kant, you will recognize this ism. The goodness of an action is based on good will and the badness of an action is based on bad will. Kant, however, believed in moral absolutes, but today's Deontologists do not.

Of course, a pro-lifer immediately sees the huge flaw in this approach to ethics. If a person has good reasons, and good will, the action is good.

Nope. 

Rights Theory involves these sources: 

•UN Declaration on Human Rights (1948)

•UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959)

•Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2001)

•UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (1995-2007)

Does a person have a right to an abortion? Does a person have a right to die? And so on....

Enough, this is like reading Screwtape Letters four times in a row...

The third and fourth medical isms-Consequentialism and Utilitarianism

Consequentialism is the philosophical system which can be divided into these types:  Mohist consequentialism, also known as state consequentialism,^[4] is an ethical theory which evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the welfare of a state. (wiki). This type is directly related to the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham, who is mentioned in the curriculum I am looking at today.

or

...rule consequentialism holds that moral behavior involves following certain rules. However, rule consequentialism chooses rules based on the consequences that the selection of those rules have. Rule consequentialism exists in the forms of rule utilitarianism and rule egoism. (wiki) And, egoism here means that... Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result. (wiki)

Obviously, both of these approached of consequentialism, and there are more, move far away from any Faith-based philosophy of morality.

A doctor who has a Faith-based morality in some countries and states would not be able to point out any other moral system or guide the patient to a religious based one if that is not the patient's own framework.

Pragmatism is the goal of consequentialism. The goal is merely to help the patient do something-decide on an action. 

What is ignored here, is St. Thomas Aquinas' idea of double effect from the Catholic point of view. Sadly, the med students would not be taught that important nuance that consequences. In case you forgot what that is, here is a summary, which really needs to be flushed out.

 Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Killing one's assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill him. Aquinas observes that “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly, the act of self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one's life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.” As Aquinas's discussion continues, a justification is provided that rests on characterizing the defensive action as a means to a goal that is justified: “Therefore, this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible.” However, Aquinas observes, the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional: “And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”

Aquinas does not actually say that intending to kill the assailant as a means to self-defense would be prohibited. The passage can be interpreted as formulating a prohibition on apportioning one's efforts with killing as the only goal guiding one's actions, which would lead one to act with greater viciousness than the goal of self-defense would allow. In contrast, Augustine had earlier maintained that killing in self-defense was not permissible, maintaining that “private self-defense can only proceed from some degree of inordinate self-love.”

Later versions of the double effect principle all emphasize the distinction between causing a morally grave harm as a side effect of pursuing a good end and causing a harm as a means of pursuing a good end. We can summarize this by noting that for certain categories of morally grave actions, for example, causing the death of a human being, the principle of double effect combines a special permission for incidentally causing death for the sake of a good end (when it occurs as a side effect of one's pursuit of that end) with a general prohibition on instrumentally causing death for the sake of a good end (when it occurs as part of one's means to pursue that end). The prohibition is absolute in traditional Catholic applications of the principle. Two traditional formulations appear below.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).

The conditions provided by Joseph Mangan include the explicit requirement that the bad effect not be intended

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

I am amazed that there are any Catholic doctors in some nations and wonder how long it will be before America has none.

to be continued....

The second medical ism-Communitarianism

The neo-Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain wrote against the communal ideals of the Utopianism of both communism and socialism. Sadly, he was not heeded.

In the medical profession, the ism of Communitarianism is taught. There two types of Communitarianism but both views belittle the role and identity of the individual in society.

The individual or person no longer is seen as having dignity outside the community.

In an utopian world view, the individual becomes merely a cog in the wheel for the state to use for production. The two main types of this ism are briefly described here 

• Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
• Ideological communitarianism is characterized as a radical centrist ideology that is sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and moralism or conservatism on social issues. This usage was coined recently. When the term is capitalized, it usually refers to the Responsive Communitarian movement of Amitai Etzioni and other philosophers. 
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

Obviously, the two merge in the undermining of the dignity of the person. And, in medical training, the question would impinge, for example on the use of fetal material for research or the taking of organs from a person not really dead by Catholic standards.

This type of ism makes the good of the whole more important than the good of the one. (Why do I sound like a Star Trek movie?).

The society, the state becomes more important than the individual.

Medical decisions are thus made on that premise. Do you want to be sacrificed for the good of the State? Enter in abortion and euthanasia.

This ism is being taught across the Western world in medical schools.

The first medical ism-Autonomy

From Prof. David Smith's course:

Definition of Autonomy:
      The right of persons to make authentic choices about what they shall do, and what shall be done to them and, as far as is possible, what should happen to them.
•is that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights;
• each one is endowed with reason and conscience;
•therefore, all should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
 (as expressed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948)

The Catholic can already see the problems of this ism-and in medicine it has the extrapolation that the patient can decide for themselves their treatment, including euthanasia where legal, or abortion, if these decisions come from the patient's own ethical system. The doctor cannot impose his or her beliefs.

Autonomy also means that the patient is entirely responsible for his own decision, which is convenient for a doctor, who then does not have to be responsible morally for death, or destruction of a fetus, for example. 

Are you feeling queasy about this approach? Good. This approach is part of the system of Principlism taught throughout the entire world.

To be continued....

Do people know the rot in medical training? The isms which form our doctors today

I have just read four classes on medical ethics from one of the Irish medical schools. You may be shocked to know that the entire medical ethics is based on relativism. Relativism is couched in terms of several approaches to ethics. These approaches are the following isms and I shall write a post on each one of these.

The first ism which underlines the medical ethics stand called Principle-ism. Principle-ism, as taught in some medical colleges, refers back to the United Nations and other modern modern systems of ethics, not based on any religious structures. I shall cover the isms one by one. This is direct information from one of the courses.

Principlism details are based on Deontology, Utilitarianism, Rights Theory, and Communitarianism. I also add the emphasis on Autonomy and Consequentialism, which I shall examine first in the next post.

It grew out of the work of Tom Beauchamp & James Childress in the U.S. – in an attempt to provide a systematic, rational approach to health care ethics that would be accepted globally.

It drew from all the major ethical systems which had been developed by philosophers historically and uses insights from them, applied to health care

Principlism is constantly developing – the sixth edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics (2009) contains major revisions and the addition of new material, particularly in the areas of:

 Applying and balancing principles to complex situations;

 Professionalism for the doctor – in ways to development of moral character & professional virtues / excellences;

Consideration of the status of the patient – by looking at a variety of theories of moral status. 

from  INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS & ETHICAL SYSTEMS  and MORAL PRINCIPLES IN HEALTH CARE ETHICS by Prof David Smith

Also see http://www.unglobalcompact.org/aboutthegc/thetenprinciples/

To be continued...