Return to Home Page

A Christmas Card from Mary
Does Contraception Minimize the Incidence of Abortion?
Secularism, Culture of Death Hothouse
What Religious Liberty?
The Incredible Ever-Expanding Dead End
Anti-Cure, Anti-Life
Whose Values in Education?
Toppling Dominos
Anti-Christians don't have to be Hypocrites but Many Volunteer
Intolerant Tolerance
The Emperor's Clothes or a Cheap Tuxedo
The Myth of Hitler's Pope, Part I
The Myth of Hitler's Pope, Part II
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Again
The Madness of Secularism
"Don't Impose Your Religion on Me"
Dictatorship of Relativism
Two Babies at Christmas
Living Will or Death Warrant?
Court Ordered Slow Motion Torture-Death Sentence
Men in Black
A Lot of Hot Air
The Culture War Battles
"Stay with us, Lord"
Secular-to-English Dictionary
Moral Guidance for Catholics in this Election
Christians Losing America
Stem Cell Wars
Catholic Pro-Abortion Politicians and Communion
Useful Idiots
Who Killed Jesus?
A Primer on Gay Marriage
Whose Side are You on?
Vouchers Revisited
Real and Fake Cloning Bans
Broken Compasses
No Room in the Inn
Killing Fields Revisited
Gay but not Merry
Adam and Steve?
The Battle for the Court
Victimless Crimes
More Salt, Please
The Next Big Fight
When Religion Becomes Evil
Virginity Making a Comeback?
You've Come a Long Way, Baby
The Incarnational Approach
The Many Meanings of ACLU
Things Your Media Never Told You
A Nasty Little Secret
Two Points of View on the Birth of Jesus
You Gotta Kill Them.  How Else Are They Going To Learn?
Perplexing Christmas Questions
How Do You See Christ Today?
Now that there is Another Ewe, will there be Another You?
What is Conscience Anyhow?
Divorce of Love and Life
What Counts as a Mass?
What is a Covenant?
I Wish I had Your Faith
Are there Too Many Decrees of Nullity?
Dutch Treats
Ecumenism
Going from Baby Doe to Granny Doe
Comments of Evangelium Vitae
The Exception Corrupts the Rule
Good Morality or Good Medicine
Generation-X'ers Smart in Every Way But One
A Matter of Good Breeding
Herod and Pontius Pilate at the Polls
Hitler's Pope or Righteous Gentile?
The Unknown God
What exactly is wrong with homosexuality?
Ideology Trumps Science, Reality, and Common Sense
What Exactly is an Indulgence?
Infallibility and Error in the Church
Pilate Asked, "What is Truth?"
The Truth about Families
New Killing Fields
Choice of Language and Language of Choice
A Lexicon for Our Day
Why are there so many bodies?
Marijuana, Medicine or Menace?
Medical Research and Ethics
Meditation
"You Taught me well, Mommie dearest"
Moral Fallout
Neutral on the Wrong Side
"These are the Nineties After All"
Many are Wed but Few are Married
"...Prepare him for additional obligations"
A Useful Lie
A Partridge in a Pear Tree
Religious Persecution in the U.S.?
What Makes a Person a Person?
The Point of a Point of View
Politically Correct, Morally Depraved
Population Controllers out of Control
Practical Dreamers
Social Progress through Immorality
Shall we Do Evil for Goodness Sake?
Reason and Faith
Resurrection Glory
Same Sex Marriages?
Pearl of Great Price
"I used to be schizophrenic, but we're all right now"
Sexual Morality Irrelevant in Judging Public Officials?
Undesirable Side Effects
Some News is Good News
SOSSLQ's, not POSSLQ's
Spoils of Splits
Why Attend Mass Every Sunday?
Is it All Right to Pull the Plug?
An Appeal for Intolerance
Topics Catechetical
A Voting Catechism
A Moral Guide to Voting
Vouchers: Has Their Time Come?
What Child is This?
What did they die of?
You are the Man
You may be a liberal if...
Get Rid of that Worthless Relative
Planned Un-Parenthood
Weighing Pro-Life Issues Prior to Voting

by Monsignor James C. Brunner, Ph.D.

Faith Points

In view of the widespread controversy over moral questions one gets the impression that there is not much agreement on what constitutes good and evil. I suggest that there is more agreement than disagreement, at least on the basics of the moral law. It is striking that the Buddhist moral guide and the decalogue say basically the same thing although they come from different times and cultures and neither had an influence on the formation of the other. For example, under our fifth commandment, You shall not kill, we place offenses against life and health such as murder and drunkenness. The Buddhist guide speaks of a Reverence for Life (refrain from killing) and Mindful Consumption (refrain from intoxicants). Our sixth commandment, You shall not commit adultery, is paralleled by the Buddhist Sexual Responsibility (refrain from sexual misconduct). Our seventh commandment, You shall not steal, has a counterpart in the Buddhist guide, Generosity (refrain from stealing). Our eighth commandment, You shall not bear false witness, is mirrored in the Buddhist guide, Deep Listening and Loving Speech (refrain from lying).

Paul noticed that the Gentiles "who do not have the law," by which he meant the revelation of the moral code through Moses, by nature observe the prescriptions of the law. This statement has given rise to the concept of what is called the natural law in our day. All elements of mankind from all cultures and times know that it is wrong to shed innocent blood, to commit adultery and other sexual crimes, to steal, and to lie.

If there is widespread agreement among human beings on what constitutes good and evil, why is there so much arguing about the goodness or evil of such acts as abortion, euthanasia, consensual sex, contraception, and premarital sex? I submit that these things are recognized as evil, but many who find the demands of the moral law difficult to follow try to modify the moral principles to which nearly all humanity agrees to allow for exceptions in their case for what they regard as good reasons. They agree that killing innocent human life is not a good thing in normal circumstances but feel that that principle should allow humane exceptions. It should not apply, they argue, in the case of a pregnant woman who is no position to support the child she carries. If a person is in severe pain with no prospects of remission why should he not be allowed to kill himself or to have a physician end his life? And would it not be kindness to end the life of a terminal patient who is too weak to make the decision for himself?

Similarly, everyone is agreed that teenagers should not engage in sexual activity before they are able to assume responsibility for the consequences of their acts and married persons should not seek other unions. But, again, many make a case for exceptions against the generally agreed-upon moral rule that nobody should make a direct attack on the good of human procreation. That rule, they say, is fine for the most part, but compassionate consideration should be given to husband and wife who are not in a position to have additional children and they should be allowed to contracept. Since many teenagers are sexually active in spite of the best advice they should be given contraceptives to eliminate inexpedient pregnancies. The moral principle governing sexual activity is seen as valid for the most part but like the rule governing innocent human life some maintain that it should admit of exceptions for serious reasons.

The problem with making exceptions to the moral principles, which reflect the common sense of mankind, is that the exceptions destroy the principle itself. If we allow exceptions to the rule, Make no attack on innocent human life, to accommodate abortion and euthanasia, the original principle no longer exists. The operational principle now becomes, Innocent human life can be eliminated if it is a convenient way to solve a serious problem for someone. The original principle said that innocent human life was inviolate and was outside the jurisdiction of anyone to destroy it. That is now replaced by the principle that human life is subject to the whims of any powerful person who finds some good reason to eliminate it. This latter principle in the past has given great aid and comfort to tyrannical regimes like those of the Nazis and Communists who embraced it fervently and applied it to those they defined as enemies of the state. I am not suggesting that persons who commit abortion are the equivalent of Nazis and Communists. I am stating that they agree with them in principle and their only quarrel with them is to whom the principle should apply. And that is a matter of taste and not principle. Need we say that there is no quarreling about tastes? On what grounds do you condemn a person who implements a principle that you have declared is good?

The situation is the same with the universally accepted moral principle that there should be no direct attack on the good of human procreation. Making exceptions to the rule to accommodate persons who want to contracept or practice premarital sex, does not introduce benevolent exceptions to the principle. It totally corrupts the principle. The original principle was that sex is not a plaything, but something of itself ordained to the procreation and education of children. As such, the principle would confine sex to marriage and eliminate fornication, sex without a marriage commitment, and purely recreational sex engaged in by teenagers who have neither the capacity nor the desire to assume responsibility for the consequences of their acts. Making exceptions replaces the original principle with another that states, Under certain conditions, determined by the participants, purely recreational sex is permissible. Stated another way, sex for fun alone is morally good. That is the only principle that is consistent with an attempt to justify morally contraception and premarital sex. The principle totally undercuts the entire biblical discipline and the common sense of mankind on sexual activity. It makes what used to be the sins of masturbation, fornication, and adultery morally virtuous acts because they are all fun. It has always been a puzzle to me how parents can caution their teenagers not to engage in purely recreational sex when that is what the parents have done for the majority of the sexual expressions in their marriage.

Attempts at making exceptions to fundamental moral principles are not a correction of undue harshness or a reasonable adjustment made from compassion. This activity is like the mutation of the DNA of a cell that occurs in cancer and just as dangerous. The worst thing that can happen to a person is to have cells that make an exception to the DNA. The mutated cell will multiply and it is totally indifferent as to what new organ it will attack. Another way of looking at the common sense moral principles of mankind, the requirements of the natural law, is as a shield. The principle that innocent human life is inviolate is like a strong wall that guards our lives from unjust attack. Making exceptions to the requirement punches holes in the wall so that we can shoot at others. But others can also punch their own holes and shoot at us. The principle that absolutely protected innocent human life will then be eliminated. If life in the womb is not safe from violation, the principle that justifies abortion also puts our own lives in jeopardy. The same principle that justifies elimination of fetuses can be used against us if we are perceived as problems for others who have the power to end our lives. Whatever the difficulty in fulfilling the requirements of sound morality, we should guard the principles of the moral law as if our lives depended on them because, in point of fact, they do.