Emeka —

You said:

• Also, can you please explain the sources of morality to me?
  

1. The moral object is the what that someone chooses to do.
2. The intention is the why, and
3. the circumstances account for the where, when, how, how many, etc.

The moral object answers the question, What did he choose to do? It is the physical motion coupled with the proximate end.

Peace,

Paul

Hi, Emeka —

You said:
Can you please explain this definition for me:

1. "The moral object is the end towards which the knowingly chosen act is inherently ordered."

Another way of saying, the end towards which the knowingly chosen act is inherently ordered is the proximate end. It answers the question What are you doing? It is the immediate moral purpose of the physical act chosen by the moral agent (the person doing the act).

You said:

2. Also is the moral object only the what the person chose to do?
   
   A Catholic said that the moral object has (4) four structures:

1. the freewill i.e. knowingly, deliberately or intentionally choosing the act.
2. the act itself, which you described as the what and he also added the how like, for instance, How did the person steal it?
3. the essential moral nature of the act . . .
4. as determined by its object
   

That is a little confusing. Let's make it easier. A moral act has three elements:

1. the object (what is morally chosen);
   
2. the intent of the person (for what reason he does the act. The remote end/purpose); and
   
3. the circumstances.

Often, either the intent or circumstances may change the value of an act from bad to good or vice-versa. However, there are some acts that are intrinsically evil, meaning no matter what the intent (and/or) circumstances are, the object is always bad to choose.

Nothing can make the moral act good. For example, theft, murder, rape, lying, contraception, fornication, and many more. These moral absolutes are spoken of in the Catechism.

Paul

Hi, Emeka —

I've been asking a variation of that question for many years, without receiving a totally satisfyingly answer. It depends on what the moral object is. This is a bit controversial and good Catholics debate this question.

Lying is intrinsically evil, i.e. always wrong. Telling an untruth is not always wrong — like when one is playing a part as an actor or, for example, making a joke or using hyperbole. Therefore telling an untruth is not always lying. Perhaps also one could tell an untruth to a child without it being lie, like with Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or saying his health isn't as bad as it actually is because they couldn't handle it at the time.

• Many Catholics believe you can't tell an untruth with the intent to deceive — anyone at any time.
• Others believe you can't tell an untruth with the intent to deceive — those who have a right to the truth.

The first edition of the Catechism agrees with this last one, whereas the second edition took out those who have a right to the truth. This edit has left many Catholics confused.

One day the Magisterium will clarify this question. Until then, one should follow their well-formed conscience.

Perhaps my colleagues will have a different take on this.

Peace,

Paul

Dear Emeka,

You said:
So if, for instance, a thief wants to kill your friend who has done no wrong and he asks you where the friend was and your friend was in your house but you said, you don't know or you lied in order for the thief not to know his whereabouts.

• Is it still a sin and is it still intrinsically evil?

In the scenario you have given, I wouldn't say it is intrinsically evil.

• Why?

Lying to the thief (or telling him you don't know where your friend was) may not be truthful but your culpability is greatly lessened since you are doing this to prevent a far greater evil: your friend being killed.

Just my two cents,

Mike