#catholic moral theology

[spiritualdirections]

So what are people supposed to do with frozen embryos? Just let them die?

I would like for the Church to develop a method of baptism for frozen embryos. Then, letting them die would allow them to go to heaven. There are some problems with this. For example, it might encourage some people to make frozen embryos so that they could be baptized. Another problem is that not all the children who are frozen would be from parents that would want this. But this might be some sort of answer to the problem.

But as Saint John Paul II has said, there is no morally licit answer to this problem. So maybe even baptism might not work.

[spiritualdirections]

I've written on this before, but the Catholic Church forbids embryo adoption:

From Dignitatis Personae:

Freezing embryos 18. One of the methods for improving the chances of success in techniques of in vitro fertilization is the multiplication of attempts. In order to avoid repeatedly taking oocytes from the woman’s body, the process involves a single intervention in which multiple oocytes are taken, followed by cryopreservation of a considerable number of the embryos conceived in vitro.  In this way, should the initial attempt at achieving pregnancy not succeed, the procedure can be repeated or additional pregnancies attempted at a later date. In some cases, even the embryos used in the first transfer are frozen because the hormonal ovarian stimulation used to obtain the oocytes has certain effects which lead physicians to wait until the woman’s physiological conditions have returned to normal before attempting to transfer an embryo into her womb. Cryopreservation is incompatible with the respect owed to human embryos; it presupposes their production in vitro; it exposes them to the serious risk of death or physical harm, since a high percentage does not survive the process of freezing and thawing; it deprives them at least temporarily of maternal reception and gestation; it places them in a situation in which they are susceptible to further offense and manipulation. The majority of embryos that are not used remain “orphans”. Their parents do not ask for them and at times all trace of the parents is lost. This is why there are thousands upon thousands of frozen embryos in almost all countries where in vitro fertilization takes place. 19. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them?  Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically. Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it. Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable. The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature. It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above. All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.

The Alabama decision helps address the problem of frozen embryos going forward, but it doesn't address the problem of the children currently frozen. It is an injustice that they were put in this state, but it would add further wrongs to unfreeze them (killing upwards of 20%), and then have desparate parents treat them as commodities ("I want the embryo from two Ivy League parents!").

Sometimes evil is just like that.

Good job Alabama!

One more step toward protecting all preborn children.

(Basically their Wrongful Death of a Minor law now applies to embryos that are killed)

[existentialcatholic]

*Note: I use condition-first language (specifically “disabled individual”) rather than person-first (“individuals with disabilities”) in my post. This choice comes from my own experience as a disabled individual.

What does Catholic morality teach about respect for human life and the evil of euthanasia?

 I almost died from a head injury when I was sixteen. I was in a bike accident, hit my head underneath my helmet, and ended up in a coma for three weeks. When I woke up from the coma, I slept most of the day and could not walk, eat, or speak. In the first few years of recovery from my injury, I developed other conditions, such as pseudobulbar affect (uncontrollable laughing and crying) and central pain syndrome (chronic pain all over my body: think of feeling like you have the flu every day).

Over time, I have recovered much of my prior skills and am close to my level of functioning pre-injury. However, I recognize that many head injury sufferers are not as lucky. I think particularly of a young man named Nate, who suffered a head injury several years ago and is still learning how to walk and speak. I also think of the ninety percent of people with my type of injury who never fully regain consciousness. Groups of people within our culture exist who believe that these individuals should not be kept alive. By holding and speaking in support of this belief, they are proponents of euthanasia.

Euthanasia refers to “an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated” (Declaration on Euthanasia, section II, paragraph 1). It is known more simply as “mercy killing.” Proponents of euthanasia argue that it is more beneficial for the individual and society to kill individuals in certain states of illness and disability. Those on the more severe end claim that these individuals are drains of resources, while those on the less severe end argue that it would be more merciful to grant death than a life with heavy suffering.

In this blog, I will answer four questions. First, why should we respect human life? Second, what does respect for human life entail? Third, why is euthanasia contrary to respect for human life? Fourth, how should the Catholic respond to proponents of euthanasia?

Why should we respect human life?

We should respect human life as a gift from G-d and for its inherent value.

First, from the extrinsic point of view, human life is “a gift of [G-d’s] love, which [people] are called upon to preserve and make fruitful” (Declaration on Euthanasia, section I, paragraph 1). One of my college professors taught my class that what is first in intention is last in execution (ST I-II, q. 1, a. 1, ad. 1). This professor maintained that humanity is the end and intention of creation: that which creation is meant to support. From this point of view, it makes sense to say that human life is not only a gift of the L-rd’s love, but the ultimate gift of His love. Both preserving it, by defending one’s life and that of others, and making it fruitful, by being open to the generation of new life, show honor to the L-rd’s gift by allowing other gifts to come from it.

Second, from the intrinsic point of view, “human life is the basis of all goods, and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society” (Declaration on Euthanasia, section I, paragraph 1). All human activities require human life. The dynamic nature of gift and reception that characterizes societal functioning springs from the fact that individuals are alive. As part of the system of society, they can grow, change, and gift who they are and what they have to the smooth functioning of society.

What does respect for human life entail?

First, respect for human life commands the negative order not to end human life unjustly. This order is summed up in the Fifth Commandment: “thou shall not kill.” The L-rd, not humanity, is the master of human life. We do not get to decide when our own lives end, and we especially do not get to decide when the lives of other individuals end. By definition, euthanasia is the choice to end someone’s life based on their state of health. Because the individual’s state of health has nothing to do with endangering the lives of others, to end his or her life based on such has no relationship with protecting the good of one’s life.

Respect for human life does not necessarily mean ending life under no circumstances. The Catechism explains the concept of legitimate defense in Sections 2263-2267, stating that legitimate defense of one’s own life is a right, and perhaps even a grave duty in the case of those who care for others. However, legitimate defense has no relation to the topic of euthanasia. Even if caring for a disabled or terminally ill individual affects the lifestyle and emotional state of a caretaker, this effect is not a sign to end the life of the individual in question.

Second, respect for human life implies a positive command to defend human life. In Catholic circles, we may hear that the Church defends life “from womb to tomb.” Jesus calls upon Catholics to defend the rights and the dignity of individuals and their lives. This imperative is the case with healthy and ill individuals, young and old, born and unborn. The defense of human life implies different actions, depending on the stage and state of the human life that we are defending. When the human life in question is affected by disability or terminal illness, for instance, standing for human life looks like standing against euthanasia. It could look like advocating for the long-term care and well-being of a loved one who is in hospital or hospice care. It could also look like asking one’s lawmaker to support policies that defend the well-being of disabled and terminally ill individuals.

Why is euthanasia contrary to respect for life?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful” (CCC 2268). As both direct and intentional killing, euthanasia is gravely sinful. The Catechism contains a section specifically devoted to the condemnation of euthanasia. The Church recognizes euthanasia as “putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons” and condemns is as “morally unacceptable” (CCC 2277).

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterates “that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being . . . Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, . . . nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action” (Declaration on Euthanasia, section II, paragraph 1). They explain that the action of euthanasia, which is the killing of an innocent human being, “is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity” (Declaration on Euthanasia, section II, paragraph 1). To kill someone unjustly and unprovoked, no matter the circumstances, is wrong. Disabled individuals deserve a chance at life. Even if the individuals are not born yet, to end someone’s life on the basis of a health condition takes away that right to life and damages the contribution that proponents of euthanasia make to society.

How should the Catholic respond to proponents of euthanasia?

The Catholic should respond to proponents of euthanasia by insisting the goods that the lives of disabled persons are, and the goods that they deliver to the rest of society. As I stated above, preserving life shows honor to the gift of life by allowing other gifts to come from it. A proponent of euthanasia may argue that the life of someone who is gravely disabled or terminally ill cannot create other gifts for the good of humanity. In response to this argument, I would assert that the disabled and terminally ill have many gifts to give humanity. Just because someone cannot contribute to the economy in a traditional way, it does not follow that the person has no good to contribute to society. That would be an excessively utilitarian view.

In response to proponents of euthanasia, I would point out the many goods that disabled and terminally ill individuals give to society. According to Dr. Adam Green in “Disability, Humility, and the Gift of Friendship,” disabled persons can offer gifts such as teaching others about their dependence on the L-rd, helping them see relationships beyond utilitarian terms, and helping them recognize and come to terms with their own brokenness (Green, 2016).

Conclusion

When I was in college, a news story broke of a woman who gave birth to a child in a long-term care facility while in a minimally conscious state. For weeks, I would sit at lunch and hear people talking about the woman. Several times, I heard people wondering what the point was of “keeping someone alive” in such a state.

At the end of this blog, I hope the reader can recognize the value of the life of the woman in question. Even in a minimally conscious state, she contributes to the world through the relationships she has with those around her and what they teach her about humility, dependence on the L-rd, and what the gift of love means. We can recognize how the lives of all disabled and terminally ill individuals extend the same to those around them and to society at large.

Bibliography

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Declaration on Euthanasia.” May 5, 1980. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html.

Green, Adam. "Disability, humility, and the gift of friendship." Res Philosophica 93, no. 4 (2016): 797-814.

[thewordenreport]

n his Urbi et Orbi Christmas address in 2024, Pope Francis went after Putin and Netanyahu in particular for killing so many civilians and leaving such a vast number homeless. Reconciliation, the pope said, by showing compassion to one's enemies, is another option. --one that I submit is two degrees of separation from the mentalities of Putin and Netanyahu. https://thewordenreportinternationalrelations.blogspot.com/2024/12/pope-franciss-christmas-urbi-et-orbi.html

[catholicmoralrealism]

Finding God in nature.

Natural Theology (also catholic moral realism.)

2021.

All rights reserved.

Safe Creative: 2110309664846

[vulnerasti-cor-meum]

so like is the state of moral theology at this point that on one side is Rahner and Fuchs’s school in Europe and McCormick, Keenan, and maybe Gaillardetz in the US - and on the other side is like, Grisez (US) and Finnis (Europe). do people even take Grisez seriously, because my impression is that scholars [read: the jesuits] dont like him very much and his theology seems (as I can gather from secondary sources eg. lawler & salzman (I know, I know) and the journal Theological Studies) to be very defensive of status quo, if not even stricter. also I’m clearly showing my American penchant for pitting two sides against each other. also ig I wouldn’t have considered Keenan a “progressive” so much as simply a good historically-conscious scholar (there’s a new book of his that’s out on the history of catholic ethics) but he did just contribute a (rather saccharine) article to America Media’s outreach.faith so like. okay. if youre writing for America’s Outreach site you’ve ipso facto outed your views lol. 

[margindoodles2407]

YES! THIS! THANK! YOU!

So one thing that has always struck me about Star Wars, and makes it feel more unique and real, is how it does religion.

In many, many fantasy works, if religion comes up at all, it won’t really mean much of anything. Religion is basically a throwaway line. It’s basically like “oh by the way, there’s a polytheistic religion and the gods are probably definitely real, now back to completely ignoring this”. That’s if it gets mentioned at all. Having once been religious myself, this does not feel like the characters are actually religious. The religion in these works doesn’t have meaning.

Star Wars does not do that. The heroes are religious. Instead of it basically just being a throwaway line, it affects a lot. It affects their behavior and their beliefs. The Jedi live in a Temple. They see all life as sacred, so they usually try to avoid killing. They also spend time trying to save as many lives as possible (see all the times Jedi saved clones’ lives as an example). Their religion values teaching, so they often are teaching to show that they care. Their religion matters.

The religion matters for those who have been in the religion for as long as they can remember (such as Obi-Wan) and it matters for converts (such as Anakin and Luke).

Anakin converts into the Jedi religion when he is a child. He goes a lot of the normal Jedi stuff such as growing up as a Padawan, being assigned missions by the Council, and having the entire Jedi community there for him. His whole dilemma is that he wants be a Jedi and married to Padme, even though Jedi aren’t supposed to be married. If being a Jedi wasn’t meaningful to him, he’d probably have just chosen Padme without there being a fuss.

Luke converts when he’s an adult (by our standards). He doesn’t have the same normal Jedi stuff Anakin did. The Jedi community has been wiped out, he doesn’t spend/get much time with his masters, and there isn’t a Council to assign him mission. He gets assigned on missions by the Rebellion (and one time himself). But being a Jedi is meaningful to him to. He told Palps to his face “I am a Jedi” in what was an amazing moment (until the lightning).

This all makes the Jedi feel like they are actually religious. Basically, I like that Star Wars understands that religion has meaning and an impact.

[partfae]

Sauron, Galadriel, & Tolkien's Theology of Repentance - Part One

Summary: Character meta analysis on Sauron (and Galadriel, through the lens of Sauron). Based on both Silmarillion & RoP canon. 3.5k words. Discussion of Catholic theology involved. Blanket TW for discussion of violence, manipulation, etc., because Sauron. Spoilers for S1 & S2 and the Silmarillion, of course. The tragedy of Sauron is that he gets offered so many legitimate chances at redemption and forgiveness, and he denies them every single time. But we know he wants absolution, because that’s what he sees Galadriel as: his chance to bind himself back to the light, to be Mairon again, to heal the pain that he caused and that was caused to him under Morgoth. But because he has such a warped view of himself and his actions, he dismisses genuine extensions of compassion, forgiveness, and care as simultaneously beneath him and too good for him. And yet, he still pursues redemption, but through none of the channels offered to him.

In The Rings of Power, he’s given the explicit instruction to change for the good in the village after he’s reborn. He’s given the chance leave his past behind and work meaningfully in Númenor. He’s given the chance to redeem himself by Galadriel's offer of friendship (or love, depending on your interpretation). In the Silmarillion, he's even given the chance by Eönwë himself, and comes close to leaving Morgoth behind completely!

Let's look at this passage from Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age (emphasis mine):

When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eönwë the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not in the power of Eönwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith; for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eönwë departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds that Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.

This passage is clear that Eönwë is willing to pardon Sauron--he simply did not posses the power to do so. But when Sauron was told he must appeal directly Manwë, he gave up entirely and skulked back to Middle-earth. There are a few ways to read this:

1. He was not wholly repentant

Sauron simply wanted the protection of a new master in the absence of Melkor. i.e., he was rather fickle and simply wanted to be on whatever the "winning" side was. This is supported by the text literally saying that at least some of his obeisance was completely false, and that he only made a point of feeling bad about anything once his master had been chucked into the Void and his armies and strongholds were being destroyed (Thangorodrim). In this reading, perhaps Eönwë saw Sauron's treachery and referred him to Manwë knowing that it would be a test of his true intent. However, while a valid interpretation, I believe this to be the less holistic of the two.

2. He was truly repentant

Sauron did truly feel badly and "abjured all his evil deeds," but he was unwilling/unable to humble himself after being so fundamentally broken by Melkor and developing an insatiable power lust (hey, he isn't defined in the narrative by lust and pride for nothing).

Earlier in this same chapter, Tolkien wrote that Sauron could "...deceive all but the most wary." This is in the specific context of his physical shapeshifting. But, I would argue that this can also be tied to his lies. Tolkien has a specific ethic of beauty, where physical perfection is equated with moral goodness. Sauron completely inverts what is otherwise a hard and fast rule within Tolkien's writings by being the character most frequently described as "fair"--seven times to Lúthien's six, and she was the most beautiful woman to have ever lived!

(Side note: I have another post on Tolkien & beauty in the works where I'll get more into this idea)

Why does this matter? Even though this interaction with Eönwë takes place in the First Age, Sauron could at this point be in the demonic form Mirdania describes in the forge. And, I am inclined to believe that Eönwë, as the head Maiar and herald of Manwë, would be a pretty wary guy, and thus able to sense any of Sauron's trickery. I read this to mean that Eönwë looked at Sauron and saw his potential to be Mairon again, either in absence of his evil form or in spite of it.

Because Sauron is incredibly beautiful. And even if it is a disguise of the true, depreciated form of his spiritual essence, he presented himself to Eönwë at his most beautiful. He wanted, even in his act of repentance, to make himself more favorable in Eönwë's eyes. To show up as Mairon (who was likely close friends with Eönwë before everything went down, since they are considered to be two of the most powerful Maia and would have worked closely together).

But I don't think this was all manipulation on Sauron's end. I agree with the scholars mentioned in the text who believed that Sauron was truly repentant--which is why Eönwë even bothered referring him to Manwë instead of kicking him into the Void with Melkor.

And this is the tragedy: Sauron is told exactly how to repent, and believes fundamentally that it is an impossible path for him. And yet, he still longs so intrinsically for it! He was, under Aulë, a Maia of precision, perfection, and order. Under Morgoth, he feels disordered, dis-regulated. He needs to correct the fundamental imbalance within him, so why does he flee Eönwë?

It comes back to Sauron's pride.

If he follows through with this path of reconciliation, there is no way he can hide or pretend his actions away. If he cannot trick his fellow Maiar, he certainly cannot trick the Valar. And he cannot stand the idea of submitting himself back under their rule, especially now that he has tasted power. This is a pride wound; it is why the idea of confessing to Manwë would be humiliating to him as opposed to just upsetting/uncomfortable.

Again, the pivotal moment: he is told how to make amends for crimes and determines that he cannot do it. So he returns to Middle-earth and stews in his own self-hated and self-pity for a few years. In that time, he consciously or subconsciously latches onto Eönwë's offer--forgiveness from penance. It is the way forward. And if he cannot earn penance at Manwë's hand, he will do it on his own.

The Prodigal Son

This is where we have to talk about the Catholic roots of Tolkien's work for a moment. The scene where Sauron approaches Eönwë mirrors the biblical parable of the prodigal son. In this story, a man abandons his family, spends all his money, and falls into ruin. But when he recognizes his failings and returns to his father to get help, he is welcomed back into the family without question--in other words, he is forgiven and restored to his former position.

17 But when he [the prodigal son] came to himself he said, “How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.’” 20 So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. - Luke 15:11-32, NRSV CE (emphasis mine)

The parallel is clear; Mairon, the repentant Maia, returns home with hopes of reconciliation. He is prescribed the same task that the prodigal son offered to his father: he must be bound in servitude to his father/creator in order to pay off his debts. This is a deliberate allusion from Tolkien. The story of the prodigal son models the path of reconciliation that Eönwë describes. Tolkien seems to be drawing a line in the sand with this: Sauron is unwilling to do the work required by the Valar for repentance, so he is unable to receive the grace of a warm welcome back into the fold of the Ainur. Since he did not humble himself, he has to be told to do it. And he does not want to! He wants to be loved, but he also wants his power--evidence, in a way, of how his character was fundamentally altered in his time with Morgoth.

His pride--and his fear--cut him off from the potential of grace. He does not know for certain that Manwë would subject him to servitude (though I would argue that it's textually evident that it is a custom), but this assumption leads him to flee, which allows him to slip back into his old ways.

He wants to be Mairon (admirable) again, not Sauron (abhorrent). He wants to be accepted and loved, but not punished. He wants the benefits of reconciliation without the work he would have to do to earn it or the shame he would feel as he did. It's pride, but it's also deep shame--the flip side of his extreme ego is an implicit self-hatred, one that we can see in the subtext of how he speaks about himself and about his time with Morgoth.

Even the language Tolkien uses is heavily shame-coded, especially in a Catholic context; Mairon did not go willingly, he was "seduced." He admits to Celebrimbor that he was "tortured by a god". It becomes exceedingly clear through both text and on-screen canon that Sauron was routinely broken and abused for centuries. This has fundamentally damaged his self-perception, which is ultimately what leads him to "[fall] back into evil"--whether due to pride or shame, he hides, perhaps because he consciously or subconsciously does not believe that he deserves forgiveness, no matter how much he craves it.

Naked in the Garden

His flight back to Middle-earth after meeting Eönwë is reminiscent of another biblical scene, where Adam and Eve, after committing the first sin, hide from God in shame and fear (emphasis mine):

7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked...9 But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” -Genesis 7-10, NRSV CE

The image of nakedness is, here, one of vulnerability, and Tolkien establishes that Sauron fears that which he cannot control. He needs the Rings under his power. He needs his armies and his enemies under his watchful eye. He is petrified of letting his power slip away (possibly due to never wanting to feel powerless in the hands of a Vala, fallen or not, again).

The biblical allusion here hearkens back to the fear Tolkien describes Sauron as feeling regarding his return to the Ainur. In the religious system Tolkien has established, which is likely inspired by his own religious beliefs, Sauron has sinned, and must make penance. But he is afraid of God/Manwë, and does not want to "let go" of his sin. In other words, he is not truly repentant. This reflects the Catholic sacrament of confession, which requires self-reflection and resolve to never commit the sin again.

Instead of shame driving him to contrition, it drives him to isolation.

But he still wants forgiveness. So, in his years of hiding in Middle-earth, he decides to earn it himself. His own way.

Enter the Rings.

Sauron wants to perfect the wrong he wreaked so that he can both earn his way back into the Ainur and keep his power. But what he does not realize is that this does not work. Eönwë is clear that he must forsake his true temptation--absolute power--through penance by submission. Yet Sauron in his pride thinks he can have it all. Sauron is a very carefully controlled villain, and the only times he snaps or makes significant mistakes are when his inflated self-perception is challenged, revealing the self-loathing and/or self-pity underneath. The best example of this is when he kills Celebrimbor prematurely, and cries afterwards. Why? Because Celebrimbor was right about him, and he hates it. He hates knowing that he is nothing more than the Morgoth's shadow, because Morgoth was his master as much as he was his tormentor. As Sauron puts it, his relationship with Morgoth was often defined by pain as a test to see "whose will was the mightier":

This image carries more shame, both in its implicit sexual connotations and in the simple power dynamic of it. Sauron, even though misguided, is rallying against Morgoth. He wants to break what Morgoth has created and build something new, something better, something apart from his old master entirely. But Celebrimbor confronts him with reality: he has not created something new, and perfect, and special, as he so wanted to--he can only act in imitation, not in generation. And when he got close with the Rings, it cost him everything. It's almost like he wants the power of a Vala, and loathes that he cannot attain it.

And this is why he becomes so singularly obsessed with Galadriel.

She’s his foil. They both crave power and adoration, but in the end of things, she does not fold under his temptation. She turns down everything she has ever wanted for the greater good and for the sake of her own soul. Sauron looks at Galadriel and perceives that she would have succeeded at Eönwë's test because she is willing and able to humble herself. This maddens him to the point of both desiring her and desiring to break her.

She learns that she is easily tempted and becomes strong enough to handle it (through a lot of tough love from Elrond & co.). She has to learn how to do it, but she is able to.

She grows from someone who resisted and rejected authority to someone who is trusted as an authority because of her ability to wield it wisely (see: Gil-galad allowing her to answer for him in 2x08).

In other words, she earns the trust, love, and support of her community. Sauron has to force his to comply—it is an illusion of love.

His possessive obsession with her also stems from her fairness. She was the object of her uncle Fëanor's obsessive desire for creation as well. Her hair was the inspiration of the Silmarils (see: The History of Galadriel and Celeborn; The Shibboleth of Fëanor - source with page #s here), which Morgoth desired more than anything to possess.

Sauron, wanting to spite his master, wants one better--to own that which inspired the Silmarils, to own the image of fairness (and thus of moral good) completely. This is why he wants to bind himself to her. This is why he needs her. He sees Galadriel as his mechanism of repentance, and his last triumph over Morgoth. Winning her is his salvation as much as it is proving that his will is the mightier. It is his way of dominating Morgoth. This starts, I think, as a genuine effort at proving himself to the Valar, but quickly consumes him entirely. He is overcome with the desire for revenge, just as Galadriel was at the beginning of the First Age.

And he sees this in her. Sees their similarities. Sees that she, too, is angry and lonely and so afraid of losing her power. And he leverages that to befriend her. This is where it gets ambiguous and you can read RoP as either painting the image of Sauron being earnest but completely misguided in his proposal, or you can see it as him being entirely manipulative.

I think the truth of that scene probably falls somewhere in the middle; just like when he presents himself to Eönwë, he is sincere in his desire, but only knows how to present it in an inherently contriving way. He does want to bind her to him, so he tries to only reveal to her the good aspect of that desire (and also of his desire for power, which he allows her to see because he believes that it is good and also because she understands it), and not the ugly underside of his internal struggle against Morgoth, the Valar, and himself.

And I do think, in his own way, he cared about her. Galadriel consistently shows kindness and compassion to him. In S1, they grow to know each other's minds and souls, and she considers him a close friend. He finds comfort in this, that someone could see the blackness of his heart and care for him anyway. He thought, in his isolation, that he lost that chance when he fled back to Middle-earth. And here is the very picture of the light itself telling him that she supports him, that she sees the good in him, that she wants to help him set the world to rights! Of course he is infatuated by this. Of course he also wants to use it. He is Sauron.

But Galadriel succeeds where he fails, so he stops playing nice and tries to forcibly drag her down with him. First, by baiting her with the image of the man she cared deeply for:

Then, by reminding her of all she is losing by rejecting him:

And she is still strong enough to say no. And not just to say no, but to shut the door completely. To look in the face of everything she has desired for centuries and turn it down, understanding that it will ruin her. Yes, she hesitates. Yes, she still wants it (wants him). But she wins the day by holding fast to the light that Sauron wishes so badly to bind himself to.

Because she has lost everything--her brother, her husband, the station as commander, the trust of her high king and best friend--and earns it back only through her resistance of her greatest temptation. It is a struggle, it is painful, it nearly kills her--but she does it. She wins the test that Sauron could not even bear to face.

In their headlong, self-sacrificial tendencies, they are the same. Both view themselves as fundamentally stronger/better than their peers while also being deeply lonely due to their self-imposed isolation (Galadriel's laser-focused hunt for revenge, Sauron's exile in Middle-earth). But to Galadriel, the light is more important than her pride.

For Sauron, the light is his source of pride. He desires it more than anything, but condemns himself to never being able to touch it due to his rejection of Eönwë's offer. Paradoxically, he tries to grasp at it through Galadriel, the living silmaril, and succeeds only in darkening her. We learn from Gil-galad in 2x08 that his crown piercing her flesh in an act of brutal domination nearly strips her soul from her and pitches it into the unseen world. In this, Sauron is saying: If I cannot have you, I will force you to need me. I will break you into loving me.

He says this to Celebrimbor as well. He no longer knows how to love properly. He only knows how to inflict pain until this object of his obessive desire needs him--just like how his immortal spirit was broken into submission by Morgoth. And isn't this revealing of his own sense of self? He refuses to suffer the path of light, but willingly suffers the maddening path of darkness because it is a comfortable, familiar suffering. One, he tells Celebrimbor, he even grew to enjoy (2x08). As the path of the Rings drive him madder and madder, his desire for the light (Galadriel) and the return of his power (Celebrimbor) become further disordered and corrupted until they culminate in him destroying them--and his chance at earning/owning them--entirely.

And this is Sauron's ultimate point of no return (which we will hopefully see in S3 🤞). The razing of Eregion and slaying of Celebrimbor were acts of petty rage he committed when his pride was injured. This was the final nail in the coffin. Galadriel, in her rejection of him, ruins what he sees as his true chance for redemption.

Galadriel, now stepping into the role of Eönwë, re-opens the invitation: "Heal yourself!" (2x08). But in rage and shame and stubborn pride, he turns it down again. I believe this is where his desire to heal Middle-earth shifts fundamentally into desire to dominate Middle-earth. He always wanted to rule, but now he wants to own.

[kiefbowl]

speaking of "getting into christianity" from that grimes tweet from that post I just reblogged, I have a funnyish story from my fiance re a convo he had with my mom over christmas that is sooo revealing about religious folks and how they don't really believe that people who don't believe in god don't believe in god. let me explain:

I got this second hand from him, but my fiance was talking to my parents and somehow religion came up. my parents are practicing catholics, go to church, yadda yadda. my fiance graciously said something to the effect "I'm glad you guys were able to find community after moving here through your church, and I'm glad it can bring something positive to people, but it's not for me" and my mom said "well I think you should give it a try." now if you knew my mom, you'd know that this was like...like a kindly suggestion. not aggressive. she often says dumb ass things out of love with no real understanding of what she says. but the point I'm making now is that you can only think this makes sense to say if the core concept behind "I don't believe in god" is actually a belief in god. It's like they don't get it. You can't not believe in god, you only say that because you don't like god, or think he's uncool, or inconvenient, or whatever. You want to piss off your parents. You don't want to think about morality. You are rejecting god intentionally, rather than intentionally having a philosophy that does not require a god to exist in any form, whatsoever.

how do you "try" religion if you do not hold the fundamental belief of it. it's literal dogma. Sure, I can "try" going to church just for community, and "try" participating in it hollowly just to get the benefits, but shouldn't that be, like, offensive? if you truly believe in the dogma and theologies of that religion? But to people like my mom, I guess that doesn't matter because you would just manifest a belief in god? or doing the motions is good enough? or it's ego soothing for her (and she does suffer from main character syndrome lol)? I just find it so funny to think about. They can't conceptualize that "I don't believe in god" in the exact same way "I don't believe in Santa Clause" or "I don't believe in a 600 foot serpent wearing a birthday hat and playing a kazoo is curled around the earth's core." It's like they just don't get it lol. Probably because if they allowed themselves to get it, they would instantly...start realizing how bomb and cool and easy it is to just be like "oh yeah who cares about all that" lol.

[existentialcatholic]

What does Catholic morality teach about the seventh commandment and the meaning of human work?

I am a graduate student at the beginning of my career. In the context of schooling, I am studying for a Master of Arts in theology. In the context of work, I provide care at a residential mental health facility for women. For the first time in my life, I am making a definitive and long-term dedication to the work I do. The current period is different from my undergraduate studies in that I could easily change course in the direction I wanted to go (case in point: I changed one of my majors from Psychology to Biochemistry, and back again). As a graduate student, my work counts toward only my program. As a Mental Health Technician, the quality and consistency of the work I do in my one position reflects my competence and current abilities in the mental health field.

Saint John Paul II describes work as “a fundamental dimension of man's existence on earth” in his work Laborem Exercens (LE no. 4). The Father provided the seventh commandment, “you shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15), to guide this integral part of human existence. In this blog post, I will explore three aspects of the seventh commandment and work: first, the connection between the two, second, the inherent inclination and duty to fulfill the commandment through work, and third, the benefits of fulfilling the seventh commandment through work, for the person and for people as a group.

How does the seventh commandment apply to work?

The seventh commandment, “you shall not steal,” concerns the distribution and possession of goods. Negatively worded (in terms of “what not to do”), the seventh commandment “forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods” (CCC 2401). Positively worded (in terms of “what to do”), the seventh commandment “commands justice and charity in the case of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor” (CCC 2401). The different aspects of this commandment reveal different ways in which the commandment relates to work.

The negative sense of the commandment prohibits impeding someone else’s acquisition of goods through the process of work. The Catechism explains that “unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment” (CCC 2409). The property of others include the money and goods gained through work: for instance, one’s due wages or the goods that someone produces. Therefore, by the seventh commandment, actions like withholding just pay for one’s employees would be forbidden. This commandment does not only apply to the employer. Employees can also break the commandment by misusing the goods of an enterprise or by doing one’s work poorly, thus affecting the success of the company and of one’s coworkers.

The positive sense of the commandment, in contrast, mandates that the virtues of justice and charity guide helping one’s neighbor have access to what he or she has earned through labor. Justice relates to the seventh commandment in that one should be given access to his or her due wages. Making the active choice to provide fair wages to one’s employees, even when one has the option not to do so, is an example of living out the commandment in a positive sense. For the employee, using the goods of one’s trade to work wisely and efficiently would help one to keep the seventh commandment. These examples illustrate that the “spirit” of the law behind not stealing is comprised of love of G-d, respect and charity for created goods, and respect and charity for one’s partners in work.

Work is humanity’s natural duty.

Each person has a natural inclination and duty to work. Humanity is an industrious and resourceful species. One avenue of human fulfillment is the work that one completes. While “work is for man, not man for work” (CCC 2428), the desire that a person has to contribute to society and the pride one feels in a job well done attest to the inherent desire for work present in each person. The idea that work exists for the fulfillment of man explains how the economic life “is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community” (CCC 2426).

Someone can observe the human inclination to work by spending time with children. Children are wired to create and to work. Pretend play, in which a child acts like a baker, construction worker, or a doctor, is practically synonymous with the childhood experience. Outside of play, children want to contribute to a job well done. Their curiosity inclines them to offer help with cooking, shopping, and chores. If this desire is fostered rather than diminished by the adults in one’s life, then children experience a natural progression of complexity in the work assigned to them by the adults in their life, until they transition into the world of adult work. My parents trusted me to do tasks like cooking and cleaning when I was younger. It fostered a sense of satisfaction and independence in how I approach work, and now, I look forward to each workday because it means another chance to do my job well and to contribute meaningfully to the lives of others.

While work is humanity’s natural duty, achieving satisfaction of that duty looks different for each individual, and even for the same individual in different contexts. When I was younger, my “work” was schoolwork and rehabilitation activities, depending on the time of my life being discussed. Now, my “work” involves helping women with mental troubles and teaching them about the aspects of living a healthy life.  For the cognitively disabled individual, “work” may look like completing a job with accommodations. I have a wool sheep figurine on my dresser that I bought in Israel and that was made by an individual in a L’Arche community. It is a cute figurine, and I hope the person who made it takes pride in his or her job well done. The common thread that runs through these experiences is having a task accomplished, a task in which one can take confidence. Having the bravery and knowledge to complete these tasks is commendable. As we see in the next sections,

Work is beneficial for the individual and society.

Work benefits individuals in a constant way in that it fits with the stable dignity of the person. Saint John Paul II describes work as “a good thing for man. It is not only good in the sense that it is useful or something to enjoy; it is also good as being something worthy, that is to say, something that corresponds to man's dignity, that expresses this dignity and increases it” (LE no. 9). I hope it is self-evident that each person has inherent dignity that neither people nor experiences can diminish. Work serves to amplify this dignity because, when someone completes work, that shows the person acting in the dignity with which he or she was created. As a trait unique to humans, the person completed work.

Work also benefits individuals in a particular way in that it can exist in coordination with one’s redemption. According to the Catechism, “Work . . . can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, . . . man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of [G-d] in his redemptive work” (CCC 2427). Jesus redeemed humanity through his suffering, death, and Resurrection. One can unite the toil of one’s work to Christ’s Passion in order that it could act for one’s redemption, in the temporal sense as well as in the eternal sense. The experience of work, again, whatever “work” means for us, makes us better people: more patient, more disciplined, and more skilled.

Finally, work helps more than the person. It also helps people, as a group, by impelling societies to grow in justice. As Jared Dees shares in “The Seven Principles of Catholic Social Teaching,” “work is the way that we participate in [G-d’s] creation. To protect the dignity of work, we must protect the basic rights of all people to find jobs that pay a just wage, to organize and join unions, and to own private property (The Religion Teacher, “The Seven Principles of Catholic Social Teaching”). Societies function through the work of its members. This work occurs smoothly, thus helping society to function smoothly, when justice, charity, and truth guide the relationships and tasks of both employers and employees. When individuals contribute to the justice of work in a society, the society improves as a result. The difference begins with the individual.

Conclusion

The seventh commandment instructs us about the use and possession of created goods. In its forbiddance of the unwise or unjust use of goods in one’s approach to work, it encourages individuals and societies to approach work and the distribution of goods with the virtues of justice and charity. Humans are naturally inclined to work. Although this “work” looks different depending on individual abilities and needs, one can easily say it is natural and good to take confidence in a job well done. Work benefits individuals by corresponding with human dignity and helping humans to play a part in their own redemption. The work of virtuous individuals helps societies by moving them to flourish in justice and charity.

As I come to the end of my Moral Theology course, I can say confidently that I take confidence in doing this job well. I received the right instruction and tools, and I know that I completed the course work to the best of my ability. I feel that completing this course has made me a more virtuous person through allowing me to learn more about moral theology, but also through prompting me to test my comfort and boundaries in expressing myself. I know that this satisfaction is the satisfaction I want to feel as I move on to complete other work in my life.

Bibliography

Dees, Jared. “Video: The Seven Principles of Catholic Social Teaching.” The Religion Teacher. May 15, 2017. https://www.thereligionteacher.com/principles-catholic-social-teaching/.

John Paul II. Laborem Exercens. September 14, 1981. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html.

[winged-thinged]

I lived for a while bending over backwards to try to justify how my liberal beliefs fit into my Catholicism, cherrypicking scripture and arguing with tradition. It's definitely possible. But you know what? It's exhausting, constantly fighting for a place in a community that ultimately does not want you and isn't interested in changing.

When I was a theology student, I snarled at people who suggested that what I was really doing was asserting my beliefs and then assigning them to God (because I knew that gay people were natural and good, and God was good, so God must think so too, right?). I talked a lot about "ongoing revelation." About "indwelling" and human reason. I had to justify it to myself, because I wasn't willing to question the foundation that I had built myself on.

Because so little of my belief was actually built on what the Church and the Bible said, many of the traditional debunking arguments just didn't work on me. I didn't think that. I was sure that I was right and those other Christians were wrong.

But all that work eventually begs the question. Is it worth it? Why call yourself a Christian at all, when you have already traveled so far away from the foundations of Christianity?

And so I took a good hard look at what most of the Christians around me actually believed and how they acted. I finally let myself ask the question: what if I do them the courtesy of taking them at their word? What if I take their claims seriously, instead of imposing my own ideas about right and wrong onto the god that they believe in?

And what I immediately felt was revulsion. If God was actually like what the Church teaches, and not like the image I had been building up in my head all these years, then I wanted nothing to do with him. I remember, shortly after asking myself this question, I took communion for what would turn out to be the last time. I couldn't swallow. I wanted to vomit. The idea of taking a deity who believed and acted like my community said he did into my body, letting him touch my soul, was despicable. I decided then and there that, if God was real, I'd rather go to hell than worship him. I walked away, and I have never looked back.

I am so much lighter, now, not having to twist myself into knots justifying how my beliefs fit into a Catholic structure. I cut out the middle man. It is enough to simply use my mind and my heart to observe the world decide what's right for me. I'm perfectly capable of philosophical and moral reasoning on my own. No divine revelations required.

[apenitentialprayer]

i know that as a catholic you just have to believe with what the church says but i really dont like the belief of the original sin, i feel like its such a horrible thing to believe about yourself and about other human beings too

There are actually ways of legitimately dissenting from less essential Church teachings in a way that leaves you in good standing with the Church; I'm not sure if Original Sin is one of those things, though, to be honest.

But, anon, I'm going to offer another perspective here, starting from a quote (perhaps ironically?) from my favorite heretic. One of the things that James Carroll believes is that Original Sin has been given a bad wrap. In Constantine's Sword, he says:

I referred to Augustine’s assertion of the idea that the human condition implies a perennial state of finitude, weakness, and sin, all of which will be overcome, even for the Church, only with the end of time. [...] Augustine is thus regarded as the father of a severe, flesh-hating, sin-obsessed theology, but that dark characterization misses the point of his insight. His honest admission of the universality of human woundedness is a precondition for both self-acceptance and the forgiveness of the other, which for Augustine always involved the operation of God’s grace, God’s gift. Only humans capable of confronting the moral tragedy of existence, matched to God’s offer of repairing grace, are capable of community, and community is the antidote to human woundedness. Augustine sensed that relationship as being at the heart of God, and he saw it as being at the heart of human hope, too. This is a profoundly humane vision.

I wish I had understood the spirit of this quote when I was in high school. I remember learning in my World History class that Islam teaches that all children are born good, and then the world makes them evil. And I remember my teacher asking how that compares with Christianity, and I raised my hand and said that Christianity teaches that all of us are born evil. Because I believed that at the time. And, really, the whole framing of that question was wrong and gave really simplistic representations of what Islam and Christianity teaches, but I don't think we're alone in having internalized that understanding, anon. And that's a shame.

I thin it's important to remember the worldview that the doctrine of Original Sin is actively defending us against; there was an idea, that gets called "Pelagianism" (the poor guy it got named after may not even have believed it), that said that humans were capable of being saved on their own, by their own power. Someone on this site recently asked what people's thoughts on Pelagianism were, so you can read my thoughts here. But to keep it short and sweet, I think Original Sin is an important doctrine because it saves you from the need to be perfect.

There are ways to treat Original Sin that I think are certainly unhealthy, and I think the doctrine can be a source of anxiety and fear. But I also think, very deeply, that Original Sin should be a reason why we treat ourselves and especially our neighbor with kindness and understanding. I can look at myself and say "What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. […] For I do not do the good that I want, but I do the evil I do not want" (Romans 7:15, 19). And I can say that because I know I am ontologically wounded; that all of us have our weaknesses. That while we may still be in the moral wrong for committing a morally wrong action, our wills are compromised in a way that causes us to incline towards the comfortable and the easy rather than the good.

I wish I could go back in time and tell that class that Christianity does not teach that people are born evil. I wish I could go back and tell them that it teaches that we are born in a state of dis-integration, that we are wounded beings yearning for wholeness; alienated beings seeking everlasting belonging; beings lost in darkness, seeking the light. But I can say it now: the doctrine of Original Sin doesn't have to be an occasion to think you're depraved and without value, but it can be an invitation to come to terms with your own woundedness, because doing that (to use the words of Lutheran theologian Nancy Eiesland) "opens a space for the inflowing of grace and acceptance."

[tanadrin]

This is maybe a mundane observation but it’s interesting to me the way a system of extensively theologians divine reward and punishment not only distorts moral reasoning in undesirable ways, but renders it incoherent. It’s one thing for your Iron Age society to deal with the problem of evil by saying the scales are balanced by divine fiat after death. That is a pretty appealing patch to the patently unjust experience of living in the world. But the theological elaboration of this rule under more elaborate soteriologies—including with the endless temptation to use them not just as a comfort but as a tool of politics, and harmonizing them with traditional cultural narratives—produces unintuitive results: things which carry no obvious moral valence have to have it added, or their moral valence has to be heightened (or even inverted!) against intuition, in order to keep the elaborate framework in which they are now embedded functioning. Concrete example: it is very, very funny to me when evangelical Christian literature tries to end with some big moral lesson, especially when it’s explicitly proselytizing literature, that makes no goddam sense unless you are already deeply steeped in the evangelical theological worldview. Like those Chick tracts that end “The WORST sin, little Timmy, worse than lies or theft or murder, is man trying to set himself up as God!” Like… okay, pride is bad, your potential convert may be thinking. But what does that even *mean*? How is that relevant to *my* life? And why is pride(?) a worse sin than murder? Catholics also have a problem where they do this with sexual ethics: the occasional Catholic theologian has gotten themselves so twisted about they end up arguing masturbation is worse than rape. That’s pretty repellent to modern moral intuitions! That’s gonna be a real hard sell to anybody who is not the particular flavor of hopped-up-on-natural-law Platonist that you only find in the deep crevices of Catholic theology. And this makes a nonzero amount of sense: most efforts at proselytization seem to me to really to be efforts at boundary maintenance, with the occasional convert as a secondary benefit. But I do wonder if deeply religious types ever notice that—never mind just having very different values—they actually struggle to even communicate their own values effectively to ppl in other contexts they’re in dialogue with.

[tentacle-therapissed]

Thinking a lot about the significance of Patton representing both c!Thomas’s feelings and his morality. Because it’s been made very clear that c!Thomas’s way of dividing the facets of himself cannot be universally applied to everyone, and the thing is that one’s morality being based on their emotions is very much not the case for everyone. There’s a reason ethos and pathos are two separate appeals in the rhetorical triangle, yet in Sanders Sides the pathos guy also represent c!Thomas’s ethics.

Think about it; every Side has their own unique moral code based on what they represent. The fact that they all have different viewpoints on what they believe is the best thing to do is the reason they have arguments like SvS in the first place. But despite this, Patton is the only side who actually represents Thomas’s morality. Roman and Logan both personally believe it is best for Thomas to go to the callback but encourage him to go to the wedding anyway because that’s what Patton believes is the right thing to do, and therefore that’s also what c!Thomas believes is the right thing to do. One’s ethics could just as feasibly be based in logical reasoning (what is the best course of action based on facts, statistics, and probability?) or self-preservation (what is the best course of action to fulfill my needs and desires?) or even idealism. But Thomas’s are based on his feelings. See a cute dog? Adopt it, the poor thing needs a home. Friends need help with something? Oh, you love your friends, they’re so wonderful! They deserve everything you could possibly offer them. Homelessness is sad, volunteer at your local soup kitchen. Violence is disturbing, shut it down!! It doesn’t matter if what you’re doing isn’t logically sound, or if it’s creatively unfulfilling, or if it serves to your own personal detriment; You should do what feels right. And considering natural law is the basis of Catholic moral theology, it makes perfect sense for him to associate his morals with an intrinsic part of him like his emotions rather than a conscious thought process. Plenty of us do not subscribe to natural law theory, however, and if I were making my own Sides I very much would not have my morality Side and emotions Side be one and the same.

But it’s not just Patton, is it? Roman represents Thomas’s hopes, dreams, and passions because most of Thomas's passions, career, and hobbies are creatively focused. But every Side also has their own motivations. Their own passions. Their own reasoning skills. Their own fears. Their own anger. Yet not all of them represent Thomas’s passions. Thomas’s reasoning. Thomas’s fears. Thomas’s anger. What would happen if Thomas’s passions were more aligned with Logan’s role? If his ethics were more aligned with Janus’s role?  If his punctuality was more aligned with Virgil’s role?

And what would it look like if c!Thomas’s anger was somehow most aligned with Logan’s role?

[and-her-saints]

I have a genuine doubt. When you say you're a practicing catholic, does that include taking part in holy communion? As a catholic, I believe what the magisterium says about the sacrament of communion being reserved for those in a state of grace and inside the church. In your blog it's clearly stated that you disagree with several fundamental tennants of catholicism, which would imply that the church is wrong about these things, which in its turn implies that it isn't guided by the Holy Spirit. If you have beliefs that differ from what the magisterium teaches, do you still consider yourself catholic and practicing?

i’m sorry, but how is this any of your concern? are you my parish priest? my confessor? my spiritual director?

i know you are probably (hopefully) well-meaning. but i need y’all to realize i get variations of this exact message almost daily. i’ve simply chosen the most polite one to respond to.

i want to be clear: i refuse to give strangers on the internet the access to the innermost works of my private spiritual life. no stranger is owed that information from another stranger.

to everyone else in my inbox and DMs: instead of trying to pick fights on tumblr dot com about moral theology, go to Holy Hour.

[conundrumoftime]

Whether TROP Sauron is repentant or not, some thoughts

(This is the short(ish) version, since I keep meaning to write about this in a more detailed and thoughtful way and then real life keeps interfering. SIGH. But I would like to put my thoughts down somewhere and so here we are.)

So my feelings on this are:

no, he isn't;

I do think he is genuinely regretful but I do not think this is the same as being genuinely repentant;

because while definitions differ, 'repentance' as a concept usually exists within moral or religious frameworks that assign it more weight than simply 'feeling bad' - it is feeling bad associated with a will to change and the actions following that will;

& 'change' in these frameworks does not mean 'promise not to do the bad thing again', it means 'work to become the sort of person who would not do the bad thing again';

and the way you do this, in a lot of philosophical/religious approaches and as Diarmid spells out in TROP, is to do good things until goodness becomes a habit;

Diarmid talking to Sauron in s2ep1:

S: I’ve done evil. D: All of us have done things that we care not to admit. S: Not like I have. D: Find forgiveness. You are alive because you have chosen good. S: But what of tomorrow? D: You have to choose it again. And the next day, and the next. Until it becomes a part of your nature.

eg Aristotle in The Nichomachean Ethics: "Virtue, then, is of two sorts, virtue of thought and virtue of character. Virtue of thought arises and grows mostly from teaching; that is why it needs experience and time. Virtue of character [i.e., of êthos] results from habit [ethos]"

eg the Muppet chorus in Muppet Christmas Carol underlining how Scrooge is not just doing bad things because he's bad but making himself more of a bad person by the habit of repeatedly doing bad things: "If being mean's a way of life you practice and rehearse / Then all that work is paying off, 'cause Scrooge is getting worse"

I do think TROP Sauron feels bad - there's no suggestion in the show that he was deliberately trying to deceive Diarmid or that his tears when no other character is watching him are not genuine. It is harder to say how much is self-pity vs pity for anyone else; but it feels reasonable to say "he does not consider what he has done to be a success by his own terms and he wishes he had not done it", and whether he is sorry for killing Finrod because Finrod didn't deserve to die, or because it's ruined his chance to get Galadriel on side now, or because that whole episode made Morgoth angry with him, he is still to some degree sorry about it, regrets it, wishes it had not happened the way it happened;

idk what Tolkien specifically thought on this particular issue but, point to note is that in Catholic theology you don't have to be sorry for all the right reasons & 'imperfect contrition' can still get you some of the way, as long as what it leads you to is a sincere effort at repentance;

but no matter how thorough the 'sorry', 'sorry' itself as an internal state of regret and sorrow is not enough without being willing to take the actions to become different that Diarmid spells out to him; the important thing is not 'did he feel bad' or even 'did he feel bad for the right reasons', it's 'did the feeling-bad lead him to doing anything substantial about the kind of person he was making himself into through habit';

eg Maimonides defined true repentance as when someone has the opportunity to do the bad thing again and doesn't, and not because they're afraid of consequences but because they're no longer the kind of person who would make that decision;

eg Tolkien's friend CS Lewis in The Screwtape Letters, where a devil is speaking about a human who regrets something: "The great thing is to prevent his doing anything. As long as he does not convert it into action, it does not matter how much he thinks about this new repentance. Let the little brute wallow in it [...] No amount of piety in his imagination and affections will harm us if we can keep it out of his will";

what TROP Sauron (and canon Sauron very arguably, although the framing device of what's said about him being written by other narrators about him and there being disagreement already in that text about whether he was genuine in what he offered Eonwe or not makes it more complex) does is different to just not feeling bad;

he does want to be forgiven;

but he is not willing to do that by anything that would challenge his view of himself as the excellent, the admirable, the one Maia who can fix all Morgoth's damage and produce a healed shining perfectly-functioning Middle-earth to cancel out his role in wrecking it;

and in that light he is willing to do whatever it takes to get to his shiny-healed-perfectly-efficient-Middle-earth-with-him-in-charge result, however brutal, however many die, because the end justifies the means;

but the issue with that is that it means consistently choosing to do bad and brutal thing in the hope that you're somehow a good enough smith/king/whatever to 'buy' the forgiveness you seek;

which will undermine any end you have in mind;

and turn you into, well: Third Age Sauron.

(also: I have Many Thoughts on what it says about TROP Sauron that he sees both Middle-earth and himself as being harmed by Morgoth and the idea of healing and how he sees his own role in the Morgoth era - does he regret following Morgoth? to what extent? - and I have played around with that idea in my fic and will probably do so more in the future but it's too tangled and too lengthy to get into here so I'm just throwing that in at the end.)