This is by another author on the web (copied as it was from the web, so the spelling is not my own):

I thought it would be interesting to discuss, thought it might take some time to read. I encountered it while debating someone a while ago on the issue of birth control. They had used the "3-font principle" to justify the use of artificial birth control. To which I had commented (and you'll get this if you read the document): Murder in self defense is justified because there is absolutely no way out (that is why the 3-font principle works with it). However, birth control, even if the mother was to be put in the risk of dying (which was the case) during intercourse if conception and child birth were to occur due to NFP, is not justified because there is an out: abstinance!

Enjoy.

"In the middle of the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican scholar and saint, proposed a method for moral diecision making that has been echoed parralleled, and adopted throughout the centuries (Summa Thelolgica I, II, Q. 18). Vatican II attempts to revitalize this method. It is known as the three-font principle (or triple-font theory) because one must focus on three distinct components when discerning a moral question: 1) the act itself, 2) the circumstances, 3) the intention of the person contemplating the act. When facing a new or confusing situation, it helps to look first at the action itself. What are we thinking of doing? Even before we add the circumstantial factors, a general judgment can be made that the act is initially good, bad, or neutral. For example, giving someone a pleasant object, all things being equal, would be good. Punching someone in the face, all things being equal, would be bad. And shouting "hip, hip, hooray," all things being equal, would be neither good nor bad, but neutral. But one's moral discernment cannot stop there. Let's take a look at Circumatances which include: Who -&-amp; to Whom?, When?, Where?, How?, Forseeable consequences?, Viable alternatives?. Who is doing the act and to whom? Whether the two are friends or foes and whether one has some justification for doing the deed to the other does make a difference. The act of sex, which we would judge to be good at the act level, remains positive if done by a loving married couple. It takes on quite a different value if it is sex violently forced upon another. we call such an act rape, and it is never morally justified. When and Where is the action being done? For example, loading a gun at rush hour on a crowded city bus is quite different from loading a gun on the opening day of hunting season out in the woods. How one does a deed bespeaks the doer's attitude (e.g., concieted or humble) and is in some sense related to one's underlying intention or motives. Thr term foreseeable consequences raises the issue of responsibility for the outcome, the various effects that my choice will have on others, not only those results that I desire but all anticipated side effects as well. Are there viable alternatives? If so, and if one or the other of those is more fruitful or less harmful, then surely I would be obliged to take that course of action. Now let's look at intention -why am I choosing to do the action? Our initial good action --giving someone a pleasant object-- might be done as an expression of love or friendship. Giving a gift is a morally commendable thing to do. However, if that pleasant object is given as a bribe to an employee of my competitor's firm in order to garner favoritism or obtain classified information, then the very same act --giving someone a pleasant object-- is no longer morally justified. In the same way, punching someone in the face because I'm a bully and don't like that person moves from being a bad act in itself to being judged morally wrong, because neither the circumstances nor my intention has changed our initial evaluation of the act. However, if a person were having a seizure, flailinf his arms about, hurting others in the process, and even cutting himself on a window broken in his spasm, I might, regrettably, knock him on the jaw, rendering him unconscious. Why? In order to subdue him, protect others, and quickly secure proper medical assistance. While I don't think a punch in the mouth is a good medical technique, it may, in this unusual situation, be the morally right thing to do. The just war tradition, for example, makes use of this kind of three font discussion in order to justify the bad acts of killing in wartime, provided the circumstances and right intention warrant the exception to the commandment "thou shalt not kill." Finally, yelling Hip, hip, hooray at a sporting event is a good way to show support for one's team. However, to tiptoe into a surgical operating room and shout it into the ear of the surgeon doing delicate microscopic brain surgery would be irresponsible, pootentially lethal, and morally wrong. Therefore, the phrase "all things being equal", used at the act level, is either upheld or not upheld, depending on the circumstances and intention(s). Moral decision making is not done mathematically. This three-font principle is not meant to be a rigid formula, but it does assist us in asking the right questions, in making sure that we are not fooling ourselves, and in bringing to bear all of the pertinent data when facing a moral dilemma or a complex issue. The sources we should use in making moral decisions (not necessarily in this order) are (1) Scripture (What would Jesus do?) (2) One's religious community and Tradition (For Catholic's this includes the Magisterium). (3) the human sciences (especially in medical decisions).(4) human reason and prudent reflection (5) prayer(making room for the Holy Spirit to work)."

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 24, 2002

Answers

to the top

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 24, 2002.

Jake - Very good stuff. What comes to mind is when I was studying anatomy/physiology and jurisprudence a case for abortion was presented.

History: parents living in perpetual abject poverty. Father chronic alcholic/unemlpoyment - mother aged 38 in poor health suffering from TB. Residence: basement of a large house constantly damp as it was below the city water line thus sewage contaminated water entered.

Ques: Would you abort or not? I voted yes in '72 and when told the family name I was humbled and learned my lesson in secular law. The name of the child to be aborted was Ludwig Von Beethoven!!

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 25, 2002.

Jean,

I sincerly hope that means you've changed your mind about abortion.

Imagine, millions upon millions of tiny humans are murdered yearly. If they were aloud to live, imagine what a wonderful world this would be if only a mere fraction became Catholic, God Loving people!

What a waste!

There is a urgent need for prayer and action against this "culture of death". When in the same news hour we hear that a five year old is molested and murdered and an elderly lady is raped and sodomized in her rest home, there just has to be something gravely wrong with what we are doing.

God HELP us please!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 25, 2002.

Jake - Please read my last pararaph as the answer is there.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 25, 2002.

Jean,

The answer is NOT there in your last paragraph. Do you oppose abortion in all cases or not? If not, when would you support it?

Respectfully curious,

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 25, 2002.