|
|
Post by Beryllos on Feb 19, 2017 18:28:21 GMT
Let's start up the Denzinger Corner — dogma, doctrine and catechesis — with a little question that I have been pondering for ages: Is it morally acceptable to destroy one's own property without an objectively valid reason? A valid reason might be, for example, to prevent injury. A not-so-valid reason, I suspect, would be amusement or rage. I can think of several arguments that it is morally acceptable: - It does not harm another person.
- It is not mentioned in the Bible.
- It is not prohibited by civil laws.
- You can do what you like with your property.
A sound argument against it is based on the principle called the Universal Destination of Goods. It is mentioned in the Catechism ( CCC 2402-2404): By destroying one's own property, one precludes the possibility of giving that property to another, or using it to benefit others (not to mention oneself) if the need arises. This is also related to the old saying, "You can't take it with you." Would anyone happen to know if any Church law or Bible passage specifically relates to the destruction of one's own property? |
|
|
|
Post by sirach on Feb 19, 2017 21:34:13 GMT
It all depends on motive. God does see the heart and all its subtle intentions that go behind such an action. If it is to collect insurance, for instance, or to remove all likelihood of one's heirs from using it or any other such ingratitude to God for the gift of ownership, is it really worthy of God?
Suppose you decided to kill all your pets in the name of God having given dominion to man over them, is that an action worthy of God? Do you really need a scripture? |
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Feb 19, 2017 21:35:42 GMT
This is a great question. I'm not home yet....I will post later when I'm off work.
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Feb 19, 2017 23:07:34 GMT
I haven't had a chance to research, but....my own feeling is this:
By the very nature of the word "destruction" it probably is not a wise thing to do.
Many reasons at play. As one thing is useful to you, it may not at all be useful to me. But someone, somewhere can find purpose or re purpose even in what some people consider junk. Witness the proliferation of television programs extolling re purposing, and recycling of materials that have been cast aside, or are no long functional in their present state into something wonderful, whimsical, or just plain interesting.
To destroy is to break or ruin. Tearing something apart just for grins and giggles might make one feel powerful, or gleeful, but it's a waste, and I think many of us consider wastefulness sinful, especially in light of our brothers and sisters in other locales who don't have even what we consider most basic.
Some of the missionaries from our parish who travel to Haiti annually with CRS have come back with stories of how kids have taken the smallest scrap of cardboard, or metal and made toys from it.
When someone has a barn, that is in a horrible state of disrepair, falling in, it can be a noble thing to just destroy it in order that persons or livestock may not be harmed. That's a totally different thing.
I've always found that when I no long want to keep something, I can almost always find someone who says "oooo, can I have it?"
I found this in an article about what Pope Francis said about waste:
Reorienting the way we fulfill—or turn from—our many appetites has far-reaching ends that go far beyond issues of natural ecology. They affect human ecology, too. This is the very point that Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis have been expressing, and it is a fundamental message within revelation. Benedict XVI stated it succinctly in noting that each society must engage in a “serious review of its lifestyle, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences. What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new lifestyles.” (Caritas in Veritate, 51)
It's a good topic of discussion!
|
|
|
|
Post by katie on Feb 20, 2017 1:21:27 GMT
If one is a steward of thier property, perhaps you can look up what it means to be a good steward of property etc, and take it from there..
There are many many scriptures that relate to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by oralabora on Feb 20, 2017 3:22:26 GMT
As I get older and realize just how ephemeral everything is, my notion of "property" is changing. Are we really ever true "owners"? More like long-time tenants or leaseholders. As Triquetra says "you can't take it with you".
I can't tell you any Bible verse to support this. However the Rule of St. Benedict states:
And also:
If you destroy your property because it has become condemned as unsafe, then I suppose it is moral to do so, but I would then question whether proper stewardship was applied prior to that, unless it was due to storm or fire damage or some such, or just plain deterioration with age. Sometimes one destroys to rebuild into something better. I think that's OK too.
On the other hand, in our climate, an automobile does not last forever no matter how well cared for. We sent a 15 y.o. car to the junkyard a couple of years ago. It had 300,000 km on the clock, and was very rusty in spite of attempts to keep up with it. My son was changing a flat tire and the jack punched through the underframe of the car. Clearly it was no longer safe to drive. So my wife who had recently got a new car trickled her old one down to my son. That now has almost 300,000 km and is 12 years old... it will hopefully die a natural death but not just yet as my son can't afford a new one (as a side note, my wife's current car, only 4 years old, will be traded in next month as it is being bought back by Volkswagen... it is one of those scandalous diesels for which VW cheated on the emissions tests).
So I do think in a resource-limited world we have a moral duty towards the proper stewardship of the goods entrusted to us, in order to be able to pass them down to our heirs or society afterwards, or if they are consumable such as automobiles that go through Canadian winters, that we at least try to maximize their lifespan. Of course, those of us who can afford to buy a new car once in a while are doing favours to those who can't afford a new one when we trade the old one in, especially if we kept it in top condition.
I think as much as the Bible, the Pope's encyclical "Laudato 'Si" would be helpful here. I think this is an area where the Biblical morality is derivative rather than direct.
By no means a rigorous theological analysis. Just some miscellaneous ramblings from an oblate who's not always been a good steward...
|
|
|
|
Post by Beryllos on Feb 20, 2017 5:12:57 GMT
Thanks, Everyone, for the perspectives and suggested reading. This question came up when one of my kids was angry and broke something of his. I told him it was wrong, and I began to try to work out the reasons why it might be immoral. I think we all agree that it is acceptable to destroy property to prevent a greater harm. For example, computer recyclers take obsolete hard drives (too small, too slow) and literally chop them up in order to prevent hackers from reading confidential information that may have been stored on them. I once busted up and discarded an old, by then unused, baby crib because it was deemed unsafe and no charity would accept it as a donation. Later on, I regretted doing so; it would have made an attractive leaf-composting bin!  |
|
|
|
Post by Professor Q on Feb 20, 2017 10:24:03 GMT
This is a fascinating thread. I think the point on the universal destination of goods is a good one, and recycling may actually fit into that where it is feasible (for example, as an administrator and educator, I receive and generate a massive amount of paper every month!).
At its most basic, this goes back to the old "fonts of morality" concept:
1. Object - as has already been discussed above, this may be wrong if one adheres to the "universal destination" teaching
2. Circumstances - this is a tricky one; destroying confidential documents or information that is no longer needed is an example of when the circumstances may be, at the very least, "not wrong".
3. Intent - to destroy something in anger would be an example of wrong intent (the sin of wrath.)
|
|
otjm
New Member
Posts: 17 
|
Post by otjm on Mar 4, 2017 6:52:22 GMT
I find the thread a bit difficult in that few examples are given. What really is the meaning of "destroy"? I remodeled my house (built in 1978) prior to sale. Believe me, when I took a sawzall to the bathroom fixtures, I "destroyed" it, but I see no moral issue with taking out an older, time-stained bath fixture and replacing it with a new one.
To Sirach - a child destroying something in anger seems to me to be an issue about anger (and anger management, and the source of the anger, and the psychological dimensions of the whole matter) far more than the issue of destruction of an item. There well may be a moral issue afoot; or there may be other issues which need to be addressed.
So are we qualifying "destroy"? And if so, how?
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Mar 4, 2017 13:31:22 GMT
Good point. As I read the op, I took it to mean destroy for no particular purpose.
Maybe he will clarify......
|
|
|
|
Post by Beryllos on Mar 6, 2017 5:09:08 GMT
At its most basic, this goes back to the old "fonts of morality" concept: 1. Object - as has already been discussed above, this may be wrong if one adheres to the "universal destination" teaching 2. Circumstances - this is a tricky one; destroying confidential documents or information that is no longer needed is an example of when the circumstances may be, at the very least, "not wrong". 3. Intent - to destroy something in anger would be an example of wrong intent (the sin of wrath.) Thanks for bringing that up. I understand this question mostly in terms of intent, but I might try to consider object and circumstances as well. Destroying confidential documents is certainly no problem. It prevents misuse of the information, and the documents are presumably out of date and no longer needed. Also it is possible to recycle the shredded paper. (I wouldn't recommend burning documents because it pollutes the air in serious ways, unless done in a properly-designed, industrial-sized trash incinerator.) I find the thread a bit difficult in that few examples are given. What really is the meaning of "destroy"? I remodeled my house (built in 1978) prior to sale. Believe me, when I took a sawzall to the bathroom fixtures, I "destroyed" it, but I see no moral issue with taking out an older, time-stained bath fixture and replacing it with a new one... So are we qualifying "destroy"? And if so, how? Goods or property itself does not have rights or need to be protected per se. People have property rights, and people benefit from the proper use of goods. Also keep in mind that goods don't last forever. Things wear out and have to be replaced. Other things become obsolete and need to be decommissioned. Therefore there is no great moral issue with demolishing an old barn, junking an old car, or taking a sawzall to the old plumbing. To Sirach - a child destroying something in anger seems to me to be an issue about anger (and anger management, and the source of the anger, and the psychological dimensions of the whole matter) far more than the issue of destruction of an item. There well may be a moral issue afoot; or there may be other issues which need to be addressed. Indeed, if the object destroyed is of little value, the greater issue by far is the person's anger and its emotional and spiritual consequences. Good point. As I read the op, I took it to mean destroy for no particular purpose. Maybe he will clarify...... I meant destruction associated with anger, amusement, or pride. Examples: - Anger: One of my kids was angry and broke some pencils.
- Amusement: Same kid put some small plastic toys on the road and hoped to see them get run over by cars.
- Pride: A librarian destroyed unneeded books specifically to prevent another librarian from taking them (legally) and putting them to good use elsewhere. (This example may not count as "one's own property." It was library property which was to be thrown out.)
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Mar 6, 2017 13:40:22 GMT
Ah. It would seem that the first two examples are out of childish immaturity, not wanton waste. Perhaps useful as a teaching moment for a parent on dealing with anger and what constituted good clean fun.
But the last example demonstrates a lack of charity and a desire to withhold something from another out of spite or a similar emotion. In that case, I would think it's wrong, because the intent is uncharitable.
|
|
