Moral Theology (Notes of 2014)

Moral Theology (Notes of 2014)

What gives life? What gives death?

Sharing of the 1^st year 1^st semester class MAPAC students (August 2013)

	My Community	My Society
What gives life to….	Prayer, the Eucharist, meetings, sharing, recreation together, the vows, food, money, vocation promotion, apostolate, solidarity, transparency, sacraments	Vote (electing leaders), education, governance, organization, unity and solidarity, inter-dependence, technology, economics, stratification and order, sports, culturation, tradition, religion, moral norms
What gives death to…	Not facing conflicts, jealousy, favouritism, over-load of work and no balance (too much work), pride, selfishness, competition, mis-use (or abuse) of technology, prejudice, crab mentality, gossiping, close-mindedness, abuse of power	Religion, injustice, cheating, abuse of freedom, ethnicity, racism, selfish pride, unhealthy lifestyle, not rewarding workers, delinquency, deviancy, law-breaking, selfish private ownership, power abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, sex addiction, gender inequality, ecology destruction, war and violence

Introducing Moral Theology

Living with others: A learning process

1.    When we do begin to talk of ‘morality’? Let us see. Let us look at how we were raised as children.

2.    The child learns building relations with others…learns that one is not alone but with others…learns how to behave 'properly’. Life may begin with fusion with mama and it continues to relating with many others. So for the child growing up there's a kind of 'giving up' what is always 'mine' to accept that others have their own thoughts, feelings, desires' etc. It is not always about me…there are others too.

3.    The child goes to school and experiences the presence of many others. As the child grows up, the child learns 'prohibitions'... These prohibitions emphasize social life: you cannot just do anything without considering others. Together with prohibitions are values--things to hold as important. So the child growing up is faced with certain ‘do-not-do-this’ because ‘some things are more important than others’.

4.    The central point in growth and development is to make sure that the child stays in the realm of the human...the social-human world. The child is taught to open up to the reality of the mutual presence of people.

5.    So this is one starting point of morality--the fact of living with others. And then there is something more.

The unacceptable and inhuman

6.    When we do begin to talk of ‘morality’? Let us look at what is ‘unacceptable’. We are at times faced with the experience of the 'unacceptable'. Some actions should not happen. We say that they are inhuman actions. They are actions that do not go with the grain of 'being-human'. We feel in us the capacity to evaluate what is 'good' and what is 'bad'.

7.    So here we see another starting point in morality--the opposition to the inhuman. Not only does the moral question arise from the importance of being together but also from the importance of being human. Morality is also about the concern for fulfilling what is truly human in us.

The unconditioned

8.    In morality we are free persons. We do good and we avoid evil because we are able to take a stand on our own. We are not just pushed by forces outside of us to make decisions and actions.

9.    It is true that we are also conditioned by many influences. Biology and psychology can show how we are affected by the environment. But we are not 100% conditioned by our environment. Basic to being-human is the capacity to recognize how we are conditioned. We know how we are--more or less-- conditioned. We can look reflexively at what is happening to us. We are not totally blind to conditioning.

10.  We recognize how moral we are by recognizing that we can take a stand in front of the influences affecting us. We can decide and act according to what we see as good or bad and we just do not behave conditioned. Morality is a reality in us because of a certain freedom in us. We can somehow criticize the different influences around us and we can try to transform our conditions.

11.  In society we have the strong influences of conventions. We are made to conform with socially approved ways. But we are not 100% moved by the forces. We can raise questions. We can criticize. Maybe we even dare innovate and deviate. From a moral point of view we can criticize the forces that we feel are inhuman. We might want to look for ways to make our lives more fully human. We do have a sense of being-human. It is something we assume belonging to all of humanity—to all persons.

Morality as universal

12.  Often we see moral decisions made out of consulting with 'ancient wisdom'...like taking from what elders and religion say. One German philosopher would emphasize the 'universal' aspect of morality. This philosopher, Kant, would say that morality has a central 'should'--an 'imperative'. He would say that we should act in a way that our action can become an action that all--all humans--will also do. If an action cannot be applied by every human being, then it is not yet an appropriate moral act. So can stealing be allowed for all? Do we see it possible that ALL HUMANS SHOULD STEAL? Of course not. Now can w say that ALL SHOULD BE HONEST? Yes.. So we can say that honesty is the correct moral action.

13.  We mention Kant to emphasize the fact that morality is really about all humans. It is concerned with everyone--it is not limited to a few. When we make a moral choice we expect it to be a choice of all humans--it is a being-human choice. Look at the different moral norms we know. "Do not do to others what you do not want done to you'. 'Love one another'. 'There is no sexual, racial or class preference'. Notice how universal they are.

Life is underneath

14.  Our rejection of what is against our being-human reflects our desire to live well. So behind the rules and regulations that we often see in morality is something basic... Life well lived is more basic than just having rules. In the book of Genesis before God told Adam about the rule of eating fruits from trees, he gave Adam a life-in-the-garden. In the new testament, in Matthew in particular, before Jesus gave instructions about justice he spoke about the happy life in living the beatitudes.

15.  Moral rules are well appreciated if seen in the light of LIFE. Underneath norms is the call to live fully.

16.  Maybe we can simplify this by recalling how our parents told us to 'do this and not that'. They were interested that we live properly. The rules of our parents contained their love for us. To the best that they could... with all their limitations, of course....they really gave us love and life more than just rules.

Ethics and Morality

17.  Now we can clarify our terms. When we say 'ethics' we refer to the interest in life. In ethics we aim for life's quality. We aim for fullness of life. When we use the word 'moral' or 'morality' we refer to rules, norms and regulations.

18.  In ethics there is the invitation to live-well...to live fully. In morality there is the OBLIGATION to follow 'shoulds'...rules, norms, regulations, etc. Hopefully it is clear for us that both go together. Morality is presented in view of ethics.

19.  Ethics and morality come from certain concerns during ancient times. Ancient Greeks and Medieval Europe asked the question of how we can live a good and happy life. Ancient Greeks tried to see how to be virtuous. Medieval Christian theologians asked about how to live well according to God's will. A whole tradition of ETHICS emerged. But we feel the need to give concrete rules too. In history there were philosophers and theologians who asked about concrete actions--norms to follow. So a more norm-based thinking emerged... which we call as'morality'.

20.  Over time people felt that it would not be enough to have GENERAL ethical-moral ideas. Life has something very concrete in it too. A doctor may have ethical-moral theories when practicing work. But in front of a concrete situation the doctor will make practical decisions. It is never always easy in the concrete. Maybe we have good ideas from theologians and philosophers... but we live concretely too. We even struggle with what to do with the theories when the concrete gets into conflict with them.

21.  In a more appropriate approach we do not just rely on what we feel in the concrete. We need to be guided by ethical-moral ideas. Yet we do not want to float in ideas. We also want to know what to do concretely.

Moral Theology comes into the picture

22.  Here is where Moral Theology comes in. Moral Theology is, for us, INTERPRETIVE. (In technical terms, it is a 'hermeneutic'. We do not need to be technical in our language game, but it is worth encountering this word because it is so widely used these days in philosophy and theology.)

23.  We will rely on the ideas coming from

• the Bible,
• from Sacred Tradition
• With the ethical-moral insights of the two we will see how we can be guided in the concrete.

24.  The three come together--the interpretations of scripture, the interpretations of Tradition (in union with the Magisterium, of course) and the applications of the interpretations IN THE CONCRETE.

Models in Using the Bible in Moral Theology

1.    In moral theology, especially today, the Bible is consulted a lot. How is it consulted and how does it guide moral decisions and actions? Let's look at some 'models'.

2.    One biblical view is that the Bible tells us about obedience to God's will. In the Bible we read about certain laws like the Ten Commandments. In the New Testament we read about the call of Jesus to follow him. So we have an idea of 'what God wants'. God has expressed some commands as recorded in writing. So we have a picture of God giving some 'shoulds' and we are called to 'obey'. This model of obedience to commands in the Bible is ok but we need to appreciate the sense of the 'shoulds'. If we are not careful we might think that all commandments in the Bible have literal meaning. We might fail to see the deeper layers. To see how the Bible gives us some of God's commands look at the Ten Commandments. See also Mk.2/14.

3.    Another model is that of a 'reminder'. Of course we admit that our hearts can be dark often. We make mistakes and we hurt others. But this does not mean that we are zero in goodness. We can consult the Bible and see in it the reminder that we are called to lead good lives. The Bible is a guide to 'good living'. It is not so much a book of rules but more of an exhortation telling us to orient our lives--live and behave morally. This is ok too. But let us keep in mind that the Bible is a record of Revelation. So it is more than just a textbook in ethics. It is a record of Revelation of God in history. So it still contains texts that are specific to our being Christians. Look at Mt.19, in the question of divorce. Jesus cites specifically the intention of God.

4.    Another model we can look at is that of the Bible as an invitation to be free. There are many texts in the Bible about how God worked for the liberation of his people and of all humanity in Christ. Morality is a sign of being a free nation. Living uprightly according to the Covenant is a sign of having accepted the liberation God has offered. Liberation theology is so inspired by this model. We know of the Exodus story and of the miracles of Jesus.

5.    Then there is the use of the Bible in telling us how to respond to 'what God has done for me'. The Bible records the intervention of God in concrete human life. God has done great things for us. We want to live morally as a response to this. The Bible gives us the insights into how to live in response. How can we be transformed and continue to live correctly? The Bible is helpful here. This model is ok. Of course we also would want more than just an orientation of life, we want some clear norms. Some Christian reading of contemporary history take inspiration from the Bible. (In the Philippines during the revolution against Spain many took inspiration from the Bible to interpret their actions).

6.    A fifth model focuses a lot on the New Testament. It emphasizes the call for discipleship of Jesus. Moral living is a way of conforming to Jesus--non-violently, with compassion and love. So the gospels help us discern how to live morally so that we can conform more and more to Jesus. We can look at the ways of Jesus--his words and actions-- and we have a good idea of how we ourselves will behave. Jesus can show our 'styles of living'. Many of the spiritual writers follow this approach as they write about 'imitating Jesus'.

7.    We can mention one more model which is that of the Bible as a way of telling us to love. Jesus himself emphasized this (see Jn15/12). Moral life is a response of love after having realized that we are beloved of God. We read in the Bible how God has loved us by sending Jesus. In a way then we see the Bible as our inspiration to live morally because God has preceded our love. The Bible tells us that Moral life is a response to God's love.

8.    What about you? How do you approach and consult the Bible?

Moral Theology and some biblical thoughts on the DECALOGUE

1.    The Bible looks at the moral question through the link between God and the experiences of the believer. What can the Bible say about moral life? What is the meaning of the many moral choices we make in the light of the Bible? One thing we keep in mind--and this we saw last semester--is that the Bible is one 'access to' revelation. So as we reflect with the Bible we remember this 'access to'.

2.    Let us look at some aspects of the Old Testament. In particular let us look at the Pentateuch. There we read a lot of laws.

3.    Notice something curious in the giving-of-the-laws. The laws were given in the heart of a historical experience: liberation. There is a link between the laws and the 'good things done to the people'. God has done marvelous things and so the laws were made. Curious, it seems. How is it possible that laws are given after having given nice things? In our mentality we say that laws limit us--they restrict us. Is there a contradiction between limiting us and giving us good things like liberation?

4.    Before we even go further let us say at once that if there is a gift given to us, we also have to enter into the gift--we enter into a relationship with God who has liberated us so that we do not fall back into slavery again. This is the core idea behind the link between laws and the gift of liberation. The laws have been given to continue liberation. Without the laws we might return to slavery... we might return to Egypt.

5.    God made a covenant with us. We read this in the Old Testament. The covenant means that a bond is established between God and people. To give structure to this bonding laws have to be followed. Notice that the laws are laws of freedom. They are designed to allow the people to continue in the way of freedom that God has opened. God gave the laws, yes, but he gave it after having first freed the people from the slavery in Egypt. By obeying the laws, the people of Israel respond to the liberation that God did for them.

6.    Let us take a closer look at the covenant. In that a bond is made: I will be your God and you will be my people. Because the people have entered into the cov Only next came thetheenant they agree to obey the laws in the covenant. We know the story--the people of Israel will not always obey. They will always violate the covenant. But God always kept faithful.

7.    One of the big parts of the story is the giving of the laws in the Ten Commandments--or the 'Decalogue'. (See Ex.20/1-17 and Dt.5/6-21.) Notice the way the Decalogue is presented. First there is the reminder of what God did--God liberated the people. Only next came laws.

8.    Bible experts have studied well the Decalogue and some of them say that there can be more than ten commands. We need not go into the complex study but we can note that there are two major divisions of the Decalogue. The first part expresses the link between God and people. The second part expresses the link within society--among people temselves. Note the first part--"You will not have other gods....". Notice the second part-- "Honor your father and mother....". (Check out the verses,ok).

9.    The One who promulgated the Decalogue is the One who liberated the people of Israel. God freed them. So be faithful to the liberator--he is the" real" liberator. Do not take other gods... they cannot liberate. Stay faithful to your God. Then, as we note the second part, the liberation experienced must continue within society--among the people. What was received from God must be lived out in life with others. Do not be enslaving each other. Do not create a social world in which you will trample on each other. Do not repeat the experience in Egypt.

10.  Note then that there is the resposibility which is called for.... There is a 'should' that must be obeyed....but they are to be obeyed not as direct impositions coming from the outside but more of COMING FROM WITHIN. Obey because obedience is a response to the gift of God! That was a free gift from God so why decide to live outside the laws?

11.  The gift of God came first before the laws were made. Apply this to morality. Moral life is possible and living according to moral rules is possible because of the INITIAL confidence in the love that has been given first. The Decalogue teaches us that before any law is the gift of God. The laws are IN CONTINUITY with that gift. The gift was liberation from slavery and the laws are designed to avoid slavery entering into life. So how can we deny the beauty even of the laws?

12.  Read well the Decalogue. They look like they have prohibitions--" do not". But observe well that they are really positive. When you "do not" you open the door to adventure your liberty to create forms of relationships with others. The form of 'do not' open space where God asks nothing and leaves us free to adventure. God indicates the areas of relationships that we ourselves explore. Practice love and justice and you know where NOT TO GO to.

13.  Of course the Decalogue also gives some laws that are not negatve, like 'honour your father and mother'. Note that we are to honour the origins of our lives...our parents. We have learned about many things and about God starting from mama and papa. Just like God our parents have transmitted life to us. They have paved ways for us.

14.  Note also the law on Sabbath. It is presented not in the form of'do not'. Yet within the Sabbath there is also the 'do not'. Notice? Do not work. Well, think about these data.

15.  Let us state that the Decalogue was made under the light of the COVENANT. The covenant made a link between God and people and, as the Decalogue shows, between people and people too. The covenant was both religious and sociological. In the history of the people of Israel the mission to make God known to all will rise slowly. The idea then is that the Decalogue will apply for everyone--all persons. Moral life pre-supposes a covenant. We agree to live morally because God has gifted us with liberation from slavery and has made us his people.

Moral Theology and some biblical ideas: prophets

1.    Remember the story of the Hebrew nation. After the time in the desert and after the giving of the laws as accompanying the Covenant, the Hebrews then occupied Canaan. In the land the Covenant was not respected and the laws were disobeyed.

2.    Let us go back a bit to what we said about the Decalogue. We said that it had two parts. One part was about link with the Lord God and the other part was about social links. This was the way of living under the Covenant. The covenant was marked by God and justice. Connect with God and with social justice. Both had to be together. The absence of one led to the absence of the other.This was the big issue of the prophets. Injustice was very strong in society and God was not recognized.

3.    The prophets always reminded the people that they lived under the Covenant with God. But no, the people forgot God and engaged in injustice. The Covenant was in vain. The prophets reminded the people of their infidelity to the Covenant.

4.    So on one hand prophets showed frustration but at the same time they opened up doors to hope and renewal. Remember the prophecy about Immanuel or the prophecy about turning the heart of stone to a heart of flesh. The prophets spoke of God's fidelity even as people were unfaithful. God would always renew the people. Even as the Covenant was constantly violated the people will be renewed. A major reason why God insisted on this renewal was because the Hebrew people had a vocation to make God known to all the nations.

5.    Look at the features of the renewal. See for example Jer31/31-34. Notice the the renewal is about a future that REPEATS the past but in a new form. There will be a new heart--the old heart will open to a new heart. There will be a new desert, a new Sinai, a new spirit, etc. A new creation is offered. THE COVENANT WILL BE RENEWED. What God has offered in the past will continue--but in a new and more alive way!

6.    In your other classes maybe you encountered the word 'eschatology'. It is what we see in the renewal promised by the prophets. A future of solid fulfillment will take place--the 'eschatology'--where all will be renewed. Creation with all its wounds will be renewed.

7.    This had a moral part in it. Justice itself will be renewed. It will be a justice that will be marked by FORGIVENESS. If there will be a new heart, a new spirit, then there will be new life of justice. People will be just to one another because they will see how they will have been forgiven by the Lord God. God will prove to be a loving God and the new hearts will respond with gratitude and justice. Be thankful, be of good cheer....

8.    Remember that in the Covenant laws were given.The Covenant, when renewed, does not lose the laws. The people can LOOK FORWARD also to the renewal of the laws.

9.    Just think about it--people will be expecting renewal of laws. Laws will not only be understood as something to follow but as something promised. It may look strange to us. It is strange that people will be motivated to live good lives so that they will receive laws. But this is what we see among prophets.

10.  The whole prophetic idea will be clear in the New Testament. In Jesus is the fullness of the new Covenant and Jesus will renew the laws by giving the foundation-- which is love. We are motivated to lead moral lives because we have been promised with renewal and we are told that we are beloved. To us is given a law that we are so happy to obey--the law of love. Love JUST AS JESUS LOVED.

In front of laws, rules, and other “shoulds”

How actual and relevant is the Decalogue for us? How do we really treat the different rules, laws and commandments surrounding our lives as Christians? Well, Jesus had given the answer in his “Sermon on the Mount” in Matt 5. Let us note some points that can lead us to appreciate the Decalogue and other laws in a Christian point of view. One point we can emphasize is the fact that laws of Israel were distorted over time…over the course of the history. The whole sense of God’s love and liberation was set aside and so laws became more of “external” rules to follow. Bible studies can show how love was underneath the laws…but history took a different turn.

1. What is important is the Covenant with God…

The laws of Israel were given in the context of the covenant. There God told the people that he was God of liberation and that he was concluding a covenant with the people. In that link with God there is liberation…there is freedom from slavery. God was showing his concern….his love. He gave the command—they may do whatever they wanted but not return to slavery. So the people were free to live as they wanted but not just in any manner—there were limits given so that people will not return to slavery…so that people will not, themselves, live the same slavery they experienced. As Christians we see this as an emphasis on the fact that we are linked with God—we have a covenant with God. In the start was love and only later came the laws. Laws come later…love comes first. So we must know the weight of what laws have…the weight of love.

2. The commandments can give us a “minimum”…but this is not all

The balustrades that protect us from falling down from high places serve to illustrate the sense of commandments. The commandments show a minimum of protection to help us live. But note that we say “minimum”. We say that the commandments give “at least” some protection. But this is not all. During the history of the people of Israel the commandments may have been observed but the people were able to manipulate their behaviour and turn to injustices too. The prophets denounced this conduct. People thought that it was enough to simply observe “ten” rules…they did not pay attention to many other things they had to do. Yes, the minimum we can do is observe the laws…but where is love? Where is compassion and concern for one another? Where is the “internalising” of the commandments? Remember that the commandments were given under the motivation of love and liberation. We can get stuck with observing the commandments and forget the love and liberation underneath. In the history of the people of Israel many got stuck with the observance of the commandments and became hardened hearts. It became necessary for God to conclude a “new covenant” where hearts would turn flesh and not stay as stones [see Jer 31/31-33 and Ez 36/26-27].

Jesus reviewed the laws and he underlined that it was not just the strict observance of rules that was important [see Mt 5/17-48, Mk 10/17-22, Mt 18/21-22 ... etc.]

3. The commandments as “references”

Jesus had a tough time with many Pharisees because those Pharisees perverted the laws. They were very strict and narrow. They were so literal. The commandments do not stop us from discerning what God wants in different life situations. Jesus himself did not see the commandments in a literal way [see Mt 5/22; 5/39 ;23/27; see also Jn 18/22-23].

4. The commandments are words to give life

Bible experts notice that in the creation story of Genesis chapter one, the phrase “God said” can be seen ten times. God spoke to create the world. So God also gave Ten Commandments this time to create a nation.  In the creation story God put order in the chaos. In the commandments God gave order to the lives of people. Each one could then shape and structure life. So if this is the case, then the commandments should not imprison us. No law should choke us. In fact, laws must help us grow and develop and live fully. Laws should help us build well our freedom. Remember what Jesus said, “The Sabbath is for man and not man for Sabbath” [Mk 2/27].

5. The commandments give light to our discernment

Laws can, at times, be disturbing. They check our behaviour.  Well, in principle they are designed to help us discern whenever we enter dangerous situations. We might want to do something harmful—and laws come in to help us. Look at the temptation to abort a foetus in a mother’s womb. A commandment may come in helpful: do not kill. Jesus himself had lived to teach us this discernment. Live according to what is best against harm and sin.

6. The existence of Commandments prove our own limits

For the Christian, morality means to live in conformity with the love of Christ. Love each other as Jesus loves each of us. But really, how faithful are we in love and concern for each other? How unselfish can we be? Do we not sometimes realize our very own powerlessness against ego-centrism? Do we not sometimes fail to love? Do we not want a deep conversion of our hearts? Ok, we notice that even as we follow rules, laws…that even as we observe commandments, we fail. Maybe we need to accept this as a fact and admit that we really need to open up to God and receive graces from him.

Live…and live again: Thoughts on Forgiveness

Part One

1.    In our relationships there are occasions when we lead each other against blooming…we lead each other downward and even, in extreme cases, to death. There is death which is physical, but there is also death in relationship—death in love and friendship and justice. We tell lies, we break confidence, we give up on important bonding, we destroy lives of others, etc.

2.    These wounds that happen to us in life…are they permanent? How do we live as wounded? How can we say we continue to love when we are wounded deeply? Sometimes areas of life look like dead-ends…there is nothing to hope for beyond. Think of a family in which a parent deliberately abandons the children. How can a son or daughter continue to expect love and care from the leaving parent? Has the family life with the parent ended? Is it now a dead-end case?

3.    And where does forgiveness come in? We are Christians and we believe in the power of forgiving. We say that during the time of the prophets God renewed his Covenant and promised to give a new heart and a new spirit—from stone to flesh. Creation will be renewed. And we believe that it is Jesus who has definitively established this new Covenant. Ok, fine. How then does Christian forgiveness happen in situations where we feel all is in a dead-end? It is not easy. But let us try reflecting on this.

4.    When we forgive, we forgive at a certain moment in time. We say that the offender is “forgiven”. We do it freely and we do it personally. A moment is decided upon. Today, right now, I forgive you. I forgive you freely—and no law obliges me to forgive you. I forgive you not because a law or rule that obliges me…I simply forgive you, and this is coming from me personally. I a way forgiveness looks like a gift. The offender does not merit it—no law provides that the offender be forgiven. The free giving of the wounded person is not forced or obliged—it is precisely gifted to the offender. I forgive you. It is not just what you have done but also you who I pardon.

5.    To forgive is not to excuse.

6.    If I say “you are excused” I note that what you have done was not from your own will—you did not intend to wound me. To excuse is to recognize your limitations. You are limited, you have weaknesses, you make failures. If you have wounded me out of your weakness and limitations, then “you are excused”. So note that in excuse we recognize that the act of the offender is not entirely his or her fault. There was the force of circumstance that led the offender to do such an act. So in excusing someone we say, “Do not worry, it is not that important”. The offense is based on the force of circumstance. (I excuse someone for having broken my computer due to his lack of know-how about computers. He is responsible for the error but he did not necessarily deliberately destroy my computer.)

7.    In the case of the demand for forgiveness, the offense is on the level of voluntary denial of moral responsibility. So we consider the moral responsibility of the offended and his or her deliberate choice of the act—which, during the moment of acting—was denied of its moral importance. (You knew you had lack of know-how about computers and you knew that if you used my computer you risk breaking it…but you continued.) So when forgiveness is done we do not just remove the personal responsibility of the offender we also remove the moral responsibility. Yes, you were personally responsible—and for his “you are excused”. But you also deliberately wounded me which was your act to harm me—a moral responsibility. “I forgive you for this”.

8.    Sure, we can say that to excuse is also to recognize a moral responsibility. But the offense happened under circumstances that have nothing to do with morality. Precisely “force of circumstances” came into the picture. The offender did not aim to break or wound a relationship. So when we excuse, in a way we tend to say something like, “Nothing, no harm, really happened” or “I did not see you do any fault”.

9.    In excusing someone we do not implant anything that will break our relationship. We avoid plugging in issues of moral norms. We avoid rubbing in the possibility of the full role and responsibility of the offender. “It’s ok, you are excused”.

10.  To forgive is not just “to understand”.

11.  Now, sometimes we say “I understand, it’s ok”. To understand, however, does not at once mean “I forgive”. It is not a fact happening. Nothing is decided now. Notice when we say, “I understand” we do not intend to say “you”. We simply say that “In such a case, ‘someone’ would do such a thing and therefore ‘I understand’”. It is about “someone” in general. There is no addressing a “you”. To “understand” is to take an intellectual stand. It is to undergo a thinking process—but it does not necessarily forgive.

12.  Forgiveness is not just about “I understand”, period. It is not just the result of a thinking process—a thinking conclusion. Forgiving is not just an intellectual act. If you did something deliberately wrong, it is not enough for me to say “I understand”. You did not want what was good and so the issue is more about how you’re not wanting the good. To forgive therefore is to correct what has been refused.

13.  We might say “I understand”…but is there reconciliation happening? Are we simply saying that we see but we do nothing about the act done?

14.  To forgive is not just “to forget”.

15.  The big question about forgetting is this: is our relationship renewed? Maybe we erase resentment, anger, and the desire to get even—to revenge. But to forget seems to be marked by the promotion of a rupture. From now on “I do not want to remember”. It is, in fact, immoral. It violates the dignity of relationships. Something really happened in the past and it has not been corrected. The relationship was never re-adjusted nor deepened. There is no effort to renew, no effort to have a deepening.

16.  Something really happened—it was an event that occurred in our personal histories. It has a historical status. We cannot decide to forget. We must decide to forgive. To forgive is to introduce something new—a renewal. This renewal dates the past event. To forget is not to date the event. It is not a real decision. It is like saying, “I will not decide”…which is, itself a decision.  To forget is to abandon the responsibility to decide on making efforts to correct and to change. To forget is to stay passive about what has happened. Forgiveness demands an active correcting of what has happened. It is to recognize a historical moment and to work on making sure that it does not repeat.

17.  So forgiveness has its form of remembering. It is not a matter of erasing memory. Of ocurse it is tough. How can we forgive when we keep on remembering the event?

18.  In forgiving we keep memory of the fault. Why? Forgiving calls for renewing relationship between the offended and the wounded. The offender must take in charge the weight of suffering done to the wounded person. We might say that to forgive is at the same time to keep memory of the fault.

19.  No, we do not just return to the past before the fault was done. But we do not obsess ourselves too with the memory of the fault. So what kind of memory is necessary here? Curious, maybe, but it is God who can make us keep healthy memory. So let us turn to a theology of forgiveness.

Part Two

1.    When we go to confession, do we not have to remember what we did? In confession we do not go there and say to the priest, “Bless me Father…forget everything”. We do not go to confession with a romantic mood. We take our faults seriously and we bring them to confession. Notice that in that sacrament we do not say “forget it” nor do we get stuck in the obsession of memory of faults. There is a different way of doing things.

2.    Notice that we have to remember something. We must remember that we have been forgiven. So this is to keep in mind that we did something—a fault—and so we need the pardon of God.

3.    The experience of grace—the experience of having been accepted and reconmciled –is central in forgiveness. Here we can forget the past! The past is not naively forgotten, it has to be forgotten in the forgiveness. Note this: in the forgiveness. In forgiveness we open up to giving the offender freedom.

4.    When we get obsessed with the fault of an offender, we really do not forgive. Why? The reason is because we get attached to the faults—we want to remember. We get attached to the memory. We want to be enclosed in it—and we want every link with the offender coloured by that past event. When we say that we “forget” the past, we forget it in forgiveness. So we do not just forget, period. We are ready to forget the past event and keep on remembering that we are forgiven. Let the offender be reminded that forgiven has been given. The weight of the guilt is replaced by the weight of forgiveness.

5.    This is why we just do not forget, period. To forget, period, without the forgiving is to say that the historical event is lost—non-existent. It is a dis-incarnating act. In our Christian practice of confession we recognize the event of Christ that has become our source of life. We remember the cross of Christ that opened up to our faith in the resurrection. We have the faith in the resurrection thanks to the experience of the cross. So the offender also remembers past faults through the experience of forgiveness. The experience of forgiveness invites the offender to “die” from the fault.

6.    Notice that forgiveness gives room for justice. The offender must remember the fault and accept responsibility for it. This is why we cannot just say “forget it”. The offender keeps in mind the fact that the possibility of harming is always present. Justice allows forgetting but the fault must pass through the memory of having been forgiven. We can forget what you have done on the condition that you remember that you are forgiven. Keep on remembering that you are forgiven.

7.    Notice that in our Christian life, we are not obsessed with memories of faults. We keep on remembering, however, that we have been reconciled with God. Whenever there is fault we accept responsibility for them and we bring it to the demand for forgiveness.

8.    Look at Mary Magdalene. We talk about her reconciliation with God. We do not talk about what she did—what were her faults. We remember the pardon she received (which, in fact, allowed her to be witness of the appearance of the Risen Christ). So for us, too, we really may have done faults. We do not erase them. We do not say they never happened and we do not say “forget them”. But we remember that we have been liberated—reconciled. This memory of liberation gives us a new way of looking at the past. We remember that we have been reconciled with God. In this way then we do not have to be obsessed with remembering our faults. When we remember the cross we do not get stuck with how the religious authorities of his time had him killed. Instead we remember the liberation that the cross opened up to.

9.    So in forgiveness the past is not erased. But it is seen through the perspective of forgiveness. So the past takes on a different meaning. It does not weigh as a burden anymore. Its weight is not replaced by memory of forgiveness. Before, while there was no pardon given, the fault was heavy. The fault may have triggered new faults—like a domino effect. What does forgiveness do? It stops the fault to weigh constantly on life. You are forgiven, sin no more, as we read in the gospel stories. The fault does not anymore exercise that dark influence. So we remember the forgiveness—and then we see the change in the meaning of our faults.

10.  It is heavy, indeed, to live with a fault that is not forgiven. But it is also true that forgiveness has it own weight. But this time it is an invitation. It invites the offender not to return to fault making and not to be passive about falling into making faults again. The weight is that of responsibility. Forgiveness means to place the offender in a new level of living. In our Christian faith we say that the offender is now in the same level as that of Christ who suffered for the offender and does not accuse the offender. The offender is made to remember how God wants to keep communion.

11.  The past cannot change, it cannot be erased. We cannot hope for a better past. What can change is our way of looking at the past. What is the place of the past in our lives today?

Conclusion

12.  Now we can make a conclusion. Forgiveness is a free gift. But it is also an event that happens within a relationship. We give up revenge. We give up wanting that the offender be harmed. We give up the desire for bad things to happen to the offender. Forgiveness puts a stop to the cycle of returning harm with harm. It allows the wounded person to see the offender with new eyes—with new perspectives.

13.  To forgive is to change views about the past. Note that it is not the abolition of the past. The past is not viewed through the perspective of forgiveness.

14.  Forgiveness recognizes that there is such a thing as the Resurrection—that evil and death are not the last words in life. So we do not want a life where were are always gloomy and enslaved. We have been redeemed by Christ. We know that he has won. We know that we do not end with death and darkness. We can live with God. So too the people who offend us. God has always offered us forgiveness—and we have the sacrament for this.

Why did God create us?

It is a tough question. In the Christian point of view, creation has a goal. God created for a purpose. So the goal and the beginning—creation—are related. There is a strong link between “origin” and “end”. The start was made in view of the end. For a Christian, the end or goal has been secretly present in creation. So, let us see what this could mean for us--Christians.

1. Let us look at the Bible, like the stories of creation in Genesis and other parts. The creation stories express a sense or meaning. They express in symbolic ways.
2. To create, in the Hebrew Bible, is “to make” or “to fashion” or “to construct” or even “to affirm”. The Hebrew Bible presents a God who is personal. This God takes the initiative to create. Nothing obliges God to create.
3. This God is beyond all things. God is independent of the universe. The Israelites would think that God did not make the universe “out of existing things. In the same way humankind came into existence” (2Mac.7/28). Every creature is from God—and no creature is God.
4. It is interesting to note that God took a distance after he created. This is like the tide of the sea—at low tide the sea pulls back. God did this, according to the creation stories. God pulled back so the creatures could fulfil themselves. It does not mean that God stops existing. It simply means that God allows his creatures to be what they are.
5. The Bible, in fact, presents creation not as something that happened and then…finished, no more. Creation is presented as on-going. Creation is a constant action. If we read Ps.104 we notice how God, for the psalmist, continues to sustain creation. If God “hides his face” everything perishes. If God abandons creation, all will fall apart.
6. Then of course, God created the human being. God created a world and there he put the human being. The human being in the world becomes a happy creature with so many creatures around.
7. The Book of Genesis is a very important book in the Bible that discusses creation. It is the reference of many prophets and psalms. The Book of Genesis is deep in the hearts of the Israelites. The New Testament, deep in the Christian’s heart, will look back at creation but puts in in the perspective of Christ.
8. The Book of Genesis has two creation stories. They come from different literary traditions—something you might be studying in your Bible classes. The final “assembly” of the Book of Genesis had put both stories together. Let us look at the second creation story. Experts in the Bible think that this story was written a long time before the first creation story.
9. The second creation story focuses on the creation of man and woman. Then there is the marvellous garden of Eden where there are flowing rivers. It is a very nice place. In creating the human being, God modelled earth—from the soil. The God gave breath to the human.
10. In the garden, the human is a kind of “master” and “steward”. He can eat anything except the fruit of the prohibited tree. We know the story, right? Later on in your studies we will go in length discussing this tree. But right now what is important is simply to note that the prohibition shows how the human is not an absolute master.
11. While the human is in the garden, all is ok. Life is quite pleasant. Evil is not yet there. So in a way God created the human and put the human in the garden because of a project. What was this project? It was the project of happiness. God created the human in order for this creature to have a splendid, happy, joyful life. This happiness can only happen in the garden—in the presence of God. A communion of life between the human being and God means happiness “to the max”.
12. Remember that in the story, evil is not yet there. In the construction of the story the presence of something bad will happen later. For the Book of Genesis, creation is absolutely good because it comes from God. Creation is not the result of war and battle and evil. Christianity would follow this line of thinking—there is an “optimism” with regard to creation. Creation is good. To be human—a creature of God—is to be lucky to have happiness.
13. In the early times of the Christian Church, sometime in the 3^rd century, there was a theologian named Tertullian. He wrote that the human came from a very “poor” clay…but this clay “found its way into the hands of God”. This clay was luck to be touched by God, wrote Tertullian. The clay was then modelled into shape and given honour and glory.
14. Tertullian wrote that as God was modelling this clay and putting it in shape, God was having thoughts. God was so absorbed by what he was doing. Out of love God made the different parts of the human being. And here is the punch-line of Tertullian: “…whatever was the form and expression which was then given to the clay, Christ was in His thoughts as one day to become man, because the Word, too, was to be both clay and flesh, even as the earth was then” (see On the Resurrection of the Flesh Chapter VI). This is very Christian. When God was creating the human—you and me including—God was so in love with his creature he was thinking of Christ. As God was modelling the clay, he was modelling it out of his thoughts of Christ. God was applying on the clay his thoughts about Christ.
15. So for Tertullian, we were created in order to be in the same mould as Christ. We are created in resembling Christ. We were created for a goal, a purpose. We were created to have a share in the life of God, just like Christ.
16. Why were we created? We were created to have a part in the life of God—to be in communion with God and have so much happiness. From a very Christian perspective, we were created to be like Christ—so close and near and so intimate with God the Father.
17. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote that God created the human in order to have someone “to confer his benefits”.  This is a very Christian view, very much like the view of Tertullian. The human needs to be in fellowship with God. So be careful, says Irenaeus, and accept that you are human and creature. Accept what you are and who you are, says Irenaeus,  “…and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For you did not make God, God made you” (see Against Heresies, IV, 39, 2). Remember this is a Christian perspective coming from a Theologian of the 2^nd century.
18. In the book of Macabees, we get an idea of a new sense of creation. In Macabees we read about a mother who spoke to her children: “I do not know how you came to be in my womb; it was not I who gave you breath and life, nor was it I who arranged the elements you are made of. Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shaped the beginning of humankind and brought about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life…” (2Mac.7/22-23). The mother had an experience of something that was beyond biology and beyond the physical. It was about love. Creation was not just the making of individuals and people. Creation, for the woman, was also the giving of love. The elements that we are made of are not just elements of biology. They are elements of love. When a husband and a wife decide to have children, they do not just decide biologically. They look forward to a future and give a name to the child.
19. We are created in order to have love—to love and be loved. This is what the symbolism of the the presence of the woman offers.
20. In the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, we note that there is the theme of “image of God”. The human is declared as God’s image. This is an important theme. Our Christian tradition reflects a lot about this. God created a world full of blessings—and God put the human in it. Then God made this human with qualities like intelligence, freedom, the capacity to love. In other words, the human is very much like God! Thanks to this, the human can participate in the life of God. The love that we experience is not just “romantic-erotic love”. It is love based on the fact that we live in communion with God. The second letter of John expresses this: “Beloved, we are God’s children now… We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1Jn.3/2).
21. So we have a larger idea of creation—why did God create us? The faith of the Church from the very beginning express the idea that our creation is in the heart of a big project of God. Yes, we are created for communion with God so that we share in his life and happiness. We are created to have a share in love. The summit of this is Jesus Christ—God made us in resemblance to him and thus in his image. His perfect image is Jesus Christ. So we were created to be modelled directly after Jesus.
22. We really have a desire for the Absolute. We have an intense desire to be happy and be fulfilled. As we move our lives “from below”—that is, from our human lives—to resemble God we discover that God himself has been making his initiative to come to us. “From above” God has already been preparing Jesus Christ.

_______________________________

12.          Let us explore more the Christian sense. Paul, in his 1^st letter to the Corinthians writes: “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist” (1Cor. 8/6). See what Paul is saying? Through Christ we exist. This is the reason why Irenaeus imagined us being made by God as God was thinking of Christ.

13.          In another letter of Paul we read: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him” (Col 1/15-16). Again, see what Paul is saying. The summit of our creation is Jesus Christ. We were created “through” Christ and “for” Christ. We were created and destined to be in full participation with God through Jesus.

14.          One very good Christian text that explains very well the reason for our creation is the Prologue of John in the 4^th gospel (1/1-18). This is a very deep and complex text. We cannot work on it is details. But let us make some remarks.

15.          For the evangelist John, Christ was already existing in the beginning because Christ is God. So all creation passed through Christ. Then the day came when Christ himself became human—“the Word became flesh”. Now that God is human, it becomes possible for us to really participate in his life.

16.          Vatican II invites us to look at our origin. There was gladness and gratitude in God when he created us. “In continuity with the deepening recovery of the theme of the ‘image of God’ since Vatican Council II …human persons are created in the image of God in order to enjoy personal communion with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and with one another in them….” (Communion and Stewardship, 4). The Vatican Council expressed that because we are image of God, our place in the universe and in society is rooted in our being made in the image of God. Basic to the Vatican II teaching is this: “…it is Christ who is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15) (GS 10). The Son is the perfect Man who restores the divine likeness to the sons and daughters of Adam which was wounded by the sin of the first parents (GS 22). Revealed by God who created man in his image, it is the Son who gives to man the answers to his questions about the meaning of life and death (GS 41)” (Communion and Stewardship, 22).

___________________

17.          There is still one point to say before we end this discussion. The world—the whole created universe—has value in the eyes of God. Yes, God said “good”. It is good to live in this world. God created us and wanted us to live in this world happily. So, in principle, we are not created in alienation from this world.

18.          This is a very open and optimist view of things. We are important in the eyes of God. But the world is also important. Our Christian faith does not prohibit us from dealing with the world—through science, for example. In fact, we must love the created world because it comes from God.

19.          We find Christians, like the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was so impressed by the universe and saw that really must live passionately in it. Teilhard de Chardin praised God for the created world. This capacity to admire and respect the world is very human.

20.          Thus, in the Christian tradition—and as expressed by Vatican II and other Church documents—the human being is created not just to be in communion with God but also “in order to exercise, in God's name, responsible stewardship of the created world. In the light of this truth, the world appears not as something merely vast and possibly meaningless, but as a place created for the sake of personal communion” (Communion and Stewardship, 4).

The Satan and the Devil

The original satan was not a devil

1.    It is wise to look at the Bible to understand who is Satan and who is the devil. In the Old Testament the word “satan” (the satan) signified someone who opposed someone else. Satan was considered an “adversary”. Solomon realized that there was no more opposition to his sitting on the throne. So what did he say? “But now the LORD, my God, has given me rest on all sides, without adversary (satan) or misfortune” (1Kg 5/18).

2.    In the judicial court the satan was someone who played the role of the accuser. In the psalms the satan played the role of the accuser. So we read in a Psalm about a man wrongly accused and he asks God to punish those who made a mistake. “May this be the reward for my accusers (satan) from the LORD, for those speaking evil against me. Clothe my accusers with disgrace; make them wear their shame like a mantle” (Ps 109/20.29).

Satan as pictured to be an angel

3.    In the Book of Job and in the Book Zechariah suddenly, we see a different image of the satan. Now the satan appears as a supernatural being. There is an effort made in the Bible to make God as the unique great one. No other supernatural being should be equal to him. So Biblical authors placed satan on the level not equal to God. To do this they made satan an angel. To preserve the absolute transcendence of God the authors of the Bible would write about satan as an angel—among the lesser-than-God creatures. So satan would look like an angel in the heavenly court who plays the role of accuser—just like in the regular judicial court. The satan—now in the status of an angel—would be in charge of still respecting justice and the rights of God.

4.    Now in the book of Job satan, pictured as an angel, shows a hostile behaviour. The satan in the book of Job has a desire for Job to make a mistake and fall from the graces of God.

Satan and the devil as images for obstacle to human vocation

5.    In the book of Genesis there is the attempt to clarify the origin of evil. Evil exists because of human decision—the decision to eat the prohibited fruit. Evil is not from God, it is from the abuse the human did with freedom. The Genesis book symbolically puts in the picture a strange creature which is the snake or serpent. This serpent tempts the woman in the garden. Later on, many centuries after the Genesis was written, the book of Wisdom would picture the serpent as a devil. The original sense of devil is the verb of “putting oneself on the way” of someone else. In other words, the devil is a creature who is an obstacle to the path of a person.

6.    In the book of Wisdom the devil is someone who is an obstacle to human life. Death has entered. Let us read: “For God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us. But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him experience it” (Wis.2/23-24). So the book of Wisdom would read the act of the serpent—now considered devil—as having seduced the human person and making the human doubt God. So the devil puts an obstacle between the human and God.

7.    The devil stimulates the human to believe in being a god—and not creature. The devil is now an adversary to the vocation of the human. The devil is an adversary to the vocation to live with joy and happiness with God. The devil is an adversary to the vocation to bloom.

Jesus and the forces of evil

8.    The long Biblical story all the way to Jesus Christ—and now with Church history—all show the attempt to be free from the hold of the obstacle to human vocation with God. This was the ministry of Jesus. So we see the gospel texts showing Jesus as fighting against evil—pictured in devils, evil spirits, and of course Satan. Even before starting his public life Jesus had to face the Adversary to human vocation—Satan. So we read about the temptation in the desert. Notice how the gospel authors try to picture the humanity of Jesus during this temptation period—the humanity trying to reject the obstacle to vocation.

9.    In other parts of the gospel texts we read about Jesus struggling with individuals possessed by evil spirits. Somewhere along the story, we read about Jesus calling Peter “Satan”. Why? Peter had become an adversary—putting an obstacle to the ministry of Jesus…putting an obstacle to the fulfilment of human vocation. Peter had become an obstacle to the mission of Jesus to save humanity. This mission was to be marked by pain, suffering and the cross. Peter did not like that. For Peter the Messiah-Christ had to be powerful and strong—a political victor. Well, eventually Jesus had to show the real way to win…and it had to be through the cross.

10.  We are also facing the adversary—the obstacle to our vocation. The adversary is telling us to also deny our being related with God. We are stimulated by the adversary to turn away from our vocation. But we stay with Jesus and his Paschal passage from suffering-death to the resurrection. We are to make real, through faith and love in our lives our opposition to the “satan”.

What can the New Testament teach us about Morality?

Let us look at the works of Matthew, Paul and John

Part I: On the Sermon on the Mount of Matthew

Re-orienting our lives

1.    Jesus was a Jew and so his way of moral thinking also relied on the Torah—and the Decalogue. But with him something else—something new and different—came into the picture. Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God—and it was his central message. The Kingdom is at hand, believe, repent, and follow the Gospel. The Kingdom was a message of liberation—it was a message about the love of God. Jesus came to show that the Father is a loving Father. Accept that message, believe in it and respond to it through your way of living good. What was striking in the message of Jesus was his link with it. Jesus, in other words, incarnated the Kingdom. To see Jesus was to see his message. He loved…and he loved unconditionally. He was concerned with justice and he showed it in his words and deeds.

2.    So the Christian is called to live out the way of Jesus—to manifest the Kingdom in the world…among others. Love of God and love of neighbour go together (see Mt. 22/40). When we pray the Our Father we say—with Jesus—“your Kingdom come”. This means that God and us—together—make the Kingdom manifest.

3.    What does this have to do with morality? The message of Jesus implies a reorientation of life by welcoming the love of God. This is made concrete by following Jesus in discipleship. Our re-orienting our lives, welcoming God into our lives, makes us act and live and behave in the footsteps of Christ. We try to be “conformed with Christ”.

4.    St. Paul makes this explicit. To be Christian, he writes, is to be transformed—re-oriented—into being like Christ.  “All of us, gazing with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2Cor.3/18). We shape our lives in conformity with that of Christ.

5.    One point needs to be made clear before we continue. We conform with Christ because we have really been created and destined to conform with Christ. We were not born deformed and dirty. We were created to be in communion with the Father—we were created good. Following the meditations of the gospel authors, we say that during Creation we were already conformed with Christ. We do not notice it, we do not pay attention to it…so our moral lives are meant to affirm that fact. This is basic in the New Testament.

6.    Jesus made it clear in the parable of the “prodigal son”. The Father in the story kept his eyes glued to the horizon waiting for the son to return. The Father waited…and waited. In the mind of the Father we are ok, we are good, we are his beloved. Maybe in our minds we have lots of rejection and confusion.  But the Father’s love is there, always present…WAITING TO BE RECEIVED. God cannot do this for us…it is us who do the receiving. In the book of Revelation we read: ““Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, [then] I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me” (Rev 3/20).

7.    Jesus has given us the model to follow. In front of the gift of God—creating us and making us his people—we assume the responsibility to live properly in the way God lived in Christ. We find in Christ the model—the perfect model—of responding to the love of God. We give thanks to Christ for this!

8.    One of the fascinating parts of the gospels is the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew (and in Luke—but we focus on the Matthew account).

9.    In our Christian tradition, the Sermon on the Mount is considered to be something like a “charter of Christian living”. In our Christian tradition, the Sermon on the Mount is considered a guide for moral living.

10.  Reading closely the Sermon, we will notice that it is really a portrait of Jesus. For example, Jesus is himself the “happy man” of the Beatitudes. He offers himself as someone to “imitate”…someone to model ourselves with.

11.  Notice also in the Sermon on the Mount the emphasis Jesus makes with the “heart”. Jesus emphasizes our inner lives…our interiority. Just like him we assume an attitude towards life, towards others, towards ourselves, towards God. Jesus is showing us something that goes beyond the system of “do this” and “do that”—as if rules are imposed from the outside. Rather, what Jesus is saying is that we work with our hearts—with our interior lives. Morality, in the footsteps of Jesus, is really more of what we decide within ourselves. We might be told to do this and do that…but how is our heart? Maybe we say yes to moral rules because the rules are imposed from the outside. But what about our hearts? What about what is really going on inside of us—have we really accepted a re-orientation of ourselves?

12.  Jesus gives us a model to follow in order to re-shape our inner lives and re-orient ourselves. The Beatitudes are clear about this. If you are like this…then you are happy. Assume an inner life of being poor in spirit. Your happiness is a result of having the Kingdom. Assume an inner life of mourning. Your happiness is a result of being consoled. Etc.

13.  There is another angle in the model that Jesus offers us, and it is worth giving it attention. This is the angle of “being perfect like the Father”. In Matthew we read: “So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt.5/48). Jesus shows some features of this perfection: love of enemies, praying for those who hurt us (those who persecute us), loving those who hate us, greeting even those who are not our friends and not close to us. The perfection of the Father is his love and forgiveness towards everyone. God’s love is not selective…God’s love is not preferential. He does not love the nice guy more than the bad buy. No! Again we read: “he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust” (Mt. 5/45).

14.  Notice how this is really about our attitudes towards others—our inner selves. Notice also how strong the moral sense is!

15.  In Jesus the perspective of the love of God gifted to us is deepened in clarified. Maybe it was not so fully understood in the times of the Old Testament—for at that time the Law tended to be seen more as external and imposed. Jesus Christ tells us to go into our hearts—for there we find the moral law. We assume the attitude of receiving God’s love…we respond to that love. Morality is interiorised. We shape our lives according to poverty of spirit, according to mourning, according to peace-making, etc. We shape our lives according to the perfection of the Father—a perfection that we can achieve too. (It will be important to read Matt.5-6. See also our appendix below for a meditation on the Beatitudes).

16.  There is one impact that people had when they knew Jesus Christ. They were so struck by the seriousness of Christ. He took his message seriously. He was not “half-baked”. Jesus was so serious that he was willing to die even if his message was rejected. He was willing to die for the truth of his message about the Kingdom. People rejected him. The religious authorities of his time rejected him. But he did not turn around and say “goodbye” to what he was doing. No. Even in front of the cross he went forward with his mission. This had a big impact on people—especially his disciples. Jesus was willing to face the threat of the cross so that we can have life—so that we can really realize the beauty of God’s love. Of course we know the story. Jesus rose from the dead—the Father raised him from death. This was the affirmation of the truth of what Jesus was saying. God’s love is so real that even death cannot win against it!

17.  Next, let us see what Paul and John can offer us.

Part II: Paul

Our lives change when with Christ

1.    Paul had to confront an issue. Remember that he was a Jew and he was an ardent observer of the Jewish Laws and Tradition. He was a student of a famous Pharisee-Rabbi at that time (try researching who….) But then after the “road to Damascus” experience, Paul turned towards Christ. He realized that there was something wrong with the way the Law was being observed. There was so much legalism (note the “ism”). In this legalism the idea was that by simply following the precepts of the Law, one was OK in front of God. The problem was that strict observance of the Law created a society of “separation”. The Jews saw themselves separated from others. (Historically the time of Paul was the time of the strong influence of the Greek culture. The Jews felt threatened by the dominance of this culture and so they needed to establish a strong hold of their own traditional ways—including the observance of the Law.)

2.    Because the Jews followed the Law, they thought they were OK, they were doing fine, and others were not. So in a sense they would say that God loved them exclusively because they were observing the Law. The Jews turned into a kind of “exclusive club” with an enclosed identity—an identity just for them alone.

3.    What exactly did Paul mean by “Law”? Just like all the Jews during his time it meant primarily the Torah or what we now know as “Pentateuch”. Paul being from the Pharisee tendency, saw the Torah as saying what exactly our behaviour should be…including the rituals, circumcision, food prohibitions, and other prescriptions. A “just” person—a person OK in the eyes of God—would be someone following all the details of the Torah. Remember the big issue of Jesus regarding the Sabbath? Well, Paul was also strict with this before his conversion.

4.    The convert Paul did not like this. For Paul God was not selective—God’s love was not exclusively for the practicing Jews only. This explains why he wrote: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one….” (Gal.3/28; see Rom.10/12). This unity of everyone is a unity under the love of God. Again God is not exclusive in his love. God loves all. For Paul this love was made clear in Jesus. “You are all one …. In Christ Jesus” (Gal.3/28). For Paul faith in Jesus Christ breaks the pressure of the Law. We move out of the dominance of the Law and observing the Law and we move into faith in the gift of God’s love. So we move from simply observing the Law and we move into the receiving of God’s gift. It is from Law to gift.

5.    What then does this have to do with morality? To have faith in Christ is to shift identity from the enclosed to the open. It is to move from exclusivism to a welcoming life where God gives to all—God loves all. To accept Christ is not just to “have” Christ but also to live like Christ. Life is not anymore built on the practice of the Law but on faith in Christ. Paul would say that “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal.2/16). Simply put: I am OK in the eyes of God not through the works that I do but through my faith in Christ. We are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus” (Rom.3/24). To have faith in Christ is to place all my life in him…be attached to him…live like him….conform to him. Christ is my everything. Yes, Christ and not the observance of the Torah. We are OK (“justified”) if we are in full communion with Christ.

6.    There is a possible criticism against this—and Paul knew it himself. Ok, so I have faith in Christ…therefore I can do anything I want. “Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not!” (Rom.6/15). Why not? Well, once we have Christ entering our lives, our lives change. We die from sin. We present ourselves to God “as raised from the dead to life” (Rom.6/13). We die from being too full of ourselves. We die away from hatred, away from jealousy and other negative elements. We start moving into a different way of living—a life of “self control” (Gal.5/23). In the concrete moral living this will mean that we will love one another. “For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’.” (Gal. 5/14).

7.    Notice then that Paul shifts us away from an external observance of the Law into something, again, is internal. Not anymore will we be obsessed with observance of the Law and we move to love of the other person. Just as we find in Matthew we find n Paul—we live with the heart…with the internal attitude of love rather than just external following of rules and prescriptions. (It will be helpful to read the whole of Gal.5/13-6/2).   

Part III: John

Remain grafted in Christ

1.    For John, Jesus is the model of our actions. Jesus said to this disciples, just before he left, that they should love one another “as I have loved you” (Jn.13/34). So love is not just love, period. It is love as Jesus loved.

2.    Jesus gave himself as model to follow. His disciples had to follow that modelling. But Jesus was offering a model inasmuch as he himself was following his Father. He too was living in imitation of his Father. “As the Father loves me, so too I love you” (Jn.15/9). Now we keep in mind the fact that this is not just a matter of external imitation. The disciple internalizes Christ. We are intimately united with Christ. Because of this intimacy we can and do follow his ways. So it is not just watching him do things and then we do them too. It is not a literal following—otherwise we will probably have to worry about growing beards too (which is a handicap for the ladies).

3.    How would John describe this intimacy? It is being grafted to Christ like branches of the vine. We remain in Christ. (See Jn.15). We dwell in Christ (see 1Jn.4). Christ unites us and he makes us able to love each other, so it is really important to be grafted in him. (It will be helpful to read Jn.15/9-12 and 1 Jn.4/11-13.)

4.    It may interest us to note that during the early times of Christianity, Christians would always as themselves what would Christ do in important decision making. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, the early Christians would, indeed, stay “grafted” in Christ. Moral life, for us, is a grafting in him.

Concluding our Biblical Reflections

1.    We looked at the Bible—well, some parts of it—and we asked how the Bible can help us in moral living and in moral decision making. What do we observe, after our reading texts like the Decalogue, the Prophets, Matthew, Paul and John? We can say that the Bible is really ethical. (Review what we said regarding the differences between Ethics and Morality). The Bible is more of a text giving us a vision of God and humanity. It tells us about the direction of our lives—the orientation we make about our lives. Having said this, we must add that the Bible can offer us moral norms too. But we need to discern well how the norms apply because we might get stuck with a too literal reading of the Biblical texts. Remember what is underneath the Biblical texts—it is the liberating love of God who created us and continues to support us as his people. If we forget this underlying theme, we might misunderstand some norms especially those taken from the Old Testament. The norms are gifted to us and they are designed to help regulate our lives so that we will not live in darkness and slavery.

2.    Let us be more specific.

a.    The Bible offers an ethical vision of God and humanity. We are invited to look at the whole plan of God—his gift of Creation and Covenant. God is both Creator and Saviour. What about us? We were created, we are creatures of God. God continues to sustain us and keeps covenant with us. So we are also saved creatures of God. We are God’s beloved. God’s love precedes us. It is the initiative of God. We receive that love—that gift. This tells us to live a life of thanksgiving—a life of grace with each other and with God. We lead good lives because we know we are beloved by God. So we have the reason to also love one another. God has insisted on his relationship with us—and so we continue that among ourselves, among one another. Morality, in other words, is really our response to the love of God for us. We imitate God, and in particular the Son, and manifest this in our relationship with others whom we consider as our brothers and sister.

b.    The Bible offers us some moral norms too. We see these in the Decalogue, for example. We see this in the recommendations of Christ in his Sermon on the Mount. We can, more in particular, focus on the so-called “golden rule” in Mt.7/12. In a way it is a norm. Yet, we must understand it as an interior norm—a norm of the heart. Through it we discern our actions. Never forget to place it under the frame of God’s love. If we look at the Decalogue, also we should not forget that the design of the commandments is to keep us free from returning to darkness. There are quite a lot of prescriptions in the Old Testament that may be quite unacceptable to our modern minds. So the literal meaning of the prescriptions must be seen more in the light of God’s plan and less on the literal sense of the prescriptions.  In fact, Jesus himself deepened the sense of the Old Testament rules. He showed that they are not to be taken externally but as interior guides. This is why Jesus led us to look deeper into our attitudes and points of views. He always situated the rules in terms of love of God and others (see Mk.12/28-34; Mt.22/34-40 and Lk.10/25-28). If ever we need to make concrete norms we need to ask: are they for the sake of love. Moral norms reveal the orientation that our lives take.

3.    Of course we need to see how concrete the Bible can get for our daily lives. How “applicable” can the Bible be? Let us admit that in concrete situations we may be unable to directly apply Biblical norms. Jesus showed a strategy by bring us back to our vision of humanity and God. His strategy was to always make us ask about our life orientation—is it for love? Whenever, in concrete situations, we need to make clear and unavoidable rules, we still need to always ask: is it about love? We need—always and always—clarity in our ethical dimension.

4.    Look at how Jesus did it. During a debate on Sabbath he did not dwell on the point of regulation. Instead he focused on the liberating love of God (see Mk.3/1-6 and parallels). When there was question about marriage, he did not get stuck with a regulation. What did he do? He put the question in the perspective of God’s plan for the union of man and woman (see Mt.19/1-9 and Mk.10/1-12).

5.    Look at Paul. When there was the issue of prohibited food—like eating pork—he did not get stuck with the question of regulations. Instead he brought the issue to the level of love to others. Do not eat prohibited food in front of those who will be scandalized. For their sake recognize the value of the prohibition. Notice it is not just about rules, period. It is about love and how rules fit into it (see 1Cor.8).  

6.    Basically, therefore, what does it mean to lead good lives—and to act and decide in a good way? We as disciples of Christ—need to always check our link with Christ. We need to always check the orientation our lives and action take in terms of that link with Christ. How grafted are we in Christ? Our question will always be: what would Christ do in this concrete situation?

**************

Appendix: Beatitudes

A Look at the Beatitudes (Mt 5/1-12)

Introduction

1.    We know that without love, rules and regulations become heavy. Already from the very start of the Old Testament, in the creation story, we see God offering to the human being happiness in the created world. Creation is an act of God to share with us and who are captive his love. The Old testament has also shown us that deep inside the Law, like the Ten Commandments, is a spirit of love and the desire of God to keep the Hebrews away from slavery. The Decalogue is meant for our happiness (see Dt 5/33; see also Jr 7/23). “The joy of the Lord is our force!” as Nehemiah already said (Ne 8/10).

2.    The Psalms and the other wisdom literature writings are songs that are sang faithfully to the Lord. The Lord God does not fool us and so happiness is guaranteed for anyone who is confident in the Lord (see Ps 40/5; Ps 84/6,13; Pr 16/20).

3.    In the books of prophets we notice the emphasis on God promising Israel that he will accompany the people and wants to remind the people about his constant love for them.

4.    Jesus is in this same tradition. He announces the good news and it is good news for those who suffer—good news to the poor, to the blind, to the captive, to the oppressed (see Lk 4/18-19; Is 61/1-2). Jesus shares the good news which is news about happiness. Precisely, the news is good!

5.    In the letters of Saint Paul we read that happiness and joy are fruits of the Holy spirit (see Rm 14/17; 2 Co 13/11; Ga 5/22; Ph 1/25; 1 Th 1/6 etc...See Ac 13/52).

6.    Let us look at ourselves. Our happiness is, hopefully, a sign of our interior life and our familiarity and intimacy with the Lord. In fact, our happiness may show where we can be unfaithful to the Lord! Why? When we sin, when we choose to stray from God we deprive ourselves of happiness like the rich man in Lk 18/23. We know that being with Jesus is really a treasure we do not want to lose (see Mt 13/44).

7.    Let us look at the Beatitudes recorded by Matthew. Notice how they can give to enter more into the path of Jesus.

8.    Matthew shows us, in the Sermon on the Mount, the project of Jesus for all humanity. The project is a call to freedom and happiness. It requires interior attitudes for following Jesus. Clearly the Beatitudes show this.

Happy are the Pure in Spirit, the Kingdom is theirs

9.    Happy are those who are not “jaded” and feel that they have everything already. Instead, happy are those who are like children who marvel and are joyful when they receive gifts! Happy are those whose hearts are uncluttered and not dispersed. They are not prisoners of their self-sufficiency. They still have place for God in their lives.

10.  Happy are those who do not make a big deal of their virtues because they know that they have limitations and weaknesses. They know they need God so they open up to God.

11.  Remember the parable of the prodigal son? In that parable there is also the elder brother. Happy are those who can identify with the younger brother—the gift of love is something they are happy to receive. The elder brother has a lot of pride and he thinks he has it all. He thinks he does not need to turn to the Father. He is unhappy. It is the prodigal son who proves to be the happy one. He is “pure in spirit” because he sees how God’s love is really his.

Happy are they who mourn, they will be consoled

12.  Happy are they who are so affected by the pains of others. They follow the path of Jesus in addressing all forms of evil and injustice. They cry—they mourn—because they see the suffering of the world around them.

13.  But they do not choose to “take it easy”. From Jesus they know the consequence of discipleship—the cross. They are happy in accepting to cry over sin—their own and the sin of their society. Saint Paul has a beautiful way of showing this mourning. It is a mourning into repentance. It is mourning “in the style of God”, says St. Paul (see 2 Co 7/9-11). The consolation lies in the fact that whoever mourns this way knows that the root causes of pain and suffering and injustice will have to be confronted. Whoever mourns this way—in the way of God—is happy not to be united with injustice. Mourning  makes it clear that he/she is taking the side of justice and truth.

Happy are the meek, they will inherit the land

14.  When we think of “land” we can recall Abraham. To him and to his descendants were promised “the land”. Much blood flowed to get that land. Much fire and killing took place. But now with Jesus, it is different. Happy are those who avoid being parts of machines of violence. In fact, Jesus would go as far as say we must love our enemies! Happy are those who do not enter into violence. Happy are those who extend their love to their enemies. They are meek and they know the path to the Kingdom.

15.  Happy are those who fight against false ideas, against perverse ideologies. Yet, even in their resistance to these they do not harm anyone. They stay non-violent. Never will they be disoriented, they are at home in the land—in the Kingdom. They prove their patience and they “master their anger” by refusing to be dominated by blind fury.

Happy are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they will be satisfied

16.  They are happy because they do not work for their own self interests. Their work for justice is not centered on their self-interests. Their solidarity extends to the poor and the “little ones”. They too are not disoriented.

17.  They are happy because they always adjust themselves to God. They do not give up on the road to justice and sainthood. They seek first God’s righteousness and justice.

18.  They are happy because they see how they are not pretentious. Remember what Jesus said about the pretention of the scribes and Pharisees. “I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5/20).

19.  Happy are they who are so passionate about holiness—especially the holiness of God. Happy are they when they see that the holiness of God demands justice in society. Holiness means fraternity—we are together in the sainthood of God. So we cannot refuse to work for righteousness. It is our satisfaction.

Happy are the merciful, they will receive mercy.

20.  Happy are those who do not choose the path of revenge. They know that forgiveness is not an act of cowardice. To forgive is an act of generosity—it is a great act. Remember what it means not to judge. Judge not and you will not be judged..

21.  Notice how liberating it is to be in front of a needy person when you are very stressed about your own needs and interests. Somehow the presence of the other person opens up the gates of compassion and solidarity—are we not all in difficulties and in struggles? What right have we to judge anyone? Mercy connects with the needs of others—it recognizes the humanity and the human dignity of each and every one. It reverses selfishness. I am not alone neither in my success nor in my pains. This sense of solidarity is, itself, a way of receiving mercy. God makes the sun rise on everyone, he lets the rain fall on everyone—no exception (see Mt.5/45). So who am I to be exclusive? Happy is one who sees this solidarity with all.

Happy are the pure in heart, they will see God

22.  Happy are those who are not troubled by envy and jealousy. Happy are they who are not obsessed with pettiness. Is it not wonderful to have a deep and clean heart? It is wonderful to be unburdened by the multiple attractions of the surrounding world. Happy is the one who is not disoriented, whose life is held with more harmony and order. We can be reminded of the letter of John where we read that we shall be like God: “we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3/2).

23.  What is fascinating here is that as we simplify our hearts and as we stay balanced in the midst of complexities, we are slowly resembling God. St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote that God is simple. In a way we see God in our attempts to be focused and simple. This is a source of happiness.

Happy are the peacemakers, they will be called children of God.

24.  Happy are those who stop making old bitterness continue to gnaw. Happy are those who refuse to make gossip their source of information. Happy are they who do what they can to make the world more fraternal. It is like creation when we become fraternal. We open up space wherein we are at peace with others. We can move about without the sense of suspicion and “hidden agenda” guiding us. All is clear and transparent. This gives honor to God who created a “good” world—clean and direct.

25.  When conflicts arise, happy are those who make the effort to listen to “the other side”. Happy are those who take the risk of understanding others—especially rivals. Happy are those who are willing to be treated as “weakling” if only to make sure that there is a work for reconciliation and forgiveness.

26.  To live with each other in peace—open to all possible dialogue—is to admit how we are all brothers and sisters to each other. We are fraternal—we are all children of God. This realization helps us to be vigilant in always building peace. Maybe we can take cue from St. Francis of Assisi: “Make me a channel of your peace…where there is discord, let me bring agreement, where there is injury let me bring pardon”.

Happy are they persecuted for justice, the Kingdom of heaven is theirs.

27.  Happy are those who are willing to risk their lives for justice. It is a cause of joy—it is a sign of fullness.

28.  Remember Baptism. It is the moment of “installation” of the gospel in our lives. Baptism means we are willing to consecrate our lives for the good news, for the Kingdom, for true life. Hence there is no shame to be disciple of Jesus. The life of Jesus is assumed in Baptism. Jesus designated discipleship as following him by picking up the cross. This means the willingness to be persecuted if only to be true to the path of the Kingdom.

29.  Sure, there will be insults. There will be false witnesses. It is the consequence of discipleship—the consequence of Baptism. Once we choose to follow Jesus, we pick up the cross and face the resistance to truth and justice. Yet, be happy. Why? It is exactly the same “itinerary” of Jesus. The prophets—and Jesus—have all been persecuted. Be happy, you are just like them. You are in the right path.

30.  Of course it will be crazy to always look for occasions in which we will be insulted. We do not go to the “insult market”. But when things said about me are false and I am insulted because I live for Christ, then I must be happy. I am witnessing to the Gospel.

31.  If because of my fidelity to Jesus that I am persecuted, then I must be happy. The path is clear. I can associate with the prophets themselves. A false prophet is someone who refuses to disturb anyone even if it is time to fight for truth and justice. Whenever there is the struggle for justice, we will have to hurt some people—especially those who prefer injustice. In Luke we read about this: “Woe to you when everyone is speaking well of you, this is how your ancestors treated the false prophets” (Lk 6/26).

Happy are you who look like Jesus!

32.  In the Beatitudes we see a face—the face of Jesus. We are “another Christ”. We too assume the same face. We are called to resemble Jesus.

33.  When we meditate on the Beatitudes we seem to be “reading” Jesus. It is like reading a description of Jesus. In the Beatitudes Jesus shows the people his own face—his own manner of behaving and treating others. He shows what it means to be happy.

34.  Hence the Beatitudes call for a change of life style—a change of our own hearts and minds. Change our attitudes…be different. Stand on our feet and not on our heads. The world says “let us be unjust”. The beatitudes speak of mercy and peace. The world says “let us consume and consume”. The beatitudes speak of meekness. The world says “let us compete”. The beatitudes speak of mercy.

35.  There is an invitation to look like Jesus. It is an invitation to assume a different form of spontaneity, a different form of enthusiasm. Oh, but it can be demanding, surely. The occasions to live the beatitudes are not only during special moments—they are daily moments. Daily life is the path of following Jesus.

36.  The beatitudes bear fruits to anyone who cultivates them. The main fruit is happiness.  The beatitudes invite transformation—to become more and more like Jesus. They are said up the Mount. We climb to listen and we descend to live.

Natural Law in Church Tradition

1. In the tradition of the Church we read a lot about “natural law”. Moral theologians have been

discerning as to where there is moral living that is applicable to all—not just for Christian believers.

Catholics theologians and other thinkers have used the notion of natural law in many areas of life—

politics, economics, sexuality, human-rights, medical issues, etc. But still, even if the notion is widely

used, understanding it is not easy.

2. Let us look at the word “natural”. It is from the root “to be born”. So it implies something innate and

essential to a thing. Natural means the properties intrinsic to a thing. If we remove the natural, the

thing stops being what it is. If we apply this to us, humans, it is natural for us to have bodies, to have

desires, to think, to reason, etc.

3. Let us look at the word “law”. In natural law the word “law” does not mean rules and regulations. So

this word is not related to things like “laws of the country”; it is not related to civil law. No. The word

“law” in natural law is moral law. It concerns our capacity to think and to decide—it is innate in us

to think and decide. So “law” here means—it is a fact that we cannot deny and delete. We are, by

nature, moral creatures and we simply have to recognize this (and revere it).

4. The popes have written encyclicals inspired by the idea of the natural law. If we look at their texts we can note the following

a. The popes would say that there is a natural way of doing things. There is an innate way ofdoing  things—in social life, in marriage, etc. We are doing what is proper to human beings when we do things as natural to us.

b. If we do not act and live according to what is natural in us, we contradict God. God created us and gave us properties natural to us. If we refuse to comply, we are rejecting what God has given to us.

c. We cannot just do anything we want. We have to consider our human nature. If we step beyond our nature we abuse ourselves. We do harm.

d. Notice also the importance given to reason…the use of the “head”. Think, discern, decide.

5. In the Bible there is no explicit mention of “natural law”. This term is not found in the Bible. But

some passages indicate the sense of natural law. See for example Wisdom 6/12-14 and 13/4-9.

By contemplating the universe we sense a plan of God—that God’s will is integrated in creation.

Creation is given a nature coming from God.

6. In the New testament we have the writings of St. Paul. Also he did not use the term “natural law”.

But he spoke of what is very natural to all humans. There is a law inscribed in the human heart—and

it is in all humans. See Rom.1/20-23 and 2/14-16.

7. In the gospel texts, we read about the parables of Jesus. They too indicate something of the natural

law. The parables show what is natural in us. There are basic human values, for example. Check out

the parables.

Thomas Aquinas

8. In the Church tradition, a lot is taken from St. Thomas Aquinas. He has largely marked the idea of

“natural law”. In fact, the documents we read from the Popes are heavily influenced by the ideas of

St. T.A. The book he wrote, Summa Theologica, has many parts dealing with natural law. (See the

texts assigned earlier in class).

9. For St. T.A. there is first the creative design of God for all. This is what he called as “eternal law”.

This is in God himself. When God created the world he gave properties to his creation. Creation

participates in the eternal law of God. This participation is what St.T.A. calls as “natural law”.

10. We, humans, are creatures of God. We are rational-thinking creatures. So what is natural for us is

our reasoning capacity. This capacity regulates and ordains our lives. Let us be more clear with this.

11. As creatures, we have natural properties to common to other creatures. For example we have

desires and inclinations—just like the other animals. This is natural to us. But, added to this, we have

reason. We can think, discern and make up our minds. We make plans and goals. We coordinate our

actions in view of the plans we make.

12. We do not simply make plans and goals out of nothing. We have a base: our desires and inclinations.

Already the inclinations influence us, they orient us. We cannot remove them, they are natural to

us. So we need to know these inclinations—discern them. This discernment is the work of reason—

a property natural to us humans. Reason relies on what we already have and at the same time

it makes its own moves too. God has provided us our inclinations (like he has provided to other

creatures) and God has provided us with reason, which is unique to us. So what is natural to us?

Well, we have both levels—the inclinations and reasoning capacity.

13. If we look closely at these two, we will notice a moral orientation. Basically, we are naturally

oriented to do good and avoid evil. It is a “natural law” in us. It is in our nature to do good and avoid

evil. How do we do good and avoid evil? a. We preserve and conserve our being b. We look for (and

apply) what is proper to us—like education and reproduction. c. We make sure that truth and justice

are in our social lives.

14. We do make efforts to attain these three. Yes, our reasoning capacity may not be so accurate and

clear when we apply our efforts but, according to St.T.A., the three (above) are definitely present

and are definitely in our nature. They are the base for all other things we do. When we consider

moral demands we may have many difficulties and we may not be so sure as to what to do. But, the

three have to be the base: conserve being, seek out what is proper to all of us, and live in truth and

justice.

15. In the perspective of St.T.A., reason is given a high importance. Morality is possible because we have

reason. We can think and discern. Each person—no matter who he/she is—is a moral being thanks

to the reasoning capacity. For St. T.A., God really wanted us to be like this. This is the nature he has

given us. We have an innate moral nature.

16. Over the centuries the ideas of St.T.A. have been tested and even questioned. Some moral

theologians note that there are unclear elements that are difficult to apply in our modern times.

Still, in general, the ideas of St. T.A. remain accepted in the Church. There are, however, some

refinements to consider. What are some of them?

17. In modern times we have realized more and more the complexities of humanity. We are not simple

beings. We have many elements in us—psychological, sociological, cultural, etc. When we speak of

what is “natural” today we must recognize the complexity. When we look at our reasoning capacity

we cannot over-simplify it and say that we are very lucid and clear with reasoning. No. We also have

deep seated complexities—like the “sub-conscious” as discovered by the science of psychology.

This is what makes discussion of natural law more difficult now. Many theologians are struggling to

determine what exactly is the most natural in us.

18. Another point that the Church is emphasizing today is that natural law is objective. It is not just

a result of what we imagine or what we want. It is not arbitrary. In fact the notion of natural law

furnishes us discernment against the arbitrary. For example, today we see major issues about

human rights and human dignity. The human being is naturally gifted with reason, thinking, deciding

capacities. These should be respected. Human rights violations are often in the neglect of people’s

capacity to think and decide for their lives. So the Church will emphasize on the objectivity of human

rights. These rights are not to be arbitrarily accepted and dismissed. They are there, natural, present

and cannot be removed.

19. There is one final point we might find interesting. In the tradition of the Church, following the

thoughts of St. T.A., natural law is applicable to all humans. No it is not just for us, Christians. All

human beings are marked by the natural law. Now, today the Church is very interested in dialogue

with other cultures, traditions and religions. Through the idea of natural law the Church engages

in dialogue. The Church sees the natural law as one good area of dialogue. It is possible to have a

universal ethics—a sharing among all peoples.

Appendix: Examples of “Natural Law” for two Popes

From the Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI:

11. … The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Pope Benedict XVI spoke to the UN in 2008. Here we cite a passage where he mentions Natural Law. Referring to the document of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” the pope says:

“This document was the outcome of a convergence of different religious and cultural traditions, all of them motivated by the common desire to place the human person at the heart of institutions, laws and the workings of society, and to consider the human person essential for the world of culture, religion and science. Human rights are increasingly being presented as the common language and the ethical substratum of international relations. At the same time, the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights all serve as guarantees safeguarding human dignity. It is evident, though, that the rights recognized and expounded in the Declaration apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person, who remains the high-point of God’s creative design for the world and for history. They are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. Removing human rights from this context would mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic conception, according to which the meaning and interpretation of rights could vary and their universality would be denied in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks. This great variety of viewpoints must not be allowed to obscure the fact that not only rights are universal, but so too is the human person, the subject of those rights”.

Some descriptions of the Natural Law

from VERITATIS SPLENDOR of Pope John Paul II

50. At this point the true meaning of the natural law can be understood: it refers to man's proper and primordial nature, the "nature of the human person",⁸⁹ which is the person himself in the unity of soul and body, in the unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and of all the other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit of his end. "The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body".⁹⁰ To give an example, the origin and the foundation of the duty of absolute respect for human life are to be found in the dignity proper to the person and not simply in the natural inclination to preserve one's own physical life. Human life, even though it is a fundamental good of man, thus acquires a moral significance in reference to the good of the person, who must always be affirmed for his own sake. While it is always morally illicit to kill an innocent human being, it can be licit, praiseworthy or even imperative to give up one's own life (cf. Jn 15:13) out of love of neighbour or as a witness to the truth. Only in reference to the human person in his "unified totality", that is, as "a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body informed by an immortal spirit",⁹¹ can the specifically human meaning of the body be grasped. Indeed, natural inclinations take on moral relevance only insofar as they refer to the human person and his authentic fulfilment, a fulfilment which for that matter can take place always and only in human nature. By rejecting all manipulations of corporeity which alter its human meaning, the Church serves man and shows him the path of true love, the only path on which he can find the true God.

51. …the natural law involves universality. Inasmuch as it is inscribed in the rational nature of the person, it makes itself felt to all beings endowed with reason and living in history. In order to perfect himself in his specific order, the person must do good and avoid evil, be concerned for the transmission and preservation of life, refine and develop the riches of the material world, cultivate social life, seek truth, practise good and contemplate beauty.93

“…the natural law expresses the dignity of the human person and lays the foundation for his fundamental rights and duties, it is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all mankind. …

52. It is right and just, always and for everyone, to serve God, to render him the worship which is his due and to honour one's parents as they deserve. Positive precepts such as these, which order us to perform certain actions and to cultivate certain dispositions, are universally binding; they are "unchanging".94 They unite in the same common good all people of every period of history, created for "the same divine calling and destiny".95 These universal and permanent laws correspond to things known by the practical reason and are applied to particular acts through the judgment of conscience. The acting subject personally assimilates the truth contained in the law. He appropriates this truth of his being and makes it his own by his acts and the corresponding virtues. The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.

…

The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments... You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness" (Mt 19:17-18).

53. …It must certainly be admitted that man always exists in a particular culture, but it must also be admitted that man is not exhaustively defined by that same culture. Moreover, the very progress of cultures demonstrates that there is something in man which transcends those cultures. This "something" is precisely human nature: this nature is itself the measure of culture and the condition ensuring that man does not become the prisoner of any of his cultures, but asserts his personal dignity by living in accordance with the profound truth of his being.

… Jesus' reference to the "beginning", precisely where the social and cultural context of the time had distorted the primordial meaning and the role of certain moral norms (cf. Mt 19:1-9). This is the reason why "the Church affirms that underlying so many changes there are some things which do not change and are ultimately founded upon Christ, who is the same yesterday and today and for ever".97 Christ is the "Beginning" who, having taken on human nature, definitively illumines it in its constitutive elements and in its dynamism of charity towards God and neighbour.98

Certainly there is a need to seek out and to discover the most adequate formulation for universal and permanent moral norms in the light of different cultural contexts, a formulation most capable of ceaselessly expressing their historical relevance, of making them understood and of authentically interpreting their truth. This truth of the moral law — like that of the "deposit of faith" — unfolds down the centuries: the norms expressing that truth remain valid in their substance, but must be specified and determined "eodem sensu eademque sententia" (i.e., the same mind and the same judgment) 99 in the light of historical circumstances by the Church's Magisterium, whose decision is preceded and accompanied by the work of interpretation and formulation characteristic of the reason of individual believers and of theological reflection.100

Conscience in Church Tradition

1.    We have a kind of self-knowledge, right? We more or less know ourselves. We know what we want and what we do not want. We have memories of our past. We have plans for the future. The human is reflective. We think. We can think about our past or future, about ideas and decisions. We can think of what judgment to make regarding a situation.

2.    Now, when does moral conscience come in?

3.    Moral conscience has something to do with our capacity to confront ourselves and evaluate ourselves—am I doing good or bad? In conscience we confront ourselves and we judge according to what is good or bad. We might look back at things we did or look forward to things we will do. Then we evaluate: “Hey, that’s not good, that’s going to harm my neighbor”.

4.    Now, in Theology, conscience has a reference: God. So if we look at the New Testament, and notably St. Paul, God is in the picture. Conscience is not isolated from God. It is always in the context of dialogue with God. God is present in our lives and he is there in our conscience. (See, for example, 1Cor.4/3-5; 1Cor.8/7-13). Conscience, for St. Paul, is a basic human reality. All humans have conscience. It is imprinted in everyone by God: “…the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them” (Rom.2/14-15).

5.    Let us focus more on Church tradition. Let us look at the documents I sent you earlier.

6.    In GS16 we have a very compact explanation of Conscience. It is in the heart of the human person—in the innermost “sanctuary”. There we are in front of God.

7.    In the other documents we saw (in DH), conscience puts us right in front of God too. We make our decisions in front of God. Conscience is a responsibility we take—and as we obey conscience we translate the will and love of God in our actions. This is why in conscience we are obliged to seek the truth. We are obliged to allow ourselves to be under the truth. In the documents we read from Vatican, notice that conscience must be guided by Christian wisdom. What happens then?

8.    Let us go to the Veritatis Splendor of Pope John Paul II. The pope says that conscience can be mistaken—it makes mistakes. Conscience is not infallible. It is not a “fix-all” manual. Conscience still needs to be formed.

9.    Conscience, even if it is within us, still has to be guided by the light of Revelation. It must still be inscribed in natural law. It must still be obedient to something objective. Yes, conscience is personal. Yes, it is where we are one-on-one “alone” with God. Yet, this does not mean we are isolated in conscience. Conscience witnesses to an objective order which is beyond us.

10.  We might ask what is this “objective order”? To put it simply, in conscience we work for full humanity. We just do not do what we want to do. We are still obliged to make sure that our choices and actions are oriented to making us fully human, truly human as image and likeness of God. So we stay vigilant about obeying things—laws, rules and norms—that assure us of full humanity. We decide and act according to objective norms that promote human dignity, human fulfillment and human sanctity. So conscience needs to ask always if a choice and action is for the good of the human as willed by God.

11.  At this point we realize that conscience is not just a feeling. Maybe there is feeling involved. But notice that in the Church conscience is more of a rational activity. We discern and we act according to discernment. To help us, we can always take references from objective truths already revealed to us. There are the teachings of Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount. There are the Ten Commandments. There are Church Doctrines. These are anchored in revelation. They are enlightened by the will and love of God. So, they are, “absolute”. 

12.  So is it enough to follow one’s conscience to decide well? When it concerns moral questions the Church consistently says that conscience is the immediate norm of personal morality. It means that always we must regulate our judgments, decide and act according to our conscience.

13.  Conscience is the norm for decision making and action. And this is to be done always. Let us cite from an encyclical of Pope John Paul II: “…the judgment of conscience also has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with it. If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience, the immediate norm of personal morality”(Veritatis splendour # 60).

14.  This statement of the Pope is in line with the notion of conscience stated by Vatican II. Let us look at this one. Conscience, as we saw in Vatican II “… is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths” (Gaudium et Spes # 16).

15.  Yet, the Church insists also that we form our conscience. Conscience is not something fixed and stable, it needs maturity. This means that conscience is not a perfect help. Conscience can make a mistake too! Again Pope John Paul II has this to say: “Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council puts it, ‘not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin’. In these brief words the Council sums up the doctrine which the Church down the centuries has developed with regard to the erroneous conscience” (Veritatis Splendor # 62). Notice what the Pope is saying. Conscience can be erroneous. There is such a thing as erroneous conscience. This can lead to confusion and paradox. We are to rely always on our conscience which can be mistaken. Strange is it not? What does “forming conscience” involve? Well, let us first try to appreciate conscience itself. The question about conscience has an important place in Christian morality. The Church has given such an important status to conscience, so much so that conscience must not be violated. Nobody can force somebody else to go against conscience. In the Church we say that when we somebody follows his/her conscience, that person’s choice and decision should be respected. Conscience is integral to our being human and persons. If conscience is violated, then human dignity itself is violated.

16.  To help us appreciate further the question of following conscience—and the question of an “erroneous” conscience, let us look at classical theology. In traditional theology (and philosophy) conscience is said to have “levels”. First there is the “habitual” feature or, for St. Thomas Aquinas, it is called “practical intellect” (synderesis—which is Greek for “habitual conscience”). This practical intellect knows that "evil must be avoided, good must be done". It is obvious for our reasoning. Conscience is the capacity to know the good. It is the capacity to see the principles of moral life which is to do good and avoid evil. It is this capacity in us that cannot be taken away from us. It is the light given to us by God even if we are creatures and sinners. So even the most hardened criminal has this capacity to know good and avoid evil. St. Thomas Aquinas will insist: it is in each and every human.

17.  We say that “of course” we "do not do to others what you would not wish to be done to yourself". Obviously we should honor our parents. Obviously “we should live moderately and act justly". According to medieval theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas, these are self-evident truths…they are “obvious moral truths” that we know habitually. We all simply admit how true they are without doubt and question.

18.  Second, there is the “reasoning” or “discerning” conscience. We have the capacity to deepen our knowledge of what is good for us and what is evil. We can reason morally. Given particular situations we are in, we can discern our values and we can discern what is good and what is bad. We can think morally and we can decide morally. We can see when we are telling a lie or stealing.

19.  Ok, so we know some obvious moral facts. But when we come to certain situations, we still need to We can judge our actions and decisions and we act them out. Not only can we understand and evaluate what is good (or bad), we can also act. We can engage for the good and against evil. After having weighed the elements of a situation, we have the capacity to move, to act, to get involved for the good. It is on this level when we say, “Now I act following my conscience”.

20.  So this is discernment on what to do. Ok, so we say that we should live moderately, we should not abuse ourselves and we should act justly…but there are problem situations when we also need to discern. Maybe we need to spend big money, so we discern if it is a modest or immodest thing to do. The decision component says: “I will do it”. After weighing our options we decide.

21.  Notice then that the first feature is the most basic—it is always present in us. The other two depend a lot on how we will think and decide. All three of them, according to Medieval theologians, are features of (moral) conscience.

22.  In the tradition of the Church, levels # 2 (reasoning morally) and # 3 (acting morally) are called “actual conscience”. Sometimes we might read the term “practical reasoning”…which is the same. (Level # 1 is often associated with “natural law”).

23.  We can make a mistake in our reasoning and in our action. (We are never mistaken in level # 1. The assumption in that level is that ingrained in us is the natural option to really seek for the good.) We can make mistakes (levels #2 and #3) by ignorance or by negligence. We may be insensible to a certain issue. We might not realize that the ideas we assemble and the actions we make might do more harm than good. During past centuries, for example, many Christians have lived accepting slavery. The modern idea of “human rights” was absent in the thinking of centuries ago—a limit to level #2. So Christians were involved, level #3, in the slave trade. We cannot say that the Christians involved in slavery were intrinsically evil and wanted to do evil. They just lived according to an “erroneous conscience”.

24.  So we see that conscience has an important role in moral life. It clarifies. It cuts with decision. It allows or it prohibits. It can blame or encourage. It is like a compass. Yet, it needs to be regulated and “formed”.

Is it enough to follow one’s conscience to decide well?

1.    When it concerns moral questions the Church consistently says that conscience is the immediate norm of personal morality. It means that always we must regulate our judgments, decide and act according to our conscience. Let us try to understand this.

2.    Conscience is the norm for decision making and action. And this is to be done always. Let us cite from an encyclical of Pope John Paul II: “…the judgment of conscience also has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with it. If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience, the immediate norm of personal morality”(Veritatis splendour # 60).

3.    This statement of the Pope is in line with the notion of conscience stated by Vatican II. Let us look at this one. Conscience, according to Vatican II “… is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths” (Gaudium et Spes # 16).

4.    Yet, the Church insists also that we form our conscience. Conscience is not something fixed and stable, it needs maturity. This means that conscience is not a perfect help. Conscience can make a mistake too! Again Pope John Paul II has this to say: “Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council puts it, ‘not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin’. In these brief words the Council sums up the doctrine which the Church down the centuries has developed with regard to the erroneous conscience” (Veritatis Splendor # 62). Nortice what the Pope is saying. Conscience can be erroneous. There is such a thing as erroneous conscience.

5.    This can lead to confusion and paradox. We are to rely always on our conscience which can be mistaken. Strange is it not?  What does “forming conscience” involve?  Well, let us first try to appreciate conscience itself.

6.    The question about conscience has an important place in Christian morality. The Church has given such an important status to conscience, so much so that conscience must not be violated. Nobody can force somebody else to go against conscience. In the Church we say that when we somebody follows his/her conscience, that person’s choice and decision should be respected. Conscience is integral to our being human and persons. If conscience is violated, then human dignity itself is violated.

7.    In the secular world we also see the value given to conscience. Conscience is a defence against the despotism of politics. People in power may force us to do certain things, but never can they touch our conscience. Today the idea of “democracy” involves the respect of conscience.

8.    What about the moral dimension of conscience? First of all, let us be careful about the loose use of the word. In psychology we might also read about this word “conscience”. Psychological conscience is about knowledge of the self—the body, the feelings, memories, intentions, regrets, etc. Conscience, still in the psychological level, is also intellectual. Human conscience is reflective. It thinks.  We can think about our past or future, about ideas and decisions. We can think of what judgement to make regarding a situation.

9.    Moral conscience is similar but it has it radical difference too. Moral conscience is our ability to confront our actions and decisions with moral rules.  This conscience makes a difference between good and bad.

10.  In the heart of moral conscience we can note three elements or levels:

First, conscience is the capacity to know the good. It is the capacity to see the principles of moral life which is to do good and avoid evil. The Church theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas used the word “synderesis”—which is Greek for “habitual conscience”. It is this capacity in us that cannot be taken away from us. It is the light given to us by God even if we are creatures and sinners. So even the most hardened criminal has this capacity to know good and avoid evil. It is in each and every human

Second, we have the capacity to discover what is good for us and what is evil. We can reason morally. Given particular situations we are in, we can discern our values and we can discern what is good and what is bad. We can think morally and we can decide morally. We can see when we are telling a lie or stealing.

Third, we can judge our actions and decisions. Not only can we understand and evaluate what is good (or bad), we can also act. We can engage for the good and against evil. After having weighed the elements of a situation, we have the capacity to move, to act, to get involved for the good. It is on this level when we say, “Now I act following my conscience”.

11.  In the tradition of the Church, levels # 2 (reasoning morally) and # 3 (acting morally) are called “actual conscience”. Sometimes we might read the term “practical reasoning”…which is the same. (Level # 1 is often associated with “natural law”).

12.  When we talk of “forming conscience” we must consider levels # 2 and # 3. Why? Observe well, we can make a mistake in our reasoning and in our action. (We are never mistaken in level # 1. The assumption in that level is that ingrained in us is the natural option to really seek for the good.)

13.  We can make mistakes (levels #2 and #3) by ignorance or by negligence. We may be insensible to a certain issue. We might not realize that the ideas we assemble and the actions we make might do more harm than good. During past centuries, for example, many Christians have lived accepting slavery. The modern idea of “human rights” was absent in the thinking of centuries ago—a limit to level #2. So Christians were involved, level #3, in the slave trade. We cannot say that the Christians involved in slavery were intrinsically evil and wanted to do evil. They just lived according to an “erroneous conscience”.

14.  So we see that conscience has an important role in moral life. It clarifies. It cuts with decision. It allows or it prohibits. It can blame or encourage. It is like a compass. Yet, it needs to be regulated and “formed”.

Conscience

There are things to read outside this article. They are indicated

below. Please be responsible for them.

Maybe they will be in the final exam!!!!!

1.    Conscience plays a very important role in our moral living. It is our guide. It is what “triggers” us to behave correctly. It is also what “triggers” us to evaluate things we do—like when we do something we sense is wrong.

2.    Here are some areas to look at where we might associate conscience with other things—and they are not strictly moral conscience.

·         Conscience and conformism: We might mistake conscience with conforming-with-others all the time. We can so obsessed with what others say and do, so if we do not conform we say, “I feel conscience”. This is not always healthy. What if the whole group is fearful and lazy to make hard yet important community decisions? Do we say, “I too?” What if everyone makes unhealthy jokes. Do we say, “I too?” To conform may be helpful in giving us a sense of security, but conform-ism is really morally dangerous. Look at your language and see if you have an expression for conformism. One danger with conformism is that we stop thinking and reflecting on the morality of what we do. We just let the group think and decide for us.

·         Conscience and blind obedience: Our lives are, of course, characterized also by the presence of authorities—like legal-political authorities, family authorities, religious authorities, etc. We really feel the necessity of following them. But there is a point when obedience can be blind. At this point we obey without discerning and reflecting. But we “feel conscience” when we do not obey. But there is a problem. What if authority tells us to mistreat other ethnic groups—like in parts of Africa? What if authority tells us to do things contrary to our vocation? It is important to have authorities but how far do we allow blind obedience? The danger here is that in saying yes blindly we also stop thinking hard and discerning. We let the authorities think and decide for us. What happens to real conscience? 

·         Conscience and solipsism: In this case, we try to do things alone. Here we are “all alone” in our discernment and decisions. Solipsism says that “I-am-alone-in-decision-making”. Well, this may look ok because it is our listening to what is intimate within us. But there is a danger in refusing to consult others. There is a danger in trying to be the sole authority to oneself. 

·         Finally, there is the “super-ego”. This we have discussed before. The super-ego is not moral conscience. It is interested in securing our places in a group or in society. It is not interested in making sure we are following the truth. In super-ego we try to “fit-in” with others no matter what. This is a “sub-conscious” element in us that can trigger emotions whenever we do things that do not conform with “papa-and-mama” inside.

3.    We can already see the discussion about conscience in the Bible. Look at St. Paul’s letters. Yes, we are truly human by the fact of having conscience. St. Paul adds the link with God. Conscience, for St. Paul is never separated from God: “…do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God” (1Co.4/5). So for St Paul it is best to let God help decide and act.

4.    But then St. Paul would not say that conscience is exclusive among us, followers of Christ. Conscience is found in all humans. Somehow all were given by God the gift of conscience. (See Rom.2/14-15).

5.    What about Church Tradition? We have encyclicals and other teaching documents. Let us look at Vatican II and the text of Gaudium et Spes. In this document we read that conscience is what is intimate in us, it is a kind of “sanctuary” wherein we are face-to-face with God. Our human dignity is so linked with conscience—our conscience is dignified. Please read GS #16 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1776-1782 in your free time. Who knows, maybe they will part of the final exam!!!!! What is further interesting in the text is that conscience allows us to be united with each other. Conscience opens up bridges—good relationships among all. If we resist, then we affect human unity.

6.    Gaudium et Spes will continue to say that we are responsible for our exercise of conscience. So there is responsibility involved. Each and everyone of us is already responsible for the conscience that each has. We do not have to always wait for others to tell us what to do. We can, on our own, discern and decide. Have confidence in discerning and deciding. Again please read GS…and this time GS # 43. Who knows, maybe it will part of the final exam!!!!!

7.    Conscience requires that we decide and act according to what is true. So we just do not follow our conscience, period. We obey our conscience and make sure that our conscience is truthful—objective. We still need to form our conscience and orient it to the truth. (In case you want to read another Vatican II document, and this is Dignitatis Humanae # 2-3. Make the effort to read these paragraphs. In fact, you might want to spend time reading sections of the encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Veritatis splendour # 54-64. These are all about what we are discussing here! But you need efforts to understand the words and phrases. Try!)

8.    Ok, so we see the Church telling us to obey and respect our conscience because conscience is so deeply intimate with us—it is a “sanctuary”. But the Church also recognizes that conscience can make mistakes. Ignorance can be one reason. So we can have an erroneous conscience. (See Veritatis splendour # 62.)

9.    What can help us in shaping and forming our conscience—and making it oriented to the truth? Let us look at the human condition. Two aspects merit attention.

·         The human is living a life-with-others: Nobody is an island. We said this at the start of the semester. We grow up and realize that we cannot always be “too full of myself” all the time. There are others too. Our lives are always relational. So even in the small details of daily life we somehow connect with others. What we do affect others. What others do affect us. We form our conscience is view of this relational aspect. We form our conscience to see if what we decide and act promotes human dignity. Are our actions dutifully oriented to the “humanization” of each and everyone? Conscience is a kind of vigilance to this. Our Christian faith tells us that we are now brothers and sisters to one another, thanks to the redemption of Christ. So conscience is vigilance to this “fraternity”. Are my decisions and actions “fraternal”? (Remember the four relationships emphasized in MAPAC? In MAPAC we speak of relationship with God, with others, with self and with Nature. How “fraternal” are we in all these?)

·         Conscience needs to be truthful, so it bears witness to the truth. Conscience must be vigilant that whenever a decision is made, it is truthful. Pope John Paul II clarified this well. This truth, according to the Pope, is indicated by the will of God expressed in the natural law which is the basic norm of morality. Conscience does not make this law. Rather “it bears witness to the authority of the natural law” (Veritatis Splendor # 60. Please read this whole #60, maybe it will come out in the final exam!!!!!!). So conscience does not tell us what is good or evil. It discerns good versus evil. But an action can be good or evil—and conscience does not affect the reality of that action. Conscience is an “obedience” to the truthful norm. So if we obey conscience we are also concerned with the truthfulness of our decision. Does our decision based on conscience bear witness to what is true? Notice that conscience can be so intimate in each of us…yet it is like a “radar” that spreads out to what goes beyond each of us.

10.  How do we form our conscience? (Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1783-1785). Certain proposals can be made:

·         We keep vigilance against being too much “full of ourselves”. Life is not always about me. There are others. We keep vigilance over the fact that decisions and actions can—and do—affect others. Yes, in this case we might want to seek aid from the human sciences, for example. We look for help from these sciences—and from other persons of wisdom and experience—so that we can see how more “humanising” and more “fraternal” our actions can become.

·         We still need to consult the Scriptures and Church Tradition. We need to enlighten ourselves with what has been revealed to us by God. Let us not set aside the role of the Church Magisterium.

·         We need to pray and ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

·         We need to “examine” ourselves regularly.

11.  It is wrong to disobey conscience. Always follow conscience…always. But recognize that conscience is not 100% lucid. It needs formation. Formation is our responsibility. If we act in obedience to conscience and we see that we are mistaken, we are responsible for that mistake! In conscience we say, “I was wrong”. The action remains objectively wrong! But, as Pope John Paul II would say, “…the verdict of conscience remains…a pledge of hope and mercy: while bearing witness to the evil he has done, it also reminds him of his need, with the help of God's grace, to ask forgiveness, to do good and to cultivate virtue constantly” (Veritatis splendour #61). Even in an erroneous conscience, dignity stays.

12.  Our next task is to put together all that we studied—Bible and Church Tradition—and apply them in some concrete cases.

The “Law of Gradualness”

1.    Now, in many situations we cannot expect ourselves to immediately apply moral norms proposed by Scriptures and The Church. It is never always easy, right? Let us look at certain important elements that can help us.

·         What is important is to keep the value of moral living…We do want to live morally upright.

·         What is important is to want to apply and live according to the norms. We really want that moral life be followed everywhere. We do not want harm, corruption, cheating, etc.

·         We want this as soon as possible. We “mourn” when we see that we live in world of harm, corruption, cheating, deceit, injustice, etc. Yes, these are hard realities and they seem so well fixed in our world. But do not want them to stay always…we want them removed as soon as possible.

·         What is important is that we will make the necessary steps to be more and more faithful to moral living. Somehow even in our daily lives and in our capacities to do good, we somehow make steps that at least improve our lives.  

2.    Let us admit that moral living is not always easy. There are tensions that make moral norms so difficult to apply. But we also admit that we can work this out slowly, gradually. We know that we shall try to “do better” each day. There are actions that are good and validly true at any given moment of time. But applying them may be gradual. Check out the things we studied—like Scriptures and Church Tradition—we realize that they are made to orient conscience.

3.    One thing has to be clear—and we saw this in formation of conscience. We have no right to say we are doing good when we see that we are really doing bad. What Scriptures say and what the Church says are designed to make us always vigilant about our relationship with God; so that we may always move in the direction towards God even in the difficult cases.

4.    So, when we say that it is wrong to tell a lie to Brother Romy and steal his money or to deceive my formator so I can mock around in the middle of the night near MERALCO, we cannot say that we are not doing wrong. It is not healthy to justify wrongdoing if it is really wrong. When we are wrong we must admit that we are wrong; this is what a formed conscience tells us. Now, are we morally upright always and everywhere? Aha! Here is where a problem arises. Are we expecting ourselves to be always and always morally ok?

5.    There is a tension in us. How many “new year’s resolutions” have we broken? Well, Pope John Paul II reflected on this and came out with what he called as the “law of gradualness”. He said that we grow and mature morally in time. We grow gradually. Let us look at this one.

6.    First of all, when we talk of what we should do morally, of course we are concerned for our good—not for what will harm us. We want to be happy and our happiness must be based on what is good for us. What is good is really in the service of our full humanity—ourselves and society. It is humanising and fraternal.

7.    Pope John Paul II knew this and said, “Since the moral order reveals and sets forth the plan of God the Creator, for this very reason it cannot be something that harms man, something impersonal. On the contrary, by responding to the deepest demands of the human being created by God, it places itself at the service of that person's full humanity with the delicate and binding love whereby God Himself inspires, sustains and guides every creature towards its happiness” (Familiaris consortio 34). Notice what he is saying here. We are guided by the moral order towards a fuller humanity.

8.    The Pope continued: “What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man. Therefore an educational growth process is necessary, in order that individual believers, families and peoples, even civilization itself, by beginning from what they have already received of the mystery of Christ, may patiently be led forward, arriving at a richer understanding and a fuller integration of this mystery in their lives” (Familiaris consortio 9). Notice what the Pope is saying. We take steps to improve.

9.    We are creatures in time. We experience limits. We live in concrete situations. The Pope recognizes this. “But man, who has been called to live God's wise and loving design in a responsible manner, is an historical being who day by day builds himself up through his many free decisions; and so he knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth” (Familiaris consortio 34).

10.  The tone of the Pope is optimist and positive. The Pope is not condemning us outright. He is not saying, “You did wrong! You’re bad and go jump out of the window!” If we read what he says we see that he is telling us to move on…do not be bugged down by the wrong thing we have just done. Say sorry and move on…improve. Gradually, over time, we will improve.   

THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1.    Let us go the Catechism of the Catholic Church—the CCC. What we do, according to the CCC, can be either good or evil. The morality depends on

a.    the object chosen;

b.    the end in view or the intention; and

c.    the circumstances of the action. Let us look at each of them.

2.    In 1751 we read that the object  is the “matter” of a human act. It “specifies the act”. Let us try to explain this in simple terms. “Object” will tell us what the action by its main characteristics. Remember we are studying moral theology, so we look at moral characteristics. Someone is taking the money belonging to someone else. This action is “stealing someone else’s money”. Someone is helping an old lady cross the street. So it is an action of “helping an old lady cross the street”. Etc. So when we look at a case, try to identify the object of the action.  For example: praying, telling a lie, cheating in an exam, spending time to study, etc.

3.    What about intention? In 1752 we read that intention is the voluntary source of the action. It has a “goal” or purpose of the action. The action is oriented with a certain anticipation. The action is a means for the end. Of course there can be many steps that lead to a goal. A whole life-goal can guide all the many choices we make each day. Also we can have many different intentions—goals. So, let us say that the object of the action is “stealing the money of someone else”. Why? What is the intention? So person A is stealing the money of someone else in order to…. So we try to find out the anticipated result of the action. There is an interesting phrase in 1753: The end does not justify the means. We might, for example, condemn an innocent person for the sake of the whole nation. This is not good.

4.    This time, in 1754 we read about circumstances. These are the conditions in which an act is done. Maybe it will be helpful to check this list. Who is doing the action…what is this person’s conditions (psychological, social, economics, etc.) What is the intensity of the action done…how much money is stolen or how much texts are plagiarized. Where is the action done…like it is in a government setting, inside the chapel. With what means…like was the action done with threatening someone, was it done with “smooth talk”. When is the action done…like the timing and duration, done at the moment when the victim is sleeping or harming someone for a long time.  Notice how consequences can increase or diminish the moral goodness or evil of what we do. If we steal, how much do we steal? Consequences can tell us how much responsible we are in what we do. Are we the main thieves or are we  helping a thief?

5.    The CCC # 1755 will tell us that the action is good if all three—object, intention and circumstances—are good.

6.    If any of the three is bad the whole action is corrupted. I may help an old lady cross the street (object) but with the intention of getting paid by it. I may intend to give money to the poor but the circumstance is that the money I give was stolen from someone else. I may be torturing a criminal (object) and the torture is not so painful (circumstance) but my intention is to get information for the nation. I may be praying in the chapel (object) with the goal of being appreciated by people who see me.

7.    To evaluate an action, we have to see all. Intention alone, for example, is not enough. A circumstance alone is not enough. The object alone is not enough. We have to put all three together (see CCC 1756). If one is not good, the whole action collapses. Is this a bit “too much”? Well, here is what we have studied. See if it helps. We said:

Moral action should lead to human fulfilment and fraternal life. We have Scriptures and we have lots of Church teachings to help us here. For example we are taught that an action is good if it agrees with the natural law given by God, if we do the action with obedience to moral conscience. In the light of natural law and conscience we find a more humanising-fraternal life. So an action here is “good”. It is “ok” and “moral”. The action is humanising and fraternal. If there is no conformity with natural law and it is against conscience then…well, the action is “bad”.

8.    We said that we can make mistakes even if we do things in conscience. We can learn from our mistakes. If we are really acting in conscience, we admit a mistake when we do it. There is, however, one more point to say. What do we do in urgent situations—when we need to decide and act in the here-and-now?

9.    Somehow we should not be completely zero even in urgent situations. We still need to be guided by Scriptures and Church Tradition. We never should be zero even in urgent cases. This means we need to be vigilant about our moral formation so that when we have to act quickly we have moral “tools” at hand. But here are some guidelines—and note they are guidelines, not fixed codes—that can come in handy. (From Alain Thomasset S.J., Interpreter et Agir, pp. 284-286.)

·         Be clear with the unconditional. Certain objects of acts are definitely bad—like raping and torturing. We do not negotiate with these and we do not say, “well, in some cases I might allow these”. No! Definitely no! Clearly such acts destroy the human person and they are absolutely contrary to human fraternity. We do not rape nor torture a Brother or Sister in Christ.

·         Check if there is the “least bad”: There are cases when we might have to do some harm. In a dilemma, for example, we have to choose one option against another although both options are possible. If we choose one we still might do some harm. Do our best to choose the option with the least harm.

·         See the total picture and not just a part of it. When we evaluate an action it is always healthy to see the action within a bigger picture. A doctor who might not want to amputate a patient’s limb will have to see the whole patient first and not just this limb. Taking care of a part might destroy the whole.

·         Is it necessary to break a human law? Sometimes we are in situations that run in conflict with the laws of the country. Let us say that person A borrows the knife of person B. Later person B wants the knife back with the intention of using it to kill someone. If person A does not give it back, he can be accused of stealing. But…he might have to risk this accusation rather than to let person B do the act of murder.

·         Check out the “double effect”: An action can have two effects, namely both good and bad. Choose the situation in which more good will happen. The good must outweigh the bad. This happens in political or legal decisions. To say yes to a legal path might affect certain lives. (This happened in dropping the pork barrel with the risk of scholars losing their schooling.) We discussed a problem in class related to this point. The mother is sick and with baby in the womb. Surgery might kill the child and save the mother. Surgery has a double effect.

Certain Moral Cases in the Everyday Life

Case #1: Sister Maria Portapurbido is a member of the religious congregation named “Little Sisters of the Great Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist of the Kingdom of God the Trinity” (LSGHJEKGT). She is in formation and she is involved with the apostolate for abused women. She has to be in the apostolate every evening. Part of her work is also to help in the household chores of her formation community. She is a good cook and she is assigned in the Kitchen during breakfast and lunch. At one point she has become so tired. She tells her formator, Sister Dicta Makaponga, that she is tired. She wants a break and to relax and have a vacation in another community of sisters. This is the conversation:

Sister Maria: Sister Dicta, I have so much to do. I am tired. Is it possible for me to have a break and stay with the Sisters in the other convent? There it is more relaxed, I can rest for a while.

Sister Dicta: But that convent is not a formation house. It is a place for old sisters who are resting.

Sister Maria: That is why I want to go there and stay for a while, just to rest. Give me a few weeks just to rest and relax.

Sister Dicta: You are on formation. Part of your formation is to learn how to live in a community. If you go to another place you might make yourself special.

Sister Maria: But Sister, I just want to rest. My apostolate is very heavy with the women who are struggling. Then I also have to cook for the community. Will I be making myself special if I want to rest?

Sister Dicta: Is formation too hard for you?

Sister Maria: Well, let me just admit that I am tired now. And yes, there are times when formation is hard. But that is normal, is it not? I do not want to abandon my apostolate, but I just need rest. Look, I am coughing….(Cough, cough).

Sister Dicta: There is medicine in the clinic. You take that medicine. But if I let you have vacation I am afraid it will be unjust to the other sisters here. They are also very tired. They are not asking for rest. So why should you ask for rest? What you are asking for is not very respectful of the community.

Sister Maria: So you are not allowing me to have a rest in the other convent?

Sister Dicta: Make your decision. Do you stay here or do you go to the other convent? You decide and I will evaluate you with your decision.

If you were Sister Maria, what will be your decision?

Case # 2: Brother Batosana Dimahasang BBSRHMJ is a religious brother of the congregation of the “Big Brothers of the Sacred Rosary in the Hands of Mary and Joseph”. He is the principal of one of the schools of the Brothers. In that school is a teacher named Ebab Bigabooba. She has been teaching there for many years already. She has been an important teacher during all those years and she has really helped the school grow. Many students have become very faithful Catholics. In fact three graduates have become Brothers of the BBSRHMJ. They were students of Ebab Bigabooba. One day, however, you discovered that M’am Ebab Bigabooba is not officially married in the Church. Her husband has been a silent member of a non-Catholic sect and so they never got married. The sect does not allow marriage with another religion. But school policy says that all married teachers should be married in the Catholic Church. Read this conversation and evaluate.

Brother Batosana: M’am Ebab, I just discovered that you are not married in the Catholic Church. You are married in another sect, a non-Catholic sect. All the while I thought you and your husband were Catholics. I see you and your husband attend Sunday mass.

M’am Ebab: How did you discover?

Brother Batosana: I have a friend who joined the sect of your husband. He saw your husband in a meeting and your husband told him you are not married in the Catholic Church.

M’am Ebab: Oh, I have kept that a secret for many years. What will happen?

Brother Batosana: School policy says that you have to be married in the Catholic Church. This is a Catholic School. We have to respect the dignity of the school. We agree that everyone here is faithful to the ways of the Catholic Church. M’am Ebab, school policy will require that you leave school.

M’am Ebab: But I have been a teacher here for many years. I have helped many young people become good Catholics! Must I leave? This is also my work. I cannot just leave. It will hurt me.

 Brother Batosana: Well, you can marry your husband officially in the Church.

M’am Ebab: His sect does not allow this. He cannot marry me in the Church. I love my husband and I cannot deny him his right.

Brother Batosana: I am now in deep trouble. I am not sure if I will let you leave or not. But we have to be faithful to our school policy too, right? I know it can help to keep that secret, but will that not violate the school policy?

If you were Brother Batosana, what will be your decision?

Case # 3: Misis Jones is a married woman and has been married to Mister Jones for four years. They are both Catholics and they have been married in the Church. The couple has no child. One day, however, Misis Jones wakes up in the morning to feel that she is not happy with the marriage. Her husband snores loud in the night. He is lazy and does not always want to work. He has drinking problems. He likes watching television all night. If Misis Jones tells him about the problem, he gets angry. He shouts. Misis Jones once met another man, Mister Phogi. Misis Jones wants to live with Mister Phogi and give up her marriage with Mister Jones. Read the conversation and evaluate.

Misis Jones: Hey, Phogi, I am fed up with my husband. He is not a good husband. He is hard to live with. I though in the beginning he was ok, but now I realize the big mistake of marrying him.

Mister Phogi: Oh, that is tough. What do you want to do?

Misis Jones: Well, we have known each other for some time. We have positive feelings for each other and we claim we have a certain amount of love for each other.

Mister Phogi: Yes, that is true. What do you want to happen?

Misis Jones: I can leave my husband…and we can start a life together, you and I.

Mister Phogi: That looks exciting. But you’re married. Do we just do what you want?

Misis Jones: Look, I cannot stay with that man, my husband. If I stay with him I will feel miserable. This morning I woke up and I said to myself that I am fed up with him. I want to leave him…and be with you.

Mister Phogi: Do you know what you are asking for?

Misis Jones: Yes, I am asking for love between you and me. If I stay longer with my husband, I will be a very sad person. With you, I will be happy. So, shall we live together?

If you were Mister Phogi, what will be your decision?

Certain Moral Cases in the Everyday Life

Case #1:

Sister Maria Portapurbido is a member of the religious congregation named “Little Sisters of the Great Heart of Jesus in the Eucharist of the Kingdom of God the Trinity” (LSGHJEKGT). She is in formation and she is involved with the apostolate for abused women. She has to be in the apostolate every evening. Part of her work is also to help in the household chores of her formation community. She is a good cook and she is assigned in the Kitchen during breakfast and lunch. At one point she has become so tired. She tells her formator, Sister Dicta Makaponga, that she is tired. She wants a break and to relax and have a vacation in another community of sisters. This is the conversation:

Sister Maria: Sister Dicta, I have so much to do. I am tired. Is it possible for me to have a break and stay with the Sisters in the other convent? There it is more relaxed, I can rest for a while.

Sister Dicta: But that convent is not a formation house. It is a place for old sisters who are resting.

Sister Maria: That is why I want to go there and stay for a while, just to rest. Give me a few weeks just to rest and relax.

Sister Dicta: You are on formation. Part of your formation is to learn how to live in a community. If you go to another place you might make yourself special.

Sister Maria: But Sister, I just want to rest. My apostolate is very heavy with the women who are struggling. Then I also have to cook for the community. Will I be making myself special if I want to rest?

Sister Dicta: Is formation too hard for you?

Sister Maria: Well, let me just admit that I am tired now. And yes, there are times when formation is hard. But that is normal, is it not? I do not want to abandon my apostolate, but I just need rest. Look, I am coughing….(Cough, cough).

Sister Dicta: There is medicine in the clinic. You take that medicine. But if I let you have vacation I am afraid it will be unjust to the other sisters here. They are also very tired. They are not asking for rest. So why should you ask for rest? What you are asking for is not very respectful of the community.

Sister Maria: So you are not allowing me to have a rest in the other convent?

Sister Dicta: Make your decision. Do you stay here or do you go to the other convent? You decide and I will evaluate you with your decision.

If you were Sister Maria, what will be your decision?

Case # 2:

Brother BatosanaDimahasang BBSRHMJ is a religious brother of the congregation of the “Big Brothers of the Sacred Rosary in the Hands of Mary and Joseph”. He is the principal of one of the schools of the Brothers. In that school is a teacher named EbabBigabooba. She has been teaching there for many years already. She has been an important teacher during all those years and she has really helped the school grow. Many students have become very faithful Catholics. In fact three graduates have become Brothers of the BBSRHMJ. They were students of EbabBigabooba. One day, however, you discovered that M’amEbabBigabooba is not officially married in the Church. Her husband has been a silent member of a non-Catholic sect and so they never got married. The sect does not allow marriage with another religion. But school policy says that all married teachers should be married in the Catholic Church. Read this conversation and evaluate.

Brother Batosana: M’amEbab, I just discovered that you are not married in the Catholic Church. You are married in another sect, a non-Catholic sect. All the while I thought you and your husband were Catholics. I see you and your husband attend Sunday mass.

M’amEbab: How did you discover?

Brother Batosana: I have a friend who joined the sect of your husband. He saw your husband in a meeting and your husband told him you are not married in the Catholic Church.

M’amEbab: Oh, I have kept that a secret for many years. What will happen?

Brother Batosana: School policy says that you have to be married in the Catholic Church. This is a Catholic School. We have to respect the dignity of the school. We agree that everyone here is faithful to the ways of the Catholic Church. M’amEbab, school policy will require that you leave school.

M’amEbab: But I have been a teacher here for many years. I have helped many young people become good Catholics! Must I leave? This is also my work. I cannot just leave. It will hurt me.

 Brother Batosana: Well, you can marry your husband officially in the Church.

M’amEbab: His sect does not allow this. He cannot marry me in the Church. I love my husband and I cannot deny him his right.

Brother Batosana: I am now in deep trouble. I am not sure if I will let you leave or not. But we have to be faithful to our school policy too, right? I know it can help to keep that secret, but will that not violate the school policy?

If you were Brother Batosana, what will be your decision?

Case # 3:

Misis Jones is a married woman and has been married to Mister Jones for four years. They are both Catholics and they have been married in the Church. The couple has no child. One day, however, Misis Jones wakes up in the morning to feel that she is not happy with the marriage. Her husband snores loud in the night. He is lazy and does not always want to work. He has drinking problems. He likes watching television all night. If Misis Jones tells him about the problem, he gets angry. He shouts. Misis Jones once met another man, Mister Phogi.Misis Jones wants to live with Mister Phogi and give up her marriage with Mister Jones. Read the conversation and evaluate.

Misis Jones: Hey, Phogi, I am fed up with my husband. He is not a good husband. He is hard to live with. I though in the beginning he was ok, but now I realize the big mistake of marrying him.

Mister Phogi: Oh, that is tough. What do you want to do?

Misis Jones: Well, we have known each other for some time. We have positive feelings for each other and we claim we have a certain amount of love for each other.

Mister Phogi: Yes, that is true. What do you want to happen?

Misis Jones: I can leave my husband…and we can start a life together, you and I.

Mister Phogi: That looks exciting. But you’re married. Do we just do what you want?

Misis Jones: Look, I cannot stay with that man, my husband. If I stay with him I will feel miserable. This morning I woke up and I said to myself that I am fed up with him. I want to leave him…and be with you.

Mister Phogi: Do you know what you are asking for?

Misis Jones: Yes, I am asking for love between you and me. If I stay longer with my husband, I will be a very sad person. With you, I will be happy. So, shall we live together?

If you were Mister Phogi, what will be your decision?

Case # 4:

Makie Mooney is a married man with two children, one toddler and a baby. He is working in a small factory and his salary is quite low but enough to feed his family. But as he looks at his growing-up children he starts to worry. He has heard of a work opportunity in Europe and he is invited by a friend to work there. Now he is thinking hard about it. Read this conversation with his wife, Talia.

Makie: Hey, our children are growing up.

Talia: Yes. Look, the baby is now able to make words. They are so wonderful.

Makie: I know. I am so happy to play with the older child. We are slowly becoming to be friends, he is now getting to know me better. But we have a problem.

Talia: yes, I understand the problem. They are growing up and we need to send them to school. What can we do? Is your salary at work enough?

Makie: I am afraid that the salary will not be enough in the future. I cannot ask you to work now because you are taking care of two growing up children.

Talia: What do you think we can do?

Makie: I can work abroad, in Germany. I have a friend there and my friend tells me there is job available for me.

Talia: Do you want to try it?

Makie: It is very attractive. I calculate that if I work for eight to ten years we will be able to send our older child to college. But I hesitate too.

Talia: You hesitate?

Makie: Yes, if I go and work in Germany I will make money and be able to send our children to good schools. But…

Talia: What is your problem.

Makie: Right now they have a father figure. I can play with the older child. We are beginning to know each other. But if I leave the chance to be close to each other and be friends will not happen. I will be absent at the time when our children need a father figure. Imagine what happens if I leave.

Talia: If you stay, you can be closer friends with the children…but what about the money and their future? If you go abroad, you will gain income and help us financially, but yes, you lose the chance to see your children grow up and be a father figure to them.

Makie: This is hard. What shall I do?

If you were Makie, what will be your decision?

Sin: Random thoughts about it

1.    There are many who are aware of human dignity yet they say that there is a failure in the plan of creation. Modern sciences show a lot of progress and always new techniques. Yet there is a rapid loss of “civilization”. War, environmental problems etc. These are fruits also of science and technology.  show. For example many countries are poor. There are wards going on. The environment is damaged more and more. Life is more uncertain even with the new sciences and technologies. How do we explain this? As you become teachers of religious education, for example, how will you explain this to your students? Now maybe we can use the word “sin”…at this point in our semester. What is “sin”? Well, let us first try looking at the dictionary and Google translate and other useful websites. (We are at the mercy of the information these give us).

2.    Let us look at the Old Testament. The word hatta' t (or lack) is used both in the ordinary profane sense and in the world of religion. It supposes a link between the individual and the community, leading to transgression and condemnation. There is a lack—a hatta't—as soon as a community relationship is wounded. A person is “lacking” in front of the community and in front of God. A community may have laws and ways of behaving and a person “lacks” that—the person transgresses the norms. Someone lacks something which must be in the community.

3.    This conception of sin as “lack” shows the importance of relationship. The word hatta't can express a lack in the Covenant—an infidelity to following the ways of God. The people of God are born from this covenant. So to “lack” in the covenant hits not just God but also the people—the identity of the people. Sin is a way of setting aside the plan of God for the people. It is lacking participating in this plan. The prophets have shown that sin is not just something religious, it is also a transgression of the covenant—a lack of respect for support and justice of others. The prophets also emphasized the moral aspect of sin. They showed te tendency to lack real participation in real life. Psalm 51 is a good illustration here. The expressions of recognizing sin are here. Then there is the affirmation of the goodness of God. The psalm then proceeds to ask for forgiveness.

“Have mercy on me, God, in accord with your merciful love;

in your abundant compassion blot out my transgressions.

Thoroughly wash away my guilt;

and from my sin cleanse me.

A clean heart create for me, God;

renew within me a steadfast spirit” (Ps 51/3-4. 12)

4.    Let us go to Church tradition. In Latin the word used is peccatum, to mean “fault”. The Latin also has fallita, which means “lack”. This “lack” is something of the person who owes somebody money—and he cannot pay. Once this happens, the enterprise false. Imagine if people who own banks cannot pay. The system falls. When we say that the system is a failure, we can say it is in fallita. Today we hear people say, “the world is in failure”. So they may have this fallita in mind.

5.    Let us try looking at this theologically. Sin can be a “failure”. Not, it is not the failure of humanity—it is not the failure of the human creature. Rather, it is failure to creation. Humanity fails creation.

6.    Let us reflect on this. Let us recall our discussions on creation—taking cue from Wenin. We said that God prepared the created world to put the human person there. Then God allowed the human to have “mastery” over the created world. In was a responsible mastery—not a damaging mastery. Beginning with the status of being creature—and not Creator—the human constructs a life in which he/she “blooms”. Life is meant for happiness and communion with God. We insisted: the human is not God. The human is creature, not Creator.

7.    The human is image and likeness of the Lord God.

8.    The Book of Genesis show how the human fell for the temptation of trying to become God. The human refuses to accept the condition of being creature and wants to become God. Concretely, now, do we sense how this is happening?  Let us check it out.

·         Do we refuse to grow? Do we refuse to deepen ourselves? Do we not get stuck in some “comfort zone”?

·         Do we not treat resources as if  they were unlimited? (Look at how we use non-renewable resources. Look at the behavior of consumerism.)

·         Do we leave space for others to grow and deepen? Do we not at many times refuse them—refuse their own respect and dignity? (Look the wars and the biases and prejudices.)

·         Do we not live with the assumption that “I know already”…so there is no need to search and question and move?

·         Do we not often put blame on others…as if we are not responsible for many harmful things happening.

9.    Etc. You know many issues. They are all described in Genesis—Cain kills Abel, adultery and promiscuity scatters in the world, pride and domination becomes the way of relating with each other (and with God). The Book of Genesis—and many other books of the Scriptures—show how the human being turns away from the plan that God has made in the time of creation. How we refuse to be happy—and instead we harm each other.

10.  Ok, and let us think further. No, it is not just about the past—not just about our having been created and having a part in the plan of God. Sin is also a matter of relationship—for the future. The “becoming” of our relationships is also affected. In a way our relationships with each other is not given a future. We refuse to be fully human—and thus to be fully happy! Let us reflect on this.

11.  Sometimes we think that sin is “having done something wrong” and the wrong is in terms of rules. So we ask, “I am so unfortunate now, what wrong did I do…is there something wrong that I did so that bad things now happen to me?”

12.  Sin is seen as an impurity associated with “penalty”. God judges me and he is giving me a hard time now—it is a lesson for something wrong that I have done. Forgiveness is interpreted as a purification that makes God satisfied that I am sorry. I am purified by a penalty. Maybe…but treally, this is not accurate. We make God look like a very harmful God who wants us to suffer for his satisfaction.

13.  Sometimes we say that sin is a wrong-doing that destroys the ideal that God expects from us. We feel guilty that we do not reach the ideal that God expects. God expects a “perfect” man…a “perfect” woman…a “perfect religious”….a “perfect Christian”. But I cannot do it…I find it so difficult to be perfect. So, all my life I am lacking. I am constantly offending God…every day. This looks a little ok…but also it has its danger. Why? We make God like someone who expects too much from us and may never be happy with us because we cannot meet his expectation. So the problem is God will love us only when we really come close to the ideal. While I am far from the ideal, God does not love me. In our semester, we did not agree with this. Creation is an act of love—so our existence presupposes that God’s love precedes us always.

14.  Let us try this notion: sin is our refusal to conform to the happiness and love that God is offering us. God wants us to be happy. God wants us to “bloom”. God wants us to realize our fullness. Yet, we say “no”. There is something of St. Paul here:

15.  “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin” (Rom. 7/15 and 21-25).

16.  What exactly is St. Paul describing here? He is not emphasizing guilt and guilt feelings. This is not his focus. What he is emphasizing is the awareness of a failure to be responsible for my humanity. I cut off my future—I refuse future in my humanity and in the humanity of others. We are stuck. This is how we can understand sin. It is getting stuck. We experience sin in circumstances of life—we ourselves get stuck by something and someone else. Let us look at some experiences of getting stuck:

17.  Something in our environment—social, political, inter-personal, etc.—does not allow us to be fully human and fully persons. And, there is something in us that refuses the growth of the humanity of others. And here is the hard point: we do not use our resources to overcome getting stuck. Just like Adam and Eve, we do not consult God. This is maybe where we really sin.

18.  We resign our call to be human and happy with God. We refuse the creation that God had endowed on us.