The notion of "Seeds of the Word"....from where?

     From where did Pope JPII--and other Church theologians--take the notion of "seeds of the Word"? This notion came from the "Patristic times"--from the times of the Church Father. Among the Church Fathers was St. Justin the Martyr who really reflected on "seeds of the Word". 
     St. Justine was a philosopher who wrote in Greek. He was a convert to Christianity. He was born in Samaria and went to Rome sometime 150 AD. There in Rome he started a school in philosophy marked by Christianity. In 167 he was martyred. This is why the Church calls him "Justin the Martyr". 
     He said that before the coming of Christ all humanity had access to partial truths, all humanity received "seeds of the Word". Humanity still participated in the divine mind of God. The human mind had imperfect and partial knowledge of truths about Revelation. 
     When Christ came the summit of Revelation happened. Christ was the ultimate and full Revelation of God. "The Word became flesh" (Jn1/14). Now the truth is full and out in the open. While Christ was not yet received by others, the truths that others knew were partial--just "seeds of the Word". 
     Let us cite some of what he wrote:

Passage #1: "Our doctrines, then, appear to be greater than all human teaching; because Christ, who appeared for our sake, became the whole rational being.... For whatever either lawgivers or philosophers uttered well, they elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the Word. But since they I did not know the whole of the Word, which is Christ, they often contradicted themselves" (2Apology 10).

Passage #2: "...I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of the others, Stoics, and poets, and historians. For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the SPERMATIC WORD, seeing what was related to it. [.... ] ... we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing. For all the writers were able to see realities darkly through the SOWING of the implanted word that was in them. For the SEED and imitation impacted according to capacity is one thing, and quite another is the thing itself, of which there is the participation and imitation according to the grace which is from Him" (2Apology 13).

     Let us try to explain these passages. 
     In #1 St. Justin says that Christ is fullness of knowledge. Those who do not know Christ "elaborate" and "contemplate" partially the Word. They do not see and understand completely. They understand partially. Because of partial knowledge, they tend to contradict each other. 
     In #2 we really see the words used by St. Justine in relationship to "seeds" of the Word. St. Justin is proud that he is Christian. Other persons--like Plato--who do not know Christ have teaching similar to the teachings of Christ. Those who do not know Christ see parts of the truth of Christ--they have a proportion of the "spermatic Word". Those other people see things in a darker way, not fully bright. Why? They have the word implanted in them, somehow. It is already "sowed" in them, somehow. Of course, says St. Justin, have seeds is not as full as the person of Christ himself. 
     Later, in our era, the Vatican II council picked up this notion of "seeds of the Word" taking mainly from St. Justin (and Clement of Alexandria). The document Gaudium et spes (#3) mentions that the council proclaims the destiny of humanity and "champions the Godlike seed" that has been sown in humanity. Another council document, Ad gentes, mentions this too. Other people belonging to other religious traditions "may be able to bear more fruitful witness to Christ" so "let them gladly and reverently lay bare the seeds of the Word which lie hidden among their fellows". (Ad gentes #11). So the Vatican II council acknowledge that others--even if they are not Christians--can bear witness to Christ because the "seeds"have been sown in them.
     Now as we read Pope John Paul II's Redemptoris missio we can have an idea of where the notion "seeds of the Word" come. 

Human Rights and the Drug Lord

In the Philippines today there is the war against illegal drugs. The drug lords are the main violators of social well-being. What do we do with them in this war? First we need to answer the question of the possibility of taking arms. Is it ok to take arms? There are possible answers.

1.  There is pacifism. This says that we should never take arms. We should never kill or harm anyone.

2.  There is “just war”. This says that war/violence is never good but there can be war/violence that can still be justified. So it is alright to take arms but with conditions and limits.

3.  There is cynicism. In cynicism we say, “I do not care”. It is indifference to whatever happens.

4.  There is the “holy war”. Here we say that God sends us to war and violence.

The Church accepts the just war response and with a bit of pacifism. It took many centuries of discernment and experiences to take this stand. The experiences during World War II have led the Church to ask the question about response to aggression. We cannot just absorb the violence of other nations. We have to respond to that aggression. So the question is: how to actively respond without violence to the violence being done to us?

The notion of “active non violence” showed to be an appropriate response. Already in the Vatican II council this was a position taken. Pope Paul VI and the other Popes after him mentioned this notion of non-violence.

Non-violence includes an active search for winning over evil—over violence—with using good. Note then what active non-violence is: it is a response we can make effectively in front of violence without ourselves doing violence.

The “just war” theory today includes this sense of non-violence. It is inspired by the ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas.

The “just war” theory answers two questions: When is it ok to take arms? What are the limits in using arms?

When is it ok to take arms?

1.  We take arms for defense and for defense only. There is no other valid reason. If we take arms for revenge or for wanting to control another and own the possessions of the aggressor, then we are not in just war. We can take arms in defending others. But note that it is still about defense.

·      When we say defense, we must see it in the way the Church understands it. The idea of defense is to make sure that the aggressor is incapable of aggression and threat and violence. So defense means disarming and disabling the aggressor. This is all. We take arms to disable the aggressor. We do not go beyond this. Our intention is not to kill the aggressor. Our intention is to disable the aggressor. The final goal is to re-establish peace.

2.  Next, we take arms if other possible ways are not available. If we have exhausted all alternatives—like dialogue, conventions, etc.—then we can take arms.

3.  Next, we have to make sure that the situation after our intervention does not worsen. If the fruit of our intervention will not improve the actual situation and will only make things worse, then we do not take arms.

4.  Next, we have to give the responsibility to take arms to legitimate authority. Taking arms is not an option of everyone. We need to seek for the proper legitimate authority who will take arms. This is the government, or more precisely the army/police. In the international scene, this can be the U.N.

5.  Finally, we take arms if there is a hope of success. This is similar to number 3. We avoid making the situation worse and we evaluate if we can have success. We do not pick up arms if we will only make the situation worse.

What limit do we give in taking up arms?

When there is aggression and violence we still cannot just do what we want. We need to be aware of “collateral damage”. Remember that the defense is against the aggressor and nobody else. In war we distinguish between combatants and civilians. Civilians remain innocent. They are not to be harmed. Harming them is considered “war crime”.

In actual combat situations it is never easy. Today the strategy of many is to mix soldiers with civilians to the point that even civilians become combatants. Still, we need to always be vigilant about the limits, as best as we can.

When taking up arms aim only to those who will be disabled. Others remain innocent.

In the case of the war against illegal drugs

The drug lord remains a human person with dignity and with human rights. Remember that human dignity is not a title we give to ourselves. It is from God. All humans are persons with dignity because of being image of God and being honored by Christ’s Incarnation.

If we follow then what we say above, the drug lord id to be disabled and disarmed. The drug lord is to be prevented from continuing the destruction of people’s lives and prevented from killing. That is all. (Of course we bring the drug lord to jail and let the drug lord face proper legal processes.) There is no further intention of wanting to revenge against the drug lord. There is no further intention of wanting to kill the drug lord. The main intention is to protect society from the threat of illegal drugs by disabling the drug lord. Extra judicial killing is immoral. Its intention is to kill and it refuses the human right to due legal procedures.

Another point we need to consider is that the battle against the drug lord is to be done by legitimate authority. Vigilantes, for example, are not legitimate authority. Taking up arms to fight the drug lord is not the option of just anyone.

A final word must be given to collateral damage. Fighting the drug lord may include harming and killing the innocent. This is immoral. Disable and disarm only the drug lord.

Introduction to Mission

 Joy and Hope in Mission

       Mission is our effort to share the Good News. Sometimes the word "evangelization" is used; it is a word to describe "sharing the gospel". We go out into the "ends of the earth" telling people about Jesus and inviting them to continue sharing this Good News. Pope Francis notes that mission is a command. In God's command God always said "go". Abraham accepted the command. Moses accepted the command. The prophets accepted the command. Jesus accepted the command. Go. They accepted and they went. Jesus gave the command to his disciples--go on mission. Mission is a command of Jesus to his disciples and the Church! Go to the ends of the earth, Jesus said to make sure that people learn from what he, Jesus, taught his disciples. (See Mt 28/19-20). Go... so that the faith spreads everywhere. We, as Church and disciples of Christ, are also commanded. Go and take courage to bring the good news everywhere. (See Pope Francis'encyclical Evangelii gaudium #19-20).
     But before we start talking about mission let us talk about the motivations that lead us to mission. What makes us want to share the Good News? Why do we want to tell people about Jesus Christ? Let us look at two reasons motivating us to share.

     a. First we are joyful. We are joyful to have received the Good News. We go out on mission with joy to share the Good News.
     b. Second is that we are hopeful. We are hopeful that what we share will fulfill lives of people.

Joy

1. Pope Francis wrote his encyclical Evangelii Gaudium (EG)--the "Joy of the Gospel". The Gospel, he says, is source of joy. Why did the Apostles and the early Christians accept to follow the command of Jesus to "go" and share the Good News? For the Pope the reason is that the joy of the Gospel filled their hearts. They received the Good News, they encountered Christ, they were so glad to go and share their experiences. They were filled with joy. Thus the joy of the Gospel is the missionary joy too (see EG#21).
2. The joy of the Gospel is a sign that that the Gospel is announced and it gives fruits. Joy motivates the going--and the going is often far to other places, countries, cultures. The Pope notes that joy has a dynamism of going and giving. Joy is marked by the dynamism to go far and farther. (See EG#21). Ok, maybe some of us do not go to very far countries. Some of us may be staying in the parish. But we feel there is something more to share. We want to go "far" into the lives of people even if they are just in the local parish.
3. The joy is, in a big way, awakened by intimacy with Christ. The intimacy (of the Church) with Christ makes the Church move. Our communion and intimacy with Jesus is missionary (see EG#23). We have know Jesus in our lives and we are joyful. We want to share the joy without hesitation. "Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people" (Lk2/10).
4. At the heart of mission is the joy of the Gospel thanks to our intimacy with Christ. The Church goes; she accepts to "go to the ends of the earth", "go to all creation". The Church takes the initiative and gets really involved. This is because Jesus himself has done it before. In the mind of St. John the evangelist we are branches of the vine. We are so connected with Christ. So we do as Christ did. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. We wash the feet of others. We are in the footsteps of Christ. Jesus went on mission, sent by his Father. We go on mission in the footsteps of Jesus.
5. The Pope notes that we go and touch the suffering of people--we get implicated in their lives. We accompany others--we accompany humanity--in all of the processes that humanity undergoes. We have had an encounter with Christ and "we saw his glory" (Jn1/14). We celebrate as we go on mission: we celebrate the joy of having known Christ and we share the joy. We celebrate each victory over death, we celebrate evangelization (see EG#24).

Hope

1. The Apostles encountered Christ and have witnessed how Christ won over death. It was a joyful experience. It was also an experience that opened up hope of the Apostles for all peoples. If Jesus was victorious, this meant victory for all peoples.  The Apostles were stimulated to proclaim the good news. Death--and all the darkness we have in this world--is not the ultimate destiny. Mission is so motivated by the experience of being saved in a world of death and distress. This hope is founded on the resurrection of Christ. The Apostles and the early Christians were stimulated to share the good news. "They went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them...." (Mk16/20).
2. The challenge for mission is to offer a sense of hope. Hope as principle of life can be presented.  Mission is challenged to say that there is hope: "Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope, for he who made the promise is trustworthy". (He 10/23). In hope for the final victory we confess our faith strongly. The promise we see in the resurrection of Christ is trustworthy. The hope for salvation already announced by the prophets and realized in Christ. Let us share this in mission.
3. Church mission is to orient hope to the eschatological fullness. It is hope that we do not see but "...if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance....the Spirit itself intercedes." (Rm 8/25-27).Hope is given to us by God and it is strengthened by love. Without hope mission dies.
4. Hope is a grace given to us. But it is also human to hope because human life is basically hopeful. No human life can hold without a minimum of hope: a sense of expecting a future, a better future. Something to look forward to. Imagine a life without anything to look forward to! Mission recognizes human hope and offers a content: fulfillment in God. Hope is in Christ and opens up the future leading to communion with God. Mission is a way of awakening each life to recognize the orientation of life to communion with God.
5. Hope relies on the fact that life is good, beautiful, true. All life is oriented to fullness: in fulfillment in God. Whatever is opposed to human fulfillment denies life, it denies respect for creation, it denies the dignity and depth of each person. It is opposed to any sense of future.
6. We Christians think of the eschatology and we hope for fulfillment. This fulfillment has been inaugurated by Christ and it is a fulfillment on the move; it is a process. So we feel the need to face reality here and now. Our hope makes us address life now. Mission tells the world that in its suffering Christ has won and is not in favor of the misery of people. Mission says that the Incarnation of Christ is his solidarity with us. It is his honoring of humanity. Hence mission affirms human reality even in the here and now. 
7. Christian faith is based on what has already been accomplished: resurrection and victory over death by Christ. It is also based on hope on what is not yet fully accomplished. There are both faces in Christianity. We have the assurance of the resurrection and we organize our future. Mission talks of what Jesus had done, his victory. It also opens up in hope for the final fulfillment in the eschatology.
8. We can then place mission under the light of hope. We patiently hope that God in his own mysterious way will lead all reality to fulfillment; we participate in that process. We "dance"with God in time. Mission is to live in history and participate in turning history to its source--God--and destiny--God. Mission is a work of patience that requires faith, of course, in the victory of Christ over death. This victory has been revealed. Hope is to look forward to the final fulfillment of all.

Mission: Taking cue from Ad gentes

1. Mission is the mission of God, and God is a Trinitarian God. 
       • God the Father has a plan. 
       • The Son and the Holy Spirit execute that plan. In other words, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the ones who go one mission to fulfill the plan of the Father.
2. What does Jesus Christ do? Humanity seeks for God. Humanity wants to find rest in God. The Father decides to answer that quest by entering into history and concrete human life. The Word became flesh, as the 4th gospel says (see Jn1/14). The incarnation is God’s way of uniting with us, humanity. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, the Son of God who “worked with human hands, thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart” (Gaudium et spes #22). Jesus Christ pulled us away from the hold of sin on us. He then restored us in communion with the Father. Jesus Christ came as the true and unique mediator, making us participate in the life of the Father. For Ad gentes (#3) the mission of the Son is redemptive and restoring.
3. The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son is inside Church. (See Ad gentes #4). The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church starting with the Apostles. The Holy Spirit gives gifts; charisms. The Holy Spirit gifted the Church with a hierarchy. The Holy Spirit animates the Church, gives life to the Church. Thanks to the Holy Spirit the Church becomes “missionary”. So the Holy Spirit has the mission to make us “alive” and inspire us to move on and continue the mission of Jesus Christ.
4. What about the Church? Jesus Christ, founder of the Church, made the command of mission. Hence mission has been instituted by Jesus Christ. It started with the Apostles who formed the hierarchy. Christ founded the Church as “sacrament of salvation”. (See also Lumen gentium 5,9). Jesus gave the command to “go” to the ends of the earth and proclaim the good news (see Mt28/19ff and Mk16/15ff). The mission command in assumed by the Church. The Church sees it her duty to propagate the faith. (See Ad gentes #5). 
5. What exactly is the mission of the Church? Her mission is to obey the command of Christ to go and preach. The Church continues the mission of Christ in the footsteps of Christ. As the Father sent the Son, the Son sends the Church (see Jn17/18 and 20/21). Her mission is moved and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Because the Church is commanded to go everywhere she is to be present to everyone everywhere. Her presence to people calls her to lead everyone to the faith, to liberty, freedom. The Church, simply put, leads all to Christ.
6. The Church has different styles of doing mission, depending on the different contexts in which the Church enters. The Church may not always be “successful” on mission; there are the ups and downs.
7. Although proclaiming the good news is mission of the Church, there is more. In later encyclicals of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II there is mention of other tasks, including inculturation, work for justice and dialogue. We will go into these later.

The Necessity of Mission

1. The missionary activity of the Church should be done. It is a necessity. (See Ad gentes #7). Why? It is what God wants, first of all. Mission is not originally from us; it is from God. God commanded this to us. Hence it is a necessity. 
2.     This notion of necessity tends to be so misunderstood. It looks like an imposition. It looks like we, members of the Church, are obliged. But remember what we said above regarding joy and hope. Yes, mission is from God and commanded by God. But we are so joyful and hopeful in mission: we are so willing to go on mission. Maybe we feel the obligation: but we do not mind. We internalize and accept as our work what God has commanded us. "We saw his glory" (Jn1/14) and we are so happy to share that.
3.     God wants us to share in his life and he sent the Son and Spirit to bring us to this participation in divine life.
4. In participating with the mission of God the Trinity we, the Church, want others to know the truth about God and his plan to have everyone share in his life. 
5. Through the missionary activity of the Church we are so glad that...
       • God is glorified.
       • The plan of God is realized.
       • Humanity realizes being image and likeness of God, regenerated in Christ, reflecting God’s glory, praying the Our Father.
6. In other words, through the missionary activity of the Church all will be assembled as God’s people, as Church, body of Christ and Temple of the Holy Spirit.
7. Note then how important it is, for Ad gentes, that the Church goes on mission. This in view the end of time—the “eschatology”.  Before the final return of Christ the gospel must be proclaimed everywhere (see Ad gentes #9). 

Conclusion

8. Again mission is defined, now in the light of the eschatology. Mission is a way of manifesting God’s plan for all times. It is a way of manifesting the final realization of God plan in the world and in history. Mission is a way of participating in this eschatological movement; it is a participation in the history of salvation of the world. Mission “tends” towards full eschatology: “missionary activity tends toward eschatological fullness” (Ad gentes #9). By the missionary work of the Church “the people of God is increased”, “the mystical body grows to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ”, and “the spiritual temple, where God is adored in spirit and in truth (cf. John 4:23), grows and is built up upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the supreme corner stone (Eph. 2:20)” (Ad gentes #9). What we see here is the communion of all humanity with the Trinity in and through the Church which is “people of God”, “body of Christ” and “Temple of the Spirit”. 

On Human Dignity Human Rights and Family Rights

1.Of course the Social Doctrine of the Church (SDC) will really give weight to human dignity. This is so central. In society we really need to respect human dignity. Already in the Vatican II council this respect for human dignity has been emphasized, as we see in the document Gaudum et spes. The document insists on the fact that dignity cannot be taken away from any person. No matter who the person is, no matter what the past the person had, no matter what social status and gender, the person is a person of dignity. Gaudium et spes gives us a "charter"of what and who a person is in the light of our faith. 

Who is the human person then? Human dignity

2. Chapter 1 of Gaudium et spes is immediately entitled "THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON". The human person is unique and has such a deep value that the social thinking of the Church is guided by this value of the human person. The document, Gaudium et spes (GS) states that " According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown." (GS#12). Human dignity is really a foundation of social life. Human dignity directs social life. This vision about the human person is open to all. We cannot deny the supreme importance of human dignity. We can also be illuminated by faith and revelation. "In the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light" (GS#22). Today we see how so many people cry out for respect of this value--the value of respect fr the entire human person. The Church takes support for this value from Revelation. The human is created in God's image. The Son of God, Jesus, became human; he incarnated and this incarnation has honored our very own humanity. The human has been redeemed by the passion and resurrection of Jesus and so it has become clear that human vocation is transcendent--to live in communion with God. 

3. Ok, the human is created in God's image (see Gen1/26). This is what God has willed. Hence this being image of God cannot be taken away from the human--no matter what a person has done. By being human one is image of God. This tells us many deep things.
     i. It means that the human being is understood fully in his/her relationship with God. 
     ii. This dignity is therefore given by God. It is not self given by the person. It is not given by any government or institution of society.
     iii. The fact of of being image of God, human dignity is not taken back. It is not removed. 
     iv. So no matter who a person is and no matter what status in social life, a person has dignity. A person has dignity and this dignity does not depend on success or failure in society. This dignity is shared by all humans. All members of society have dignity. Dignity is not exclusive of particular groups or classes. This is why human rights are to be defended. The rights of people are based on their dignity. Gaudium et spes emphasizes this: "there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious"(GS#26).
     v. Dignity depends on the love of God for each person. Talk about the handicapped. Talk about abortion or euthanasia. Talk about oppression of workers. Talk about ethnic biases. Human dignity has no discrimination. Each person is worthy of respect. 
Human dignity also calls attention to the fact that we are all equal in dignity. Maybe someone is richer than another, maybe someone has a better salary than another. Maybe someone is more talented than another. Still, all are equal in dignity. Nobody is more dignified than another. The Incarnation of Christ explains why. Christ joined each and every person; he went into solidarity with each human person: "by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man" (GS#22). Each and every person, therefore, is joined to Christ. In Christ everyone has dignity whatever the social status, talents, etc. 

Who is the human person then? Human body of dignity in relationship with the world

4. Vatican II Council has added understanding of who the human is. The human person is "incarnated". This may look so obvious but it has been so unnoticed. We do not fully see how human we are--with real human flesh and as really in-the-world. We are not to look down at ourselves and at our being humans in flesh. Gaudium et spes has this to say, "Through his bodily composition he gathers to himself the elements of the material world; thus they reach their crown through him, and through him raise their voice in free praise of the Creator. For this reason man is not allowed to despise his bodily life, rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and honorable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day" (GS#14). The human is the crown of creation--at the top, so to speak. The whole world is summarized in the human. In us are the minerals, life, movement and reason. We recapitulate the whole created world. The world gives praise to God through us. Thus we should not despise our bodily life. What is the consequence of this? 
     i. The human is not a thing. The human body is dignified and cannot just be a tool, instrument or accessory. We become truly human as we are incarnate--as we are flesh. 
     ii. What concerns our body concerns us too, in our entire selves. The human cannot be set apart from the human body. 
     iii. It is because we are incarnated that we have relationship with the world. We enter into relationships with others and with God thanks to our being incarnated. In faith we say that the body--the human body--is "temple of the Spirit". It is sacred.

5. With these points we can really see how we deal with questions touching on bio-ethics, sexuality, family life, etc. Because of this view of the person and human body we reject acts like torture, body mutilations, prostitution, inhuman treatment of workers, etc. "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator" (GS#27). 

6. We can also say why we reject destroying the human body, like taking illegal drugs and rejecting the care for health. We have reasons to say why we promote health care in many countries where it is neglected. We are part of a whole ecosystem and we have a responsibility to nature for we are definitely linked with her. 

Who is the human person then? Community

7. The human is essentially relational. Nobody is a stone isolated from others. We grow and develop within relationships--with family, with neighbors, school, work, etc. The human is created as image of God. This God--the God of our faith--is Trinitarian. Hence we are image of the Trinity. ust as the Trnity s relational--a community--we too are relational and in communion with others. "Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, 'that all may be one. . . as we are one' (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself" (GS#24). We fulfill ourselves in our giving of ourselves to others--in service, in fraternity, in mutual respect. We are basically relational. This has consequence. 
     i. Human dignity is protected by society...by community. This is protected by mutual respect and service. If we are indeed relational, then our dignity is preserved by this. Our social life is not something extra and just pasted on us. Gaudium et spes says it clear, "Since this social life is not something added on to man, through his dealings with others, through reciprocal duties, and through fraternal dialogue he develops all his gifts and is able to rise to his destiny" (GS #25). 
     ii. Social life is therefore to be organized in view of human dignity. Social institutions promote this dignity. The "subject and the goal of all social institutions is and must be the human person" (GS #25). People do not exist to serve social institutions. The reverse is demanded: society should serve people and respect their dignity.  If we consider economics we need to ask if economics is meant for the development of a class of people at the expense of others. Are economic and political activities exclusive among a few? No. Everyone has the dignity to participate. Is work only for a few? No. Each person has the dignity and right to work. 

Conclusion

8. There are so many poor and neglected people in our societies. They are not respected in their dignity. If we talk of human dignity we might need to make the effort to pay closer attention to those marginalized by social life. The SDC is a response in view of promoting the dignity of everyone with emphasis on the "least" of our brothers and sisters in society. 

How then does a society protect and promote human dignity? We can see this in human rights.

Human Rights


1. "Human rights" are rooted in human dignity. Human rights are based on human nature as created by God. God is the real foundation of human rights. 
The human is human; the human has nature given by God and the human has dignity as image of God. 

     Rights are universal--they are for all humans in any place or time. They are "present in all human beings, without exception of time, place, or subject." (Compendium, 153)  These rights apply equally to all humans irrespective of what status, race, gender and other conditions they are in.
     Rights are inviolable--they are inherent in every single human person; therefore they should be respected. Social groups and institutions must recognize the inviolability of human rights.
     Rights are inalienable--no human person is to be deprived of rights. To deprive a person of human rights is to violate that person. 

2. The universal, inviolable, and inalienable qualities of human rights must be defended entirely. Each and every right merits to be defended. Rights are indivisible. We cannot say that only some rights can be observed while others can be violated. Human right cover the whole person from the first beginning of life to his/her natural death. There is no group or institution that can delete human rights. "The ultimate source of human rights is not found in the mere will of human being, in the reality of the State, in public powers, but in man himself and in God his Creator." (Compendium 153). 
3. What exactly are those human rights? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), hailed to be a good step in the history of morality, gives us a list. The Compendium gives a list, taking from Pope John Paul II. (See Compendium 155). For Pope John Paul II 
     Every person has the right to live, from conception to death. Included here is the right to develop within the womb of the mother. 
     Every person has the right to live in a unified family and within a moral environment. 
     Each person has the right to develop one's own intelligence and freedom in seeking to know the truth. 
     Each person has the right to have a share in work. Work allows for the wise use of resources and support for self and dependents. 
     Each person has the right to establish a family with the right to raise children and have a responsible exercise of sexuality. 
     Finally, each person has the right to religious freedom. Inasmuch as every person has a transcendent dignity--the dignity in which one is fulfilled in God--each person then has the right to live in the truth of one's own faith. The Compendium says that the Church wants to promote human rights as part of her gospel duties. How?  By “proclamation of the Christian foundations of human rights” and by “the denunciation of the violations of these rights." (Compendium 159)

3. Rights are always partners with duty. To have rights is to have them responsibly. In a way we can abuse rights and lose the sense of duty behind them. But rights are coupled with duties. "The Magisterium underlines the contradiction inherent in affirming rights without acknowledging corresponding responsibilities." (Compendium, 156). The notion of human rights for the Compendium is so different from that contemporary practice of wanting only of rights and never of duties. 

4. Ok, so we might think that rights are purely individual. No, not quite. Rights can be social--there are social rights, or rights of a people, a society, a nation. People have the right to exist socially. They have the right to their own language. They have the right to spiritual sovereignty. They have the right to shape their own lives according to their tradition. People have the right to build their future by providing appropriate education for their children. (See Compendium 157).

******

illustration

The Social Role of the Family

The family and economic reality

1. The family can be seen in the light of economics. Pope John Paul II, for example, would talk of the family as standing on work. Work—labor—is what sustains the family. It is through work that the family is able to sustain itself (see Laborem Exercens 10). 
2. The economic reality is basic; it is what allows the family to sustain itself. Only then can the family play a role in society through education and social links. The family is, yes, the place of love and all that stuff. But the poverty and misery wound family life. Misery prohibits the family to play it´s social role. The Church is interested in looking at the conditions of families, especially the poor families. Such families must be accorded just salary and access to private property.

Just salary

1. What is so important about a just salary? Well, it allows the worker to live decently and allows the family of the worker to live decently. With Pope Leo XIII this was underlined this in his Rerum Novarum. The Popes after him made their specific stands. 
Pope Leo XIII denounced the exploitation of workers; the exploitation led to misery (see Rerum novarum 17). Workers were forced to accept working with very low salaries.  Workers were "simply surviving".
2. Later Pope Pius XI developed an idea of “just salary”. Three important factors had to be considered: the living condition of the workers and their families, the situation of the business, and common good (see Quadragesimo anno 76-82 and Divini redemptoris 52).
Later Pope John XXIII emphasized justice for workers. Workers, he said, must have just salary to lead a decent life—the life based on dignity—and to allow their families to live decently (see Mater et magistra 71). The Popes after also mentioned this.
3. Pope Benedict XVI gave a strong word regarding this. Work, he says, must give power to workers to live decently, let their families live decently and be able to send their children to education. This education must be available so that the children themselves will not have to work, not at their tender ages.  Workers must be in work conditions that allow them to be in touch with their human roots—on the level of family and faith (see Catitas in veritate 63). 
Note then the link between the economic reality and the family. Note also the importance given to just salary. But then the Church would emphasize also the right to private property. Families must own property. We have discussed this notion of private property before, it is not new to the class. 

Ownership

1. Parents must feed the children. The parent must look ahead into the future of the children. Later, when the children will have grown, they will be equipped with the capacity to defend themselves against the harshness of life. Later, children must be equipped to face unexpected cases of bad fortune. How can the parent make this possible? This is made possible through private property (see Rerum novarum 10).
2. Later Pope Pius XI will make a stand on this too. Through private property the children will be able to face uncertainties, against “surprises” that will throw them away. When a parent dies, it would be important to leave behind property that will secure the children (see Quadragesimo anno 68).
3. It would be wonderful to have systems like the security social. These systems help in allowing families to access private properties. Vatican II itself would emphasize private property. Private property allows for personal and family autonomy. Through private properties families can exercise social responsibilities. Families feel more free (see Gaudium et spes 71). Let us not forget the stand of the Church regarding private property. It is not an absolute. It has a social feature grounded on the principle of universal destination of goods (Ibid.).
4. Notice how less sentimental this approach to family is through economic reality. In many instances family problems can be more than about finances and economics. There are issues that touch on parenting and marriage dissolution, for example. These have created new forms of poverty. 

The Family has a social role

1. Vatican II mentioned the family a source of social life (see Gaudium et spes 52). We learn to live with others through family life. The human person becomes human within relationships. In philosophy we say that we are “being-with-others”. The family plays the primordial role. When the family I wounded human life becomes wounded.
2. We tend to think of the family life as a kind of “stage” to living a free and blooming life. The family is to help us “move on”, so to speak. There is a kind of “individualistic” view here—as if the family’s role is simply to let a child be ready to assume a job and raise a family later. But consider the very social role of the family—how the family participates socially and not just to help an individual child. 
3. Socially the family assures education in justice (see Justicia in mundo 57). Ok, fine, the individual child begins in the family—but this too is social. The child—and all children in families—learn about work in the family (see Laborem exercens 10). Our ideas of truth and goodness are formed in the family. We learn about love—how to love and how to be loved in the family. The notion of solidarity is learned in the family—first with the solidarity of husband with wife and later with children  (see Centeimus annus 39-40). 
4. In the family we develop “hidden talents”. We learn a lot of things in the family and we carry that with us as we grow up. Through those talents we feel capable to build relationships and give the best of ourselves in social responsibilities. If we look closely at what we do in the larger regions of society we really see what the family has contributed.

Common Good and our Common Home (and a note on security)

1. The common good is a very central principle of the SDC. It is rooted in a long tradition of the Church and Thomas Aquinas was one of the main thinkers who formulated it. For Thomistic philosophy the human lives in society...a being-with-others. Society is not meant to make each member enslaved. The institutions of society--such as the political institutions--are not meant to be served. Rather, they are to serve. Social institutions must function to make sure that goods are precisely offered to social members for their blooming.
2. Politics, for example, aims to allow social members to live well and in a very organized way. Politics aims for the well-being of society. For Thomistic philosophy the political community aims to make sure everyone is able to do his/her best to live well with others. The juridical system is motivated by justice and makes sure that justice is served to everyone. Politics therefore works so that the social world is a community of persons oriented towards fulfillment and good. Social members become truly and fully human; everyone develops fully. This is in line with God's own plan: that society lives in justice, peace, prosperity and happiness. Thomistic philosophy--and theology, of course--has a very positive look at social institutions, especially politics.
The Church over the years has picked this up and made it a principle for social living. The Church has called it "common good".

Pope Leo XIII and the aim of social institutions

3. Pope Leo XIII with his Rerum Novarum (1891), for example, took seriously the notion of common good. During his time Marxism was on the rise. Many industrial workers were so attracted to the ideas of Marx. For Marx the solution to social problems was class conflict. Conflict was necessary to resolve problems. The view of the conflict was the victory of the working class over the capitalists. Of course Pope Leo XIII did not follow that thinking. His view of social life was that of fraternal relationships within the perspective of social members as brothers and sisters under God the Father. Society cannot be a clash of classes. So Pope Leo XIII wrote: "In a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes (the laborers and the capitalists) should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic" (RN#19). He added: "for the purpose and perfection of an association is to aim at and to attain that for which it is formed, and its efforts should be put in motion and inspired by the end and object which originally gave it being" (RN #27). The core of society is not clash and conflict but a just relationship among social members. Government--politics--responds to the natural law and to God's will. It is God's will that the social institutions serve the good of the people. Social institutions, like the government, must aim for the prosperity of all. Everyone and not just a sector of society must profit from the resources of society. It will be very unjust if, for example, workers participate in work and prosperity of businesses while they are caught in the situation of misery. God's authority is exercised as a divine fatherhood for each social member--be that the workers or the owners of business. The value of equality should be taken into account.

Pope Pius XI and Common good as process of social linkages

4. Pope Pius XI faced a social situation where misery grew. There was the economic downfall of the 1930's. The pope called for a sharing of wealth for everyone. In 1931 he published an encyclical Quadragesimo anno. There he wrote, "To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is laboring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice" (QA#58). Note what the Pope is saying here. There is a big gap between the rich and those who have nothing--no properties. The goods and resources must be brought into common good. The goods must be distributed for the common good of everyone. The free market economy where resources move here to there freely does not help because the gap between rich and poor widens. Something must be added: justice and charity. Public services must protect and defend the poor. Politics must seek for an effective just social order where the propertyless are also respected and receive goods and resources. Common good here is understood as a process where the different sectors of society link together and help each other in charity.
Pope Pius XI recalls the natural rights of all human person--rights given by God, Creator who created the human in his image. So the pope emphasized the notion of common good: "the real common good ultimately takes its measure from man's nature, which balances personal rights and social obligations, and from the purpose of society, established for the benefit of human nature. Society, was intended by the Creator for the full development of individual possibilities, and for the social benefits, which by a give and take process, every one can claim for his own sake and that of others" (Mit brennender Sorge # 30). The Pope links common good with natural law. It is but natural that the goods of society be oriented for the benefit of everyone. God wanted it that way--God wanted the full development of everyone.

Pope John XXIII and "blooming"

5. The time of Pope John XIII was the time of the start of the Vatican II council. He wrote the encyclical, in 1961, Mater et Magistra. Here he wrote that the common good is about conditions. It is about "all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality" (MM#665). In other words common good is about social conditions that make social members bloom! This involves public authorities and other social groups all working together to realize the blooming of everyone in society. The idea here is that associations can be established where each person to bloom. Individually and in isolation from others this blooming cannot happen. Social members need each other and the blooming happens in this being-with others. Groups and associations therefore serve to make the "development of human personality"--the blooming--to happen. Public authority and social groups serve creating conditions for make people bloom. During the time of Pope John XIII, the UN Declaration of Human Rights was still fresh. The Pope was so inspired by it that he saw the rights and duties of people to bloom. It is a right to bloom and it is a duty to aid each other in that. The Pope called for a construction of juridical order with moral order. The common good needed an established order in society for it to happen. "There can be no doubt that a State juridical system which conforms to the principles of justice and rightness, and corresponds to the degree of civic maturity evinced by the State in question, is highly conducive to the attainment of the common good" (Pacemin terris #70).

The Common good is for all...it is universal

6. Of course the attainment of the common good--the conditions for the blooming of everyone--is not easy. Pope John XIII however never gave up. He called for putting together both material and spiritual wealth among nations. He called for mutual collaboration among nations "in the economic, social, political, educational, health and athletic spheres" (PT#98). The Pope believed that the common good within a country "cannot be divorced from the common good of the entire human family" (PT #98). Was the Pope dreaming too much? Well, he admitted that the challenge was too big but he saw the urgency of an international work. The common good had to be universal.
Vatican II council picked this up. Gaudium et spes, published in 1965, mentioned the universality of the common good. Human nature, according to the document, is also social nature. The human cannot live in isolation from others. Each of us grows, develops and blooms within social relationships--family, friends, school, work, etc. To develop the person we need to develop the social world of that person. Thus the common good is not just about the development--and blooming--of individuals but of social groups. The whole society must bloom! All humanity must bloom! Let us quote: "the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment, today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family" (GS #26).
7. We really must be converted for the good. In morality we realize that we are not meant to be "too full of oneself". I am not the only person in this society, in this world. What is good is a spiritual reality alright, but it spreads itself in human relationships. "This social order requires constant improvement. It must be founded on truth, built on justice and animated by love; in freedom it should grow every day toward a more humane balance. An improvement in attitudes and abundant changes in society will have to take place if these objectives are to be gained" (GS #26). We need a constant renewal of our attitudes. Changes need to happen regularly--changes for the good. We need a conversion to work for the common good of everyone. "A special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception" (GS # 27). "Let everyone consider it his sacred obligation to esteem and observe social necessities as belonging to the primary duties of modern man. With the needed help of divine grace men who are truly new and artisans of a new humanity can be forthcoming" (GS #30).

Common good and solidarity

8. Pope Paul VI saw that the social issues of the world became more and more global. Integral development had to be global too. Pope (Saint) John Paul II espoused solidarity. He define solidarity as "a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good" (Sollicitudo rei socialis #38). Thus solidarity includes a battle in "overcoming of the moral obstacles to development... to point to the positive and moral value of the growing awareness of interdependence among individuals and nations" (SRS # 38). What we can see here is that the common good serves as a call--an urgent call--to be engaged personally and collectively.
9. For Pope Benedict XVI the common good orients our moral action. Charity is at work when we strive for the common good. Common good "is the good of 'all of us' ... who together constitute society. ....To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity" (Caritas in veritate # 7). For Pope Benedict XVI, the common good is a charitable practice that is institutional, it is political! "This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly" (CV # 7).

Conclusion

10. We looked at a flow of the notion of common good. We see that is has evolved in meaning. It is clear that the human is not an island isolated from others. We all form a human family. If we are to be truly "image of God" we let it happen in relationships with others--inter-personally and socially--and internationally. We are part of a web of relationships. The different strands of the web are interdependent. If we want to bloom we really have to work this out in relationships. The common good can thus be an orientation point for us. Through it we can have a better perspective of our social links. We work for the common good--that we all bloom. It is a not-stop work of charity. Maybe there are people who will find this silly. Why think of the common good? But the drams of people, the aspirations of societies is really the blooming of everyone. It is the aspiration of all to be rooted in our true human nature--we are together, we bloom together. Yes, the notion of the common good--like the other principles of the SDC--may look like a "pie in the sky". But we cannot ignore it. It is part of our proclamation of faith and part of our work of evangelization to promote the common good.

******

Our Common Home

1. Pope Francis, in his Laudato si (LS), invites us to take care of our "common home". The pope mentions this in many parts of the encyclical. Our common home is our earth and the ecosystem, but it is also our neighborhoods, our villages, our cities. The idea of common home is not just a place where we accumulate things--like a TV set and chairs and a kitchen. It is not just the place where we reside.
2. Our common home is the place where we really feel AT HOME. We are at rest there. We are comfortable and we feel secured. So if we follow this thinking of the pope we can ask ourselves if the places where we live really make us feel AT HOME and there we can bloom. Can we be assured that we and our families are secured, at peace and can grow and develop in full humanity?
3. To live in our common home is a gift to us; we are so fortunate to have such. But it is also a CONSTRUCTION of living together. We build, we construct our common home. We work together so that we can live well together. Notice that this is in line with the Natural Law regarding social living. The common home of Pope Francis can be linked with the notion of the common good as formulated by the Social Doctrine of the Church (SDC).
Pope Francis at the end of his encyclical prayed: "
     Enlighten those who possess power and money
     ...that they may love the common good, advance the weak,
     and care for this world in which we live. (LS 246)
4. By inviting us to take care of our common home Pope Francis touches on social and ecological concerns. The whole earth is our common residence--this is where we live. Earth is not just a commodity. It is "home". If we are at home, we do not close the windows and lock the doors and stay in the dark. Real home is where we can leave the windows open and let good air and sun come in. We allow the door open for friends and visitors to come. Home is where we belong and it is also the place where we build relationships--with neighbors, friends, etc. We build relationships that are varied but very "cozy" and human. We feast with others. We share memories with others. We share trials and joys. We are in fraternity and communion with others. We have mutual support with others--they come to help us in need, we go to them when they are in need. This is where home is. Home is where we are really AT HOME and open to others who are also AT HOME.
5. Is earth like this now? Is society like this now? Are our cities home for us? Pope Francis illustrates this well when he says that our cities and villages and rural areas "combine to form a whole which is perceived by its inhabitants as a coherent and meaningful framework for their lives. Others will then no longer be seen as strangers, but as part of a 'we' which all of us are working to create" (LS#151).
6. Our common home is threatened. It is being degraded gradually over time. We are disturbed. Our reaction is to close our doors--treat others as strangers. The presence of new people disturb us. We feel insecure. We feel fear. Yes, security can be positive because we work together in solidarity to help each other in front of natural catastrophes. But today more and more security has turned negative. Security becomes a matter of excluding others, closing doors and putting fences and barriers. This is not common home.
7. Pope Francis is realistic. He knows that problems exist. Yet he invites that we seek for a solution. Let us work to build a common home. Can we build our cities and neighborhoods as common homes where everyone is respected and allowed to be AT HOME?
8. This is urgent, says the pope, especially in front of the ecological crisis. Water, air, soil are threatened by bad habits. "Human beings too are creatures of this world, enjoying a right to life and happiness, and endowed with unique dignity. So we cannot fail to consider the effects on people’s lives of environmental deterioration, current models of development and the throwaway culture"  (LS 43).
9. The air is a common good, for example. Our common home is where we can breathe well. "The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all" (LS #23). The oceans and other natural goods are what the pope calls as “global commons” (see LS #174). Thus the Pope himself thinks that even private property--like ownership of carbon fuels and petroleum--must respect common good. The ownership of resources has created problems violating the common good. "The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes" (LS#23).
10. If we should think of owning natural resources--as some big businesses do--there is the demand to consider the common good. "The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone. If we make something our own, it is only to administer it for the good of all. If we do not, we burden our consciences with the weight of having denied the existence of others" (LS #95).
11. In fact it may even be time to give up some form of development and progress to liberate Nature--like air--and allow for a new form of development and progress more attuned to respecting the common good. "We know how unsustainable is the behaviour of those who constantly consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity. That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth" (LS #193). The pope here is saying that we need to decrease development that promotes consumption and destruction and increase development where healthier living can happen. Increase development where everyone can bloom.
12. The worse the ecological crisis grows the more we stop working for a common home; the more we try to secure ourselves by separating from others and dividing our social lives. But we live in this world--on earth given to us by God. The more we see ourselves living in this God-given earth the more we "we are journeying towards ... our common home in heaven" (LS #243).


Security as a common good:

1.  In general then we can identify certain areas of security: 
      a. economic security: the absence of poverty
      b. food security: access to food resources
      c. health and sanitation security: access to health care and protection against illnesses
      d. ecological security: absence of threats to our eco-system
      e. personal security: protection against torture, domestic violence, crimes, illegal drugs, war
      f.  community security: the possibility of the survival of traditional culture, language, religion, arts, etc. 
      g. political security: the protection of civil rights. 
2. The absence of threat to any of these is "security". So, for example, when work is available, there is the absence of poverty, then we feel secured economically. If we can continue to observe our religious practices, there is the absence of religious intolerance, so we feel secured as a community.
3.  Note then that security is more than what the government can offer. Very often we link security with "national security". Society's government serves to secure the social members, to protect them and to keep them safe from threats to lives and properties. The government then needs an army or police. 
It is not enough to think of security as that of having an army to protect us. Certain threats to us may not be accompanied by explicit violence--like the threat of war. But still we experience insecurity and we call for security. 
4.  Security goes beyond what our governments can do for us. Security is more than having an army and a police. Social members are subject of security here. Take the example of ecological security. We can think of a neighborhood--or a village--wherein every resident there participates in the clean up of the place. Of course the government can do something here; but why wait for the government when we can  help secure, to some extent, our eco-system.
Think of cultural security. Some cultures are threatened that they start losing their language, they cannot practice their religions, they lose their traditional practices. 

5.  Is it not true that we sometimes feel that our governments "do nothing" to give us security in our need for work, in our need for culture, etc. Governments may not feel threatened; but we do feel the threat. We have fears of insecurity. There is a challenge to give to our governments. Where are they when we need them?

On Natural Law

1. The idea of the Natural law is that we, humans, were created with a nature specific to us. We have a human nature. We are not stones, not mushrooms, not dogs not cats. We are humans. God created us, humans, with a natural moral law. As humans we act in human ways. The Natural Law is a moral law. In other words, we decide and act for the good which is in line with our nature as human beings.  2. We are obliged to act according to our human nature. Nobody obliges us--no government and no policeman. Our human nature simply makes us act as humans, we have to act in such a human way. So we can give moral norms and rules to our actions. We believe that we can follow and obey certain moral norms based on our human nature. These norms and rules can direct our personal and social lives.
3. We can make many legal, political, economic and cultural rules. Every country has its own rules and regulations. They are, however, to be based on natural law. All the rules we make are based on our moral inclination to do good. It is in our human nature.
Now, how does natural law work then? We have our feature of being rational-- we think, we reflect, we discern. It is in our human nature. So in natural law we regulate ourselves, using reason, to adjust to ourselves, our actions. With our reason we discern and manage our actions so that we do what is humanly innate in us. We use our head-- we reason-- to see where we connect with what is natural in us.
4. What exactly do we want to do which is natural in us? We want to do good and avoid evil. Natural law is, in general, this law: do good and avoid evil. It is natural in us, as humans, to reason out well a life in which we do good and avoid evil. But how do we know that we do good and avoid evil?
   a.  Just like all creatures, the human does good and avoids evil by conserving being/existence/life. Self-destruction is never the option of creatures.
   b.  Now if conservation of being is natural and a “should”, corollary to this is the promotion of being. All creatures, including humans, promote life. We     see this in the propagation of the species and the formation of the offspring. We educate and form and train our kids.
   c.  But then, there is something proper to the human. This is the capacity to seek and to know the truth. We humans are capable of having insight into the workings of the reality around us. This allows us to live socially with one another. We are not just pushed and pulled by genetic forces and instincts. We are capable of thinking, reflecting and deciphering the world around us. Hence our social lives are characterized by this capacity for insight. We can—and should—live with each other in truth.
5. We can do many things and create many laws in our societies. We can do many cultural practices. But are they all "natural"? Do they all respect the natural law? Crime, oppressing others, corruption, they are against the natural in us because they do not preserve life. They harm and destroy life. Do we promote lying? Do we form people--like our children--to opt for cheating and breaking laws? In doing these we do not propagate our species. We do not promote our humanity. Do we create social structures that protect inequality and the monopoly of a few elite? This violates natural law because it is not in the promotion of social life.

In front of Commandments (for Moral Theology)

We can think of the Ten Commandments, as found in the Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5. We can also think of the Sermons of Jesus in Matthew chapters 5-7. The CCC has presented these in its own way. They are all commands. We should do them. Let us also think of the rules and laws and norms of the Church and our communities. There are quite a number of them. In this essay when we see the word “commandment” let us put all these together in it. Let us put together the Ten Commandments, the commandments of Christ in his Sermon on the Mount, the commandments of the Church and the commandments (like constitutions) of your communities. They are all instituted for us to follow the will of God.

We can feel harassed by the word “command”. We might not like too much rules and laws and norms because we feel that they impose on us. Let us think calmly about this.

1. The commandments are within the context of the Covenant

The Ten Commandments were given in the context of the Covenant. The Covenant was an agreement between God and people that God will be their God and the people will be people of God. A relationship was established. This God was the one who liberated the people from Egypt and slavery. He was a liberating God.

God entered into the history of the people of Israel and proved his concern and love. He heard the cry of the people and he responded. When God liberated the people from slavery it also meant that the people will not anymore repeat the same misery among them. The Covenant therefore had laws—commands, especially the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were given so that the people will not repeat inside their society the same conditions of Egypt. God gave the commandments to make the people continue with their liberation.

What does this tell us? How does it apply to us, Christians? We Christians do not define ourselves by our morality. We do not define ourselves by being nice and good always. We say we are Christians because we have a relationship with Jesus. It is about relationship. In this relationship we agree that we do not want to continue a life of slavery. Because we follow the footsteps of Jesus we do our best to lead good lives. So when we see the “commandments” we do not think immediately of impositions. What we think of is our relationship with Christ. We agree to be related to him, we agree to follow his footstep. So “commands” are understood to help us be truly disciples of Jesus. We agree to discipleship and we agree that we do not enslave and crush and destroy each other. We accept the Covenant. 

2. The commandments are followed with the heart

The Ten Commandments are helpful and they are a minimum for living. Imagine removing the Ten Commandments. What will guide us? What will help us? At least we have the Ten Commandments. Of course it is the minimum we have—we follow some rules, commandments. There is something more than just following commandments. What is it? Love. We follow the commandments with love. We just do not follow, period.

In the history of the people of Israel the Covenant was often violated. Injustice became part of society. Why? One main reason was that the people looked at the commandments as something from the outside—imposed on them. They did not see the importance of living the commandments inside their hearts. They lacked the sense of love, social fraternity, concern, respect. The prophets had to remind them that what was important was what went on inside the heart.

The prophet Jeremiah explained it well. He said to internalize the commandments. The law is to be inside, not outside imposing. “I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer.31/33). The prophet Ezekiel emphasized change of heart. The heart needs to be formed and shaped to understand the value of living properly together. “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you so that you walk in my statutes, observe my ordinances, and keep them (Ez 36/26-27).

Jesus himself explained that he did not reject the commandments but he wanted the heart to follow them. It was not enough to simply follow the rules without the heart. Understand the commandments and see that underneath them is wisdom. Appreciate that the commandments are not impositions. They are meant for real authentic living. (See  Mt 5,17-48, Mc 10,17-22, Mt 18,21-22... etc).

3. The commandments  are references to consult!

One reason why Jesus was so angry at the Pharisees was because the Pharisees were so focused on details of rules. The Pharisees did not focus on the wisdom underneath rules. The Pharisees were not interested in the spirit of the laws. #Even if there are rules and laws and commands we still have to work in discerning what we mus do. In a given concrete situation where we must make hard decisions what do we do? The commandments can serve as references. They open up horizons of further actions.

4. The commandments are meant for better living!

The commandments are meant for us to create a more fraternal society. We are constantly challenged by chaotic behavior, we are constantly tempted to engage in cheating, injustice, corruption, and other similar forms. Can we not try to put the chaos into order through the commandments? Think of a society that allows so much adultery. Adultery damages relationships; it destroys families. So we are told by a commandment “do not covet your neighbor’s wife”. We can understand this to mean that we regulate our relationships and respect the marriage and family life of others. We regulate our relationships so that we do not fall into the hands of chaos and damage. The commandments can therefore make us see that we have to put order in our social lives. We have to properly structure our existence.

If we understand things this way we can see that rules and laws are not meant to enclose us and jail us from joy and happiness. In fact commandments can help construct our freedom in a responsible way. Jesus himself showed this. The observance of Sabbath became very strict during his time. Jesus did not reject the Sabbath. He put it in the appropriate position. The Sabbath is to help the community live properly together. So Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2/27).

5. The commandments can help our motivations and decisions

Sometimes we feel that rules and norms are “too much” and we feel jailed by them. But let us try seeing things this way. We ourselves do not have a full command of our behavior. Our motives can be very distorted at times. If we turn to commandments we might just start to verify what are our motivastions and behaviours.

A commandment can awaken us to avoid crossing dangerous limits. We might be so motivated in doing something crazy and we are so passionate about it. Just think of the temptation to do corruption in the government. But then we have the command, “Do not steal”. That can awaken us and tell us about what motivates us.

There are so many things happening in this world and we can just follow them in any way we want. So people go for abortion and euthanasia and cohabitation. People may not anymore ask if they are doing things correctly—and if they are only harming society. The commandments can help people discern.

We can look at our relationship with Jesus and, like the ancient Christians, ask: what will Jesus do in this situation? What command from him is appropriate now?

6. The greatest command is love—which obliges us to turn to God for grace

We Christians follow the footsteps of Jesus. As the 4th gospel emphasizes, we love as Jesus loved. We are branches of the vine—we are branched into Jesus. So we stay vigilant about the demands of love. Remember that for Jesus the greatest command is to love… “I give you a new commandment:* love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn13/34-35). ““You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it:* You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (Mtt22/37-40). Notice that for Jesus the foundation of all other commandments is love—relationship, covenant.

Following rules and laws may not be easy. Following Jesus and loving like him may not be easy too. Remember that the disciples of Jesus themselves had a hard time. But let us look at this condition in another way. Our difficulties prove that we are unable to take care of ourselves and our social lives on our own. We human do not have full mastery of what we should do. We can make many mistakes. So let us accept this. Let us be free from our pretention to know how to hold ourselves without fault. This then opens us to the fact that we really need God. We really need the graces of God. If we are to love like Jesus then let us ask Jesus to help us. Let us ask Jesus to guide us and give us the grace to love.