Must we be always agreeing with the Church?

1.     Look at Jesus. He does not seek for the agreement of others. He does not ask if others agree or not with him. In fact he raises questions. He forces others to think and to struggle with their own questions. He “upsets” them. Jesus pushes people to think and to raise questions. 

2.     Let us recall the wrestling match between Jacob and that strange “angel” in Gen. 32/23-33. Jacob, the beloved, encounters this “angel” and wrestles with him. In the combat we see Jacob as, in fact, stronger than the “angel”. The “angel” allows Jacob to dominate. The story ends with Jacob refusing to let go of the “angel”—the defeated angel—until the “angel” blesses him. The “angel” gives the blessing and calls Jacob, now, as “Israel”. It is a beautiful story.

3.     This story tells us about our very own relationship with God and with the Church. Indeed life is a combat. Many things inside of us even RESIST certain teachings of the Church. We also wrestle with the Church. We experience ourselves raising questions and disagreeing with many things in the Church. We look back at history and we have “misgivings” about what the Church has done over the centuries. What the gospels say, what the Bible says, what the Church says…well, we have difficulties to accept many of that. Hence we wrestle—with God and with the Church.

4.     Is it not also true that we feel we “win” in the wrestling? Our arguments seem to be so convincing we feel we have enough arsenal to debilitate God and the Church. Well, in the Jacob story this is not an issue for the “angel”. The “angel” does not show sign of low self-esteem and wanting to desperately win against Jacob. The “angel” finds it ok that Jacob proves to be the stronger one. Who cares who is stronger anyway? Power and winning is a cultural issue. It is not the issue of the “angel”.

5.     Just like in the Jacob story, the time to wrestle is the time to progress in faith. Wrestling is not the occasion to give up and fall into despair. Wrestling is not the time to prove who is smart or who is powerful. It is an occasion to simply move on in faith! It is alright to wrestle. At a certain moment we might just realize that we are not just wrestling against God and Church but we are WRESTLING WITH God and the Church. Just do not give up the faith. Wrestle with it, if we must. We grow in doing so. 

As we engage in Inter-religious Dialogue, what is our Faith?

1.    We ask ourselves, today, about how we, Christians, engage in inter-religious dialogue. Since we want to enter into dialogue with other people of other religions we need to be clear first with our own faith. Our faith is based on revelation. God is involved with humanity and this involvement is revealed. The definite revelation is in Christ. The Church sees herself implicated; she too gets involved with humanity. Let us first discuss these before we go directly into inter-religious dialogue.

2.    God is involved with humanity. But who is this God? This is a Trinitarian God. What we know about God is what Jesus revealed. Jesus designated his “Father” and Jesus is then “Son”. Proceeding from the “Father” and the “Son” is the Holy Spirit. We do not believe in just any generic God. At times we hear about the tendency to look for a “common denominator” for all religions; a “God” that can be applied for all religions. This “common denominator” then displaces the Trinitarian God. When we do this we are no longer talking of the revealed God.

3.    Christian faith is a response to God who revealed in a definite way in Jesus Christ. Our faith affirms that God wants all to be saved (see 1Tim2/4) and the unique mediator between God and humanity is Jesus Christ (see 1Tim2/5). Jesus Christ is the definite revelation, the summit of revelation. In the human Jesus is the fullness of divinity, hence he is Christ (see Col.2/9).

4.    The Church wrestled with this over the centuries. Councils were organized to say who exactly is the Jesus Christ of our faith. Maybe each of us, personally, still wrestle with this identity of Jesus Christ. But one thing is clear: this is the faith of the Church. The specificity of our faith is faith in God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

5.    Revelation is not just a giving of information. It is a self-communication of God. God communicated who God is. God revealed as Trinitarian; as Trinitarian God is involved with humanity and invites humanity to a communion with the Trinitarian life.

6.    We, Christians, do not profess that we exclusively are saved. We are not the only ones in communion with God. Exclusivism is no longer a Church stand. Vatican II affirms that communion with God is for all. It is not just for Christians. “All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (Gaudium et spes 22).

7.    Our faith is about God—a personal God—fully revealed in Christ, incarnate, died and rose from death. All that God wants to say is said in Christ.

8.    In inter-religious dialogue, when Christians talk about God they talk about a Trinitarian God. This cannot be dropped just in order to facilitate dialogue. In fact, if dialogue is to be true, the partners of the dialogue will have to respect each other’s beliefs. The Christian in dialogue will have to respect others from other religions. But the Christian should also respect the Christian. It is unfair to drop the faith.

9.    God’s involvement with humanity is through Christ. The decisive involvement of God is in the incarnation, death and rising again of Christ. God “joined” humanity. Today we use the word “solidarity”. God entered “in solidarity” with all humanity. Jesus is the historical man who is, at the same time, Christ. This Christ is, at the same time, the historical man Jesus.

10.           The reality of incarnation-solidarity of God with us is so specifically Christian. It is our faith. Yet note how universal this is. The incarnation is incarnation with full humanity; with all humans. The solidarity is with all human condition. The gift of God’s self-communication concerns all humanity. All humanity os the recipient of God’s revelation.

11.           The Church sees herself as servant of this revelation. She sees herself called to cooperate with the revelation of God. Since the start of Church history the Church has always seen herself as cooperating with God. Alright, there is no doubt that there were moments in history when the Church behaved erratically—like she were “superior”. She went condemning left and right. But this is no longer the style of the Church today. Vatican II has given a humbler picture of the Church.

12.           We never anymore think of God as someone who desires the condemnation of anyone. We no longer see God as destroyer of people. The Gospel is not designed to destroy cultures. Our faith tells us that Jesus really wanted to link up with a community—the Church—that will continue the ministry of God. Yes, the Church feels herself as a “necessity”. Vatican II states that “the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation” (Lumen gentium 14). But this is not about “superiority”. It is a simple affirmation that salvation comes in Christ and the Church happens to be the “body of Christ”. The Church never says that she is the path to salvation. She is sign and sacrament of that salvation. She has been given the task to also be light for nations. She thus must conform to Christ; be shaped according to Christ. This is her style, her way of doing things. Just imagine if, because of some low self-esteem the Church would rather avoid conforming to Christ. If this happens she deserves to be reprimanded.

13.           Church mission is service mission. The institution of the Church is a service institution. The Church is at the service of the mission of Christ. How can we ever ask her to stop behaving as sign and sacrament of salvation? It will be so unfair to ask the Church to stop being herself so as not to look superior over others. Superiority is a cultural issue. It is not the issue of revelation; and the Church simply wants to follow what revelation has offered.

14.           So now we come to inter-religious dialogue. The Church magisterium, today, never says that the other religions are false and dark. Exclusivism is no longer the stand of the Church. In fact the Church recognizes that the rites and doctrines of other religions can be effective on salvation of members of other religions. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions. “She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. … The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men” (Nostra aetate 2). Again, we repeat, THE CHURCH IS NOT ANYMORE EXCLUSIVIST.

15.           Faith tells us that God wants all humanity saved (1Tim.2/4). We are open to the possibility that other religions have the seeds of the Word (see Nostra aetate 2). The true light, Jesus Christ, is in all. “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world” (Jn1/9).  The Holy Spirit is there offering to everyone the association with the mystery of God. Vatican II says, “For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (Gaudim et spes 22).

16.           Note that the Church magisterium never drops the faith in the unique mediation of Christ. It is “non-negotiable”. God “wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all” (1Tim.2/4-5). It is still through relationship with Christ that other religions have a place in salvation. Ok, there can be talk of many other mediators. But they are valid only when placed under the mediation of Christ. Other mediators and mediations are NOT parallel nor even complementary to the mediation of Christ. Pope John Paul II already stated this. “Christ is the one mediator between God and mankind: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tm 2:5-7; cf. Heb 4:14-16). No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit. Christ's one, universal mediation, far from being an obstacle on the journey toward God, is the way established by God himself, a fact of which Christ is fully aware. Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ's own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his” (Redemptoris missio 5).

17.           Ok, we are so concerned with dialogue and we do not want to offend people of other religions. We wrestle with our Christology and soteriology. We wrestle with the question of how other religions will have to have their salvation proceed from Christ. Yes, it is a delicate task for us. The Second Vatican Council affirms that Christ’s mediation can give rise to many forms of cooperation in other religions. But the other religions “must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ's unique mediation: ‘Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ's own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his’. Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith” (Dominus iesus 14).

18.           The mission of the Church includes dialogue because, from the very start, God already entered into dialogue with humanity. God’s involvement was dialogical from the start. Pope Paul VI stated this: “God Himself took the initiative in the dialogue of salvation. ‘He hath first loved us’. We, therefore, must be the first to ask for a dialogue with men, without waiting to be summoned to it by others” (Ecclesiam suam 72).

19.           So we believe that the Church is “wife” of the Word. She has a specific link with Christ—a link that has not been established with other religions. Thus we cannot say that “all religions have the same validity”. This is not about superiority. It is a statement of fact. This does not deny that other religions have a role in salvation. They too prepare for the Kingdom in their own way. They too are inhabited by the Holy Spirit. Even if the Church is “wife” of the Word, other religions are inhabited by the Holy Spirit. Both realities needs a long discernment and reflection on our part.

20.           We are meant to be humble—and not feel superior—in admitting that we follow the footsteps of Christ. Jesus Christ went down, humbled himself. We are to do the same. We are a Church not of superiority but of service in the name of Christ. Our service is marked by joy. Mission is joyful mission. Dialogue is joyful dialogue. The truth we share is not shared with force. Yet it is truth that has its own “power”. “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power” (Dignitatis humanae 1).

The “Natural Law”

1.     Let us talk about the “natural law”. The Natural Law has been deeply entrenched in the moral perspective of the Church. The Church relies deeply on the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas regarding Natural Law. We will adventure into the heart of many libraries to appreciate (and criticize) the details of Aquina’s notion of Natural Law. Suffice for our needs in this class is to give a very general approach.

2.     The notion of Natural Law has helped the Church over the centuries to reflect on moral issues. The Church appreciates this so much because it implies something that is found in each and every single person. In each one is the capacity to seek for the good—and we will explain this later. The Church trusts in the human person with this capacity. Hence the notion of the Natural Law is very respectful of the human.

3.     Up until today the Church relies a lot on this notion and she feels it is relevant now. Take the different issues like bioethics and medical ethics. These can really stand well on Natural Law.

4.     Of course, we admit, the notion of Natural Law is not so clearly delineated, not even by St. Thomas Aquinas. Over centuries theologians and philosophers have debated about many aspects. So in general, then, what is Natural Law as described by the Dominican saint?

5.     “Natural”:The word “natural” tells us about what is innate in each of us. We were born with it and in it. It is so “human nature” in us that we cannot see ourselves without it. What is natural is opposed to simply what we construct. The natural has an objectivity to it. It is “already there”. For example, natural in each of us, humans, is our corporal existence. We have “my body”. We also have feelings, emotions, psychological lives, sensitivities. We have intelligence and we can think and reflect. We have freedom. We live with others, we have social lives. Using a more modern language we can say that we have innate facts. The fact is, I am born with a body, with feelings, with sensitivities. It is a fact that I am born in a family with a set of relationships and I am born in a culture and society and language. I may have many dreams and plans as I grow older but I have to navigate through my life with these facts. These facts are naturally given, they are “already there”.

6.   The “Law”: If that is “natural” what then about “law”? Law here, for St. Thomas Aquinas, implies moral law. It means that there are things we should do as we recognize the natural facts in us. Inscribed in us is a moral law—a “should”—that tells us that if we are to live properly we should use our heads—our reason—to constantly and vigilantly adapt to what is natural in us. We have dreams and hopes and we want to live fulfilled human lives. We can do this if we keep in mind the natural facts in us. Do not live in violation of human nature. Orient life respecting the natural facts.

7.     God has a plan in creating us—and this plan is what St. Thomas Aquinas calls as “Eternal Law”. That Law belongs to God. When God created us, he inscribed in us the moral law: the Natural Law. This moral Natural Law is our way of participating in God’s Eternal Law. So technically then if we follow the Natural Law we are “doing God’s will”. What we should do is to do what God has naturally made for us. There are certain natural God-given aspects in us that we must vigilantly respect and recognize and obey. Deviating from this is to fall outside the Natural Law; we will end up doing something unnatural, artificial and false. To use our MAPAC term, we say that as we live as naturally as we can, we bloom. Staying within the parameters of human nature is to guarantee our blooming. This is what God wants—it is in his “Eternal Law” plan.

8.     Note then how theological the notion of Natural Law gets. The nature inscribed in us, humans, is in the divine will.

9.     In more concrete terms, what should we do? Do good and avoid evil

·        Where do we say that we are following the natural path the God has willed for us? St. Thomas Aquinas says that if we observe closely this nature of ours, we notice that we should do good and avoid evil. Ingrained in our nature is this imperative. Fortunately we, humans, are not the only creatures called to do good and avoid evil. St. Thomas Aquinas observes that all creatures tend to seek fulfillment. All creatures tend towards “blooming”. The mango tree does its best to be fully and truly mango. The cat does its best to be truly and fully cat. The human too moves to fulfillment. All tend to do good; all tend to bloom. To do good and avoid evil, we can do specific things.

                    i.            Just like all creatures, the human does good and avoids evil by conserving being/existence/life. Self-destruction is never the option of creatures.

                  ii.            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.

                iii.            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. If we borrow from Von Hildebrand we can say that the human has the capacity for reverence: acknowledge things for what they are.  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.

10.            Again, we repeat, this notion of the Natural Law has its intricate details which we are not delving into here. Let us just keep in mind the basic tenet: do good and avoid evil. This is the moral law in us. Now to do good and avoid evil is to conserve life/being, to promote life/being and to live truthfully and properly with others in society.

11.            There are advantages in taking inspiration from the Natural Law. In our modern-postmodern world we are so exposed to many ideas and values we can be attracted to so many approaches to moral living. But it can be tough and confusing because we wonder “which is which”. We target a good life with a shot gun with twisted barrels. (Or am I too critical of postmodernity? It comes with age.) As the old song goes, “Who can I turn to?” With a myriad of moral options it can be a tough world to live in. How do we live morally with this notion of the Natural Law?

·        a. The Natural Law offers objective basis for making moral decisions. We can rely on what is naturally given in front of us. This is the nature God gave us, why deviate? So we discern and seek to base our choices and decisions on what we see are truly natural in us. It is not about what I want or what I prefer but about what “stuff” God made me of.  Human reality is not dependent on our preferences and tastes. It is a reality that has been prescribed by God. Take it or leave it…it does not work this way. We just have to take it for what it is. So in moral discernment the challenge is always to seek for the human nature in us.

·        b. The Natural Law is about what each of us has. We do not need rocket science to look at ourselves. Every single person has the capacity for reflection and self-discernment. We can each look at the nature given to us and seek for moral truths based on our insights. (Modern psychology…or some schools of it…might teach us to rather be skeptical about this capacity to reflect and know ourselves. And so we see this tendency to rely on, say, a therapist. But we are not completely zero in self-reflection, are we? Also, if we admit how difficult it is to know ourselves, we also admit that we can be helped—which is another way of saying that at a certain point we can have insights too on ourselves.)

·        c. We can hold the conviction that whatever moral truth we discover it can be made “universal” i.e., applicable to all. If we gain insight into human nature, we cannot say that it only about a specific group of people like the Chinese or the Samoans. For if insight is about human nature, then it is insight about all humans. Morality then is open to the possibility of something universal. Maybe there are variations in the style of doing good and avoiding evil; but we see that everyone should do good and avoid evil; everyone should conserve being, everyone should promote life and everyone should live well with others.

12.            The Church needs this solidity. The Natural Law, if we look closely, is so rational based. The Church has a high regard for the human capacity to reason and think and discern. The Church recognizes that by the proper use of human reason in vigilance to what is human nature, we can have solid moral living. If we put in faith and Scriptures and other theological elements, we inform this reasoning capacity with faith. This surely can help a lot!    

A thesis sheet for Church Social Doctrine mid term exam

1.     The Church offers her social doctrine. This doctrine is from the whole Church. But when it comes to direct social action the competence of the Church is in offering a moral orientation and not a technical program for society. This does not, however, mean that all Church members will just focus on moral guiding of society. The laity is given the charge to act hands-on in social issues. They can, for example, engage in partisan politics. Priests and religious people do not engage in partisan politics.

2.     Human dignity is based on the fact that the human is made in the image of God. Human dignity also implies that the human is so valued by God and proven in the Incarnation of Christ. Human dignity is also based on the fact that the human has been redeemed by and in Christ. To emphasize our dignity, the Social Doctrine of the Church points to our transcendent vocation. We are not just destined for a good and wonderful social life but to a life of communion with God.

3.     Human dignity is non-discriminatory. Each human person in any life circumstance and in any social status is a person of dignity. This also means that we are all brothers and sisters to each other, all sharing the same dignity.

4.     The way by which we are related to the material environment is proof that we are not just material creatures. Yes, we are physical but we are not exclusively physical. Hence we cannot treat each other as mere material objects. The human cannot be reduced to a thing. The Incarnation of Christ can guide us in understanding this.

5.     We are also social beings. We live with others; we bloom with others. The human in society is “end” and not “means”. Thus we cannot reduce the human to ideological ends. The human is not just a cell in an organization. The Trinitarian community of God can help us understand this.

6.     Human rights are universal. All humans have human rights. Human rights are grounded on human dignity. Human rights are inviolable. Human rights are inalienable. Human rights are not given by any government or state. The ultimate source is God and the dignity God has given to humans. If there are human rights they are coupled with duties.

7.     In concrete social reality human rights are not always respected. There is a credibility gap between what we say and what we do. The Church proposes to bridge this gap by inviting the more fortunate to renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods at the service of others.

8.     “Common good” is about social conditions that make social members reach their fulfillment more fully. The conditions are for them to “bloom”. There is morality here more than just economic or political action. We say morality because of the necessity to find conditions of common good. Society seeks to arrange its economics and politics for the common good. Economics and politics are to be guided by morality. Individuals and groups, however, are not effective in bringing about the common good. The bigger task is on the shoulders of the “political authority”. This “political authority” has the moral task of improving conditions for the common good. (In simpler terms “political authority” can be synonymous with our governments.)

9.     Because of the transcendent vocation of the human person and society the common good is not the end of what we all do. The ultimate end is still communion with God. A “successful society” must still be oriented to God.

10.            Every human person has the right to use the goods of the earth because the whole earth is given by God to all humanity. The goods of the earth are universally destined. This, however, does not mean an inordinate possession of earth. The use of the earth must still be regulated. Private property is a form of regulating this use of the earth. Humans work on the earth and through their work they “own”. Private property is meant for the “blooming” of the person and his/her family. Private property is not an absolute. It is meant precisely for personal and family “blooming” and should not pose as an obstacle to the possibility of others to also have private property for their “blooming”. Private ownership also has a social function. It is oriented for the common good. In a more complex society ownership is not just ownership of goods of the earth but also of knowledge, technology and competence. Knowledge, technology and competence must also be destined for the common good and not for exclusive private use.

11.            In societies there are “deviants” like criminals who are set aside and put to jail. What will human dignity and rights say about this? Is jailing deviants a violation of their dignity and rights?

12.            Some religious people feel that their religious life is a “sacrifice” in which they “renounce” some rights. What do you think?

13.            Human sexuality is more than just material sexuality. The human body is not just a material object. This makes us view sexual life in a healthier way. Sexual partners, for example, are not “two things” related to each other. They are two persons related to each other. Society relies a lot on the role of the family and family relies a lot on marriage. Marriage is license for a man and woman to unite sexually as persons and not as things. What do you think? 

14.            How do you situate education in the light of the common good? One problem is that a religious group might envision a school for the poor but end up with a school for the elite. “Knowledge” and “competence” are gained by the elite. How do you evaluate this? What do you think? What can the school do?

15.            How can renouncing some amount of private property be a respect for human rights?

16.            Pope John Paul II says that when a person with family is “ok” and “blooming” well enough and has a relatively secured future, it is not necessary to go in excess of possession. A very rich man, however, might say that he worked so hard to be super rich he sees it no wrong in owning the excess. What do you think? 

A thesis sheet for moral theology midterm exam

1.     Morality begins when I realize that I am not the only person in this world. Morality also emerges from situations in which the dignity of the person is shaken; such situations are “intolerable”.

2.     The Decalogue, during the Sinai-Covenant event, was given so that the people will not live with slavery when they enter Canaan. The Laws given by God were not designed to cut away human freedom. They were meant to give shape to that freedom. Applied to morality, then, we say that morality is more about a healthy exercise of freedom because we understand why we have such Laws.

3.     The Decalogue can be “chopped” up into three parts. There is the part dealing with our relationships with God and there is the part dealing with our relationships with one another. “Sandwiched” in between is the part on the “Sabbath” telling us to be “like God”. 

4.     The Laws dealing with our relationship with God tell us to relate with the Lord as LIBERATOR (from slavery). The Laws saying “do not” tell us that we can do anything we want as long as we recognize the limits—respect and reverence for others.

5.     There is a relationship between Creation and Covenant (or Redemption). We have been created by God and we have been redeemed in Christ. Our moral frame of thinking is not limited to the redemptive side wherein morality is a “correction”. We were not only corrected by God we were also affirmed by God. Jesus came not just to redeem us but also to affirm our dignity given to us in Creation. We agree that we sin and we need the grace to be free from the hold of sin; we need to be “corrected”. But we also admit that we have always been “ok” in the eyes of God from the very start. This line of thinking helps present morality in a more matured and healthy way.  

6.     In the New Testament we read about the “Sermon” (Matt: “mount” and Lk: “plain”). There Jesus showed the path of “happiness”. Jesus taught us about our being God’s children and our fraternity to each other. We can see this in the “Our Father” prayer.

7.     In the “Sermon” we are taught to live as children of the Father. This included a good sense of justice and love. Part of our moral discernment is to know how to balance justice and love.

8.     Christian morality, as the “Sermon” teaches us, is really more “from the heart”. Of course we do not discount external rules and norms; but because we recognize how we are loved by God we respond “from the heart”. We admit that we need external rules and norms but we seek to choose, decide and act “from the heart”. Jesus, in his Sermon, taught this himself.

9.     In the perspective of St. Paul we act in faith rather than in mere obedience to the Law. St. Paul did not reject the Law but he went against the way people observed the Law. Their observance of the Law gave a wrong image of God. God was someone to please. For St. Paul, however, God graced us—or gifted us—with the presence of Jesus. So we would rather respond in faith.

10.            This does not, however, give license to doing anything we want. Faith does not allow us to do “bad things”. In fact, if we are serious with our faith we prefer to “do good”. Our Christian morality is a faith response to the grace of God for us. Christian morality is “in conformity” To Christ.

11.            For St. John we are branches to the vine. From the very start the Word already “remained” in us. Thus he (the Word) teaches us to “remain” in him. We take “sap” from the vine. Applied to morality then we decide and act and behave as Jesus. We love as Jesus loved. We love because God loved us first (see 1Jn4/19). What we do is based on what was done by Christ.

12.            Do you notice anything COMMON to ALL of the Biblical themes we studied, from the Decalogue to St. John? In history we have been so criticized for us having perverted cultures. Christian morality, so some people say, has damaged people’s pursuit of happiness. But a reading of the Scriptures will show that this perversion is never in the mind of God.

13.            The CCC says that “lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” (#2351). Do you see how the CCC approaches this Biblically? Do you see the reliance of the CCC on the Biblical themes of Creation and Decalogue and even the ideas in the Sermon of Jesus?  Of course, for us modern people, the CCC  may look “corny”. With our exposure to modern psychology and anthropology we might find the CCC as “too conservative”. But if we just give the CCC a chance to explain itself to us, we can also see the wisdom behind its discussion on lust. Consult CCC #2331-2359.

14.            Many young people might think that they will not do bad things “when someone is watching”. How will you help them improve on this? What can the BIBLICAL morality we studied say about this?

15.            Many Christians may have been taught that they have to do “good things” in order to “satisfy” and “please” God. God will love them depending on their “performances” in life. Maybe you know someone who thinks this way. How can you help that person improve on this? What can the BIBLICAL morality we studied say about this?  

The “Moral Theology” of St. Paul and St. John (plus a Conclusion)

St. Paul

1.    During the time of St. Paul the practice was that observance of the Law made one “justified” before the Lord God. One was “ok” in the eyes of God if one followed the prescriptions of the Law—the Torah. St. Paul was provoked to disagree with this by the Pharisaic tradition. Let us explain.

2.    During his time the Pharisees were so adamant in following the prescriptions of the Law that society became marked by “separation” between those who follow well and those who cannot follow well. To put it in terms we are familiar with, the Pharisaic tradition cracked the “fraternal” relationship in society. Some can claim to have successfully observed the Law and they marginalized others. Unfortunate still was the fact that most of the emphasis was given to the ritual purification observances.

3.    This also meant a separation of the Jews from the other nations. The other nations were “impure”; they did not have the Law; they were not part of the Covenant with God. So even the possibility of “fraternal” relationship with them was denied. But a close reading of Scriptures, like the prophetic texts, will show that God precisely wanted the people of Israel to be “light of the nations” and enter into fraternity with the nations. The obsession to observe strictly the Law, for St. Paul, was counter to the original intuition of the Lord God. St. Paul then did not reject the Law, he rejected the way the Law was observed. The core intuition of the Law was missed. So people started to live under that “miss”.

4.    St. Paul’s problem was thus this: on what basis is one “ok” in God’s eyes? Is the observance of the prescriptions of the Law enough? One merits God’s approval by the mere legal-traditional observance? But if we look at ourselves, said St. Paul, we are bound to sin…we cannot quite overcome this. So even with fidelity to the Law we sin…and that’s “not ok”. See Rom7/7-25. The deeper problem is this. The mere observance of the Law inverts relationship with God. We stand on our head, so to speak, in front of God. Why? We lose the free giving of God, we lose the initiative of God to love us. Our “justification” in God is a result of the things we do and not of the love of God for us. We “buy the stairway to heaven”, as the Led Zeppelin band would say. By doing the traditional practices we think we are already “ok”.

5.    For St. Paul God welcomes all independent of what people do; independent of performance. So we read about the famous passage in which, for God, there is no Jew, no Greek, no slave, no freeman, no man, no woman (see Gal3/28 and Rom10/12)…let us add: no religious, no lay, no rich, no poor, no highly educated, no illiterate, no handsome, no ugly, no pretty, no unappealing etc. Just think of the ways we separate from each other in our cultures.

6.    God loves all, God is concerned with all and this relationship God makes with us is a “grace”…a gift. We thus enter into the gift and not “buy” our way in. We do not need to have “credentials” to enjoy the love of God. So no matter how well we follow the purification rituals prescribed by the Pharisees, for example, we are “ok” in God. No matter how we fail in those rituals, we are “ok” in God.

7.    Notice then what the emphasis is, for St. Paul. St. Paul gave it a word: faith. St. Paul swings to the side of faith. No, it is not a matter of what we do but of our adherence to Christ. We have already been gifted with God’s love in Christ so from hereon it is not “works” but “faith” that matters most in our way of living.

8.    Apply this to morality. Our moral life is to be based on our faith in Christ—our conformity to Christ—and not on “works” we do. A person might want to walk on knees from the door of a Church to the altar…that is not what God really wants. A person might want to go on a three day fasting, wear coarse clothing with thorns inside…well, that is not what God really wants. A person might go on vows and beat his chest for the rest of his life…well, that is not what God really wants.

9.    Now a question can arise. Does faith mean that we can do anything we want? Since we are “ok” in the eyes of God, he has gifted us with Christ, can we also do “bad things”? St. Paul himself asked this question. “What then”, he wrote, “shall we sin because we are not under the Law but under grace?” St. Paul gave the reply, “Of course not” (Rom6/15).  

10.           For St. Paul when we accept to enter into the gift of God we do not anymore live according to our performances. We are under grace and not under the Law. We are in a new life. This life is characterized by the service of love and openness to others. Our new life in faith expresses itself in justice, in work for peace, in self restraint against sinful actions, etc. This new life in faith leads us away from a “separatist” identity to a “fraternal” identity. Moral life is a life that is new. We “die” from sin and we “rise again” with Christ. We move away from servicing sin and we live in the service of justice. We present ourselves to God as raised from the dead to life and we become “weapons” for justice (see Rom6/13). See also Gal5/20-23.

11.           Thanks to Christ we are free from the burden of “performances” and “merits”. We can live according to the core intuition of the Law which is love. We can love. See Gal5/1 and 5/13-14.

12.           St. Paul shows us how we can take an attitude towards the Law…and we can add our own laws in our countries. The Law is placed in the perspective of love. The Law is designed for making us live in fraternity, service to one another. We are not very far from what we have said at the start of this semester about the Decalogue. The Decalogue, we said, is a fruit of God’s liberating act and it was given to the people of Israel so that they do not repeat the life of slavery. To miss that point is fatal—it will entail creating a system of separation, elitism, the absence of fraternal relationship.

13.           Again for moral theology we see in St. Paul a sense of maturity in moral behavior. Morality is conformity with Christ who taught us to love one another, serve each other, be fraternal to each other, to “go down” so that others, like the poor, may “go up”. It is very matured because it is no longer about “performances” and “gaining ‘handsome’ points”.

St. John

14.           For St. John we follow Christ, yes, and we remain in him. Jesus is the vine. In John (Jn15) we see this clearly.  The Father is the vine dresser. (It may be difficult for us to imagine this because we do not have such vines in our countries…but you know what it means. Imagine other plants similar to the grape vines.)

15.                       The Father removes the dead branches. This is called “pruning”. Pruning is done to make vines bear more fruit. Jesus is the true vine sent by the Father and he accomplishes fully the fidelity expected from the people of Israel before.

16.                       Jesus says that we, his followers, are his branches. We cannot see ourselves separated from this vine. We have been “pruned” by the liberating Word of God. “You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you” (15/3). We are already a living community grafted in Christ.

17.                       In the prologue of the 4th gospel we read: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (1/14). In other words the Word “remained” among us. The Word took the initiative to remain in us…long before we remained in him. He did the first step. To “remain” means to “choose living with”…be in “domicile with”. Hence the Word “pitched his tent” among us. The Word had his feet on the ground with us.

18.                       “To remain” therefore is to relate with us, to enter into friendship and intimacy with us. It is a way of entering in communion with us. Just think about this beautiful word of St. John’s account. Being with us, among us, dwelling in our midst, the Word tells clear the message: we are accepted and not matter who we are, “warts and all”, the Word is with us. The Word became flesh. Hence the Word has revealed the splendor of our humanity. The term “to remain” is an affectionate term. And it is deep.

19.                       Now, we are asked to remain in him. We might want to stay far from him. We might want to quit. We might want to reject the project of God for us. Jesus insists that we remain in him as he remains in us. Keep the fire burning. We are invited to receive the gift of the presence and message of Jesus…in patience, perseverance, in union with the Father and with each other fraternally.

20.                       Note that in this dwelling together (or as the Jesuit poet Gerald Manly Hopkins…if I am not mistaken…terms it, “indwelling”). By dwelling together, remaining together, “ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you” (15/7). Of course we will not ask to be allowed doing “bad things”; not even “silly things”. In the theology of St. John we ask that we be allowed to love and serve in truth each other all the more especially since we have been given the Spirit (see 1Jn3/18-24). In other words, we ask for a deeper fraternal life because this is so important for our Christian living. See the application to morality then?

21.                       Keep in mind that it is Christ who took the initial step to remain in and dwell with us. We need to recognize that so that we do not rely simply on our own performances of love and service (which sounds Paulinian, right?) We, branches, do not “fertilize” ourselves. We graft ourselves to the true vine. Branches do not make the vine more “juicy”. Branches do not enrich the vine. Instead, branches receive from the vine. We receive from the vine the “living sap”. Hence we appreciate the importance of being permanently in Christ. 

22.                       No matter how small or big our gestures and actions are, they can always give joy and hope whenever we see them grafted in Christ. Following the insight of Maurice Zundel, there is the hidden and “humble presence” to whom we are grafted so that even in our own “humble presence” we can bring seeds of joy and peace around us. Isn’t this wonderful?

23.           Note the consequence of this reciprocal in-dwelling. When we love, our love is not just any kind of love. It is a love that is the love of Christ. The sap of the branch is from the vine itself. Love as Christ has loved us (see Jn13/34 and 15/12). We imitate Christ just as Christ imitated his Father. As the Father has loved him, he has loved us (Jn15/9) and we love each other. This is a very fascinating chain of love.

24.           This love is interior to us because we are “in” Christ, united with him, “in-dwelling” with him. We do not just consider him a model, we are grafted in him. Think and meditate about this…it is so deep and liberating. It clarifies so much the nature of our Christian moral living.

Conclusion

25.           We end our Biblical discussion on moral theology here. Take note of how the Bible can impact our moral discernment.

26.           The Bible offers us a vision about life and about the human person. We are gifted with existence—Creation. We are also gifted with Redemption—Covenant. The human therefore is both Created and Redeemed. This is Biblical. How can this be a basis for moral discernment? Check out the Decalogue and the New Testament theology. One thing we can keep reminding us of is this: God’s initiative—to Create us and Redeem us—is the starting point. He loved us so we respond. Morality is this response.

27.           Biblically morality is not a way of “buying the stairway to heaven”. We do not do moral good to win God’s love. God’s love precedes us. He has always considered us his beloved children. So we graft ourselves to God. We respond with faith and thanksgiving. We extend this response to our relationships with others.

28.           In the Biblical world, such as in the miracles of Jesus and his treatment of the “little ones” we can see how Christian morality is alive. It is not a dry and infertile morality that is obsessed with keeping people from happiness. The criticism against Christian morality as “anti-sex” and “anti-pleasure”, anti this or that, is a cliché criticism. Just look into the Scriptures and we will see how invalid the criticism is.

29.           Bible tells us to orient our lives—our moral lives—to the love and liberation of God. We live to be truly free.

30.           Of course there are “technical” approaches to the Bible and we need a good dose of this technique. We cannot take all the precepts literally. What is important, and this the Church has emphasized over and over again, is that we see the underlying core theology…the “wisdom” behind the texts we read. If this sounds abstract, look at Jesus and St. Paul. Jesus questioned some scriptural-traditional practices but he pointed out the underlying motivation of God in them. St. Paul, as we have just seen above, questioned the Law and its precepts. But in the end he also endorsed the Law by pointing out the underlying wisdom there.

31.           For us then, we need a bit of “technique” to discern the underlying wisdom of Scriptural passages. This is why we have Bible studies too.

32.           In computer anti-virus applications we are offered “quick scans”. Let us try a “quick scan” of the Bible as it can be applied to our moral discernment. Here are two helpful “scans”.

33.           What is God’s primary plan in Creating us? (How does the Bible reveal our created nature? This is the “creation” part of Scriptures.)

34.           What is God’s plan to keep us free from “slavery” and sin? (This is the Redemption-Covenant part of Scriptures.)

35.           Of course the summit of Biblical revelation is Christ. He has shown to us who we really are as designed by God in creating us and he has set us free—redeemed us—from the darkness we often fall into. Both go together. For example, we are created to live in communion with God and be truly happy and live as God’s children. This has always been in the created order. Redemption is Christ’s way of bring us back to that created order. His message with his Passion-Resurrection contains the Beatitudes, the call for justice and love, the call for service. We are meant to be happy, to be just and loving.

36.           Think of lust. The Church considers it as a “moral issue”. Maybe modern thinking will see it otherwise, given the advancement of modern science and secular ethics. But let us give ear to the argument of the Church. See the Biblical intuition she has in questioning lust. Notice how the Church views lust in terms of how we were created and how we try to set free from the “slavery” accompanying lust. Notice how the CCC picks up from Christ and how Christ reveals our created nature and how Christ leads us away from the negative impact of lust. The CCC may look “conservative” but give it a chance and discover the Biblical wisdom it is trying to teach us. The CCC has “loopholes”, but it is a work of people who do their best to be faithful to Christ. Seek the wisdom in that effort.