THEO 208 FUNDAMENTAL MORAL THEOLOGY

ERIC MARCELO O. GENILO, S.J.

2012-2013

Course Outline/Sources: ............................. 3 Lesson Handout ..........................................7

A. Introduction........................................................7 I. Nature of Moral Theology..................................7 b. History of moral theology.................................13 I. Early Church .....................................................13 II. Patristic period, the penitentials.....................25 Iii. The summaand thomas aquinas ....................31 IV. The Council of Trent and Manualism.............38 v. The renewal of Moral theology.......................42 c. Sources of Moral Theology ...............................46 i. Scripture...........................................................46 ii. Natural Law .....................................................55 iii. Experience ......................................................59 iv. Magisterium/Tradition ...................................64 Canon Law Confession and Penalties ................72 d. The Human Person as Moral subject................83

i. The Human person...........................................83 ii. The Human Body .............................................90 iii. Freedom and Knowledge ...............................96 iv. Conscience....................................................102 v. Goodness and Rightness ...............................116 vi. Sin .................................................................119 e. virtue ethics ....................................................130 f. moral actions ...................................................141 i. Evaluating a Moral Act ...................................141 ii. Intrinsic Evil ...................................................150 g. Methods and Principles ..................................154 i. Casuistry.........................................................154 ii. Probabilism ...................................................171 iii. Moral Principles ...........................................183 iv. Giving Moral Advice .....................................200

COURSE OUTLINE/SOURCES:
A. Introduction a. Nature of Moral Theology/Mercy i. Lesson Handout ii. Kevin ONeil and Black, The Essential Moral Handbook (Ligouri, Missouri: Ligouri, 2003) 2-22. iii. James Keenan, Mercy: Makes Catholic Morality Distinctive, Church 16 (2000) 41-43. B. History of moral theology a. Early Church i. Lesson Handout ii. Wogaman, Christian ethics pp. 25-61 b. Patristic period, the penitentials i. Lesson Handout ii. John Mahoney, The Influence of Auricular Confession, The Making of Moral Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) 1-36. iii. John T. McNeil and Helena M. Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938) 100-03. c. Scholasticism, the summas, Thomas Aquinas i. Lesson Handout ii. James Keenan, Ten Reasons Why Thomas Aquinas is Important for Ethics Today, New Blackfriars75 (1994) 354363.

iii. Sample of Summa question d. The Council of Trent and Manualism i. Lesson Handout ii. John Mahoney, The Influence of Auricular Confession, The Making of Moral Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) pp 1-36 e. The renewal of Moral theology i. Lesson Handout C. Sources of Moral Theology a. Scripture i. Lesson Handout ii. J. Philip Wogaman, Christian ethics (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993) pp. 3-15 iii. Gula, Ch 12, 165-172 iv. Examples of proof text arguments b. Natural Law i. Lesson Handout ii. Charles Curran, Catholic Social and Sexual Teaching: a Methodological Comparison, Theology Today Vol. 4 No. 4 Jan 1988 pp.425-440 c. Experience i. Lesson Handout ii. John T. Noonan, Jr., Experience and the Development of Moral Doctrine, in CTSA Proceedings 54, 43-56. iii. John T. Noonan, Jr., Development in Moral Doctrine, Theological Studies 54 (1993), 676-677. d. Magisterium/Tradition

i. Lesson Handout ii. Interpretating Magisterial Documents iii. Case studies D. The Human Person as Moral subject a. The Human person i. Gula, ch 5 b. The Human Body i. James Keenan, Christian perspectives on the Human Body, Theological Studies 55 (1994) 300-346. c. Freedom and Knowledge i. Lesson Handout d. Conscience i. Lesson Handout ii. Gula 9-10 iii. John Glaser, Conscience and Super-ego, Theological Studies 32 (1971) 30-47 e. Goodness and Rightness i. James Keenan, What is Good and What is Right Church 5 (1989) ii. James Keenan, The Sin of Not Bothering to Love, Church (1995) 39-41 f. Sin i. Lesson Handout ii. Gula 7-8 iii. Bruce Vawter, Missing the Mark, Introduction of Christian Ethics, Edited by Ronald Hamel and Kenneth Himes (NY: Paulist Press, 1989)

iv. Common sins confessed that are not really sins E. Virtue Ethics i. Lesson Handout ii. James Keenan, Virtue Ethics, Christian Ethics: An Introduction, edited by Bernard Hoose (Micheal Glazier Books: Collegeville Minnesota, 1998) F. Moral Actions a. Evaluating a Moral Act i. Lesson Handout b. Intrinsic Evil i. Lesson Handout G. Methods and Principles a. Casuistry i. Lesson Handout ii. Usury case iii. Hydrogen Bomb case b. Probabilism i. Lesson Handout ii. Scarred Uterus case c. Moral Principles i. Lesson Handout ii. James Keenan, The Function of the Principle of Double Effect, Theological Studies 54 (1993) 294-315. d. Giving Moral Advice i. James Keenan, On Giving Moral Advice, America 174 (1996) 12-16.

LESSON HANDOUT A. INTRODUCTION

I. NATURE OF MORAL THEOLOGY

(SESSION 1) 11/05/2012 Handout: a) ONeil and Black, The Essential Moral Handbook, 2-22. b) Keenan, Mercy: Makes Catholic Morality Distinctive, Church 16 (2000) 41-43.

1. THE ESSENTIAL MORAL HANDBOOK

1.1. Moral theology properly should start with God and Gods love 1.1.1. JP II (Veritas Splendor): The moral life is a response to the many gratuitous initiatives taken by God out of Gods love. 1.1.2. God always acts first the moral life begins with Gods grace. We respond in freedom to our experience of God. 1.1.3. If the moral life is response to God, then our image of God is crucial because how we imagine God would affect how we respond to him morally. 1.2. Trinity as a communion of Love 1.2.1. Rublevs icon presents us with the image of God as Trinity. 1.2.2. As a communion of love among the three divine persons. An eternal giving and receiving of love among equals. 1.2.3. The communion and love of the Trinity reaches out to the viewer and invites the viewer to take his or her place with the community of love.

1.2.4. Implications: created in Gods image we are destined to live a life of loving communion with others who are also Gods creations. We are not simply individuals but a people created to live in relationships of love. We are created to live up to our true identity as images of God and to act out Gods love. 1.2.5. God the creator has imprinted his image in us; Jesus, the revelation of the Father, shows teaches us and exemplifies for us the way of loving of the Father; the Spirit empowers us and enables us to imitate Christ in our loving. 1.3. Parable of the prodigal son reveals to us important insights about Gods love that has implications on our moral life. 1.3.1. A father whose love is unconditional, a younger son who had abused his fathers generosity and an elder son who sought to earn his fathers love 1.3.2. Gods love does not depend on our behavior our sins does not diminish Gods love nor our good works increase Gods love 1.3.3. God does not force us to love him but he invites us to communion with him 1.4. False and incomplete images of God these images hinder us from a loving relationship with God and others and they distort our moral life. 1.4.1. God as Over-personalized God (False image). I only talk to him about my needs but not the needs of the world. My spiritual life is separated from my moral life how I pray does not affect how I live. I love God but I hate my neighbor. 1.4.1.1. Correction: See God as a Father who relates to all his children, personally and equeally. God cares about how I

relate with others, God who desires not only what is good for me but also the good of the whole world. 1.4.1.2. Result: I see others as my brothers and sisters in Gods family. I integrate my prayer life with my relationship with others and my activity in the world. I become more socially conscious and concerned about the needs of my community 1.4.2. God as Lawgiver (Incomplete image). This image of God encourages a moral life dominated by law and a measurement of goodness based on obedience to laws. It creates a moral life overly concerned about external behavior with little attention to growth in personal character. 1.4.2.1. Correction: The CCC (1691) indicates the goal of the moral life as imitation of Christ, not observation of the law. Life in Christ presumes observation of the law but observation of the law does not presume a Life in Christ. Rather than see God as legislator, we should see God as one who loves us first and who then invites us to respond. The commandments and moral laws that we have are there to guide our love response to god and to our neighbor. Moral laws are seen not as imposition but as channels that direct our love so that we can more faithfully imitate the love of Christ. Moral laws are not meant to reduce morality to simply external actions but they provide the means for our inner character development to be actualized in moral actions. 1.4.2.2. Result: We learn and appreciate the values that are behind the moral rules. We turn to Christ to guide us how to apply rules. There is integration between our external behavior and our value formation. 1.4.3. God as Judge/Punisher (Incomplete Image). God is always watching and judging my every move and if I make a

mistake I will get punished. It is an image that uses fear as the primary motivator in the moral life. The primary reason why one would seek to be a good person is to avoid punishment. 1.4.3.1. Correction: We do find images of God as judge in scripture but it is an incomplete image. God is predominantly a God of mercy as revealed to us by Christ. God never punishes; he does not desire our suffering. God only sends us good things that will build us up. 1.4.3.2. Result: We relate to God with humble gratitude and not with fear. We stop interpreting bad things that happen as Gods punishment. We become more merciful to others and less judgmental. 1.4.4. God as Tester (Incomplete / False Image). God sends problems to test our faith in him. Our faith is weak if we allow ourselves to be depressed or frustrated by our problems. We should always be hopeful and appreciative of every adversity that we experience because these come from God. 1.4.4.1. Correction: God is our Creator; he does not need to test us; He knows us intimately and completely. Problems do not come from God; they just happen. God send us the Spirit to console us and strengthen us when problems become too heavy. Life is not a test; it is journey with Christ (with others) to our heavenly home. Life is not full of tests but rather it is full of opportunities to do good and avoid evil. 1.4.4.2. Result: I can now face problems with God at my side. It is ok to feel sad and cry out to God in times of trouble that is not a sign of weakness or lack of faith. It is part of being human. I become less hard on myself and others. We just try to do our best with Gods grace. I do good and avoid evil not because of fear or reward but out of love for God and others.

1.4.4.3. God as controller (Incomplete): God controls everything in my life and I cannot escape the will of God. Everything that happens in my life has already been planned by God. God has a reason for allowing bad things to happen to me. 1.4.4.3.1. Correction: God has a general plan of salvation but he also respects human freedom, even if our choices are wrong. God does not cause evil to happen. He empowers us to do what is good despite the evil around us but He never uses evil to do good. God invites us to participate in building his Kingdom. 1.4.4.3.2. Result: I am encouraged to use my freedom responsibly and choose the good that God desires for me. I do not condone or tolerate evil. I seek to actively fight against evil in the world. I cannot remain complacent. I am called to make a difference in the world. 1.4.4.4. Conclusion: Use moral life is our response to God. We need to examine our image of God in to make sure we do not have an incomplete or distorted image of God or else our moral response may be distorted. No single image can capture God completely but we can constantly strive have a more authentic image of God. 1.4.4.5. Pastoral consideration: Use prudence when attempting to correct a persons inadequate or false image of God. If the person finds some solace in this false image in the midst of tragedy, it would be best not to say anything for the moment. If the person is showing signs of being burdened by their false image of God, it would be good to use a gentle and reasonable approach to lead them to an appreciation of God as merciful and compassionate through the image of Christ.

2. MERCY AS DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF CATHOLIC MORAL THEOLOGY

2.1. Mercy: the source of our tradition 2.1.1. Like Jesus we must be like the mercy of God; story of the Good Samaritan. This parable definitively defines neighbor love as the practice of mercy the answer is the Samaritan, the neighbor is the one who shows mercy. 2.2. Mercy is the condition for our salvation 2.2.1. To be saved we must exercise mercy; Matthew 25 the last judgment feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, etc. 2.3. Mercy: How God enters our chaos to rescue us 2.3.1. We show mercy by entering the chaos of others. The creation is an act of mercy that brings order into the chaos of the universe. The redemption is bringing us out of the chaos of our slavery to sin. 2.4. Mercy: Christianitys self-definition. Early Christianity defined itself in terms of mercy. 2.4.1. This was the moral climate in which Christianity taught that mercy is one of the primary virtues that a merciful God requires humans to be merciful. Moreover, the corollary that because God loves humanity, Christians may not please God unless they love one another was entirely new. Perhaps even more revolutionary was the principle that Christian love and charity must extend beyond the boundaries of family and tribe, that it must extend to all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:2)...

B. HISTORY OF MORAL THEOLOGY I. EARLY CHURCH

(SESSION 2) 11/05/2012 Handout: Wogaman, Christian ethics pp. 25-61

1. MORAL CONCERNS OF THE EARLY CHURCH (33 150 AD)

1.1. Attitude to the material world 1.1.1. One of the most basic moral issues that early Church had to face was regarding the proper way to relate with the material world. 1.1.2. There were some members of the early church who viewed the physical world negatively. They saw the world as evil and Christ should be understood only on the spiritual level and there should be disengagement from the world as much as possible. 1.1.3. The early Christian communities rejected this view, expressed in its rejection of Marcionism. 1.1.3.1. Marcion was a 2nd century Christian teacher who started his own movement that attracted many followers. He rejected the Hebrew God of the Old Testament as a lesser god than the Christian god of the New Testament. He rejected the created world as the work of this lesser god and he only affirmed the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ. 1.1.3.2. Christian writers of the 2nd century, (e.g., Justin and Irenaeus) condemned Marcions teaching and affirmed the divine origin of the world and the Incarnation of Christ.

1.1.3.3. This positive affirmation of the world provided the Church with a fundamental structure to Christian moral teaching. Living in the world matters and should be the concern of the Christian. Churchs involvement with questions of economics, politics, stewardship of property, etc., is justified by its positive view that the world is where Gods creative and redemptive purposes are expressed. 1.2. Wealth and poverty 1.2.1. The early Church viewed wealth as spiritually and morally dangerous, leading to the temptation toward idolatry (substituting the worship of material things for worship of God). Wealth also is seen as creating a barrier between rich and poor, leading to division in the community. Poverty was viewed as a situation that Christians must respond to with sharing of material goods. Neglect of the poor is a seen as a failure to love. 1.2.2. The early Churchs economic ethic was more distributive than productive. It was more expressed in individual than in institutional sharing. The early church did not think of the larger economic system of society. This is seen in the unquestioning acceptance of slavery as an essential part of the economic life of society at that time. 1.3. Sexual Ethics 1.3.1. The early Christian writers advocated strict standards of sexual behavior in response to the loose sexual morality in the Roman world. The teachings were written mostly in the negative, forbidding lust, fornication, adultery, etc.

1.3.2. Sexual relations between the same genders were condemned. 1.3.3. Marriage, while accepted, was not always presented positively. 1.4. The status and role of women 1.4.1. The early church was generally male-dominated. 1.4.2. Women are considered responsible and capable of responding in faith to Gods love. They share in the same divine destiny as men. However, women were viewed as having a lower status as men in society. 1.5. Violence and Political Order 1.5.1. The early church was pacifist. No Christian joined the imperial armies until 170 AD 1.5.2. On the individual level, Christians are expected to love their enemies and return good for evil. 1.5.3. Apart from periods of persecution, the early Christians supported the State.

2. SEMINAL THINKERS AND TRANSITIONS (150-354 SD)

2.1. By the end of the 2nd century Christianity increasingly had to engage the larger Roman world in dialogue. Christian thinkers sought to convince educated Romans about the truth of the message of Christ. The result was a body of theological reflections that combined the faith of the primitive Church with the sophistication of the Greco-Roman world. The values, principles, and virtues of Christianity were discussed as true and reasonable there is an appeal to reason rather than to authority.

2.2. Clement of Alexandria (145-215 AD) 2.2.1. There is no necessary conflict between faith and reason. He sought to convince Romans of the reasonableness of the Christian faith. Much of his writings sought to remove the stumbling blocks to belief by non-Christians. 2.2.2. E.g. he used allegorical interpretations of Scriptures to help those who find a literal interpretation difficult to accept. He uses different metaphors and descriptions of God, while acknowledging that God transcends all human symbols. 2.2.3. On wealth 2.2.3.1. Interpreted parable of rich young man as a critique of inordinate attachment to wealth rather than ownership of wealth. It is not enough to get rid of ones wealth if one continues to mourn for it. Material resources are necessary in life but they should not be made into idols. There is a responsibility of the rich to help the poor. 2.2.4. Social manners 2.2.4.1. Clement wrote on proper decorum, such as table manners; this is perhaps to help the early Christians to be more socially acceptable to sophisticated Romans. 2.2.5. Clement sought to bring the church to the socio-cultural mainstream of Greco-Roman civilization. 2.3. Origen (182-251 AD) 2.3.1. A pupil and successor of Clement 2.3.2. Also used allegorical interpretation of Scripture, especially in addressing texts that are hard to accept

2.3.3. Wrote on the cooperative work of the Trinity to bring a person to grow in sanctification and moral growth created by God, in participation with Christ, and empowered by the Holy Spirit we are enabled to overcome obstacles and advance into holiness, and perfection 2.3.4. Wrote about Christ as the aspect of the Trinity that represents the reason of God, which all human beings share. This appeal to the reason that all persons share enabled Origen to dialogue with non-Christians without appealing to revelation. 2.3.5. This use of reason also allowed Origen to appeal to the concept of natural law. This is moral law promulgated by God known by universal human reason. This natural law judges human laws and is above man-made laws. When in conflict with human laws, natural law has primacy and must be obeyed. 2.3.6. Origen defended the pacifist position of Christian toward war whole recognizing the legitimacy of civil authority 2.4. Tertullian 2.4.1. While Clement and Origen emphasized dialogue with the Roman world, Tertullian emphasized the conflicts and discontinuities between Christianity and the pagan world 2.4.2. He criticized idolatry of and excesses of Roman culture and challenged heresies that conflicted with Christianity. 2.4.3. His first early writing Apology, written around 197, defends Christian morality and practices against the calumnies and persecutions by Roman authorities.

2.4.4. In his early writings he did not object to military participation by Christians but his later writings he expressed strong opposition to military service. 2.4.5. Under the influence of Montanism, an early Christian sectarian movement that emphasized avoidance of sin and discipline, Tertulians ethics became more uncompromising in every aspect of the moral life. Those who have fallen away from the standard of perfection (e.g. returning to idolatry during times of persecution) cannot be accepted back into the community. 2.4.6. The orthodox mainstream Christian Church prevailed over Montanism and later labeled it a heresy. 2.5. The Constantinian turning point 2.5.1. In 313 AD Emperor Constantine declared Christianity as a favored religion in Roman civilization. 2.5.2. By this time Christianity, although still a minority in the empire, have grown in number to the millions. The Church had gained respectability because of the writings of Clement, Origen and Tertullian, the moral virtues of Christianity contrasted with the pagan practices of Roman society. The sincere belief of its martyrs attested to the seriousness of the commitment of its followers. 2.5.3. With Christianity becoming an accepted religion in the empire, it also faced ethical questions: How does one weigh the authenticity of a Christians faith if the religion is no longer persecuted? How much accommodation to other cultures is acceptable for Christianity? How can the purity of faith be safeguarded from idolatrous tendencies? 2.5.4. Other Thinkers:

2.5.4.1. Lanctatious: wrote on the superiority of Christian worship over Greek and Roman worship; conceived of God as a divine parent of all humanity, implying that all humanity if a single moral community 2.5.4.2. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus: wrote issues about wealth; emphasized sharing with the poor, use of material goods is stewardship of Gods property; rejection of usury and slavery 2.5.4.3. John Chrysostom: condemned unshared wealth while affirming legitimacy of government. 2.5.4.4. Ambrose of Milan (339-397 AD): wrote on justice as a communitarian concept, for the good of all; reveals a move away from pacifism, he approves of violence only when done in the necessary defense of others, but violent self-defense is still unacceptable

3. THE MORAL VISION OF ST. AUGUSTINE (354-430 AD)

3.1. Life 3.1.1. Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered the most influential Christian. He was born in 354 AD from a mixed Christian-pagan marriage in what is now Algeria in North Africa. His schooling occurred locally and in the nearby city of Carthage, where he became a teacher of rhetoric. He moved to Rome and later to Milan where he met the local bishop Ambrose whose homilies inspired his conversion and who presided in his baptism. Augustine returned to Africa to form a Christian commune near his hometown. Local pressure, however, led him to be ordained

priest and, in 395 AD, bishop in Hippo where spent the rest of his life. As bishop he wrote over 100 books, over 200 letters, and more than 500 sermons on a variety of topics. He was in the forefront the fight against heresies that distorted Christian doctrine such as Donatism, Manichaeism, Arianism and Pelagianism. He died in 430 AD. 3.1.2. Augustines writings became an important legacy of Christian and classical thinking. As the Christian Roman Empire fell to succeeding barbarian invasions and Western Roman culture began to disappear during what is now known as the Dark Ages, the writings of Augustine provided the means to preserve the legacy of the classical past and transmit them to future generations of Christian thinkers. Every noted Christian thinker after Augustine cites his writings as an authoritative source of Christian belief. 3.1.3. In the area of moral theology Augustine had a profound influence not only in the content but also in the perspective of moral theology for many centuries.

4. THE CONTRIBUTION OF AUGUSTINE TO MORAL THEOLOGY

4.1. The moral will 4.1.1. All of creation, as expression of Gods nature, is good. Evil is not created by God; it does not have an independent source outside of God. Evil exists as a movement away from the good; it is a privation of good. 4.1.2. When we are attracted to evil we perceive it to be good. But it is a lesser good, and it becomes evil because it is a substitute for God. Evil exists as our inordinate love for a lesser

good. We love the lesser good appropriately only when we love it in the context of our greater love for God. 4.1.3. An evil will is a will directed away from God; it is a misdirected will. 4.1.4. Sin, as a misdirected will; it involves an error or an untruth. It is based on a mistaken conception of what is good for us. 4.1.5. Augustine grounds Christian ethics in the moral will, not in the goodness or evil of objects outside the will. A will that is directed by its love for God is good, while a will directed by love of self and lesser goods is evil even though these lesser goods are not in themselves evil. 4.1.6. There is no moral obligation if there is no freedom to choose and to do 4.1.7. Augustine insists upon Gods foreknowledge of the choices all people will make. To God all past, present and future exist in timeless eternity. Gods foreknowledge does not minimize human freedom: God just knows how that freedom will be exercised. 4.2. The two cities 4.2.1. There are two existing cities on earth that are linked and fused together the earthly city and the city of God. The earthly city is composed of persons living in self-love, seeking material glory. This city will eventually perish. The city of God is composed of persons living according to the love of God and seeks the glory of God. This city is eternal. 4.2.2. While the earthly city is corrupted by self-love and materialism. Gods grace allows it to contribute to the well-being

of humanity, no matter how imperfectly. The earthly happiness and temporal good that we find in the earthly city are from Gods grace. The city of God exists alongside its earthly counterpart. This city is a city of pilgrims journey toward the heaven home. 4.2.3. The city of God affirms whatever is universally good, even within the temporal order. The heavenly city preserves and adapts human diversities, as long as this does not hinder worship of God. 4.2.4. This view of the city of God can be applied to the universal Church. As a catholic society, the Church gathers up and affirms all human diversities that are not in conflict with the worship of God. In Augustines view, the Church expresses Gods intention for human society. 4.3. Peace and Justice 4.3.1. Peace is the universal goal of humanity. Even those who go into war seek a certain form of peace. 4.3.2. The only peace that counts is the peace of God which must also contain perfect justice. 4.3.3. The task of justice is to render what is due to each. Within ones self, justice is subordination of the body to the soul and the soul of God. Within society, justice is the subordination of peoples to authorities and for authorities to God. 4.4. Just war 4.4.1. Augustine approved of war as a last resort, when necessary to prevent or punish aggression (or heresy), when undertaken by rightful authority, when motivated by love, and when pursued with mercy and restraint. These principles would

be developed and expanded by the Church into the doctrine of just war. 4.5. The use of wealth 4.5.1. Wealth only has instrumental value, not an intrinsic one. It should be valued only in so far as it facilitates a life centered on God. To value wealth for itself would be idolatry. 4.6. Human sexuality 4.6.1. Augustines view on human sexuality had a profound effect on later church teaching on the subject. 4.6.2. Augustine himself experienced struggle with chastity before he had chosen a life of celibacy he had twice taken a concubine and had a child with one of them. He saw lust as an occasion for turning away from God. Augustine viewed the overpowering desire for sexual pleasure and the rebelliousness of the body as disruptive to human life. He considered the expression of sexuality within marriage for the specific purpose of procreation as the only reason that the desire for pleasure among married couples could be considered forgivable. The procreative aspect of the marriage act was given primary importance than the unitive aspect. 4.6.3. He condemned sexual intercourse for any purpose outside procreation. All sexual intercourse without procreation was an expression of lust. 4.6.4. He also disapproved of sexual abstention during marriage, which was a form of birth control practiced by Marcionist heretics who saw childbirth as an evil because people are born into an evil physical world.

4.6.5. Some authors believe that Augustines pervasive sense of sinfulness may have distorted his attitude toward women as having lesser worth as men. Some authors say that Augustine viewed women as little more than a means to procreate children. 4.7. A preoccupation with sin 4.7.1. Augustines negative view of human sexuality and his preoccupation with the disorder of lust as the result of original sin as well as the means it is transmitted to future generations expressed his generally sin-centered view of the moral life. Our righteousness in this life consists in the forgiveness of sins rather than the perfection of virtues (The City of God). This pessimism about the human condition with regard to the pervasiveness of sin would occupy moral theology for many centuries.

II. PATRISTIC PERIOD, THE PENITENTIALS

(SESSION 3) 11/12/12 Handout: John Mahoney, The Influence of Auricular Confession, The Making of Moral Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) 1-36. John T. McNeil and Helena M. Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938) 100-03.

1. INTRO
1.1. The historical development of moral theology could be understood and appreciate by studying the development of practices and literature related to confession and penance for sins. 1.2. During the first three centuries of Christianity, there was an absence of set norms and moral rules and the primary focus on the formation of character and imitation of Christ.

2. PATRISTIC PERIOD 4 TH 6TH CENTURY

2.1. Regarding penances, the early Christian communities were divided on how to deal with persons who have been sent out of the community because of serious offenses. Should these persons be left the mercy of God or should they be received back into the community if they repented? 2.2. This has become a concern because of a growing perfectionism within the Christian communities and the phenomenon of persons who have apostatized during periods of persecution and have repented.

2.3. The council of Nicaea (325) affirmed a human policy of readmitting to communion after appropriate periods of penances those who have been excommunicated for serious sins or have fallen away from the faith because of persecution. 2.4. The Christian community considered the sins of idolatry, adultery and homicides as the most serious of sins. This was based on an exegetical interpretation of the Acts account of the Council of Jerusalem which enjoined Christians to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols (idolatry), from blood and from what is strangled (homicide), and from unchastity (adultery) (Act 15:29). These sins were interpreted as the sins against the Holy Spirit which according to Jesus, cannot be forgiven. 2.5. Two characteristics of penitential practice during this period: 2.5.1. Christian authorities were generally in agreement that public exclusion from and later reconciliation with, the Christian community can only happen once in ones lifetime. 2.5.2. The penitential practices required for grace sins took years to fulfill, were very demanding and humiliating. Even after the penances have been fulfilled and the penitent has been readmitted to the Eucharist, the person remains marked for life and disqualified various activities, from military service to marital relations. 2.6. The strict and difficult of penitential practice influenced most Christians to postpone seeking forgiveness and penance for sins until they are dying. Ecclesiastical penance thus became associated with preparation for death.

3. THE CELTIC PENITENTIAL MOVEMENT (6 TH CENTURY 12TH CENTURY)

3.1. A breakthrough in the rigid practice of penance in the Church occurred through the influence of the monastic tradition. 3.2. In Irish monasteries, the practice of spiritual direction between individual monk and elder monk lent itself to a form of individualized confession between penitent and confessor, which was a shift from the traditional practice of public confession and penance of the individual before the Christian community. 3.3. In this new form borrow from spiritual direction, confession was private and could be repeated. Its application was expanded beyond the monastery and was also used among local Christian lay people. 3.4. The practice of private penance and the development of penitential books spread from Ireland to the European continent through the work of missionary work of Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks. 3.5. The practice of repeated, private confessions, confessors needed to be able to give the proper penances to various sins. Penitential books were written to guide confessors in giving penances. These books were basically lists of sins with penitents depending on their social and ecclesiastical status and the circumstances of their cases. The classification of sins and their corresponding penances were drawn from sources such as the writings of the Fathers, canons from various synods and councils, Scripture, and the personal understanding of the books author.

3.6. Although these penitential books focused more on vices rather than virtues and were focused primarily on sins, they also expressed the care that confessors exercised in making moral evaluations of actions. For example: 3.6.1. Care is made to distinguish between sins committed out of ignorance, inadvertence, carelessness, or contempt. 3.6.2. Spontaneous thoughts are distinguished from those deliberately fostered. 3.6.3. Premeditated acts merit a higher penance than acts committed impulsively. 3.6.4. A habit of sin is treated differently from a single act of sin. 3.6.5. A bishops guilt is greater than a priests and a priests than a layperson. 3.6.6. The cases of those who are sick, those who had to work, and those who could not make restitution are considered individually. 3.7. Actual forms of penances: 3.7.1. Forms of self-mortifications: fasts, deprivation of sleep, multiple genuflections, recitation of psalms, long period of standing or silence, and sexual abstinence. 3.7.2. Philanthropic penances: almsgiving, releasing slaves, buying back prisoners, building churches and monasteries, endowing colleges. Those who are sick or unable to physically perform self-mortifications may redeem penance through philanthropy. 3.7.3. Penance by proxy: the penitent may pay others, even priests, to share his penance or assume it entirely. This connection between money payments and the remission of

penance would become open to abuse, leading to the problem of trafficking of indulgences. 3.7.4. Penance by exile. Some penitents were condemned to a period or a lifetime of foreignness where a person wanders away from his community unarmed. It is from expiating ones sins through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin and the saints whose shrines dotted Europe. 3.8. The initial response of the hierarchical church to the practice of repeated confession and the proliferation of inconsistent and unauthorized penitential books was disapproval. A number of local synods denounced the penitential handbooks errors, contradictions, and lack of authorization from the hierarchy. 3.9. Despite the initial disapproval of the hierarchy, the local parochial clergy welcomed the hand books because they provided the only means to guide them in the practice of confession in their parishes. The level of education of the diocesan clergy during this period was quite low and the handbooks provided a valuable, though imperfect means to address the variety of sins confessed by penitents. 3.10. Since the penitential literature proved difficult to eradicate because of their usefulness to the clergy, the Church moved to reform the literature to make them more uniform and that duly approved books would be composed. 3.11. From the 8th century to the 12th century, regular confession gradually became obligatory in Europe, sometimes as often as three times a year. 3.12.

4. THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL (1215)

4.1. This council, presided over the Pope Innocent III, imposed on the whole Church the obligation for every adult Catholic to confess all sins in private at least once a year and reverently receive the Eucharist at least at Easter. This became known as the Easter duty. The Council also required that the confessor be discerning and careful in dealing with penitents, diligently asking about the circumstances of the sinner and the sins, and apply appropriate remedies to heal the sins of the penitent. 4.2. The Council also imposed absolute secrecy on the part of the confessor and required that when the confessor seeks prudent advice from experts he should be careful not to reveal the identity of the penitent. 4.3. The requirements of the Council for confessors to be skilled enough to help penitents confess all their sins and inquire about their and his particular circumstances led to the development of a new body of confessional literature, the summas for confessors or confessors compendiums.

III. THE SUMMA AND THOMAS AQUINAS

(SESSION 4) 11/15/12 Handout: James Keenan, Ten Reasons Why Thomas Aquinas is Important for Ethics Today, New Blackfriars75 (1994) 354-363. Sample of Summa question

1. INTRO
1.1. From the 5th century to the end of the 10th c., Western Europe was in a state of perpetual turmoil by invasions from northern and central Europe. Travel and trade was limited because of dangerous travel conditions. Cities were few and small; the economy was largely rural and agricultural. Christian intellectual life flourished mostly within monasteries. 1.2. Beginning in the 11th c., Western Europe underwent significant social changes, and as a result new institutions and new ways of life also emerged. 1.2.1. The invasions from the north ended in the 11th c, leading to a period of peace. Travel became safer and this facilitated better communication and better trade. Better economic opportunities allowed people to expand their activities beyond warfare and agriculture. Medieval society began to become more urban and complex within the rise of big urban centers. 1.2.2. This period also saw development in the Church with the emergence of mendicant orders like the Franciscans and

Dominicans who were not bound by vows of stability like the monks. They were free to move all over Europe to preach and hear confessions. 1.2.3. The centers of learning moved from monasteries and cathedral schools to newly formed universities where the scholars from all over Europe gathered to study and address the questions posed by the new social conditions of the times. 1.3. By the 12th century, there was an intellectual movement to systematically order all the knowledge that has been inherited from the ancient world. Scholars of the time sought to produce a systematic body of knowledge, clarified by the refinement of commentators and presented as the consensus of competent judges.

2. THE SUMMA FOR CONFESSORS

2.1. The obligation to confess all sins at least once a year decreed by the Fourth Lateran in 1215 led to a disagreement among members of the Church whether the obligation to confess all sins referred only to mortal sins or to all sins including the daily minor lapses that one could not avoid. This line of questioning led to the productions of literature devoted to analyzing whether particular actions or behavior constitute mortal sin or venial sin. These are the summas for confessors. 2.2. The summas were a product not only of the decrees of the Lateran Council but were also a result of a movement in the medieval Church to classify, digest, summarize, and reconcile all data on every subject. It was around this period, beginnings in the 12th to the 16th c., that summas of various topics were being

written. There were summas for canon law, medicine, grammar, logic, rhetoric, theology, and sacraments. The best example of a summas for theology is Thomas Aquinas summas Theologiae. 2.3. With regard to confession, there were summas for confessors, summas of moral cases, summas of moral theology. 2.4. The structure of exposition in the summas followed a pattern: a reading of an authoritative text from scholars of the past with a commentary on the text line by line. Using a dialectical mode of argumentation any inconsistencies or errors in the tests are resolved or corrected and then all the commentaries are harmonized. 2.5. The scholastic theologians used the technique of making distinctions as method to resolve inconsistencies. E.g. inconsistency between current practice of capital punishment and scripture texts on forgiveness. 2.6. Despite the proliferations of summas for confessors and other literature, the sacrament of confession still was not administered in a manner satisfactory to the Church. The main problem was the inadequate training of the clergy. There was a need for a systematic formation of the clergy within the Church. This problem would only be addressed at the Council of Trent (1545-1563)

3. THOMAS AQUINAS AND MORAL THEOLOGY

3.1. Thomas Aquinas is the most influential theologian of the medieval age. His method and his writings have shaped the formation of priests since the 19th c. and he made significant contributions to moral theology.

3.2. Aquinas wrote his summas Theologiae as textbook for an experimental study program in Rome for above average Dominican seminarians. The summas is composed of questions and divided into three parts: 3.2.1. Part I: about Gods relationship to us as Creator and Mover (119 questions) 3.2.2. Part II: about our response to God 3.2.2.1. First part general moral questions (114 questions) 3.2.2.2. Second part specific moral questions (148 questions) 3.2.3. Part III: about meeting God and Jesus Christ and the sacraments (90 questions) 3.2.4. After the death of Aquinas in 1274, a supplement was added to Part III by a fellow Dominical drawing from Aquinas other writings. 3.2.5. Placement of the section on ethics in the whole summas shows how Aquinas treated ethics as integral to the rest of theology. Ethics or morality was not separate from dogma, spirituality, the sacraments, ecclesiology, etc. Being moral was also integrally related to our journey towards holiness (spirituality) and the communal worship of the Church (sacraments) and the mysteries of our faith (dogma). 3.3. Structure of summas questions 3.3.1. Question 3.3.1.1. Article 3.3.1.1.1. Objections 3.3.1.1.2. On the contrary 3.3.1.1.3. Respondio (Thomas answer)

3.3.1.1.4. Reply to the objections 3.4. Thomas used a dialogical method of answering theological questions 3.4.1. He drew from various sources, even non-Christian sources such as Aristotle 3.4.2. He was willing to engage the practical questions of the day and he trusts in the capacity of human reason to grasp the truth. He invited others to inquire deeply about their faith and their lives as Christians. 3.5. Aquinas upheld the primacy of conscience 3.5.1. It is better to die in excommunication than to go against ones conscience. 3.5.2. The conscience imposes moral obligations on us which we must follow. 3.5.3. Regarding an erroneous conscience, if we are responsible for it being erroneous, then we are culpable for not having a rightly formed conscience; if we could not have prevented the error in our conscience, we are excused from our error. 3.6. Aquinas insisted on the object as the primary concept in moral theology 3.6.1. The object of an act determines its morality. The object is the subject matter of the action; what is the action about. 3.6.2. For Aquinas, the object of the action is not found in its external action but in the intention of the actor. We need to look at the content of the actors intention in order to properly evaluate the morality of the action. 3.7. The measure of the object is in the intention

3.7.1. If the intention of a person for an action is wrong, then the external action will be wrong 3.7.2. If the intention is right, the external action must be fitting to the right intention. If the action falls short or is wrong then the external action is wrong even if the intention may be right. 3.7.3. Aquinas upheld moral objectivity in the context of the intention. We must have right intentions and we must strive to make our external actions fit our right intentions (and avoid wrong actions) 3.7.4. Aquinas thus avoids two extremes that distort morality 3.7.4.1. Relativism a right intention justifies any action, even the action is wrong 3.7.4.2. Measuring the morality of action only externally declaring certain general acts as intrinsically evil acts without consideration of intention 3.8. Aquinas standard for measuring the moral life is the use of virtues and vices 3.8.1. Aquinas ethics is an ethics of virtues; he is more concerned about the formation of character and the direction of our moral life rather than analysis of solitary external actions. 3.8.2. Actions have moral significance in the way they influence our growth in the virtues or in our fall into vices. We become what we do. Our actions can shape our character. 3.9. Every human act (which involves freedom and knowledge) Is a moral act 3.9.1. Every moment is an occasion for being freer for Christ and neighbor

3.9.2. Every action, every choice we make, can strengthen our virtues or vices 3.9.3. Living a truly moral life does not involve increasing our activity but becoming more aware, more intentional about our activity. We need to be conscious of our habits, our patterns of thinking and acting, and be more deliberate in our moral living 3.9.4. Right intention is important but it must be realized in right action.

IV. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND MANUALISM

(SESSION 5) 11/19/12 Handouts: John Mahoney, The Influence of Auricular Confession, The Making of Moral Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) pp 1-36

1. BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

1.1. Moral reflections on Christian living were not separated from general reflections about the mysteries of faith. Reflections about moral living were integrated in the summas(summaries of theology) written by theologians. The summa Theologiea of Thomas Aquinas is a prime example of how morality was part of the general reflection of the Church on the mysteries of the faith. Morality is not separated from the whole context of a persons journey toward union with God.

2. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

2.1. From 1545-1563, the Council of Trent was convened with the purpose of defining Catholic dogma and reforming the Church. This was in response to the Protestant Reformation which placed into question a number of Catholic teachings and practices. 2.2. In response to Protestant criticism of the teaching and practice of confession, Trent gave attention to defining the teaching on confession and ensuring that the sacrament would be properly administered by competent confessors.

2.3. Since 1215, when the Lateran Council instituted the annual obligation to go to confession, the practice of confession had been hindered by many problems: 2.3.1. Inadequate education of priests to properly hear confessions 2.3.2. Confusion over what constitutes a sin, whether the decree meant all mortal sins or did it include also venial sins 2.3.3. Inadequate literature to help confessors in addressing penitents sins. 2.3.4. Confessors who were incompetent or over-zealous (or both) made going to confession a form of torture of the conscience. 2.4. The sad situation of confessions after the Fourth Lateran Council led Martin Luther to accuse the Church of both laxity in penance and oppressive rigidity in the hearing of confession. 2.5. The Council of Trent reasserted the rule of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) requiring a person to confess all mortal sins in kind and number at least a year.

3. THE EMERGENCE OF MORAL THEOLOGY AS A DISCIPLINE

3.1. The Council in order to clarify the distinction between Protestant teaching and Catholic doctrine and to make sure that Catholic doctrine would be clearly and consistently taught established the seminary system of forming priests. Before the advent of the seminary system, the formation of priests in theology took place in the Catholic universities. In the new seminary system, the previous problem of inadequate and inconsistent training of priests was addressed by having a standard course of studies for priests.

3.2. Due to the requirement of annual confession, the discipline of moral theology was given a distinct place in the seminary program because of the need to train good confessors. 3.3. Moral theology in the new seminary system trained future confessors to provide adequate and appropriate moral advice to penitents in order to form their consciences. Emphasis was also given to training students how to make precise determinations of sins in order to facilitate a good confession. Using a rigorous case study methodology, future confessors and moral theologians were trained in the art of solving cases of conscience, and 3.4. A practical task of every confessor was to determine if a penitent had sinned or not. Because of this, an important part of the training of priests in moral theology was the identifications of sins, their type, and their gravity. Moral theology was thus sin-oriented in its inception because it was geared toward forming confessors.

4. THE EMERGE OF MANUALIST MORAL THEOLOGY

4.1. Beginning in the 17th century, manuals of moral theology were written by moral theologians to serve both as textbooks in the seminary program and as handbooks for confessors. Because these manuals were meant to help priests in the determination of sins, the manuals were minimalist in their treatment of moral actions. They tried to determine within the limits established by laws or principles what was permitted or forbidden. 4.2. The challenge to the moral life that was presented by the manuals was the issue of finding the appropriate law for every moral situation and assessing its binding force in the circumstances. The questions asked in the morality of the manuals are: What am I

doing? Is it allowed? How far can I go? Such an attitude toward morality gave the impression that the essence of the moral life is living within the limits of the law and nothing more. 4.3. With the task of forming confessors assigned to it, the moral theology developed into an independent and self-sufficient discipline. The seminary system of teaching different areas of theology in separate courses led to the separation of theology form scripture, dogma, and spirituality. 4.4. Since the determination of what was sinful or not was dependent on knowledge of the law (natural, divine, ecclesiastical, and civil) moral theology developed a legalistic tendency. This legalistic tendency placed obedience to law as a primary concern of moral theology while other elements of the moral life were neglected such as formation of character and the pursuit of perfection. The minimalist view of the moral life became concerned with avoiding evil and less about achieving holiness and perfection. 4.5. The legalistic tendencies led to a reliance on a system of abstract moral principles that can be applied deductively and provide clear conclusions. 4.6. Moral Theology at the eve of Vatican II was the moral theology of the manuals which was individualistic, act-centered, lawcentered, act-centered, and sin-centered.

V. THE RENEWAL OF MORAL THEOLOGY

(SESSION 6) 11/19/12 Gula, Reason Informed by Faith, Ch. 1

1. SHIFTS IN MORAL THEOLOGY AFTER VATICAN II

Before Vatican II, moral theology and morality in general had been focused on actions, in particular sinful actions how to identify them, how to differentiate them, and how to avoid them. Morality in general was legalistic, minimalist, sin-oriented, and focused on the avoidance of evil. Just before Vatican II some moralists have begun to question the way moral theology has been taught in the seminary and practiced in pastoral settings. There has been too much emphasis on avoiding evil and less attention to doing good. The task of striving for perfection had been relegated to spirituality which had developed in the Church independent from moral theology. There was a perceived need to refocus moral theology from a sin-oriented discipline to a discipline that directs persons to discipleship in Christ. The renewal of moral theology begun in Vatican II gave greater importance to character formation what kind of person we ought to be. What actions ought we do or do become dependent now on what kind of person we are striving to become. 1.1. A shift in focus 1.1.1. Before Vat II: act-oriented, sin-conscious, law-oriented, individualistic

1.1.2. Renewal after Vat II: focus on discipleship in Christ, an ethics of being rather than doing, morality was not merely avoiding sin and doing what the law minimally required but rather it is a lived response to Gods offer of love in Jesus Christ. Following Jesus involves seeking perfection and holiness to the best of ones abilities. The direction of ones life becomes more primary rather than individual actions. 1.1.3. Primary question of MT is What kind of person am I becoming? not What am I doing? formation of character and virtue were given more attention than before. 1.1.4. Pioneers in this renewal (pre Vatican II): 1.1.4.1. The Primacy of Charity in Moral Theology (1937) by Gerard Guilleman placed love as the center of the moral life 1.1.4.2. The Master Calls (1960) by Fritz Tillman stressed morality as imitation of Christ 1.1.4.3. The law of Christ (1954) by Bernard Haring contributed most to the spirit of renewal; retained the interests of manualism but returned morality to scripture sources and integrated MT to the mysteries of the faith and spirituality 1.1.5. Renewal of theology focuses now on the total human vocation of living in response to Gods self-communication in creation, in history, and in Jesus. 1.1.6. Values are primary; laws are secondary. 1.1.7. Gives attention to promoting positive human relationships as integral to full human and Christian development more socially conscious than the individualistic focus of the manuals.

1.2. A shift in worldview 1.2.1. Shift from classicist worldview to historicist worldview 1.2.2. Classicist view sees world as finished product; Gods intention for his creation is already inscribed in nature and we only need to use our reason to grasp the order God had placed in nature in order to find moral norms and live moral lives according Gods plan. Gods order in nature is unchanging and eternal, valid forever and everywhere. Resistant to change in moral teaching. 1.2.3. Historicist view sees each thing in nature as part of a whole that continues to reveal itself gradually in history. It is open to development in oral teaching. It does not make absolute claims. Change, development, and revision are not seen as imperfections. Development of moral teaching is seen as essential to the on-going search for moral truth. 1.2.4. Contemporary MT tries to keep the continuity of moral tradition and the importance of objective moral norms while seeking to consider the discontinuities of human experience. Contemporary MT seeks to avoid absolutism and relativism. 1.3. A shift in method 1.3.1. Deductive approach applying general abstract principles to concrete situations. Presumes that we can grasp human nature and human good in a clear and precise way. Little attention given to historical development and complexities of human experience 1.3.2. Inductive approach takes seriously the context and diversity of human experience. It pays attention to the

circumstances of a situation. Makes modest claims and not make absolute conclusions.

2. MARK 10: 17-21

2.1. There is an invitation from Christ to follow him and not simply to follow rules. 2.2. It was not merely the possessions of the young man that kept him from responding to Jesus invitation to be one of the disciples but it was a weakness of his character that prevented him from embracing the poverty and way of life on Jesus 2.3. Character formation is crucial in order for a person to transcend the minimalism of rules and seek greater perfection. Rules will help us avoid evil but character formation will enable us to persevere to do what is the greater good. We are called to do both, avoid evil and seek to good what is good. 2.4. Moral theology as a whole, therefore, seeks to relate Christian faith to the realities of living in the world. It asks: What sort of persons ought we be, and what sort of actions ought we perform because we are believers in Christ and we seek to be his disciples?

C. SOURCES OF MORAL THEOLOGY I. SCRIPTURE

(SESSION 7) 11/19/12 Handout: J. Philip Wogaman, Christian ethics (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993) pp. 3-15 Gula, Ch 12, 165-172 Examples of proof text arguments

1. WOGAMAN ARTICLE: THE BIBLE AS A SOURCE OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS: SOME IMPORTANT POINTS TO REMEMBER
The Bible took more than a thousand years to take shape Different parts of the Bible were written in different periods of history, in different social settings, using different literary genres there is much diversity within the Bible as a text The Bible does not have one theology; it has theologies. It does not have one ethical perspective; it has a variety of ethical perspectives For the Bible to be a source for Christian ethical we cannot simply impose a single interpretation of its ethical content, it would be more helpful to look at the Bible as a legacy with certain points of tension from which ethics can draw insights.

There are six biblical points of tension relevant to Christian ethics.

BIBLICAL POINTS OF TENSION:

1.1. Revelation versus Reason 1.1.1. What is the basis for the moral claims of the Bible? 1.1.2. ON one hand, the bible makes claims for special revelation special knowledge given to persons of faith (e.g. ten commandments given to Moses; revelations given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.; commands from God proclaimed by the prophets; God speaking to Zachariah, Mary, Joseph, etc.: Pauls conversion experience) 1.1.3. Apart from claims based on revelation, the bible also makes moral claims based on reason that is accessible to all persons (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job are more philosophical in addressing universal human situations; Paul appealed to reason when addressing the Gentiles. 1.1.4. To use the bible as a source of ethics one must make prudent choices whether to appeal to revelation or reason, depending on the person or persons one is addressing. One can appeal to the ten commandments when speaking to Christians and non-Christians. 1.2. Materialism versus in the Spirit 1.2.1. Bible is materialistic in the sense that it recognizes Gods presence in the material world, as creator and Lord. It sees creation as good; physical activities are blessed by God material prosperity is seen as a blessing and loss of land and other possessions is seen as a disaster. In the New Testament,

the incarnations of Christ further deepens the sense of Gods presence and activity in the physical realm. Christ used physical things and activities to symbolized Gods love and presence bread, wine, water, touching, breaking of the bread, carrying the cross, dying, etc. 1.2.2. However, biblical materialism does not value the material world as an end in itself. To make material objects the center of ones life and activity leads to sin. The sin of idolatry replaces God with a material object. References in the NT about a life in the spirit that prevents an inordinate emphasis on material things. 1.2.3. In the bible there is a tension between a strong affirmation of the goodness of creation and physical existence and an assertion of spiritual values that transcend the material. 1.2.4. We need to be careful in ethics not to over-emphasize materialism to the point of losing goodness and reality of our physical human existence. 1.3. Universalism versus Group Identity 1.3.1. The question here is whether ones ultimate significance is established by membership in a chosen or redeemed community (Israel or the church) or by being created and love by the God of all people. 1.3.2. This tension is seen in the OT, especially in Israels understanding of its relationship with other nations. One hand Israel is a chosen people but has a responsibility to a light to all to the Israelites to redefine themselves not as a nation as individuals personally responsible to God, Universality is expressed here as individualism.

1.3.3. In the NT, the tension between group identity and universalism appears in Pauls struggle with the Judaizers, who wished to impose Jewish practices on new converts. This issue was tackled in the Council of Jerusalem. Another issue: if a Christian is not required to be a Jew, does Christianity create a new group identity of its own and how is this identity to be interpreted. 1.3.4. The God of the NT is clearly universal, breaking down the walls of division. Although there is a Christian identity has replaced the former Jewish identity of the community there is a strong evangelical and missionary theme that the gospel must be proclaimed to all the people. Christians were not meant to separate from the rest of society; there is a strong movement toward dialogue with other cultures. 1.4. Grace versus Law 1.4.1. In both OT and NT, there is a rich tradition of moral law, where ones righteousness and blessedness are determined by external observance of the Law. There is a counterpoint image of Gods grace which rescues the sinner who has failed to fulfill the law. Images of Gods mercy for the sinner (as an individual or as a nation) are found in Genesis, Exodus, Hosea, and Jeremiah. 1.4.2. The redeeming love of God permeates the NT, especially in the parables of Jesus and the letters of Paul it is a love portrayed as being undeserved and given as gift; one is treated as innocent even if one is in fact guilty. 1.4.3. The biblical emphasis on unmerited love is in tension with the portrayal of Gods demands and judgments upon the

unrighteous. Our ethics need to do justice to both sides of the tension. 1.5. Love versus Force 1.5.1. Love is central to the ethics of the NT and OT but there is also the question about the permissiveness of the use of force to attain political goals. In the OT, the use of force by Israel is more prominent, since it saw itself as a political community and a nation that is at times in conflict with other nations. In the NT, Israel finds itself as an occupied land, subjects of a bigger empire. But even the use of coercion by the state if it is under Gods mandate. 1.5.2. It would seem that political authority is part of the divine scheme of things in the bible; but there is also a critique of the abuses of the use of power. While the bible uses military imagery it also appeals to love of enemy. 1.5.3. The real contrast in the biblical narrative is between reliance upon state power and trust in God and obedience to the ways of peace and love. 1.6. Status versus Equality 1.6.1. On one hand, there is a theme in scripture that interpret material wealth and high status as signs of Gods favor while at the same time there are many texts in scripture that criticize the rich and mighty, especially if they are perceived as oppressive to the poor. 1.6.2. Rich persons have been portrayed favorably (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob an Joseph, Joseph of Arimathea) or at least were criticized for their wealth. The loss of possessions by Job was portrayed as a sign of Gods disfavor. There is also a strong

emphasis on helping the poor and giving justice to the oppressed and a warning against the danger of wealth. 1.6.3. There is both an acceptance and criticism of inequalities in society.

2. GULA CHAPTER 12
The bible has always been the starting point of Christian ethics. Scripture, as the revealed Word of God, must exercise a normative sacred claim on individual Christians and the whole Christian community However, this claim is grounded in the tradition of the community, and must also be in essential harmony with reason and human nature

2.1. Pre-critical approach to scripture in MT 2.1.1. Before the renewal of MT and the adoption of critical approaches to biblical text, moral theology did not integrate biblical material in its moral reasoning. 2.1.2. It only used scripture as proof as supplementary evidence to support conclusions reached through natural law reasoning. 2.1.3. Passages are taken out of their context, i.e., from the whole meaning of the text and from the historical context of the text.

2.2. Critical approach to Scripture to MT (Four tasks of the theologian to relate the scriptures with MT in critical fashion 2.2.1. Exegetical task determining the meaning of the text in its original context. What the text means then has a controlling influence to what it means now. 2.2.1.1. One needs to understand the historical circumstances surrounding the text, the presuppositions of the author and his audience, the socio-economic and intellectual environment, the language, the literary structure, etc. 2.2.2. Hermeneutical task determining the meaning of the text for today 2.2.2.1. As we seek to understand the context of the bible during its time we are to be crucially aware of the presuppositions and historical context that we bring in as we try to interpret the bible text. We should remain aware that as the bible shapes our presuppositions, our presuppositions also shape our interpretations of the bible. 2.2.3. Methodological task we need to determine the use of scripture for various levels of moral reflection. We can use scripture as a revealed morality or as a revealed reality. 2.2.3.1. As Reveal morality: we allow bible to determine the specific content of our moral judgment. To allow scripture to be a prescriptive authoritative guide for our judgments and behavior. E.g., Commandments, beatitudes, radical saying, etc.

2.2.3.2. As revealed reality: We regard the bible as the record of the relationship of God and human persons and we regard the moral life as the believing persons response to Gods invitation to enter into a relationship with him. Scripture as revealed reality informs but does not determine the specific content of our moral judgments. 2.2.3.2.1. E,g. use of images of Gods Kingdom (mustard seed, grain of wheat) 2.2.3.2.2. Parables of mercy (Good Samaritan Lost Coin) 2.2.3.3. Using Scriptures as revealed reality and revealed morality allows moral theology to draw from the richness of Scripture to formulate moral norms and direct the formation of our Christian character. 2.2.4. Theological task to determine ways to combine the bible with other sources of moral wisdom natural law, experience, church tradition, magisterium. 2.2.4.1. MT takes the middle way between proof texting and using scripture as the only source of morality. 2.2.4.2. Scripture is a foundational source of moral wisdom but is not the only source. 2.3. On reading Scriptures1 2.3.1. Do I have to be a theologian in order to understand scriptures properly? How do I read the vengeful/punishing/difficult passages in scripture? How will I know if I am interpreting scripture correctly?

The Good Goats by Dennis, Sheila, and Matthew Linn

2.3.1.1. One way to test if we are properly interpreting a passage of scripture (or a private revelation such as those given in Fatima or Medjugorje) is to judge the interpretation by its fruits. Ask the following questions: 2.3.1.1.1. Does my interpretation of this passage lead to acts that reflect the merciful and compassionate love of Christ? 2.3.1.1.2. Does it help me imitate Christ more authentically? 2.3.1.1.3. Does my interpretation of this passage lead to my growth as a person loved by God? 2.3.1.1.4. Does my interpretation of this passage lead to love of my neighbor in the way of Christ? 2.3.1.1.5. Does my interpretation of this passage lead to greater communion and less division in Gods family? 2.3.1.2. If the answers to these questions is Yes then you are interpreting the passage properly, If the answer is No or you have doubts, then you need change your interpretation and do some research or consult an expert. 2.4. Samples Mark 9:43 (Cut your hand), Matthew 5:39 (Whoever slap you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also), and Luke 14:26 (and does not hate his own father and mother cannot be my disciple)

II. NATURAL LAW

(SESSION 8) 11/22/12 Handout: Charles Curran, Catholic Social and Sexual Teaching: a Methodological Comparison, Theology Today Vol. 4 No. 4 Jan 1988 pp.425-440\ Gula, Chapter 16: 2.1. Natural Law 2.1.1. The natural law approach to ethics has the fundamental belief that God created and ordered universe with a specific purpose 2.1.2. God created human beings with enough intelligence so that they can use their reason to observe the natural world and make reliable judgments about Gods purposes and how human behavior may cooperate with Gods plans. 2.1.3. There is an objective moral order that is accessible to all who use their reason. 2.2. Contribution of natural law to Catholic morality 2.2.1. Natural law claims the existence of an objective moral order. Natural law theory is a good resource to fight against ethical relativism which rejects the existence of an objective moral order. 2.2.2. Natural Law morality is accessible to anyone independently of ones religion. Since human reason can grasp the order God has planned in nature, catholic tradition can argue for the morality of particular actions without having to appeal to religious insight or

motivation. This allows the Church to participate in ethical discussions with non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-religious persons. 2.2.3. The knowledge of the natural law can be universalized. The natural law allows the Church to appeal to all people of goodwill and rally support worldwide for certain moral issues. 2.3. There are two strands of interpretation in the natural law tradition: 2.3.1. The order of nature: Focuses on the physical and biological structures given in nature as the source of morality. The order of nature interpretation of natural law suggest a blueprint or makers instructions theory of natural law. It takes a physicalist approach to the formulation of moral teachings. It makes the order of nature correspond to the law of God. This interpretation has dominated Catholic moral tradition in sexual and medical matters pertaining to reproduction. 2.3.2. The order of reason: focused on the human capacity to discover in experience what befits human well-being. In the order of reason, nature includes the total complexity of human reality taken in all its relationships and with all its potentials. Nature is constantly changing; it continues to make new demands on us. As a result, change, revision and development would be constitutive of natural moral law. What pertains to nature is accessible to all and provides the potential with which human creativity can achieve human wholeness. It takes a personalist approach to formulating moral

teachings. The order of reason approach is more visible in Catholic social teaching.

2.4. Physicalist and personalist Paradigms 2.4.1. There are two different paradigms that are in tension in contemporary moral theology. Each of these paradigms represents a way at looking at the world, at nature, and the human person and they shape the way we evaluate and judge moral issues. 2.5. Physicalist Paradigm (Corresponds to order of nature approach to natural law) 2.5.1. Dominated moral theology for several centuries 2.5.2. Looks at human nature and moral action primarily from a point of view that sees the world and human nature as fundamentally unchanging, static, and with clearly drawn lines of right and wrong in a given situation 2.5.3. It corresponds to the classicist world view which sees the world as a finished product with nothing new to be added. If you look at the world hard enough you will be able to discern the essence of things, which are eternal and unchanging regardless if situation. This paradigm asserts that you only have to perceive the essences of things and live your life according to the order that is already there in the world. The moral order is unchanging and applicable to all persons, in all situations, at all times. 2.5.4. Regarding the human person, this paradigm places a great accent on the abstract nature of the human person and states that

the human person should always follow his/her human nature, which is the same for all. 2.5.5. Any action that goes against the purpose of this abstract human nature is considered against nature and thus immoral, regardless of intention and circumstance. 2.5.6. The morality of human nature and moral norms of this paradigms is grounded in what is perceived as the structure of nature. 2.5.7. In the human person these structures of nature are expressesed in terms of faculties of the person (reproduction, speech, hearing) and individual acts that should conform to the proper use of these faculties 2.5.8. Strength of paradigm: it recognizes the givenness of human nature as the whole of human nature, that the fixed character of human nature is no longer open to human creative development. It excludes the totality of the person and his/her relational context from the process of making a moral assessment.

III. EXPERIENCE
(SESSION 9) 11/29/12 Handout: John T. Noonan, Jr., Experience and the Development of Moral Doctrine, in CTSA Proceedings 54, 43-56. John T. Noonan, Jr., Development in Moral Doctrine, Theological Studies 54 (1993), 676-677.

Developments in doctrine are not random changes in church teaching or relativism. Doctrinal development is growth in the Church's insight into Christ; we grow in understanding what it means to imitate Christ in our life as a Church. The consistency we seek in our doctrines is not a consistency of formulas or verbal expressions. The consistency that we seek to maintain its consistency with Christ we follow where Christ leads us toward greater understanding of our humanity, of our relationship with others, with our relationship with God. There is nothing to fear if we trust that the Spirit of Christ guides the Church. Is change good? Yes, if the principle of change is Christ.

EXAMPLES OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE CHURCHS MORAL THEOLOGY USURY

The Church forbade the taking of interest for capital loans until 1830. The taking of interest was equated with the grave sin of usury. In the Old Testament, `usury' consisted in demanding a profit on the loan of a loaf of bread or a sack of wheat. Such a practice was an exploitation of the poor and was condemned. The Old Testament did allow landowners to demand a regular income from tenants who cultivated the land. A loaf of bread is not fertile. A piece of land is fertile. From the loan of land one may demand a share of the profit. The productivity of the object of the loan determined whether it was usurious or not to charge interest on the loan. The emergence of modern banking in middle Ages changed the perception of money from being infertile to fertile and helped change the mind of the Church on the charging of interest on loans. Taking reasonable interest for a capital loan became acceptable and was deemed consistent with Christian justice. Usury was redefined to refer to the charging of exorbitant and exploitative interest on loans. The Church now teaches that interest on loans is acceptable as long as the interest rate is not excessive.

SLAVERY
Since the time of the early Church, slavery had been accepted as a legitimate practice. The acceptance of slavery for centuries was

supported by scriptural texts and common practice in Europe and its colonies. Although many Popes did condemned the excesses of the international slave trade, the official Magisterium of the Church endorsed the legitimacy of slavery as late as the end of the 19th century. The Holy Office in Rome still declared on 20 June 1866: "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given". Only after many countries in the world have begun to stop the practice of slavery and with the gradual recognition of the equal dignity and rights of all persons in the 19th century did the Church turned away from supporting slavery. In 1888, Pope Leo III condemns slavery and supports the anti-slavery movement. In 1918, The new Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedictus XV condemns `selling any person as a slave'. (There is no condemnation of `owning' slaves, however). In 1965, The Second Vatican Council defends basic human rights and denounces all violations of human integrity, including slavery (GaudiumetSpes, no 27, 29, 67).

HOW DO TEACHINGS DEVELOP?

In the two examples of usury and slavery, the experiences of those most affected by the old rules (the merchants who needed to borrow money and the persons treated as slaves) had to be recognized as worthy of serious consideration by the Magisterium. In the case of usury, what helped were theologians who assisted businessmen to formulate morally acceptable business transactions until the Church changed its rules on usury In the case of slavery, what helped were laity and church people who actively pushed for the end of slavery.

HOW CAN WE PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHINGS?

1. Two levels of experiences: 1.1. The experience of those affected by the rules 1.2. The experience of those who make the rules 2. We need to make the rulemakers understand the experience of those affected by the rules. The experience of the affected should be translated to the experience of the rulemakers. Speak for those who are in the margins of society; make their experience significant to the community. Try to discern what changes would lead to a closer imitation of Christ and relay these to those who make the rules. 3. By fostering empathy among the rulemakers for those who are affected can we help initiate development in moral teachings. 4. For the rulemakers: Do not dismiss the experiences of those who cannot follow the rules. Place yourself. in their shoes and understand why their experience and difficulties.

CONSIDER THE EXAMPLES OF GREAT MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTING TO THE GROWTH OF THE CHURCH BY CHALLENGING CURRENT NORMS STRUCTURES AND PRACTICES:
St. Paul (salvation for the Gentiles) Francis of Assisi (poverty) Ignatius of Loyola (spirituality) Teresa of Avila (reform of the Carmelite order) Bartolome de las Casas (rights of indigenous peoples) Dorothy Day (pacifism) John Courtney Murray (religious freedom)

IV. MAGISTERIUM/TRADITION
(SESSION 10) 11/29/12 Handout: Interpretating Magisterial Documents Case studies Gula, Chapter 11, 14

1. THE MAGISTERIUM
1.1. In the Catholic tradition, the magisterium is the Church's institutionalized teaching authority on matters of faith and morals. 1.2. Presently, the magisterium is also used to refer to the hierarchy (pope and bishops) and their exercise of official teaching authority in the church. 1.3. The primary responsibility of the magisterium is to affirm, protect, and, promote the apostolic faith and enable all members of the Church to assimilate the values of our Christian tradition so that these values may be lived out creatively in the present. 1.4. The magisterium has a different role in bearing the moral tradition than that of lay persons and theologians and pastors. While other members of the Church can repeat the official teaching of the Church, only the magisterium can designate a certain teaching of the Church as "the official teaching." Only the popes and bishops can speak for the Church. Only they can designate certain interpretations of the apostolic faith as the official interpretations of the Church to guide pastoral practice.

2. RELIGIONS ASSENT
A Catholic is required to give religious assent, to the teaching of the magisterium (LG 25). Religious assent means a submission of the will and the mind to the authentic teaching authority of the pope. What does this mean? 2.1. A Catholic must make a serious effort to come to an intellectual agreement that a teaching taught by the magisterium is the truth. 2.2. One should strive to personally appropriate the teaching and live by it. 2.3. The basis for this submission is a religious reason Jesus has commissioned the Church to be a moral guide for the faithful and that the Holy Spirit assists it in discerning moral truth 2.4. One must ,avoid two extremes: 2.4.1. to automatically consider the magisterium as always right without any critical reflection. 2.4.2. to consider the teaching of the magisterium as only as good as its arguments or treating the magisterium as just one theological opinion among others. 2.5. Middle ground: one maintains an initial presumption in favor of the magisterium while remaining open to setting aside this presumption if serious evidence warrants it in a conflict situation. 2.6. The magisterium is a primary factor in the discernment and decision making of the conscience but there may be (cases when it may not be the ultimate decisive factor. we must use prudence, in determining whether the presumption in favor of the magisterium prevails in a situation of conflict of values. 2.7. The primacy of conscience continues to be affirmed.

3. A PRUDENT APPROACH TO MAGISTERIAL TEACHINGS

3.1. Magisterial statements do not have equal weight and authority. 3.2. Not every statement is meant for universal application. 3.3. One must carefully consider the nature of the statement before interpreting and applying it. 3.4. Do not immediately accept or react to reports from media outlets about church statements - they can be prone to sensationalism, misquotation, and misinformation. Choose reliable media sources(those that have a track record of balanced well-researched reports and not prone to sensationalism or errors). It is important to refer to the original document or source. How to evaluate the authority and scope of a church statement What kind of teaching is it? o If it is a universal teaching document like an encyclical give it the highest authority and assent. o If the statement is meant only for a particular audience or situation like in a homily, interview, or speech you do not give it general application unless otherwise specified. Who is speaking? To whom? o If the pope or a Vatican congregation (e.g., CDF) speaks to the Universal Church give religious assent. o If the CBCP speaks to the Philippine Church give religious assent but recognize that bishops in a different country may have a different position.

o If a bishop speaks to his local diocese - give religious assort if you belong to their jurisdiction. Other dioceses may adopt different interpretations and applications. o A single bishop can give general exhortations to the faithful but he can only make specific interpretation and application of church teaching in his jurisdiction. Some church policies may vary from diocese to diocese. o A priest can only interpret church teaching in accordance with his bishop within the bishop's jurisdiction. Policies may also vary from parish to parish. o When in doubt, ask several experts.

4. CHURCH TEACHING IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM AND THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE IN THE INTERNAL FORUM (REFERENCE: PASTORAL TRAINING FOR RESPONDING TO HIV-AIDS - REV. ROBERT J. VITILLO CARITAS INTERNATIONALIS)
The Church's pastoral approach operates on two levels. The external forum is to convey the Church's traditional teaching and values and to educate everyone generally. But there are very concrete or specific circumstances where the general norms no not easily apply. This is when the church helps the individual to understand the teaching and form their conscience properly so that they can apply the Church's teaching in their unique concrete situation. This process is unique to the individual involved, should be firmly based on Church teaching, and is not intended for public or generalized application of situations faced by other persons. Thus this unique

decision remains internal -- it is not meant for others, it is not meant to be publicized. Example: External forum teaching general prohibition on contraception, NFP only for married couples. Internal Forum application to a concrete case husband in prison, irregular conjugal visits, poverty, need to preserve marriage, cannot afford to have children at the moment. Can they use a condom if conjugal visit falls on the wife's fertile period? External forum teaching civilly married Catholic couples should refrain from receiving communion until they regularize their marriage. Internal forum application to a concrete case godparent at a wedding -- possibility of social embarrassment - can she receive communion?

5. RESPONSIBLE DISSENT
Dissent pertains to a critical disagreement with some aspect of a moral teaching, such as the accuracy and completeness of the evidence marshaled to make lip the teaching, or the cogency of the argument made to support the teaching, or the formulation of the moral position based on the evidence or argument. Properly understood and exercised, dissent is an indispensable part of the learning-teaching process of the church involved in public discourse on moral issues. (Gula, p.207) 5.1. Responsible dissent distinguishes between the degrees of authority of different teachings. 5.1.1. Important distinction:

5.1.1.1. Teachings which deal with the core of faith and are proposed definitely as non-reformable matter of divine revelation; 5.1.1.2. Teachings which are more removed from the core of faith, and are proposed authoritatively but are reformable (non-infallible). 5.1.2. Dissent from teachings which express the core of faith places one outside of the communion of the Church. Responsible dissent from non-infallible, reformable teaching is part of the normal process of developing moral teachings. 5.1.3. Not all non-infallible moral teachings have the same weight with regard to dissent. General moral principles have more weight than concrete moral applications to specific cases. Concrete applications of general principles are open to many variations and may depend on the pastoral circumstances. One can disagree over specific applications but agree with the Church on general principles. We must distinguish general principles from specific applications. 5.1.4. The weight of a teaching is relative to the kind of document in which it appears and to the level of magisterial source from which it comes. The greater the degree of authority, the, stronger the presumption of truth which it carries, and the more serious the reasons one needs to dissent. 5.2. Responsible dissent follows when the only remaining reason left for holding a position is that it is being taught by the magisterium, though not adequately supported by convincing reasons. 5.2.1. The point of this criterion is that, after a duly competent person has examined the evidence and the arguments and found certain aspects of the teaching wanting, such a person would not be inclined to accept the teaching except for the fact that the magisterium holds it to be true

5.2.2. To apply this criterion, one must first take account of the episcopal and papal authority behind the teaching. One must recognize that the magisterial teaching has a higher status than just one more theological opinion among others. 5.2.3. If one were to express doubt about a magisterial teaching, this doubt must be supported by the opinion of a considerable number of experts in the field. This assures that the dissent is of simply based on the eccentricities of one person. 5.3. Responsible dissent is proportionate to the competence of the person make an assessment of the teaching at stake. 5.3.1. Need to distinguish between various levels of dissent: internal private public organized dissent. The further one moves from internal to public organized dissent the greater the competence require. 5.3.2. Internal dissent comes when someone, in spite of sincere efforts to give assent, is unable to accept the teaching. In internal dissent, the dissenter keeps his/her disagreement to himself. 5.3.3. Private dissent is an external expression of internal dissent to a very private audience. Greater competence is needed to move from internal dissent to overt expressions of private dissent. Internal and private dissents are fairly tolerated in the church. 5.3.4. Public dissent refers to open disagreement with official teaching. It is communicated publicly to the mass media, and through popular and professional journals. The crucial issue of public dissent is the manner of expressing it. 5.3.5. Organized scholarly dissent is different from organized popular dissent. In organized scholarly dissent, scholars may convene a professional conference in order to examine a teaching and to

propose a critical response to the magisterium for the purpose of further refining or possibly revising the teaching. This form of dissent continues to respect the special status of the magisterium. 5.3.6. Organized popular dissent is an effort to influence public opinion toward an alternative position. In its extreme form, organized popular dissent actively promotes its own judgments as an alternative pastoral norm which can replace the official teaching of the church. The danger here is that this form of dissent usurps the role of the official magisterium by setting up a rival magisterium. The magisterium cannot tolerate this form of dissent in the same way that it can tolerate other forms of dissent. 5.4. Guidelines for responsible dissent 5.4.1. Affirm the teaching authority of the Church 5.4.2. Be concerned about the means 5.4.2.1. Be aware of the danger of scandal (leading others to an occasion of sin or weakening of their faith) 5.4.2.2. Use prudent expressions of dissent 5.4.2.3. Show deference and respect toward the teaching authority of the Church even when in disagreement 5.4.3. Contribute toward the reformulation of the teaching 5.4.3.1. The aim of dissent is to convince the magisterium that the present formulation of the teaching is inadequate or erroneous 5.4.4. Count the cost 5.4.4.1. The one who dissents should be willing to pay the price which may come with the dissent

(SESSION 11) 12/03/12

Canon Law Confession and Penalties

Source: Code of Canon Law 1983 Canon Law on Confession 1. Discerning a grave sin In discerning a grave sin, it is good to consider the three traditional criteria from moral theology which must all be present: grave math, full knowledge, and full will. When one of the three is lacking, there is only a venial sin.

2. Obligation to confess (cc. 988, 989) The faithful are obliged to confess any grave sins at least once a year. They must confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism that they have not previously been confessed in individual confession In the terminology of the present code of canon law, sins are divided into grave and venial sins, not mortal and venial sins_

Note: venial sins can be forgiven by a personal act of contrition. 3. Individual Confession (c. 960) Individual and integral confession of sins and absolution is the only ordinary way by way a member of the Church, aware of grave sin, is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses a person from such confession; reconciliation can take place by another means.

4. Integral Confession (c. 988 1) A confession is integral when a person confesses all the sins that must be confessed, that is, all post-baptismal grave sins which have never been confessed. 5. Examples of physical and moral impossibility that excuses a person from confession Physical weakness because of illness Deafness Inability to speak language known to confessor Insufficient time Danger of death Inculpable ignorance or omission because the penitent had forgotten grave sins No confessor available that the penitent can go to without serious difficulty When sins to be confessed could cause grave harm, either spiritual or temporal, to the penitent, confessor, or to another person. Danger of serious sin on the part of the penitent Danger of violation of the seal of confession Danger of revealing an accomplice thereby causing damage to the person's reputation. Others may overhear the confession o Confessor talks too loud o Not enough time for very long confession and people might suspect something o Danger of catching an infectious disease o Penitent reasonably fears unjust treatment from confessor

o The confessor is a son or sibling of the penitent. 6. Minister of the Sacrament c. 965 c. 967 2 Priests who receive the faculty to hear confession in their diocese may legitimately hear confessions everywhere unless a local ordinary denies it in a particular case. c. 976 Even if he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, any priest validly and licitly hears the confession and absolves from any sins and censures one in danger of death. The danger of death does not have to be imminent-, it suffices, for example, that the penitent has a terminal illness or will undergo a dangerous operation, c. 986 2 Even those priests that have been suspended or transferred to the lay state are obliged to administer the sacrament of penance in danger of death. c. 991 The faithful are not bound to confess to a designated confessor. They are completely free to choose their confessor 7. Seal of Confession c. 983 1 The seal of confession is inviolable; it is an absolutely wrong for any priest in any way betray the penitent by word or in any manner for any reason. c. 1388 1 A confessor who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Holy See. An indirect violation would incur a just penalty.

c. 983 2 Every member of the faithful who has acquired knowledge of another's sins from the confessional in any way is bound to maintain the secret in the same way as the confessor. c. 1388 2 not excluding excommunication 8. Validity of Confession c. 987 himself to God, which means repudiating the sins committed and having purpose of amendment. Note: The very fact of approaching the sacrament implies sorrow for sins so the penitent is always presumed to be in good faith. Some Guiding Principles of Canon Law on Penalties If a law imposes a burden or penalty, it must be interpreted as narrowly as possible. A person is innocent until proven guilty. The salvation of souls must always be the supreme law. One is excused from the observance of any law which is deemed unjust, unreasonable, or inapplicable to one's own situation. When a law is difficult to follow, it does not apply. Ecclesia supplet (c. 144) In the interest of the common good of the Church and of the faithful, the canon supplies the necessary power to make a valid act e.g. a priest without proper faculty to absolve a penitent which would make the absolution valid, but in the interest of the person, "ecclesia supplet" applies. The spirit of the law will always have priority over the letter.

Censures These are penalties that deprive a stubbornly disobedient offender of various ecclesiastical goods such as the sacraments or church offices, until they stop being stubborn and are restored to full ecclesial communion. Types of censures: Excommunication, interdict, and suspension Two Features of Censures An excommunication, interdict or suspension can be either: o Ferendae sentenciae (declared): a penalty is not binding on the offender until it is imposed (c. 1314) o Latae sentenciae (automatic): a penalty is incurred automatically upon the commission of the offense when a law or precept expressly lays this down (c. 1314) Three Kinds of Censures Excommunication (c. 1331) - The excommunicated person is prohibited from: o Having any ministerial participation in the celebration of the Eucharist or other ceremonies of worship o Celebrating the sacraments or sacramentals and receiving sacraments o Exercising any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, functions, or placing acts of governance Interdict (c. 1332) - The person under interdict is prohibited from: o Having any ministerial participation in the celebration of the Eucharist or other ceremonies of worship

o Celebrating the sacraments or sacramentals and receiving sacraments Celebrating Suspension (1334, 2) - This penalty only affects clerics (deacons, priests, and bishops). The suspended cleric is prohibited from: o All acts of power of order (celebrating the sacraments) o All acts of power of governance o The exercise of all rights or functions connected with an office Automatic Excommunication 1. Apostasy, heresy, schism (c. 1364 1) 2. Violation of the sacred species (c. 1367) 3. Physical attack on the pope (c. 1370 1) 4. Absolution of an accomplice in a violation of a sixth commandment (c. 1378) 5. Unauthorized ordination of a bishop (c. 1382) 6. Direct violation by a confessor of the seal of confession (c. 1388) 7. Procuring an abortion ( 1398) Note: Remission of nn. 2-6 is reserved to the Apostolic See. Automatic Interdict 1. Physical attack on a bishop (c. 1370 2) 2. Pretended celebration of the Eucharist by a non-priest (c. 1378 2,10 3. Attempt to impart sacramental absolution or hear confession by one who cannot validly do so (c. 13782) 4. False accusation of the crime of solicitation in the confessional (c. 1390 2)

5. Attempted marriage, even civil by a religious in perpetual vows (non-priest) (c. 1394 2) Note:. The crimes in nn. 2 and 3 result in automatic suspension, rather than interdict, if the offender is a cleric. The crimes in nn. 1 and 4 result in automatic interdict and suspension if the offender is a cleric. Automatic suspension In addition to nn. 1 - 4 under automatic interdict (if committed by a cleric), the following also incur automatic suspension: o A cleric who attempts marriage, even civil (c. 1394 1) o A cleric who is ordained by a bishop who does not have legitimate dimissorial letters. The suspension affects only the order received illicitly, not a prior order received lawfully (c. 1383) Exceptions to Observance of Censures If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments and sacramentals or placing an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death. If it is an automatic censure that is not declared, the prohibition is suspended whenever the faithful request a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance. They may make this request for any just reason at all (c. 1335) If the penalty forbids the reception of the sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the person in question is in danger of death. The obligation of observing an automatic penalty which has not been declared, and is not notorious in the place where the offender is living, is suspended partially or

totally insofar as the offended is unable to observe it without the danger of grave scandal or infamy (c. 1352) Those exempted from all penalties Anyone under 16. Anyone inculpably ignorant of the law; also inadvertence to or error of the law. One who acts under physical force or in virtue of mere accident which either could not be foreseen or could not be prevented. One who violates the law out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity, or serious inconvenience, unless the offense is intrinsically evil or brings harm to souls. Those exempted from all penalties One who acts with due moderation in legitimate self defense or defense of another against an unjust aggressor. One lacking the use of reason. A person who without fault thought that any of the circumstances in nn. 4 or 5 were present (c. 1323) Those exempted from Automatic Penalties A person having only the imperfect use of reason. One lacking the use of reason due to drunkenness or similar mental disturbance which was culpable. Someone in a serious heat of passion, which nevertheless did not precede or impede all deliberations of the mind and consent of the will, provided the passion was not deliberately excited or fostered. Minors (under 18)

 Anyone who was forced, out of serious fear - even though only relatively serious - or out of necessity, or serious inconvenience, if the offense is intrinsically evil or brings harm to souls. One who for the sake of the legitimate protection of oneself or another acted against an unjust aggressor but did not observe due moderation. One who acted against another who gravely or unjustly provoked it. One who through error or culpability thought that any of the circumstances in no. 5 or 6 were present. One who without fault did not know that there was a penalty attached to the law or precept. One who acted without full imputability, provided it remained serious (c. 1324 1) Note: The exemption does not apply the ignorance is pretended, the drunkenness was willfully induced to commit the offense, or the passion was deliberately fostered. (c. 1325) Remission of automatic censures that have not been declared ( in cases of abortion, apostasy, heresy, schism, physical attack on a bishop, attempted marriage by a cleric or a religious with final vows) Ordinaries for their subjects and all local Ordinaries for their subjects and those in their territory or those who committed an offense there (c. 1355). All bishops in the act of sacramental confession. Canon penitentiary (or their equivalent) in the sacramental forum Chaplains in hospitals, prisons, and on ships on voyages (c. 566). Any priest, even without faculty, in case of danger of death of the penitent

 Any confessor, if remaining in a state of grave sin for the duration necessary for the competent authority to provide the remission would be hard on the penitent. (c. 1357) This applies only to automatic non-declared excommunication and interdicts, not suspensions. The penitent's censure is lifted and receives absolution but has the burden of recourse within a month to receive and obey any mandates of the competent authority, under pain of the reincidence of the penalty. The recourse is made by the confessor to the competent authority without mention of any names. Remission of automatic censures reserved to the Apostolic See (violation of the sacred species, physical attack on the pope, absolving an accomplice in violation of 6`h commandment, a bishop consecrating another bishop without mandate, and direct violation of the seal of confession.) Apostolic See through the Apostolic Nunciature Any confessor following the procedure on recourse, with the Apostolic see as the competent authority to which the recourse is made. Any priest, even without faculty, in case of danger of death of the penitent. Remission of Penalty of Abortion If the answer is yes to any of the following questions, then the crime of direct abortion was not committed and therefore there is no

excommunication. A grave sin may still need to be addressed but not a crime with a penalty. Was it only an attempted abortion that did not succeed, or was it indirect? If the penitent was an accomplice to the abortion, would the crime have been committed without the accomplice's action or advice? Was the penitent ignorant, through no fault of his or her own, that a penalty was attached to the law forbidding abortion? Was the penitent under eighteen at the time the crime was committed? Was there inadvertence to or error of the law? Was it accidental and not intentional? Did the penitent have an imperfect use of reason? Had the penitent acted put of serious fear, even if only relatively serious, or through necessity, or serious inconvenience? Did the penitent erroneously believe that the circumstances in n. 8 above were verified? Did the penitent erroneously believe that the abortion was done in self defense and therefore was justifiable. Did the person procure the abortion while lacking the use of reason due to drunkenness or another mental disturbance that was culpable but not deliberately induced to commit or excuse the offense? Was the abortion induced by a person in the serious heat of passion that was voluntarily excited or fostered?

D. THE HUMAN PERSON AS MORAL SUBJECT I. THE HUMAN PERSON

(SESSION 12) 12/10/12 Handout: Gula, ch 5 1. Since the renewal of MT in Vatican 11, there has been a shift in the way MT has considered the human being in the context of determining proper moral behavior. 1.1. Before Vat II, MT had used the physicalist and classicist approach to morality and thus it focused on human nature MT looked at the natural tendencies of common bodily structures and functions and then derived absolute moral norms. The moral absolutes of our Catholic sexual ethics were derived from this consideration of human nature. 1.1.1 E.g., artificial contraception, direct sterilization, same-sex relations, in vitro fertilization are seen as violations of natural human reproductive processes and functions and thus are forbidden. 1.2. After Vatican II, with the shift to a more personalist and historicist approach, MT gave more attention to the human person, in all his/her dimensions and historical development. There was an effort on the part of MT to adequately and comprehensively consider the human person. This shift from human nature to the human person allowed MT to determine what was moral based on what would truly lead to the full flourishing of the human person who is in history and in community. There are general moral norms that were held as applicable to all persons but there is also the

recognition that new knowledge about the human body, new developments in society and culture, and new ways of political and economic organization can lead to new ways to understand what it means to be fully human in the world. With this new approach of comprehensively considering the human person, new data about what it means to he human can lead to revisions of specific moral norms to better serve the development of human persons and human society. Much of the Church's social teachings have been shaped by this consideration of the human person. 1.2.1 E.g., the recognition of basic human rights after WWII contributed to the shifts in the Church's teaching on capital punishment and religious freedom. 2. Focus on human nature: 2.1. advantage underscores what is common to all 2.2. disadvantage does not express a person's fundamental originality 2.3. uses a deductive approach: general principles universal norms 3. Focus on human person 3.1. Captures the uniqueness of persons without neglecting universally recognized human values and moral obligations. 3.2. Uses an inductive approach considers the diversity and uniqueness of experiences of persons regarding what it means to be fully human

4. The human person is created in the image of God. 4.1. The assertion that the human person is created in the image of God affirms the sacredness and dignity of every person. The social teaching of the Church based its affirmation of the dignity of human person and the existence of human rights on this basic truth of the human person as being in the image of God. 4.2. God has so established a relationship with us that the human person cannot be properly understood apart from God. (This is a critique of ideologies that disregard the spiritual dimension of the human person and does not protect the freedom to worship) 4.3. God remains faithful to his relationship with us. Being in the image of God is irreversible. (No form of discrimination, abuse, or persecution cannot remove the inherent dignity of human persons) 4.4. We all share a common human condition that is directed toward a common destination, which is God (Insistence on solidarity, cooperation, and mutual respect for other even if they are from different races, religions, etc.) 4.5. Human dignity does not ultimately depend on human achievement. (The weak, the sick, the disabled, the poor, those in the margins of society deserve protection and respect as much as any human person affirms our objection to abortion, euthanasia, discrimination against minorities and the disabled) 4.6. If God is Triune and the relationship of the persons of the Trinity is marked by the giving and receiving of love, then there must also be a communitarian understanding of the person who is in the image of the Trinitarian God. A person cannot exist by himself/herself but is always in relation to others. A deeper participation in human community enhances the humanity of each

person while failure to establish community diminishes the humanity of all. (a critique of individualism, selfish competition, and other activities or attitudes that divide communities and diminishes the human communion and fellowship) 4.7. The self-giving that is integral in the life of the Trinity must also be integral in the life of a human person. There is a moral responsibility to share whatever gifts, talents, or possessions one has for the good of others. (There is an obligation to contribute to the common good and help those in need) 5. The human person as a relational being 5.1. Human existence does not precede relationship but is born out of and nurtured by relationships. To be a human person is to be directed toward others. We are communal by nature. We need to live in social groups with appropriate structures which sustain human dignity and the common good. 5.2. There is an obligation to continually assess our laws, moral norms, and structures of society whether they fully promote the common good and communal living. (The Church changed its view of slavery, capital punishment, and persecution of heretics. Previously these were seen as acceptable practices that help support and protect the good of the general society. New insights on what human dignity requires made these practices as unacceptable because they violate human dignity and do not promote the ultimate good of society. The issues of land reform, squatting, and inadequate housing for the poor pertain to how we see ourselves as a community and how serious we are to promote the good of all.)

6. The human person as an embodied subject 6.1. To say that a person is a subject is to say that the human person is a moral agent with a certain degree of autonomy and selfdetermination empowered to act according to his or her conscience, in freedom and in knowledge. This implies a respect for the sanctity of a person's a conscience and an obligation to form one's conscience. 6.2. To say that a person is a subject means to say that a person must never be used as an object or as a means to an end. Persons should be treated as ends in themselves. 6.3. To say that the human person is an embodied subject is to say that our human bodies are not simply accessories to our humanity but are essential to our identity and integrity as persons. We express ourselves as the image of God through our bodies. What concerns our bodies concerns the whole person; our bodies are essential to our humanity and how we relate as humans. (This calls for a deep respect for our bodies and a rejection of whatever attitude, activity, or procedures that degrades the human body or separates it from our humanity prostitution, sale of organs, pornography etc.) 6.4. Our embodiment reminds us that our bodies are subject to the laws of the material world and we must take these laws into consideration when we treat our bodies. We are not to intervene in our bodies in any way we want. We are obliged to protect and care for our bodies as an integral dimension of our humanity. Any improvements we seek for our bodies have implications on what kind of person we seek to become. We must be careful that

whatever manipulation or improvements to our bodies we undertake would not undermine or diminish our humanity and our respect for the humanity of others. 7. The human person as historical subject 7.1. This implies that we respect the developmental process of each person. We need to consider persons as persons on a journey of growth. 7.2. We should adequately consider the moral responsibilities of persons in proportion to their capacities at each stage of development. We need to evaluate the moral culpability of persons according to their stage of physical, mental, emotional and moral development. (This calls for leniency in judging children and adolescents regarding their moral culpability) 7.3. We should always remember that persons can change and therefore there is always a chance for conversion. People change gradually and need to be encouraged constantly toward the good. 7.4. Cultures can develop and change through time and therefore we must be careful about formulating absolute moral norms based on cultural factors. 8. Persons are fundamentally equal but uniquely original. 8.1. This means that as we seek to promote what is universally good for all, we must also allow for diversity in the expressions of what is morally good according to the unique culture and background of individuals. We seek equal respect for each person while at the same time we appreciate the creative differences that exist in the ways persons seek to be moral.

8.2. We need to be balanced in how we make moral norms, promoting what is common for all while at the same time taking into consideration cultural differences. We therefore need to be open to learning fromvarious traditionsand cultures to increase our knowledge about what it means to be truly human. 8.3. We must take into consideration the unique experiences of persons to inform our on-going moral reflections.

II. THE HUMAN BODY

(SESSION 13) 12/10/12 Handout:

James Keenan, Christian perspectives on the Human Body, Theological Studies 55 (1994) 300-346.

1. Just as Christians have struggles to understand the unity of Christ as fully human and divine, Christians have also struggled to understand themselves as fully one in body and the soul and in the body of Christ Practical significance: the challenge for Christianity to overcome dualism, fragmentation and division both in our anthropology and in our ecclesiology 1.1. Social teaching of the church has emphasized integral human development striving for the development of the whole person and every person. In its care for the whole person, the Church seeks to care for the needs of both the spiritual and the physical dimensions of the human person. Thus the Church does not only concern itself with sacramental ministry but also in seeking the promotion of the common good that would benefit the lives of every person just wages, equitable distribution of resources, protection of the environment, defense of human rights, promotion of full political representation and participation, adequate health care, education of the young, etc. reflected in the traditional works of charity of the Church orphanages, hospitals, shelter for the homeless, feeding the poor. 1.2. We need to avoid a negative view of the body as evil or less important than the soul. The body is constitutive of human identity.

Our resurrection is not just a resurrection of the immortal soul but is a resurrection of the whole embodied person. Our bodies are destined for heaven as all of creation. We should avoid teaching children to be ashamed of their bodies or to identify parts of the body as bad leads to a loss of personal integration. God created the person as good a unity of body and soul. 1.3. In acknowledging the integral unity of body and soul in the human person, we should also avoid making judgments on the moral or spiritual state of a person based on their physical state. Rejection of the view that diseases, disabilities, or deaths area result of divine punishment AIDS, cancer, miscarriages, accidents. 2. The Christian tradition has always insisted that the human body is not simply an object but it is always a person, a subject. The task of Christian tradition is to direct us away from any tendency to isolate or objectify the body 2.1. Manipulations of our bodies must always consider how it would affect what kind of persons we would become. We do not just have our body, we are our bodies. We cannot treat our body as if it is mere physical material which we could do whatever we want with it. What we do with our body affects our whole person. E.g. Manipulating our bodies without regard of how it affects the kind of persons we would become - pornography, prostitution, selling of organs, genetic engineering, cloning 2.2. Other extreme - Manipulating our bodies to make ourselves more acceptable to others (implying that physical attributes should significantly influence our treatment of others; support a kind of discrimination) forms of cosmetic surgery, idealization of certain

body types through advertising, promoting unhealthy body models to children. An overemphasis on the body as a determinant of the person's worth and dignity 3. In order to be a subject, the human body needs to express its voice. 3.1. Abusive treatment of the human person is often abetted by culture of silence which hides violence domestic violence, rape, child abuse liberating abused person requires giving them a voice to speak of their experience and their demand for justice and healing. The full respect for the personhood of the human subject must allow its voice to be heard and acknowledged. 3.2. Elaine Scurry on torture (The Human Body in Pain): The primary aim of the torturer is not to gain a confession or information but to make the tortured cry out in submission to the torturer. The object of torture is to cause so much pain that the tortured surrenders his/her voice to the torturer and acknowledge the torturers authority. The shame of capitulating to the torturers makes the tortured silent in shame and self-accusation. The hardest task of helping a torture victim to find healing and integration is top restore the voice, the voice of the subject who deserves respect and justice. 3.3. It is part of the ministry of the Church to speak for those who are unheard or voiceless because they are marginalized, persecuted or dehumanized by oppressive systems. Part of the restoration of dignity to oppressed peoples is to allow them to speak out and tell their stories illegal immigrants, abused women and children, mistreated workers, minority ethnic groups, discriminated persons. 4. The body provides access to the sacred

4.1. Catherine Walker Bynum (Holy Feasts and Holy Fasts) wrote about the experience of women mystics in the late middle ages who experience the suffering and redeeming body of Christ through their own bodies through fasting, ascetic practices, stigmata, mystical visions and unions. The body provided these women with access to the sacred which was denied to them by male control of the sacraments. 4.2. We can reflect on our own local religious practices where the human body provides a means to be united intimately with Christ crucifixion, flagellation, walking on our knees, way of the cross. 5. The gender specifications of Jesus do not accentuate his body's gender but rather demonstrates the full integration of the body of Christ. By his incarnation Christ redeemed all persons, men and women. 5.1. Leo Steinberg's research on medieval depictions of Christ how the medieval church had understood Christ humanity as a encompassing the fullness of humanity, integrating male and female qualities. 6. Our Christian tradition is extraordinarily physical 6.1. While Christianity shares with other religions the belief in God as Creator and in the goodness of the created world, Christianity is extraordinary in its confession of the Incarnation. Only in Christianity do we believe God became flesh. 6.2. Our central liturgy involves eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. 6.3. We define the Church as the body of Christ. 6.4. We believe in the resurrection of the body. 6.5. We have a devotion to relics of saints.

6.6. Christians highlight Christ's humanity in arts such as in Renaissance paintings: Madonna and Child, the Adoration of the Magi, and the Deposition from the Cross depict the flesh of Jesus. 6.7. Throughout the course of history, Christians have emphatically and consistently practiced the corporal works of mercy. 6.8. Our most heated arguments in moral theology involved the body, involving gender, sexuality, reproduction, the beginning and end of human life (See "Embodiment and Community as the Context for Sexual Ethics"). 6.9. Our recent studies about the human body have prompted theologians to rethink our sexual ethics in terms of the relationship between the body of Christ and the human body. They recognize the integrity of Christ's body as a call to overcome fragmentation, to affirm the body as subject, and to work to end strife within out members. 6.10. The body is the means of union with the divine and humanity, an avenue to loving union, sanctification, and holiness. Patricia Jung suggests a "sanctification of bodily needs." Walter Kasper: "The body is the whole human in relationship to God and humanity. It is the human's place of meeting with God and humanity. The body is the possibility and the reality of communication" (Jesus the Christ, p. 150). How do we respond to these statements? 1. Is the Church violating personal freedom and rights to one's body when it pressures governments to enact laws to ban or limit access to abortion?

2. Shouldn't the Church mind its own business and not interfere with what people do in the bedroom? What right do clerical celibates have anyway to tell people not to masturbate, or have premarital sex, or to engage in homosexual activity? Sex is a private matter and the Church should mind its own business. 3. The Church has put too much emphasis on sexual sins when there are graver and more destructive sin in the world such as poverty, war, corruption, discrimination, and global warming. 4. Isn't the Church an abuser of embodied subjects when it tolerates sexual abuse by its clergy, unjust wages for its workers, and corporal punishment in its schools? 5. Why is the Church resistant about sex education in public schools and insists that sex education should primarily by done by parents? Sex education is the last thing teenagers want to know from their parents and they will get distorted education about sex from friends and the media. Teenagers will have sex, with or without sex education, but it is better to provide them with a proper understanding of their bodies and the risks involved in irresponsible sexual activity.

III. FREEDOM AND KNOWLEDGE

(SESSION 14) 12/13/12 Handout: GulaChapter 6 A. Freedom CCC 1731: Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude. CCC1749: Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They we either good or evil

Freedom is an essential element for a person to act morally. Only acts that are performed with adequate freedom can be evaluated morally. In situations where a person's freedom has been diminished with regard to a particular action, the person's moral responsibility for the action is diminished (e.g., cases of alcoholism and drug addiction, physical and psychological factors, physical coercion, threat, and torture) In normal circumstances a person has two levels of freedom that are morally relevant:freedom of self-determination (base freedom) and freedom of choice (moral freedom)

1. Freedom of self-determination We acknowledge that human been have the freedom to determine themselves for the present and for the future, within the limits and possibilities available to them. We do not have absolute freedom because we are neither limited physical beings; neither are we completely determined by our limitations. We are neither gods nor animals. Our freedom is something in between infinity and zero. It is a freedom that acknowledges limits but also strives to go further whenever possible. One purpose of this freedom is to appropriate actively what happens to us into the persons we are now and the persons we can become. This freedom allows as to integrate the good and bad experiences of our lives in ordertobuild our character and enables us to be better and strongerpersons. We can strive to overcome certain obstacles to growth and become better persons. Examples whom this freedom to transcend obstacles is expressed: o We can resist temptations to sin o We can bear pain, transcend fear, and physical and psychological disabilities o We can choose to hope even when there is reason to despair o We can choose to love even if we do not receive anything in return o We can forgive enemies

2. Freedom of choice Freedom of choice is that level of human freedom where a person exercises his or her ability to choose among a number of options. It is in the exercise of this freedom that a person shapes who he or she wants to become through particular choices. The freedom of selfdetermination is expressed in the everyday through the exercise of freedom of choice. 3. Authentic freedom Authentic freedom is not about choosing whatever we want but it is about choosing the good that leads us to be the person we ought to be. It is freedom used responsibly, exercised within the context of one's community and directed toward truth and goodness It involves seeking to be free from the obstacles that hinder true self-becoming with others in community; it means striving to be liberated from the slavery of sin. It involves striving to be bee to grow as full persons and as children of God. B. Knowledge Just as adequate freedom is necessary for a person to act as a moral subject, adequate knowledge is also necessary for moral decision-making. Inadequate knowledge or false information can adversely affect a person's moral decisions. Moral responsibility for an act can be diminished if there is a lack of adequate knowledge for a person to make a proper moral decision.

 The moral life entails two kinds of knowledge: conceptual knowledge and evaluative knowledge 1. Conceptual Knowledge This knowledge of values, moral rules, and strategies on how to follow these rules. We use conceptual knowledge communicate values to others and make moral arguments. This kind of knowledge is symbolized by the head. This kind of knowledge is important and necessary for the moral life but it is not sufficient to evoke moral conversion and induce us to live virtuous lives. Conceptual knowledge of the rules of morality and the arguments behind the inter is not enough to ensure that a person would act according to the rules. It is necessary for a person to internalize the values inherent in a moral action in order that the person would freely choose to do such an action. Conceptual knowledge must be internalized as evaluative knowledge. 2. Evaluative Knowledge This is a kind of knowledge that touches the deepest part of the person. This knowledge is symbolized by the heart. It is a personal grasp of value. This is a felt knowledge that we experience through personal involvement and reflection. It cannot be passed easily through statements, formulas or rules. The best that one can hope for in passing on this kind of knowledge is to initiate or encourage similar

experiences of appreciation of values that could be experienced by others. 3. Moral Implication: When judging the morality of a human action we must ask if the actor had adequate freedom and knowledge when deciding to do the act. Diminished freedom or inadequate or wrong knowledge can lessen the culpability for an action. We must therefore avoid making hatch and quick judgments of actions before a complete moral evaluation We must avoid making final and absolute judgments of persons because we cannot grasp completely all the elements that shape a person's exercise of freedom and sense of values. We must always continue to believe that persons always have the possibility to grow in authentic freedom and evaluative knowledge. How do we respond to these statements? 1. Gambling addicts are the worst sinners. They squander away their families' resources and they do not care about the consequences of their actions. They can see how their families suffer and yet they keep going to the casinos and throw away money. They have been told what they are doing is wrong and harmful but they keep doing it. That is a sign that they are evil people. 2. We should have the death penalty reinstated because it is a deterrent to crime. If people know that a crime has a death penalty they will think twice before doing it.

3. It's dangerous to give young adults information about artificial birth control methods. They might try them It would be better we do not tell them about these methods and only talk to them about natural family planning. 4. Why do I keep falling for married men? My hand tells me it is wrong but my heart keeps telling me to continue in these relationships.

IV. CONSCIENCE
(SESSION 15) 01/08/13 Handout:

Gula 9-10 John Glaser, Conscience and Super-ego, Theological Studies 32 (1971) 30-47

1. The conscience is not the super-ego. 1.1. In the Freudian school of psychology, we have three structures to our personality the id, the ego and the super-ego. Sometimes the super-ego is confined with a person's conscience. 1.2. The super-ego is like a tape we have in our heads playing the dos and don'ts that we have learned from authority figures while we were growing up. The commands of the super-ego come from the process of absorbing the regulations and restrictions of those who are our sources of love and approval. A significant authority figure that is the person's source of love and approval is internalized as the voice of the super-ego. 1.3. The commands and prohibitions ofthe super-ego do as arise from any kind of perception ofthe intrinsic goodness or disvalue of the action being contemplated. We follow the commands of the super-ego for fear of losing love or out of the need to be accepted or approved. 1.4. The superego is basically a principle of self-censorship and controlthat uses super-ego guilt (based on the fear of losing the right to be loved) as a means to keep the person obedient to selfimposed rules.

1.5. Super-ego guilt and moral guilt. Super-ego guilt is introverted because it is concerned about the love that has lost and needs to regains. The mind Sink of a mature conscience, on the other band, is extroverted and is concerned about the welfare of otherswho have been hurt by one's actions and how one's offense has weakened or damaged mesa loving relationship with. God and others. 1.6. When a super-ego controlled person does something that his/her super-ego prohibits, the super-ego inducts a sense of panic in the person by making the person feel guilty that love would be withdrawn from him because of his/her action. The person feels insolated from the source of love and the super-ego will induce the person to correct the violation and regain the love it feels it has lost. The super-ego controlled person will seek to escape or remove his/her isolation in three ways: 1.6.1. There is the unconscious betrayal of gilt. While the person would consciously try to hide his violation, he would unconsciously seek to be discovered in order that punishment and the ensuing reconciliation and the restoration of love would take place. 1.6.2. The person would seek some form of indirect punishment. The original misdeed remains undetected and unpunished, so the person commits another misdeed in order to be caught and punished. By committing the second misdeed, the guilty person seeks to break out from the isolation caused by the original misdeed. His subconscious goal is to have the second misdeed result in punishment-reconciliation to make up for the guilt of the original misdeed. Punishment is always associated with reconciliation and a restoration of love.

1.6.3. The person will would seek an indirect escape from isolation by creating a community where the person be accepted. This implies provoking others to deeds similar to ones own. 1.7. Super-ego is a primitive phase in the development of a mature conscience. At an early point in our lives, during childhood and adolescence we have been making choices based on external rules from authority figures. As we grow into adulthood, we begin to develop a conscience where we integrate the rules we have learned from our significant authority figures with our own understanding of the values behind these rules and our vision of what kind of person we want to be in the future. 1.8. We are supposed to let the super-ego of our childhood organically develop into a mature conscience. 1.9. Some persons do not go beyond the super-ego stage of moral development and they confuse the super-ego as their conscience and the voice of their super-ego as the voice of God. 1.10. Even when we have made a transition toward forming a conscience, we may continue to bear the voice of our super-ego in the background. The development of a mature conscience does not mean a total silencing of the super-ego (this may not be possible because we continue to retain our memories from childhood). What is desirable for the maturation of the conscience is that we can identify whether the voice we are hearing on a particular moral matter is our super-ego or our conscience and that we choose to listen to our conscience.

1.11. There may be areas in our lives where the super-ego speaks more authoritatively than our conscience. We strive to place these areas under the control of our conscience. 1.12. Pastoral problems resulting from confusion between the conscience and super-ego: 1.12.1. A Distorted Image of God 1.12.1.1. We have taught children that our conscience is the voice of God speaking to us in the depths of our soul. However, if children are still in the super-ego phase of the development oftheir conscience, they may mistake the superego as the voice of God. This leads persons to form a distorted image of God: 1.12.1.1.1. A God that is easily offended by the breaking of rules and withholds love because of rule breaking. 1.12.1.1.2. A God that uses guilt as means to discipline an offender. 1.12.1.1.3. A God that punishes or is appeased by selfimposed punishments aimed at causing back his love. 1.12.2. A mistaken perception that a person can fluctuate between sin and grace frequently and abruptly. 1.12.2.1. The super-ego controlled person may interpret the frequent back and forth movement between feeling guilty for an offenseand the relief in being punished and forgiven by an authority figure as the expression of the persons frequent shifts between states of sin and grace. This is called a "storm and sunshine understanding of sin and grace.

1.12.2.2. This distorted image of the relationship of sin and grace disregards the fundamental direction of a personslife and it does not evaluate individual actions in the context ofthe persons movement towards or away from God. 1.12.3. A distorted understanding of confession leading to diminishing confessions. 1.12.3.1. A confessor that does not distinguish between conscience and super-ego will the storm and sunshine perception of sin and grace by focusing only sinful actions. If the confessor only focuses on the sinful acts of the penitent and does not direct the penitent towards the formation of a mature conscience and growth in Christian character, the confessor will not enable the penitentto breakthrough sinful patterns. 1.12.3.2. The super-ego controlled penitent will see confession as a convenient way to attain punishment-reconciliation and gain back the love ofGod lost due to onesoffence. Thispenitent would goto confession to relieve his or her super-ego guilt and not because of a sincere desire for conversion and renewal. 1.12.3.3. Eventually, penitents who go to confession repeatedly for the same sins and arenot helped to grow in their relationship with God will find confession to be ineffective for the moral growth. They will eventually lessen then frequency of confession and will go only if they are moved by unbearable super-ego guilt. 1.12.4. An overemphasis on acts and following rules ratherthan character formation and an appreciation of values.

1.12.4.1. A morality that confuses the super-ego forthe conscience will confuse the super-ego guilt for moral guilt. Super-ego guilt focuses on the offenses that violate the prohibitions earth super-ego. A super-ego influenced morality will be concerned only about following rules rather than character formation and striving to follow Christ more perfectly. 1.12.4.2. Moral guilt is concerned about the weakening of one's loving relationship with God and others. It is focused not on the loss of love caused by the offense but on the negative consequences ofone's sinful choices to the welfare of others and the community and negative effects on the direction of one's life and the development of one's character. 2. The Moral Conscience Gaudiumet Spes, no. 16 In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, show that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the say dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience revels that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the guanine solution

to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more pawn and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. 2.1. Gaudium et Spes, no. 16 used the metaphor of sanctuary to describe the conscience two meaning; of conscience as sanctuary 2.1.1. Conscience is a holy and sacred place where an individual meets God alone. 2.1.2. Conscience as a safe place for a person where no outside human authority may violate. 2.1.3. The imagery of sanctuary gives attention to the personal encounter of the person with God in his moral discernment and his response to what believes to be God's voice to him/her in the depths of one's conscience. 2.1.4. In the proper exercise of conscience, a person should be responding to God. A person can refer to other external authorities for information and guidance, but ultimately the person responds to God and not to any authority. No other authority can take the place of God in a person's conscience. 2.2. Three Senses of the Conscience 2.2.1. conscience as capacity (synthesis) 2.2.1.1. The tendency orcapacitywithin us to know and to do the good 2.2.1.2. It Involves our generalsense of value and fundamentalsense of responsibility which makes it possible for us to engage in moraldiscussions to determine the particular moral good

2.2.2. Conscience as a process 2.2.2.1. It is the process of discovering the particular good whichought to be done or the evil to be avoided. 2.2.2.2. Involves seeking to understand universal moral norms and applying them to particular cases 2.2.2.3. May also involve discovering exceptions and new norms in response to extraordinary situations. 2.2.2.4. It involves the use of our human reason. 2.2.2.5. In this process, conscience is being formed and informed through experience, investigation of sources of moral wisdom. 2.2.3. Conscience as a judgment 2.2.3.1. The specific judgment of good which "I must do" in this particular situation 2.2.3.2. The primary object of this judgment is not this in that object of choice, but being this or that sort of person through what I choose. 2.2.3.3. This is the conscience I must obey to be true to myself 2.2.3.4. This is the sanctuary of the self which must never be violated 2.2.3.5. Here I am alone with the God in the depths of my being 2.3. Three dimensions of conscience focus on the whole person cognitive, volitional, affective, intuitive, and somatic aspects, or the

whole self as a thinking, willing, feeling, intuiting, and embodied person. 2.4. "Conscience is the voice of God living in us which urges us to love God, ourselves and our neighbors. Through conscience we am called to judge our past behavior as right or wrong and to determine future courses of action" (See James Keenan, Virtues for Ordinary Christians, p. 26)). 3. Formation of the Conscience 3.1. There is a moral obligation to form one's conscience. Obligation to follow conscience presupposes that we have properly formed our conscience. 3.1.1. Forming conscience is a process of conversion and lifelong task 3.1.2. Judgment made for oneself (what I must do) but not by oneself. That leads to affirm communal/social aspect of conscience. 3.1.3. Vatican II: "with others" means with family, friends, teachers, spiritual director, theologians and all possible sources of wisdom, especially Scriptures and the Churchs teaching. 3.1.4. Through prayer and reflection on the life and teachings ofChrist in the Gospels and being opento the movements of the Holy Spirit 3.1.5. by giving primary consideration to the teaching of the Magisterium (Le., giving religiousascent of the conscience to teachingofthemagisterium) 3.1.6. by allowing ourselves to be shapedand inspired by the values and stories of our community

3.1.7. By drawing inspiration from the lives of other people we admire (saints, heroes, family members, significantpersons in our lives, etc.) 3.1.8. by being open to dialogue with others who we are different from us and seeking to view things from other people's perspectives. 3.1.9. by fostering human and religious values in one's life in order to make one more attuned to the good that must be pursued. 3.1.10. We should be constantly aware of our human capacity to make rationalizations for our actions and thus we constantly need to sincerely and honestly challenge ourselves Have I done everything that is within my power to know and do the good? 3.1.11. We also come to realize that we need the help of others in discerning what right action to choose. We need to be careful in judging the conscience decision of others; we need to acknowledge the complexity and uniqueness of each person's journey in the formation of his/herconscience lending to a particular act. 3.1.12. With others in search for truth: The Council also confirms that the Church does not always have a ready answer to every individual question, and that the experience of everyone should be taken into account to illuminate the road on which humanity has recently set out (GS. 33). 3.2. When we say "I am free to follow my conscience, it means that our human dignity demands that we should be allowed to follow the decision ofour formal conscience. The statement "I am five to

follow my conscience" does not mean that we can ignore our obligation to properly form our conscience and just allow our whims and emotions dictate our actions. 3.3. Free to follow one's conscience, but not free before (not free to be against) the dictate/command of conscience. 4. Primacy of the Conscience In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order that he may come to God, for whom be was created. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious." (Dignitatis Humanae 16). 4.1. One must always follow one's formed and informed conscience 4.2. The Church respects a person's decision to follow his/her conscience even if that conscience is erroneous because of invincible ignorance. 4.3. Thomas Aquinas maintains that one sins if one does not follow one's conscience; it is better to risk excommunication rather than violate one's conscience 5. Erroneous Conscience/Making an erroneous judgment 5.1. CCC1790 - it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

5.2. Error due to vincible ignorance CCC1791: This ignorance ran often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. 5.3. Error due to invincible ignorance CCC1793: If on thecontrary the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore to correct the errors of moral conscience. 5.4. Vincible, and invincible consciences exist in a spectrum. 5.5. The dignity and inviolability of conscience do not exempt us from making errors or mistakes 5.5.1. possible errors due to invincible ignorance 5.5.2. Error does not make what is wrong become right, but neither does the error delete the dignity of conscience (Veritatis Splendor, n. 62) 5.5.3. But dignity of conscience requires a sincere effort to inform conscience 5.5.4. God judges us not on the basis ofour actions being objectively right or wrong, but of the sincerity of our hearts in seeking to do what is right, even if we fail or make a mistake.

6. Characteristics of different forms of consciencein various stages of development. 6.1. Lax Conscience: has developed a habit of rationalization and self-deception. 6.2. Perplexed or Doubtful Conscience: confined about the teaching of the Church. 6.2.1. If ones Conscience is doubtful about a particular moral teaching is vague and indefinite, survey the opinions of reputable, balanced experts, and then make a judgment call which opinion would best serve the situation, providing the mod good and lessening evil as much as possible. 6.3. Scrupulous Conscience (Super-ego replacing Conscience)constant dread of act, very rule oriented to play safe 6.3.1. To address a person with a scrupulous conscience, am needs to resolve the person's extreme fear of punishment or fear of withdrawal God's love by influencing the person's conscience to see God as merciful and compassionate 7. A morally mature conscience: what would it look like? 7.1. Every fully developed and healthy conscience, like every great work of art, has its own unique and story. 7.2. Even if the morally mature conscience is unique, it tends to resemble the consciences of other moral adults in some significant ways. Sidney Callahan offers a brief description of some of the shared traits of mature consciences: "A person with a highly developed conscience has certain characteristics. The more morally developed self is a self more and more consciously integrated, more and more capable of self-direction, and more and more committed

to the good and the right in personal acts. A moray developed person of good conscience can readily and easily activate and integrate her or his reasoning, intuition, and emotions, in order to effect good and right outcomes" (Sidney Callahan, In Good Conscience, pp. 172-173). 7.3. This description of well-developed conscience involves: 7.3.1. Development of the whole person 7.3.2. Possessing and integrating adequate moral insights about good and evil, values and disvalue, rights and duties, ethical theories and principles, norms and rules 7.3.3. Possessing and integrating moral passions: capacity to care, about and be attracted to the good, a good deal of compassion or sympathy for fellow human beings, ability to integrate compassion deeply into one's character. 7.3.4. Possessing and integrating moral skills: ability to discern and respond to consistently doing the truth, to sustain commitments, to transform one's judgments and desires into decisions and, ultimately, behavior. In other words, a morally mature conscience can develop and practice virtue.

V. GOODNESS AND RIGHTNESS

(SESSION 16) 01/14/13 Handout: James Keenan, What is Good and What is Right Church 5 (1989) Goodness and badness are categories used when referring to whether a person is striving or not to answer the call of Jesus to love God and neighbor Rightness and wrongness are categories used when referring to whether a particular action is rightly ordered or not according to the norms of the community We need to make a distinction between goodness and rightness, between badness and wrongness, because: o We can be striving to be good but act wrongly o We can have bad motivations while doing the right thing In moral theology we are primarily concerned whether a person is striving to be good or evil. Moral theology is secondarily concerned than whether ones behavior is right or wrong according to moral norms and whether the action caused objective harm or good. The judgment of a persons moral goodness is primarily based on that persons response to the good that ones conscience perceives. A person is morally good when he/she tried his/her best to seek and do the good and avoid evil even if, violated the objective moral order. The distinction between goodness and rightness corrects a certain false notion in the church that equates being good with simply not doing what is wrong. For example, because a person does not use birth control, does not miss Sunday mass, does not engage in

forbidden sexual activity, that person can be considered good already. This is not necessarily true. A person may be avoiding evil but the person may not be striving to attain the greater good. (e.g., the parable of the rich young man) It is important to make a distinction between a persons choice, intention and motivation. o Choice describes the actual action o Intention gives the reasons for the action pertain to rightness or wrongness o Moral motivation gives the description of the fundamental stance out of which an agent moves himself or herself pertains to goodness or evil. Are we motivated striving to imitate Christ or not? Ideally we should aim to make the right choice, with the right choice, with the right intention, and a good motivation Goodness, as understood in contemporary moral theology, involves a dynamic striving to be more loving toward God and others. It is not merely an absence of wrongful activity. We must strive to do good actively while we seek to avoid evil.

Application to the erroneous conscience The Church teaches that a person must follow his or her conscience while making every effort to seek the truth. It is the moral obligation of every person to properly inform and from his or her conscience to avoid error. If a person, despite his best efforts at seeking he truth, chooses an action that is wrong and results in evil effects, is the person bad? The person is wrong but not bad because he was trying his best to

seek what was true good (tried his best to from his conscience), even if it failed to result in a right choice. We should therefore restrain ourselves from immediately judging a person as bad when the person does a wrong thing if we cannot be sure whether or not he was doing his best to do the food. In general, we cannot know the actual state of sin or grace of any person at a given moment. It can still be necessary to warn or tell people that they are falling into an evil pattern or that they are becoming bad persons if their life direction and their use of their conscience show a clear and voluntary turning away from God and others. If all that we know about a person is that he has caused objective harm and has violated moral norms, the more accurate description of the persons action is that is a wrong action.

VI. SIN
(SESSION 17) 01/14/13 Handout: Gula 7-8 James Keenan, The Sin of Not Bothering to Love, Church (1995) 39-41 Bruce Vawter, Missing the Mark, Introduction of Christian Ethics, Edited by Ronald Hamel and Kenneth Himes (NY: Paulist Press, 1989) Common sins confessed that are not really sins

BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE OF SIN

The renewal of moral theology and its return to its scriptural roots have facilitated a retrieval of a biblical sense of sin. Two important biblical metaphors in the Old Testament that enable us to understand sin in its proper context: Covenant and Heart

COVENANT
Covenant expresses our personal relationship with God. The primary claim of the covenant is that God loves us without our having to earn God's love. God's covenant is a bond of completely gratuitous love. It is pure undeserved grace. God's offer of love awaits our acceptance. Once we accept God's offer of love we commit ourselves to living out a faithful personal relationship with God, as the covenant requires. Sin, understood within the context of a covenant relationship between us and God, is thus not simply about breaking moral rules. It is primarily a breaking of our personal bond with God. The covenant

context lifts the idea of sin from a legalistic framework and puts in a context of a relational setting. Sin in the Bible is not merely breaking law. Sin is breaking or weakening the bond of love we have with God. Our response to God's gift of unconditional love can be expressed in a threefold manner: o To respect the worth of ourselves and others as constituted by God's love - We recognize our worth and security remain grounded in God and not in ourselves or in things. - Sins that violate the worth of persons are attitudes and actions that create and maintain false idols (e.g. -wealth, power, prestige, personal attributes, etc.) on which we base our worth and the worth of others. o To live in solidarity with creation and with one another as convenantal partners. - God calls us to be social and to be responsible for one another. - Covenantal solidarity also requires us to be concerned and responsible for the whole social order; we need to ensure that our social structures and institutions, economic systems, political structures, would promote of the true worth of every member of the community. - Sins that violate solidarity are those attitudes and actions that promote indifference, jealousy, envy, contempt, domination, prejudice and possessiveness. If we ignore situations of need that require from us a response of mercy, justice, and love, we also diminish our solidarity as persons loved in communion by God. - To betray a social commitment demanded by justice is to betray God's love and to perpetuate social sin.

o To develop the virtue of fidelity as the proper characteristic of every covenantal relationship. - Fidelity requires us to be faithful and trustworthy in our relationship with God and others. We entrust ourselves to God and others. - Sin violates fidelity through attitudes and actions that induce us not to trust God and others. We also sin by abusing something that another has entrusted to us such as a personal secret, health, property, bodies, and personal welfare. This is sin as infidelity and as an abuse of power.

HEART
Divine love is either rejected or embraced by the heart. The heart, in biblical anthropology, is where vital decisions are made; it is the center of feeling and reason, intention and consciousness, decision and action. The heart is the locale for virtue or sin. The moral vision of the bible sees good and evil not just in deeds but in the heart which promotes good and evil actions. The heart that is properly ordered to God will have a certain instinct about what is good in relation to God. A properly directed heart yields a life of virtue. A misdirected heart produces sin.

SIN AS RELIGIOUS REALITY

We can only understand sin in the context of our faith. Sin makes no sense apart from our awareness of our relationship to God. The primary understanding of sin is that it is a violation of our covenantal relationship with God and others. Sin in the context of our

covenant relationship has a transcendent dimension and an immanent dimension o The transcendent dimension expresses a break in our relationship with God. It is our NO to the invitation to live with God in love. But this dimension is never separated from the immanent dimension. o The immanent dimension of sin is the NO that we answer to the invitation to love and be loved by our neighbors. Whenever a lifegiving relationship is weakened or destroyed, sin in some form is present. Sin is thus a form of selfishness that begins in the heart which then is manifested in actions. We become sinful to the extent we turn inward and refuse to respond to the invitation to love and be loved. This is to "harden one's heart" in the biblical sense. Another way to understand the reality of sin in the context of covenantal love is to see sin as an arrogance of power. The covenant says that we already have worth because we are loved by God. But the heart refuses to trust in the gratuitous love of God as the basis of one's worth. The heart seeks to seek its worth through its strivings. The arrogance of power is the "I" living as if it must make itself great. In striving to earn its own worth apart from God's love, the heart misdirects and disorders its relationship with God and others. Sin arises out of our striving to protect the self we have made in order to guarantee we are loveable and loved. We can only break the power of sin as selfishness and arrogance of power through an acceptance of God's unconditional love for us as the only true foundation of our worth and loveableness. Only divine love can satisfy our hearts longing to be truly loved. Thus the sacrament of reconciliation becomes the concrete sign of that God's love is offered to us and that it cannot be defeated by sin. Through reconciliation with God and the community, the dynamic of

receiving and giving love is restored and the life-giving relationship we have with God and others is strengthened.

KINDS OF SIN
Original Sin o Exists prior to our free personal acts, it differs in kind to our personal sins. o It is the human condition of living in a world where we are influenced by more evil than we do ourselves. o Our whole being and our environment are infected by this condition of evil and brokenness. o We feel its effects in our lack of freedom and our inability to love as we want. o This condition alienates us from our true selves, from others, and from God. We need redemption and healing. o The doctrine of original sin tells us that we are not completely broken by sin. We have the possibility of becoming the persons we are made to be. This is because the power of original sin is in tension with the greater power of God's grace which enables us to grow in wholeness in our relationship with ourselves, with others, and God. Our daily moral struggle involves opening ourselves to the power of God's grace and to fight against the effects of original sin. o God's redemptive love enables us to resist the negative pull of original sin. This gift of God's love is mediated to us in and through our human community. Baptism initiates us into a life-giving and supportive community. o We believe that grace, redemption, and divine love will always have the last word. Personal sins mortal and venial sins

o The terms mortal and venial sins came into use as a result of efforts to be precise about the distinctions in the degrees of sin. When yearly confession became a requirement after the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the distinction between mortal and venial attained a juridical significance. Since the council required that all mortal sins must be confessed in kind and number, it became important to be able to distinguish which sins are mortal for the penitent to know what sins to confess. Moralists began to use quantitative and objective measurement to distinguish mortal from venial sins. A minimalist and legalistic kind of attitude toward morality began to emerge: How far can I go before committing a mortal sin? The renewal of moral theology after Vatican II retrieved the biblical view of sin as a turning away from our relationship with God. o Sin in its true sense is mortal sin. Venial sin derives its meaning as sin only by analogy to mortal sin. Mortal Sin o Moralists have settled on three conditions that must be present for there to be a mortal sin: - Sufficient reflection -- when there is evaluative knowledge on the part of the person who committed the sin. The person understands the meaning and consequences of his or her action and is personally committed to the action. - Full consent of will freedom of self-determination is present and being exercised in a particular choice of action. The person wills freely that his or her action would shape or direct the fundamental direction of his or her life. - Serious matter Involves the gravity of the objective harm that the action causes and how deeply invested is the person in the action.

o Mortal sin is a conscious decision to act in way that leads to a turning away from relating to God, to others, and the world in a positive and life giving way. Venial sin o It is called a sin only analogously. It wounds our relationship with God, others, and the world but it does not radically break this relationship. o It is acting inconsistently with our basic commitment to be for life and love but it does not spring from our deepest level of our knowledge and freedom so us to change the direction of our relationship with God, others, and the world. o Still, venial sins if practiced often enough and allowed to become an ingrained part of the person can gradually affect the character of the person and undermine the person's relationships to the point that it has the effect of a mortal sin. Serious Sins o Because the line where repeated venial sins become mortal sins is hard to draw and there is sometimes doubt about the gravity of a particular sin, the category of serious sins is used in moral theology and canon law to cover those sins which should be a cause of concern for a person. Canon requires that every catholic should confess all serious sins (venial sins that may be forming into a bad habit and individual mortal sins) in kind and number at least once a year. When one is in doubt about the seriousness of a sin, it would be safer to mention it in confession and let the confessor make an evaluation about its gravity in the context of the person's behavior and character.

THE THEORY OF FUNDAMENTAL OPTION

Pre-Vatican II view of the states of sin and grace o The state of grace and the state of sin were often presented as sharply dichotomous positions, like the "on" or "off" positions in a light switch. One day you could be in the state of grace, then the next in mortal sin, then back in grace, and so on. There is the belief that one act alone can change the balance between grace and sin. But is this approach actually in accord with the best possible understanding of our relationship with God? Fundamental Option Theory o This is the post-Vatican II attempt by moralists to give a sounder understanding of the true reality of sin and its effect on our relationship with God. o It does not change the fundamental understanding of sin itself but rather the vocabulary for speaking about this reality of sin Aspects of the Fundamental Option Theory o One's fundamental option refers to one's basic life orientation. One can be oriented toward growing in one's loving relationship with God (and consequently also growing in life-giving relationships with others and the world) or one can be oriented toward false idols created by the self and directing one's life away from a loving and trusting relationship with God, others, and the world. o Our fundamental option or life direction can shift by degrees toward or away from God depending on our choices and actions. o There are actions that are consistent with one's F.O. or life direction (whether toward or away from God), which means that these acts help sustain or strengthen the F.O. o There are actions that are inconsistent with one's F.O., which means they move the person's life direction either gradually or significantly away from the main object of the F.O. (God or a false idol). o The Fundamental Option can change. It can change gradually or radically.

- Gradual shifting of F.O. developing a pattern of good habits (shifting toward God) or developing a pattern of bad habits (shifting away from God and toward a false idol) - Radical shifting of F.O. -- a deep and significant conversion experience (e.g. St. Paul, St. Peter) or a sudden break in one's relationship with God (e.g. due to a deep personal loss) Insights of F.O. o Helps us to see more clearly the relation aspect of the states of grace or sin o Takes seriously how our individual acts can either strengthen or weaken our relationship with God o Helps us differentiate sin along a spectrum of sinfulness, from venial to serious to mortal. Analogy of the Marriages of Jun & May and Julio & April i. Jun& May marry - Marriage relationship has more "downs" than "ups" - Each becomes progressively more self-centered and hateful to the other ii. Julio& April marry - Marriage relationship has more "ups" than "downs" - Love bond is strengthened and grows despite difficulties. - Each grows closer to the other iii. But comes an act of infidelity - Jun is unfaithful to May - This is a single, serious act - A final straw which symbolizes and effects the end of the relationship iv. Julio is unfaithful to April - This is a single, serious act - But since their marriage was strong at the start. Their union may have been weakened, though weakened the union has a chance of surviving.

 Misuse of F.O. Theory: Minimizing the significance of individual actions in assessing sin. Responsible use of F.O. Theory: Looking at individual action in the greater context of the person's fundamental orientation and judging their significance in affecting the person's fundamental orientation. The only responsible way to answer the question "Did x commit a sin?" is "It depends." It depends in the person's subjective involvement in the action. We can say that it is objectively wrong if it causes harm to the person or to others but we cannot say it is a sin yet until we consider the degree of involvement of the person in the action. We need to consider the degree of the person's freedom, the level of his evaluative knowledge, and his self-involvement in the act. When the Church calls a particular act a mortal sin, the designation carries with it the presumption that the act was committed with sufficient freedom and evaluative. When the Church calls certain acts in general as mortal sins, it does not say that every situation where this act is committed is a situation of mortal sin. It just says that these actions are so grave in the harm that they cause that if they are committed with sufficient freedom, evaluative knowledge, and selfinvolvement they would be mortal sins (i.e. it radically turn us away from our communion of love with God and others). We must therefore be careful in jumping into the conclusion that a person has committed a mortal sin. A mortal sin creates a destructive break in the person's relationship with God and others. Through mortal sin, the person closes himself or herself from a commitment to life and love. If the person who has committed the grave act has not yet destroyed his or her basic commitment to love God and others then the gravity of his action does yet merit being called a mortal sin.

SOCIAL SIN
Through our use of our freedom and knowledge we create social structures that embody and promote our values. These structures in turn affect us through the process of socialization. By participating in these structures we sustain them and help produce their effects. Social sin is found in situations when social structures create situations where people suffer from oppression and exploitation. Since social structures are created and maintained by personal actions, there is an inseparable relationship between personal sin and social sin. Since we share in the creation of society and social structures, we also share in the responsibility for causing social sin wherever it is present in our society. But being responsible does not necessary being personally culpable. Culpability demands knowledge and freedom. Once we become aware of how we are affected by sinful social structures and how we participate in them, we should be more careful in the decisions we make. We should take actions that would help dismantle these sinful structures and replace them with structures that affirm and protect human dignity and promote authentic human development. We should also be ready to make reparations for any harm done caused by oppressive andexploitative social structures in proportion to our culpability in creating those structures.

E. VIRTUE ETHICS
(SESSION 18) 01/21/13 Handout: James Keenan, virtue Ethics, Christian Ethics: An Introduction, edited by Bernard Hoose (Michael Glazier Books: Collegeville Minnesota, 1998) Virtue Ethics: Morality for Daily Life I. Introduction: There are two general types of ethics in moral theology: virtue ethics and dilemma ethics Virtue ethics is for the ordinary times of our lives when we face daily decisions of doing good and avoiding evil Dilemma ethics is for the extraordinary times when we face major moral dilemmas that involve conflict of values. II. Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics is concerned about how people form their character through their choices and action in everyday. Virtue ethics sees the ordinary life as the place where most of moral life takes place. The task of being moral is to grow into perfection by imitating Christ We do this by growing in the virtues (developing and regularly practicing good habits) and avoiding vices (turning away from bad habits)

 Virtue and vices are habits or dispositions. They are patterns of deciding and acting that can draw us toward goodness or evil. When we develop and maintain good habits/virtues we get used to doing good, and thus choosing and doing the good would become easier and easier for us. Virtue ethics is a goal-oriented ethics. Virtue ethics urges us to strive to live morally in order to be more like Christ everyday and grow in our union with God. The virtues are the means we use to achieve this goal of perfection and union with God. III. Traditional Virtues There are three divine or infused virtues: Faith, Hope, and Love There are four acquired or cardinal virtues: Prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude 1. Divine or Infused Virtues o Faith, Hope, and Love o These virtues are received directly from God o We cannot attain them on our own o We receive them as gifts from God FAITH This infused virtue enables us to assent to the divine truth that God has revealed Under the inspiration and assistance of grace, Faith enables us to believe those things revealed by God to be true.

HOPE This infused virtue gives us the confidence to trust in Gods goodness and promises, and sustains us in our expectations of attaining eternal life It eliminates discouragement from faults, temptation and dryness found in everyday life CHARITY This is the infused virtue by which we love God for Himself above all things, and our self and neighbor for His sake. It is the queen of all virtues, the one that unites all the other virtues and makes their actions meritorious. Charity (love of God) makes easier every effort, and makes every sacrifice bearable.

2. Acquired or cardinal virtues o Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. o These virtues are acquired which means that we can attain them and increase them by constant practice o They are called cardinal from the Latin word cardo meaning hinge. o Like the hinges that hold a door and allow it to swing, the cardinal virtues hold up our moral life o Cardinal virtues are like the skeleton on which our ordinary moral life hangs on. PRUDENCE

 Prudence is the virtue that enables us to make proper choices, avoiding extremes (too much or too little). It is the most important of the acquired virtues. It enables one to govern and discipline ones self with reason in speech and actions. When you are a prudent person you know how to make good judgment and make balanced decisions. JUSTICE Justice is the virtue that governs our relationships with others. Justice enables us to decide and act in a way that gives to every person what is properly due to each It means being impartial and exercising fair judgment; also conforming to truth. You are a just person if you give to everyone what they deserve. TEMPERANCE Temperance is the virtue that guides our response to pleasure. Temperance enables us to be disciplined in satisfying our human needs It entails moderating our desire for pleasure, our passions, and our use and consumption of things To be a temperate person is to be able to practice self-control and restraint

FORTITUDE Fortitude is the virtue that guides our response to difficulties in life It enables us to bravely and heroically face challenges in order to achieve what is good. It means having courage and strength when faced with danger, adversity, or pain. A person who has fortitude is able to make sacrifices for what is good for himself and for others. Finding the golden mean Each virtue is attained by finding the golden mean in every activity The golden mean is the perfect level of a virtue for a particular situation. There is an appropriate way to be just, tempered, and courageous in every occasion PRUDENCE (Making the proper decision) Ones character grows in perfection JUSTICE when one gradually (Toward others) TEMPERANCE learns to live (when satisfying ones needs) FORTITUED according to the (when facing challenges golden mean that is called for in every situation in daily life Interrelation of the cardinal virtues Prudence is the balancing and the decision-making virtue that enables us to choose the golden mean when applying fortitude and

temperance to our personal behavior and applying justice to our relationship with others IV. Relationship of Infused and Acquired Virtues Faith, Hope, and Charity direct and perfect our exercise of the virtues of Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Fortitude. Without the infused virtues, it is still possible to practice the acquired virtues but it takes more effort. With the presence of the infused virtues, our practice of the acquired virtues are raised to a higher level and made more perfect. Practicing the acquired virtues is like rowing a boat toward a destination. It takes effort on our part. The more often we row, the better we are at it and the faster we reach our destination. The infused virtues act like the wind pushing the boat forward, helping along our rowing and leading us closer to our goal. We cannot rely solely on the wind because it can die down. We still need to row, but the wind can make the rowing easier. V. Virtues and Vices Virtues Faith Hope Love Prudence Justice Temperance Fortitude Vices Apostasy/Infidelity Despair Hatred, Indifference Foolishness Injustice Lust, Envy, Gluttony, etc. Cowardice, Recklessness

Vices One way of understanding the vices is to see them as a corruption of the virtues, A virtue can be corrupted by nonuse, misuse, or overuse. A vice is either an excess or a deficiency in what a virtue should be Apostasy/Infidelity These vices go against the virtue of faith Apostasy is the total renunciation of ones religious beliefs Infidelity is a breach in ones faith relationship with God; to replace God with other gods. Despair This vice is an abandonment of the virtue of hope It means to lose all expectation of God mercy. Hatred, Indifference These vice are opposed to the virtue of love Hatred is intense dislike against another person, at times accompanied with a desire to hurt to destroy the other. Indifference is a lack of concern or sympathy for others. Foolishness This is a misuse of the virtue of prudence One is careless or negligent about discerning properly ones moral choices It is an abandonment of the search for the golden mean Injustice/Venality

 These vices go against the virtue of justice Injustice denies what is properly due to each person Venality causes one to lie and steal for personal advantage, denying or violating what is for the good of others Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath, Pride, Greed, Sloth These vices and others like them go against the virtue of temperance these vices lead a person to give in to excessive pleasure-seeking and uncontrolled passions, causing harm to ones self and to others Cowardice, Recklessness, Inconstancy These vices go against the virtue of fortitude Cowardice causes one to run away from difficult situations, it reveals a lack of courage to take a stand or make a sacrifice for what is true and good. Inconstancy is lack of firm perseverance of ones rash actions on others or ones self Recklessness is a lack of concern for the effects of ones rash actions on others or ones self VI. Applying Virtue Ethics We ask ourselves three basic questions: o What kind of person am I? o What kind of person do I want to become? o How do I achieve this goal? What kind of person am I? The question can be refined to how virtuous am I?

 Aristotle suggests that we can know how virtuous we are by considering how we act in spontaneous situations: we reveal ourselves when we act in the unplanned world of ordinary life. The cardinal virtues can serve are standards to measure how virtuous we are in everyday situations We seek a kind of self-knowledge that is honest and critical What kind of person do I want to become? If we are honest with the first question we will come to realize that we have vices and there are virtues which we have not fully acquired. We realize that we need to grow more in these virtues. We use the cardinal virtues to set personal goals for ourselves. We try to envision the kind of virtuous person we want to become Role models, heroes, saint, significant persons in our lives can help us form our vision of what kind of person we would strive to become. How do I achieve this goal? To become the person we want to become, we need prudence To be a prudent person is to be a person who is realistic and practical, attentive to details of the moral life, able to anticipate difficulties, and able to choose and measure actions rightly Finding prudence is finding the middle point (the golden mean) and acting in moderation It is about being able to find the appropriate response to situations that avoids doing too much or too little. Finding the mean in every situation is a challenge because the mean is not fixed and can vary according each persons capacities.

 Prudence will enable the person to make right choice to exercise the other virtue in moderate ways in order to form a more virtuous character VII. Contemporary Virtues Apart from the traditional arrangement of virtues, there are other ways of structuring virtues Justice seeking the common good of society; treating everybody equally Fidelity treating special persons preferentially spouse, children, parents, friends, relatives, community members; being faithful to those we have a special relationship Prudence keeping justice and fidelity always in tension; knowing when one should give in to the other. self-care balancing humility and self-esteem Fortitude and temperance at all levels VIII. Additional virtues Hospitality Gratitude Sympathy Humor Solidarity Transparency Care for the environment

IX. Keys to growing in virtue Remember your goals:

o What person you want to become o What virtue you need to develop Pay attention to details What you do, say or think shapes your character Practice, patience, practice. A difficult virtue becomes easier when we get used to it and eventually it becomes a natural disposition for us. Examples: It becomes easier to be more patient and forgiving if we practice it constantly Community support is important. We learn about virtue and pass them on through our family and community. Virtue ethics is not an individual task but is a communal endeavor where people support one another in trying to live virtuously and avoid vices We need good role models and wise mentors to inspire and guide us to live virtuous lives and shape our character in imitation of Christ. Remember that each person is on a journey of growth Learn from mistakes setbacks. There is always room for improvement and renewal

F. MORAL ACTIONS I. EVALUATING A MORAL ACT

(SESSION 19) 01/24/13 COMPONENTS OF A MORAL ACTION CCC#1759: An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. CCC#1760:A moral good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together. CCC#1750:The morality of human acts depends on: o the object chosen; o the end in view or the intention; o the circumstances (qualifying circumstances) of the action The object, the end, and the circumstances make up the sources, or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts. DIAGRAM OF MORAL ACT THE OBJECT OF THE ACT The object specifies or determines what kind of act it is. It determines the identity of the action. The Object has three parts: Physical action: involves the physical and material aspect of the act Immediate Intention: this is the immediate purpose of the physical activity

 Defining circumstances: the external factors that give definite shape to the character to the action The use of condom in sex o Physical act wearing a condom during the sexual act o Immediate intention to prevent the transfer of sperm to the sexual partner o Defining circumstances used in heterosexual sex by a married couple as a form of birth control If you consider all three parts you can say that the object of the act is to prevent of procreation. The act, according to its object, is an act of contraception If a part of the Object changes, it can change the identity of the action: The use of a condom in sex o Physical act wearing a condom during the sexual act o Immediate intention to prevent the transfer of sperm to the sexual partner o Defining circumstances used in sex by a prostitute as a form of HIV prevention. Taken a birth control pill o Physical act taking a pill that delays menstruation cycle o Immediate intention to prevent production of eggs. o Defining circumstances used by a woman for the purpose of birth control

 In this case, the act, according to its object, is an act of contraception Taken a birth control pill o Physical act taking a pill that delays menstruation cycle o Immediate intention to prevent production of eggs. o Defining circumstances used by a woman for the purpose or regulating an irregular menstrual cycle, as prescribed by a doctor. In this case, the act, according to its object, is an act of medical treatment for irregular menstruation cycles. Taken a birth control pill o Physical act taking a pill that delays menstruation cycle o Immediate intention to prevent production of eggs. o Defining circumstances used by a woman during a time of civil unrest when rape was common In this case, the act, according to its object, is an act of preventing pregnancy from rape. This had been allowed by the Church. THE END OF THE ACT The end of the act is the final goal of person doing the action This is different from the Immediate Intention which is part of the object of the act. The Immediate Intention is simply concerned about the immediate purpose of the act while the End is concerned about the long term purpose of the actor. Example:

 I study my lessons to pass an exam (Immediate Intention). Although the immediate intention of the act of studying was to pass an exam, passing the exam may be part of a larger purpose or end e.g., to get a scholarship, or to graduate, or to please my parents. I took somebodys wallet to steal money (Immediate Intention). Although the immediate Intention of the act was to steal money, the act may be part of a larger purpose or end e.g., to buy medicine for a sick mother, or to buy drugs. THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACT The Qualifying Circumstances of an act are all external factors that determine de degree of goodness or evil of the whole act. The Qualifying Circumstances are different from the defining circumstances that determine the object. The incidental circumstances of the Act Examples: Object: Contraception (by birth control pill) End: To prevent pregnancy Possible Qualifying circumstances: o Sex by unmarried man and woman (seriously wrong; part of a more serious sin of premarital sex) o Married couple; situation of poverty; many children; the husband cannot abstain from sex (less serious: woman may be acting to prevent worse harm to herself and family) Object: sterilization End: to prevent pregnancy Possible Qualifying circumstances: o Married couple decide not to have anymore children, did not try natural family planning (seriously wrong)

o Married couple; the woman can have kidney failure if she gets pregnant; husband cannot abstain (less serious) Morality of an Act The Object on an action, because it specifies what kind of action it is, determines the morality of the action. It determines whether it is a good or evil action The End and the Incidental Circumstances can increase or decrease the good or evil of the action. They cannot turn an action with an evil object into morally good action. Knowing the Object of the action is just the starting point for the moral evaluation of an act. CASE STUDY A man shoots a gun and kills another man To evaluate the morality of this action, we have to analyze its components o If the shooter deliberately shot (physical action) to kill (immediate intention) an attacking enemy during war (defining circumstance) in order to defend the country (end). Then we can call his act an act of national defense. o If the shooter shot into the air ( physical act) to make noise (immediate intention) to celebrate (end) New Years Eve (qualifying circumstance) in a populated area (defining circumstance). We can call it an avoidable accident. This act, though accidental, still involves negligence about the safety of others. o It the shooter deliberately planned to kill (immediate intention) his personal enemy (defining circumstance) with a well-aimed shot (physical act) order to take revenge (long-term end). This can be judged as an act of vengeful murder.

o If the shooter, who was in his home (defining circumstance), was being threatened violently by an armed robber (defining circumstances) and he shot at the robber (physical act) to stop him (immediate intention) in order to save himself (long-term end). The robber later dies of his wounds. Then the act can be identified as an act of personal self-defense. Identifying the act is crucial One must be thorough and comprehensive in looking at all the components of the act in order to identify more accurately the nature of the act. Disregarding a component can lead to a wrong identification of the act and a wrong judgment on the doer. Important: Do not make hasty conclusions. Know the truth surrounding the act before making a moral judgment. Good and Evil Acts A morally good act must be good in all three components (object, end, and circumstances) If even one of the components has an evil aspect, the act ceases to be a completely morally good action. It is harder to get an action right and be good; it is easier to get an action wrong and be involved with evil. Intrinsically Evil Acts The Church teaches that an act whose object is evil is an intrinsically evil act. The object of the act becomes evil if any or all of its components (physical action, immediate intention and defining circumstances) is evil. Such an act is evil regardless of end or qualifying circumstance.

 Good qualifying circumstances and a good long-term end can lessen the degree of evil of the act but the whole act cannot become morally good. Case Study: Contraception When the Church says that contraception is intrinsically evil, it is referring to an act of contraception by a married couple where the immediate intention is to avoid a pregnancy The basic morality of the act of contraception (whether it is good or evil) is found in tis object. The physical action in the object makes it evil because it involves a direct intervention of the reproductive process. The Church teaches that an act whose object is evil is an intrinsically evil act. The object of the act becomes evil if any or all of its components (physical action, immediate intention and defining circumstance) is evil. Such an act is evil regardless of end or qualifying circumstance. Good qualifying circumstances and a good long-term end can lessen the degree of evil of the act but the whole act cannot become morally good. Even if the long-term end is good (e.g., to space children, to save money, to avoid losing a job) and the qualifying circumstances are good (e.g., they already have 3 children, they are good parents) the act of contraception remains objectively evil. The good end and the good qualifying circumstances surrounding an act of contraception can lessen the gravity of the evil of the act but it cannot make it a morally good act. However, if instead of a married couple, we have a case of a woman who has been raped, the Church permits emergency contraception, as long as it is not abortificient.

 In the case of emergency contraception, the immediate intention is to prevent a pregnancy from sex without consent. The defining circumstances is the rape Even if the physical action still involves an object evil of a direct intervention in the reproductive process, the immediate intention and defining circumstances outweigh the physical evil involved. Emergency contraception becomes an exception to the teaching on contraception and is not considered an intrinsic evil that must be avoided at all times Also, if the case is a woman who has a serious disease and has to undergo medical treatment which has a contraceptive side effect, the Church recognizes this side effect as unintended and not morally evil. In this case, there is no direct and immediate intention to prevent a pregnancy The contraceptive effect of the medical therapy is not an intrinsic evil o Intrinsic evil The case study of contraception shows us that we need to be careful in describing particular acts as intrinsically evil. We have to be precise about what act we are referring to. We need to look at every component of the action We also need to know the teaching of the church, both what it forbids and what it allows as exceptions. Case Study: Sex Precision in talking about moral acts is important The concept of Intrinsic Evil When the Church says that an intrinsically evil act remains evil even if its end and incidental circumstances are good, it is emphasizing that persons should not think that good long-term intentions (the end of the

agent) can justify and objectively evil action and that ends can justify the means. Examples: - One cannot justify the use of nuclear weapons to end a war - One cannot justify euthanasia to ease the pain of a loved one is suffering from terminal illness - One cannot justify abortion just because one prefers to have a baby boy rather than a baby girl The use of the concept of intrinsic evil must also allow for the recognition of exceptions that may be created by extraordinary and unexpected situations. - For example: Emergency contraception, medical therapies with unintended side-effects, etc. The concept of intrinsic evil is still useful: - as a way to identify actions which we consider never ever being right (rape, torture, abduction) - as way to identify actions which should not be done even for the benefit of society. (Allowing legalized euthanasia, abortion on warrantless arrests, exploitation of women and children) Making Moral Judgments Making moral judgments of moral actions is not a mathematical process where we can get clear answers every time. It is more of an art, that requires sensitivity, common sense, imagination, compassion, and experience. We need to develop an intuition of what components of an act is significant and can outweigh the other components. Although there are rules and principles to guide our evaluation, the elements in each act are different and the balance of good and evil is different in every situation. Important to remember: o Be careful, be attentive, and be sensitive.

o Remember always that our God is a God of mercy and we are to show mercy in our judgments.

II. INTRINSIC EVIL

(SESSION 20) 01/28/13 Veritatis Splendor #80 Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object." The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible: persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator."

 The Church teaches that there are certain actions which are evil regardless of intention or circumstance. These are what the Church calls intrinsically evil acts. This means that the object of such an act as always and universally wrong, regardless of circumstances and intentions (which means intention and circumstances cannot change the object from evil to good). These are acts that the Church considers to be so seriously disordered and harmful that they should never be directly intended. The gravity of the act and the subjective culpability of the doer of the intrinsically evil act may be diminished by circumstances and intention but the whole action will still remain evil. A number of moral theologians have objections about the use of the concept of intrinsic evil. These theologians believe intention and circumstance do not just diminish or increase the seriousness of an evil action but they can alter the meaning of the action to make it morally allowable. Who is correct? Both are correct. One root of the controversy over intrinsic evil is the meaning of "intention" and "circumstances" as used by the magisterium and by the above theologians. There are two sets of intentions and circumstances present in an act. o The immediate intention and the defining circumstances, which are parts of the object. o The end and the qualifying circumstances of the act that can vary the goodness or evil of the act. In saying that intrinsically evil actions are evil by their object regardless of intention and circumstances, the "intention" that the magisterium is referring to is the end and the "circumstances" referred to are the incidental circumstances. That is why the magisterium insists that ends can never justify the means. The gravity of the evil action may be lessened by a good end or purpose

but it cannot be made into a good action if the object of the action is already evil. o E.g., to torture a terrorist in order to obtain information to prevent an impending terrorist attack and save lives. Although the end of saving innocent lives is a good end, it does not make the act of the physical and psychological torture of a human being into a good act, even if such an act can save many lives. Torture, regardless of the end of the agent, is still regarded as a violation of human rights of the tortured person and an evil action. Even if the eventual result of the torture of this particular person resulted in saving lives, it does not make the practice of torture an act that is morally neutral or good. When theologians say that intention and circumstances can alter the meaning of an action, the "intention" they are speaking of is the immediate intention and the "circumstances" are the defining circumstances that shape the object of the action and gives the action it's identity. E.g., A direct abortion is different from an indirect abortion. A direct abortion is an intrinsic evil because the death of the embryo or fetus it was directly intended while an indirect abortion is not an intrinsic evil because, though it is foreseen, the death of the embryo or fetus was not directly intended (e.g. an indirect abortion resulting from the removal of a life-threatening cancerous uterus). The different moral evaluation of a direct and indirect abortion shows the significance of "intention" (in the sense of the immediate reason for the action) in determining the specie of abortion involved. E.g., an abortion procured freely is morally different from an abortion procured in the presence of coercion. The death of the fetus remains objectively evil but the person coerced to have an abortion did not commit a grave act of direct abortion but can be said to have suffered a form of assault.. While the person who

exerted the coercion so that the abortion may be procured is guilty of direct abortion. The more precise an intrinsically evil act is described, the better one can understand why these actions can never be justified (e.g. torture, direct abortion, genocide, rape, prostitution, slavery, child abuse, child pornography). The Church is understandably concerned that persons should not make the mistake of thinking that good intentions (the end of the agent) can justify any action and that ends can justify the means. However, the Church is being reminded by theologians not to minimize the significance of intentions (the immediate intention) and circumstances in the evaluation of moral acts. The fact that the Church recognizes exceptions to its own moral teachings on birth control is evidence that, aside from the object of the action, circumstances and intentions are crucial in determining the over-all morality of an action. The concept of intrinsic evil should not be used loosely. Careful delineation of the relevant intentions (immediate and long-tens) and circumstances must be spelled out before a concrete moral action is declared an intrinsically evil act.

G. METHODS AND PRINCIPLES I. CASUISTRY

(SESSION 21) 01/31/13 Handout: Usury case Hydrogen Bomb case Source: 1) James Keenan, "The Return of Casuistry," Theological Studies 57 (1996) 123-139. 2) Albert R. Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry (Berkeley, California: University of Berkeley, 1988) 139-151, 181-194 Introduction. Casuistry is a very important tool of moral analysis that had been used by moralists since the early 14th century. Casuistry is a method of moral reasoning used whenever extraordinary moral issues arise. This method is a very important tool in moral theology in solving new moral cases that could not be solved by current moral norms or where there is doubt in the applicability of existing moral principles. There are two kinds of casuistry: o Classical or high casuistry This is the mature form of casuistry which flourished during the mid-16th to mid-17th century (1556 to 1656). It developed as a result of the decrees of the Council of Trenton confession.

o Minimalist or low casuistry This type of casuistry emerged in the mid 17th century and became the dominant form of casuistry in moral theology until Vatican II. The Context of High Casuistry The Council of Trent (1545-1563) required that a Catholic should confess all mortal sins at least once a year. Penitents are required to confess their mortal sins according kind, number and circumstance in order to enable the confessor to properly evaluate the gravity of the sins (mortal or venial) and thus give a proportionate penance and proper moral advice. It was during this time that many "cases of conscience" emerged to challenge confessors and moral theologians to provide adequate moral responses. These cases of conscience were the result of dramatic changes occurring in Europe during this period: o The Protestant Reformation presented new moral situations which were not previously encountered by the Church. Before the Reformation, Europeans shared a common Catholic faith. With the advent of the Reformation, Europeans for the first time had to face the reality of people being divided by their allegiance to a diversity of Christian denominations. Questions arose regarding the proper way Catholics and Protestants should deal with each other in the daily business of life. For example: Did a Catholic owe obedience to a Protestant ruler? Could a Catholic serve as a judge or an office in a Protestant realm? Can Catholics and Protestants marry one another? Can difference in religion affect commercial dealings? Should Catholics seek the conversion of Protestants? o Political life in Europe was also changing during this mid-16th century. Europe was devastated by religious wars; kingdoms me being divided while nation-states are being formed

through the merging of small principalities. Old political formswere being challenged by movements for nationhood and ideas of national government. o Commerce also began to develop because of improved transportation, better ways of manufacturing, and the expansion of exchange and banking. New forms of financing were being created to respond to the new phenomenon of international trade brought about by the exploration and exploitation of new lands in the Americas, Africa, Asia, etc. The people of the 16th century considered all forms of activities economic, religious, political, and social as moral activities. People needed to know how they can morally respond to new and complex moral situations which could not be handled by the simple rules and precepts of current moral teachings. This is where high casuistry, as a method of moral analysis, provided valuable help to both the Church and society. The Method of High Casuistry High casuistry is an inductive method of moral reasoning applied to new moral situations. This method involves comparing a new moral case with other cases that have already been resolved with certainty. This method of comparing cases, called taxonomy, brings to the surface circumstances that can be relevant to the solution of the new case. The new cases are called hard cases. The previously resolved cases against which the hard cases are compared are called paradigm cases. High casuistry gives importance to the circumstances of every case. It is context-based rather than principle-based. High casuistry used intuition and creativity to discover similarities and differences between the hard case and paradigm cases.

 High casuistry can lead to the formulation of new moral principles, new applications of old principles, and the creation of new moral norms. New principles and norms derived from casuistry we not considered as absolute and unchanging. New situations and new cases of conscience can still emerge that could influence casuists to amend these norms or recognize exceptions to the norms. High casuistry is not only used in moral theology but also in other disciplines that require the analysis and comparison of cases in order to solve a current case. o For example, in the medicine, a doctor, when diagnosing a patient with a particular set of symptoms, would look back at previous medical cases he treated which have similar symptoms and he will try to see if the present case is similar or different from those cases. The doctor will focus on the patient's current medical circumstances and will use his knowledge of previous cases and his intuition to find out the ailment of the patient and what treatment should be given. Sometimes the symptoms of the patient have similarities and differences with a number of previous cases. It may turn out that the patient has a previously unknown ailment that has not yet been encountered. This would require the doctor to formulate a new treatment that may be a combination of the treatments used in previous cases and new medical therapy. o A similar use of casuistry is present in the field of law. Lawyers and judges, dealing with a legal case, will look to previously resolved cases and will see if the present case has similarity and differences with past cases that already have a judicial ruling. See sample of 16th century casuistry: Usury Case

Casuistry Case 1 High casuistry during the 16th century: The Case of Usury
The teaching on usury at the beginning of the 16th century: It is immoral to receive any interest on a loan. This teaching was based on a prohibition on interest taking in the Old Testament and this prohibition was affirmed by the early Church Fathers and medieval theologians. The context of this prohibition in the 16th century was the subsistence economy of most of agricultural Europe, where the livelihood and welfare of a farmer and his family could be gravely affected by crop failure or loss of a flock. In order to survive and regain their livelihood, affected farmers would borrow from wealthier neighbors. The Church believed that when a person in need borrows money, one should not charge that person interest because it would an exploitation of the person's difficult situation and it violates the charity that one must give one's neighbor. Interest charging was also seen as an unjust activity where one earns money without labor or effort. The Church also taught that when one loans money, that money no longer belongs to the lender but is now a property, though temporarily, of the borrower. For the lender to require the borrower to give back more then the money borrowed would be taking property from the borrower that one is not entitled to, making it an act of stealing from the borrower. The Church prohibition on usury made those who lent money with interest guilty of mortal sin There were exceptions to the teaching: o The partnership arrangement: Two or more persons pooled their skills together for profit. The investors retain ownership of their investment and they share the risks of loss if the venture fails. It is morally acceptable for the investor to gain

profit in this partnership because it comes from his own property. o Compensation for damages: An investor is entitled to compensation if the borrower failed to pay on time. The compensation is meant to pay for the difference between what the injured party's present situation and the position he would be in had he had not been injured. This compensation is considered allowed "interest" which is in addition to the borrowed principal. However, the injured party's right to this "interest" or compensation is recognized only after actual damage could be demonstrated at the end of the loan. Beginning in the 15th century, new commercial opportunities emerged, especially international trade, due to the European discovery and exploitation of American and oriental markets. There was a great demand among merchants for investors who would finance export and import of products. National governments, because of the cost of waging war and the forming of nation states, required new means of financing in a large scale. Bankers, financiers, and merchants devised different kinds of financial instruments and arrangements to respond to new economic situations and opportunities. Theologians and canonists sought to evaluate these new monetary arrangements to make sure that they are moral and did not violate the prohibition on usury. Paradigm cases: usury (prohibited), partnerships (allowed), and compensation for delayed payment (allowed). Hard cases: new financial arrangements proposed by bankers and merchants o Lucrum cessans ("profit ceasing") and dimnun emergence ("loss occurring") In the context of the emergence of many commercial opportunities available to investors in the mid 16th

century, theologians recognized that a lender is entitled to some form of interest to compensate for the unavailability of his money for other investments during the period of the loan. Because the lender lent his money to someone, he is unable to use it for himself for his own profit. Also, because the value of money can change during the period of the loan, the investor may incur a loss if the money devalued during the time of the loan. Looking at the paradigm case of partnership and the paradigm case of compensation for loss, theologians integrated the recognition of risk of loss in an investment (partnerships) and the need to compensate a lender for incurred losses caused by the loan (compensation for loss) and they declared that Lucrum cessans and dimnun emergence are two new justifications to charge interest. In these new financial arrangements the right to interest could already be declared at the beginning of the loan. Theologians also recognized that money has gained a new meaning. Before, money was seen as static. With the increased commercial activities of the 16th century, money was seen as being "fruitful" (produce more money) and could increase in value. Once Lucrum cessans and dimnun emergence were accepted by the Church as valid reasons to charge interest these became new paradigm cases that can be used for casuistic analysis of future hard cases. o Insurance contracts This was introduced in the 14th century for the maritime trade These contracts were allowed because the burden of risk was exchanged between the insurer and the insured.

Compensation was allowed to the insurer in return for assuming the burden of risk. o Loans made to the poor in Italy by public pawnshops These pawnshops, which were public and were considered owned by the poor, were allowed to charge interest to cover operating expenses. Since the poor owned the pawnshops and profited from them then they should also bear the cost of their maintenance through payment of interests (similarity with the partnership agreement). o Some cities issued bonds to finance public works projects Those who invested in the bonds were entitled to interest because they could have earned money by investing in other businesses. (similar to Lucrum cessans and dimnun emergence) o Exchange banking These banks justified interest on loans made under the title of "Virtual transportation": they made money effectively present, through credit, in a place where they are not physically located. In modern terms, this interest is a "service charge" and so a just tide to compensation. By the middle of the 17th century, the old concept of usury has been transformed. The old teaching on usury could no longer be realistically applied to the new economic and financial conditions of the period. There have been so many exceptions made to the prohibition on usury, based the comparison of hard cases with paradigm cases, that loans with interest have become more of the norm than the exception. There have been so many justified reasons to charge interest above the loaned amount: risk, compensation for loss, service charge, etc. Usury was no longer seen as the charging of any interest on a loan but rather it was understood by the Church as the charging of unjust or excessive interest.

 The paradigm of the typical loan was no longer the distress loan. Charging interest was no longer seen as theft. The new paradigm, reflecting the new science of economics, viewed money as a commodity, and the moral question asked how one can determine a "just price" for its use.

Jesuits and Casuistry The Jesuit order has been intimately linked with the growth and decline of high casuistry. The Jesuit commitment to classical or high casuistry was a natural consequence of its organization. In contrast to monastic orders, the Jesuits were not bound by the restrictions of the cloister and of the choir. The Jesuits were mandated to work among secular persons in secular institutions. Activity was stressed; involvement in the world was preferred rather than withdrawal. Contact with lay people and activity in the secular world led Jesuits to encounter complex moral situations where moral principles seems to conflict. Although Jesuits were bound to superiors by obedience, they were sent out to faraway lands. Often separated from their superiors while in mission areas, Jesuits were instructed to rely on their discretion, interpreting orders according to the actual situations they encountered. Discernment of prudent courses of action was an apostolic necessity for Jesuits missionaries. Casuistry, w a moral tool in analyzing extraordinary moral cases, became a natural part of the Jesuit's practical approach to the problems of the moral life. Training in high casuistry was pan of the formation of Jesuits training for pastoral ministry. A professor of cases was assigned to Jesuit seminarians to train them in handling cases of conscience. This professor was specifically directed to be practical rather than speculative in his teaching. Also, all Jesuit students, whether in the academic or the pastoral track, have a required weekly case

Casuistry 2

conference, where the professor of cases presented and resolved difficult cases of consciences, and at times the students were asked to resolve cases while being critiqued by classmates. This practice of case conference would continue even after a Jesuit is ordained. Jesuit fathers regularly gathered to discuss cases encountered in their apostolate. Casuistry began to occupy an integral part of the education of Jesuits and as well as their apostolic ministry and missionary activity. The way high casuistry was taught influence the way it was practiced in the field: o There was an avoidance of speculative or theoretical questions o There was presentation of relevant principles (as guidelines, rather than absolute rules) o There was a consideration of probable opinions (presenting what reputable theologians say about the case) o There was a resolution of the moral case by solid argument through case analysis and taxonomy. Casuists were expected have knowledge of principles, a good perception of the unique circumstances of each new case, and a refined capacity to discern the similarities and differences between cases. As an aid to the teaching of casuistry, Jesuits, as well as other authors, compiled their lecture notes and case analyses and made them into textbooks. The Decline of High Casuistry Beginning in the 17th century, high casuistry fell into disfavor largely due to the 17th century French intellectual Blaise Pascal, who severely criticized the Jesuits and their use of casuistry. Pascal, a well-known French intellectual, was a supporter and spokesman for the Jansenist party. The Jansenists, were composed of pious French Catholic priests, nuns and lay persons seeking to

reform the Church. Their founder Bishop Cornelius Jansen wrote a treatise on grace based, Jansen claimed, on the teaching of Augustine. The Jesuits viewed the teachings of Jansen on original sin, grace, human freedom, and predestination as being too similar to the teachings of the Protestant Reformer John Calvin. The doctrinal dispute between the Jansenists and the Jesuits created a certain level of animosity that would lead to Pascal's attack on Jesuits and their use of casuistry. Pascal viewed the casuistry being taught and practiced by Jesuits as contributing to laxity in the moral life. He accused the Jesuits of using casuistry to find loopholes and excuses for persons to get around the moral law. As a Jansenist, Pascal subscribed to a very rigorist view of morality, advocating an adherence to the high ideals of the Gospels. Pascal viewed the Jesuit's use of casuistry to help penitents in difficult moral situations as an unacceptable wateringdown of the rigorous demands of the Gospel. Pascal viewed casuistry as a denial of true morality. Pascal wrote anonymously in 1656 a series of satirical works entitled The Provincial Letters to expose what he believed to be the abuses of Jesuits in their use of casuistry. Using the literary device of a fictional Jesuit priest writing to a gentleman living in the province, Pascal presented a caricature of the worst examples of casuistry. The work of Pascal became widely popular and was used by the opponents of Jesuits to discredit the Society of Jesus as well as the practice of high casuistry Pascal's satirical work created an image of casuistry which gave it a lingering negative meaning in the minds of ordinary people. Casuistry became perceived as an evasive way to dealing with difficult cases of moral duty. It was made synonymous with moral compromise and finding loopholes in the law. Was Pascal's accusation against casuistry fair? There is basis for Pascal to say that casuistry can lead to laxity if it is used in the wrong way. Casuistry is only a tool for analyzing cases; it does not lead one

directly to virtue or to vices. There have been indeed some casuists who have been lax in their use of casuistry find trying to d loopholes for sinners. It is unfair, however, for Pascal to equate casuistry with moral compromise and laxity. Casuistry can be used effectively to help penitents in extraordinary situations where moral rules are not clear. Casuistry, used properly does not weaken the moral law but rather it helps clarify the applicability of existing moral principles and paradigm cases to particular bard cases. Pascal did not misquote the bad examples of casuistry in his Provincial Letters. He quoted a number of lax moralists (none of whom were Jesuits,) but because he used a Jesuit fictional character he effectively linked laxity with Jesuits. He used a casuistry textbook as his source for quotes for his Jesuit character. However, Pascal was selective in his quotations. He only quoted the final conclusion of case analyses in his quotations but he did not include the analysis of unique circumstances of the cases, the moral principles being utilized, the theological arguments used, and the exception where the conclusion could not be applicable. He left out explanatory statements and conditional phrases that would have contextualized the case. He generalized the case conclusion as if it would apply to all similar cases, making it look like a lax judgment, when the judgment is limited only to the unique combination of circumstances of the case. Pascal's attack, as a whole, was unfair because it condemned a very useful tool of moral analysis simply based on a perception of misuse by a few lax moralists. It is like condemning the whole art of cinema based on watching a few bad movies. Several succeeding popes, to address the abuses of high casuistry and the rigorism of the Jansenists, issued numerous decrees condemning numerous laxity and rigorist propositions. These decrees helped purged casuistry of laxity and preserved the Church from the rigorism of Jansenism

 Aware that the Vatican has become increasingly vigilant about moral teachings, moralists began to submit difficult points and hard cases to authorities in Rome for an "official opinion" from the Vatican. Bishops, when faced with difficult moral cases, rather than refer to the expertise of moral theologians, began to submit these cases to Rome for a definite resolution. Rome responded to these referrals of moral cases by delegating certain Vatican curial departments, in particular the Sacred Penitentiary and the Holy Inquisition (then predecessor of the CDF), to provide responses to these referred cases. This practice of direct referral to Rome for solutions for moral questions was rare in the 18th century but became a common practice by the 19th century when the Church began to centralize its authority in the face of revolutions in Europe and the rise of democracy. This practice continues to the present time These Vatican responses carried the implicit authority of the pope and these responses inhibited the free exchange of opinions that was integral to high casuistry. Beginning in the 19th century, popes have begun to use encyclicals as a medium, to teach moral matters. Moral arguments and positions expressed by popes in their encyclicals were given due respect by theologians to the point that alternative positions and counterarguments were given less attention. Theologians generally refrained from criticizing papal moral positions or arguments. The centralization of moral authority in the papacy diminished the active development of moral teaching by theologians using high casuistry. Manualist Country Aside from the devastating effects of Pascal's attack on high casuistry, other factors also changed the use of casuistry in moral theology beginning in the mid 17th century. Paradigm cases used in high casuistry have been distilled, through time and frequent usage, into abstract moral principles. With these

principles at hand, moralists shifted from inductively comparing new cases with paradigm cases to deductively applying abstract moral principles to new cases. This deductive application of principles is known as manualist or low casuistry. In manualist casuistry, it is the principle, not the paradigm case that is used as a standard. Instead of measuring and comparing cases, as was the practice in high casuistry, the moral case in manualist casuistry (or low casuistry) is simply measured by moral principles. Most of the current guiding moral principles of the Church today were born in the 17th century from the distillation of the moral insights of paradigm cases. There are two type of moral principles that were derived from paradigm cases: o Material principles (e.g., Non-combatants must not be harmed during a war, no direct killing of the innocent, o Methodological principles (e.g., principle of double effect, principle of toleration, principle of cooperation) In the context of manualist moral theology, manualist casuistry became the dominant method of moral argumentation used in the formation of priests in moral theology beginning in the 17th century until Vatican II. High casuistry, though not used as extensively and vigorously as in the 16th century, was used sometimes in conjunction with moral principles to resolve hard cases. Beginning in the mid 20th century, there was an increasing revival of high casuistry in dealing with moral questions brought about by new developments in science, technology, politics, war, and medicine. In contemporary moral theology, Contemporary moralists utilize both moral principles and paradigm cases to resolve complicated hard cases.

Examples of Contemporary cases:

 the use of condoms by married couples where one spouse is HIV Positive (hard case) the use of emergency contraception for rape victims (paradigm case/hard case) the use of atomic weapons to destroy a military target located in a populated city (hard case/paradigm case)

The use of both high casuistry and manualist casuistry in a single case An example of the use of both methods of casuistry is the treatment of the case of hydrogen bombing of cities analyzed by the manualist theologian John Ford, SJ.. Ford used a variety of arguments to deny any moral justification for the hydrogen bombing of cities. Using manualist casuistry, Ford analyzed the case by applying the principle of double effect and the just war principles of noncombatant immunity and proportionality. o The principle of double effect forbids an actor to directly intend an evil effect of an action that has both a good and evil effect. Using this principle, Ford argued that if military leaders plan to drop a hydrogen bomb on a military target within a densely populated area (like New York or Moscow), there was no reasonable way for them to avoid the direct intention of violence to the innocent. o Ford cites the bombing of Rome in World Warn when precision bombing was used to ensure hitting only military targets and avoiding damage to monuments. If it was possible in the past to conduct precision bombing to save monuments, therefore present military leaders could choose a less destructive and less

Case Study: Hydrogen Bombing of Cities

indiscriminate weapon than a hydrogen bomb if they truly do not intend the death of countless civilians. o To choose to use a hydrogen bomb on a city target, according to Ford, was to directly intend the deaths of countless civilians. This violated the principle of double effect. o The use of a powerful weapon such as the hydrogen bomb also violated the just war principle of noncombatant immunity because of the indiscriminate killing of civilians that would result from the bombing. o The hydrogen bombing of a city also violates the just war principle of proportionality because of the widespread death and destruction that would accompany the destruction of a limited military target. The bombing may also trigger a nuclear response and lead to an all-out nuclear war. o Using available moral principles, Ford was able to render a judgment on the case by declaring immoral the hydrogen bombing of cities. To strengthen his argument, Ford also used high casuistry by comparing the case of hydrogen bombing of cities with two other cases. o The first case is the use of a hydrogen bomb on an enemy fleet in the high seas. o The second case is the use of a sledgehammer to kill a spider on a neighbor's head. o Ford asserted that the use of hydrogen bombs on a city was closer to the second case than the first case. In the first case, Ford saw the possibility of having the direct intention of the destruction of the fleet while having at the same time the indirect intention of the deaths of possible civilians onboard. In the second case, Ford found it extremely difficult to say that one can only intend the death of the spider while labeling the death of the neighbor incidental. There are ways to kill a spider

without harming the neighbor just as there are ways to hit a military target in a city while minimizing civilian deaths. The wrongness of the spider case is compared to the wrongness of hydrogen bombing cities. Ford used manualist casuistry primarily to assert the immorality of the hydrogen bombing of cities and used high casuistry to show, through case comparison, how his assertion makes sense when compared to the solutions of known paradigm cases.

II. PROBABILISM
(SESSION 23) 02/ 07 /13 Handout: Scarred Uterus case Source: Mahoney, "Teaching with Authority," The Making of Moral Theology 135-143 Another important methodology in moral theology called probabilism. Probabilism is applied to situations where there doubt regarding the applicability of a law to a particular moral case. A law that is affected by doubt, either by its application or existence, cannot oblige a person's conscience. The discernment of doubt regarding a law becomes crucial because doubt can remove an act from the control of law and leave it to the freedom of an individual. When a new moral case (a hard case) presents itself; moral theologians would try to see if current moral norms and principles are applicable to the case, or if the applicability of these norms and principles is doubtful. When theologians agree that the applicability of the moral law is doubtful and the magisterium remains silent on the issue, theologians would propose a number of opinions or solutions to the case. There could be a variety of moral opinions proposed by expert theologians, ranging from the most conservative to the most liberal interpretation of the current moral law. Moral theologians need to decide among the many moral opinions which are probable opinions that may be followed by the faithful while the situation of doubt exists. The word "probable," as used in moral theology in connection with probabilism, means "arguable" or "possibly true." A moral opinion was "probable" when it has good arguments to support it. A moral

opinion is considered "more probable" when it has stronger and more plausible arguments to justify it compared to other moral opinions on the same matter. Conversely, a moral opinion is "less probable" when it has less compelling arguments. Probabilism is a moral system that proposes that, in a situation of doubt regarding the applicability of the moral law to a case, " it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favor of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable ." This means that, in a time of doubt regarding the applicability of a moral law, as long as a moral theologian's solution to a case is solidly probable (it has good arguments to back it up and a number of reputable theologians share in the same opinion) one can follow it, even if a more conservative solution is proposed that is backed up by better arguments. History of Probabilism The discernment of the right course of action in the case of a doubtful law was particularly important in the context of postTridentine confessional practice in the 16th century. The confessional had become the privileged place for the formation of conscience. Penitents went to confession not only to seek absolution but also to seek advice on moral choices. Confessors were at times unsure about the applicability of a moral law because of the circumstances of a particular case. The confessor might also encounter a penitent who had been advised by a previous confessor that a particular moral law did not apply to the penitent. Probabilism presented a means for confessors to consider a variety of probable solutions to moral cases encountered in the confessional. Bartolommeo Medina, a Dominican professor in Salamanca, introduced the doctrine of probabilism in 1577. Medina wrote in his commentary to Aquinas' Summa theologiae, "It seems to me that, if an

opinion is probable, it is licit to follow it, even though the opposite opinion is more probable." Medina was careful, however, to state that an opinion was probable not "merely because it has proponents who state apparent reasons, but because wise men propose it and confirm it by excellent arguments." A Jesuit, Gabriel Vasquez (1551-1604), introduced a distinction in Medina's statement that an opinion can be considered probable on the authority of "wise men with excellent arguments." Vasquez made the distinction that an opinion may be "intrinsically probable" (founded on excellent arguments) or "extrinsically probable" (founded on the authority of "wise men"). To determine the degree of probability of an opinion, the general principle followed by moralists was: "an opinion is solidly probable which by reason of intrinsic or extrinsic arguments is able to gain the assent of many prudent men." o Intrinsic arguments are based on reasons drawn from the nature of the things or actions being considered. An intrinsic argument more easily leads to an agreement among moralists that an opinion is solidly probable, that the opinion "makes sense" based on the common understanding of the nature of the thing or action being considered. A good way to judge the quality of the intrinsic argument is to assess how the argument uses existing moral principles, paradigm cases, Scripture, and Tradition. o An extrinsic argument finds its strength on the number and reputation of the moralists who support a particular moral position. Probabilists generally agree that if five or six theologians of notable prudence and learning independently adhere to an opinion, their view is solidly probable. However,

the opinion of one exceptional authority might be sufficient to make an opinion solidly probable. o When an opinion by a moral theologian has good intrinsic arguments (its arguments make sense) and has good extrinsic arguments (a good number of reputable theologians agree with the opinion and its arguments), then the moral opinion can be said to have intrinsic and extrinsic probability. Controversy Regarding Probabilism (17th -18th century) Like casuistry, probabilism was also abused by lax theologians. Rather than proposing opinions that have solid arguments, some lax moralists used bizarre or weak arguments to support an opinion that allowed questionable activities. A laxist application of probabilism would state: "if the less safe opinion (more likely violate the moral law) were slightly probable it could be followed." Some of these lax propositions what were proposed as probable opinions were later condemned by Rome. For example: o A person can fulfill one's obligation t bear mass by hearing two halves, or even four quarters, said simultaneously by different priests in different altars within the same church. o One does not break a fast by eating little but often o It is permitted to kill another to defend not only one's property but also one's expectations. o It is licit to procure an abortion in order to prevent discovery leading to death or loss of reputation. Reacting against the misuse of probabilism, some moral theologians proposed alternatives to avoid the possibility of laxism: o Probabiliorism: when choosing between two probable opinions one should follow the moral opinion that is more probable (it has the better intrinsic and extrinsic arguments)

o Tutiorism: when choosing between two probable opinions one should choose the safer opinion (the one least likely to violate the doubtful law) Laxism and tutiorism were condemned by the Holy See. However, a debate between probabilism and probabiliorism continued to split moral theologians. Dominican probabiliorist were disagreed with Jesuit probabilists. The controversy was resolved by the great moral theologian Alphonsus Ligouri, the founder of the Redemptorists, who developed equiprobabilisna. He proposed that: o One is allowed freedom to choose either of two moral opinions as long as both are equally probable. Ligouri also gave his personal moral judgments to controversial moral issues of his time which ended disputes among moralists. After his death, Liguori was later canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church is now considered the patron saint of moral theologians. At the end of the controversy between probabilism and probabiliorism, probabilism was affirmed by the Church. In contemporary moral theology, probabilism (with proper safeguards against laxism) continued to be practiced by moral theologians in moral cases where there no defined teaching by the Church and existing moral law is too general.

Interplay of Casuistry and Probabilism in Moral Theology Using casuistry and probabilism, moral theologian over the centuries have sought to resolve difficult moral cases and gave guidance to the faithful regarding what actions would be right or wrong in concrete situations. Theologians use casuistry to construct a moral opinion on what should or should not be done in an extraordinary moral case (hard case). Part of the discernment of how to apply of principles and paradigm cases to a hard case is to acknowledge and consider how

other moral theologians have made their own solutions to the hard case. The probable opinions of other reputable theologians would guide the moralist to make his own opinion and solution to the hard case. Once the moralist has constructed his own opinion on the moral case, his opinion will then be assessed and considered by his fellow moralists and will be weighed alongside other probable opinions based on the quality of arguments used and how many moralists share in the same opinion. There is level of cooperation and collegiality among moral theologians as they share their treatment of cases and evaluate each others moral arguments. This encourages discussion and debate where insights and ideas can be shared and challenged in order that better moral solutions to hard cases would emerge. It is therefore important that moralists would be given adequate academic freedom to discuss issues so that there can be continuous development of doctrine and that one can ensure a continuing search for better moral and pastoral solutions. There has been a tendency to centralize moral authority in the papacy and a creeping perception of infallibility regarding papal teachings beginning in the 19th century and continuing after Vatican II. This has led to some diminishment to the freedom of moral theologians to discuss certain moral questions. Once the magisterium has issued a moral teaching in a definite (though non-infallible) manner on a particular moral issue, probable opinions directly contrary to the official teaching are no longer entertained by the magisterium. However, there remain some areas where theologians could still apply probabilism even when them is already an official teaching. Probabilism could still be applied when o defining the parameters or coverage of the teaching. o determining the concrete application of the teaching to particular cases.

o determining whether or not a new case is an exception to the teaching resolving a conflict between two separate teachings of the Church.

A good example of the formulation of a probable opinion is the treatment of the case of the scarred uterus or "hysterectomy with repeated cesarean section." In this case, Ford used manualist casuistry (in particular, the principle of double effect) as well as high casuistry (through a taxonomy of medical cases) to argue his position. He also utilized rhetorical pleas, papal teaching, and appeals to common sense to persuade his audience about the rightness of his position. The case: A woman is now pregnant for the fourth (or fifth, sixth, or seventh, etc.) time. All her previous deliveries were by cesarean section, and her obstetrician now believes that when he does the next cesarean section he will find the uterus so much weakened that he cannot repair it adequately. His fear is that the uterus will be in such a condition that, even after repair, it will very likely rupture in a further pregnancy. The question proposed by the obstetrician and the mother is this: should this fear prove to be well-founded when the next section is performed, may the irreparably damaged uterus be removed as a seriously pathological organ? The debate among moralist over this case revolved around the judgment whether the removal of such a weakened or scarred uterus constitutes a director indirect sterilization. o Those who say it is direct sterilization claim that, since there would be no danger if there were no pregnancy, the operation to prevent future danger is directed to the prevention of pregnancy. The opinion of these theologians is

Case Study: The case of the scarred uterus Proposing a Probable Opinion

that it is illicit to remove the scarred uterus if there is no pregnancy that threatens the rupture of the uterus. o There are some theologians, including Ford, who see the removal of the scarred uterus prior to a pregnancy not as a direct sterilization but as an indirect sterilization which can be allowed. These theologians claim that the scarred uterus already has a present pathological condition which needs to be addressed, regardless of whether there is a pregnancy or not. Its removal is not intended to prevent a future dangerous pregnancy but to cure a present medical condition that threatens the life of the mother. o Ford presented some medical data to support his position that the removal of scarred uterus before a pregnancy is an indirect sterilization. A study by Dr. Cornelius O'Connor showed that mothers who undergo an operation to remove their weakened uterus immediately after a cesarean operation have a 1% mortality rate compared to 2 % mortality for mothers who, after a cesarean operation, do not have their weakened uterus removed. This meant that there is a greater danger of death for a woman who retains a weakened uterus after a caesarian operation because of the possibility of a future pregnancy that can rupture the uterus. A woman who has her weakened uterus removed during her caesarian operation could face other life-threatening complications from her surgical procedure but she would no longer be threatened by the danger of uterine rupture in a future pregnancy. For Ford, this 1% difference in mortality was sufficient reason to justify the removal of the weakened uterus both medically and theologically.

 Ford: "Is the difference between 2% mortality and 1% mortality a serious matter? If one were to look at the question from the opposite side, one might say: the conservative technique is 98% safe and the radical procedure is 99% safe. This very slight increase in safety is not enough to just the sterilization. But to a surgeon the difference between I% and 2% mortality is a very important, in fact, a decisive difference. "Twice as good a chance to survive" is a very big thing to a patient, and that is exactly what is represented by the difference between I % and 2% mortality. Theologians recognize that a I% danger of death is a very real danger and teach that persons who are undergoing an operation involving that amount of danger, or even less, are to be given the sacraments as persons who are truly in danger of death. Such persons are entitled to all the privileges which canon law allows in periculo mortis. Now, it seems to me that a danger of death twice as great as that is objectively a very important and serious matter, constituting a sufficient reason for permitting sterilization. o Based on the above analysis of scientific data, Ford used the principle of double effect to justify cesarean hysterectomy, saying that it was licit to intend the good effect of preserving the health of the patient by removing a presently pathological uterus, while at the same time not directly intending the resulting sterilization. o To prove this point, Ford used a technique called "supposition." The supposition here would be that a woman has a double uterus (a condition that occasionally exists), one damaged, and one healthy. Granted the supposition, the removal of the damaged uterus would eliminate the source

of danger without at the same time inducing sterility. This indicates very strongly that the damaged uterus is a separate cause of danger and that it may he made the precise object of surgical intervention even in the normal case without at the same time any direct intent of sterilization. Using the above hypothetical case or supposition, Ford was able to separate the pathological condition of the weakened uterus from the sterilizing effect of its removal. The good effect intended is the prevention of uterine rupture of a diseased uterus, not the prevention of conception. Even though the procedure leads to sterility, it is no different, according to Ford, from other cases of legitimate use of the principle of double effect in which the evil effect produced is an unavoidable by-product. o Ford also used high casuistry to contrast the case with paradigm cases. - A paradigm case of direct sterilization is the case of cutting a woman's fallopian tubes to prevent a dangerous pregnancy due to her condition of cardiorenal disease. Sterilization is directly intended in this paradigm case because the fallopian tubes are healthy and are only being cut for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy. - A paradigm case of indirect sterilization is the case of a cancerous uterus. Sterilization in this case is indirect because the reproductive organ has a pathological condition that presents a danger to life independent of pregnancy. - The scarred uterus case is different from both paradigm cases. Unlike the first case, where the healthy fallopian tubes are cut, the case of scarred uterus is different because the uterus is considered to have a pathological

condition. Unlike the second case, where the cancerous uterus is dangerous apart from any pregnancy, the scarred uterus case is different because, although the uterus is weakened, the imminent danger to the life of the mother will only occur if there is a future pregnancy. While she is not pregnant, her uterus would be less likely to rupture. o Ford also appealed to common sense to support his position. Ford asked the rhetorical question: "Is it in accord with common sense to tell a woman who has had many cesareans: You have worn out this uterus in the service of motherhood. Nevertheless you must keep it; and if you wish to protect yourself against the danger inherent in using it, you must abstain from marital intercourse.?" - Ford's rhetorical question addressed the objection of some moralists that a present danger to the patient was needed to justify a mutilation of an organ, such as the scarred uterus. - Ford challenged such a view by quoting the words of Pius XII on the application of the principle of totality. Pius XII had said that the principle of totality can be used to justify mutilations to preserve life, to repair damage, and to avoid damage. - Even if an existing danger was required, Ford asserted that the weakened uterus presented such an existing danger in the circumstances of normal married life. Ford defined danger as consisting "in a set of circumstances from which one can foresee with certainty or probability a future impending evil." Ford considered the normal married life of a woman with such a damaged uterus and he believed that such a woman was in danger of conceiving again. Ford rendered this decisive judgment: "To say that she can avoid this danger by imposing perpetual abstinence on herself and her husband is to require a degree of heroism to which our moral principles do not oblige her."

 The wide army of arguments that Ford used in the scarred uterus case established a solidly probable opinion. He used manualist casuistry through the principle of double effect and through the interpretation of papal teaching. He applied high casuistry through the use, of taxonomy, and aided by the use of supposition, rhetoric, and common sense. Epilogue: CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED CONCERNING "UTERINE ISOLATION" AND RELATED MATTERS (31 July 1993) The CDT made a distinction between the case of a damaged uterus, which poses an immediate threat to the life of a mother after a delivery, and a weakened uterus that does not present an immediate danger to the life of a mother but is foreseen to be incapable of carrying a future pregnancy without danger to the mother. The CDF allowed the removal of the uterus in the former case but did not in the latter case. The CDF argued that the removal of the weak uterus in the latter case did not have a properly therapeutic character but was aimed at preventing future pregnancies and was therefore a direct sterilization. Such a procedure is not to be allowed in Catholic hospitals. The CDF made a distinction between present and future danger to the mother, and only allowed removal of a pathological uterus that presently endangers the patient. Magisterial teaching may negate previous probable opinions but the formed conscience has primacy in making the final moral decision.

III. MORAL PRINCIPLES PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

(SESSION 24) 02/14/13 Handout: James Keenan, The Function of the Principle of Double Effect, Theological Studies 54 (1993) 294-315. Because of the finitude of the world, we encounter situations where we have to simultaneously deal with evil and good effects in human actions Several moral principles guide us in situations where cooperation with some form of evil is involved. 1. Principle of Double Effect Used in moral quandary situations Has a long tradition in moral theology Context for the use of the principle In a particular hard moral case, a single action results in two foreseen consequences, One consequence is "good" (it promotes a particular good) and intended (the doer directly desires this effect of the action) the other consequence is "bad"(it causes some kind of harm) and unintended (the doer does not desire the effect to happen but knows that it will happen as a consequence of the action) The moral question: Under what circumstances could one cause, tolerate, and/or allow the bad effect while intending only the good effect?

a. Four conditions i. The object of the action (considering the physical act, immediate intention, and defining circumstances) cannot be intrinsically evil. The object must be good or neutral. ii. The good effect is directly intended. The evil effect is foreseen but not intended. iii. The good effect cannot be the result of the bad effect. Both effects must simultaneous in origin. This prevents an intrinsically evil object from being used as a means for good. iv. There must be a proportionate reason. There must be a very compelling reason to allow the unintended evil effect. b. Be careful not to use the principle unnecessarily. i. Do not use the principle simply to justify an act with evil and good effects when an alternative which avoids the evil effects is available. ii. The principle is also not to be used to justify an act with disproportionate evil effects even if the good effect is praiseworthy. iii. The principle is not used for looking for loopholes to allow a questionable act. c. The principle, in reality, is rarely used. It is only used when the object of the action bears a considerable degree of moral ambiguity and comes close to performing a wrongful activity directly. The principle should be invoked only when necessary. Paradigm cases for the principle of double effect A pregnant woman is found to have a cancerous uterus. The cancer has spread to the point that she may die before her child could be born. The principle allows her to choose to have the cancerous uterus removed to primarily save her life with the undesired effect of aborting the fetus. To prove lack of direct intent to kill the fetus, one would have removed the cancerous uterus out of necessity to save the

life of the mother even if there was no fetus in it. (Of course, some heroic mothers could choose to die of cancer while allowing their baby to be born. This is very praiseworthy. However, we do not demand all mothers in this situation to give up their lives for their child. The double effect principle allows mothers to choose to save their lives while not directly intending to kill the child in their womb. This is allowed by the Church.) At a time of war, a military commander needs to make a pre-emptive attack on a chemical weapons facility, to prevent the production of weapons of mass destruction. The destruction of the facility could kill or injure civilians working in and near the factory. If the commander uses the best means available to minimize innocent deaths as much possible while seeking to achieve the goal of destroying the factory, the principle of double effect would be applicable. A person is dying of cancer and there is no hope of recovery. The pain experienced by the patient is increasingly becoming intense and higher doses of painkillers become necessary to manage the pain to bearable levels. The principle can allow the gradual increasing of the dosage of painkillers with the direct intention of relieving the pain of the patient even if the higher dosages would have the unintended effect of hastening the dying process. One needs to be careful not to abuse the principle of double effect Examples of wrong use of the principle of double effect Using nuclear weapons on a city of a wartime enemy nation to destroy its ammunitions factory the evil effects are too extreme; the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians could never be justified an intrinsically evil act. The condition of proportionate reason is violated the aim of destroying the factory is not proportionate to the mass destruction and death that would result from the use of nuclear weapons. Also, there are alternative ways to achieve the goal of destroying the

ammunitions factory (e.g., using conventional weapons) that causes less harm. Thus, the use of nuclear weapons is unnecessary. The justification of torture as a means to obtain vital military information one cannot justify the use of an intrinsically evil act as means to attain a good end. The gross violation human rights and human dignity cannot be tolerated even with good intentions. One may not use an evil effect to achieve a good effect (the ends do not justify the means). The Case of Ectopic, Pregnancy: A Paradigm Case or Misuse of the Principle of Double Effect? Keenan's article explains the genesis of the principle of double effect. The principle is a shorthand summary of common characteristics of similar paradigm cases recognized by the Church. The four conditions of the principle have no natural connection to each other; they simply are the important common characteristics of the paradigm cases from which the principle was derived. The principle was not meant to be applied geometrically using the four conditions like a checklist to see if a hard case fulfills all the conditions. The principle is to be applied taxonomically comparing the hard case with the paradigm cases which the principle represents (cancerous uterus, the military strike, and the dying cancer patient). The hard case must not be measured simply by the requirements of the four conditions but it must also exhibit the internal coherence that is present in the paradigm cases. The purpose of the principle is not to justify a solution of a case. The purpose of the principle is to confirm the internal logic that is already present in a case solution by pointing out that it shares in the same internal logic of similar resolved cases. The solution

must make sense internally already and the principle simply points to how it shares in the common characteristics of similar paradigm cases that also make sense internally. Ectopic pregnancy: An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). It is a life-threatening condition to the mother. The baby (fetus) cannot survive. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to death. If left untreated, half of tubal pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Other ectopic pregnancies require intervention in order to prevent harm to the mother use, of chemical abortifacients, incising the fallopian tube to take out the embryo, or to cut out the tube that contains then implanted embryo. The Church allows only the cutting out of the fallopian tube to save the life of the mother, applying the principle of double effect. The case of ectopic pregnancy has often been used as a paradigm case of the principle of double effect. Keenan proposes that the traditional paradigm case of ectopic pregnancy is not really a true paradigm case because it lacks the internal coherence and logic of the other paradigm cases (cancerous uterus, the military strike, and the dying cancer patient). o If the principle of double effect is applied geometrically to the ectopic pregnancy case, it would appear that the case fulfills the four conditions and thus is a valid application of the principle. o However, if the principle is applied taxonomically to the ectopic pregnancy case, it will reveal that the principle does not apply because it will show that the bad effect was actually intended. The removal of the section of the tube

containing the embryo is done precisely because the embryo was there. o To solve the ectopic pregnancy case, one needs a different moral principle to save the life of the mother. o Keenan proposes uses the principle of defense against an unjust material aggressor. He points out that this solution could be differentiated from direct abortion. At present the Church's moral tradition and most moralists still recognize the ectopic pregnancy as a paradigm case of the principle of double effect rather than a hard case for the principle of defense against an unjust material aggressor. Keenan's article is a proposal for the development of the tradition.

PRINCIPLES OF COMPROMISE, TOLERATION, AND ADVISING LESSER EVIL

(SESSION 25) 02/18/13 1. Principle of compromise a. A compromise is not necessarily a betrayal of what is morally good. b. The principle of compromised attempts to realize the best possible good in a limited concrete situation where an ideal could not be achieved. c. The end of compromise is not to minimize the good but to seek the maximum possible good in a concrete situation d. One aims at an ideal situation where a value is fully realized. However, because of limiting circumstances, one may compromise to cooperate in a situation or action that does not fully realize the value but is a step toward the fuller realization of the value. e. In making a compromise, one must avoid creating scandal to the faithful. Example: When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a proabortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects (Evangelium Vitae #73) Ina country where there is a death penalty law, a legislator may not be able to overturn the law but he can propose limits to the coverage of the law (e.g., no executions of minors, pregnant

women, mentally disabled persons, or persons over 70). Introducing limits to death penalty law does not necessary mean that the legislator approves of the death penalty. It can be seen as a compromise move to limit the hams caused by the law if the ideal of overturning the law is not possible. 2. Advising a leaser evil ... may one advise another bent on committing a great crime to be satisfied instead with doing something less evil? This question is much discussed, but the opinion which considers such a course justifiable is probable and may be followed in practice. fin fact the advice thus given is not properly speaking advice to do evil but to do a lesser evil or rather not to do the greater evil which a man intends to commit; therefore some writers exact that the words or circumstances must demonstrate that am advises the evil solely as the lesser evil; others, however, consider it sufficient that such be the intention, even when not made manifest, of the person who gives the advice. Nevertheless, if a man had decided to do an injury to a certain person one could not unless in exceptional circumstances induce him to do a lesser injury to any other person. Vander Election, A. (1912).Scandal.In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 11, 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/wthen/I3506d.htm a. Advising a lesser evil is permitted if that is the only way to prevent a person intent on doing evil from committing a greater evil. b. However it is not allowed to advise a lesser evil if it would result in an injustice to a third party whom the sinner did not originally have in mind. c. One must avoid scandal in the type of advice one gives.

Example A man is intending to have a night of promiscuous sex. You tried your best to convince him to change his mind but he cannot be dissuaded from his plan. As a last resort to prevent worse harm, you advise him to at least use a condom to protect himself and his partners from disease. Wrong application of advising a lesser evil. A person wants to beat up his neighbor for killing the person's dog in an accident. The neighbor is an elderly man who may be gravely harmed by a beating so you advise the person to just beat the neighbor's son. This is wrong application because it creates a third party victim uninvolved in the dispute. 3. Principle of Tolerance (see handout: Principle of Toleration by James Keenan, from The New Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought, ed. Judith Dwyer, 1994.) a. You consider another person's activity as threatening certain values. b. You disagree with the activity and refuse to recommend or approve the activity. c. But to prevent greater ham, you tolerate the activity. d. It is a decision not to act, not to obstruct, or coerce to prevent further harm from occurring. e. One strives to help the wrongdoer to eventually correct his actionsf. One must seek to avoid scandal. Example A couple where one partner is HIV infected is using condoms during their marital relationships. You cannot convince them to live with abstinence during their marriage. Though you do not approve of their condom use because of its contraceptive effect

but you tolerate it because to avoid the greater evil of AIDS transmission to the uninfected partner. Because we live in a pluralistic society, we acknowledge that some will not agree with our understanding of human sexuality. We recognize that public educational programs addressed to a wide audience will reflect the fact that some people will not act as they can and should; that they will not refrain from the type of sexual or drug-abuse behavior that can transmit AIDS. In such situations, educational efforts, if grounded in the broader mom] vision outlined above, could include accurate information about prophylactic devices or other practices proposed by some medical experts as potential means of preventing AIDS. (The Many Faces of AIDS, US Bishops Conference, 1987)

PRINCIPLE OF COOPERATION
(SESSION 26) 02/21/13 There are times when we find ourselves cooperating in the wrong actions of another. The principle of cooperation is used to evaluate the whether the act of cooperation is morally acceptable or not. 1. The principle of cooperation makes several important distinctions: a. Formal vs material cooperation b. Immediate vs mediate material cooperation c. Proximate vs remote mediate material cooperation 2. Formal cooperation vs material cooperation a. If the cooperator intends the object of the wrongdoers activity, then the cooperation is formal and, therefore, morally wrong. b. Formal cooperation can be explicit. This is when the cooperator admits sharing the same intention as the wrongdoer. Example: A person who agrees to be an accomplice in bank robbery. c. Formal cooperation can be implicit. This is when the cooperator denies sharing the same intention as the wrongdoer but there is no explanation that can distinguish the object of the co-operator from the wrongdoer. Example: A motel owner who denies cooperating with prostitution but knowingly allows prostitutes to use his motel for their illicit activities. d. If the cooperator does not intend the object of the wrongdoer's activity, the cooperation is material and can be morally licit under certain conditions. 3. Immediate material cooperation vs mediate material cooperation

a. In immediate material cooperation, the cooperator may not share the same object of the wrongdoer but the cooperator's action is part of the actual execution of the immoral act of the wrongdoer. Immediate material cooperation would still he wrong. It is equivalent to implicit formal cooperation. Example: Someone not in favor of abortion operating a suction pump to remove the baby from the mother's womb under the direction of a doctor. b. If serious coercion is present, immediate material cooperation will still be objectively wrong and harmful but will not be subjectively sinful. Example: A person forced to assist in a bank robbery because of a threat to his life. c. In mediate material cooperation the cooperator does not share in the object of the wrongdoer but whose actions help fulfill the conditions necessary for the wrongdoer's action to take place. Mediate material cooperation may be acceptable or not depending on how close or how far is the cooperator's action to the wrongdoer's action. 4. Proximate mediate material cooperation vs remote mediate material cooperation a. In proximate mediate material cooperation, the cooperator's participation is close to the action of the wrong doer, it is necessary for the wrong action to be accomplished. b. In remote mediate material cooperation, the cooperator's participation is distant from the action of the wrong doer; it is not necessary or essential for the wrong action to be accomplished. c. The closer the cooperator's action is to the wrong doer's action, the greater the proportionate reason required to make the cooperation allowable.

d. Example: Working as a nurse assisting in the operating room in a hospital that sometimes carries out sterilizations while personally opposing sterilization is an example of proximate mediate material cooperation while working as an orderly that cleans ups the operating room after every operation is an example of remote mediate material cooperation. As much as possible, one should avoid immediate material cooperation. There must be a serious reason for one to engage in mediate material cooperation in a wrong act of another. Examples of serious reason for material cooperation coercion, grave harm to one's self or to another, grave harm to the common good. Mediate material cooperation should have a proportionately reason in order to be close to the action of the wrong doer. The aspect of coercion and potential harm to the cooperator if he or she refuses to cooperate should be carefully considered these factors should neither he ignored nor exaggerated. We should guard against scandal that would give others a wrong understanding of church teaching or influence others to do something that is wrong. Examples of paradigm cases of material cooperation: 1. A woman's husband practices withdrawal during intercourse. One cannot immediately conclude that the wife also shares in the husband's intention of using withdrawal to prevent conception. One must verify with the wife if she agrees with her husband's contraceptive act (Does she have the same intention as her husband?) She may say that she could not stop her husband from doing withdrawal and that she has grave concern about her personal welfare or the welfare of her marriage if she refuses to have sex with her husband or to insist that he not use withdrawal. If this is the case, she is only materially cooperating and thus

not culpable of the sin of contraception (but her husband is culpable). This is a classic paradigm me. 2. An employee works in a pharmacy that sells condoms and birth control pills. If the employee says that he is against contraception but he cannot refuse to sell these contraceptive items to customers who requests for them because he might be fired from his job. He also could not find any other pharmacy job that does not involve selling contraceptives. The employee may then only be materially cooperating in the use of contraceptives. This kind of material cooperation is mediate and remote.

THE LAW OF GRADUALNESS

(SESSION 27) 02/28/13 The Church recognizes that striving to perfectly follow church teaching requires a gradual approach. The Church supports and encourages those who are trying their best to follow its teaching even if at the moment it is impossible or they cannot follow it consistently or perfectly. Application: The Pontifical Council for the Family came out with guidelines for priests who encounter married people in confession who have difficulty living out the teaching of the Church on family planning. 9. The pastoral 'law of gradualness " not to be confused with the "gradualness of the law" which would tend to diminish the demands it places on as, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands (43). 11. Sacramental absolution is not to be denied to those who, repentant after having gravely sinned against conjugal chastity, demonstrate the desire to strive to abstain from sinning again, notwithstanding relapses. In accordance with the approved doctrine and practice followed by the holy Doctors and confessors with regard to habitual penitents, the confessor is to avoid demonstrating lack of trust either in the grace of God or in the dispositions of the penitent, by exacting humanly impossible absolute guarantees of= ureproachable figure conduct (45). (Vademecam for Confessors, Pontifical Council for the Family, 1977) A married person can be absolved of the use of contraceptives even if the person cannot immediately stop using contraceptives

because of a serious reason, if the following conditions are present: o The person understands and agrees with the teaching of the church on contraception and is sorry for continually violating the teaching. o The person cannot immediately stop the use of contraceptives because of grave reasons that would cause harm to the person or the person's family o The person promises to try his/her best to gradually to reach the ideal, which is to use NFP and avoid the use of artificial contraception. o The person continues to go the sacraments of confession and Eucharist in order to be strengthened and nourished by God's grace in the journey toward perfection. Example: o A woman with six children uses contraceptives because her husband is not a Catholic and does not believe in NFP. The Church urges the woman not to give up hope and gradually convince the husband to cooperate for the good of the family. This may take years but in the meantime the woman is welcome to the sacrament of confession and Eucharist. o A woman with many children and whose husband works abroad sometimes uses contraceptives when her husband's home visits fall during her fertile period. The Church advises the woman to keep in mind the church's teaching on NFP even if it cannot be applied consistently at the moment. When the time comes when her husband can come home for good, she can then convince him to use NFP with her. The contraceptive use is still wrong and the woman

still has to go to confession to receive communion but she should aim for eventually using NFP. Other applications: o Teenager struggling with the temptation to masturbate. He is urged to try his best to avoid temptation to the best of his ability and strive to grow in chastity, but if he falls, he should go to confession and communion. His ideal is to eventually be able to refrain from masturbation. o A couple where one partner was previously married to another but was abandoned, They now have children but cannot get married. They are in a state of adultery. If they cannot separate because of the children and they intend to remain a stable family unit, urge them to strive eventually to regularize their situation if it is possible while avoiding scandal in the meantime (not receiving communion in a place where they are known). If they can avoid having sex, it would be ideal but if not, to confess this if they have to receive communion.

IV. GIVING MORAL ADVICE

(SESSION 28) 02/28/13 Handout: James Keenan, On Giving Moral Advice, America 174 (1996) 12-16. Fundamental Insights about Giving Moral Advice 1. Listen Listen carefully to the person asking for advice. Do not simply presume that their case is a typical case that can be solved by simple application of principles. There can be important human factors that need to be given consideration which might affect the eventual outcome of the case. Human emotions, memories, family dynamics, the state of the person's relationship with God, cultural factors, etc. come into play in every human moral case and we need to adjust our moral advice to consider these elements. 2. Be Positive More than just telling a person to avoid this or not to do that, we need to give positive advice about what they should do and what should they strive for. We do not simply need to avoid evil but we must also do and pursue the good. 3. Invite People to set goals Help people to look forward into the future beyond their present moral situation. IT morality is about character formation, we need to move beyond individual acts but look toward the kind of persons we want to become. Help persons plan their moral life by helping them set goals. This will give them a direction in their lives and they will have a standard with which to measure their progress in the moral life. Ask the virtue ethics questions: "Who am I?" "Who I ought to become?" "How do I get diem?"

4. Talk about the virtues Help the person to consider the virtues (good habits or good dispositions of the will) that he or she needs to practice constantly in order to overcome difficult vices and to grow into holiness. Emphasize the importance of prudence in the practice of virtues, avoiding excess and deficiency. Suggest real persons who can serve as models of virtue for the person. 5. Respect the conscience The primacy of the person's conscience must be respected even if it is erroneous. This is not an excuse fora person to do whatever he or she wants. Rather, the primacy of the conscience seeks to protect a person from being coerced or violated by external authorities. A person should not be forced to act against his or her conscience. We should respect the conscience as the sanctuary where a person listens to the voice of God. 6. Don't solve people's problems; rather help them form their consciences. We would be more effective as moral guides if, instead of just doling out answers to moral questions, we would help persons make prudent moral choices by forming their consciences. We can lead them to the sources of moral wisdom such as scripture, the magisterium, natural law, and experience. We can give them helpful distinctions (e.g., object, intention circumstances; direct and indirect intention; formal and material cooperation, etc.), specific teachings (on abortion, contraception, marriage and divorce, euthanasia, withdrawing extraordinary means to sustain life, etc.) and methods of moral argumentation (high and low casuistry). We can refer them to experts and reputable theologians whose probable opinions are acceptable. Ultimately, we want to empower people to be responsible and conscientious moral agents who

are capable to using their natural gifts of reason and faith to discern God's will for them. 7. Remember the Parable of the Good Samaritan Mercy is the distinctive characteristic of Catholic ethics. To be a neighbor to others is to show Mercy. 8. Be attentive to distinctions Do not use sloppy or inaccurate descriptions of moral actions. We should be very careful about how we describe actions. Be clear about important distinctions that are found in a moral case. Often, distinctions help identify the moral meaning of an action. 9. Be responsible with church teaching. Receive church teaching with religious assent while at the same time recognizing the different levels of authority of different kinds of church pronouncements. Be clear about what the church teaches, using accurate descriptions and making the proper distinctions. Be clear about where the church requires strict adherence and where the church allows a diversity of moral options. Encourage a thoughtful and reasonable inquiry about church teaching. Do not promote blind obedience or a distrustful attitude to church teaching. 10. Avoid the slippery slope argument This is a common argument used to discourage exceptions and changes in moral teaching by branding such exceptions or changes as dangerous. This argument is used often to maintain the status quo by those who refuse change. 11. Use reason Our moral arguments must be based on good reasoning. Our arguments must convince and persuade the reason of others. Arguments using fear,

threats, appeals to authority, or emotional manipulation do not respect our God-given faculty of reason. 12. Share doubts If you do not agree with another person's moral position, express your concerns and doubts about the rightness of his or her position. You can use the slippery slope argument here, not to stop the discussion but to encourage further dialogue and discernment. You should also not be afraid to express your own doubts about your ability to answer a moral question. Rather than give a hasty and unhelpful to avoid embarrassment, it is better to admit that you do not know the answer at the moment but you will try to find out. 13. We become what we do. We must remember that Christian morality is character formation and our moral actions are important because they shape the kind of person we become. This attention to the morality of our everyday action is not an encouragement to grow in self-centered scrupulosity but rather an invitation to everyday discernment and an encouragement to be responsible for our actions became we seek to imitate Christ in all things as his disciples.