Rel Ed 3

Chapter 1
Sketching a Moral Methodology
Introduction
This chapter introduces the student to fundamental moral theology and traces one particular
moral methodology and the sources which Catholic moral theology traditionally draws upon.
Understanding the moral method and sources Catholic moral theology uses is a first step into
doing Catholic moral theology and discernment; thus, the book starts with this in order to allow
the students to understand the Catholic approach to decision making and ethics.
Learning Objectives
1. Understand what fundamental moral theology is, its scope, and its tasks
2. Sketch a Catholic moral methodology in fundamental moral theology and identify its
sources
3. Reflect on how the student’s faith commitment has or has not affected his or her ethics
and decisions
Exposition
Fundamental Moral Theology
When confronting one’s faith commitment, a question that is always asked is this: what
particular demands are asked of me in my commitment to this or that way of life? It is not simply
enough to say that one believes a particular set of doctrines, or that one subscribes to a specific
set of beliefs; it is also about identifying what the implications of these beliefs and doctrines are
on the everyday practical life. Especially in a world where people are always confronted with a
barrage of choices to make and paths to take, it is important to be conscious of how our beliefs
and faith commitments affect how we make decisions in life, and how they should affect how we
make decisions in life.
This is what Catholic fundamental moral theology is concerned with. Fundamental moral
theology is a branch of theology that is concerned with ethics, or how one is to act if one takes
seriously the Catholic faith commitment; this includes the social teaching of the Church, sexual
ethics, medical or bioethics, environmental ethics, and so on. This would also be concerned with
how we discern and make decisions in big choices such as what career to take, to small choices
such as where to shop for things like food or clothes. While it might seem that moral theology
might only be concerned with avoiding evil or sin, we will see later on that it is concerned with
many decisions and choices, as a primary assumption is that many of the choices we make in our
day to day life do have moral dimensions and implications.
As a college student, you may be confronted with questions such as: what career or work
will you pursue after graduating in a few years time? Will you get married? Who will you
marry? What will you do in five or ten years? You will also be confronted by questions of ethics
and moral dilemmas in your life; at work, for example, you may be challenged to balance the
good of the company, the good of customers, the good of the environment, and the good of the
local community. How then do you weigh these factors in decisions? Even more broadly, how do
you go about making decisions?
Method
There are many different moral methodologies that have been proposed over the two
thousand years that Christian theology has had to develop in response to the question of
decision-making that takes seriously the Catholic faith commitment. Catholics will have a
particular method that is favored, which emphasizes particular sources over others. This will, of
course be different from other religions, and even within the Christian faith tradition, though
there are many things in common among the various Christian Churches, different Christian
groups will favor different sources and methods. Thus, this book will focus in particular with
Catholic methodology.
Specifically, the method that will be outlined is that of James Bretzke, a Catholic moral
theologian whose work draws from various theologians in the Christian tradition. It seeks to be
both comprehensive and discernible to the average person, without compromising or watering
down the rich and nuanced Catholic Tradition. In this method, Bretzke emphasizes that “a key
aspect of lived morality is not just ‘doing’ the rights things and avoiding the wrong things, but
more fundamentally living in right relationships—first with God and then with the rest of God’s
children, and finally with the whole of God’s creation.” 1 He also emphasizes that the goal of
moral decision making is that of shalom; people often associate the term shalom with peace, but
this Hebrew word has a richer and deeper meaning, which encompasses well-being and
wholeness, rather than simply a lack of conflict or war. As such, moral decision making is
concerned with how people are growing and developing and should move a person and the
community towards shalom, which we will see in the chapter on Scripture.
Bretzke outlines what he calls the subjective axis and objective axis in making moral
decisions. Specifically, he identifies four sectors that continue to interact with each other as
major considerations in Catholic moral decision making; these four sectors are also interpreted
through our own personal worldview. 2 These four sectors would be: Scripture, Tradition, human
experience, and rational reflection on human experience. It is in the intersection of these two
axes that one’s conscience lies. Conscience will be further expounded on in chapter three, but
first, let us go through the four sectors that make up the axes of Bretzke’s moral methodology.
1
James T. Bretzke, SJ, A Morally Complex World: Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology (Collegeville, Minn:
Liturgical Press, 2004), 12.
2
Bretzke, SJ, 20–21.
4 Sectors Interacting with each other 3
The Four Sectors
In Catholic moral theology, there are various sources that one draws on in making a
decision. Such sources have a normative claim on the individual or community making the
decision as part of the individual or community’s faith commitment. One source should not be
emphasized to the detriment of another; rather, all of these sources have something important to
contribute to moral decision-making that one risks losing if one source dominates all the rest.
This method also seeks to go beyond an absolutely physicalist or absolutely relativist

approach. An absolutely physicalist approach focuses on abstract and universalizable theories.
This approach tends to focus on what it understands to be “objective,” ahistorical and
unchanging: there is a given nature, essence, and moral order to the world, and thus the job of
people is to find it, understand it, and follow it. Reality is thus understood to be static. On the
other hand, an absolutely relativist view would simply allow for whatever each person wants in,
without any basis. This method that Bretzke outlines tends towards what is called a personalist
approach, which, while not denying some form of objective moral order, nevertheless
acknowledges the need to “look for the moral meaning of the human person in his or her matrix
of relations, with his or her talents, concrete circumstances, personal history, and so on.” 4 There
is a tension and dialogue between the objective and subjective dimensions of the human person
and reality, as will be seen in the next chapters.
The Subjective Axis: The Human Person’s Experience and Reflection on Experience
Human Experience
3
Bretzke, SJ, 21.
4
Bretzke, SJ, 38.
Human experience, though difficult to define, acknowledges the individual’s self-
awareness and subjectivity, and a person’s relationship with themselves, other people, and other
communities as important considerations or even starting points for theologizing. Traditionally,
human experience has gotten little attention in moral theology. It has only been recently with the
philosophical turn to the subject, as well as the coming of postmodern and contextual theology,
that human experience has been given more consideration in theologizing. The unsaid
assumption that western theology was the only correct theology and was universalizable led to
the conclusion that the only thing needed was to teach other cultures this form of theology
without any form of enculturation or consideration of what other people had experienced; this led
to misunderstandings and even erroneous teachings of Catholicism, and thus people falling away
from Christianity in general—such is an example of possibly disastrous results when human
experience is not considered when theologizing. This is not to say that we ought to privilege
human experience above all else; however, as seen in the earlier example that was particularly
blind to the colonial and cultural experiences of other people, theology that does not consider
human experience can lead to erroneous decisions and theology.
Today, particularly with Pope Francis’ papacy, the Catholic Church privileges a
hermeneutic or way of interpreting or understanding the world that is based on a particular
human experience: that of the poor. Jesus Christ sought out the poor and the marginalized—the
widow, the orphan, the stranger in the Old Testament, and the tax collectors, prostitutes, and
sinners in the New Testament—and sought to include them back into the community and allow
them to once again participate in society; thus, the Catholic Church does the same. It is through
the poor and marginalized that the Catholic Church believes that we will meet Jesus, for as Jesus
says “truly, I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my
family, you did it to me.” 5
Rational Reflection and Reason on Human Experience
Part of human experience, and what it means to be a human being, is one’s capacity to
reason, and experiences are constantly interpreted by the person or community experiencing it.
One processes one’s human experiences and reflects on them, articulating what the said
experiences mean in light of one’s background theories, retroductive warrants, communities of
discourse, and in dialogue with Scripture and Tradition. In this sector, one reflects on what is
thus counted as “normatively human” in order to arrive at more concrete criteria or definitions of
what it human flourishing and the common good means. 6 This is obviously difficult, and various
people can have various definitions of what the good is, and who the good is for; nevertheless,
this is what a person in this sector attempts to do, in collaboration with many other people, and
with much humility and respect for each other.
As mentioned earlier, there is a balance among the different sources, with a hermeneutic
of suspicion that is willing to critique any ideologies that may creep into the Tradition. Thus, in
taking into account human experience in moral methodology, certain factors need to be
considered in articulated in order to have a more holistic analysis and understanding of human
5
Matthew 25:40
6
Bretzke, SJ, A Morally Complex World, 26.
experience and what counts as “normatively human” in relationship to the other sources. 7 First,
the background theories or presuppositions that a person brings should be articulated. Each
person is not a blank slate: each person comes with his or her own background theories that
shape and inform how he or she approaches and perceives any data, experience, or phenomenon.
There can be a tendency to be unaware of what assumptions a person has, and therefore
not question whether these assumptions hold true or not. Hence, it is important to reflect on one’s
background theories: how does one understand the self, community, and the vision or goals of
the said community and self? How does one understand Scripture and Tradition, and how does
one think they fit into the person’s approach to life and work? For example, much of St.
Augustine’s theological work, which has now changed much of western Catholic theology, was
heavily predicated on neo-platonic philosophy, while St. Thomas Aquinas’s work borrowed
much from Aristotle’s work. Conversely, a background theory that assumes an inequality of
races, for example, can be expressed in how salvation is understood: Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin’s work, which integrates evolution and Christianity and opened a new way for dialogue
between faith and science, also assumes an inequality of races, which is troubling and can be
problematic. These examples simply want to show that the background theories one has will be
expressed in one’s theology or perspective, which will in turn affect one’s ethics.
Second, retroductive warrants serve as an important “acid test” to one’s theology. Simply
put, retroductive warrants are the theoretical and practical fruitfulness of one’s theology or
decision-making. Are the consequences of one’s theology and decision actually life-giving,
moving the person and community towards shalom, and in line with the gospel values? If yes,
then it is fruitful. To be clear, Catholic moral theology is not purely consequentialist; however, if
one can foresee that one’s decision or theology will lead to oppression, death, or violence, then it
ought be a point of consideration. One’s theology and decisions do not happen in vacuum—they
affect other people, no matter how small or private our decisions are; therefore, these
consequences on ourselves and others should be considered.
Third, the Catholic Church is understood to be a community of discourse, which

emphasizes that it is made up of various people who are theologizing and making decisions. In
the interaction among the different people who will have different perspectives, background
theories, and theologies, three questions need to be raised as part of this community: first, who is
the authority? Second, who is the audience—to whom is one speaking to or theologizing to?
Lastly, who is the adjudicator in cases of conflicts and disagreements in perspectives, theologies,
and decisions?
The next two chapters in particular will talk about these questions and concerns on
human experience, the underlying assumptions and principles that guide the understanding of
human experience in Catholic moral theology, and will discuss how the subjective axis interacts
with the objective axis in what Catholic moral theology had traditionally identified as one’s
conscience.
7
Francis Schussler Fiorenza describes the importance of the succeeding factors as part of human experience in
relation to Scripture and Tradition. For more on this, please see Francis Schussler Fiorenza, “Systematic Theology:
Task and Methods,” in Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, ed. Francis Schussler Fiorenza and John
P. Galvin, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011), 3–75.
From here, we can now discuss the objective axis that interacts with human experience
and forms a basis for guiding one’s understanding of reality and ethics. The objective axis is
what is unique to Christianity, and
The Objective Axis: Scripture and Tradition
Scripture
Scripture, understood as the Word of God, understandably holds a major place in moral
theology. Recall that in understanding Scripture, it is important to clarify the way one reads it,
and to read it using a correct method, which is neither fundamentalist nor completely subjective. 8
“On the one hand, exegetical practice stresses a scientific objectivity and neutrality that aim to be
free from subjective presuppositions. On the other hand, contemporary hermeneutical theory
underscores the significance that one’s pre-understanding and application have for
interpretation.”9
It is good then to keep in mind that Scripture has its own “language” that may not be the
same as the way we use language today, and that three “worlds” exist when one reads Scripture:
the world of the author who put into writing, through inspiration from the Holy Spirit, the Word
of God into Scripture, the world of the biblical text itself, with its characters, stories, and genres,
and the world of the reader, coming in with his or her hermeneutics presuppositions, and even
biases. The intersection of these three worlds helps us have a deeper dialogue to illumine God’s
Word in Scripture. As St. Augustine emphasizes, it is important that one allows the Holy Spirit
help one draw closer to God and to do the good.
Tradition
In the Catholic Tradition, Tradition is broadly understood as both the doctrine that is
handed down in the Church, as well as the process of handing down this doctrine, reinforcing,
amplying, or applying Scripture to the concrete context of people. Sandra Schneiders gives a
holistic understanding of Tradition that does not narrow it down to simply words or doctrine:
Tradition, as the foundational gift, out of which the Church’s experience unfolds
throughout history, is the Holy Spirit, who is the presence of the risen Jesus making
the Church the Body of Christ. Tradition, as content, is the sum total of appropriated
and transmitted Christian experience, out of which Christians select the material for a
renewed syntheses of the faith. Tradition also refers also to the mode by which that
8
For more on how Catholicism understands Scripture and how to read and understand it, please see Second Vatican
Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum,” Vatican.va, accessed December 3, 2015,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-
verbum_en.html.
9
Schussler Fiorenza, “Systematic Theology: Task and Methods,” 10.
content is made available to successive generations of believers, the way in which
the traditioning of the faith is carried on through history. 10
Since Scripture and the Catholic narratives are not self-interpreting, there is a need to continue
to reflect on and interpret what they truly mean. Tradition is not a “dead faith of the living” as
Jaroslav Pelikan says, but rather it is a living faith, a faith that “develops and changes in a way
that constantly reconstructs what it considers to be paradigmatic” based on Scripture, doctrine,
and the needs and human experience of the people. For example, slavery used to be allowed and
even defended using Scriptural passages, citing that slavery was allowed in Scripture,
particularly in the Leviticus law and Pauline texts; Catholics and Catholic orders owned slaves,
and it was only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that slavery was explicitly condemned
in Catholicism and Christianity. 11
What counts as Tradition then would include not just magisterial or official documents
from the Vatican, but also various works of theologians and doctors of the Church, and the
“historical collective experience of the entire Christian community, our liturgical and
sacramental life together, as well as the paradigmatic examples of Christian living given us by
the… ‘saints.’”12 A large portion of what is handed down and used in fundamental moral
theology is what is understood as natural law, a set of universal precepts that can be known
through human reason, which will be further discussed in the next chapters.
How does this tradition evolve over time? In the Catholic Church, there is a tension
between the magisterium and the sensus fidelium. The Catholic Church, on the one hand, looks
to its official teaching body, called the magisterium and made up of the pope and bishops, to
adjudicate or make pronouncements on official Catholic teaching. These pronouncements may
be “from above” in the form of ex cathedra statements from the pope, who exercises his papal
infallibility explicitly at the moment, or through authoritative statements by bishops collectively.
This helps ensure that Catholicism does not simply fall into the trap of relativism or purely
subjective understanding of the faith; in short, in certain areas of doctrine, Catholics cannot
simply pick and choose what it is that they want to believe in, if they wished to commit to the
Catholic faith.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church also believes in the sense of the faithful or sensus
fidelium or the sense of the faith or sensus fidei. This sense is something that is exercised by the
entire body of Catholic faithful, and is a form of intuition of what is the Truth. “The sensus
fidei…is a sort of spiritual instinct that enables the believer to judge spontaneously whether a
particular teaching or practice is or is not in conformity with the Gospel and with apostolic faith.
It is intrinsically linked to the virtue of faith itself; it flows from, and is a property of, faith. It is
compared to an instinct because it is not primarily the result of rational deliberation, but is rather
10
Sandra M. Schneiders, IHM, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture, Second
Edition, Second (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1999), 72.
11
For more on this, please see Bryan N. Massingale, Racial Justice and the Catholic Church (Maryknoll, N.Y:
Orbis Books, 2010).
12
a form of spontaneous and natural knowledge, a sort of perception (aisthesis). 13 Some of the
dogmas associated with Mary, such as the dogma on her bodily assumption of Mary for example,
began not “from above” but “from below,” in the practices and beliefs of the practicing faithful
and Marian devotees. These devotions and practices were then promulgated through official
documents of the Catholic Church.
These two ways of how Tradition develops are not meant to be taken as an “either-or,”
rather it is a “both-and,” wherein the traditional teaching office of the Catholic Church meets the
people where they are, and teaches and learns from the actual practices, ethics, and faith of the
people. Later on, we will see how these two are taken together and at the same time dialogue in
developing Church teaching.
The Ultimate Norm: Jesus Christ
One last thing to note in this section, as well as in this chapter. With the various sources
that Catholic moral methodology draws on, how does one adjudicate when they conflict? Do we
privilege one source over another?
It is possible to get conflicting statements. Even in Scripture alone, there can be

seemingly conflicting literal statements. So, it is helpful to always go back to what one calls the
ultimate norm. In latin, this is the norma normans non normata, which means “the norm of
norms which cannot be normed: in short, the ultimate norm or organizing principle upon which
Catholic moral methodology turns. As Catholics, this would be the life and the person of Jesus
Christ, the Word of God made flesh.
This is important to note because moral decision making is not a linear process—it can be
messy, conflicting, and full of confusion. There can also be times wherein we may have to
choose between the lesser of evils, as a world that is marred by sin can often force people into
situations where there may be no good choice. In all of these cases, having an ultimate norm
helps clarify at least some of the confusion and doubt, and helps keep the person in line towards
the goal of flourishing and the common good. It also helps a person keep the various sources
and sectors in moral methodology from becoming fossilized ideologies that become “false gods”
of the people. In sum, “if our ethics and moral theology are to be truly Christian then every other
norm, judgement, and conclusion has to eb subordinated to our understanding of Jesus Christ and
his gospel message.” 14
Summary
In this chapter we briefly tackled what fundamental moral theology is and its significance
in Catholic theology and a person’s life. We also sketched one particular moral methodology and
13
International Theological Commission, “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church,” Vatican.va, 2014,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-
fidei_en.html#1._The_sensus_fidei_as_an_instinct_of_faith. Hereafter referred to as SF. SF 49.
14
the sources such a method draws on. Understanding what method we use and what sources we
draw upon is important if we are to make good decisions and be able to clarify and at times
defend our decisions, and so the later chapter will further expound on the various sources and
how they intersect in Catholic moral theology.
In using the four sectors, Bretzke raises the following questions: first, what do we use
from which sector, and why? Second, what do we ignore from which sector, and why? Third,
what is rejected from which sector, and why? Fourth, what is reinterpreted from which sector,
and why? Lastly, what do we, as Catholics and the body of faithful, judge to be decisive when
sectors or sources conflict, and why? These questions are important to ponder on as a collective
body, as well as individual Catholics, because as Tradition is deconstructed and reconstructed
over time, it should ultimately be towards the goal of the common good, shalom, and right
relationship with God and creation, in light of the ultimate norm, Jesus Christ.
We will now first turn to the subjective axis of moral decision making: namely, the
human person. It is not enough to simply say that we ought to consider the human person—how
we do take the human experience into account is just as important, as we do not simply want to
fall into the trap of moral relativism. Thus, the next chapters will allow us to fully understand
how the human person is understood in light of Catholic theology, and the implications of this
understanding in decision-making.
Guide Questions
1. What is fundamental moral theology? Why is it important as part of the Catholic faith
commitment?
2. How would you describe how you have made decisions in life? Outline the process step
by step. Why do you choose make decisions this way? Compare this with the Catholic
moral methodology—how are they same or different?
3. Describe the moral methodology outlined in this chapter. Which sector or sectors have
you heavily relied on or NOT relied on at all in decision making? Why or why not?
a. What background theories and retroductive warrants do you hold when you make
decisions?
b. How does Scripture and Tradition fit into your background theories and
retroductive warrants?
Bibliography
Bretzke, SJ, James T. A Morally Complex World: Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology.
Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2004.
International Theological Commission. “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church.” Vatican.va,
2014.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610
_sensus-fidei_en.html#1._The_sensus_fidei_as_an_instinct_of_faith.
Massingale, Bryan N. Racial Justice and the Catholic Church. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books,
2010.
Schneiders, IHM, Sandra M. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred
Scripture, Second Edition. Second. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1999.
Schussler Fiorenza, Francis. “Systematic Theology: Task and Methods.” In Systematic Theology:
Roman Catholic Perspectives, edited by Francis Schussler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin,
2nd ed., 3–75. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011.
Second Vatican Council. “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum.”
Vatican.va. Accessed December 3, 2015.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.
Chapter 2
Theological Anthropology: Freedom, Sin, and Grace
Introduction
This chapter introduces students to anthropology from a theological perspective. The Catholic
theological ethic is grounded in a particular understanding of reality and of the human being as
part of that reality. The human being is described as imago Dei, and this description has come to
mean various things, alongside the development of Catholic Tradition and concepts such as
freedom, conscience, and vocation, in dialogue with the sciences. Though the definition of the
human person has evolved over time, one thing has remained clear: God’s love for the human
person as part of God’s creation.
Learning Objectives
4. Explain the Christian theological understanding of the human person as imago Dei
5. Define and understand how Catholic theology understands the concepts and
characteristics of the human person
6. Analyze the similarities and differences of the Christian understanding and popular
culture’s understanding of the human person
Exposition
Theological Anthropology
Who—or what—is the human person?
Various religions, philosophies, and cultures have come up with their own answers to this
question. This becomes the starting question because this understanding will have implications
on one’s ethics and morality. How human beings are treated will be dependent on how human
beings are seen and understood, and so it is important to articulate who the human being is, and
how he or she relates to the world he or she lives in.
In this chapter we thus begin with that question. One branch of theology deals with this
exact question using the lens of Christian Scripture and Tradition. This branch is called
theological anthropology. Theological anthropology acknowledges that the reality of the human
being is difficult to describe, and that there will always something more to find when
understanding, studying, and describing the human being. Nevertheless, theological
anthropology still attempts to reflect on the human being, based on Christian Tradition, in order
to gain insight that can help people encounter God and understand their own lives better in
relation to God.
In the Image and Likeness of God: Scripture and Theological Anthropology
In Christian theological anthropology, the most cited passage is from Genesis 1, the first
creation story. After having created the earth, the vegetation, and the animals on the land and in
the water, God creates human beings.
<Box: Genesis 1:26-31>
<Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
So God created humankind in his image,

in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue
it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living
thing that moves upon the earth.” God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that
is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for
food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps
on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And
it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.>
Human beings in this passage are described as being made in God’s “image and likeness”—the
shorthand term is the Latin phrase imago Dei. This idea of “image and likeness” are referenced
in other scripture passages such as Ephesians 4:23-24 and Colossians 3:10, and has become an
important and much argued concept.
The original word in Old Testament that was used was tzelem Elohim (“image of God”);
in Latin, this has been translated into imago Dei. This has been interpreted in many ways in the
Christian Tradition in order to explain what divine resemblance human beings have with God.
These characteristics will be further explained below, but characteristics such as being embodied,
having some form of control over themselves and over the environment, or having some form of
higher purpose in this life are just some characteristics that have both shown how human beings
are the “image and likeness” of God, but at the same time show that, at the end of the day,
human beings are still creatures of God, in the same way the rest of creation is. Each of the
characteristics is just one aspect of being human being, and together they give us a deeper
understanding of what it means to be human.
Another important thing to note is the description of human beings as “filling the earth
and subduing it.” Human beings are blessed by God to “have dominion” over the rest of creation.
Early interpretations of Scripture have used this as an excuse to exploit the environment and to
argue for what is called an anthropocentric worldview, where human beings are the only
creatures that matter, to the detriment of all other creatures of God. However, contemporary
interpretations show that the words “subdue” (kabash) and to have “dominion” (radah) have
very different connotations from how modern English understands the words “subdue” and
“dominion.” These words connote stewardship rather than absolute use of creation: kabash
denotes a making the world as it should be for the good of all creatures, while radah connotes a
ruling over creation that is not tyrannical or forceful, but rather with God’s authority and with the
same love and care that God has in ruling over all. 15 It is also important to remember that kabash
and radah are also accompanied by the words to “till” (abad) and to “keep” (shamar), which
connote service and radical care.16 Thus, Scripture would emphasize concern for creation and a
responsibility on the part of the human person to care for this creation.
Lastly, and most importantly, God blesses human beings and sees them as good; human
beings as being imago Dei reflects the love God has for human beings and means that human
beings, too, can and do love others. A running theme in Scripture will be God’s steadfast love for
human beings. This is not to say that other creatures are loved less; rather, part of what it means
to share in God’s image and likeness is also to share in God’s love and care. Love is part of
God’s essence, and is what drives and animates God’s self, alongside justice. Love is what
animates and drives people to work for a better future and to come together as one community
with other creatures of God.
Later on in the book of Genesis, sin will enter the picture through the fall of humankind,
and this will be Scripture’s way of grappling with the imperfections of human nature and what
Christians call “sinful” behavior.
Characteristics of Human Beings
To be imago Dei has often been understood in being: 1) both temporal and transcendent;
2) being radically relational to other people, to God, and with the rest of creation; 3) having
capacity to reason and being rational beings; 4) being embodied in some form; 5) having free
will and ability to choose how to respond to internal and external events; and 6) being marked by
God’s grace despite most people using their freedom to sin.
Temporal and Transcendent
Augustine was one of the first to develop a clear Christian theological anthropology and
it is from Augustine, alongside other church fathers, that the understanding of the human person
as a union of body and soul. This emphasized that human beings are not simply purely material
or temporal beings, but rather have a transcendent aspect to their nature. In sharing in God’s
image and likeness, one thus shares in God’s transcendence in being a mystery that cannot be
entirely grasped in the same way one would grasp the sciences or objective knowledge; at the
same time, human beings are still earthly creatures that have limitations.
15
Andrew Basden, “On the Interpretation of Four Hebrew Words: Radah, Kabash, Abad, Shamar,” October 18,
2015, http://kgsvr.net/xn/discussion/radah2.html.
16
Basden.
Augustine emphasizes the immortality of the soul and the role of the soul as that which
animates the body and becomes a way to access knowledge of God. However, it is the whole
person—both body and soul—that needs to turn to God to understand the truth as well as be
transformed in God’s grace. 17 “There can be neither the soul without the body, nor the body
without a soul.”18
Relational
An implication of being in the image and likeness of a trinitarian and loving God is the
understanding that human beings are radically relational and interdependent. The Christian
understanding of God as trinitarian poses that God exists in plurality: three persons in God. 19
Each person dwells in the other in an undivided communion of love. “The reciprocity of the
actions of the persons within the Trinity is understood to be so complete that the three persons
are truly one God…this perichoretic life of the tripersonal God is believed to be shared with
humanity, as far as they are able, so that instead of being solitude, humans may live as a union of
persons in communion (koinonia) with God and with one another.” 20
Thus, human beings are not absolutely self-sufficient or autonomous, but live in a
network of relationships between and among different people, creatures, and God. There is no
“self-made” man or woman; rather, each person is affected by his or her family and community.
This is not to say that human beings are absolutely defined by their circumstances; however, we
cannot deny that a person’s circumstances have a big effect on the development of the person. If
a person, for example, grew up in an affluent community, with ample opportunities and networks
to succeed, then the chances of his or her success are greater compared to someone who was
born in a poorer community without access to the same resources. People are thus dependent and
affected to some degree by his or her context, though these circumstances do not necessarily
define the person.
Reason
Rene Descartes’ famous quote “I think, therefore I am” reflects an understanding of

rationality and the thinking self as an integral aspect of what it means to be human. Even up to
today, reason is often considered an important distinction between human beings and the rest of
creation: human beings have the faculty to argue and to conceptualize with their minds, using
knowledge, experience, and will, thus being able to participate in the divine intelligence. Though
contemporary culture might put reason and science in one corner in opposition to faith, Catholic
17
John Anthony Berry, “What Makes Us Human? Augustine on Interiority, Exteriority and the Self,” Scientia et
Fides 5, no. 2 (August 24, 2017): 88.
18
Berry, 96.
19
It is important to note that person here is not person in the autonomous and modern sense. Rather, person here is
not just a “being-for-itself” but a “being-for” and “from-another.” This understanding of the person comes from the
Cappadocian tradition. For more on this please see Gun Jung, “The Crises of the Autonomous Self and the
Relational Ontological Ground for Contemporary Understanding of Human Being,” Korean Journal of Christian
Studies 72 (December 2010): 151–70.
20
Jung, 163.
theology underscores the important role reason plays in understanding human beings’
relationship and commitments to God.
Reason is part of how people can know God and know what he wants for this world.
Reason allows people to discern and make decisions based on this knowledge of God as well as
knowledge of the world, usually termed as natural law. While there are truths about God that
human beings can only know through revelation, there are certain things that human beings can
know through reason. Caution though is given against the pitfalls of rationalizing, as the very
same faculty that allows people to know God can be used to rationalize evil and sin.
Although human beings certainly are capable of objective moral reasoning, behavioral
studies have also shown how irrational people can also be, and that people do not necessarily just
use knowledge and apply it in the way described in the previous paragraph. Thus, it is not simply
the mind working but also emotions, gut feelings or what people would call instinct, motivations
and beliefs, and biases and prejudices. Thus, reason, while important, is not the only aspect of
the human being that is considered in moral reasoning.
Embodied Beings
In response to the extreme position that reduces people to simply their brains or
rationality, contemporary theological anthropology has sought to reemphasize the importance
also of human beings being embodied—that they are not just simply walking brains, but also
living, breathing, and complex beings with a particular context, with feelings, and whose bodies
are ways for them to know other people, know other creatures, and know God. Catholic theology
also stresses that God meets each person in his or her particular situation, and this situation
would include the physical and temporal.
It is through the body that people interact with the world, and through the body that
people worship God. The body that is raced, gendered, and “whose physical attributes
matter…whose place in time and space make a difference,” is the context through which God
meets each person, and thus should be an important factor in considering how we understand
God and people. 21
While there are universal precepts that Catholicism follows, it nevertheless understands
that these precepts are applied and expressed in various ways depending on the embodied culture
of various groups of people, without necessarily being relativist. This process is called
enculturation, and this allows people to embrace God more closely and readily in a way that they
understand: through their culture and language. “It is through the utilization of indigenous
categories that we could shape and develop the emerging Filipino consciousness and to express
the gospel within the context of the people’s own culture to effectively bring [the gospel]
across.” 22
21
Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore, “Embodied Knowing, Embodied Theology: What Happened to the Body?,” Pastoral
Psychol 62 (2013): 756.
22
Michael M. Ramos, “Inculturating Theology in the Indigenous Categories: The Quest for Filipino Cultural
Identity,” International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 5, no. 8 (August 2015): 695.
Freedom
An important aspect of what it means to be a human being is freedom. Freedom is often

understood as a capacity to choose to do something or withhold one’s action or effort.
Contemporary culture would focus on freedom as being allowed to do whatever it is that one
wants, for so long as no one else is hurt. This understanding of freedom understands one aspect
of it; that is, freedom as freedom “from” particular constraints—whether they be legal
constraints, moral constraints, or physical constraints. However, Catholic moral theology
understands that freedom is more than that. Freedom is also a “freedom for”—a freedom to
orient ourselves towards either the good or the bad, towards love or apathy, towards care for the
other or inward selfishness. Thus, freedom is also question of what people commit themselves to,
knowing that they have some control over what it is they can do with their lives. The Catholic
faith commitment is not about being forced into servitude or obedience to a monarchical God,
but using one’s freedom to respond to and commit to the relationship being offered by a
gracious, loving, and just God. In the same way that committing to a human relationship entails
certain actions (e.g. caring for the person and not hurting the person or his or her loved ones),
committing to God would also entail certain actions, such as loving God and loving one’s
neighbor.
It is freedom that allows for good and for God’s grace to come into one’s life, but at the
same time, it is freedom that allows for sin to happen. One of the questions that is also asked:
why do we have freedom? Why give human beings the ability to choose? Why not create a world
where everyone just had to do good so that there will be no more suffering? While there is no
thoroughly adequate answer to this question, one answer is in line with the idea of an
understanding of the Christian God as a God of love.
Singer and songwriter Kitchie Nadal released a song titled “Huwag na Huwag Mong
Sasabihin” in 2004. The chorus of the song goes:
Huwag na huwag mong sasabihin, na hindi mo nadama itong

Pag-ibig kong handang ibigay kahit na ang kalayaan mo.
This short line is similar to how love is understood in Catholic theology. From human
experience, if the beloved were forced to love the lover, or had no choice in that matter, it would
not be an authentic love, because love is a mutual commitment and thus, something chosen by
both the lover and the beloved. God’s love for human beings is a sincere and authentic love, one
that wishes the good for the beloved, one that wishes for it to be responded to, and one that
wishes for authentic love and goodwill to be spread. All of this can only be done if love and
goodness were a choice, and not simply programmed into human beings. Otherwise, it would not
be a truly morally good choice, since the person simply did something that is part of his or her
instinct or physiology—in the same way that human beings or other animals eat or sleep or
breathe.
Thus, this is perhaps why human beings have freedom: to be able to seek and respond to
this love freely and engage in a mutual loving relationship with God. In order for this to be a
choice, however, it means that the possibility of rejecting this love should be possible. Gaudium
et Spes, the Church’s constitution on the Church in the Modern World, makes a similar point:
Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make
much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however
they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is
evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within
man. For God has willed that man remain "under the control of his own decisions,"
so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously and come freely to utter and blissful
perfection through loyalty to Him. Hence man's dignity demands that he act
according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted
from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. Man
achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he
pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself
through effective and skillful action, apt helps to that end. Since man's freedom has
been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship
with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each man must render
an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil. 23
Sin and Grace
The two concepts of sin and grace are two realities that mark the human person’s
experience of this life. As mentioned earlier, human beings having freedom means that human
beings can choose to do either the good or reject that and do what is evil. In the passage above
from Gaudium et Spes, the Catholic Church emphasizes that by human freedom, people have
sinned, and while we can and should work towards mending our relationship with God, with
ourselves, with other people, and with the rest of creation, it is only through God’s grace that
human beings can bring all of this to fruition.
Sin
An age-old question that people have posed to Christians is this: how could sin and evil
have entered into the world, when God is supposedly good? Augustine argued for a particular
way of understanding sin to answer this question, as well as respond to Manichaeism.
Manichaeism argued for a dualistic understanding of reality: a struggle and opposition between
the two equal powers of good and evil. Augustine disagreed with this cosmology; evil was not
an equal power to God, but rather evil was the absence of God and the good.
The Christian tradition contains many ways of trying to describe the reality of sin. In
Scripture, sin was understood as a turning away from God and rejecting the covenant in the Old
23
Second Vatican Council, “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word: Gaudium et Spes,”
Vatican.va, 1965, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html. Hereafter referred to as GS. GS 17.
Testament, and “missing the mark” or unrighteousness in the New Testament. St. Augustine
describes sin as a “free act of will whereby one turns from God, the highest and immutable good,
to some created thing, the goodness of which is deficient by comparison.” 24 The fall of human
beings outlined in Genesis is the original sin that has led to later generations of humankind
experiencing the consequences of this sin, as well as the guilt of being part of the “sin of the
world” that came through original sin. This understanding of sin emphasizes the human will and
reason in rejecting God.
Many other trajectories and definitions of sin will emphasize some form of action or
omission of action, as well as rooting it in particular vices, injustices, and inequality. Pope John
Paul II would root sin in an abuse of freedom and a rejection of grace that affects both God and
neighbor. 25 Such sin could also be understood as a breaking of or distortion of relationship
between human beings and themselves, human beings with other human beings, human beings
with other creation, and human beings with God—Pope Francis would emphasize this
understanding of sin in his encyclicals, particularly in Laudato Si’:
They suggest that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely
intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbor and with the earth itself.
According to the Bible, these three vital relationships have been broken, both
outwardly and within us. This rupture is sin. The harmony between the Creator,
humanity and creation as a whole was disrupted by our presuming to take the
place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations. 26
James Keenan’s understanding of sin is simple but at the same time powerful: he speaks
of sin as a “failure to bother to love…[capturing] the sin of Matthew’s goats, Lazarus’s rich man,
the wounded man’s priest and the Levite, the publican’s Pharisee, and so on.” 27 Acknowledging
that there are sins out of weakness, he nevertheless argues that often, people sin out of their
strength in that they could have done more good, but failed to do so. “Our sin is usually where
you and I are comfortable, where we do not feel the need to bother, where, like the Pharisee, or
even [Albert] Speer, [the minister of armaments and architect of Nuremberg during World War
II], we have found complacency, a complacency not where we rest in being loved but where rest
in our delusional self-understanding of how much better we are than others” or that it is not our
responsibility to do any more than the bare minimum. 28
Today, it can be easy to acknowledge what is wrong and evil in the world and identify it
as sin, and perhaps even acknowledge one’s role in it. However, what can be difficult is
24
Shawn D. Floyd, “How to Cure Self-Deception: An Augustinian Remedy,” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought
and Culture 7, no. 3 (2004): 63.
25
John Paul II, “Apostolic Exhortation on Reconciliation and Penance: Reconciliatio et Paenitentia,” Vatican.va,
December 2, 1984, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-
ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html. Hereafter referred to as RP. RP 3, 17.
26
Francis, “On Care for Our Common Home: Laudato Si’,” Vatican.va, May 24, 2015,
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-
si.html. Hereafter referred to as LS. LS 66.
27
James Keenan, Moral Wisdom: Lessons and Texts from the Catholic Tradition (Diliman, Quezon City: Claretian
Publications, 2004), 57.
28
Keenan, 57.
acknowledging one’s role and responsibility to alleviate that sin and to move beyond one’s
comfort zone to stop sinning. “I would like to help, but I have to help my parents, pay my bills,
take care of my siblings—” the list can go on; what Keenan’s and pope Francis’ understanding of
sin brings is that working against sin is not mutually exclusive from living one’s daily life.
Building up these relationships with each other once again, as well as moving beyond one’s
comfort zone requires that we strive to do the good that we can, rather than thinking that it is
someone else’s job to do so.
Grace
While sin is something rooted in human beings’ decisions and will, grace, on the other
hand, is a gift; it is not something that human beings can will or get on their own. Grace is a gift
freely given from God that is most often seen understood as love and mercy that allows people to
break away from sin and be in communion with God. Grace is God’s presence in the world,
dwelling in and with creation, allowing creation to encounter God openly and freely. On the
other hand, Leonardo Boff also acknowledges a state of dis-grace: a “lack of encounter, refusal
to dialogue,” and a turning inward to oneself rather than outwards towards others. 29
In discussing grace, it is important to strike a balance between God and human beings;
there can be a tendency to focus too much on God (i.e. there is no need for human beings to do
anything, because grace does all the work) or on human beings (i.e. human beings can know and
do all the divine mandates without grace). Thus, it is important to remember that “it is God
communicating Godself and human beings opening themselves up” and responding to this self-
communication. 30 Such an experience is both concretely part of the human being, in the way
human beings were made to experience grace and God through the finite world, but at the same
time transcendent.
Grace in Scripture occurs as God’s loving kindness to Israel in the Old Testament and is
characterized as gratuitous (i.e. something that is unearned or unmerited; it is something God’s
freely chooses to give without people having to work for it) and steadfast. Grace is thus always
experienced and live out in the concrete realities of the people—in this case, “political peace,
social well-being, liberation, security amid the pressure exerted by the great powers, an upright
life, and an openness to the future that God promised through the covenant.” 31
In the New Testament, it additionally became understood as salvation and forgiveness,

particularly through Jesus Christ who is grace in the flesh. It is grace also that can lead to
metanoia or conversion. Through the disruptive and oftentimes unasked for experience of God’s
love, one can become a new human being, as seen in Paul’s story of conversion and his
understanding of human beings being converted, through grace, to live freely as children of God
in Romans 8:14-21. Grace took an eschatological aspect as well, in that the second coming of
Christ would bring God’s promise and love to its fullness.
29
Leonardo Boff, Liberating Grace, trans. John Drury (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 1979), 4.
30
Boff, 15.
31
Boff, 8.
It is in grace that freedom is healed, according to Augustine, and transforms and elevates
human nature, according to Thomas Aquinas. Through such things as the sacraments, people can
continue to partake in and cooperate with this grace; human cooperation allows people to receive
this grace and be transformed by this grace. This gift is offered to all and all have access to it. It
can also become a source of hope for those working for justice and those who are pessimistic
after seeing the state of sin everywhere:
The human capacity for rejecting God and sinning is never equal of God’s offering
of grace. Grace ever remains the greater, because even the refusal of grace is
grounded on the gift of being able to refuse it. The latter ability was given to human
beings by God, and [God] respects it. In such cases grace finds other ways to operate,
and meaning is achieved through other courses…This realization gives rise to an
invincible hope…Someday justice will overcome, and historical grace will bear its
full fruit in the midst of human beings. 32
Even those who are in poverty can find some measure of hope; Boff would argue that, as
we continue fight against sin and injustice in the world, “even if those events [of sin] go
on, human beings can be greater than they are. Human can freely shoulder the burdens and
overcome them, revealing a grandeur amid humiliation that far exceeds the grandeur
created by humanity’s will to power.” 33
Lastly, it is through grace that one can discern properly and make morally sound
judgement. Grace allows one to expand their horizons and themselves to include others in their
worldview. It is through grace that one can become free to love and serve others and God and
choose to do the good that is needed in the world.
Conclusion
Understanding who the human being is sets the tone for the kind of moral theology
person has. If a person believes that a human person is worthy of respect and dignity not just
spiritually but also physically, then one’s ethics and understanding of salvation links the
temporal and eternal aspects of life. Theology and God then become something more than a “pie
in the sky when you die;” God now becomes a real God who transcends both this life and the
next, and who wants the good for creation not just in the next life but also in the here and now.
It is also this understanding of the human being that underpins why ethics is important.
Because human beings are rational, embodied beings with the freedom to choose to do certain
things, we now become response-able (i.e. we can respond to our situations and are not totally
determined by our environment or instincts) and responsible for our actions. Human beings may
not have total control over everything that happens in the world or to the self, but human beings
still have some measure of choice on how to respond to the situation.
32
Boff, 83.
33
Boff, 83.
In this case, a person in the Catholic faith Tradition commits to a particular way of life
and chooses to act in a particular way, guided by particular values—in service, love, and justice.
In freedom, this is what Catholics choose to commit to. The question now is in terms of concrete
situations and specifics: what does choosing to act in service, love, and justice mean in our
everyday situations? This is where vocation and conscience come in, which we will tackle in the
next chapter.
Guide Questions
1. What characteristics of the human being make the person in God’s “image and likeness”?
Explain each characteristic.
2. What do you think does it mean to be in God’s “image and likeness”? How can we
embody this “image and likeness” to be better people of God?
3. Why is it important to understand what it means to be a human being?
Bibliography
Basden, Andrew. “On the Interpretation of Four Hebrew Words: Radah, Kabash, Abad,
Shamar,” October 18, 2015. http://kgsvr.net/xn/discussion/radah2.html.
Berry, John Anthony. “What Makes Us Human? Augustine on Interiority, Exteriority and the
Self.” Scientia et Fides 5, no. 2 (August 24, 2017): 87–106.
Boff, Leonardo. Liberating Grace. Translated by John Drury. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books,
1979.
Floyd, Shawn D. “How to Cure Self-Deception: An Augustinian Remedy.” Logos: A Journal of
Catholic Thought and Culture 7, no. 3 (2004): 60–86.
Francis. “On Care for Our Common Home: Laudato Si’.” Vatican.va, May 24, 2015.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-
francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html.
John Paul II. “Apostolic Exhortation on Reconciliation and Penance: Reconciliatio et
Paenitentia.” Vatican.va, December 2, 1984. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-
paenitentia.html.
Jung, Gun. “The Crises of the Autonomous Self and the Relational Ontological Ground for
Contemporary Understanding of Human Being.” Korean Journal of Christian Studies 72
(December 2010): 151–70.
Keenan, James. Moral Wisdom: Lessons and Texts from the Catholic Tradition. Diliman,
Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 2004.
Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. “Embodied Knowing, Embodied Theology: What Happened to the
Body?” Pastoral Psychol 62 (2013): 743–58.
Ramos, Michael M. “Inculturating Theology in the Indigenous Categories: The Quest for
Filipino Cultural Identity.” International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 5, no. 8
(August 2015): 695–700.
Second Vatican Council. “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word: Gaudium et
Spes.” Vatican.va, 1965.
ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html.
Chapter 3
Vocation and Conscience
Introduction
This chapter explores the ides of vocation and conscience as guides towards better moral
discernment. In Catholic moral theology, God is understood to meet and communicate to human
beings in their conscience; it is where the objective sacred claims axis intersects with the
subjective axis of human experience. It is through discernment using one’s conscience and the
sources mentioned that one can also have a sense of vocation,
Learning Objectives
7. Define the concepts of vocation and conscience in Catholic theology
8. Explain the importance of the concepts of vocation and conscience in moral discernment
9. Reflect on the students’ own experience of vocation as well as students’ own
understanding of conscience.
Exposition
Vocation
The word vocation has a particular meaning in Christianity, though it is also now used in
non-religious contexts. The word itself comes from the Latin word vocare, which means “to call”
or “to summon.” This connection to calling has often led to the common understanding of
vocation as related to the priesthood, religious life, or marriage. While these are certainly
vocations that one needs to discern, the vocation of a Catholic person is more than that.
Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican
Council, notes that:
Fortified by so many and such powerful means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever
their condition or state, are called by the Lord, each in his own way, to that perfect
holiness whereby the Father Himself is perfect…The holy people of God shares also
in Christ's prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by
means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the
tribute of lips which give praise to His name. In virtue of this catholicity each
individual part contributes through its special gifts to the good of the other parts and
of the whole Church. Through the common sharing of gifts and through the common
effort to attain fullness in unity, the whole and each of the parts receive increase. Not
only, then, is the people of God made up of different peoples but in its inner structure
also it is composed of various ranks. This diversity among its members arises either
by reason of their duties, as is the case with those who exercise the sacred ministry
for the good of their brethren, or by reason of their condition and state of life, as is
the case with those many who enter the religious state and, tending toward holiness
by a narrower path, stimulate their brethren by their example. 34
From this passage, we can see several aspects of what vocation means in Catholic moral
theology. The first aspect of vocation is what is received at baptism. This is the universal aspect
of vocation that calls each human being to love and serve God and others, regardless of our
background, culture, or race. In sharing with Jesus Christ’s threefold tasks of being priest,
prophet, and king, all Christians are thus called cooperate with the work of promoting peace,
justice, and care for all creation:
In building up from the very foundations the picture of the Church as the People of
God-by showing the threefold mission of Christ himself, through participation in
which we become truly God's People-the Second Vatican Council highlighted,
among other characteristics of the Christian vocation, the one that can be described
as "kingly"…This dignity is expressed in readiness to serve, in keeping with the
example of Christ, who "came not to be served but to serve." If, in the light of this
attitude of Christ's, "being a king" is truly possible only by "being a servant" then
"being a servant" also demands so much spiritual maturity that it must really be de-
scribed as "being a king". In order to be able to serve others worthily and effectively
we must be able to master ourselves, possess the virtues that make this mastery
possible. Our sharing in Christ's kingly mission-his "kingly function" (munus) is
closely linked with every sphere of both Christian and human morality. 35
The second aspect of vocation is more specific and concerns the state of life of a person.
This is often what comes to mind when the word “vocation” comes up—whether one is single,
married, or in the religious or ordained life. Whether or not one chooses to be married, to be
single, or to join the religious or ordained life, all of these are equally good paths, with different
graces and challenges for each state of life.
The third and last aspect is now the personal vocation. This becomes the most specific
aspect, taking into account a person’s particular circumstances, concerns, talents, needs, and
opportunities. Rooted in the Pauline idea of charisms and many members making up the one
body of Christ, this idea of vocation was emphasized by the Second Vatican Council and by
Pope John Paul II:
For the whole of the community of the People of God and for each member of it
what is in question is not just a specific "social membership"; rather, for each and
34
Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium,” Vatican.va, November 21,
1964, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-
gentium_en.html. Hereafter referred to as LG. LG 11-13.
35
John Paul II, “The Redeemer of Man: Redemptor Hominis,” Vatican.va, March 4, 1979,
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-
hominis.html. Hereafter referred to as RH. RH 21.
every one what is essential is a particular "vocation". Indeed, the Church as the
People of God is also-according to the teaching of Saint Paul mentioned above, of
which Pius XII reminded us in wonderful terms-"Christ's Mystical Body"182.
Membership in that body has for its source a particular call, united with the saving
action of grace. Therefore, if we wish to keep in mind this community of the People
of God, which is so vast and so extremely differentiated, we must see first and
foremost Christ saying in a way to each member of the community: "Follow me"183.
It is the community of the disciples, each of whom in a different way-at times very
consciously and consistently, at other times not very consciously and very
inconsistently-is following Christ. 36
So for example, a Catholic, just like all other Christians baptized, is called to love others and
serve God. These universal precepts are seen in the concrete instances where the person shows
the virtues and the fruits of the Holy Spirit in all aspects of his or her life. At the same time, he or
she may be called either to marriage, religious, or priestly life, and to a specific career or work—
he or she may be good at taking care of children and enjoy working with the youth, and so that
person’s calling may be in teaching. Another person may be called to work as a married business
person to make quality goods for people; still another may be called to be a doctor in a religious
community. All these three people, though different in their specific career and status, are all
called to love others and God through their lives.
Finding one’s vocation is not easy—it does not mean that everything will always turn out
well; rather, it finds a deeper sense of meaning in the world and a deeper sense of peace in
participating with God’s creative work in the world. It is finding this threefold understanding of
vocation that becomes the path to holiness for Catholics. Holiness is not simply about
extraordinary feats of fasting and poverty, or miracles; rather, holiness is about finding one’s
vocation, where one can serve God and others, using the particular gifts or charisms given by
God to the person. Holiness is about answering the call to grow and mature to the best people we
can be. Thus, discernment, the process of making decisions, particularly big ones such as for
one’s career, marriage, or family, is something that everyone does, and it not merely a practice
for the elitist, religious, or ordained.
Where your Happiness Meets the World’s Greatest Hunger
Frederick Buechner offers an insightful way of understanding vocation. Reflecting on the

calling of Isaiah, Buechner remarks:
Like “duty,” “law,” “religion,” the word “vocation” has a dull ring to it, but in terms
of what it means, it is really not dull at all…It is the work that he is called to do in
this world, the thing that he is summoned to spend his life doing. We can speak of a
man choosing his vocation, but perhaps it is at least as accurate to speak of a
vocation’s choosing the man of a call’s being given and a man’s hearing it, or not
hearing it. And maybe that is the place to start: the business of listening and hearing.
A man’s life is full of all sorts of voices calling him in all sorts of directions. Some of
36
RH 21.
them are voices from inside, and some of them are voices from outside…Which do
we listen to? What kind of voice do we listen for?37
The Catholic understanding of God believes that God speaks to each person in various ways,
meeting that person in his or her particular life situation and communicating God’s self to the
person in the best way that that person can understand.
Buechner continues that:
To Isaiah, the voice said, “Go,” and for each of us there are many voices that say it,
but the question is which one will we obey with our lives, which of the voices that
call is to be the one that we answer. No one can say, of course, except each for
himself, but I believe that it is possible to say at least this in general to all of us: we
should go with our lives where we most need to go and where we are most needed.38
To go where one’s happiness meets the world’s greatest hunger is what Buechner argues for.
God wants what is best for us and that this will also give us the most joy and deep peace. God
does not want human beings to be miserable people who are simply God’s puppets; rather it is an
intersection and mutual dialogue of God’s freedom and human freedom. This becomes then the
question to answer: what work or way of life leads to satisfying my deepest happiness and the
world’s greatest hunger?
The Japanese have a tern for this understanding of vocation called ikigai (生き甲斐).
This roughly translates to “reason for being” or the “reason why you wake up each morning.”
Ikigai is the intersection of a person’s passion or happiness, the person’s skills and practical
needs, and what the world needs. Where these four aspects are present is where one’s ikigai can
be found. In the same way, one’s vocation can be found here as well; in serving God and the
world, as well as developing one’s skills and character in love and justice.
Sample photo for ikigai
37
Frederick Buechner, “The Calling of Voices,” in Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC, 1st edition (New York:
Harper & Row, 1973), 27.
38
Buechner, 31.
Conscience
Answering the call of vocation is not enough—how one answers the call of vocation is just
as important. There is a right way and a wrong way—and the right way can sometimes be more
difficult, involving more effort and cultivating character and virtues, not simply following a set
of rules to avoid sin, or focusing on consequences to get the “best” consequence. “The call to
grow, the call to move forward as disciples, the call to put on virtue is always a call heard in the
Christian conscience.”39 Thus, it is through the conscience that one is able to respond to the call
of vocation.
Gaudium et Spes offers a detailed explanation on what the conscience:
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,
shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very
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 reveals 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 genuine solution to the numerous problems
which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right
conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice
and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. 40
While common understandings of conscience would understand it as that little voice in your
heart, or your Jiminy Cricket, a person’s conscience is better understood to be a process where a
person grapples with what God communicates to him or her and acts according to the judgement
made by this process. It consists of “mentored practices of justice, temperance, fortitude, fidelity,
and self-care through the ministration of conscience’s own prudence” that “allows us to learn
more and more about how we are to respond to God, neighbor and ourselves in love.” 41
The conscience is where the objective axis (Scripture and Tradition) is related to the
subjective axis (reason and human experience) in dialogue to come up with a judgement of what
is morally right. 42 The objective axis is concerned with understanding what God seeks from us,
while the subjective axis is how we understand what God wants and how it fits into our own
39
40
41
Keenan, Moral Wisdom: Lessons and Texts from the Catholic Tradition, 35.
42
James T. Bretzke, SJ, A Morally Complex World: Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology (Collegeville, Minn:
Liturgical Press, 2004), 127.
particular life situation. It is thus where a person can perceive what is understood to be divine
law or natural law as well as how to apply this to the specific situation of the person.
Subjective Axis
Objective Axis
Conscience Based Discernment43
Three things are brought into consideration: 1) the act itself, if it is good or bad; 2) the
intentions of the person, and 3) the circumstances surrounding the situation. Weighing these
three aspects can be difficult, because the various circumstances of people can drastically change
what the good is in a particular situation. Thus, it is important to remember that there are no one-
size-fits-all answers, and that part of the challenge of using one’s conscience is to navigate the
objective and subjective aspects of the situation to come up with the morally right thing to do.
While the outcome is important and should be given adequate attention, people may err
in doing the right thing. This is understandable—human beings are not perfect and we make
mistakes. Thus, along with aiming to do the morally right thing all the time, it is the effort,
commitment, and sincerity to develop our conscience and do what we honestly think is the
morally right thing that makes us morally good. 44 This is not to say that the conscience is purely
subjective, or that it’s merely the thought that counts. It is merely to say that the emphasis should
be on how the person grows and develops the conscience to become a more loving disciple of
Christ, rather than simply focusing only on getting the acts correct. After all, a person may get
the actions correct, but lack maturity and love, which in the long term is not good for the person
or the community.
That being said, we should still try to be genuinely morally right as often as possible!
Thus, in developing better and morally right discernment, the formation of conscience becomes
an important task.
43
Bretzke, SJ, 129.
44
Bretzke, SJ, 130. Citing Josef Fuchs.
The Formation of the Conscience
Just like any muscle or skill, the conscience needs to be developed in order for it to stay
working in its best form; otherwise, it can atrophy and lead to wrong judgements. Doing the
morally wrong thing does not necessarily mean bad motivations; at the same time, good
intentions do not necessarily mean that the action will turn out morally right. For example, the
classic case of a person lying to a Nazi officer about the presence of Jews in his or her house
during the second world war shows that doing something morally wrong was coming from a
place of care for another person and can lead to saving a person’s life. On the other hand, a
student who wishes to help an otherwise good classmate going through a difficult time by
helping him or her cheat on an exam shows that actions out of love can still lead to morally
wrong and risky actions.
Forming the conscience is a lifelong process; this does not happen overnight, nor is it an
easy task, particularly with the many voices in society that offer a plurality of worldviews.
Formation includes learning and understanding Scripture and Church teaching; however,
Scripture and Church teaching cannot replace one’s conscience, with Pope Francis affirming the
need to respect the person’s freedom and relationship with God. 45
Forming the conscience also entails two concerns. First, what happens when the person is
in ignorance, which leads to an erroneous conscience? Second, what happens when one’s
conscience differs from the Catholic Church’s teaching?
Ignorance
Can one’s conscience be wrong? Yes, it can. In Gaudium et Spes, the Second Vatican
Council writes that “conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its
dignity;” however, “the same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and
goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual
sin.” 46
On the one hand, Tradition allows for what it calls “invincible ignorance.” Invincible
ignorance is defined as a form of ignorance that a person cannot remove through his or her
reasonable effort. In this form of ignorance, the person cannot be held as sinful in the same way
that someone who had full knowledge is sinful; however, the person still committed an evil and
must make amends for this and seek to correct his or her conscience. In theory, this sounds
plausible, but in reality, it can be difficult to identify cases of invincible ignorance.
On the other hand, if a person could remove this ignorance through some effort, this
would be understood as vincible ignorance and thus cannot be used as a reason for wrong moral
judgement. For example, there are people who spread fake news on the internet without verifying
45
Nicole Winfield, “Pope Francis Reaffirms Primacy of Conscience amid Criticism of ‘Amoris Laetitia,’” America
Magazine, November 11, 2017, https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/11/11/pope-francis-reaffirms-
primacy-conscience-amid-criticism-amoris-laetitia.
46
GS 16.
the content or sources; while these people may say that they did not know that the news was
fake, a quick google search or even accessing other media could possibly verify or reject the
news as fake.
<Box: Case Study on Vincible and Invincible Ignorance>

<John is a college taking up engineering at a good college. He comes from a family with
particular political leanings and is thus exposed to only one side of the political debate. His
friends also share this same political leaning and thus also share similar like-minded articles and
ways of understanding. Many of the articles shared by his family and friends on social media
thus come from blogs or websites with the same political inclination. While some of these
articles have valid points, most of them are just fake news or false data and numbers. These
articles, however, reinforce John’s current understanding of politics in the country. On occasion,
a friend on social media, whose side is different from John’s, would post a different point of
view. However, such articles would be heavily critiqued with ad hominem arguments or
responded to with more fake news, which John, his family, and his friends would agree with.
This simply reinforces John’s and John’s family’s worldview. Thus, John develops his
conscience and makes decisions based on the fake news and numbers; he chooses to believe the
side he grew up in and has become closed to other opposing views.
Would this count as invincible or vincible ignorance? On the surface, it might seem like an
invincible ignorance. It is not John’s fault that he grew up within a structure or “bubble” that
taught him a side that was filled with erroneous facts. This would make it harder for John to
figure out the truth.
However, it is not beyond reasonable effort for John to find the truth. A quick google search on
fact-checking websites can help people find out whether or not the news is true or not. There are
reputable sources for news and information and there is information provided on what political
leanings particular websites, newspapers, or broadcast networks may have. With the immediate
and easy access to information, it is harder and harder to excuse ourselves from “not knowing”
something. Access to the internet or other forms of media is much easier today, and people can
learn proper research skills to discern what the truth is and what is fabricated information. We
can learn how to read documents and identify any agendas or biases.
Thus, the choice today is often not whether we believe in something or not, but rather which
narrative we believe in. Though it might seem that there are a plurality of equally convincing
narratives, there are narratives that are more in line with what is true and good. It thus becomes
our moral obligation to seek out the more correct narrative. This should be done in humility and
respect, knowing that seeking the truth is a complex task. >
Though a person will never know everything and will always be coming from a particular
perspective that will have blind spots or weaknesses, there is still a way to have some degree of
moral certitude in deciding which side is more correct. “Ethical decision-making is not a gamble
of odds, but an appeal to the strength of the evidence available as a guide in the face of
uncertainty.” 47 Evidence here is not simply scientifi evidence but also includes evidence from
Scripture, Tradition, or human experience. John Morris argues that:
A Thomistic approach indicates that the proper way for human agents to act when
faced with an uncertain situation is to follow the strongest evidence available.
Although this approach does not yield absolute or scientific certitude, it does give the
human agent a proper moral certitude regarding her or his action. To follow the
strongest evidence available is the only proper way for a human agent to act in any
uncertain situation. That is, basing our moral decisions upon the evidence that we do
have is the only way to act properly as rational, responsible moral agents…when you
know that you do not know, find out! 48
Conscience and Church Teaching
To the second question: what if one’s conscience conflicts with Church Teaching? There
is much debate over how to answer this question. Catholic moral theology has upheld what is
called the primacy of conscience. This means that a human being must always obey his or her
conscience; as Gaudium et Spes put it, the conscience “holds one to obedience.” Still, saying that
the conscience has primacy does not make the person infallible. The person can still be wrong
and genuinely think he or she was not wrong, hence the importance of conscience formation.
Also, this is not to say that the conscience and Church teaching are mutually exclusive.
As mentioned earlier, part of conscience formation is seriously learning and understanding what
the Church is teaching and to see whether or not a person still has legitimate grounds for
disagreeing with the teaching. “Legitimate grounds” require a defense of the dissenting side
using the sources and methodology of the Catholic Church. This includes a proper reading of
Scripture and Tradition, and proper analysis of human experience. Thus, disagreeing with
Church teaching cannot simply be feelings, nor can it be based on fundamentalist, literalist, or
incorrect readings of Scripture, or faulty sources that are not verified.
If the person does have a serious disagreement with legitimate grounds, this is called
dissent. Dissenting from Church teaching is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly nor
done disrespectfully. However, it has happened many times in the Church, leading to changes in
Church teachings, such as those on slavery and religious freedom. The Church, after all, is not a
monolithic structure; development of how the good is understood in the areas of moral theology
and social thought is a continuous process, in the same way that the individual human person
continues to develop his or her own conscience and understanding of the good.
<Box: A Case of Dissent (Excerpt from “Catholic dissent: When wrong turns out to be right”)
<What we all know is that dissent has at times indeed led to terrible breaks in the Body of Christ
through schisms and heresies. What we may not know is that dissent on other occasions-we
47
John F. Morris, “Invincible Ignorance and Moral Responsibility: When We Know That We Don’t Know,” in
Jacques Maritain and the Many Ways of Knowing, ed. Douglas A. Ollivant (Washington, D.C: Catholic University
of America Press, 2002), 218.
48
Morris, 223.
didn't often hear about these in history class-has helped mightily to clarify doctrine, get the
church out of a rut, or bring Christians to a better understanding of themselves and their relation
to the world.
Dissenters rarely get a lot of praise in church circles, and sometimes they get thrown out of the
community. But the contributions of constructive dissent cannot be ignored or denied.
[…]
One notable example is Mary Ward, the foundress in the 17th century of a women's religious
order called the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary (IBVM).
She was born into a well-established English family that persevered in the Roman Catholic faith
after Anglicanism became Britain's official church. Because religious orders were banned in
England at the time, Ward went to the Netherlands at the age of 20 and entered a convent of the
Poor Clares.
Quickly discerning that the monastic life was not for her and sensing that she was called by God
to "some other thing," she left the Poor Clares and returned to England. She had made the
Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius while in the convent, and she gradually developed the idea
of a religious order of women modeled on Jesuit spirituality and combining contemplation with
good works in the world, especially through the religious education of women.
Her institute, as she conceived it, would have no requirement of enclosure or cloister, would be
governed entirely by women, and its members would wear secular clothes instead of a distinctive
habit.
This vision was in direct conflict with the church's clearly enunciated regulations for women
religious at the time, and Mary Ward knew it. The Council of Trent, which concluded just 21
years before Mary Ward was born, ordered bishops "by God's judgment" and under threat of
"eternal malediction" to require strict enclosure in all religious houses under their jurisdiction. It
was ruled "unlawful for any nun to go out of her convent even for a brief period under any
pretext whatever" unless she had express permission from her bishop.
The juridic status of women in that era, noted historian James Cain, was "one of complete
subjection to the dominion of man, having no authority of her own." A contemporary directory
of spiritual formation declared that women have little potential for development "unless one or
another among them should have the capacity for spiritual things."
Ward did not agree. She ardently believed that the active and contemplative styles of life were
compatible for women as well as men, and after considerable discernment and prayer felt a
"solid contentment" in her stance.
Accompanied by a growing number of followers, she began to establish schools and foundations.
In 1624 she submitted her plan to Pope Urban VIII for official approval. He replied by closing
the IBVM foundation in Rome but took no further action for seven years. Undeterred, the
institute spread its activities into France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Austria, and even England,
where the absence of distinctive nuns' garb allowed the members to serve the Catholic
population without arousing governmental opposition.
But the institute did arouse opposition and complaint from other quarters. Many priests resented
these bold, upstart women and their obviously dissident lifestyle, and the Jesuit general
prohibited his members from giving Ward and her followers any assistance.
The ax fell in 1631. In a bull of suppression the pope disbanded the IBVMs, dissolved the vows
of the members, and forbade the recruiting of any new members. Mary Ward was imprisoned for
two months in Munich as a "heretic, schismatic, and rebel against holy church." Although those
personal charges were quickly dropped, the provisions of the bull remained in effect. It described
unenclosed religious communities as "pernicious growths" and dismissed the IBVM educational
ministries, claiming women "are incapable of the knowledge necessary for teaching scripture."
Ward endured all this with admirable equanimity. She urged her members not to despair and
spent most of the remaining 14 years of her life in England working as a laywoman with
Catholic students. Late in life she said, "I hope in God that it will be seen in time that women . . .
will do much."
After her death, the institute survived as a small, unenclosed, and unapproved group of women
for 58 years, until its regulations were approved by Rome in 1703. Thereafter it spread
throughout the world as an institute of religious women. It continues still. Yet only in 1909 (269
years after Mary Ward's death) were IBVM members permitted to acknowledge Ward as their
founder.
Today Ward is widely celebrated as a pioneer well ahead of her time who recognized the
capacity of women for active lives in Christian ministry. In 1951 Pope Pius XII honored her as
"that incomparable woman given by Catholic England in the darkest of periods."
A close scrutiny of history will show that Mary Ward is among a veritable cloud of women who
have taken issue with the church teaching or regulations over the centuries. Their numbers
include saints like Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Bridget of Sweden, and Hildegard of
Bingen-all remembered for their faithfulness to the gospel as they understood the message in
their time. They join a cast of men who creatively protested in various eras.> 49
Conclusion
Vocation and conscience are two important concepts in Catholic theology that help
people understand the meaning of and their place in the wider community and the world. Rooting
one’s purpose and sense of meaning helps anchor a person to his or her commitments,
particularly when the going gets touch and it can be difficult to continue doing the good that we
ought to do. One’s vocation gives a person a sense of purpose and the way to holiness for that
49
Robert J. McClory, “Catholic Dissent: When Wrong Turns out to Be Right,” US Catholic, May 1999,
http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-be-right.
particular person, while one’s conscience helps a person bring together his or her experiences,
Scripture, and Tradition in order to make morally good decisions to respond to one’s vocation.
Conscience-based discernment is not easy. It requires both skill and knowledge to bring
together both Scripture, Tradition, and human experience. Thus, forming the conscience is an
important aspect of conscience-based discernment. Two important points need to be made. First,
though ignorance can genuinely lead to mistakes, pleading ignorance should not become a
regular excuse for morally wrong decisions. We should seek to always better ourselves and our
conscience.
Second, a dialogue between a person and the Church on what the good is can also be
helpful for both parties, in that it deepens both parties understanding of the good when making
moral choices. From Scripture and Church teaching, a person can glean universal principles that
help the person understand what God wants from his or her specific life. From the person, the
Church can learn about how these principles are lived out and whether or not they are genuinely
life giving and leading to God. Otherwise, the Church may need to refine how it articulates,
teaches, or lives out a particular principle.
Guide Questions
1. Define vocation. How do you understand your own vocation? Why do you say that that is
your vocation?
2. Define conscience. What role does conscience play in moral decision making?
3. Suppose someone tells you that they don’t know what they want to do with their life, how
would you respond to them based on the Catholic understanding of vocation?
Bibliography
Buechner, Frederick. “The Calling of Voices.” In Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC, 1st
edition. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
John Paul II. “The Redeemer of Man: Redemptor Hominis.” Vatican.va, March 4, 1979.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-
ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis.html.
McClory, Robert J. “Catholic Dissent: When Wrong Turns out to Be Right.” US Catholic, May
1999. http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-
be-right.
Morris, John F. “Invincible Ignorance and Moral Responsibility: When We Know That We
Don’t Know.” In Jacques Maritain and the Many Ways of Knowing, edited by Douglas
A. Ollivant, 206–23. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 2002.
Second Vatican Council. “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium.” Vatican.va,
November 21, 1964.
ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
———. “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word: Gaudium et Spes.”
Vatican.va, 1965.
Winfield, Nicole. “Pope Francis Reaffirms Primacy of Conscience amid Criticism of ‘Amoris
Laetitia.’” America Magazine, November 11, 2017.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/11/11/pope-francis-reaffirms-primacy-
conscience-amid-criticism-amoris-laetitia.
Chapter 4
Understanding Morality in Scripture
Introduction
This chapter explains the fundamental understanding of morality in Scripture. How we
understand what morality means is rooted in certain events in Scripture. We now take a closer
look at how morality is understood in Scripture and what this means for Catholics today.
Learning Objectives
10. Sketch how morality, sin, and grace is understood in Scripture
11. Explain how the themes of sin and grace developed in the cohesive and complex
narrative in Scripture
12. Interpret Scripture as part of the process of discernment
Exposition
Understanding morality in Scripture can be complex. Each book gives different, nuanced,
yet not mutually exclusive understandings of what it means to be and do the good. Reading
Scripture and understanding what the good is requires skill and an understanding of the nuances
that Scripture has. Much can be said about morality in Scripture, but this chapter will focus on
the broad theme of mercy that Scripture offers on what morality means and how this should be
lived out. Mercy is defined as the willingness to enter into the chaos of another, and of being
willing to accompany that person in his or her journey. 50
Mercy occupies a central place in Catholic tradition. The social engagement and acts of
charity of the Catholic Church is not simply born out justice, but out of mercy and love. Various
Catholic charitable institutions are engaged in works of mercy—feeding the hungry, clothing the
naked, visiting the prisoner, to name a few. There is a long legacy of Catholics engaging in
works of mercy, and today Catholic hospitals, orphanages, prison ministries, and food banks all
over the world continue to enter into the chaos of others, willingly accompanying these people
who are often at their lowest points and helping them get back on their feet physically and
spiritually. The Catholic Church is one of the largest charitable organizations in the world, with
many religious and laypeople acting out the virtue of mercy every day.
We see in Scripture that it is mercy that God offers to all people, and that this is what we
are to live out. As Jesus says in the parable of the Good Samaritan, we are to “go and do likewise
and show mercy to others as well (Luke 10:37). Thus, rather than understanding morality as
50
James Keenan, “The Scandal of Mercy Excludes No One,” Thinking Faith: The online journal of the Jesuits in
Britain, December 4, 2015, https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/scandal-mercy-excludes-no-one.
simply following rules and avoiding evil, Scripture invites us to look at morality as a way of
showing compassion for others and living out God’s love.
Morality in the Old Testament
The Torah
Morality in the Old Testament is always rooted in the covenant. The life of Israel always
refers back to the covenant and the Exodus account, when God delivered them from slavery and
oppression in Egypt into freedom. However, while most cultural renditions of this show a
“happily ever after” ending, the rest of Scripture showed that it was still a struggle to do the
good. Time and time again, Israel would refuse to respond to God’s love and invitation to
relationship and the good, yet time and time again, Israel would also ask for forgiveness, and
God would forgive them.
Mercy in the Old Testament was often understood as God’s hesed. It describes the
covenantal love between Yahweh and Yahweh’s people that is gratuitous, meaning that
God freely gives this grace and human beings have not and do not need to merit this
gift. “It is mutual and endearing, implying action on both parts.” 51 This unfailing
compassion and loving kindness is also sometimes translated as rahamim, from the
word racham which also means “womb.” “God’s mercy is a nurturing womb, implying a
physical response and demonstrating that mercy is felt in the center of one’s body.” 52
The Covenant
The stereotypical image of a Christian is that of a “highly individualistic Roman Catholic

penitent obsessed with the law and worried over moral lapses, especially regarding sexual
activity.” 53 This image is partly due to how we have used and interpreted the Ten
Commandments. Most parish churches have two big stones outside their churches with the ten
commandments etched on them—a list of do’s and don’ts that people are taught to follow lest
they end up in hell. The image of God is thus a God of anger and punishment; it is a monarchical
God who inflicts punishment on those who do not obey God. However, a rereading of Scripture
shows that the God of the covenant is a merciful God:
At the root of this many-sided conviction, which is both communal and personal, and
which is demonstrated by the whole of the Old Testament down the centuries, is the
basic experience of the chosen people at the Exodus: the Lord saw the affliction of
His people reduced to slavery, heard their cry, knew their sufferings and decided to
deliver them. In this act of salvation by the Lord, the prophet perceived his love and
compassion. This is precisely the grounds upon which the people and each of its
51
Wojciech Zyzak, “Mercy as Theological Term,” The Person and the Challenges 5, no. 1 (2015): 139–40.
52
Zyzak, 140.
53
members based their certainty of the mercy of God, which can be invoked whenever
tragedy strikes. 54
This act of salvation from God to which Israel responded to becomes the beginning of the
covenant. This covenant was a mutually loving relationship; however, Israel would break
this covenant, and whenever Israel broke this covenant, Israel would appeal to God’s
mercy.
The Prophets
Though the prophetic books are more associated with their social critique and emphasis
on justice, mercy also plays an important role in the prophetic task: “it is significant that in their
preaching the prophets link mercy, which they often refer to because of the people's sins, with
the incisive image of love on God's part. The Lord loves Israel with the love of a special
choosing, much like the love of a spouse, and for this reason He pardons its sins and even its
infidelities and betrayals. When He finds repentance and true conversion, He brings His people
back to grace. In the preaching of the prophets, mercy signifies a special power of love, which
prevails over the sin and infidelity of the chosen people.”55
“Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it, if we admit in the history of
man—as the Old Testament precisely does—the presence of God, who already as Creator has
linked Himself to His creature with a particular love.”56 The prophetic task that is strongly
concerned with justice and repentance always ends on a hopeful note of God’s mercy and
restoration for Israel. Prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah all offer visions of the future
of Israel as coming back to God’s embrace and once again being faithful to the covenant, with
God showing God’s mercy through God’s unconditional love and care.
Wisdom Literature
“To declare thy lovingkindess (‫ )דסח‬in the morning and your faithfulness in the night
seasons” (Psalm 92:2) is part of the praise that is rendered to God in the Psalms. Acknowledging
God’s hesed is an important theme in wisdom literature. For example, the famous Psalm 103
reads:
The Lord is merciful and gracious,

slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
He will not always accuse,
nor will he keep his anger forever.
He does not deal with us according to our sins,
nor repay us according to our iniquities.
54
John Paul II, “Dives in Misericordia,” Vatican.va, November 30, 1980, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia.html. Hereafter referred to as DM. DM 4.
55
DM 4.
56
DM 4.
For as the heavens are high above the earth,
so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far he removes our transgressions from us. (Psalm 103:8-12)
In the prophetic books, Israel will turn away time and time again from God, yet God continues to
accept Israel back. Thus, when the Psalms sings praises of God, it is always in reference to God’s
care and mercy for erring Israel.
Morality in the New Testament
The Gospels
In the New Testament, mercy is an important theme in Jesus’ ministry. “We see ourselves
at first indebted to God’s own mercy toward us and therein recognize our call to be like God and,
as Jesus Christ instructs us, to go and do likewise.” 57 Jesus himself reiterates a line from Hosea
about desiring mercy rather than sacrifice (Matthew 9:13) and shows mercy through his healing
of the sick and pardoning of the sinners. Mercy was how early Christians witnessed to the
Gospel and is rooted in many of Jesus’ parables and actions. We can look at the parable of the
Good Samaritan, the parable of the prodigal son, and the sermon on the mount and on the plain,
where Jesus discusses the Beatitudes.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)
Jesus discusses morality in his telling of this parable. A lawyer asks Jesus what he must
do in order to gain eternal life; in short, what is the good that he ought to do? Jesus responds with
what Christians understands as the two greatest commandments: loving God with one’s whole
heart and loving one’s neighbor. However, the lawyer continues to ask Jesus to elaborate further
on what this means in the concrete; thus, Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan, who cares
for a wounded man on the side of the road, compared to a Levite and a priest who simply pass
the victim by. Jesus then asks the lawyer who he thought was a neighbor to the injured man, and
the lawyer answers that it was the “one who showed mercy,” to which Jesus responds that the
lawyer must “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37).
Many interpretations have been given on this parable. One such understanding of this
parable interprets the good Samaritan as Jesus, who is able to save humankind, represented by
the robbery victim, when ritual (represented by the priest) and the law (represented by the
Levite) are unable to do anything for the victim. For this chapter, we focus on mercy, especially
since Jesus asks us to do the same thing as the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan was merciful to
the victim of robbery, even though that person was not part of his community and even though
that person and his community would most probably be hostile towards him.
57
Christian morality then, is one that should be characterized by mercy—mercy for those
around us, regardless of whether they are our kin or not. It is a mercy that does not villainize
others, even if they may have done evil. It is a mercy that is radically inclusive and radically
caring. Such mercy does not first ask whether one is worthy of mercy before bestowing it; on the
contrary, this mercy is given so generously and gratuitously.
A related text will be that of the Last Judgement in Matthew 25, which details how mercy
is a condition for salvation: whatever is done for the least is done unto Jesus Christ:
The parable of Matthew 25 is striking in that everyone is surprised by the judgment.

The sheep never realised that in feeding the hungry, they were feeding the king;
unfortunately, the goats never realised that by not visiting the sick, they were not
visiting the Lord. For Matthew we will be judged by whether we practiced mercy and
we will not be excused if we did not know to practice it. Thus, like Matthew's goats,
the rich man in Luke 6 learns this ‘moral’ in Hades; he never showed mercy to poor
Lazarus begging at his gate. The practice of mercy is the measure of our judgment. It
should be as scandalous as the scandal of our own salvation. 58
Jesus gives concrete actions of mercy that become the criteria upon which we are measured, and
it is these words that will be developed into the corporeal acts of mercy.
Sample photo of corporeal acts of mercy based on Matthew 25.
58
Keenan, “The Scandal of Mercy Excludes No One.”
The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)
The parable of the prodigal son is part of a set of parables with a common theme:
something that was lost was then found. Jesus discusses these parables in response to the
Pharisees objecting to his eating with sinners. He recounts the story of a younger son who rejects
his father, leaves for parts unknown, and squanders his inheritance. Now destitute, the younger
son comes back to his father, who runs back to meet him and restore him to his place in the
family. The father even slaughters the fattened calf for his erring son!
It is important to note that the “repentance” of the younger son does not seem to be out of
genuine love. Rather, it seems to be more self-interested. He decides to return because he will
have food in his stomach at home, rather than suffer in his current predicament. However, this
does not deter his father. His father forgives him and does not even ask him to “pay” for his
behavior. The younger son is ultimately restored back into his father’s house, even to the chagrin
of the elder son. The parable does not end with the father saying “first you must atone for your
sins and then you can be part of this family again.” Rather, the father immediately welcomes the
son, even running to him to embrace him. This is a far cry from how some Christians and
Catholics have hastily judged others, telling them to change their ways before it is “too late.”
This parable once again shows God’s mercy, but with other characteristics. The first
characteristic is joy: Pope Francis notes that joy comes with God’s mercy:
In the parables devoted to mercy, Jesus reveals the nature of God as that of a Father who
never gives up until he has forgiven the wrong and overcome rejection with compassion
and mercy. We know these parables well, three in particular: the lost sheep, the lost coin,
and the father with two sons (cf. Lk 15:1-32). In these parables, God is always presented
as full of joy, especially when he pardons. In them we find the core of the Gospel and of
our faith, because mercy is presented as a force that overcomes everything, filling the
heart with love and bringing consolation through pardon. 59
In this case, God’s mercy is accompanied by God’s joy for those who return to God, something
which is not often mentioned as related to mercy. God’s mercy is not given in a hesitating or
reluctant manner. God’s mercy is given with joy and enthusiasm, not with sour and stingy
judgement. Our morality then is also one that is characterized by joy. Christians are an Easter
people, and morality is done not with a sour face or simply out of obligation, but out of the joy
and love for the other.
The second characteristic is the sense of response and agency in doing mercy. Mercy is
done not out of the father’s obligation to the son, but out of our response to the love and care
bestowed by God. Rather than simply seeing the good that we ought to do as just another task to
finish, doing the good becomes our way of responding, with joy and gratefulness, to all that God
59
Francis, “Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy: Misericordiae Vultus,” Vatican.va, April 11,
2015, https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-
francesco_bolla_20150411_misericordiae-vultus.html. Hereafter referred to as MV. MV 9.
offers. Thus, human beings are not slaves of a monarchical god, who do only whatever God
wants. Instead, human beings are in a relationship of love with God.
This is not to be confused with pity. Pity only looks down on others, while feeling bad for
the circumstances of the one being pitied. Mercy “is the restorative power of God, revealed here
in the father’s initiative of love and welcome to his son. The prodigal son begins to see and
experience himself as loved by his father, and his own conversion experience is ratified by the
loving embrace of his father’s love. This is another name for mercy.” 60
The third characteristic to be highlighted is that of the forgiving aspect of this mercy.
“Jesus asks us also to forgive and to give. To be instruments of mercy because it was we who
first received mercy from God. To be generous with others, knowing that God showers his
goodness upon us with immense generosity.” 61 Christian morality entails much forgiveness,
knowing that people who strive to do the good often fall short. This forgiveness does not mean
condoning wrongdoing, nor does it mean that we can do anything that we want. Rather, this
forgiveness is a humble acknowledgement that we continue to strive to do better, knowing that
God will continue to be with us.
The Sermon on the Mount and on the Plain ( Matthew 5:1-11; Luke 6:17-49)
The Beatitudes have served as pronouncement of blessings for those who, in that time period,
would not have been seen as blessed or happy. They also served as signs for what a genuine
disciple of Christ would look like. We can see that the beatitudes themselves specifically
mention that mercy itself is a gift given to those who are merciful as well. Such mercy again
stems from the idea of hesed, emphasizing the need to show mercy and compassion to each
other. Being able to exercise this mercy also comes from a place of spiritual poverty and
humility, outlined in the first four beatitudes, knowing that we ourselves need this mercy that we
give to our fellow human beings.
Pope Francis, in response to the challenges of the modern day Catholic, proposes an
additional six beatitudes:
• Blessed are those who remain faithful while enduring evils inflicted on them by others,
and forgive them from their heart.
• Blessed are those who look into the eyes of the abandoned and marginalized, and show
them their closeness.
• Blessed are those who see God in every person, and strive to make others also discover
him.
• Blessed are those who protect and care for our common home.
• Blessed are those who renounce their own comfort in order to help others.
60
Peter J. Vaghi, “The Merciful Father: Always Ready to Greet a Prodigal Son,” America Magazine, January 19,
2016, https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/merciful-father.
61
MV 14.
• Blessed are those who pray and work for full communion between Christians. All these
are messengers of God’s mercy and tenderness, and surely they will receive from him
their merited reward.62
Pope Francis’ beatitudes include those who do specific acts of mercy—"each new beatitude
offers a specific example of a person serving as “a messenger of God’s mercy,” a much needed
example in our time.” 63
The Epistles and Early Christian Community
In the New Testament, mercy is understood as eleeó, similar to hesed. The theme of
mercy is tied with Jesus’ salvific act through the cross and resurrection—the ultimate scandal
and the ultimate mercy given to human beings. “He saved us, not because of any works of
righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy” (Titus 3:5) Thus, salvation was
God’s act of mercy, and the works are a response to this mercy, rather than a bargaining chip to
“trade” for God’s mercy. “In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).
God’s mercy through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is seen, not as a
weakness, but as God’s strength; the entire life-event of Jesus Christ affirms God’s mercy.
Imitating God, then, entails imitating God’s mercy. Mercy now becomes one of the cornerstones
of the early Christian Church; mercy ought to permeate the Church’s activities and be a primary
criteria in the Church’s ministry and identity.
The early Christian community sought to live out this mercy to each other and with
others. In the first few centuries after the death of Christ, the conditions of many cities were
miserable and filled with chaos, with a high infant mortality, short life expectancy, and a steady
stream of people coming into the city—it is in this setting that the early Christians began
practicing mercy to the newly arrived immigrants. 64 “Moreover, [Christianity] was new. Certain
demands were imposed by the gods of pagan religions. But these demands were substantively
ritual; they were not neighbor directed…The religion was new to the Roman empire, therefore,
because the Christian God required mercy to be practiced toward all who called upon the name
of the Lord. Christianity required the recognition of the stranger in need as neighbor and,
inevitably, as sibling; Christianity commanded the Christian to embrace faithfully the one in
need of mercy.” 65 It is through these actions that the early Christians witnessed to the gospel.
Conclusion
62
“Pope Francis Proposes New Set of Beatitudes,” Manila Bulletin News, November 3, 2016,
https://news.mb.com.ph/2016/11/03/pope-francis-proposes-new-set-of-beatitudes.
63
“Why Pope Francis Updated the Beatitudes,” America Magazine, November 8, 2016,
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2016/11/08/why-pope-francis-updated-beatitudes.
64
65
Keenan, 98–99.
The Christian Tradition has a rich history of mercy as an important component of moral
theology. “Thus, in deeds and in words, the Lord revealed [God’s] mercy from the very
beginnings of the people which [God] chose for [God’s self]; and, in the course of its history,
this people continually entrusted itself, both when stricken with misfortune and when it became
aware of its sin, to the God of mercies.” 66
“Catholics have taken the insight [of mercy as the basic stance of our God toward us]
further in terms of a long legacy of the corporeal works of mercy—feed the hungry, give drink to
the thirsty, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, visit the sick, visit the imprisoned, and bury te
dead—and the spiritual works of mercy—give good counsel, teach the ignorant, admonish
sinners, console the afflicted, pardon offenses and injuries, bear offenses patiently, and pray for
the living and the dead.” 67 This fundamental stance of mercy has shaped Christian morality and
ethics. It is what drove the early Christian to live in communities where no one was in need (Acts
2:43-47). Until today, mercy is seen in the Catholic Church’s continued actions of corporeal and
spiritual acts of mercy.
Mercy makes a big difference in how morality is understood and what kinds of choices
we would make. Rather than a cold, punishment-based morality, mercy as the motive behind our
actions allows us to be more empathetic and to choose our actions not just based on our own
good and self-interest, but also those of others. Mercy is not just about alms-giving, but it is a
virtue cultivated in the acts of mercy. A society based on mercy would have a very different
justice and social welfare system: “in the culture based on Divine Mercy the question is to
protect the human being as a person bestowed with inalienable dignity, reasonable and free, by
their nature social, called to love, a subject and participant of God’s plans.” 68 The criteria
becomes: “what is the most loving and merciful thing to do?” rather than “what is most
efficient?” or “what gives me the best return?”
66
DM 4.
67
68
Zyzak, “Mercy as Theological Term,” 146.
Guide Questions
1. Define mercy in the Old Testament. Why is mercy an important theme in the Old
Testament
2. How does Jesus exemplify mercy in the New Testament?
3. What different does mercy have in Christian morality compared to a rules-based
Christian morality?
Bibliography
Francis. “Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy: Misericordiae Vultus.”

Vatican.va, April 11, 2015.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-
francesco_bolla_20150411_misericordiae-vultus.html.
John Paul II. “Dives in Misericordia.” Vatican.va, November 30, 1980.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-
ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia.html.
———. “The Scandal of Mercy Excludes No One.” Thinking Faith: The online journal of the
Jesuits in Britain, December 4, 2015. https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/scandal-
mercy-excludes-no-one.
“Pope Francis Proposes New Set of Beatitudes.” Manila Bulletin News, November 3, 2016.
https://news.mb.com.ph/2016/11/03/pope-francis-proposes-new-set-of-beatitudes.
Vaghi, Peter J. “The Merciful Father: Always Ready to Greet a Prodigal Son.” America
Magazine, January 19, 2016. https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/merciful-father.
“Why Pope Francis Updated the Beatitudes.” America Magazine, November 8, 2016.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2016/11/08/why-pope-francis-updated-
beatitudes.
Zyzak, Wojciech. “Mercy as Theological Term.” The Person and the Challenges 5, no. 1 (2015):
137–53.
Chapter 5
Church Teaching as Guide to Moral Living
Introduction
This chapter introduces students to how Church teaching is used in discernment. As the title
suggests, they offer people a guide to moral living. The Church’s prescriptions are based on a
concept called “natural law.” These prescriptions can be pronounced from the magisterium,
which is teaching authority of the Church, or it can be lived out through what is called sensus
fidelium. Through the magisterium and sensus fidei, the hierarchy and the laity together shape
Church teaching over time towards a more life-giving understanding of morality.
Learning Objectives
13. Define natural law and its role in discernment
14. Understand the context and roles of the magisterium and sensus fidelium in shaping and
developing Church teaching
15. Develop the connection between Scripture and Tradition in the students’ own
discernment process
Exposition
While the last chapter discussed the Scriptural basis for moral teaching, this chapter
continues to build on Scripture by articulating the moral commitments of believing in the God
revealed in Scripture. Not everything that people discern on today can be explicitly found in
Scripture; this does not mean, however, that Scripture is not as useful. On the contrary, Scripture
is timeless, not because everything it says will always be applicable to us, but in the sense that it
will always have something meaningful and important to tell us, no matter what our context is. 69
How then does the Catholic Church respond to current moral issues? Aside from reading
and interpreting Scripture, Catholic moral theology interpret what is called the natural law. Both
Scripture and the natural law are interpreted by the magisterium and the laity, in dialogue with
each and through what is called the sensus fidei. This chapter will thus focus on these terms and
how they help guide the faithful in moral living.
Natural Law 70
69
Terry A. Veling, Practical Theology: On Earth As It Is in Heaven (Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 2005).
70
The structure of articulating how natural law works comes from James T. Bretzke, SJ, A Morally Complex World:
Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 2004).
Catholic moral theology believes that there is a discernible moral order. Thus, moral
theology would reject a relativist understanding of reality. There is an objective standard of
moral rightness or wrongness that human actions can be judged against. These are also not mrely
“social constructions” that change from culture to culture, but rather transcend time, space, and
cultures. In other words, it is not merely determined by human beings, but is beyond us. It is
what philosophers and theologians would call an ontological claim: “an ontological claim is that
certain things really are, and that they are in a certain way; they are not merely myths, legends,
metaphors or figments of our imaginations…we might call this the ‘how-ness’ of moral life, i.e.
how we are meant to live morally.” 71 For example, when Catholics say that “killing is bad,” this
claim is not being made out of the whims of the person saying this, or simply because this is
what is popular or mainstream; in Catholic theology, this claim is rooted in a particular moral
order that comes from God and how God created reality and nature of human beings.
This also implies that such a claim is in some sense knowable. There is thus an
epistemological claim—meaning the way we can come to know this objective moral standard,
and how certain we can be that this is the moral standard. While our way of knowing the world is
clouded by our sinfulness, Catholic moral theology acknowledges that we can have some sense
of this moral order, reflecting on God’s revelation and using reason. Though it may be an
incomplete picture and can be clouded by sin, Catholic moral theology emphasizes God’s grace
in helping human reason understand this nature.
If there is a moral order that is knowable, Catholic moral theology also claims that this
moral order can be used to construct particular ethical norms that have a claim on us and other
human beings. Such claims are universalizable and universal, meaning that they can be
formulated in such a way that applies to all people, regardless of culture, location, or time.
For example, Catholic moral theology’s value of life comes from its interpretation of the
moral order that has allowed all forms of life to flourish in nature, revealing God’s revelation
that has shown his love and care for the life of God’s creatures. This value for life can be put into
concrete ethical norms such as “protect life” which are general enough to be universalizable and
ought to be universal, because of God’s love for a.
However, it can be difficult to live out such general statements—what would they even
mean in the concrete? Universal precepts are thus just the first level of moral norms; they need to
be further contextualized if they are to be effective. There are two more levels of moral norms
that can be derived from universal precepts: general principles, which form the second level of
moral norms, and finally, concrete material norms, the third level of moral norms. 72 Compared to
universal precepts which are always obligatory, general principles are generally true but with
possible exceptions, depending on the circumstances, while concrete material norms are the most
specific, applying to a specific situation but is thus open to change because of the circumstances
and specificity. 73
71
Bretzke, SJ, 50.
72
Bretzke, SJ, 63–66.
73
Bretzke, SJ, 66.
Going back then to the universal precept of “protecting life,” a general principle would be
not to hurt anyone. This principle is generally true in almost all cases; however, there are cases
wherein someone is perhaps being attacked, with the victim attempting to incapacitate the
aggressor fighting back. In this case, while the victim does not hurt others in general, the
presence of an aggressor or attacker changes the situation. Thus, when translated into concrete
material norms, the victim needs to defend himself or herself in this case, and thus may need to
fight back to protect themselves, causing pain to the aggressor. Another general principle that
can be derived from protecting life in the realm of business would be to create products and
services that help people in their everyday life. When this is translated into concrete material
norms, each business applies this general principle to their specific product or service. To
illustrate: on the one hand, a food company will make food that is delicious, safe to eat, and
made from ethical labor and ingredients, while on the other hand, a clothing company may make
clothes are durable and affordable without using sweatshop labor.
Living Out the Natural Law
How does the Catholic Church interpret and make sense of natural law? How do we
know what the universal precepts and general principles are and how do we then infer the
concrete material norms? While natural law may be universal and come from God, our human
understanding of this is limited and thus needs to grow, adapt as we continue to learn more about
who God and God’s own will. How the Catholic Church has interpreted natural law and
implemented it over time has changed, and so it is important to understand how these changes
are made and decided. Such changes are often not abrupt changes, but rather a process of the
Church moving towards a more loving and merciful community. There are cases wherein a
certain action was allowed then prohibited, such as slavery, while there are cases wherein certain
actions were prohibited then allowed, such as interest taking and religious freedom.
<Case Study: Slavery>

<The most commonly cited example of changes in Church teaching is the teaching on slavery. If
read in a fundamentalist way, it is possible to interpret Scripture as supporting slavery. For
example, Leviticus 25:44-46 offers guidelines on when slavery is permissible, while Titus 2:9-10
encouraged slaves to be submissive to their masters. Though slavery in Scripture highlights the
importance of treating slaves well and not being cruel to them, most passages do not condemn
owning slaves per se. Slavery was simply understood to be part of the moral order.
Thus, for the longest time, the Catholic Church would condemn slavery in words but would also
at times condone it. For example, Augustine did not think that slavery was from God, but rather
was a result of sin. Thomas Aquinas would agree with Augustine but would also argue that
slaves still had some rights. 74 A papal bull in 1452 by Pope Nicholas V had allowed pagans to be
put into a form of feudal “perpetual servitude,” though later papal bulls from Pope Benedict XIV
(issued in 1741) and Pope Gregory XVI (issued in 1839) condemned slavery. Even then, certain
Catholic orders as well as lay Catholics continued to practice slavery up until the decline of the
slave trade, with certain bishops interpreting these condemnations in a way that still allowed
some form of slavery to happen.
74
Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 57, Art. 4, ad. 2.
At the Second Vatican Council in 1965 that slavery itself was absolutely considered intrinsically
evil, meaning that all instances of slavery were evil and that no circumstances could make it a
good. Gaudium et Spes reads:
Furthermore…whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions,

arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and
children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere
tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others
of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm
to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are
supreme dishonor to the Creator. 75
Thus, while on the whole the Catholic Church saw slavery negatively, there were times when it
was not put into practice, and even condoned. Now, it has been totally condemned, and the
Catholic Church has explicitly called it an intrinsic evil, putting a stop to all forms of slavery and
abhorring modern day forms of slavery such as sweatshop labor.>
Magisterium
The magisterium is the official teaching body of the Catholic Church. Traditionally, this
is made up of the pope and the bishops from all over the world, teaching in communion with
each other and with God. Documents have been written and teachings have been promulgated by
bishops in unison with each other, or by the pope with the help of various Vatican offices, as
well as ordained and lay theologians. This responsibility for teaching correctly comes from the
grace of the Holy Spirit, in connection with being part of the apostolic succession of bishops.
Pronouncements from the magisterium can be made either by the pope proclaiming a
teaching ex cathedra, or by bishops and the pope in communion with each, either together at a
council or dispersed around the world but in agreement. Such pronouncements are often made to
clarify certain teachings or to object to any misunderstandings of Church teaching.
Infallibility
A common misunderstanding in Catholic moral theology is the belief that everything that
a pope says is infallible (i.e. pronounced as always correct and incapable of being wrong).
Certainly part of the magisterium is the concept of papal infallibility, wherein the pope may
teach a certain doctrine ex cathedra, which means “from the chair.” If a teaching is taught ex
cathedra, this teaching has a special claim on the Catholic community and thus becomes part of
the creed of the Catholic Church.
75
However, the pope must explicitly express that he is teaching ex cathedra. Also, this is
not only grace that the Pope has, but also the bishops in unity with one another. Lumen Gentium
explains this as follows:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can
nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are
dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among
themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter
of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held
conclusively…This is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the
college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and
teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act
he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals…For then the Roman Pontiff is not
pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the
universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is
individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith…To
these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the
activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and
progresses in unity of faith.. 76
This grace that comes from the Holy Spirit is a serious responsibility, which is why in the two
thousand years of history in the Catholic Church, there are only around seven cases of papal
infallibility being used explicitly in documents, excluding ecumenical councils. 77
Sensus Fidei
Aside from teachings of the magisterium, Catholic moral theology emphasizes the sensus
fidei as a grace that helps the faithful make good moral decisions. The sensus fidei or sense of the
faith is “an instinct for the truth of the Gospel, which enables [the faithful] to recognize and
endorse authentic Christian doctrine and practice, and to reject what is false.”78 This grace is part
of the graces received in baptism and is grounded in the belief that God reveals God’s self to
each and everyone of us, giving us a personal and intimate knowledge of God:
By the gift of the Holy Spirit, ‘the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father’ and
bears witness to the Son (Jn 15:26), all of the baptized participate in the prophetic
office of Jesus Christ, ‘the faithful and true witness’ (Rev 3:14). They are to bear
witness to the Gospel and to the apostolic faith in the Church and in the world. The
Holy Spirit anoints them and equips them for that high calling, conferring on them a
76
gentium_en.html. Hereafter referred to as LG. LG 25.
77
For more on these cases, please see Francis A. Sullivan, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents
of the Magisterium (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2003).
78
International Theological Commission, “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church,” Vatican.va, 2014,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-
fidei_en.html#1._The_sensus_fidei_as_an_instinct_of_faith. Hereafter referred to as Sensus Fidei. Sensus Fidei 2.
very personal and intimate knowledge of the faith of the Church. In the first letter of
St John, the faithful are told: ‘you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of
you have knowledge’, ‘the anointing that you received from [Christ] abides in you,
and so you do not need anyone to teach you’, ‘his anointing teaches you about all
things’ (1Jn 2:20, 27). 79
Thus, the sensus fidei is an individual ability. When exercised by the faithful it is called the
sensus fidelium or the sense of the faithful. In Scripture, this grace, animated by the Holy Spirit
allows the faithful to know and speak about “God’s deeds and power” (Acts 2:11).
The sensus fidei and sensus fidelium was emphasized at the Second Vatican Council to do
away with the image of an autocratic hierarchy and a passive laity. The sensus fidei and sensus
fidelium emphasize that all the baptized participate in the life and mission of the Church. This
sense “highlighted the active role of the whole Church, especially the contribution of the lay
faithful, in preserving and transmitting the Church’s faith.”80
<Case Study: The sensus fidelium and the Immaculate Conception: An Excerpt from “Sensus
Fidei in the Life of the Church”>
< To defend the Catholic faith against Rationalism, the Tübingen scholar, Johann Adam Möhler,
sought to portray the Church as a living organism and to grasp the principles that governed the
development of doctrine. In his view, it is the Holy Spirit who animates, guides, and unites the
faithful as a community in Christ, bringing about in them an ecclesial ‘consciousness’ of the
faith…This sensus fidei, which is the subjective dimension of Tradition, necessarily includes an
objective element, the Church’s teaching, for the Christian ‘sense’ of the faithful, which lives in
their hearts and is virtually equivalent to Tradition, is never divorced from its content.
John Henry Newman initially investigated the sensus fidei fidelium to resolve his difficulty
concerning the development of doctrine. He was the first to publish an entire treatise on the latter
topic, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), and to spell out the
characteristics of faithful development. To distinguish between true and false developments, he
adopted Augustine’s norm - the general consent of the whole Church, ‘Securus judicat orbis
terrarum’ – but he saw that an infallible authority is necessary to maintain the Church in the
truth.
Using insights from Möhler and Newman, [Giovanni] Perrone retrieved the patristic
understanding of the sensus fidelium in order to respond to a widespread desire for a papal
definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception; he found in the unanimous consent, or conspiratio,
of the faithful and their pastors a warrant for the apostolic origin of this doctrine. He maintained
that the most distinguished theologians attributed probative force to the sensus fidelium, and that
the strength of one ‘instrument of tradition’ can make up for the deficit of another, e.g., ‘the
silence of the Fathers’.
The influence of Perrone’s research on Pope Pius IX’s decision to proceed with the definition of
the Immaculate Conception is evident from the fact that before he defined it the Pope asked the
79
Sensus Fidei 1.
80
Sensus Fidei 34.
bishops of the world to report to him in writing regarding the devotion of their clergy and faithful
people to the conception of the Immaculate Virgin. In the apostolic constitution containing the
definition, Ineffabilis Deus (1854), Pope Pius IX said that although he already knew the mind of
the bishops on this matter, he had particularly asked the bishops to inform him of the piety and
devotion of their faithful in this regard…He thus used the language of Perrone’s treatise to
describe the combined testimony of the bishops and the faithful. Newman highlighted the
word, conspiratio, and commented: ‘the two, the Church teaching and the Church taught, are put
together, as one twofold testimony, illustrating each other, and never to be divided’.> 81
It is important to note that the sensus fidelium is not a “majority rules” mentality. Just
because something is popular, does not make it correct in the Catholic Church. However, the
magisterium—the pope and the bishops—have the responsibility of listening to the sensus
fidelium of the laity. The experiences of the laity serve as a way of illuminating what God is
revealing in the present age. The sensus fidelium ought to also deeply inform the
pronouncements of the magisterium, particularly the sensus fidelium of those on the margins; this
thus allows for hopefully fruitful conversation towards what is truly good and moral.
At the same time, the sensus fidelium also needs to be nurtured. There are certain
dispositions needed in order to participate in the sensus fidelium: 1) participation in the life of
Church; 2) listening to the Word of God; 3) openness to reason and dialogue; 4) openness to the
magisterium; 5) humility; and 6) seeking the edification of the people of God. Thus, the sensus
fidei is not meant to create a divide between the magisterium and the laity; rather, it is simply to
emphasize that the laity also share in Jesus’ threefold mission of being priest, prophet, and king.
The magisterium is to help people participate in the sensus fidelium by helping “the laity grasp
and put into practice, in an effective and enlightened manner, their charism with regard to the
understanding of Scripture and to the knowledge and proclamation of the truth of the faith.” 82
Ideally, there is thus a dialogue between the laity and the ordained to further develop
moral teaching to become more life-giving. However, there have been times where what the
magisterium taught was different from the sentiment by the laity. The common case cited is that
of the reception of the teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI.
<Case Study: The Reception of Humanae Vitae>

<The publishing of Humanae Vitae, which gave a detailed account of Church teaching on the use
of contraception, was a document that received open pushback and dissent from many
the 83ologians and lay people. The document was preceded by a commission composed of
laypeople, theologians and bishops, as well as married men and women, who were to study the
questions with birth control and population. The commission drew up a report, approved by
majority of the commission after several meetings, recommending to Pope Paul VI that
contraception, while not totally approved, be allowed in certain cases to help the married couple
81
Sensus Fidei 35-38.
82
Nathanael Yaovi Soede, “The Sensus Fidelium and Moral Discernment,” in Catholic Theological Ethics in the
World Church, ed. James F. Keenan (New York. USA: Continuum, 2007), 194.
83
For more on theology as conversation through the sensus fidelium, please see Gemma Tulud Cruz, “Theology as
Conversation: Sensus Fidelium and Doing Theology on/from the Margins,” in Learning from All the Faithful: A
Contemporary Theology of the Sensus Fidei, ed. Bradford Hinze and Peter C. Phan (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock
Pub, 2016), 344–59.
raise a family responsibly. However, when Humanae Vitae came out, it allowed only for cases
wherein contraception was an indirect effect of much needed medication: “the Church does not
consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if
a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is
not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” 84
This caused much disagreement in the Catholic Church. Theologians and the laity openly
dissented, the most prominent of which was Charlie Curran. Rather than settling the debate on
birth control, the document intensified it. Even up to today, the topic is divisive, with various
groups of practicing Catholics citing reasons criticizing or defending Humanae Vitae.>
In such cases, the International Theological Commission prescribes the need for both the
laity and the hierarchy to come together and engage each other:
All of the gifts of the Spirit, and in a special way the gift of primacy in the Church,
are given so as to foster the unity of the Church in faith and communion, and the
reception of magisterial teaching by the faithful is itself prompted by the Spirit, as
the faithful, by means of the sensus fidei that they possess, recognize the truth of
what is taught and cling to it…There are occasions, however, when the reception of
magisterial teaching by the faithful meets with difficulty and resistance, and
appropriate action on both sides is required in such situations. The faithful must
reflect on the teaching that has been given, making every effort to understand and
accept it…The magisterium must likewise reflect on the teaching that has been given
and consider whether it needs clarification or reformulation in order to communicate
more effectively the essential message. These mutual efforts in times of difficulty
themselves express the communion that is essential to the life of the Church, and
likewise a yearning for the grace of the Spirit who guides the Church ‘into all the
truth’ (Jn 16:13). 85
Though tensions and conflicts may not immediately be resolved, the reflection and dialogue
between the laity and magisterium hopefully can point towards the reasons for resisting the
teaching, and what this implies for the Church’s moral teaching.
Conclusion
Catholic moral theology acknowledges the presence of natural law and seeks to discern
this moral order as a way of understanding the moral claims. Natural law assumes that: 1) there
is a moral order; 2) this moral order is knowable to some degree; 3) this moral order can be
articulated as moral norms with a universal ethical claim on human beings, regardless of race,
gender, culture, geographical location, or time.
84
Paul VI, “On the Regulation of Birth: Humanae Vitae,” Vatican.va, July 25, 1968,
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html.
Hereafter referred to as HV. HV 15.
85
Sensus Fidei 79-80.
It is through the sensus fidelium and magisterium that one can tap into the natural law and
continue interpreting the natural law in light of new scientific developments and contexts. It is
through both these concepts that Catholics learn from each other and hopefully develop truly
life-giving moral norms.
Bringing together natural law, the magisterium, and the sensus fidei as important aspects
of guiding one’s discernment is a complex process, at times filled with tension and ambiguity.
Nevertheless, they give the person moral norms to look to when making a decision. While the
person, at the end of the day, is the one making the decision and wholly owns the choice, it helps
to have some sort of guide to look to and learn from.
Guide Questions
1. Explain what natural law is and its characteristics.

2. How does the magisterium function?
3. What is sensus fidei? Why is it important in the life of the Catholic Church?
Bibliography
Cruz, Gemma Tulud. “Theology as Conversation: Sensus Fidelium and Doing Theology on/from
the Margins.” In Learning from All the Faithful: A Contemporary Theology of the Sensus
Fidei, edited by Bradford Hinze and Peter C. Phan, 344–59. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock
Pub, 2016.
International Theological Commission. “Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church.” Vatican.va,
2014.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610
_sensus-fidei_en.html#1._The_sensus_fidei_as_an_instinct_of_faith.
Paul VI. “On the Regulation of Birth: Humanae Vitae.” Vatican.va, July 25, 1968.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-
vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html.
November 21, 1964.
———. “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word: Gaudium et Spes.”
Vatican.va, 1965.
Soede, Nathanael Yaovi. “The Sensus Fidelium and Moral Discernment.” In Catholic
Theological Ethics in the World Church, edited by James F. Keenan, 193–201. New
York. USA: Continuum, 2007.
Sullivan, Francis A. Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the
Magisterium. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2003.
Thomas Aquinas. “Summa Theologica (English Dominican Provence Translation).” Sacred
Texts, 1981. http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm.
Veling, Terry A. Practical Theology: On Earth As It Is in Heaven. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis
Books, 2005.
Chapter 6
Discernment: Putting Moral Knowledge into
Practice
Introduction
Based on the earlier chapters on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic faith commitment has
implications in how people live their lives. Putting these principles from Scripture and Tradition
into practice entails discernment; this chapter delves into this process and the various principles
that have been articulated throughout Catholic Tradition and ethics as a way to guide decision-
making.
Learning Objectives
16. Define what discernment means in Christian Tradition
17. Articulate the principles that undergird moral discernment
18. Use the discernment process in the students’ own decision making
Exposition
Life is an invitation to work with God, and the foundation and basic criteria of living well
and attaining ultimate human meaning is “by loving…some One, and that this requires interior
freedom—freedom to choose, habitually, the most loving thing.” 86 In order to habitually choose
to do the most loving thing, Christian theology uses the method of discernment as a framework
for helping people sift through all the information, data, and feelings involved in choosing how
to live one’s life.
Discernment
We have described discernment as a process of decision making. It is a movement

towards what is true, good, and beautiful, and a way of distinguishing of what the right thing to
do is, given the circumstances. As a process, discernment requires a sense of openness to God; it
is being free to do what we can and choosing to place that freedom in the service of God. It also
entails a certain knowledge of God. Augustine prayed “O God, let me know myself; let me know
you” as part of his own discernment and discovery of who he was and where he was being led.
86
Dean Brackley, The Call to Discernment in Troubled Times: New Perspectives on the Transformative Wisdom of
Ignatius of Loyola (New York, USA: Crossroad Publishing, 2004), 11.
Discernment as a process entails reflecting on certain questions. It is not a step-by-step
process that one can just follow and immediately get the right results. Rather, the discerning
person asks questions such as:
• Which action or path leads me to greater authentic love and joy in God and
others?
• Which action or path helps build me and others up in God?
• What information do I need to make a good and informed choice?
• What are my feelings or inner movements telling me? Why am I being moved
towards one direction or another?
All these questions and more are crucial to know what the best response is to one’s discernment,
and it is in answering these questions that the discerning person hopefully gets a clearer picture
as to where to go from there.
A Person Based Approach
It is important to note that discernment is a person-based approach. While moral theology

is often thought of as an act-based approach and discernment is also about discerning concrete
actions, it nevertheless is not solely focused on which action you should do. “Moral action
always has a double thrust. The first and more obvious thrust concerns the issue at hand. The
second and more profound thrust concerns the shaping of our moral character.” 87 Moral
deliberation and discernment is thus concerned with who we are and who we are becoming. We
will discuss this further in the last chapter of the book—discernment as a way of cultivating our
virtues in order for us to flourish as part of creation.
The movement from an act-based approach to a person-based approach happened is a

recent development. Moral theology and decision making was very much act based prior to the
Second Vatican Council; the moral manuals prior to the twentieth century could give the exact
penance needed for a particular action. “From the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries, the
morally upright stance was fairly minimal: avoid sin. Later, with twentieth century revisionists,
the stance was to become through charity a disciple of Christ.”88
With this shift came a focus on the whole human person, rather than just actions. The
view of moral theology became more personalist and holistic, rather than physicalist and
compartmentalized.89 Thus, instead of simply asking about the action and serving appropriate
87
Kenneth R. Melchin, Living with Other People: An Introduction to Christain Ethics Based on Bernard Lonergan,
Series in Ethics (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998), 68.
88
James F. Keenan, A History of Catholic Moral Theology in the Twentieth Century: From Confessing Sins to
Liberating Consciences (USA: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010), 5.
89
A physicalist paradigm “looks at human nature and moral action primarily through a lens which portrarys the
moral world and human nature as a ‘given essence’ that is fundamentally non-changing, static, with rather clearly
drawn lines of what constitutes right and wrong in a given situation” while a personalist paradigm acknowledges
that “we cannot look for the moral meaning of the human person in a classicist, abstract, ahistorical consideration of
‘human nature’ but rather we have to look at this or that concrete human person, in his or her matrix of relations,
with his or her talents, concrete circumstances, personal history, and so on.” For more on this, please see James T.
penances, moral theology became more concerned with the human person—how he or she was
becoming a better person and what circumstances and intentions were involved. The concern was
now on the person’s human dignity and respecting this, as well as how he or she can flourish the
way God intended for all creation to flourish.
However, a person based approach to morality and discernment meant a more

complicated process of discerning. There were no clear cut answers that could be looked up in a
manual anymore; rather, each person now had to think and reflect deeply on the particular
situation in order to try to find the best thing to do, given the criteria and goal of flourishing of
all creation.
Because of this difficulty, several broad principles have been proposed as a way of
guiding discernment. We will look at just some of the principles that have been used to make
decision in Catholic moral theology.
<Box: An Excerpt from a Moral Manual>

<With the focus of moral theology on avoiding sin, moral manuals and books prior to the
twentieth century gave detailed accounts of what a person needed to do if he or she committed
any wrong. Here is just an excerpt of the penances needed if one were guilty of gluttony and
drunkenness:
I. Of Gluttony
a. Those who are drunk with wine or beer, contrary to the Savior’s prohibition (as it
is said, “Take heed that your hearts be not overcharged with surfeiting and
drunkenness or with the cares of this life lest perchance that day come upon all
that dwell upon the face of the whole earth,”) and [that] of the Apostle (“Be not
drunk with wine wherein is luxury”)—if they have taken the vow sanctity they
shall expiate the fault for forty days with bread and water; laymen, however, for
seven days.
b. He who compels anyone, for the sake of good fellowship, to become drunk shall
do penance in the same manner as one who is drunk.
c. If he does this on account of hatred, he shall be judged as a homicide.
d. He who is not able to sing psalms being benumbed in his organs of speech, shall
perform a special fast
e. He who suffers excessive distention of the stomach and the pain of satiety [shall
do penance] for one day
f. If he suffers to the point of vomiting, though he is not in a state of infirmity, for
seven days
g. If, however, he vomits the host, for forty days
h. If he ejects it into the fire, he shall sing one hundred psalms
i. If dogs lap up this vomit, he who has vomited shall do penance for one hundred
days> 90
Bretzke, SJ, A Morally Complex World: Engaging Contemporary Moral Theology (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical
Press, 2004), 36–38.
90
John T. McNeill and Helena M. Gamer, trans., Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1938), 101–2.
Principles that Guide Discernment
While natural law, the magisterium, and the sensus fidei all help guide moral decision
making, certain principles, though left unsaid, guide discernment as well. These principles can be
particularly useful when decision making becomes difficult and set the stage for what Catholic
moral theology considers as important criteria in making decisions; note that the criteria will not
be usefulness, practicality, or efficiency necessarily, but rather the good and justice.
Principle of Beneficence
Moral decision making—in any area or discipline—has always focused on bringing about
the good. Thus, our actions ought to be directed towards benefiting and promoting the good of
creation. As we have seen in the previous chapter, mercy is how we characterize Christian
morality, and so our actions ought to embody this mercy, kindness, and compassion. This also
implies that, at the very least, we work towards nonmaleficence (i.e. we do no harm to other
fellow creatures), especially when the evil is preventable.
What complicates this principle is the conflicting definitions of “good” that people have,
as well as situations where goods conflict. The Christian idea of the good is that of flourishing
for all creation, where human beings, other animals, and the environment can all thrive in a
mutually benefiting relationship in union with God. However, many decisions are carried out
that benefit only a limited number of people, to the detriment of others, often the most vulnerable
people as well as the rest of creation. Working towards the good means working towards the
good for all, and not just the good for the few.
Working for the good of all can, at times, entail two things: sacrifice and the knowledge
of what is enough. First, at times there may be a need to sacrifice, especially when goods
conflict. Parents at times sacrifice for their children by working abroad, or working two jobs, for
example. Second, there is a need to be content and to be happy with what is enough. An example
of this is in terms of the physical resources of the earth—there is enough for everyone to have a
decent and comfortable life, and yet many make decisions to hoard the resources or only give
away a small amount, rather than equally share these resources with all. Those who make these
decisions are working towards their own good, but not necessarily the good of all; such an
individualistic understanding of the good is also a very limited understanding of the good.
Principle of Double Effect
What if the person is choosing between two goods? This now becomes a moral dilemma:
which good do you prioritize? Also, what if the decision to be made will have foreseen harmful
effects on another person, animals, or the environment?
The principle of double effect is a principle that sets out particular criteria to help people
make decision in such ethical dilemmas. The criteria are:
• The nature of the act itself is good or morally neutral;
• The decision maker does not intend the harmful effects; and
• The good effects outweigh the bad effects
Thomas Aquinas discusses this in the specific case of killing a man in self-defense. 91 Aquinas
argues that an act is not unlawful if the intention was for the good (i.e. the intention was to save
one’s life and not kill the assailant) and the act used only the force that was necessary to repel the
assailant (i.e. the act of self-defense was proportional to the violence). Later understandings of
this principle will also emphasize that the bad effect should not and cannot be a means to the
good, but rather only be a side effect.
For example, a doctor may have the case of a pregnant woman who needs to have a
hysterectomy to take out the cancerous cells in her body. However, doing this would kill the
baby. In this case, the principle of double effect would permit the hysterectomy, even though
there is the foreseen but totally unintended consequence of killing the baby. Take note also that
killing the baby is not part of the means to save the mother—it is the unfortunate side effect of
the process.
A word of caution: we cannot overly reduce this principle to the idea that we can do
anything for so long as there is a good end intended and that the harm are merely side effects.
Though it is difficult to measure, one still needs to ensure that the good outweighs the bad, and
one should aim to minimize the harmful effects as much as possible. This is difficult to measure,
which is why, as mentioned earlier, a certain knowledge of God and prudence is needed in order
to make these difficult decisions well. Also, if harm is done to another creature, further decisions
should be made to correct the harmful effects made, if possible. So for example, if we human
beings use up the earth’s natural resources, to the detriment of other animals’ habitats and food,
we should seek to ensure that we do not take up all the resources. We should also consider other
creatures’ well-being, which might mean sacrificing some benefits that human beings might get,
if it means that other creatures will be able to live.
The point of this principle is to help people navigate ethical issues wherein goods are
conflicting, and it is impossible to bring about the good without causing some harm. This
principle acknowledges that we do not live in a perfect world, and there will be cases and
situations wherein we may be forced to choose between goods, sacrificing one over the other.
Though this principle is present in Catholic moral theology, it has been critiqued as unhelpful,
especially when the nature of the act is not good or morally neutral. Nevertheless, this principle
aims to help the person parse the circumstances of the situation and to raise relevant questions in
order to attain the answers needed to come to a decision.
<Box: The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki>

<On August 6 and 9, 1945, the USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing countless civilians
but turning the tide and helping end the Second World War.
91
Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 64, Art. 7.
“The immense destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki boggles the mind—and the heart. Time
and time again over the decades, popes and other Church leaders have decried the carnage
inflicted and the horror unleashed by the atomic bomb. Yet, as far as I can tell, there is one thing
that no pope or magisterial source has ever done. The Church has never declared that the
decision to drop the two bombs was itself unjust, immoral, or indefensible.
Part of the difficulty with the morality of the A-bombs is that their uniquely destructive capacity
tends to overshadow the fact that the same moral principles are brought to bear regardless of
whether it’s the A-bomb, or the conventional-weapon firebombing of Japan that preceded
Hiroshima, or any other consideration of combatants and noncombatants in any other time or
place in history. When trying to untangle the morality of a wartime decision to attack the enemy,
the principle of double effect comes into play. When an action being considered has both good
and bad effects, it may be morally permissible to choose the action under certain conditions.
First, it is utterly immoral to target innocent non-combatants. Obvious, right? Intentionally

killing innocents is rightly called murder. So, the just-war question then becomes: is there a
legitimate wartime target that the action under consideration is intended to neutralize? If so, there
will be a “good effect” to the action. Such a planned attack would be in itself a morally
legitimate act of self-defense against the aggressor, according to the moral “object” of the act.
Now, what about any foreseen bad effects? If aerial bombing is planned on a target, for example,
what about the risk to innocent lives of those who are civilians, non-combatants? Suddenly we
are confronted with a foreseen bad effect resulting from the choice to bomb a legitimate wartime
target. Innocent people could get killed, too. We must make a final—and crucial—judgment. Is
the good effect proportionate to compensate for the bad effect?
Such a decision-making process is required at every point in a just war—and if an attack on the
enemy would yield a disproportionate relationship between the bad effect and the good effect,
the attack ought not take place. So, with the principle of double effect in mind, let’s go ahead and
consider the US decision to drop the atomic bomb not once, but twice, on Japan.
First question: who or what was the target? In both cases, the bombs were targeting legitimate
military targets—facilities key to the ongoing industry of wartime Japan. So there seems to be no
justification for claiming that innocents themselves were targeted indiscriminately.
Rather, the real question at hand is: knowing the massive destructive capability of the atomic
bomb, couldn’t those targets be neutralized by less destructive means? Wasn’t it obvious to the
United States leaders that the legitimate military targets would not be the only areas destroyed by
such a blast?
US leaders aimed the A-bombs not only at legitimately targeted facilities, but they also knew full
well that their force would be unleashed against those the Japanese government itself claimed
were combatants in the total war against the United States.
The nuclear age dawned, gravely and with unspeakable carnage, upon the broken and barren
horizon of Japan’s devotion to total war.” 92
92
Jim Russell, “Combatants, Non-Combatants, and Double Effect,” Crisis Magazine, August 10, 2017,
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/combatants-non-combatants-double-effect.
Some people, such as the author of the above case study on the bombing, view this event as an
example of applying the principle of double effect; they cite see that the criteria were fulfilled
and do see it as a proportional action, as this bombing was decisive in ending the second World
War. Others, especially Catholic moral theologians, however, find this problematic, and insist
that this is not a proportional action and thus does not fulfill the criteria of the principle of double
effect.>
Principle of Justice
While doing the good is of utmost important, how we do the good is just as important.
The principle of justice ensures that doing the good is not done at any cost nor done solely for
the good of one or the few or human beings only; rather, doing the good is governed by the
principle of justice. Justice and beneficence go hand in hand. There is a sense of fairness and
impartiality involved; however, justice is not neutral. This principle emphasizes that there is a
need to care for those who may be wronged or who are vulnerable. While forgiveness and mercy
are important, justice also ensures that this mercy is not abused.
Justice, broadly speaking, deals with what is due to each individual or collectively to a
group. There is a claim that each person has, due to his or her having human dignity and being a
creature of God. Such claims include a claim to a humane life, with access to basic necessities as
well as all that is needed to live comfortably. Anything beyond this is not a right, but rather a
privilege that is not guaranteed.
Related to the principle of justice are other principles such as solidarity, subsidiarity, and
the common good, which will be more formally taken up in Catholic social thought. Suffice to
say that justice is foundational to other principles, while also being a cardinal virtue that we need
to cultivate in ourselves in order to help us be more consistently ethical.
Principle of Autonomy and Responsibility
Catholic moral theology’s emphasis on freedom and the primacy of conscience link with
an emphasis on the responsibility and relative autonomy of the human person. While Catholic
moral theology can offer principles, advice, precedents, and cases, ultimately the Catholic
Church respects the person’s moral autonomy and conscience in making decisions. Catholic
moral theology takes seriously that it is in the conscience that God meets each individual person
and that God also speaks to each person.
This also emphasizes that each person is ultimately responsible. He or she has ownership
and some stake over his or her decisions, and his or her is response-able or can respond to the
situation, even if the person is affected by and molded by certain situations and circumstances
beyond his or her control. He or she has the responsibility of gathering as much as relevant
information as possible, listening to Tradition and similar cases. While the person is not expected
to know everything, it is expected that he or she do this process to the best of his or her abilities
in order to make a genuinely informed and discerned choice. Ignorance should not be used as a
convenient excuse
This can become a thorny issue, especially in medical ethics when the person cannot
make a decision (e.g. he or she is unconscious or dead). We will deal with that explicitly in the
chapter on bioethics.
A Consistent Ethic of Life
The last principle is that of maintaining a consistent ethic of life. The theme and ethic of a
consistent ethic of life was popularized by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, using the metaphor of the
“seamless garment” to discuss how interconnected life and health related issues are. In a series of
addresses, Cardinal Bernardin fleshes out the concept of the consistent ethic of life, highlighting
that an attitude that respects life should be upheld across seemingly disparate issues such as
abortion and war. Cardinal Bernardin argues that such an attitude cannot be upheld in one issue
yet disregarded in another, and notes that:
The issue of consistency is tested in a different way when we examine the

relationship between the “right to life” and “quality of life” issues. I must confess
that I think the relationship of these categories is inadequately understood in the
Catholic community itself. My point is that the Catholic position on abortion
demands of us and of society that we seek to influence an heroic social ethic. 93
This ethic emphasizes two things: first, that these people still have value, and that it is often these
people who are the most vulnerable, and that the measure of any society is how it treats the most
vulnerable of its population. As seen in the parable of the Good Samaritan, “we are called upon
to become neighbors to those who are helpless, going beyond conventional conceptions of duty
to provide life-sustaining aid to those whom we might not have regarded as worthy of our
compassion.” 94
While it acknowledges a common foundational principle, the consistent ethic does not
equate issues nor conflate them, understanding that each issue and each case has its own set of
circumstances and contexts behind the debates and discussions. Rather, it understands their
interrelatedness and that systems and structures that affect the issues of right to life are also
related to, if not the same ones as those that affect issues of quality of life. A consistent ethic of
life, then, would be equally vocal on protecting the unborn child, as well as the child living in
poverty.
Such an ethic challenges “those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us” to
“be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the
young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed
93
Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Consistent Ethic of Life: Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, ed. Thomas G. Fuechtmann
(Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1988), 8.
94
Richard Hays, Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San
Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1996), 451.
worker.” 95 This paper would also add to that list the rest of creation—animals and plants among
them—as part of this population who need care and concern as well, as the relationality of
people not just to other people, but also to the rest of the created world is an important aspect of
what flourishing means. Right to life and quality to life thus go hand in hand in respecting life,
and this translates into particular stances on moral actions as well as into particular policies.
Conclusion
We have seen several principles that serve as the foundation for Christian discernment.
Such principles offer a broad guide as to how to make decision in particular situations, especially
when they involve many conflicting goods or when the decision involves two actions that could
inflict evil.
Discernment is not an easy task. This is why throughout the Church’s history, it has
sought to articulate ways to help people navigate complex ethical dilemmas. Even today,
theologians and the magisterium continue to reflect on helpful ways to respond to the challenges
of the daily life, especially when technology and environmental changes shift the landscape and
assumptions which people use to make decisions.
Though it is not easy, discernment is still crucial. Simply saying “whatever,” throwing
our hands up in defeat, and going with the flow or resorting to simply being selfish, cynical, or
uncaring will not do. It will only make things worse! Thus, for the Christian, despair and
cynicism are not an option.
Every day, we are called to make countless decisions. Some of them are easy, others not
so much. Some may seem trivial, while many others will have huge consequences on our lives
and others in the future. Even with the many constraints and complexities that decision making
often entails, we are called to make the most loving and merciful option.
95
Bernardin, Consistent Ethic of Life, 8–9.
Guide Questions
1. What is discernment?
2. Pick one principle and describe it. How does it help in discernment?
3. Which principle do you most agree with or find most challenging? Why?
Bibliography
Bernardin, Joseph Cardinal. Consistent Ethic of Life: Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. Edited by
Thomas G. Fuechtmann. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1988.
Brackley, Dean. The Call to Discernment in Troubled Times: New Perspectives on the
Transformative Wisdom of Ignatius of Loyola. New York, USA: Crossroad Publishing,
2004.
Hays, Richard. Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New
Testament Ethics. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1996.
Keenan, James F. A History of Catholic Moral Theology in the Twentieth Century: From
Confessing Sins to Liberating Consciences. USA: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010.
McNeill, John T., and Helena M. Gamer, trans. Medieval Handbooks of Penance. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1938.
Melchin, Kenneth R. Living with Other People: An Introduction to Christain Ethics Based on
Bernard Lonergan. Series in Ethics. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998.
Russell, Jim. “Combatants, Non-Combatants, and Double Effect.” Crisis Magazine, August 10,
2017. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/combatants-non-combatants-double-effect.
Thomas Aquinas. “Summa Theologica (English Dominican Provence Translation).” Sacred
Texts, 1981. http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm.
Chapter 7
Special Topics in Moral Theology: Marriage, Family
and Sexual Ethics
Introduction
To further concretize what the previous chapters have been discussing, the next two chapters will
discuss relevant issues in fundamental moral theology. This chapter will focus on the family and
sexual ethics—two very important issues that affect how the human person develops within his
or her community. With the development of the natural and social sciences on how sex and
gender are understood, the Catholic Church has sought to develop an understanding of just
relationships, sex, and love in the realm of the family.
Learning Objectives
19. Understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on family and sexual ethics
20. Analyze and evaluate the Catholic Church’s teaching on family and sexual ethics
21. Reflect on and apply the teachings on family and sexual ethics to the students’ own life.
Exposition
This chapter focuses on the family and sexual ethics, two topics in moral theology that
can be very contentious at times. However, their importance cannot be emphasized enough. First,
the family is important because it is through the family that people first learn and grow; the
family has a very big effect on what kind of human beings we grow up to be. Second, sexual
ethics is important because sex is a very intimate act, one that should be done responsibly
because of the serious effects it has on the relationships of human beings with one another as
well as in the possibility of having children. It is thus important to spend some time developing
what it means to live as a healthy family with healthy sexual relationships.
Love as Foundation
Marriage, family, and sex are all underpinned by relationships of love and should be
underpinned by relationships of love. Contemporary culture and media have painted love as a
feeling, something that is exciting and that will always lead to a happily ever after. “I love you’s”
seem to easily roll of the tongue when the passion is still alive and the giddiness is still there.
Catholic moral theology, however, goes beyond the idea that love is a feeling. Love is a
choice, the foundation for a life-long commitment towards others. “Love is the will to extend
one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth…Love is an act of
will -- namely, both an intention and an action…We do not have to love. We choose to love.” 96
Love involves growth and process; it involves effort in moving towards the good for
oneself and others. Love as an act of will includes desire and infatuation, but goes beyond this by
connecting these desires with concrete action and effort towards the self and others. Even if the
desire and infatuation may not be as strong or as felt, the action and effort remain. “Love is well
described as an emotional participation in the beloved in its dynamism toward fulfillment…the
value of the [beloved] ‘affects’ or lays hold of us and we are inclined toward [the beloved]. We
consciously transcend ourselves to share in the being of the beloved, and we are moved by the
beloved…Allowing the beloved to say its word of importance to us is a form of self-emptying
conversion, since therein we are changed by the other. We then respond to the beloved, adding to
it our affirmation of its goodness…we cooperate with it when we can.” 97
This love is a reflection of God, who is a loving and relational God who loved us first. In
Scripture, love for God is linked to love for neighbor, particularly for the least valued in society.
This is grounded in the belief that God created human beings out of love and for love, and thus
love becomes part of our universal vocation. It is because of this vocation that love becomes the
foundation for the theological understanding of marriage, family, and sexual ethics.
Marriage, Celibacy, and Family
Marriage
Marriage is understood to be a loving union between man and woman in the Catholic
Church, with both persons grounded in the love of God and reflecting this love to each other and
their community. The image then is not of two people who care only for themselves, absorbed in
looking at each other and only at each other; rather, the image is of two people holding hands
and looking forward and outward, united in a vision of the future and working to become their
better selves situated in a better community.
“The sacrament of marriage is not a social convention, an empty ritual or merely the
outward sign of a commitment. The sacrament is a gift given for the sanctification and salvation
of the spouses, since their mutual belonging is a real representation, through the sacramental
sign, of the same relationship between Christ and the Church. The married couple are therefore a
permanent reminder for the Church of what took place on the cross; they are for one another and
for their children witnesses of the salvation in which they share through the sacrament. Marriage
is a vocation, inasmuch as it is a response to a specific call to experience conjugal love as an
96
M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled, Timeless Edition: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and
Spiritual Growth (New York: Touchstone, 2003), 85.
97
The New Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought (Minneapolis, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994), 557.
imperfect sign of the love between Christ and the Church. Consequently, the decision to marry
and to have a family ought to be the fruit of a process of vocational discernment.” 98
Catholic moral theology allows for the annulment of marriages. Annulment “cancels” the
marriage between the two, ultimately saying that the marriage that happened was invalid, due to
some circumstance such as bigamy, some form of fraud, forced or incapacity to give consent,
inability to consummate marriage, or mental illness. Catholic moral theology does not allow for
divorce, which acknowledges that the marriage did happen, but ends it anyway. However, if a
marriage does fail and a couple do separate, there is a need to accompany the couple rather than
condemn them, helping them through the experience and process. This especially important in
cases of domestic violence: there is a need to care for the people involved, especially the victim,
and ensure that the abuse does not continue.
Family
Marriage is intimately tied to raising a family. Filipino culture in particular places a

heavy emphasis on nurturing marriages and the family. Much of a Filipino’s life is heavily
affected by what happens in his or her family—not just the immediate family but even the
extended family of second and third cousins, as well as friends of parents and other relatives. It is
not surprising then, that for Filipino Catholic theology, the family is the center of formation and
evangelization. This is in line with the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium that describes the
family as the domestic church:
From the wedlock of Christians there comes the family, in which new citizens of
human society are born, who by the grace of the Holy Spirit received in baptism are
made children of God, thus perpetuating the people of God through the centuries.
The family is, so to speak, the domestic church. In it parents should, by their word
and example, be the first preachers of the faith to their children; they should
encourage them in the vocation which is proper to each of them, fostering with
special care vocation to a sacred state. 99
It is through marriage and the family that people are born and first raised with certain values,
reflecting the divine love and fruitfulness of the Trinitarian God. The family becomes an icon
that reveals God’s love.
The children grow up learning first and primarily from their family. “The Gospel goes on
to remind us that children are not the property of a family, but have their own lives to lead. Jesus
is a model of obedience to his earthly parents, placing himself under their charge (cf. Lk 2:51),
but he also shows that children’s life decisions and their Christian vocation may demand a
98
Francis, “On Love in the Family: Amoris Laetitia,” Vatican.va, March 19, 2016,
https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-
ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf. Hereafter referred to as AL. AL 72.
99
gentium_en.html. Hereafter referred to as LG. LG 11.
parting for the sake of the Kingdom of God (cf. Mt 10:34-37; Lk 9:59- 62).” 100 In the same way
that work and labor reflects the creative power of God, raising a family in a loving and charitable
way also participates in and mirrors God’s creative power.
Thus, “in matrimony and in the family a complex of interpersonal relationships is set up-
married life, fatherhood and motherhood, filiation and fraternity-through which each human
person is introduced into the "human family" and into the "family of God," which is the Church.
Christian marriage and the Christian family build up the Church: for in the family the human
person is not only brought into being and progressively introduced by means of education into
the human community, but by means of the rebirth of baptism and education in the faith the child
is also introduced into God's family, which is the Church.”101
This is not to say that family life is always idyllic. On the contrary, the reality of
domestic violence, broken families, and other family problems are a concern for the Catholic
Church; Jesus’ own family had to flee persecution and violence, while also struggling to make a
living as a simple family in Nazareth, a poor town in Galillee. In today’s context, the precarious
economic system, the lack of social safety nets that allow people to access healthcare, education,
and housing, as well as an individualistic and objectifying culture, can make it difficult to raise a
family. There is also the view that children are simply a “burden” that limits the possibilities of
the people who decide to have children. In the Philippines, the need to work abroad as overseas
Filipino workers (OFWs) to support the family can lead to difficulty in raising the children as
well as marital problems.
It is in light of all the challenges that face the family that the Catholic Church seeks to
help families. It acknowledges that there are different ways to understood family, beyond the
usual setup of a mother, a father and children; in the Philippines, for example, we also include
our aunts and uncles, our cousins, our grandmothers and grandfathers, and so on. Other families
that are “blended” may have children from previously deceased spouses. Because of the different
ways we can be family to each other, it understands that each family’s situation is different, yet
each family can be “a light in the darkness of the world,” echoing the same covenant of love
lived out by the Holy Family. 102
<Box: The Rights of the Family: Excerpt from Familiaris Consortio>

<The ideal of mutual support and development between the family and society is often very
seriously in conflict with the reality of their separation and even opposition. In fact, as was
repeatedly denounced by the Synod, the situation experienced by many families in various
countries is highly problematical, if not entirely negative: institutions and laws unjustly ignore
the inviolable rights of the family and of the human person; and society, far from putting itself at
the service of the family, attacks it violently in its values and fundamental requirements. Thus,
the family, which in God's plan is the basic cell of society and a subject of rights and duties
100
AL 18.
101
John Paul II, “On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World: Familiaris Consortio,” November 22,
1981, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-
consortio.html. Hereafter referred to as FC. FC 15.
102
AL 66.
before the State or any other community, finds itself the victim of society, of the delays and
slowness with which it acts, and even of its blatant injustice.
The Church openly and strongly defends the rights of the family against the intolerable
usurpations of society and the State. In particular, the Synod Fathers mentioned the following
rights of the family:
• the right to exist and progress as a family, that is to say, the right of every human being,
even if he or she is poor, to found a family and to have adequate means to support it;
• the right to exercise its responsibility regarding the transmission of life and to educate
children; family life;
• the right to the intimacy of conjugal and family life;
• the right to the stability of the bond and of the institution of marriage;
• the right to believe in and profess one's faith and to propagate it;
• the right to bring up children in accordance with the family's own traditions and religious
and cultural values, with the necessary instruments, means and institutions;
• the right, especially of the poor and the sick, to obtain physical, social, political and
economic security;
• the right to housing suitable for living family life in a proper way;
• the right to expression and to representation, either directly or through associations,
before the economic, social and cultural public authorities and lower authorities;
• the right to form associations with other families and institutions, in order to fulfill the
family's role suitably and expeditiously;
• the right to protect minors by adequate institutions and legislation from harmful drugs,
pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
• the right to wholesome recreation of a kind that also fosters family values;
• the right of the elderly to a worthy life and a worthy death;
103
• the right to emigrate as a family in search of a better life.>
Sexual Ethics
Tied to this theology of the family is sexual ethics. Sexual ethics is more than just about
premarital sex and masturbation. Though the tendency is to focus on the “do’s and don’ts” of
having sex when talking about Catholic social ethics, Church teaching goes beyond that. Though
Church history has often been suspicious of sexual activity, post-Vatican II theology has been
more positive about sex in the context of marriage and the family. Sex is understood as a good
and as something precious; therefore, it is something to be cherished and treated with respect and
dignity.
Sexual ethics also concerns sexual orientation and gender, which is also an important
aspect of who we are as human beings. Sexual orientation is concerned with one’s sexual identity
and to which gender they are attracted to. Gender is what sex a person identifies as. This can be a
sensitive topic for many, but nevertheless needs to be discussed. With the many developments in
gender studies as well as the LGBTQ+ movement, moral theology has had to listen and
understand to the context anew in order to articulate its concerns.
103
FC 46.
Teaching on Sex
Sex is seen as something good and precious, and human beings are intrinsically sexual
beings. Some aspects of Tradition have treated sex with suspicion and fear, owing to the strong
power sex and sexual desire have had on people. This has led to a strong emphasis on control
and a list of “don’ts”, so that we are not overcome by our desires. However, limiting sexual
ethics to the list of don’ts (e.g. don’t have premarital sex, don’t abuse others sexually…) still
leaves an important question unanswered: so what kind of sexual ethics should we do?
In terms of sexual relations, then, human beings are called to be chaste. While the common
sense understanding of chastity is often thought of as not having sex at all, chastity actually
means having sex in accordance with one’s situation or state in life; for those who are married,
for example, it means having sex with the right person, at the right time, in the right place, in the
right relationship.
Sex should also be a “relationship of equality, the equitable sharing of power and pleasure,
and how people of all ages learn how to extend mutual respect and care.” 104 Sexual violence is
often not just about physicality, but about power and domination over someone. Rape culture and
domestic abuse have often been connected not just with sexual gratification, but with the
perceived power difference between men and women, where men are perceived to be tough,
while women should be subject to men.105 Thus, it is important to emphasize that sex is a mutual
gift and sharing of respect and care, rather than exerting some form of power over another
person.
All this also implies that it becomes a duty to educate children about sex, rather than treat it
as a taboo topic. It is important to show that sex is a gift and a grace, and that it is not something
that should be used selfishly, nor should it be used to oppress or subjugate others.
Education in love as self-giving is also the indispensable premise for parents called to give
their children a clear and delicate sex education. Faced with a culture that largely reduces
human sexuality to the level of something common place, since it interprets and lives it in a
reductive and impoverished way by linking it solely with the body and with selfish
pleasure, the educational service of parents must aim firmly at a training in the area of sex
that is truly and fully personal: for sexuality is an enrichment of the whole person-body,
emotions and soul-and it manifests its inmost meaning in leading the person to the gift of
self in love. 106
104
Marvin Mahan Ellison, Making Love Just: Sexual Ethics for Perplexing Times (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,
2012), 136.
105
A good study on this connection of sexual violence to a patriarchal culture is Gurvinder Kalra and Dinesh Bhugra,
“Sexual Violence against Women: Understanding Cross-Cultural Intersections,” Indian Journal of Psychiatry 55,
no. 3 (2013): 244–49, https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.117139.
106
FC 37.
Just Relationships, Just Sex, and Just Love
Rather than focusing on a list of don’ts, Margaret Farley, a religious sister from the
Sisters of Mercy and an ethicist, discusses what a just relationship, just sex, and just love are.
This is consistent with the second Vatican Council’s move from a rule or act-based approach, to
a more person-based approach in ethics.
In her work on just love, Farley explains the connection between justice and love.
Drawing from both Scripture and Tradition and interpreting them anew in our contemporary
situation on sexual ethics, Farley emphasizes the idea of a just love. A just love is a love that
“not only…must respond to, unite with, and affirm the one loved in her or his concrete reality,
but it must also be “true” to the one loving and to the nature of the relationship between lover
and loved.” 107 This entails certain principles and norms for a just relationship and just sex 108:
1. Do no unjust harm to one’s partner; the relationship should be safe, non-abusive, and
against exploitation
2. Respect the free consent and freedom of one’s spouse; there should be transparency and
honesty in terms of any talk on sex and the relationship
3. There should be mutual participation and union in love, pleasure, and desire
4. There is equality between both partners—equal dependence and vulnerability without
reducing one person into the “property” of the other
5. There is long-term commitment between both spouses—a willingness to be with the other
person even when the person does not feel like being there
6. The relationship is fruitful, not just through having children but also through helping both
spouses and the community become more life-giving and compassionate people
7. Social justice should affirm and respect the dignity of the spouses and respect them as
human beings; at the same time, the relationship should positively affect your wider
community, such as your friends and family
These principles are grounded in a respect for people’s freedom, respect for people’s
relationality, and respect for being a sexual being. “Even more specifically, we may in terms of
this framework say things like: sex should not be used in ways that exploit, objectify, or
dominate; rape, violence, and harmful uses of power in sexual relationships are ruled out;
freedom, wholeness, intimacy, pleasure are values to be affirmed in relationships marked by
mutuality, equality, and some form of commitment; sexual relationships like other profound
interpersonal relations can and ought to be fruitful both within and beyond the relationship; the
affections of desire and love that bring about and sustain sexual relationships are all in all
genuinely to affirm both lover and beloved.” 109 It is through such criteria that we should raises
questions about the kind of relationship we have and whether or not our relationships exemplify
such a just love: are we being fruitful? Is there equality between me and my partner? Do I respect
my partner’s freedom? Are we committed to each other? Are we both growing and becoming
more loving people? Other questions can be raised based on the framework above, as they serve
107
Margaret A. Farley, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2006), 200.
108
Farley, 215–31.
109
Farley, 231.
as reflection points for those in a relationship and seeking to understand what it means to be a
relationship guided by a Christian love and ethic.
Sample photo for Just Love and a Just Relationship
Gender
The Catholic Church teaches on the complementarity of the sexes. Complementarity

argues that men and women have different but complementary roles in society, based on
Scripture and natural law. In marriage, for example, it is the husband who leads and protects the
family, working to earn a living to sustain them, while the wife is the one who manages the
household and raises the children. Both husband and wife are equal but have different roles and
responsibilities in the family—the stress is on the equal but different gifts that the man and
woman can bring.
This teaching has received pushback from some feminist theologians, particularly when it
is used to keep women from taking on leadership roles. There is also the concern of
essentializing men and women—that all men have these particular traits, or that all women have
these particular traits, without acknowledging the individual charisms and gifts that each man or
woman may have. This has led to a renewed call for dialogue on the teachings on gender, not just
for women, but even for the LGBTQ+ community, whose voices have become more prominent
in society and whose experiences are important to also listen to as human beings with dignity.
Sexual Orientation and Gender: The Catholic Church and the LGBTQ+ Community
One of the more heated debates in moral theology has always revolved around sexual
orientation and gender. The Catholic Church’s documents have still emphasized the
complementarity and essential natures of men and women. Though Church teaching still opposes
homosexual marriage, the shift of moral theology from an act based to a person based approach
has helped the Catholic Church look at the LGBTQ+ community, not as walking sexual acts, but
as living human beings with different beliefs and motivations and who are capable of love. The
recent synod on the family in 2014 had a mid-term report that acknowledged the gifts the
LGBTQ+ community can offer to the Church, and that “it has to be noted that there are cases in
which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.
Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same
sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.” 110
Catholics on the ground would also favor a more person based approach and have
disagreed with much of traditional Church teaching on homosexuality. For example, in 2014 in
the United States, 85% of self-identified Catholics aged 18-29 favored accepting homosexuality
in society. 111 Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit, has also sought to bridge the divide between the
Catholic Church and the LGBTQ+ community. He argues for the need to build bridges between
the two communities, especially because many of those who are practicing Catholics are also
part of the LGBTQ+ community.
The first part of the bridge, from the institutional church to the LGBTQ+ community,
needs to be characterized with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, rather than immediate
judgement. 112 This implies much compassion and an openness to encountering and listening to
the LGBTQ+ community. This also implies acknowledging how the LGBTQ+ community has
contributed to the building of the Kingdom of God and the Catholic Church; examples include
many religious and lay men and women who have shown their holiness in their work, striving
towards a better society. “Seeing, naming, and honoring all these gifts are components of
respecting our LGBT[Q+] brothers and sisters. So also is accepting them as beloved children of
God and letting them know that they are beloved children of God. The church has a special call
to proclaim God’s love for a people who are often made to feel, whether by their families,
neighbors or religious leaders, as though they were damaged goods, unworthy of ministry, and
even subhuman.” 113
The other part of the bridge, from the LGBTQ+ community to the institutional church,
also calls for respect, compassion, and sensitivity. There is also a call for the LGBTQ+
community to engage the hierarchy in a respectful way, rather than just returning the hurt and
suffering to the hierarchy or to other communities within the community. This sounds difficult,
110
“Family Synod: Full Text of the Mid-Term Report,” Catholic Herald, October 13, 2014,
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/10/13/full-text-of-the-family-synods-mid-term-report/.
111
Michael Lipka, “Young U.S. Catholics Overwhelmingly Accepting of Homosexuality,” Pew Research Center
(blog), October 16, 2014, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-
accepting-of-homosexuality/.
112
James Martin, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a
Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity (San Francisco, CA: Harper One, 2017), 20,32,40.
113
Martin, 27.
but returning hurt for hurt may simply continue to perpetuate a cycle of hurt and hatred for each
other, rather than move the community forward.
“Some of this may be hard for members of the LGBT[Q+] community to hear. Some of
this may be challenging for bishops and Catholic leaders to hear. This I sbecause neither lane on
that bridge is smooth…It costs when you live a life of respect, compassion, and sensitivity. But
to trust in that bridge is to trust that eventually…the hierarchy and the LGBT[Q+] community
will be able to encounter one another, accompany one another, and love one another. It is also to
trust that God desires forgiveness. It is also to trust that God desires reconciliation.”114
Conclusion
Marriage, family, and sexual ethics can be difficult topics to navigate. However, the well
being of the family is part of the foundation of a good and just community, and thus cannot be
neglected. While loud voices in the Catholic Church paint Catholic moral theology as concerned
only with two issues—homosexuality and abortion—Catholic moral theology is and should be
more concerned about the broader topics of family, marriage, and just and loving relationships.
The move towards a person-based approach in morality has led to a focus on

relationships and what constitutes a just and loving relationship. This is of particular importance
because of two reasons. The first is the difficulties that families face today, which call for the
need to assist families in living out their vocations to each other and to the community, in service
to the individual human being and the good of the community.
The second reason is the growing acknowledgement and concern for the LGBTQ+
community who are also part of the Catholic Church and who are looking to stay, yet at times do
not feel welcome by the Catholic Church. With more Catholics encountering, working with, and
being neighbors with the LGBTQ+ community, questions have been raised about how the
LGBTQ+ can be more fully incorporated in the Catholic Church.
It is these two contexts that challenge the Church on its understanding and teaching on
sexual ethics, marriage, and the family. The Church is at a crossroads now in terms of its
teaching, with much dissent between the laity and the hierarchy. However, there is much hope
that the Catholic Church can move forward in being more loving and welcoming to those it ma,
as well as becoming more helpful and supportive for families going through many difficulties.
114
Martin, 74–75.
Guide Questions
1. Describe how the Catholic Church understands the family

2. What constitutes a just relationship and just love?
3. Would you agree or disagree with Church teaching on marriage, family, and sexual
ethics? Based on Scripture, Tradition, and human experience, what would you agree with
or challenge? Why?
Bibliography
Ellison, Marvin Mahan. Making Love Just: Sexual Ethics for Perplexing Times. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2012.
“Family Synod: Full Text of the Mid-Term Report.” Catholic Herald, October 13, 2014.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/10/13/full-text-of-the-family-synods-mid-
term-report/.
Farley, Margaret A. Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics. New York:
Continuum, 2006.
Francis. “On Love in the Family: Amoris Laetitia.” Vatican.va, March 19, 2016.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-
francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf.
John Paul II. “On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World: Familiaris Consortio,”
November 22, 1981. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html.
Kalra, Gurvinder, and Dinesh Bhugra. “Sexual Violence against Women: Understanding Cross-
Cultural Intersections.” Indian Journal of Psychiatry 55, no. 3 (2013): 244–49.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.117139.
Lipka, Michael. “Young U.S. Catholics Overwhelmingly Accepting of Homosexuality.” Pew
Research Center (blog), October 16, 2014. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/.
Martin, James. Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can
Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity. San Francisco, CA:
Harper One, 2017.
Peck, M. Scott. The Road Less Traveled, Timeless Edition: A New Psychology of Love,
Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth. New York: Touchstone, 2003.
November 21, 1964.
The New Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought. Minneapolis, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994.
Chapter 8
Special Topics in Moral Theology: Bioethics
Introduction
This chapter
Learning Objectives
22. Understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on bioethical issues
23. Analyze and evaluate the Catholic Church’s teaching on bioethical issues
24. Reflect on and apply the teachings on bioethical issues to the students’ own life.
Exposition
Moral theology is also concerned with bioethics. Issues that concern the start and end of
life in particular have become more and more complicated due to the development of
technologies that can both aid and abet life. The science itself can also be unclear about what the
effects of all these technologies will be in the future.
The consistent ethic of life in Catholic moral theology emphasizes life as an important
criterion in decision making. Life, from the womb up until death, is equally precious, and no
one’s person’s life is “more important” than another person’s. There is also a sense
Start of Life Issues
Abortion and Contraception
Catholic moral theology’s pro-life stance has made it staunchly against abortion and
contraception, as abortion kills the baby in the womb, while contraception inhibits couples from
having children. Both of these go against the teaching that argues that marriage should not only
be unitive, but also procreative. However, there are exceptions. These exceptions are in moral
dilemmas, and if they are unintended effects of actions that seek to preserve life. For example,
we have seen in the previous chapters the case of a pregnant woman who may need an operation
that may indirectly kill the baby in her womb. A similar exception is made for contraception, if it
is used for therapeutic means.
Contemporary science cannot, for certain, pinpoint the exact moment when human
personhood and life begins. It is instead seen as a series of landmark moments, from the moment
of fertilization, and as the embryo continues to develop in the womb and is born. Personhood is
not a “switch” that is turned on, but is something that we become. Even in Catholic moral
theology, the exact moment when life begins or when human beings have souls has not been
explicitly defined; however, the tradition errs on the side of caution, acknowledging that
potential life is already there at conception. Therefore, Catholic moral theology has often held
the position of non-interference. If families wished to plan when they would have children,
Church teaching encourages families to use natural family planning methods, which are all in
tune with the body’s rhythms for child bearing. These methods include the body temperature
method, cervical mucus methods, and calendar methods; all these seek to familiarize the couple
as to when the woman is fertile and ovulating and thus help them plan their sexual life
accordingly.
This stance and teaching have been heavily criticized and questioned, especially by
women and families who find the natural family planning methods difficult due to their irregular
cycles, or if one of the spouses has a disease that may be transmitted through sex, such as HIV or
AIDS. Such cases, under the current teaching on contraception, would still not be considered as
exceptions wherein contraception can be used, though some theologians have argued that the
case of a spouse having a disease and using a condom may not be considered immoral.
Abstinence and natural family planning are things that many families and couples fall short on,
and thus there is a need for two things: there is a need to support families or couples who try to
continue abstaining or using natural family planning methods and there is a need to accompany
those who fall short and understand why this happens, especially since this may challenge
current Church teaching on what cases may count as exceptions in today’s contemporary
situation.
<Box: A Case Study on Abortion>

<Kate is a 17 years old patient, unmarried and 8 weeks pregnant. She is a rather remarkable girl
in that she lives independently while still a senior in a high school. She tells you that she was an
adoptee given back to foster care, and then abused in that system. She is now an emancipated
minor who works 30 hours per week at a service industry job while also earning a 4.0 GPA in
school, ranking in the top 10% of her class. She is college-bound, with a full scholarship for pre-
med undergraduate studies at a prestigious university.
Kate has absolutely no family support, and the former boyfriend who is the father of her unborn
child/fetus simply disappeared upon learning of the pregnancy. She is scared, uninsured, and
says she doesn’t want to be pregnant or a mom (“Perhaps someday, but not now!”). She rejects
the adoption option, based on her own experience growing up, and requests abortion only, at this
hospital where she has always received medical care.>115
In Vitro Fertilization and other Procedures on the Embryo
Church teaching on biomedical ethics focuses on respecting life in general and letting it
unfold, rather than always seeking to control the process. Children are also seen as gifts and their
own person, rather than as something that the parents “own” or “have a right to.” Thus, most
115
Tarris Rosell, “Case Studies - Abortion Rights and/or Wrongs,” Center for Practical Bioethics, accessed August
6, 2018, https://www.practicalbioethics.org/case-studies-abortion-rights-and-or-wrongs.html.
procedures in utero on the fetus are allowed, provided that they are there to heal the child with
minimal risk. The same argument is used to allow prenatal screening.
However, when it comes to using embryos for research purposes, Church teaching is
more cautious:
Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their
dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It
is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable
"biological material". In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the
embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church
condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human
beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of
human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research, either by means
of artificial insemination of by means of "twin fission". By acting in this way the
researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he
sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily
chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills
defenseless human beings. 116
The same caution is mentioned when it comes to in vitro fertilization:
Techniques of fertilization in vitro can open the way to other forms of biological and
genetic manipulation of human embryos, such as attempts or plans for fertilization
between human and animal gametes and the gestation of human embryos in the
uterus of animals, or the hypothesis or project of constructing artificial uteruses for
the human embryo. These procedures are contrary to the human dignity proper to the
embryo, and at the same time they are contrary to the right of every person to be
conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage. 117
Interventions that seek to control how we have children as well as treat embryos as objects are
thus problematic in Catholic moral theology. If a couple wishes to have children but are having
trouble, Catholic moral teaching would encourage adoption rather than in vitro fertilization.
End of Life Issues
Death is something all human beings will one day face. How we die can be full of
complex ethical issues, especially when the dead person cannot speak for himself or herself. The
most fraught ethical issues are those of euthanasia and organ harvesting, which we will now
discuss.
116
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin: Donum Vitae,”
Vatican.va, February 22, 1987,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-
human-life_en.html. Hereafter referred to as DoV. DoV 5.
117
DoV 6.
Euthanasia
Euthanasia, or “mercy killing,” is the practice of ending a person’s life in order to end
that person’s physical or even psychological suffering. This can be done through a direct act such
as overdosing, or indirectly through omission—by either withholding or withdrawing treatment
that would keep the person alive (e.g. unplugging life support and allowing the person to die
naturally). Euthanasia can be done voluntarily, wherein the person is conscious and does make
the request to undergo euthanasia; on the other hand, non-voluntary euthanasia is the case
wherein the person is unconscious, a child, mentally ill, or is otherwise unable to make a fully
informed decision.
In the Philippines, it is currently illegal to perform euthanasia, either directly or

indirectly. In some countries such as the Netherlands, however, euthanasia may be allowed for
those who are terminally ill or with psychiatric reasons. “As well as for reasons of a misguided
pity at the sight of the patient's suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian
motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus, it is
proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly,
especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill.” 118
Catholic moral teaching raises the concern that freely allowing euthanasia would further
reduce people to whether they are useful or functioning people, rather than treating them as
intrinsically valuable. Catholic moral teaching challenges an ableist understanding of life that
only sees life as valuable or worth living if the person is at the peak of their health or can
function according to society’s standards. Lastly, Catholic moral teaching also argues that no
human being can dictate when a person lives or dies—this is part of the life process that God has
given each of us. Death is not something to be feared; it is part of our being finite creatures, and
Catholic moral theology does not allow for euthanasia. However, it also acknowledges
that, in preserving life, we should not use “extraordinary” means that will artificially prolong
life. What is counted as “extraordinary” means would vary from situation to situation, but in
general these would be means that would place an undue material, emotional, or psychological
burden on the family or community. A poorer family may have less “ordinary” means available
to them compared to a richer family, for example. The point is that we should preserve life when
possible, but also know when to let go if it is time for the person to die.
<Box: The Case of Charlie Gard>

<Charlie was born on 4 August 2016 with an exceptionally rare genetic condition called
encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). Although he appeared
perfectly healthy when he was born, his health soon began to deteriorate. Great Ormond Street
Hospital (GOSH) said the moment Charlie was diagnosed, his prognosis was bleak.
118
John Paul II, “On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life: Evangelium Vitae,” Vatican.va, March 25, 1995,
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html.
Hereafter referred to as EV. EV 15.
Charlie now has severe brain damage and cannot open his eyes or move his arms or legs. His
condition also means he is unable to breathe unaided, which is why he needs to be on a
ventilator. His heart, liver and kidneys are also affected, and his doctors say it is not clear if he
feels pain.
Charlie's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, from Bedfont in west London, wanted Charlie to
have an experimental treatment called nucleoside bypass therapy (NBT). The treatment is not
invasive and can be added to food. A hospital in the US agreed to offer Charlie the treatment,
and Charlie's parents had raised £1.3M in funds to take him there. No animal or human with
Charlie's condition (RRM2B deficiency) has been treated with NBT, but the treatment has been
previously offered to patients with a similar genetic disorder, TK2 deficiency. But TK2 affects
just the muscles, whereas Charlie's condition also affects other organs and his brain. GOSH did
apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy on Charlie.
However, by the time that decision was made Charlie's condition had greatly worsened and the
view was his brain damage was too severe and irreversible for the treatment to help. After
contacting other experts in the condition from medical centres across the world, doctors came to
the conclusion that Charlie's life support should be switched off and he should be allowed to die
with dignity.
Charlie's parents disagreed with the hospital and did not want his life support to be withdrawn, so
doctors applied to the High Court for judges to decide Charlie's future. In April, the High Court
agreed with the GOSH doctors. Charlie's parents then appealed against the decision, but courts
ruled the original decision should stand and it would be in Charlie's best interests to be allowed
to die with dignity. The Supreme Court and the European Court both came to the same
conclusion.
[…]
Charlie's life support will be withdrawn at a hospice but lawyers acting for Charlie's parents were
in dispute with doctors over the detail of care plans. Chris Gard and Connie Yates had applied to
the High Court to keep Charlie alive for "a week or so" - longer than originally planned. But a
judge ruled that Charlie would be moved to a hospice to spend his final few hours before the
ventilator that keeps him alive is switched off. > 119
Organ Donations and Harvesting
If we look at the back of our driver’s license, we see that there is an option to state that, in
the unfortunate event of our death, we opt to donate particular organs for those who may need
them. This is a noble and generous act, one which even Catholic moral teaching appreciates, and
which also seems straightforward: once a person dies, his or her organs can be taken and donated
to someone else who needs them.
119
“The Story of Charlie Gard,” BBC News, July 27, 2017, sec. London, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-
40554462.
What does it mean to die? How do we define death? Is it when the heart has stopped? Or
when the brain has stopped? While it might seem obvious when a person has died or not, in
reality it is not that simple. Take the case of Ruby Graupera-Cassimiro, who had no heartbeat
and pulse for 45 minutes before spontaneously reviving.
Medically speaking, death happens when there is no heartbeat, also known as flatlining.
Once this happens, if the deceased has opted to be an organ donor, there is only so much time
within which medical professionals can get the organs, before the said organs become unfit for
use. Thus, organs are harvested as soon as possible in order to ensure that they can still be
donated. However, cases such as those of Graupera-Cassimiro above can make it difficult to
immediately harvest organs.
Other dilemmas would be of those who are terminally ill or in persistent vegetative states
with little to no chance of improvement. If they are in such a state but also want to be organ
donors, how “soon” can their organs be harvested, especially if these organs are very much
needed? The question of allocation is also raised: once the organs are taken from the deceased,
how do we decide who to give it to, given that there is usually a long list of people needing these
organs. Do we give the organs on a first come, first serve basis? For example, if there is a healthy
heart that has been donated, do we give it to someone who may be older, who has already had
several cardiac problems but is first on the list, or do we give it to someone younger, though she
is second, third, or fourth on the list?
These questions are not definitively answered in Catholic moral teaching, yet there has
been much back and forth on the subject. Such cases make it difficult to make decisions as to
when and how one can get the organs.
<Box: Should we harvest organs from patients who aren’t dead yet?
< A previously healthy middle-aged man has suffered a massive stroke from a ruptured artery in
his brain and fallen into a persistent, then permanent, coma. Now imagine that before the stroke
our hypothetical patient had expressed a wish to donate his organs after his death. If neurologists
could determine that the patient had no chance of recovery, then would that patient really be
harmed if transplant surgeons removed life-support, such as ventilators and feeding tubes, and
took his organs, instead of waiting for death by natural means? Certainly, the organ recipient
would gain: waiting too long before declaring a patient dead could allow the disease process to
impair organ function by decreasing blood flow to them, making those organs unsuitable for
transplant.
But I contend that the donor would gain too: by harvesting his organs when he can contribute
most, we would have honoured his wish to save other lives. And chances are high that we would
be taking nothing from him of value. This permanently comatose patient will never see, hear,
feel or even perceive the world again whether we leave his organs to whither inside him or not.
Yet harvesting a patient’s organs while he is alive raises all kinds of ethical questions and
triggers multiple alarms. The issue is especially complex because biomedicine, and the very
definition of death and even consciousness, are all in flux. Take our hypothetical patient, and the
nature of the coma itself. A small number of patients emerge from comas after long periods of
time, regaining full consciousness with many or most of their physical and mental functions
intact. Far more never recover any degree of consciousness and eventually die. And there are
many states of consciousness and wellbeing between these two extremes. Patients can recover
consciousness but find they are locked into paralysed bodies, unable to communicate. They
might progress to a vegetative state with sleeping and waking cycles and periods of arousal but
no awareness of themselves – or they might enter what doctors call a minimally conscious state,
in which they have some degree of awareness but significant, often devastating, cognitive and
physical impairment. No matter where on the spectrum a patient falls, it might be impossible to
predict the likelihood of death. The Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon suffered a haemorrhagic
stroke in 2006. Although he had no chance of recovering consciousness, there was no specific
point at which a neurologist could say that his death was imminent. He lived in a prolonged
coma until his death in 2014.
The question is this: should we be able to harvest organs from patients who are not yet dead but
are imminently dying?> 120
Other Creatures
With the recent focus on the environment and on climate change, vegetarian and vegan
lifestyles have become more popular, sparking a debate as to whether Christian moral teaching
should support such lifestyles. On the one hand, a Christian case for vegetarian and vegan
lifestyles has been made: some theologians have argued that Christianity would support a
lifestyle that seeks to avoid eating animal products that have not been allowed to flourish. This
argument focuses on the high environmental footprint that raising animals for consumptions has,
as well as concern for the flourishing of all creation—including animals—as part of the Christian
concern.121
This article makes a fair point—as Christians, we should not be consuming food that was
made by an industry that does not treat animals with dignity, such as poultry farms where
chickens are simply cramped in cages, being fattened for slaughter without seeing the light of
day. We are called to consume properly, respecting the life that was taken to feed and nourish us,
be it a plant or an animal. Thus, it is not simply about not eating animals, as this would then
simply be reinforcing a hierarchy of human beings on top and animals, then plants at the bottom.
Rather, it is about being responsible and ethical consumers that respect the environment and the
creatures we use to live.
What complicates this point, however, is that most often the “free range” organic animals
that do respect the life of the animal, for example, are more expensive, which not everyone can
afford. Thus, while many want to support better conditions for the plants and animals they eat, a
good number cannot, because these are not affordable options, at least not yet. Thus, it is easy to
120
Walter Glannon, “Should We Harvest Organs from Patients Who Are Not Dead yet? – Walter Glannon | Aeon
Essays,” Aeon, July 27, 2015, https://aeon.co/essays/should-we-harvest-organs-from-patients-who-are-not-dead-yet.
121
For more on this please see David L. Clough, “Consuming Animal Creatures: The Christian Ethics of Eating
Animals,” Studies in Christian Ethics 30, no. 1 (2017): 30–44.
say that we should consume mores responsibly, but there can be certain barriers to doing so for
many people who do not earn much money to support such a lifestyle.
Another issue has been on testing products on animals and plants, either for consumer
products or for medical research. While there have been some breakthroughs in medicine and
research using animal testing, this has involved much pain on the part of other creatures. Is their
suffering “less important” compared to the breakthroughs in research that we may get? Studies
have shown that animals, and even plants, have some form of sentience and are able to feel pain
and thus suffer. There have been both advantages and disadvantages to animal research and
testing—are the advantages truly worth it? Are human beings “more important” than animals in
such cases? Or are we being “specist” and uncaring to the rest of creation?
Again there has been much back and forth on this issue, with not definitive answer yet.
There have been those who agree that the lives of the animals and plants are worth sacrifice for
the good of human beings, while there are those who would disagree, saying that we cannot say
that human beings are more important than these plants and animals simply because we are made
in God’s image and likeness. After all, animals and plants also have intrinsic value and reflect
some of God’s image by being God’s creatures, and thus being stewards of creation does not
automatically translate to privileging human beings over the rest of creation all the time.
Sample photos on the advantages and disadvantages of animal testing
Conclusion
Bioethical issues are never easy issues to resolve. They are complex, and with the various
technologies now available to help improve life, we walk a fine line between helping keep
people alive and well, and not overly prolonging life to the point of fearing death.
This chapter outlines some guidelines and thoughts that Catholic moral theology has used
to make sense of these specific bioethical issues as a way of shaping one’s conscience. As
mentioned earlier in this text, ultimately, it is the person making a decision. However, if a person
cannot make a decision (in the case of babies, children, or the comatose), thorny complex
questions on who can speak and make decisions on their behalf, as well what criteria do we use
to choose who can speak on their behalf, can make the situation even more complex.
Other creatures are also a concern in bioethics. Christianity has often been accused of
being specist and extremely anthropocentric, due to the emphasis Christianity has given to
human beings, to the detriment of the rest of creation. Thus, Christianity has been accused of
contributing to the environmental crisis. In response, recent papal moral teaching corrected this
anthropocentric bent by emphasizing the important and value of other plants and animals as well
as the fact that we as human beings are also fellow creatures, despite having some characteristics
that other plants and animals may not have that give the power to have greater impact on this
world. This teaching now also affects how we respond to bioethical issues such as veganism and
animal testing.
Ultimately, Catholic teaching on bioethical issues is rooted in the belief that all life is
sacred, and that this sacredness translates into a dignity that should not be easily tampered with.
There is a respect for the processes of life and death that are part of what it means to be a human
being. It is this respect and sacredness that underpin many of the concerns raised by Catholic
moral teaching on the various biotechnologies being developed.
Guide Questions
1. What is the teaching on abortion and contraception? What are the issues surrounding
these teachings?
2. Why is euthanasia a complex issue?
3. Pick one of the case studies and discuss this with a partner. What course of action or
whose side would you agree with and why, based on Catholic moral teaching?
Bibliography
Clough, David L. “Consuming Animal Creatures: The Christian Ethics of Eating Animals.”
Studies in Christian Ethics 30, no. 1 (2017): 30–44.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin:
Donum Vitae.” Vatican.va, February 22, 1987.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1
9870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html.
Glannon, Walter. “Should We Harvest Organs from Patients Who Are Not Dead yet? – Walter
Glannon | Aeon Essays.” Aeon, July 27, 2015. https://aeon.co/essays/should-we-harvest-
organs-from-patients-who-are-not-dead-yet.
John Paul II. “On the Value and Inviolability of Human Life: Evangelium Vitae.” Vatican.va,
March 25, 1995. https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html.
Rosell, Tarris. “Case Studies - Abortion Rights and/or Wrongs.” Center for Practical Bioethics.
Accessed August 6, 2018. https://www.practicalbioethics.org/case-studies-abortion-
rights-and-or-wrongs.html.
“The Story of Charlie Gard.” BBC News, July 27, 2017, sec. London.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40554462.
Chapter 9
Discipleship Through Discernment and Virtues
Introduction
This chapter reflects on discernment as part of how one lives out Catholic discipleship.
Discernment is not just an act of moral decision making, but also a part of how become better
disciples of Christ. It is a life long journey of growing in virtue, which is what the Christian
discipleship and commitment entails.
Learning Objectives
25. Understand discernment as part of the development of the human person
26. Synthesize discernment and its sources with virtue ethics
27. Deepen the Catholic faith commitment through discernment and virtues
Exposition
Discernment is what we do when making decisions. Thus, they are connected to our
individual actions. However, discernment is more than just act-based. It is a process also
becoming a better person—a more virtuous person. How we develop habits and virtues as part of
our character will impact future decisions and inclinations, as well as what direction our moral
growth will be oriented towards:
Moral action is self-constituting: it tends to reinforce the state of feelings, capacities,

skills, and anticipations expressed by the actions themselves. When action harnesses
the flexibility of our ranges of operations and skills to turn old skills to new tasks or
to reinforce skill development in a new direction, this self-constituting thrust can lead
decisively to growth. This effect will be a subtle shift in our feelings, capacities, and
inclinations for subsequent knowledge and action.122
Developing and cultivating our virtues thus help us be more consistently ethical, hopefully
helping us “miss the mark” less often.
This consistent loving and ethical behavior is what discipleship entails. Discipleship is
often understood as following Jesus Christ; this is also often tied to the particular Scripture
passage where Jesus asks others to take up their cross and follow him (Matthew 16:24-26, Luke
9:23). Taking up one’s cross means many things; traditionally it has been understood to mean a
form of hardship or sacrifice. However, it is not often a large or obvious sacrifice that needs to be
122
Kenneth R. Melchin, Living with Other People: An Introduction to Christain Ethics Based on Bernard Lonergan,
Series in Ethics (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998), 68.
carried through life, but rather the consistency in doing the good in the everyday, even in the
little things. Our daily lives are filled with many decisions, ranging from the extraordinary to the
mundane. Can we continually and consistently do the good, even in the small decisions of our
everyday lives? Can we be disciples in picking our vocation and career, as well as be disciples in
how we meet people when we ride the bus or train to school or when we buy our food from the
school canteen?
We have so far dealt with discerning individual actions. For this chapter, then, we will
discuss how discernment can and should help us becoming better persons throughout our entire
life, helping us hone the virtues and “skills” needed to continue to do the good we ought to do in
life. We will now turn to virtue ethics, a moral philosophy that is concerned with both doing the
good and becoming a better person.
Virtue Ethics
Most people know of consequentialism and deontological ethics as two common ways of
making decisions. Consequentialism, as the name suggests, is a form of decision making that
focuses on the consequences the decision maker is aiming for as the ultimate criteria on choosing
what action to take. Deontological ethics, on the other hands, focuses more on universal
principles or rules as the criteria for making decisions. To illustrate this difference, take
Christian discernment is neither purely consequentialist nor purely deontological. Though

principles and consequences are criteria to be considered in discernment when choosing a
specific moral action in a specific moment, discernment takes more into account, such as how
the person is developing. Rather than just deontological ethics or consequentialism, Catholic
moral theology needs another form of moral philosophy to engage Scripture and Tradition in
discernment.
Joseph Kotva makes a case for virtue ethics in Christian moral theology. Due to the
growing awareness of the incompleteness of modern ethical theories, as well as our historical
consciousness and a perception of that society is in moral crisis, there has been a growing
renewal of interest in virtue ethics. 123 Each person “needs to respond to each situation’s specific
features,”124 and to respond to a situation requires understanding all realities of a person, not just
the rational, logical aspect, but also such things as emotions and other seemingly abstract
realities that people experience. The theories today do not take into account these other realities,
and thus, not only gives an incomplete picture of moral life, but also encourages a false
dichotomy between the two, where taking into account of anything other than the rational and
logical may become “misleading and dangerous, or at least subordinate to rationally calculated
action” 125. Thus, when people are confronted with these other realities, many either ignore them
or else consider them for the wrong reasons.
123
Joseph Kotva, “The Return to Virtue Ethics,” in The Christian Case for Virtue Ethics (Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 1996), 5–13.
124
Kotva, 9.
125
Kotva, 10.
Virtue ethics, as an ethical framework that focuses on the development of the person to
be able to make such complex decisions, complements and supports Catholic Social Teaching as
it “appropriates the moral vision of the New Testament well.” 126 William Spohn, a Jesuit moral
theologian, claims:
Why choose virtue ethics to be the optic for examining the story of Jesus? First of all,
it is necessary to select one form of ethics. It is impossible to give an account of
Christian moral life without opting for some form of moral philosophy. Every
theology contains a philosophy as an inner moment, because it must operate from
some model of human experience.
Spohn also argues that virtue ethics is able to engage Scripture, helping people understand the
moral vision that Jesus wishes to impart through the attention to Jesus’ character and how the
“story of Jesus shapes the moral character of individuals and communities”127. This is
particularly evident in how Jesus always calls for a radical conversion of the heart, how he
always acts for repentance and a change in the people’s ways, not just on the level of actions or
through following rules, but through certain virtues and internal dispositions, such as mercy,
love, gratitude, and trust128. Thus, the focus is on the person, which is also what Catholic Social
Teaching also gives much emphasis on. Virtue ethics and Catholic Social Teaching also both
focus on helping develop people in order that they may respond well to the moral challenges they
face, rather than simply giving a set of rules to follow or consequences to look out for.
Virtue ethics thus helps a person discern through the development of virtues and going
beyond the tendency to reduce complex ethical dilemmas down to rules and consequences. It
also emphasizes that who we become is just as important as making the right decisions and
articulating the moral precepts which we as a society strive to live by.
The Virtues
There are many virtues that virtue ethics espouses, which can allow for human
flourishing, but this paper will focus on the four proposed cardinal virtues of James Keenan.
Keenan notes that Martha Nussbaum highlights the fact that virtues were used by the Greeks in
order to provide the standards for what is right or wrong, and that “virtues, not principles, are the
source for understanding normative conduct.”129
126
William Spohn, “Virtues, Practices, and Discipleship,” in Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics (London,
United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic, 2000), 27.
127
Spohn, 28.
128
Spohn, 31.
129
James Keenan, “Proposing Cardinal Virtues,” Theological Studies 56, no. 4 (1995): 711.
Sample photo of virtues in virtue ethics and their respective vices.
However, it is very difficult to answer the question: what virtues make a person morally
good? Keenan notes the difficulty stems from two reasons: the claims of culture, and the claims
of the individual130. Culture can affect the determination of what virtues are focused on in a
certain community, depending on the needs, aspirations, and practices of a certain milieu, and
even where they live. Also, it would be unfair to reduce the embodiment of moral excellence to
simply one archetype—as history will show, morally excellent people differed from each other in
many different ways due to their backgrounds, experiences, professions, and so on: to be
virtuous means to be oneself. Due to this difficulty, Keenan focuses, not on the “specific,
culturally articulated [virtues of] a morally excellent person, but rather the basic qualities of a
minimally virtuous one 131”—hence the focus on the cardinal virtues. Keenan also does not
purport to have specific and detailed articulations of the virtues which every culture will
130
Keenan, 712.
131
Keenan, 714.
necessarily agree upon; rather, he focuses on a description just “formal enough so that each
culture could fill each virtue with its specific material content and apply it practically 132”. The
virtues will help people understand and talk about the humanity that everyone shares, as well as a
way to talk about morality across cultures 133.
Keenan thus proposes justice, fidelity, self-care, and prudence, as a new set of cardinal
virtues that ought to be developed in a person in order to help him or her understand how to
handle conflicting goods—ourselves, our community, and society at large—and the many ethical
dilemmas we face, as we are relational uniquely (self-care), specifically (fidelity) and generally
(justice)134.
Justice asks people to treat each other equally—give what is due to the other—regardless
of race, class, and so on. “Justice is about ordering all our interior dispositions so that the claim
of equality originates from within” rather than from external laws. 135 Even if we may not know
certain people or communities, for example, justice acknowledges that these people still have a
claim on us and do have certain inalienable rights simply because they are also fellow creatures
of God.
At the same time, fidelity calls us to sustain the special relationships we have with
family, friends, and loved ones. Keenan uses the word fidelity to describe the love we have for
our community. While there is tension between justice and fidelity, it is nevertheless important to
acknowledge and develop the relationships we have to specific people alongside other people
who we may not be acquainted with but are nevertheless still connected with as human beings in
society.
Self-care also acknowledge that love and justice for the self is also as important.136
Today’s society often forces many people to push themselves to the extreme, valuing overwork,
sacrifice, and busyness to the detriment of the self. However, we are called to do otherwise—to
rest when needed, to take care and nourish ourselves physically and spiritually. “Some Christian
activists may balk at self-care…but we have every reason to believe that the historical Jesus took
care of himself…we can say that it was precisely because Jesus knew the virtues of fidelity,
justice, and self-care that the agony in the garden was so painful. He was a man who loved God,
humanity, his friends, and himself; his conflict, like all true conflicts, was to determine which
relationship made the greater claim on him.” 137
These three virtues are not hierarchical—one is not less of a priority than the other; each
of the three have equally competing claims, and are thus integrated by prudence (phronesis), a
practical wisdom that takes into account all three relational virtues in living out a morally good
life. “Prudence is always vigilant, looking to the future not only trying to realize the claims of
justice, fidelity, and self-care in the here and now, but also calling us to anticipate occasions
132
Keenan, 715.
133
Keenan, 715.
134
Keenan, 723–24.
135
Keenan, 724.
136
Keenan, 723–28.
137
Keenan, 727–28.
when each of these virtues can be more fully acquired.” 138 This moral wisdom of prudence is not
something that is acquired overnight. It takes practice and over time, a keen sense and intuition
for what is most needed at the moment, not just for oneself, but for society at large. This is
practiced by reflecting on one’s decisions and evaluating its consequences to see if it was indeed
the more loving and prudent decision.
Euboulia, Synesis, Gnome, and Epikeia
Prudence as a virtue is helped by other virtues. Three of these assistive virtues worth
mentioning are epikeia, eubolia, synesis, and gnome. Epikeia is the virtue that means
“reasonableness.” This virtue acknowledges that no human law is perfect. Though laws are
meant to be apply to many and most situations, they cannot take into account all possible
situations, simply because they are human laws. Catholic moral teaching stresses that if a person
happens to find themselves in a situation where there is a need to set aside the law to uphold the
common good, disregarding the law (i.e. civil disobedience) might be the moral thing to do. This
is how many changes in civil law have happened in the past—people have protested through
civil obedience in order to change what were unjust laws. Our very own People Power
movement in 1986 that toppled a dictatorship through non-violent means was an example of civil
disobedience and the virtue of epikeia at work.
Eubolia is the principle that helps one apply universal precepts to more concrete
situations. Using one’s reasoning and one’s experience, eubolia is what helps the person bring
the general idea down to the level of the specific situation the person is in in order to understand
what the general idea means in the particular context.
Synesis is a principle that assists prudence in identifying which concrete means is suitable
for the moral action, according to what is available.139 Synesis helps the person judge whether an
action would attain the intended goal and whether that action is the best way to attain said goal,
according to the laws and practices available.
Gnome, on the other hand, is a special awareness or intuition that inclines one to make
good decisions. “Eventually one is predisposed to act [in a virtuous manner]…gnome provides
that predisposition.”140 It also helps the person decide when the laws and practices available are
unhelpful or do not apply; in short, it helps people identify when the virtue of epikeia needs to be
exercised because the law is unjust or unhelpful in upholding what it was supposed to uphold. 141
Many new situations will arise in the future due to the advance in science and technology; in
these situations, our current laws and rules will not be adequate to respond to the needs and
concerns of the people in these situations. Thus, gnome helps a person navigate through these
new situations where current knowledge and laws may not apply.
138
Keenan, 728.
139
Peter Murphy, “Prudential Gnome, Right Judgements and Diagnostic Tests,” The Linacre Quarterly 73, no. 2
(May 2006): 191.
140
Murphy, 193.
141
Gunter Virt, “Moral Norms and the Forgotten Virtue of Epikeia in the Pastoral Care of the Divorceand
Remarried,” Melita Theologica 63, no. 1 (2013): 20.
Courage and Hope
The last, but certainly not the least virtues that we should discuss are courage and hope.
We are often bombarded with news of war, calamities, and corruption. Everyday we see both
local and international news that can often make us cynical and despair. What is the point of
trying to do the good when it seems like it would not make a dent in the deep problems of our
contemporary situation? At times our cynicism and despair are fueled by fear—fear of the future,
fear that we will not have enough, fear that others will get ahead while we are left behind.
Two virtues assist us in facing such despair and cynicism head on: courage and hope. If
prudence, fidelity, self-care, and justice help us decide what to do, it is courage and hope that
help us actually do it. Courage is not being rash or impetuous. It helps us be bold but at the same
time not be reckless. Courage or fortitude, a cardinal virtue, helps us acknowledge that we are
afraid, but that there is a greater value at stake that has a greater claim on us. Despite the many
obstacles we face, courage helps keep us going in spite of the fears that may hound us and the
risks. Often, we are willing to do the good as long as it is comfortable. However, when the risks
increase—when there is a risk of our reputation being “ruined” or a risk of even bodily harm—
do we still continue doing the good? This does not mean that we seek out death or harm—as
mentioned earlier, self-care is an important virtue. However, are we still willing to do the good
even if there is a possibly of harm? Jesus himself knew that there were possible consequences to
his preaching and ministry and yet he continued to care for the marginalized, which ultimately
led to his being arrested and killed. Those who speak out against corruption in government, such
as many of the journalists and activists in the Philippines, know full well that it might mean
being gunned down by assailants, yet they continue to do their job; many of these journalists and
activists would end up dying for their work. Courage is the virtue at work in many of these
people.
Hope, on the other hand, allows us to dare for a better future. It is not simply optimism—
optimism believes that everything will always turn out well and good and that good will always
triumph; hope, on the other hand, understands that there will be times that the good loses, but
nevertheless believes that the good will ultimately triumph in the end. Hope, as one of the three
theological virtues together with faith and love, understands that Kingdom of God is already here
and in process. It takes seriously God’s promise of salvation and goodness on earth and moves
people to active participation in God’s work today. Hope does not simply desire a specific
outcome; it anticipates delivery from the current situation, yet does not reduce this to a one exact
want—thus, it is possible that a person’s desire did not come true, but the person still continues
hoping.
Hope is not just passive acceptance but an active and dynamic commitment towards that
good. Christians continue working towards this good, even when the present may seem bleak,
because of the conviction that God has already begun his work through Jesus Christ, and that the
Kingdom of God is already here, manifested in the different structures and actions of people who
do the good.
Conclusion
This book ends with virtue ethics as a way of focusing one’s discernment—we do not
simply discern right actions from wrong actions using a one step iteration. Rather, discernment is
a life-long process, one that does not just help us figure out individual decisions, but also helps
the person in becoming—becoming a better person and helping the person habituate good
discernment practice.
Cultivating virtues thus helps us be better in the long run and not just in the here and
now. Moral living requires fortitude and perseverance, as well as hope in the future. Though
there are debates about whether or not virtues can be taught or cultivated, Catholic moral
theology believes that it is possible to develop virtues in a person through much practice,
learning, and self-reflection. This is a life long process; we do not become perfectly virtuous
overnight. Rather, we hone ourselves, developing habits and practices that affect how we might
make decisions, especially in crucial and impromptu situations, where we may not have much
time to reflect or get all the information we need.
All these virtues, while something to be developed in our lives over time, are also gifts.
These are graces from God that help us in becoming better disciples in Christ. In developing
these gifts we are not only developing the virtues needed to be able to do the good, but are also
able to become our best and truest selves. A common Christian saying, from the early Church
father Irenaeus, says that the glory of God is men and women fully alive and flourishing; through
these gifts that we develop, we hopefully flourish further, with the rest of creation, towards the
Kingdom of God.
Guide Questions
1. What is virtue ethics?

2. Why are the virtues important?
3. Which virtues do you think should you cultivate further? How will you do so?
Bibliography
Keenan, James. “Proposing Cardinal Virtues.” Theological Studies 56, no. 4 (1995): 709–29.
Kotva, Joseph. “The Return to Virtue Ethics.” In The Christian Case for Virtue Ethics, 5–13.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1996.
Melchin, Kenneth R. Living with Other People: An Introduction to Christian Ethics Based on
Bernard Lonergan. Series in Ethics. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998.
Murphy, Peter. “Prudential Gnome, Right Judgements and Diagnostic Tests.” The Linacre
Quarterly 73, no. 2 (May 2006): 190–93.
Spohn, William. “Virtues, Practices, and Discipleship.” In Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and
Ethics, 27–49. London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic, 2000.
Virt, Gunter. “Moral Norms and the Forgotten Virtue of Epikeia in the Pastoral Care of the
Divorceand Remarried.” Melita Theologica 63, no. 1 (2013): 17–34.

Rel Ed 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rel Ed 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rel Ed 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

Sketching a Moral Methodology

The Four Sectors

This method also seeks to go beyond an absolutely physicalist or absolutely relativist

Rational Reflection and Reason on Human Experience

Third, the Catholic Church is understood to be a community of discourse, which

The Objective Axis: Scripture and Tradition

The Ultimate Norm: Jesus Christ

It is possible to get conflicting statements. Even in Scripture alone, there can be

Who—or what—is the human person?

<Box: Genesis 1:26-31>

So God created humankind in his image,

Characteristics of Human Beings

Temporal and Transcendent

Rene Descartes’ famous quote “I think, therefore I am” reflects an understanding of

An important aspect of what it means to be a human being is freedom. Freedom is often

Huwag na huwag mong sasabihin, na hindi mo nadama itong

Sin and Grace

In the New Testament, it additionally became understood as salvation and forgiveness,

Where your Happiness Meets the World’s Greatest Hunger

Frederick Buechner offers an insightful way of understanding vocation. Reflecting on the

Buechner continues that:

Sample photo for ikigai

Gaudium et Spes offers a detailed explanation on what the conscience:

Conscience Based Discernment43

<Box: Case Study on Vincible and Invincible Ignorance>

Conscience and Church Teaching

Morality in the Old Testament

The stereotypical image of a Christian is that of a “highly individualistic Roman Catholic

The Lord is merciful and gracious,

Morality in the New Testament

The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)

The parable of Matthew 25 is striking in that everyone is surprised by the judgment.

Sample photo of corporeal acts of mercy based on Matthew 25.

The Epistles and Early Christian Community

Francis. “Bull of Indiction of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy: Misericordiae Vultus.”

Living Out the Natural Law

<Case Study: Slavery>

Furthermore…whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions,

<Case Study: The Reception of Humanae Vitae>

1. Explain what natural law is and its characteristics.

We have described discernment as a process of decision making. It is a movement

A Person Based Approach

It is important to note that discernment is a person-based approach. While moral theology

The movement from an act-based approach to a person-based approach happened is a

However, a person based approach to morality and discernment meant a more

<Box: An Excerpt from a Moral Manual>

Principle of Double Effect

<Box: The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki>

First, it is utterly immoral to target innocent non-combatants. Obvious, right? Intentionally

Principle of Autonomy and Responsibility

A Consistent Ethic of Life

The issue of consistency is tested in a different way when we examine the

Marriage, Celibacy, and Family

Marriage is intimately tied to raising a family. Filipino culture in particular places a

<Box: The Rights of the Family: Excerpt from Familiaris Consortio>

Sample photo for Just Love and a Just Relationship

The Catholic Church teaches on the complementarity of the sexes. Complementarity