PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY

FACULTY OF THEOLOGY/ DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

A Summarizing an Article on Veritatis Splendor

“How Can we learn what Veritatis Splendor has to teach?

An Assignment
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master In Theology

FR MERTON D’SILVA
Reg No

DR. JOY ARACKKAL

Alwaye
March 2024

1
Introduction
In August 1987, on the occasion of the second centenary of the death of St.
Alphonsus de Ligouri, Pope John Paul II sent a letter to the moderator of the
Redemptorist Order in which he made known his intention to publish an encyclical on
the fundamentals of moral theology. Six years later he promulgated Veritatis
Splendor (Vis, 'The Splendor of Truth'). This was written to address a specific
problem, that there was a lack of harmony between the magisterium’s teaching and
“certain theological positions, encountered in seminaries and faculties of theology.”
We live in a time of great moral confusion. False moral systems are being
promoted in every imaginable way. This confusion has allowed evils like
contraception, abortion, euthanasia, test-tube babies, surrogate motherhood, and
embryonic research to become increasingly acceptable. The Splendor of truth shines
forth in all the works of the Creator and, in a special way, in man, created in the image
and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26).
Truth enlightens man's intelligence and shapes his freedom, leading him to
know and love the Lord. Hence the Psalmist prays: "Let the light of your face shine on
us, O Lord" (Ps 4:6).
This work brings us to answer the Truth, as we find in the Gospel Matthew
19:22, there a Young fellow comes to Jesus and asks What must I do? as a result of
Dialogue between Jesus and the rich young man, there opens up questions concerning
meaning of life, moral goodness and eternal life, God as the fullness of Goodness,
Religious foundation of the moral question. Etc.
The pope perceives a trend within the Roman Catholic Church, which are like
the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social
and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the
Church’s moral teachings” (VS #4-5). And He hopes to correct this trend by
reinforcing, among other things, the universality and permanent validity of natural
law, the link between faith and morality, and the magisterium’s authority beyond
intervening “only to ‘exhort consciences’ and ‘propose values’ ” in light of which
individuals make their decisions and life choices independently (VS #4-5).
But his concern with ecclesial authority is rooted in a deeper concern over the
rising individualism in contemporary society. He questions whether the individual’s
conscience and its criteria of “sincerity, authenticity, and ‘being at peace with
oneself’” should be the supreme tribunal of moral judgment (VS #32).
He questions the loss of an idea of universal and absolute truth, wondering
whether a relativistic conception of morality can provide the very warrants needed to
speak out against the violation of human rights and serious forms of social and
economic justice. Can relativism ensure the values of “justice, solidarity, honesty, and
openness” that are often identified with individual freedom (VS #98)?

2
 As it is addressed to the Catholic bishops and its subject matter is not only
Christian moral teaching in general, but more particularly the present condition of the
academic discipline of moral theology.
1.1 On the Author Alasdair MacIntyre
Alasdair MacIntyre is a Scottish-American philosopher who has contributed to
moral and political philosophy as well as history of philosophy and theology.
MacIntyre's After Virtue (1981) is one of the most important works of Anglophone
moral and political philosophy in the 20th century. He is Thomistic, Aristotelian, as
well as a North American immigrant and also a Catholic.
1.2 The Author’s Opinion on Veritatis Splendor
Alasdair MacIntyre tells us to read this document, in two ways. It can be read,
and of course it should be read, firstly as a papal encyclical, a piece of authoritative
Christian teaching & Moral Theology and Secondly as a Philosophical Work in
advanced of the relationship between biblical & other Christian teaching; Various
moralities of the various cultures; argumentative conclusion of Moral Philosophers
For Veritatis splendor is not only a work of authoritative Christian teaching
about moral judgment and the moral life, it is also a striking contribution by the Polish
phenomenological and Thomistic philosopher Karol Wojtyla to ongoing philosophical
enquiry, one in which an incisive account is advanced of the relationship between
biblical and other Christian teaching, the various moralities of the various cultures of
humankind, and the argumentative conclusions of moral philosophers.
The central theses of this encyclical thereby challenge a range of rival
philosophical accounts of that relationship: Kantian, utilitarian, and Kiekegaardian, to
name only the most important. Has an argumentative structure rr tries to give some
definitive answers about the relation between Thomistic and Aristotelian, in its moral
judgment of life considering Christian Philosophers. At the same time since he is
North American immigrant, the dominant moral theories & practices & cultural
background also has affected his viewpoints on Veritatis Splendor. And also since he
is a Catholic, the Biblical Christian teaching background also must be supplied.
To answer the question, which all arguments are discussed here? We must say
that, the author makes a question and solution by considering the above 3 ways i.e. 1st
response in a Thomistic way practical reason to apprehend our precepts of the natural
law. (our nature). And secondly considering Aristotle, Aquinas & others and
comparing that with Anti-Thomistic critic’s practices to understand 2nd set of
response. And thirdly, the author uses the anti-thomists response which includes
(David Hume) Humeans, Kantians, Utilitarians, Existentialists, and Relativists and so
on.
They pursue the truth about moral philosophical matters, Achievement of that
Truth leads to Final and Unconditional End. But there are conflicts between these

3
Ethics. Anti - Thomist and the dominant recent moral theories like Kantians and
Utilitarian debate themselves, and they are in opposing positions, even against
Humeans and the Nietzcheans are completely opposing the previous positions.
And the role of the Catholics is in conversations with these differences. The
Encyclical teaches us, that what we encounter in the Moral requirements imposed by
our own human practical understanding of reasoning, when they are in good order.
Though, There are conflicts between these Ethics, we need answers final
unconditional answers to reach the ultimate truth. Grace corrects us and completes it.
And more than everything, our Biblical teaching, is surely not just an act of coercive
impositions by an external authority; moreover, it is a guiding principle for Christian
moral theology especially the Decalogue.
Veritatis Splendor is thus, nothing, but an invitation to become more thoughtful
& more perceptive human being. This document is a reminded for reassertion of
central truths in a world of morality which has a characterization of a number of types
of contemporary errors. Thus Veritatis Splender urges the world to use the tools that
are Philosophical, Theological & Morality.
To get the Ultimate Truths which we shall sufficiently understand only by
considering some mistakes about them, that is by scoring off 4 errors which here the
author speaks of. He starts with the Encyclical’s creative & constructive statement of
Thomistic account of natural law. As the Encyclical stresses, the Church has included
“in her own teaching on morality.”(n.44., p.59). We may be tempted into teaching us
as a restatement of what was already. The Church’s morality begins from Thomism.
1.4 Thomism in Encyclical
John Paul made ample use of the existential realism of St. Thomas in his
philosophical work prior to his election. We also find Thomistic natural law theory
and moral philosophy in Veritatis Splendor. An analysis of the epistemological and
metaphysical principles advocated by Thomas is also found here. St. Thomas explains
that human reason and supernatural faith help us formulate the right rule of human
conduct by coordinating human acts with the eternal law of God. Thomas’ teaching on
the interiority of natural law as found in his Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 91, a. 2:
This imposes us to ask ourselves, “Is there a natural law within us?” In
answering this question we see Thomas explain that human freedom is a God-given
power enabling man to know moral truth as « contained in the law » (VS # 52.1)
Even when, the Negative precepts of the natural law are ‘universally valid,’ Jesus
makes an affirmation of the Decalogue. (Mt 19:17-18). Why, is it so? The answer is,
He is completing every truths. Thus, thus he tells, “I am the Way, I am the Truth and
I am the Life, meaning is that He is valid for all people of the present; ‘as was of the
Past’ and as well as will be for the Future Generations too. Thus He means to say
Truth has permanent structural elements of human beings. Already knew or could

4
have known for ourselves as required for our good. Hence obedience to God is not, or
some would believe, a heteronomy…”
2.1 The Error in ‘Categorical Imperative’ of Immanuel Kant
Agreement, which we see in him is that, in understanding the negative precepts
of the moral law as exceptionless prohibitions. Don’t kill … this law can’t be changed.
The Error or our disagreement towards Kantian Categorical Imperative, is that in its
assertion that human reason needs to be instructed by this revelation of God’s law.
Here what Kant says is only that we are to do our duty by obeying the moral
law for it’s own sake. Whereas the Catholic Gospel position is going beyond
imperatives of the Law e.g. even hatred is beginning of killing. And here the
Encyclical says is we are also to obey that law for the sake of the further good of
ourselves and of others. The encyclical in a way qualifies the Kantian idea or goes
beyond in speaking of the bonum/good. In achieving our final end and good, we shall
be perfected, which is possible only through grace. Whereas Kantianism Loses God
himself.
2.2 The Error in Utilitarianism and How to weigh the acts
For a Utilitarian Killing an aggressor is Okay and permissible. Whereas taking
a Catholic Thomistic positionis that we must not intend the death of the aggressor. No,
that should never happen. The Error is that, in view of what some of the negative
precepts of the natural law require and consequent misunderstanding of how certain
practical conclusions follow them. e.g. theft. According to Thomas Aquinas one needs
to know the concept of property of ownership. And according to a North American
perspective it was ok to kill, in an era of plundering and conquering of the Land of
Americas. Utilitarian: upholding of property right is that the needy person should be
allowed to starved to death.
2.3 The Error in Consequentialists and weighing of balancing consequences.
The good at stake in all situation in which obedience to the natural law is in
question is such that no other can be weighed against it. Error is that concerning the
intentions of agents. The intentions or purposes can make the acts that flow from it
good. To will badly, as to act badly, is to fail in the achievement of human freedom.
Choices are given importance here. It is on the basis of individual preferences
and choices that values and norms including those of morality, come into being &
from preferences and choices that derive their authority. Choices added up with
Preferences leads to Principles. Philosophical Commitments that Humans make is the
ability to create moral values, whether he/she knows or not.
2.3.1 Concept of Freedom
Freedom, depends upon what their capacities are; actualizing, success in doing. it
comes from the Latin word ‘Phronesis’ (Prudentia) which means the capacity to

5
choose. Development & Exercise of our capacities results in our Choicesto do good
engaging with each other.
The concept of ‘good’ may vary according to culture to culture. What will not vary is
twofold. Primarily, the need for a presupposed understanding that such goods will
contribute to the achievement of the human good and Secondly, the need for
recognition of a set of requirements which enable human beings from the disciplines
of learning, which enables other questionings also.
2.4 Error in Relativism
Let’s take the example of relativism based moral decision E.g. Never kill a
person, except when….” the relativistic view is incomplete in itself by the very
preliminary assessment of itself.
There are several positives that the Relativists points on their validity. They say
that, Relationship with others results in rational conversations, and Relationship with
ourselves results in ability to learn from our own experiences. Conformity to the
precepts of the natural Law is a precondition of the kind of learning which leads for
oneself is in relation with others.
Error is that it attempts to hate human freedom in a freedom to make choices
which are prior to and independent of precepts of natural law. They suppose that
acknowledgement of the natural law is incompatible with freedom VS#35. “an alleged
conflict between freedom and law”“Right to determine what is good or evil”
2.5 Error of the Intrinsically Evil Acts
These are acts like rape, murder, and adultery that are always evil, no matter
what the circumstances or intentions. The error is that, these acts remain evil, with no
exceptions. They can never become good acts. A person can commit an intrinsically
evil act and not be personally guilty but this does not alter the evil of the act.
Objective Morality Examines the rightness and wrongness of humans acts as they are
in themselves Subjective Morality Examines the personal guilt or merit an individual
has for their moral acts.