MORAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN MORALITY

MORAL THEOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN MORALITY

Theology and Moral Theology

The Renewal of the Moral Theology Today

The New Testament Morality

Christian Morality

Objective Moral Order

Norms and Sources of Morality

I.          Theology and Moral Theology

Theology is the science of God and man and of all creation as it is related to God. (Christian theology does not pronounce on God and creatures as though they were counter-balancing, but on God as principal, and on creatures in relation to Him, who is their origin and end).

There is only one theology as it has only one subject matter[1]. However, it can be divided according to how the subject matter is approached and according to the subject matter.

A.  According to the subject matter:

1.      Dogmatic Theology: it is that which studies the truths of faith to be believed.

2.      Moral Theology: it is that which studies the conduct of man according to the Christian faith. It teaches the Christians how to live.

B.  According to the Method:

1.      Positive: it approaches by way of authority.

2.      Scientific: it investigates revealed truths thereby making the mysteries of faith reasonable and credible.

Moral Theology: Etymologically, moral theology is the study of customs, as indicated by the term “mos” which is a Latin word for ‘custom’.

     

From the philosophico-theological view, it is defined by St. Thomas as interpreted by Bernard Haring as the science of the imitation of Christ. St. Thomas stresses man as the image of God and man’s movement as rational creature toward God. And traditionally, moral theology is defined as that part of theology, which guided by revelation, studies human acts as the road to man’s supernatural goal: God.

            Moral theology is approached either positively or scientifically. The former uses authority while the latter uses much reason.

Moral Theology is subdivided into:

1.  General Moral Theology:

treating the general conditions and qualities which every action must be endowed with in order that it may contribute to man’s final goal. Thus, it deals with the ultimate end of man; with the divine, natural and human laws as the objective norms of morality; with conscience as the subjective norms; with sins as morally bad actions; with conversion, virtues and man’s perfection in holiness.

2.  Special moral theology:

treating human behavior in the different spheres and situations of human life. It is further subdivided into two main parts:

a.      Part one deals with man’s responsibility towards the created world. In the religious realm, it discusses divine virtues such as faith, hope and charity and the different forms of worship.

b.      Part two deals with the virtues of fraternal love and of justice, of community life in family, state, and in the Church; with bodily life and health; with sexuality, marriage and virginity; with work and property and with truth, fidelity and honor.

II.        The Renewal of Moral Theology Today

Today we speak of the return of theology to the sources and rightly so; thus, we should speak of the return of Moral Theology to Sacred Scriptures. Vatican II states that in the Constitution on Divine Revelation that the study of the Sacred Scriptures must be like the soul of Theology (DV, n. 24); and in the Decree De Institutione Sacerdotali, it explicitly asks that the scientific exposition of Moral Theology must be wholly nourished by the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures (DIS, n. 16).

Nevertheless, Moral Theology is not merely biblical theology, nor sorely kerygmatic theology. Moral theology’s exposition must be truly scientific. As E. Hammel explains: “It is necessary to distinguish regarding the word of God between its presentation in a pre-scientific level. Science (moral) is not the Gospel, although this science must be thought of and taught in the spirit of the Gospel.” (E. Hammel, S.J., “L’ Usage de L’Escripture Sainte en Theologie Morale,” Gregorianum, 47 (1996), p. 65.). Kerygmatic theology, the announcing of the Gospel which is directed to the acceptance of Christian faith, should be in the pre-scientific level.

The theologian’s task is ‘to hear, distinguish and interpret the many voices of our age, and to judge them in the light of Divine Revelation.’ ‘For, from the beginning of her history, the Church has learned to express the message of Christ with the help of the ideas and terminologies of various peoples, and has tried to clarify it with the wisdom of philosophers, too.’ (G.S. n. 44).

The characteristics of the Renewal of Moral Theology

1. It is dynamic, not a static morality. Life is dynamic; it is a process of development and growth. The Christian is going somewhere; life, then, is a pilgrimage. Very few principles in moral theology are absolute, for example, many ethical sayings of Jesus have sociological and cultural application only; likewise we have provisional answer of the Church. “Human morality is characterized by man’s historical situation, and also, Christian morality.”

2. It is personalistic, not legalistic. “Cateogia fundamentalis est potius vocation quam lex.” The basic question of an open morality is not ‘what must I do?’ but ‘what must I be?’ thus, the importance of fundamental option.” The Christian is under a regime of grace, not of law (cf. Rom. 6:14); not morals of objects but of persons; not of external impositions but of internal conviction. In the O.T, we have first the alliance of God with Israel, then, the Law (the Decalogue), in the N.T, Jesus announces the Gospel, the good news of salvation, that all men are invited, liberated from sin, to enter the Kingdom of God: “ From that moment Jesus began His preaching…“Repent and be converted” (Mt. 4:17; 23-24). Consequently, the obligations are consequent to the presence of the Kingdom.

            3. Positive not a negative morality. It should not study mainly civil, but perfection; not just a sin but virtue. Positive attempt leading to a set of positive attitudes: “attitudes of respect of person, of respect for the common good, attitudes for the all consuming love for God directed toward continuing creation and redemption thru a good Christian life” (W.J, Jacobs, Morality for the New Age; Notre Dame, Ind. Ave Maria Press, 1970, p. 9). There is only one basic moral attitude: LOVE. Neither the objective (legalistic, casuistic, absolutist) only, nor the subjective (conscience, relativism) approach. It is both for any reductionism to one contains only partial truth.

4. God-Christ center: the central mystery of Christianity is the expression of one God in Three Divine Persons, focused on Christ: God has invited man thru Christ. Thus, the radical importance of the imitation of Christ.

Moral theology of the theological virtues tria haec (I cor. 13:13) – Faith (personalistic approach: God as “thou”), Hope (secular realistic), Charity (the measure). Theory and praxis, no place for linguistic rituals.

5. True Christian character, moral theology must be biblical and sacramental: Biblical - in sources: “S.S ought to be the soul of all theology, Optatam Totius, n. 16); the Gospel is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching.” (Dei Verbum, n. 7); Sacramental: the sacraments are the signs and sources of man’s sharing the life of Christ himself.

6. Personal and communitarian in dimension (GS, nn. 24, 25, 30): stress on the ecclesial and social morality; “I”, “Thou” and the “Eternal Thou”.

7. Scientific Moral Theology. Relationship with philosophical and religious ethics; relevance of the social sciences, particularly, anthropology. We live in an age of dialogue; religiously speaking, ours is an age of Ecumenism and Pluralism. An important aspect of a polemic or apologetic purpose” Ind.: Fides Pub. Inc. 1966, p.2. another is the search for human values, a continuous search for the law of being human” (Van der Poel, The Search for Human Values ,the Newman Press, N.J., 1971, p.9.

“In view of the universalist tendency of the ethics of the new Covenant and  in view of the pluralistic and largely secularized state of humankind, what is chiefly needed is for us to work out those aspects of Christian morality which unites us with all the valuable aspirations of the secularized world and which may promote dialogue and collaborations… the desire for unity in multiplicity, for solidarity, for the development of all men, the consciousness of movement and change, a historical conception of humanity and morality and not least, respect for honest conscience” (Haring, Morality, in Theological Dictionary, Sacramentum Hundi, p. 115)

III.       The New Testament Morality: Christian Morality

With Christ’s resurrection, a new race of men was born and with it, a totally new morality for the new life which is the Law of the Spirit gives birth to a specifically Christian moral knowledge with the instincts of that life, which makes judgment in the body of Christ according to that life of the Spirit.

The moral ideal toward which the believers (new race) must tend is not that of the Greek wisdom and mysticism, for which ultimate perfection rests in the divine gnosis, not does it consist in the heroic practice of human virtues: one might possess all knowledge and all heroic virtues and yet be nothing (I Cor. 13:1-13). Nor the ideal one pf justice conferred by the law. It rather consists in the dead and risen Christ, the ideal of only one true justice, and in participation in the Spirit of love that animates him.

Christian morality is therefore something wholly new. It is not imposed by God from the outside, not yet is it demanded by human nature from within. It is a “new commandment”, the law of the new and final creation in Jesus Christ. It does not, however, replace the law of Sinai, nor the law of reason; it includes them both and yet it goes beyond them: it is the law of God just as was that of Sinai, yet, it comes from within as did as that of the Greeks as it is inner call of God.

Man is thus free in Christ: “where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” 2 Cor. 3:17). He can submit to god without compromising his own liberty, for he is obeying the laws of his own proper being, the instinct of his Christian life. Even more free than the Greek who obeyed reason, the Christian obeys love. He does whatever he likes. Nothing is forbidden him except falling under a law outside himself (2 Cor. 6:12).

Though it comes from within man, the new law still a law from another being; like the law of the OT, it is a complete obedience to God. For the Spirit, the gift of Love also a law – the will of God expressed in the depth of our hearts. In the risen Christ and those who believe in Him the dominion of God is complete. For Christ and all who are of Christ are dead to themselves, and their life is the life of the Spirit, God’s power and his sovereign will.

Christian morality, a morality found in the NT, is a morality of total freedom and total obedience to God, the God by whom the gift of the Spirit calls man from within their being. Thus, in man’s part, it involves a constant deeper understanding of his relationship with God.

IV.       On the Existence of an Objective Moral Order

Varied opinions have been forwarded with regard to the existence of an objective moral action. Human positivism asserts that human action is either good or evil depending on the positive will of man which can be concretized in education. Durkheim maintains that this can be influenced by society while James William holds that it depends on history. Divine Positivism, on the other hand, asserts that human action  is either good or evil depends on the positive will of God.

However, there are certain actions which by themselves or by their very nature, that is, intrinsically, are good or bad regardless of any human or divine will. This is perceivable in all cultures that some actions are good or bad because they are in conformity with humanity (against human positivism). And against the divine positivist, it is reasoned out that the will of God can not be the first rule to our reason, for God did not make us first and impose law later, but He made us according to the law. It is the intellect that gives light to the will to elect and God can not go against the nature of Hid will.

So the order of human nature is as follows:

in relation to God: creatures

in relation to ourselves: rational being

            Human nature

                        to others: social being

to things: master of creation

V.        Norms of Morality

These are the rules or standards to which human actions must adjust to be considered good in the moral order:

    A. The moral order: - in God                     - in man

            1. constitutive - Divine essence         - H. Nature

            2. manifestative          - D. Intellect                - H. Reason

            3. perceptive               - D. Law                                 - conscience

    B. Norms:

            1. Divine Law                        - objective norm

            2. conscience              - subjective norm

3. reason based on natural law is the proximate and objective norm.      

      The supreme norm, therefore, is the Divine or Eternal Law and right reason is the proximate while conscience is the proximate and subjective norm of morality. The Eternal Law is supreme for all other laws are under the Divine wisdom that ordains and directs all actions to their end.

VI.       Sources of Morality

      The sources or principles of morality are the determinants of human acts in connection with their moral character. Human reason evaluates the goodness and badness of human acts by taking into consideration the object, the end and the circumstances surrounding the act. These are three determining elements of morality of the particular action performed by a free agent. Beyond the general or ontological determinations, human acts are also defined by these three elements which characterize the moral order and make our acts good, evil, or indifferent.

    1. The Object.  

The first quality describing the human acts is the Object. It is like the basic actor of morality, the substance of the moral act. According to St. Thomas, the primary and specific goodness or badness of an act is derived from the object which the act naturally and directly tends as to its term. The object is not the matter of which a thing is made but the matter about which something is done; and it stands in relation to the act as the form, as it were, giving it the species.

      The teaching of St. Thomas on the essence of morality centered on the object as proved by this summary:

a.      A good or moral action is a perfect action because it has the fullness of being.

b.      An action has the fullness of being when it is in accordance with its species, i.e., the nature, essence.

c.       The nature or essence of an action is given by the object about which the action is. The fundamental goodness or badness of an action depends on the object.

d.      An object is good when it is in conformity with its nature or purpose for which it was made. Otherwise, it is bad or evil.

e.       In the moral order, an object is good when it is in conformity with reason. Otherwise, it is evil. Consequently, an action is good or moral when it is in conformity with reason. Any action which is not in conformity with reason is bad or evil.

      The morality concerning the object is called material or substantial morality to distinguish it from the subjective or formal morality which depends on the knowledge and freedom of the agent. It may happen that a certain action contains a material morality while formal morality is absent.

    2. The Motive. 

The purpose or intention is that for the sake of which something is done. It is the reason behind our acting. Man usually puts an acts as a means to accomplish an end, different from the act itself. Since the end or intention is ordinarily present in all human acts, it becomes part of morality. “The end” says Aristotle “is the object of the internal act of the will.” Before we put the will and external senses in motion, we must have a motive present in our minds or an objective prompting our faculties to act and achieve the proposed objective. Hence, the importance of the motive as the second source of morality.

      The end or intention of the agent can modify human actions in four ways:

a. An indifferent act may become morally good or evil. Example: to study is in itself an indifferent action. It becomes good when it is intended to alleviate human sufferings but it becomes bad when it is intended to perform illegal or immoral operation.

b. An objectively good act may become morally evil. Example: when a person gives alms to a poor girl with the intention of seducing her.

c. An objectively good act may receive more goodness. Example: a person may give alms, not only to help the poor, but also for the love of God.

d. An objectively evil act can never become good despite the good motive.

    3. The Circumstances. 

The morality of human acts depends not only on the object of the act itself and the motives of the moral agent, but also on the circumstances present in the development of the action. Circumstances are conditions modifying human action, either by increasing or by diminishing the responsibility attending them. Some physical circumstances have little to do with the morality of an action, for instance, the English or Tagalog language used for slandering or the caliber of the gun used in the murder. But more frequently, circumstances play an important role in affecting morality of our actions, because man’s acts are performed at a definite time and place, in particular manner, for certain reasons, etc., all of which, in one way or another, increase or diminish the responsibility of an action. Criminal investigations resolve a round these factors and a final sentence depends largely on them.

      The circumstances affecting the morality of our actions are seven:

1.         WHO: it is the subject or the person who does or receives the action. Persons are different in many ways: superiors, rulers, and subjects, priests and laymen, parents and children, rich and poor, etc., there are also physical persons or individuals and moral persons as corporations, companies, etc.,.

2.         WHERE: it is the setting or place of an action. A crime committed in the Church is more serious than a crime done in the secular place because of a flagrant disregard of religion. An immoral act committed in a public place involves scandal, etc.,

3.         WHAT: it refers to the object

4.         BY WHAT MEANS: although man’s intention maybe morally good, if the means of attaining the end are illicit, his acts are immoral, for the end does not justify the means.

5.         WHY: it refers to the intention of the agent.

6.         HOW: the circumstance involves different conditions or modalities such as voluntariness, consent, violence, fear or ignorance. We say for example, that the action was done at the moment of rage or in cold blood etc.,

7.         WHEN: it refers to the time when action is performed.

How circumstances affect morality?

a.      Circumstances may change, rather than diminish or increase the goodness or badness of an action. For example, to kill one’s parent is not only a crime but also patricide. To kill a working animal from a poor farmer is a worse act than to steal it from a rich man.

b.      Circumstances may change a good or indifferent act into a punishable one. For example, a soldier sleeping at his post during war time will be sentenced by a military court to capital punishment, where sleeping is concerned here.

      In summary, a human act, in order to be morally good, must be perfect according to three elements: object, end, and circumstances. Any deficiency will make a human act evil.

The morality of the indifferent acts

      For several times, human acts have been classified under the view of morality as good, evil and indifferent. But are there really indifferent human acts? In this respect, St. Thomas made a classical in the abstract, as they are classified in the mind, can be morally indifferent, but considering them concretely, accompanied by circumstances and performed by a definite individual with a definite intention they can not be indifferent. They are either good or evil,

The morality of the external acts

      The goodness or badness of our moral actions depends on reason, the object, the intention of the agent and circumstances. What about the morality of the external acts, the acts commanded by the will and executed by the different senses and powers of the body properly called external or material actions, as for example, the material action of killing or saving a person.

      The external acts add no essential goodness or badness to the internal act which is the root and the source of moral quality. St. Thomas says: “ If the act of the will is good, the external act will also be good, but the latter will be bad if the will is bad”. Accidentally, however, the external act may contribute to morality because it offers an occasion for the continuation or repetition of the internal act.

---

[1] Theology is one science for it has only one formal object: virtual revelation. The formal object quod and quod are one in theology by reason of divinity.