00. INTRODUCTION
Our subject was a learning on
Fundamental Moral Theology. Thus we were introduced to different tools about
fundamental moral theology. We have learned a lot during this course. We have
learned many tools that we have to use during our daily moral thinking. We have
learned that as religious moralist we should use our moral thinking critically
for the better treat of the cases that we`ll be facing in our life as pastors
of the Church.
From the understanding of morality
to the reality of conversion, we have tackled many principles, theories which
can be helpful for the better use of moral reasoning. In this perspective, we have
been asked to make a synthesis of this course applying the principles discussed
with some concrete examples. In order to do so, we`ll orient this work by
talking of the religious moralist in a complicated and pluralistic world in
which we live today.
Throughout this work, we will be
tackling different topics that we have discussed during our classes. Since we
are rushing out of time, we will not tackle each topic thoroughly, but we will
do our best to bring out the main ideas of each principle with enlightment. We
will focus on some examples in order to make clear this work. We will be using
some citations when it is relevant in order to support our thoughts.
For the better understanding of this
work, we will tackle it in terms of parts:
In
the first part, we`ll talk about human person as a being in relation with others.
The second part will be consecrated to the decision-making process and actions
in our life. And the third part will be focused on the reality of sin. The
fourth part will be focused on our moral orientation in view of our relation to
God. The last part will be consecrated on the social transformation that can
mirror the kingdom of God here and now.
I.HUMAN BEING: A HUMAN PERSON AND
PERSON FOR OTHERS
Throughout this point our intention
is to show that we can be a good religious moralist in today’s pluralistic
world only if we reckon our being person in relation with others. In fact,
there is no one who lives alone as an island in the sea. Human being is by
her/his essence a being-with. That is
to say we are human beings only in relation with others.
As we have discussed during our
training, man or woman is a relational being. This leads us to say that our
life has a sense only in our relation with others. In other words, Alterity is
a part of being human. As a religious moralist, I have to remember that through
whatever I do the dignity of human being should have primacy. This is what we
find in the theory elaborated by Jacques Derrida, the great philosopher
according to whom the ethics of Alterity should be the principle to rule the
world for the betterness of mutual respect. To better understand this we will
talk of the human being in different aspect.
I.1 General notion of human being
Human person as we discussed, has
been tackled by many disciplines as a relational being, embodied reality and historical.
In different sciences, man or woman is understood as being in alterity. Since
he/she is a being with others, this has implications in his/her life. We have
discussed during our training that human being is a being among beings. That is
to say talking of human being implies talking of his/her relation with others
in order to see him/her as person adequately considered.
Human being has to be to be
considered as an image of God. Created in the image of God, man or woman is
obliged to give back love received from the creator to others. In this
perspective, we understand that man or woman is by his/her very nature
relational being.
This
is clear in our society. When man or woman is isolated, he/she looses his or
her sense of being human. For example, the baby who is put in the Zoological
garden with animals, isolated from other persons, when he/she grows up in a
such situation, in his or her life he/she will be living accordingly. He/ She
will do so, because he/she did not receive the alterity with is a part of being
human.
Based on the previous paragraph, we
can allude to a German philosopher Jurgen Habermas in theory of communicative
action[1].
In this book Habermas talks of the mutual consideration that should be the
principle in modern society in order to promote the respect of human being
through his/her relationship with others. This point of view, we do believe is
similar to the notion of human dignity that we have discussed during our
training. In effect, we have said that human dignity is equal to all of the
beings, since all human being has been created in the image of God. They have
endowed with the same rational soul and they posses the same nature and origin.
All men and women are the same in dignity. This teaches us to treat everyone
with same consideration as said Jurgen Habermas, regardless their different
ranks in the society.
In this perspective, we do believe
that the theory of Jurgen Habermas may help us to better apply it in today`s
world which is already corrupted. Once I consider another as an ``Alter Ego’’, I would consider him/her as
human being with dignity as his/her rights[2].
To be a good religious moralist, we have to respect the dignity of others as
creature of God, created in likeness of God. In this way, we will respond to
God`s call of love for other. In terms of Bernard Haring, ``we act as partner of God in the ongoing history of creation and redemption’’[3].
For the enlightment of the previous
paragraph, Today`s world is characterized by injustice, lack of respect to
others etc. For example, ``the paradigm
of rank in the society’’[4].Actually
the most common experience we have is the injustice caused by the rank or
standing that one occupies in the society. We do not consider a human being as
image of God or partner that deserves his/her dignity but we consider the rank
he/she occupies in the society. To better understand this we have to pay
attention to what happens from time to time in the market, hospital, school,
company etc. Those who are in the high rank in the society are better respected
than others; especially those living in the fingers of the society are the
victims. We do believe that as religious moralist we have to consider everyone
as ``partner’’ or another ``Ego’’ to respect not like a mean to use
as says Immanuel Kant.
This lead us to elaborate more on
the maxim developed by Immanuel Kant, `` do
not consider others as a mean but as an End’’. This is a nice advise from
Kant. In this perspective others are the human beings with their full dignity.
They are not the means to use or to manipulate. They are other beings as we.
When Kant advises the consideration of others as ``End’’, he wants to tell us that everyone has a right to be
respected even if there can be differences. For the meantime, it reminds us the
uniqueness of every human being.
Because of the uniqueness, we cannot
respond to the same situations in the same way. Since a human being is a
historical subject, he/she reacts according to his/her uniqueness. When we read
the personalism in the perspective of Emmanuel Mounier the Frenchman, we
understand
That
a human being is a project that’s has to be maintained. Human being as self-reflection,
self-possession, self-communication, and self-determination, orients his/her
life according to the choices motivated by these factors. We have to mention
that all this will have a real sense only through his/her relation with others.
That is to say to be a good religious moralist we have to consider human being
as self-reflection, self-possession, self-communication, and
self-determination.
I.2 African notion of human being
Generally
speaking, all Africans regardless their plurality of cultures has a belief that
human being is a being only in relation with others. African`s principle of
life is primarily human person then other things. I do believe that in today`s world in which
lack of consideration of sacredness of human being is obvious, this African`s
belief might be helpful to us in order to be the good religious moralist. This
teaches us that human being is a sacred being to respect.
For the enlightment of this idea, we
allude to one African saying, ``friendship
is older than richness’’[5].
That is to say the fact of having good relation with people is better than the
fact of having money. The Africans stress the prevalence of human being on
wealth. From this point of view, we can understand how much important is the
ethic of otherness in the African culture. For an African, I am because you are. That is to say man or woman is a person
because of others. We have to respect first the dignity of others than our own
interest. We do believe that in today`s world characterized by interest this
African moral might help us to be the good religious moralist.
To
better understand this, we can listen to bishop of Pretoria in South Africa who
oftentimes has a talk on the African notion of ``Ubuntu’’ (his talks are available on internet just by searching
ubuntu according to Bishop Tutu). In effect, Ubuntu means I am because you are. For example, as a nurse, I am
important as long as there are sick people. Without them I am nothing. That is
why I have to consider them as image of God, as persons, and as an axiological
value that I have to respect. This can be connected to what we have discussed
during our training that the human person is relational being. Referring to
Richard Gula, human being is a relational being.[6]
In the same perspective the
Congolese philosopher Tshamalenga Ntumba has developed a theory of `` la bisoite’’[7].
In this theory he shows that for an African the otherness is a part of being
human. When man or woman looses this honorable perception he/she is no longer
human. He mentions that even if there are differences in all African`s
languages there is always a word that means ``we’’. Seldom an African will
speak using ``I’’. He/She will use always ``we’’ even when he/she has to use
``I’’ because it`s an inner value of considering human being as a whole and
relational with dignity that we acquire since our birth.
From this previous paragraph we do
believe that if we try to act according to this theory we will be the good
moralist. When we have the ethics of otherness, automatically the dignity of
human being will be respected
II. CHARACTER IN VIEW OF DECISION
MAKING PROCESSES AND ACTIONS
As we have discussed earlier, human
being is relational being. This fact has implications on his/her life. Whatever
he/she does is understood in the light of morality with others. That is to say
the moral sensibility of others. When we react, decide, it might be interpreted
in the way of checking the moral
responsibility of the actor. As we have said during our training, the morality
is not permanent or static but it can change according to the situations. In
the light of this Joseph Fletcher writes, `` the situationist says to both Kant and to the classical theological
moralists whom he sought to undermanine that it is a moral mistake to ask
whether a such as lying is right or wrong universally and in the abstract; that
the correct question is when it is right and when it is wrong’’[8].
From the preceding paragraph, as
religious moralist we have to act according to the situation. This should help
us while having moral reasoning in order to avoid extremism and relativism and
to analyze each case according to the situation. We reckon that the human being is created
free, but this freedom has sense only when man or woman recognizes its limits as
says Jean Paul Sartre that, ``my freedom
is limited where the one of other starts’’. For example, I cannot go to the
market naked because of my freedom. I cannot do so because of the respect of
the dignity of others. Human being is a relational being he/she cannot go to
the market naked. In this perspective, we clearly see the relationship between
freedom and morality.
From the previous paragraph, we understand
that our freedom is a limited freedom. Man or woman is by nature limited. This
is obvious in different aspects. For example, in life everyone wants happiness;
everybody wants to be happy, but sometimes because of the limitations he/she is
not able to achieve his/her goal. That is to say, we have to reckon our
limitations as religious moralist. While making decision we have to recognize
that what we think is not always the best solution. That is why we sometimes
need advisor.
Space and time are factors that
limit Man or woman. That is to say environments which characterizes the
historical existence of man or woman has influence on his/her actions.
For
instance, everybody is free to sleep outside, but sometimes the whether or climate
can oblige him/her to sleep inside the house during winter, for example. He/She
may die from the coldness in case he/she sleeps outside. Another example is
that everybody would like to go around the world to have the experiences in
life but she/he may not go because of money. In this perspective, we see how we
can be limited by spatio-temporal factors (environment).
The limitation of man or woman can
come from the circumstances in life. That is to say it can come from the person
him/herself. In the light of the status we occupied sometimes in the society.
For example, everyone would like to go to bar music to enjoy, but the pope
cannot go to such king of place since his status does not allow him to do so.
This is an invitation for us religious moralist in order to act according to
the circumstances or status.
Freedom and Knowledge
Freedom
to decide what we want ourselves and to make someone of ourselves is what moral
theologians call basic freedom or core freedom[9]. The
freedom of self-determination is directed toward loving relationship with
others in the community and with transcendent reality, God. Human being by
making different choices engages him/herself. He/She has to be aware of his or
her choice, there where raises knowledge. For example, to decide about the
Great options in life, this is the fact of basic freedom that everyone has in
order to commit his or herself.
Josef
Fuchs regarding basic writes,`` self of
person as whole in a basic freedom is always immature and imperfect, not a
complete self-commitment of the person, since it can become more deeper and
more intensive, has to be maintained and made manifest in countless different situations’’[10].
In
this perspective we do believe that human being before the validation of the
act of his/her basic freedom needs knowledge or rationality since act of basic
freedom is not the complete one.
The act performed by one reveals the
depth of his or her being in the society. So as a religious moralist we have to
keep in mind that whatever we do is an expression par excellence of ourselves.The
object of moral freedom is not a choice between individual objects but rather
the self-realization of the person. In this sense moral knowledge is understood
as the very person him/herself in all his/her concreteness and possibilities.
That is to say the freedom needs knowledge in order to help the person to posses
him/herself. Since freedom is something to posses, to mature as Richard McCormick
writes, `` freedom is very often
presented as a quantity, something I posses at the age of reason and unpackage
as I mature: freedom s much more accurately described as a task, something to
be built and acquired’’[11] .
From the previous point, we do believe that man or
woman has to posses his/her freedom by maturing it with reason. For example, my
freedom can push me to become smart. To do so, I need to use my knowledge in
order to concretize my dreams. In this sense, we can say that knowledge and
freedom co-exists. A good religious moralist is the one who acts according to
his freedom in accordance with his/her knowledge. We say so, because as we have
discussed during our training, knowledge calls forth decision, and actions of
moral freedom. For example, everyone is free to become priest but knowledge
would help one to reach out his expectations.
The act of the basic freedom is the
realization of the person as a whole. Meaning this act should be judged
according to the intention, object, and circumstances. As religious moralist I
have to make decision or to act considering the three factors that would make
my act moral or human. Hence self-realization in basic freedom is a total act, in so far as it means the
self-determination of the person as a whole in face of God`s total demand upon
him. A moralist has to act by opening him/herself to God our maker.
The real value of moral act depends
on the basic free self-commitment of the person. As we know we may perform our
act which is moral or immoral without necessarily following our will. For
example, a murderer who saves someone in spite of his/her bad will. This is not
fully morally responsible, since the murderer did not commit him/herself to do
good in that case. Moral or human act finds its basis in basic freedom. Basic
freedom expresses itself in the world of human person.
III.THE REALITY OF SIN AND OF BEING
PART OF THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF SIN
According to many writers, sin is a
life turning away from God. When one turns away from God, he sins. Sin as
writes Mark O’Keefe, `` sin most
basically, is the negative fundamental option, a life turned away from God’’[12].
In this perspective, we understand that when one refuses to do what he/she
knows that God wants him/her to do he/she is sinning. For example, God tells us
to love our neighbor. When we hate our fellowmen, we sin. It`s against the will
of God. We can sin in one another way through our relationship with our friend,
our personal act, etc.
The reality of sin is very
complicated one, since man or woman is living in the world which is already
corrupted. In this sense sin can be original due to the environment factors.
That is to say sin is a human condition of living in a world where we are
influenced by more evil than we do ourselves. From this point of view sin
acquires a social dimension due to the impurity of the society, due to the
condition of evil in which one is born; he/she is infected.
III.1 Venial and Mortal sin
Sin, understood as life turn away
from God can affect the wholeness of man or woman as Bernard Haring writes, ``each sin negatively affects man`s
wholeness and creative liberty. It contradicts the very meaning and purpose of
our conscience and our freedom’’[13].When
one looses grace he/she is in a state of sin.
Mortal sin is a permanent, total
refusal of God`s love. Venial sin is the one that comes once in a while but
does not take man or woman far away from God. In this perspective, we can
understand that sin can be venial or mortal based on the gravity of the fact.
In other words, the gravity of matter can make sin mortal or venial. For
example, the one who kills his/her neighbor commits a mortal sin, and the one
who laughs at his/her neighbor commits a venial sin because the act of killing
is a grave matter while the act of laughing is a simple matter. This is how the
gravity of matter can make a sin venial or mortal.
We
have to mention that a sin can be venial or mortal based on the freedom,
knowledge, and intention. If the one who
committed the mistake was aware of that and did the act with full knowledge,
it`s a mortal sin. In case he/she commits a sin on a weighty matter without
being aware of that even if it is supposed to be mortal sin it can become a
venial sin because he/she was not free while committing mistake. In this
perspective Bernard Haring writes, ``
gravity or relevance assumes moral meaning only in proportion to the actual
development of a person`s knowledge and freedom’’[14].
From this point of view, we can understand that full knowledge and freedom are
the factors to determine that a sin is mortal or venial.
Bernard Haring argues that, ``when he transgresses the law of God in a
grave matter, with full knowledge (deliberation) and full freedom will, his sin
is mortal. If he transgresses the law of God in a matter considered relatively
unimportant, but also if he transgresses it in a grave matter but without full
knowledge and freedom of will, he commits only a venial sin’’[15].For example, who helps to abort a fetus
in order to gain money and the one who does the same under the pressure of
being killed by the soldiers. In this case two of them have committed a mistake
in grave matter, but for the first nurse since it was an act of full freedom
and full knowledge due to the weightiness of the matter has committed mortal
sin. But for the second nurse who made it under pressure because he/she was
forced to do so, it`s a venial sin. Although it`s a grave matter, it is still a
venial sin since it was not an act of full freedom and full knowledge.
We do believe that there is a strong
relation between venial and mortal sin. Venial sin which becomes permanent can
become mortal. Because it will cause damage and even put a man or woman away
from God. According to Calvin Johannes Major, ``theft of one to five ears to grain from a rich man`s harvest was no
sin, theft of from six to ten ears was a venial sin, and theft beyond eleven
ears made it mortal sin’’[16].From this, we clearly see how venial
sin can become mortal sin when it becomes permanent.
In addition, a venial sin can become
mortal when it prevails over the knowledge of man or woman and causes his/her
to commit a mortal sin. For example, the fact of drinking one drop of alcoholic
and get drunk can be understood as a venial sin, but since one or more drop of
alcoholic beverage could make man or woman drunk and push him/her to do evil
with grave consequences it becomes a mortal sin.
Regarding
this weighty matter Bernard Haring writes, `` one more drop of alcoholic beverage could make a man drunk and thus
make him guilty of mortal sin. Thus mathematics prevailed over knowledge of man
in his greatness and his weakness’’[17].
III.2 Social Sin
As
we have discussed, social has been around as long as civilization but it is a
relatively new concept for Catholics. Since sin is caused by man or woman who
is by his/her nature social being. Sin acquires social dimension. In this
perspective Mark O’Keefe writes, `` at
the same time, it has to be more clearly recognized that sin is a social, as
well as personal reality’’[18].
That is to say the social world in which we find ourselves is value laden, but
can also hide value fail to embody certain important values authentic
prioritizing of values. In this sense social sin creates value-blindness.
Social
sin describes human-made structures when they offend human dignity by causing
people to suffer oppression, exploitation or marginalization. This is in the
light of education system, policies, mentality. The clear example of this is
the killing of the indigenous people of India in the past by colonizers
(Portugal and Spain). This is an example of social sin. The second example is
the one of racism which in some countries is a mentality or habit, it is a
social sin.
From the previous paragraph we do
believe that the blending of persons to authentic values through their absence
within the structural relationship is important of social sin. This leads us to
discuss somehow thoroughly how the social sin blinds people. We express these
identifications of social sin blinding people in four aspects based on the work
of Gregory Baum quoted by Mark O’Keefe.
Ø The
first level of social sin involves the injustice and dehumanizing trends that
are built into the various societal institutions which embody people`s
collective life. The injustices and dehumanizing trends in these structural
relationships indicates that the inherent values of certain person and some of
f the values that are essential to authentic human development have been
hidden, masked or skewed in society.
Ø The
second level of social sin involves the cultural and religious symbols, which
are operative in the imagination and fostered by the society, that legitimate,
reinforce and intensify the injustice and dehumanizing trends within the
society. Symbols are the vessels in which values are enshrined and the venue by
which enter the human imagination, self-understanding and worldview. Where
cultural and religious symbols mask or hide values, they support the structural
relationships that perpetuate injustice and that hinder authentic human
development.
Ø The
third level of social sin, according to Baum, involves `` false consciousness’’ that convinces the persons that the actions
are based on the ordinary structures of the society and its prevailing symbols
are right. At this level we see an entire worldview ahs been created in which
even people of good conscience base their decisions on an inauthentic ordering
of values.
Ø The
fourth level of social sin is the level of collective decisions, generated by
this false consciousness, which further increases the injustices and
dehumanizing trends already present. The blindness to value and the hierarchy
of values is perpetuated by the ongoing interactions of persons making
decisions based on their false consciousness.[19]
The
clear example of social sin is idolatry, in Africa for example, some tribes,
each family has its own symbol or god represented by a statue what they adore
before everything. For example, the hunter would ask that statue, what they
call ancestor, before going hunting a chance to get a big animal on his way. Of
course, this representative of ancestors will give what he asked for. This
practice is done in many other fields until nowadays. This is an example of
idolatry which is social sin. Since they have been doing that and the society
in which they have been it is a cultural practice they sin without being aware
of that social sin.
From
the previous example, we can talk of structural or social sin as a complex and
inseparable whole. Sin appears first as a personal attitude of rapture and
alienation from God. This happens when the human being in his/her inner being
takes the ride of evil resulting in selfish ambition, egoism, and manipulation.
Hence the love among men or women is destroyed, and injustices, oppression,
repression, and death are generated.
In
short, sin today is considered more through our relationship with fellowmen
than what we do. Sin is a refusal to love, a life turn away from God. There are
many aspects that we sometimes ignore as sin because of the society in which we
live. For example, violence, corruption, hunger, is always with us and we
ignore that as sin because they become social affair.
IV. MORAL ORIENTATION OF HUMAN
BEING
With
freedom given to him/her, man or woman orients his/her life according to
his/her choice. This act of responsibility or basic freedom involves many
theories that we have discussed during our training. Man or woman does this in
view of his/her relationship with God, the Church, society, and the world. This
is the core of this point what we are going to discuss.
Human
being has always a lot of choices to make in life. There is pluralistic of
choices which can be against or for good, finally against or for God. In order
to be good religious moralist, we have to avoid being extremist or relativist.
We have to act by interconnecting different theories that we have discussed. In
this sense, we will talk of deontology, utilitarianism, consequentialism,
proportionalism, etc.
IV.1 Deontology, Consequentialism,
and proportionalism
In
effect, deontology seeks to evaluate human behavior in order to know the duty
of the actor. In this perspective the consequences of the act are irrelevant for
evaluating its moral status. The behavior would be moral if the act itself is
right and it is done with the right motive or intention. For example, a duty of
the professor is to teach, while duty of the student is to listen. From this
example, the consequences would be failure or success of student. Those
consequences are not taken into account in order to evaluate the moral
responsibility of the teacher as long as he has accomplished his/her duty which
is to teach.
Deontology
lies also on intention, for example the abortion in order to save the life of
mother is deontologically acceptable since the intention is the one of saving
life which is sacred. Even if the act of killing the fetus is naturally wrong
act, the motive to abort makes it understandable. In this case deontology can
be connected to the principle of double effect. The principle of double effect allows
such kind of abortion in order to save life. In the light of uterus cancer, any
reason that threatens the life of mother. But we have to mention that even if this
kind of abortion direct or indirect is morally acceptable in order to save life,
it is still a sin.
This
leads us to connect the previous idea to the notion of proportionalism. In fact
proportionalism according to what we have discussed focuses on the goal. It views the ultimate goal or end of human
life as union with God. In this way, it tries to determine which actions are
most conductive to achieve the values and goods that will lead to this ultimate
End. Hence proportionalism would ask alternative course of action would not
intend wrong and would not result in a proportionately greater amount of good
over evil. This shows that a moralist has to act proportionately, especially in
today`s world where less people are merciful, most people are ready to take
revenge on those who harmed them.
To
make clear what we have said above, the example of someone whose chicken was
stolen by another. After knowing the stealer of his chicken he/she intended to
kill him/her. He/She says, `` he/she suffered
me, I will kill him/her’’. This reaction is not proportionally acceptable,
since there is no proportion between the act of stealing chicken and of killing
human being. Proportionalism would make sure that the second act has a valuable
reason in order to exist.
To
better understand this, we will allude to Richard McCormick who explains a
proportionate reason for doing action that contains premoral evil. According to
him, `` a proportionate reason exists
when there is a value at stake at least equal to the value of being sacrificed.
Then when there is no less harmful way of protecting the value at present.
Finally the manner of protecting it under the circumstances will not actually
undermine it’’[20].
In this perspective, we do believe that a correct judgment that a proportionate
reason exists would mean that the good intended by a given action outweighs
evil results, and that forming the act would be morally acceptable.
This
following example will help us to understand the connection between deontology
and proportionalism. Abortion in order to save life of a mother performed by a
nurse is morally acceptable. First, because a nurse has accomplished his/her
duty which is to save life by giving medicine or aborting fetus that was about
to kill the mother. Secondly, it was the only mean to cure the mother, so the
duty of the nurse is to cure the mother regardless consequences. The third reason
is that the cause to abort directly or indirectly is proportionate. In the
light of ectopic pregnancy or cancerous
uterus. This is how a moralist has to act taking into account all moralities
aspects according to each case.
IV.2 Fundamental option and
conscience
Fundamental option is an orientation
that one gives to his/her life for or against good, or for or against the truth,
finally for or against God. Relying on the work of Bernard Haring, ``fundamental option is, in its intention, a
total self surrender to God and to the kingdom of good’’[21].
That is to say a religious moralist has to act according to the will of God.
The will of God in this sense is understood as doing goodness because Jesus
tells us to do goodness.
Fundamental option helps us to
orient our lives towards good or wrong. That is to say towards God or evil as Bernard
Haring writes, `` the basic decision is
whether our life will be the one of listening and responding to Him through all
our attitudes and decisions’’[22]. What we intend to say is that when we
do goodness, uprightness, we listen to God. When we do evil we turn away from
God, source of goodness. As religious moralist our life would be the one of
listening to Christ and act as He would. Thus Bernard Haring writes, `` our fundamental option in faith becomes an
inner voice calling us to act as Christ would’’[23].
For the enlightment of this, in our
concrete life whenever we have to make any decision of life, we should remember
what Christ wants us to do in a particular situation. This would be even at
risk of loosing our life because of our fundamental option to God and goodness.
For example, as religious moralist, when a girl comes to us one day asking for
advises saying that she wants to abort because she cant raise a baby due to
financial problems. In this case we have to remind ourselves what God wants us
to do. God says do not kill, since it`s not a proportionate reason, we can
conscientize her and advise her against abortion. We can also conscientize her
and help her financially if we can. Otherwise, we can help her to find a
benefactor who would help her when she delivers in order to raise that baby.
IV.3 Conscience and Virtues
Since fundamental option consists on
great decision of life, it should work with conscience. As we have discussed, conscience
is an inner voice that tells us about the righteousness or the wrongness of an
act. In this perspective, a religious moralist before making any decision of
life should listen to his/her conscience. Conscience would help him/her to
evaluate the consequences of different acts.
Consequentialism evaluates the
rationality based on the consequences that follow the act caused. But this
theory is till vague nowadays since the value of consequences depends on one
society to another. From this point of view, we do believe that conscience
should guide us in orienting our life and evaluating consequences. To make it very
clear, we allude to William Warren Bartley who says, `` some of the most topical moral questions today from disagreement
about what is evil. About whether some purported consequence of a particular moral or legal is really unsatisfactory…
on the more controversial questions our feelings about desirable and
undesirable consequences, conditioned as they are by projection, do not lead to
agreement’’[24].Hence,
it seems to be confusing to evaluate consequences of an act. We feel that a
religious moralist has to use his/her conscience in order to make a good
evaluation of consequences.
To enlighten this, we can give some
practical examples as such, debates on abortion, prostitution, homosexuality,
contraception, capital punishment which are allowed in some countries in Europe
and America. Actually, in the world it`s difficult to make people realize that
an evil is evil. We have to mention that there are some unintended consequences
can rise from time to time. Even if the consequences are predicted an agreement
would almost be impossible regarding their morality as we have explained
through the examples above. Homosexuality, abortion prostitution in some first
world countries are permissible, they do not consider that as sin anymore since
it`s socially acceptable. We might say that thy are morally acceptable in those
society. In this sense, we feel that the relationship between act of
consciousness and consequences is very important in such situations.
Conscience is very important for a
religious moralist before acting or evaluating consequences in terms
examination of conscience. This would help her or him to avoid projection as
Bartley writes, ``we can neither act
morally nor evaluate with much competence the actions of others without an
extraordinarily deep knowledge of ourselves and of our surroundings. Without
such deep understanding we discriminate only in the clumiest way between good
and bad consequence or between good and bad intention[25]. Conscience in this way is understood
as a deep knowledge of him/her own self.
After a deep knowledge of self we have virtues that should help us to
evaluate our actions not in terms of doing but in terms of being. Virtues
ethics would consider morality as ``who’’
we are because what we do and do not do just shapes the kind of person we
become. Since we are sons of God we have to act according to the will of God.
Virtues are these attitudes that
orient one`s life for good and for God. They are the fruit of a basic intention
or freedom. In this perspective, it includes a man or woman in his/her wholeness.
Virtues are profound decisions which mean fundamental option. Hence Bernard
Haring writes, `` it draws its life from
the profound decision, while it is a permanent decision for the good’’[26].Virtues
are usually theological such as faith, hope, and love, as well as moral, such
as prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. This attitude are very
important for our moral life, especially in different moral issues that we face
in today`s world.
IV.4 Natural law and Church
Magisterium
As we have discussed traditional
catholic morality in its attempts as being applicable universally relies on the
wisdom of natural law as the grounding of its teaching. Natural law has a great
influence in Church`s stance on questions on social justice and medical
matters. Human sexuality and marriage are the areas where the doctrine of the
natural law is also much evoked.
According to Saint Thomas D`Aquinas natural law is the participation of
all created realities in the eternal law. Hence created beings participate in
eternal law differently, that is to say according to their nature. Insensible
beings participate passively by following the directions of physical, chemical
and biological forces. The animals participate by instinct, human beings by way
of reason.[27]
When we talk of natural law, it is
not codified system and physical and biological law. Law in natural law does
not refer to a codified regulations prescribed by the legislator of a
particular territory. It does not mean either the physical laws like the law of
gravity. While uniformity is an important aspect of law vis a vis the
regulation of elements and organisms, human behavior is subjected to the same
regulation of animate and inanimate objects. Natural rises from the very nature
of our being. That is to say the creator of the nature made it with laws
already.
Natural law is from the nature of
the world and the nature of human being.
As saint Thomas d`Aquinas writes,
``the rule and measure of human acts is
the reason, which is the first principle of human acts’’[28].From
this point of view , we can deduct that since human beings are by their very
nature rational, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way
that conforms to their rational nature. Thus we can understand moral law as
from the nature of human beings. In this sense, moral law is understood as natural
law.
The religious moralist should act
according to natural law which has as purpose the understanding of ``who’’ we are and ``what’’ we are as human
beings. Natural law is not a product of human determination. Hence, it will tell
us what is wrong or right regardless human determination or orientation.
Natural law is a power to direct our action because it belongs to the order of
nature. In this perspective the moralist needs obedience to what the nature
tells us.
Some
examples on natural law:
·
Homosexuality
is wrong because it excludes the act of sexuality to its purpose of
procreation. In this case we refer to saint Augustine in the good of marriage
where he says,`` the first purpose of
marriage is for the sake of procreation’’[29].
·
Contraception
is
wrong in natural law because it separates love-union, procreation and can
encourage infidelity.
·
Killing is wrong, first because it
deprives life. That is to say no love for others. Secondly, killing deprives
the person from his/her contribution in a fact that life is sacred and has to
be respected.
The respect of
human life is clearly defined by the pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae on the regulation of birth. The holy father
emphasizes that according to the natural and Magisterium of the Church, act of
transmitting life is an honorable act as He writes, `` the most serious duty of
transmitting human life, for which the married
person are the free and responsible collaborators of God the Creator,
has always been a source of great joys to them’’[30].
Furthermore, the Holy Father discourage the use of contraceptive saying that,
`` upright men
can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching
of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the
consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first
of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal
infidelity and the general lowering of morality’’[31].
The
allusion we have made to Humanae Vitae is a clear example of the Magisterium of
the church which protects the dignity of the human being and the natural
values. In this perspective, a religious moralist should act according to the
rules or theories that protect the value of man or woman. We feel that those
possibilities are found in the teaching of the Church as well as in natural
law. Man or woman by his/her nature freedom can disobey God, teaching of the
Church, comprising natural law, from time to time and be back to the right way
of obedience, likewise. This is what we call conversion. Let us elaborate on
conversion.
V.PERSONAL
AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION THAT MIRRORS THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE HERE AND NOW
To talk of personal and social
transformation that would mirrors the kingdom of God in the here and now
involves talking of radical change that modern society has to do. The kingdom
of God can be understood as where there is peace, love for all, uprightness,
and goodness etc. To reach such king of kingdom a radical change is needed.
Today`s society characterized by sins needs a conversion in order to portray
the kingdom of God in our time. This leads us to elaborate on conversion`s
notion.
Bernard Haring writes, `` conversion is the ongoing activation of
creative freedom and fidelity in Christ. In a comprehensive text of moral
theology, its role is of great significance; and in a dynamic moral theology it
is, by necessity all pervasive’’[32].
In this sense, we understand conversion as a passage from one state to another.
That is to say, we refer to conversion when we deal with a kind of passage from
one state to another. Today`s world needs a such kind of conversion that would be
a passage from the sinful state to the one of grace. A passage from injustice
to justice, jealousy to love for neighbor.
The pluralistic world in which what
was immoral is now acceptable, what was destructive is acceptable. The
relativism is obvious in all. A world in which mortal sin is famous, a passage
from the mortal sin to the state of grace is needed. This conversion is not
reduced to penance, but the conversion that includes the whole person. A total
change in the light of Saul converted to Paul is needed. In this sense,
conversion is understood in terms of change in fundamental option of the person
and as progressive consolidation and activation of the same fundamental option.
Regarding the transformation in
order to mirror the kingdom of God, this should be done from a fundamental
option of each member of our society. The conversion should take place on the
deep personal level where a man or woman is able to dispose him/her whole self.
In other words, transformation of today`s sinful world should start in the
fundamental option of each one of us. This is what we call conversion as
passage from wrongness to goodness. This is not possible with superficial acts
but it`s a weighty matter that should start from the core of man or woman in
order to portray the kingdom of God in here and now.
Conversion is not reduced to
singular good act, but it concerns the wholeness of human being. For example,
when man or woman says, ``I’m sorry, my
God.’’ This is not enough to say that he/she is converted. Conversion is a
change in the whole person. Conversion is changing the whole orientation or
direction of one`s life. If man or woman uses to be a sinner, he/she has to
commit him/herself to goodness in the perspective of transformation. If one uses to do evil, he/she has to commit
him/herself to God. Hence, we may transform this sinful world to the kingdom of
God wherein is peace, love, kindness, and mutual-consideration.
This transformation should be in
terms of morality. In today`s world morality is losing its weightiness. Some
people do not care about the norms of morality. They are still living in the
permanent immorality. Hence the conversion for such kind of people would be a
total change from their deepest core. That is to say from their fundamental
option. For example, girls living in the
cities, particularly in Congo. When they dress, they do their best to leave a
space whereby their underwear might be seen. They usually show a part of their
ass by wearing a small pant or skirt so that people might be attracted. The
same girls in the cities in Congo, actually when they dress they have a kind of
blouse that would not cover whole their breast. They want the part of their
breast to be seen. This is an example of loss of morality. The transformation
in this case would be to cover their whole body for the dignity of themselves.
This is a moral conversion for them. A passage from immorality to morality.
The social transformation that can portray
the kingdom of God is also in the light of conversion by analogy. Because in a such
act of conversion the person is involved as a whole in a fundamental option.
This is a free act, realized by choosing one or another good, but more deeply a
giving of oneself to God within the center where person is present to
him/herself. Such person would actualize his/her whole being in the direction
of God, and although he/she could not capture it in full conceptual reflection.
In the light of murderer who decided to convert to Christian and from the core
of his/her person he/she decided to live a life oriented to God. This is an act
that involves the whole person. It is an act of fundamental option as a heart
of the person. Thus, `` by preferring
good to evil man aims and actions, determines himself as a whole’’[33].
Conversion
is possible in three forms:
Radical neo-conversion. Here man or
woman in his/her will has committed him/herself to love God. He/she deepens
his/her option for God and lives accordingly. After a such king of conversion
man or woman would be a new person. This is a way to transform our society. For
example, an atheist who decides to believe in God is an example of radical
new-conversion. This is a change involving whole person.
Continuous verification of one`s gift to
God. This form of conversion is the continuous of what we are, or our
self-giving to God. This is what we have to check as a process in order to see
our relationship. In this sense, we will grow, develop and mature in love.
The last is conversion from venial sin.
Venial sin is not a fundamental act engaging the entire person, conversion from
venial sin need not be on the level of disposition of self as a person, as a
whole. We do believe that if we make these three kinds of conversion our world would
portray an image of the kingdom of God.
VI. Conclusion
The
pluralistic world in which we live today presents to us many issues and
perspectives. Those choices are constructive and destructive, moral and
immoral. Human being is created free by God. He/she is surrounded by many
realities. In a such situation, human being is free to make choices among
different perspectives. Human being uses his/her knowledge, freedom,
conscience, etc I order to give a direction to his/her life. This orientation
given to one`s life might be for or against good, for or against God.
Today`s world is a sinful one which
affects human being`s life depending on the gravity of the matter. Tempted by
the realities surrounding him, human being can sin, after sinning man or woman
is free to chose whether the repentance or not. But God is always merciful
ready to welcome us in the light of the prodigal son. A religious moralist in
today`s world should carefully apply different theories discussed during our
training. He/she should be neither extremist nor relativist. In any case,
he/she has to remember that he/she would do what God wants us to do. A good
interconnection of the theories we have discussed would be helpful in making
moral judgment.
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
v Bernard
Haring. Free and Faithful in Christ.
Claretian Publication .Quenzon City,1985
v Deferrari
Ray Joseph, The father of the Church, A
new Translation, vol27, catholic university of America,1955
v Joseph
Fletcher. Moral Responsibility. SCM
Pres. London, 1967
v Josef
Fuchs, Human Values and Christian Morality.
Dublin. London,1970
v Jurgen
Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Actions, Mit press ,
Berlin,1992
v Jurgen
Habermas. Theorie de l`agir Communicationel,
vol1, Fayard, Paris, 1985
v Mark
O’Keefe. Social sin and Fundamental Option,
in Irish Theological Quarterly, vol 58
v Pensee Agissante. revue Philisophique de
l`Universite Saint Augustin de Kinshasa
v Pope
Paul VI. Humanae Vitae,1968
v Saint
Thomas, Summa Theologica,
v The
Future of Ethics and Moral Theology, Argus communication,Chicago,1968, 17
v William
Warren Bartley. Morality and Religion.
Macmillan and Coltd, London,1971
[1]
Jurgen Habermas, Theorie de l`agir communicationel,
vol1, Fayard, Paris, 1985, 20.
[2]
Jurgen Moral consciousness and communicative actions, Mit press , Berlin,1992,4
[3]
Bernard Haring, Free and Faithful in
Christ, Claretian Publication, Quenzon City,1985,201
[4]
Paradigm of rank is our own way of talking of the influence of rank in today`s
society.
[5] This saying is translated from the language
sakata of the tribe sakata in the west of Democratic Republic of Congo.
[6]Cf.
Richard Gula, citated in handout of fundamental moral theology.
[7]
Cf. Pensee Agissante, revue
philisophique de l`Universite Saint Augustin de Kinshasa
[8]
Joseph Fletcher, Moral responsibility,
SCM Pres, London, 1967, 235.
[9]
Cf. handout, part on freedom and knowledge
[10]
Josef Fuchs, Human values and Christian
morality, Dublin, London,1970,96
[11]
Richard McCormick, The moral Theology of Vatican II, in The future of ethics
and moral theology, Argus communication,Chicago,1968, 17
[12]
Mark O’Keefe, Social sin and Fundamental
option, in Irish Theological quarterly, vol 58,90
[13]
Bernard Haring, Op.Cit.,260
[14] Ibid.,403
[15] Ibid.,405
[16]
Calvin Johannes quoted by Ibid.,403
[17] Ibid.
[18]
Mark O’Keefe, Op.Cit.,85
[19]
Cf. Mark O’Keefe, Op.Cit.,90-91
[20]
Richard McCormick, Op.cit.,15
[21]
Bernard Haring, Op.Cit.,96
[22] Ibid., 165
[23] Ibid.,187
[24]
William Warren Bartley , Morality and
religion, Macmillan and Coltd, London,1971, 65
[25] Ibid.,62
[26]
Bernard Haring, Op.Cit.,196
[27]
Cf. Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, I-H,q 91,a.1
[28]
Ibid.,Q.90.a1
[29]
Deferrari Ray Joseph, The father of the
Church, A new Translation, vol27, catholic university of America,1955, 48
[30] Humanae Vitae,n.1
[31]
Humanae Vitae,17
[32]
Bernard Haring, Op.Cit.,378
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire