VERITATIS SPLENDOR (The
Splendor of Truth)
Pope John Paul II
INDEX
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I - "Teacher,
what good must I do...?" (MT 19:16
CHAPTER II - "Do
not be conformed to this world" (ROM 12:2)
CHAPTER III - "Lest
the Cross of Christ be emptied of its power"
(1 COR 1:17)
CONCLUSION - Mary, Mother
of Mercy
ENDNOTES
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
VERITATIS SPLENDOR
ADDRESSED BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF
POPE JOHN PAUL II TO ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH REGARDING CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTIONS OF THE CHURCH'S MORAL TEACHING
Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate,
Health and the Apostolic Blessing!
THE SPLENDOUR 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).
INTRODUCTION
Jesus Christ, The True Light
that Enlightens Everyone
1. Called to salvation through
faith in Jesus Christ "the true light that enlightens everyone"
(Jn 1:9), people become "light in the Lord" and "children
of light" (Eph 5:8), and are made holy by "obedience
to the truth" (1 Pet 1:22).
This obedience is not always
easy. As a result of that mysterious original sin, committed
at the prompting of Satan, the one who is "a liar and the
father of lies" (Jn 8:44), man is constantly tempted to
turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct
it towards idols (cf. 1 Thes 1:9), exchanging "the truth
about God for a lie" (Rom 1:25). Man's capacity to know
the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened.
Thus, giving himself over to relativism and scepticism (cf. Jn
18:38), he goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from
truth itself.
But no darkness of error or of
sin can totally take away from man the light of God the Creator.
In the depths of his heart there always remains a yearning for
absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it. This
is eloquently proved by man's tireless search for knowledge in
all fields. It is proved even more by his search for the meaning
of life. The development of science and technology, this
splendid testimony of the human capacity for understanding and
for perseverance, does not free humanity from the obligation
to ask the ultimate religious questions. Rather, it spurs us
on to face the most painful and decisive of struggles, those
of the heart and of the moral conscience.
2. No one can escape from the
fundamental questions: What must I do? How do I distinguish
good from evil? The answer is only possible thanks to the
splendour of the truth which shines forth deep within the human
spirit, as the Psalmist bears witness: "There are many who
say: 'O that we might see some good! Let the light of your face
shine on us, O Lord" (Ps 4:6).
The light of God's face shines
in all its beauty on the countenance of Jesus Christ, "the
image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15), the "reflection
of God's glory" (Heb 1:3), "full of grace and truth"
(Jn 1:14). Christ is "the way, and the truth, and the life"
(Jn 14:6). Consequently the decisive answer to every one of man's
questions, his religious and moral questions in particular, is
given by Jesus Christ, or rather is Jesus Christ himself, as
the Second Vatican Council recalls: "In fact, it is only
in the mystery of the Word incarnate that light is shed on the
mystery of man. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of
the future man, namely, of Christ the Lord. It is Christ, the
last Adam, who fully discloses man to himself and unfolds his
noble calling by revealing the mystery of the Father and the
Father's love".[1]
Jesus Christ, the "light
of the nations", shines upon the face of his Church, which
he sends forth to the whole world to proclaim the Gospel to every
creature (cf. Mk 16:15).[2] Hence the Church, as the People of
God among the nations,[3] while attentive to the new challenges
of history and to mankind's efforts to discover the meaning of
life, offers to everyone the answer which comes from the truth
about Jesus Christ and his Gospel. The Church remains deeply
conscious of her "duty in every age of examining the signs
of the times and interpreting them in the light of the Gospel,
so that she can offer in a manner appropriate to each generation
replies to the continual human questionings on the meaning of
this life and the life to come and on how they are related".[4]
3. The Church's Pastors, in communion
with the Successor of Peter, are close to the faithful in this
effort; they guide and accompany them by their authoritative
teaching, finding ever new ways of speaking with love and mercy
not only to believers but to all people of good will. The Second
Vatican Council remains an extraordinary witness of this attitude
on the part of the Church which, as an "expert in humanity",[5]
places herself at the service of every individual and of the
whole world.[6]
The Church knows that the issue
of morality is one which deeply touches every person; it involves
all people, even those who do not know Christ and his Gospel
or God himself. She knows that it is precisely on the path
of the moral life that the way of salvation is open to all.
The Second Vatican Council clearly recalled this when it stated
that "those who without any fault do not know anything about
Christ or his Church, yet who search for God with a sincere heart
and under the influence of grace, try to put into effect the
will of God as known to them through the dictate of conscience...
can obtain eternal salvation". The Council added: "Nor
does divine Providence deny the helps that are necessary for
salvation to those who, through no fault of their own have not
yet attained to the express recognition of God, yet who strive,
not without divine grace, to lead an upright life. For whatever
goodness and truth is found in them is considered by the Church
as a preparation for the Gospel and bestowed by him who enlightens
everyone that they may in the end have life".[7]
The Purpose of the Present
Encyclical
4. At all times, but particularly
in the last two centuries, the Popes, whether individually or
together with the College of Bishops, have developed and proposed
a moral teaching regarding the many different spheres of human
life. In Christ's name and with his authority they have exhorted,
passed judgment and explained. In their efforts on behalf of
humanity, in fidelity to their mission, they have confirmed,
supported and consoled. With the guarantee of assistance from
the Spirit of truth they have contributed to a better understanding
of moral demands in the areas of human sexuality, the family,
and social, economic and political life. In the tradition of
the Church and in the history of humanity, their teaching represents
a constant deepening of knowledge with regard to morality.[8]
Today, however, it seems necessary
to reflect on the whole of the Church's moral teaching, with
the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic
doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted
or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within
the Christian community itself, which has experienced 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. It is no
longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an
overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral
doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical
presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the
more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end
by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive
relationship to truth. Thus the traditional doctrine regarding
the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity
of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church's moral teachings
are found simply unacceptable; and the Magisterium itself is
considered capable of intervening in matters of morality only
in order to "exhort consciences" and to "propose
values", in the light of which each individual will independently
make his or her decisions and life choices.
In particular, note should be
taken of the lack of harmony between the traditional response
of the Church and certain theological positions, encountered
even in Seminaries and in Faculties of Theology, with regard
to questions of the greatest importance for the Church and
for the life of faith of Christians, as well as for the life
of society itself. In particular, the question is asked: do the
commandments of God, which are written on the human heart and
are part of the Covenant, really have the capacity to clarify
the daily decisions of individuals and entire societies? Is it
possible to obey God and thus love God and neighbour, without
respecting these commandments in all circumstances? Also, an
opinion is frequently heard which questions the intrinsic and
unbreakable bond between faith and morality, as if membership
in the Church and her internal unity were to be decided on the
basis of faith alone, while in the sphere of morality a pluralism
of opinions and of kinds of behaviour could be tolerated, these
being left to the judgment of the individual subjective conscience
or to the diversity of social and cultural contexts.
5. Given these circumstances,
which still exist, I came to the decisionas I announced
in my Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini issued on 1 August
1987 on the second centenary of the death of Saint Alphonsus
Maria de' Liguori--to write an Encyclical with the aim of treating
"more fully and more deeply the issues regarding the very
foundations of moral theology",[9] foundations which are
being undermined by certain present day tendencies.
I address myself to you, Venerable
Brothers in the Episcopate, who share with me the responsibility
of safeguarding "sound teaching" (2 Tim 4:3), with
the intention of clearly setting forth certain aspects of
doctrine which are of crucial importance in facing what is certainly
a genuine crisis, since the difficulties which it engenders
have most serious implications for the moral life of the faithful
and for communion in the Church, as well as for a just and fraternal
social life.
If this Encyclical, so long awaited,
is being published only now, one of the reasons is that it seemed
fitting for it to be preceded by the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, which contains a complete and systematic exposition
of Christian moral teaching. The Catechism presents the moral
life of believers in its fundamental elements and in its many
aspects as the life of the "children of God": "Recognizing
in the faith their new dignity, Christians are called to lead
henceforth a life 'worthy of the Gospel of Christ' (Phil 1:27).
Through the sacraments and prayer they receive the grace of Christ
and the gifts of his Spirit which make them capable of such a
life".[10] Consequently, while referring back to the Catechism
"as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic
doctrine",[11] the Encyclical will limit itself to dealing
with certain fundamental questions regarding the Church's
moral teaching, taking the form of a necessary discernment
about issues being debated by ethicists and moral theologians.
The specific purpose of the present Encyclical is this: to set
forth, with regard to the problems being discussed, the principles
of a moral teaching based upon Sacred Scripture and the living
Apostolic Tradition,[12] and at the same time to shed light on
the presuppositions and consequences of the dissent which that
teaching has met.
Chapter I
"Teacher, What
Good Must I Do...?"
(Mt 19:16).
Christ and the Answer to the
Question About Morality
Someone came to him... (Mt 19:16)
6. The dialogue of Jesus with
the rich young man, related in the nineteenth chapter of
Saint Matthew's Gospel, can serve as a useful guide for listening
once more in a lively and direct way to his moral teaching:
"Then someone came to him and said, 'Teacher, what good
must I do to have eternal life?' And he said to him, 'Why do
you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.' He said
to him, 'Which ones?' And Jesus said, 'You shall not murder;
You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall
not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother; also,
You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' The young man said
to him, 'I have kept all these; what do I still lack?' Jesus
said to him, 'If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions
and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in
heaven; then come, follow me'" (Mt 19:16-21).[13]
7. "Then someone came
to him. . .". In the young man, whom Matthew's Gospel
does not name, we can recognize every person who, consciously
or not, approaches Christ the Redeemer of man and questions
him about morality. For the young man, the "question"
is not so much about rules to be followed, but about the full
meaning of life. This is in fact the aspiration at the heart
of every human decision and action, the quiet searching and interior
prompting which sets freedom in motion. This question is ultimately
an appeal to the absolute Good which attracts us and beckons
us; it is the echo of a call from God who is the origin and goal
of man's life. Precisely in this perspective the Second Vatican
Council called for a renewal of moral theology, so that its teaching
would display the lofty vocation which the faithful have received
in Christ,[14] the only response fully capable of satisfying
the desire of the human heart.
In order to make this "encounter"
with Christ possible, God willed his Church. Indeed,
the Church "wishes to serve this single end: that each person
may be able to find Christ, in order that Christ may walk with
each person the path of life."[15]
Teacher, what good must
I do to have eternal life? (Mt 19:16)
8. The question which the rich
young man puts to Jesus of Nazareth is one which rises from the
depths of his heart. It is an essential and unavoidable question
for the life of every man, for it is about the moral good
which must be done, and about eternal life. The young man senses
that there is a connection between moral good and the fulfilment
of his own destiny. He is a devout Israelite, raised as it were
in the shadow of the Law of the Lord. If he asks Jesus this question,
we can presume that it is not because he is ignorant of the answer
contained in the Law. It is more likely that the attractiveness
of the person of Jesus had prompted within him new questions
about moral good. He feels the need to draw near to the One who
had begun his preaching with this new and decisive proclamation:
"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand;
repent, and believe in the Gospel" (Mk 1:15).
People today need to turn
to Christ once again in order to receive from him the answer
to their questions about what is good and what is evil.
Christ is the Teacher, the Risen One who has life in himself
and who is always present in his Church and in the world. It
is he who opens up to the faithful the book of the Scriptures
and, by fully revealing the Father's will, teaches the truth
about moral action. At the source and summit of the economy of
salvation, as the Alpha and the Omega of human history (cf. Rev
1:8; 21:6; 22:13), Christ sheds light on man's condition and
his integral vocation. Consequently, "the man who wishes
to understand himself thoroughly--and not just in accordance
with immediate, partial, often superficial, and even illusory
standards and measures of his beingmust with his unrest,
uncertainty and even his weakness and sinfulness, with his life
and death, draw near to Christ. He must, so to speak, enter him
with all his own self; he must 'appropriate' and assimilate the
whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order
to find himself. If this profound process takes place within
him, he then bears fruit not only of adoration of God but also
of deeper wonder at himself".[16]
If we therefore wish to go to
the heart of the Gospel's moral teaching and grasp its profound
and unchanging content, we must carefully inquire into the meaning
of the question asked by the rich young man in the Gospel and,
even more, the meaning of Jesus' reply, allowing ourselves to
be guided by him. Jesus, as a patient and sensitive teacher,
answers the young man by taking him, as it were, by the hand,
and leading him step by step to the full truth.
There is only one who is
good (Mt 19:17)
9. Jesus says: "Why do you
ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If
you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt
19:17). In the versions of the Evangelists Mark and Luke the
question is phrased in this way: "Why do you call me good?
No one is good but God alone" (Mk 10:18; cf. Lk 18:19).
Before answering the question,
Jesus wishes the young man to have a clear idea of why he asked
his question. The "Good Teacher" points out to him--and
to all of us--that the answer to the question, "What good
must I do to have eternal life?" can only be found by turning
one's mind and heart to the "One" who is good: "No
one is good but God alone" (Mk 10:18; cf. Lk 18:19). Only
God can answer the question about what is good, because he is
the Good itself.
To ask about the good,
in fact, ultimately means to turn towards God, the fullness
of goodness. Jesus shows that the young man's question is really
a religious question, and that the goodness that attracts
and at the same time obliges man has its source in God, and indeed
is God himself. God alone is worthy of being loved "with
all one's heart, and with all one's soul, and with all one's
mind" (Mt 22:37). He is the source of man's happiness. Jesus
brings the question about morally good action back to its religious
foundations, to the acknowledgment of God, who alone is goodness,
fullness of life, the final end of human activity, and perfect
happiness.
10. The Church, instructed by
the Teacher's words, believes that man, made in the image of
the Creator, redeemed by the Blood of Christ and made holy by
the presence of the Holy Spirit, has as the ultimate purpose
of his life to live "for the praise of God's glory"
(cf. Eph 1:12), striving to make each of his actions reflect
the splendour of that glory. "Know, then, O beautiful soul,
that you are the image of God", writes Saint Ambrose.
"Know that you are the glory of God (1 Cor 11:7).
Hear how you are his glory. The Prophet says: Your knowledge
has become too wonderful for me (cf. Ps. 138:6, Vulg.). That
is to say, in my work your majesty has become more wonderful;
in the counsels of men your wisdom is exalted. When I consider
myself, such as I am known to you in my secret thoughts and deepest
emotions, the mysteries of your knowledge are disclosed to me.
Know then, O man, your greatness, and be vigilant".[17]
What man is and what he must
do becomes clear as soon as God reveals himself. The
Decalogue is based on these words: "I am the Lord your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage" (Ex 20:2-3). In the "ten words" of the
Covenant with Israel, and in the whole Law, God makes himself
known and acknowledged as the One who "alone is good";
the One who despite man's sin remains the "model" for
moral action, in accordance with his command, "You shall
be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev 19:2); as
the One who, faithful to his love for man, gives him his Law
(cf. Ex 19:9-24 and 20:18-21) in order to restore man's original
and peaceful harmony with the Creator and with all creation,
and, what is more, to draw him into his divine love: "I
will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my
people" (Lev 26:12).
The moral life presents itself
as the response due to the many gratuitous initiatives
taken by God out of love for man. It is a response of love, according
to the statement made in Deuteronomy about the fundamental commandment:
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall
love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command
you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them
diligently to your children" (Dt 6:4-7). Thus the moral
life, caught up in the gratuitousness of God's love, is called
to reflect his glory: "For the one who loves God it is enough
to be pleasing to the One whom he loves: for no greater reward
should be sought than that love itself; charity in fact is of
God in such a way that God himself is charity".[18]
11. The statement that "There
is only one who is good" thus brings us back to the "first
tablet" of the commandments, which calls us to acknowledge
God as the one Lord of all and to worship him alone for his infinite
holiness (cf. Ex 20:2-11). The good is belonging to God, obeying
him, walking humbly with him in doing justice and in loving
kindness (cf. Mic 6:8). Acknowledging the Lord as God is the
very core, the heart of the Law, from which the particular
precepts flow and towards which they are ordered. In the morality
of the commandments the fact that the people of Israel belongs
to the Lord is made evident, because God alone is the One who
is good. Such is the witness of Sacred Scripture, imbued in every
one of its pages with a lively perception of God's absolute holiness:
"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts" (Is 6:3).
But if God alone is the Good,
no human effort, not even the most rigorous observance of the
commandments, succeeds in "fulfilling" the Law, that
is, acknowledging the Lord as God and rendering him the worship
due to him alone (cf. Mt 4:10). This "fulfilment"
can come only from a gift of God: the offer of a share in
the divine Goodness revealed and communicated in Jesus, the one
whom the rich young man addresses with the words "Good Teacher"
(Mk 10:17; Lk 18:18). What the young man now perhaps only dimly
perceives will in the end be fully revealed by Jesus himself
in the invitation: "Come, follow me" (Mt 19:21).
If you wish to enter into
life, keep the commandments (Mt 19:17)
12. Only God can answer the question
about the good, because he is the Good. But God has already given
an answer to this question: he did so by creating man and
ordering him with wisdom and love to his final end, through
the law which is inscribed in his heart (cf. Rom 2:15), the "natural
law". The latter "is nothing other than the light of
understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what
must be done and what must be avoided. God gave this light and
this law to man at creation".[19] He also did so in the
history of Israel, particularly in the "ten words",
the commandments of Sinai, whereby he brought into existence
the people of the Covenant (cf. Ex 24) and called them to be
his "own possession among all peoples", "a holy
nation" (Ex 19:5-6), which would radiate his holiness to
all peoples (cf. Wis 18:4; Ez 20:41). The gift of the Decalogue
was a promise and sign of the New Covenant, in which the
law would be written in a new and definitive way upon the human
heart (cf. Jer 31:31-34), replacing the law of sin which had
disfigured that heart (cf. Jer 17:1). In those days, "a
new heart" would be given, for in it would dwell "a
new spirit", the Spirit of God (cf. Ez 36:24-28).[20]
Consequently, after making the
important clarification: "There is only one who is good",
Jesus tells the young man: "If you wish to enter into life,
keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). In this way, a close
connection is made between eternal life and obedience to God's
commandments: God's commandments show man the path of life
and they lead to it. From the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses,
man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue. Jesus
himself definitively confirms them and proposes them to us as
the way and condition of salvation. The commandments are linked
to a promise. In the Old Covenant the object of the promise
was the possession of a land where the people would be able to
live in freedom and in accordance with righteousness (cf. Dt
6:20-25). In the New Covenant the object of the promise is the
"Kingdom of Heaven", as Jesus declares at the beginning
of the "Sermon on the Mount"--a sermon which contains
the fullest and most complete formulation of the New Law (cf.
Mt 5-7), clearly linked to the Decalogue entrusted by God to
Moses on Mount Sinai. This same reality of the Kingdom is referred
to in the expression "eternal life", which is a participation
in the very life of God. It is attained in its perfection only
after death, but in faith it is even now a light of truth, a
source of meaning for life, an inchoate share in the full following
of Christ. Indeed, Jesus says to his disciples after speaking
to the rich young man: "Every one who has left houses or
brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands,
for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal
life" (Mt 19:29).
13. Jesus' answer is not enough
for the young man, who continues by asking the Teacher about
the commandments which must be kept: "He said to him, 'Which
ones?'" (Mt 19:18). He asks what he must do in life in order
to show that he acknowledges God's holiness. After directing
the young man's gaze towards God, Jesus reminds him of the commandments
of the Decalogue regarding one's neighbour: "Jesus said:
'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall
not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother; also,
You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mt 19:18-19).
From the context of the conversation,
and especially from a comparison of Matthew's text with the parallel
passages in Mark and Luke, it is clear that Jesus does not intend
to list each and every one of the commandments required in order
to "enter into life", but rather wishes to draw the
young man's attention to the "centrality" of the
Decalogue with regard to every other precept, inasmuch as
it is the interpretation of what the words "I am the Lord
your God" mean for man. Nevertheless we cannot fail to notice
which commandments of the Law the Lord recalls to the young man.
They are some of the commandments belonging to the so-called
"second tablet" of the Decalogue, the summary (cf.
Rom 13:8-10) and foundation of which is the commandment of
love of neighbour: "You shall love your neighbour as
yourself" (Mt 19:19; cf. Mk 12:31). In this commandment
we find a precise expression of the singular dignity of the
human person, "the only creature that God has wanted
for its own sake".[21] The different commandments of the
Decalogue are really only so many reflections of the one commandment
about the good of the person, at the level of the many different
goods which characterize his identity as a spiritual and bodily
being in relationship with God, with his neighbour and with the
material world. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, "the Ten Commandments are part of God's Revelation.
At the same time, they teach us man's true humanity. They shed
light on the essential duties, and so indirectly on the fundamental
rights, inherent in the nature of the human person".[22]
The commandments of which Jesus
reminds the young man are meant to safeguard the good
of the person, the image of God, by protecting his goods.
"You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You
shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness" are moral
rules formulated in terms of prohibitions. These negative precepts
express with particular force the ever urgent need to protect
human life, the communion of persons in marriage, private property,
truthfulness and people's good name.
The commandments thus represent
the basic condition for love of neighbour; at the same time they
are the proof of that love. They are the first necessary step
on the journey towards freedom, its starting-point. "The
beginning of freedom", Saint Augustine writes, "is
to be free from crimes... such as murder, adultery, fornication,
theft, fraud, sacrilege and so forth. When once one is without
these crimes (and every Christian should be without them), one
begins to lift up one's head towards freedom. But this is only
the beginning of freedom, not perfect freedom...".[23]
14. This certainly does not mean
that Christ wishes to put the love of neighbour higher than,
or even to set it apart from, the love of God. This is evident
from his conversation with the teacher of the Law, who asked
him a question very much like the one asked by the young man.
Jesus refers him to the two commandments of love of God and
love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:25-27), and reminds him that
only by observing them will he have eternal life: "Do this,
and you will live" (Lk 10:28). Nonetheless it is significant
that it is precisely the second of these commandments which arouses
the curiosity of the teacher of the Law, who asks him: "And
who is my neighbour?" (Lk 10:29). The Teacher replies with
the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is critical for fully
understanding the commandment of love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:30-37).
These two commandments, on which
"depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Mt 22:40), are
profoundly connected and mutually related. Their inseparable
unity is attested to by Christ in his words and by his very
life: his mission culminates in the Cross of our Redemption (cf.
Jn 3:14-15), the sign of his indivisible love for the Father
and for humanity (cf. Jn 13:1).
Both the Old and the New Testaments
explicitly affirm that without love of neighbour, made
concrete in keeping the commandments, genuine love for God
is not possible. Saint John makes the point with extraordinary
forcefulness: "If anyone says, 'I love God', and hates his
brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom
he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 Jn
4:20). The Evangelist echoes the moral preaching of Christ, expressed
in a wonderful and unambiguous way in the parable of the Good
Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:30-37) and in his words about the final
judgment (cf. Mt 25:31-46).
15. In the "Sermon on the
Mount", the magna charta of Gospel morality,[24]
Jesus says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the
Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to
fulfil them" (Mt 5:17). Christ is the key to the Scriptures:
"You search the Scriptures...; and it is they that bear
witness to me" (Jn 5:39). Christ is the centre of the economy
of salvation, the recapitulation of the Old and New Testaments,
of the promises of the Law and of their fulfilment in the Gospel;
he is the living and eternal link between the Old and the New
Covenants. Commenting on Paul's statement that "Christ is
the end of the law" (Rom 10:4), Saint Ambrose writes: "end
not in the sense of a deficiency, but in the sense of the fullness
of the Law: a fullness which is achieved in Christ (plenitudo
legis in Christo est), since he came not to abolish the Law
but to bring it to fulfilment. In the same way that there is
an Old Testament, but all truth is in the New Testament, so it
is for the Law: what was given through Moses is a figure of the
true law. Therefore, the Mosaic Law is an image of the truth".[25]
Jesus brings God's commandments
to fulfilment, particularly the commandment of love
of neighbour, by interiorizing their demands and by bringing
out their fullest meaning. Love of neighbour springs from
a loving heart which, precisely because it loves, is ready
to live out the loftiest challenges. Jesus shows that
the commandments must not be understood as a minimum limit not
to be gone beyond, but rather as a path involving a moral and
spiritual journey towards perfection, at the heart of which is
love (cf. Col 3:14). Thus the commandment "You shall not
murder" becomes a call to an attentive love which protects
and promotes the life of one's neighbour. The precept prohibiting
adultery becomes an invitation to a pure way of looking at others,
capable of respecting the spousal meaning of the body: "You
have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall
not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment'.
But I say to you that every one who is angry with his
brother shall be liable to judgment...You have heard that it
was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'. But I say to you that
every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed
adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:21-22,27-28). Jesus
himself is the living "fulfilment" of the Law inasmuch
as he fulfils its authentic meaning by the total gift of himself:
he himself becomes a living and personal Law, who invites
people to follow him; through the Spirit, he gives the grace
to share his own life and love and provides the strength to bear
witness to that love in personal choices and actions (cf. Jn
13:34-35).
If you wish to be perfect
(Mt 19:21)
16. The answer he receives about
the commandments does not satisfy the young man, who asks Jesus
a further question. "I have kept all these; what do I
still lack?" (Mt 19:20). It is not easy to say with
a clear conscience "I have kept all these", if one
has any understanding of the real meaning of the demands contained
in God's Law. And yet, even though heis able to make this reply,
even though he has followed the moral ideal seriously and generously
from childhood, the rich young man knows that he is still far
from the goal: before the person of Jesus he realizes that he
is still lacking something. It is his awareness of this insufficiency
that Jesus addresses in his final answer. Conscious of the
young man's yearning for something greater, which would transcend
a legalistic interpretation of the commandments, the Good
Teacher invites him to enter upon the path of perfection: "If
you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give the
money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then
come, follow me" (Mt 19:21).
Like the earlier part of Jesus'
answer, this part too must be read and interpreted in the context
of the whole moral message of the Gospel, and in particular in
the context of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes (cf. Mt
5:3-12), the first of which is precisely the Beatitude of the
poor, the "poor in spirit" as Saint Matthew makes clear
(Mt 5:3), the humble. In this sense it can be said that the Beatitudes
are also relevant to the answer given by Jesus to the young man's
question: "What good must I do to have eternal life?".
Indeed, each of the Beatitudes promises, from a particular viewpoint,
that very "good" which opens man up to eternal life,
and indeed is eternal life.
The Beatitudes
are not specifically concerned with certain particular rules
of behaviour. Rather, they speak of basic attitudes and dispositions
in life and therefore they do not coincide exactly with the
commandments. On the other hand, there is no separation
or opposition between the Beatitudes and the commandments:
both refer to the good, to eternal life. The Sermon on the Mount
begins with the proclamation of the Beatitudes, but also refers
to the commandments (cf. Mt 5:20-48). At the same time, the Sermon
on the Mount demonstrates the openness of the commandments and
their orientation towards the horizon of the perfection proper
to the Beatitudes. These latter are above all promises,
from which there also indirectly flow normative indications
for the moral life. In their originality and profundity they
are a sort of self-portrait of Christ, and for this very
reason are invitations to discipleship and to communion of
life with Christ.[26]
17. We do not know how clearly
the young man in the Gospel understood the profound and challenging
import of Jesus' first reply: "If you wish to enter into
life, keep the commandments". But it is certain that the
young man's commitment to respect all the moral demands of the
commandments represents the absolutely essential ground in which
the desire for perfection can take root and mature, the desire,
that is, for the meaning of the commandments to be completely
fulfilled in following Christ. Jesus' conversation with the young
man helps us to grasp the conditions for the moral growth
of man, who has been called to perfection: the young man,
having observed all the commandments, shows that he is incapable
of taking the next step by himself alone. To do so requires mature
human freedom ("If you wish to be perfect") and God's
gift of grace ("Come, follow me").
Perfection demands that maturity
in self-giving to which human freedom is called. Jesus
points out to the young man that the commandments are the first
and indispensable condition for having eternal life; on the other
hand, for the young man to give up all he possesses and to follow
the Lord is presented as an invitation: "If you wish...".
These words of Jesus reveal the particular dynamic of freedom's
growth towards maturity, and at the same time they bear witness
to the fundamental relationship between freedom and divine law.
Human freedom and God's law are not in opposition; on the contrary,
they appeal one to the other. The follower of Christ knows that
his vocation is to freedom. "You were called to freedom,
brethren" (Gal 5:13), proclaims the Apostle Paul with joy
and pride. But he immediately adds: "only do not use your
freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be
servants of one another" (ibid.). The firmness with
which the Apostle opposes those who believe that they are justified
by the Law has nothing to do with man's "liberation"
from precepts. On the contrary, the latter are at the service
of the practice of love: "For he who loves his neighbour
has fulfilled the Law. The commandments, You shall not commit
adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall
not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this
sentence, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself
" (Rom 13:8-9). Saint Augustine, after speaking of the
observance of the commandments as being a kind of incipient,
imperfect freedom, goes on to say: "Why, someone will ask,
is it law of my reason' ... In part freedom, in part slavery:
not yet complete freedom, not yet pure, not yet whole, because
we are not yet in eternity. In part we retain our weakness and
in part we have attained freedom. All our sins were destroyed
in Baptism, but does it follow that no weakness remained after
iniquity was destroyed? Had none remained, we would live without
sin in this life. But who would dare to say this except someone
who is proud, someone unworthy of the mercy of our deliverer?...
Therefore, since some weakness has remained in us, I dare to
say that to the extent to which we serve God we are free, while
to the extent that we follow the law of sin, we are still slaves".[27]
18. Those who live "by the
flesh" experience God's law as a burden, and indeed as a
denial or at least a restriction of their own freedom. On the
other hand, those who are impelled by love and "walk by
the Spirit" (Gal 5:16), and who desire to serve others,
find in God's Law the fundamental and necessary way in which
to practise love as something freely chosen and freely lived
out. Indeed, they feel an interior urge--a genuine "necessity"
and no longer a form of coercion--not to stop at the minimum
demands of the Law, but to live them in their "fullness".
This is a still uncertain and fragile journey as long as we are
on earth, but it is one made possible by grace, which enables
us to possess the full freedom of the children of God (cf. Rom
8:21) and thus to live our moral life in a way worthy of our
sublime vocation as "sons in the Son".
This vocation to perfect love
is not restricted to a small group of individuals. The invitation,
"go, sell your possessions and give the money to the poor",
and the promise "you will have treasure in heaven",
are meant for everyone, because they bring out the full
meaning of the commandment of love for neighbour, just as the
invitation which follows, "Come, follow me", is the
new, specific form of the commandment of love of God. Both the
commandments and Jesus' invitation to the rich young man stand
at the service of a single and indivisible charity, which spontaneously
tends towards that perfection whose measure is God alone: "You,
therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect"
(Mt 5:48). In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus makes even clearer the
meaning of this perfection: "Be merciful, even as your Father
is merciful" (Lk 6:36).
"Come, follow me"
(Mt 19:2 1)
19. The way and at the same time
the content of this perfection consist in the following of Jesus,
sequela Christi, once one has given up one's own wealth
and very self. This is precisely the conclusion of Jesus' conversation
with the young man: "Come, follow me" (Mt 19:21). It
is an invitation the marvellous grandeur of which will be fully
perceived by the disciples after Christ's Resurrection, when
the Holy Spirit leads them to all truth (cf. Jn 16:13).
It is Jesus himself who takes
the initiative and calls people to follow him. His call is addressed
first to those to whom he entrusts a particular mission, beginning
with the Twelve; but it is also clear that every believer is
called to be a follower of Christ (cf. Acts 6:1). Following
Christ is thus the essential and primordial foundation of Christian
morality: just as the people of Israel followed God who led
them through the desert towards the Promised Land (cf. Ex 13:21),
so every disciple must follow Jesus, towards whom he is drawn
by the Father himself (cf. Jn 6:44).
This is not a matter only of
disposing oneself to hear a teaching and obediently accepting
a commandment. More radically, it involves holding fast to
the very person of Jesus, partaking of his life and his destiny,
sharing in his free and loving obedience to the will of the Father.
By responding in faith and following the one who is Incarnate
Wisdom, the disciple of Jesus truly becomes a disciple of
God (cf. Jn 6:45). Jesus is indeed the light of the world,
the light of life (cf. Jn 8:12). He is the shepherd who leads
his sheep and feeds them (cf. Jn 10:11-16); he is the way, and
the truth, and the life (cf. Jn 14:6). It is Jesus who leads
to the Father, so much so that to see him, the Son, is to see
the Father (cf. Jn 14:6-10). And thus to imitate the Son, "the
image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15), means to imitate
the Father.
20. Jesus asks us to follow
him and to imitate him along the path of love, a love which gives
itself completely to the brethren out of love for God: "This
is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved
you" (Jn 15:12). The word "as" requires imitation
of Jesus and of his love, of which the washing of feet is a sign:
"If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet,
you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you
an example, that you should do as I have done to you" (Jn
13:14-15). Jesus' way of acting and his words, his deeds and
his precepts constitute the moral rule of Christian life. Indeed,
his actions, and in particular his Passion and Death on the Cross,
are the living revelation of his love for the Father and for
others. This is exactly the love that Jesus wishes to be imitated
by all who follow him. It is the "new" commandment:
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another;
even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By
this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have
love for one another" (Jn 13:34-35).
The word "as" also
indicates the degree of Jesus' love, and of the love with
which his disciples are called to love one another. After saying:
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I
have loved you" (Jn 15:12), Jesus continues with words which
indicate the sacrificial gift of his life on the Cross, as the
witness to a love "to the end" (Jn 13:1): "Greater
love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends" (Jn 15:13).
As he calls the young man to
follow him along the way of perfection, Jesus asks him to be
perfect in the command of love, in "his" commandment:
to become part of the unfolding of his complete giving, to imitate
and rekindle the very love of the "Good" Teacher, the
one who loved "to the end". This is what Jesus asks
of everyone who wishes to follow him: "If any man would
come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and
follow me" (Mt 16:24).
21. Following Christ is
not an outward imitation, since it touches man at the very depths
of his being. Being a follower of Christ means becoming conformed
to him who became a servant even to giving himself on the
Cross (cf. Phil 2:5-8). Christ dwells by faith in the heart of
the believer (cf. Eph 3:17), and thus the disciple is conformed
to the Lord. This is the effect of grace, of the active
presence of the Holy Spirit in us.
Having become one with Christ,
the Christian becomes a member of his Body, which is the Church
(cf. 1 Cor 12:13,27). By the work of the Spirit, Baptism radically
configures the faithful to Christ in the Paschal Mystery of death
and resurrection; it "clothes him" in Christ (cf. Gal
3:27): "Let us rejoice and give thanks", exclaims Saint
Augustine speaking to the baptized, "for we have become
not only Christians, but Christ (...). Marvel and rejoice: we
have become Christ!".[28] Having died to sin, those who
are baptized receive new life (cf. Rom 6:3-11): alive for God
in Christ Jesus, they are called to walk by the Spirit and to
manifest the Spirit's fruits in their lives (cf. Gal 5:16-25).
Sharing in the Eucharist, the sacrament of the New Covenant
(cf. 1 Cor 11:23-29), is the culmination of our assimilation
to Christ, the source of "eternal life" (cf. Jn 6:51-58),
the source and power of that complete gift of self, which Jesus--according
to the testimony handed on by Paul--commands us to commemorate
in liturgy and in life: "As often as you eat this bread
and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes"
(1 Cor 11:26).
With God all things are
possible (Mt 19:26)
22. The conclusion of Jesus'
conversation with the rich young man is very poignant: "When
the young man heard this, he went away sorrowful, for he had
many possessions" (Mt 19:22). Not only the rich man but
the disciples themselves are taken aback by Jesus' call to discipleship,
the demands of which transcend human aspirations and abilities:
"When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded
and said, 'Then who can be saved?"' (Mt 19:25). But the
Master refers them to God's power: "With men this is
impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Mt
19:26).
In the same chapter of Matthew's
Gospel (19:3-10), Jesus, interpreting the Mosaic Law on marriage,
rejects the right to divorce, appealing to a "beginning"
more fundamental and more authoritative than the Law of Moses:
God's original plan for mankind, a plan which man after sin has
no longer been able to live up to: "For your hardness of
heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning
it was not so" (Mt 19:8). Jesus' appeal to the "beginning"
dismays the disciples, who remark: "If such is the case
of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry" (Mt
19:10). And Jesus, referring specifically to the charism of celibacy
"for the Kingdom of Heaven" (Mt 19:12), but stating
a general rule, indicates the new and surprising possibility
opened up to man by God's grace. "He said to them: 'Not
everyone can accept this saying, but only those to whom it is
given"' (Mt 19:11).
To imitate and live out the love
of Christ is not possible for man by his own strength alone.
He becomes capable of this love only by virtue of a gift received.
As the Lord Jesus receives the love of his Father, so he in turn
freely communicates that love to his disciples: "As the
Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love"
(Jn 15:9). Christ's gift is his Spirit, whose first "fruit"
(cf. Gal 5:22) is charity: "God's love has been poured into
our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us"
(Rom 5:5). Saint Augustine asks: "Does love bring about
the keeping of the commandments, or does the keeping of the commandments
bring about love?" And he answers: "But who can doubt
that love comes first? For the one who does not love has no reason
for keeping the commandments".[29]
23. "The law of the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and
death" (Rom 8:2). With these words the Apostle Paul invites
us to consider in the perspective of the history of salvation,
which reaches its fulfilment in Christ, the relationship between
the (Old) Law and grace (the New Law). He recognizes
the pedagogic function of the Law, which, by enabling sinful
man to take stock of his own powerlessness and by stripping him
of the presumption of his self-sufficiency, leads him to ask
for and to receive "life in the Spirit". Only in this
new life is it possible to carry out God's commandments. Indeed,
it is through faith in Christ that we have been made righteous
(cf. Rom 3:28): the "righteousness" which the Law demands,
but is unable to give, is found by every believer to be revealed
and granted by the Lord Jesus. Once again it is Saint Augustine
who admirably sums up this Pauline dialectic of law and grace:
"The law was given that grace might be sought; and grace
was given, that the law might be fulfilled".[30]
Love and life according to the
Gospel cannot be thought of first and foremost as a kind of precept,
because what they demand is beyond man's abilities. They are
possible only as the result of a gift of God who heals, restores
and transforms the human heart by his grace: "For the law
was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ"
(Jn 1:17). The promise of eternal life is thus linked to the
gift of grace, and the gift of the Spirit which we have received
is even now the "guarantee of our inheritance" (Eph
1:14).
24. And so we find revealed the
authentic and original aspect of the commandment of love and
of the perfection to which it is ordered: we are speaking of
a possibility opened up to man exclusively by grace, by
the gift of God, by his love. On the other hand, precisely the
awareness of having received the gift, of possessing in Jesus
Christ the love of God, generates and sustains the free response
of a full love for God and the brethren, as the Apostle John
insistently reminds us in his first Letter: "Beloved, let
us love one another; for love is of God and knows God. He who
does not love does not know God; for God is love... Beloved,
if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.. . We
love, because he first loved us" (1 Jn 4:7-8,11,19).
This inseparable connection between
the Lord's grace and human freedom, between gift and task, has
been expressed in simple yet profound words by Saint Augustine
in his prayer: "Da quod iubes et iube quod vis"
(grant what you command and command what you will).[31]
The gift does not lessen but
reinforces the moral demands of love: "This is
his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son
Jesus Christ and love one another just as he has commanded us"
(1 Jn 3:32). One can "abide" in love only by keeping
the commandments, as Jesus states: "If you keep my commandments,
you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments
and abide in his love" (Jn 15:10).
Going to the heart of the moral
message of Jesus and the preaching of the Apostles, and summing
up in a remarkable way the great tradition of the Fathers of
the East and West, and of Saint Augustine in particular,[32]
Saint Thomas was able to write that "the New Law is the
grace of the Holy Spirit given through faith in Christ.[33] The
external precepts also mentioned in the Gospel dispose one for
this grace or produce its effects in one's life. Indeed, the
New Law is not content to say what must be done, but also gives
the power to "do what is true" (cf. Jn 3:21). Saint
John Chrysostom likewise observed that the New Law was promulgated
at the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven on the day of Pentecost,
and that the Apostles "did not come down from the mountain
carrying, like Moses, tablets of stone in their hands; but they
came down carrying the Holy Spirit in their hearts...having become
by his grace a living law, a living book".[34]
Lo, I am with you always,
to the close of the age (Mt 28:20)
25. Jesus' conversation with
the rich young man continues, in a sense, in every period
of history, including our own. The question: "Teacher,
what good must I do to have eternal life?" arises in the
heart of every individual, and it is Christ alone who is capable
of giving the full and definitive answer. The Teacher who expounds
God's commandments, who invites others to follow him and gives
the grace for a new life, is always present and at work in our
midst, as he himself promised: "Lo, I am with you always,
to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20). Christ's relevance
for people of all times is shown forth in his body, which is
the Church. For this reason the Lord promised his disciples
the Holy Spirit, who would "bring to their remembrance"
and teach them to understand his commandments (cf. Jn 14:26),
and who would be the principle and constant source of a new life
in the world (cf. Jn 3:5-8; Rom 8:1-13).
The moral prescriptions which
God imparted in the Old Covenant, and which attained their perfection
in the New and Eternal Covenant in the very person of the Son
of God made man, must be faithfully kept and continually put
into practice in the various different cultures throughout
the course of history. The task of interpreting these prescriptions
was entrusted by Jesus to the Apostles and to their successors,
with the special assistance of the Spirit of truth: "He
who hears you hears me" (Lk 10:16). By the light and the
strength of this Spirit the Apostles carried out their mission
of preaching the Gospel and of pointing out the "way"
of the Lord (cf. Acts 18:25), teaching above all how to follow
and imitate Christ: "For to me to live is Christ" (Phil
1:21).
26. In the moral catechesis
of the Apostles, besides exhortations and directions connected
to specific historical and cultural situations, we find an ethical
teaching with precise rules of behaviour. This is seen in their
Letters, which contain the interpretation, made under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, of the Lord's precepts as they are to be
lived in different cultural circumstances (cf. Rom 12-15; 1 Cor
11-14; Gal 5-6; Eph 4-6; Col 3-4; 1 Pt and Jas). From the Church's
beginnings, the Apostles, by virtue of their pastoral responsibility
to preach the Gospel, were vigilant over the right conduct
of Christians,[35] just as they were vigilant for the purity
of the faith and the handing down of the divine gifts in the
sacraments.[36] The first Christians, coming both from the Jewish
people and from the Gentiles, differed from the pagans not only
in their faith and their liturgy but also in the witness of their
moral conduct, which was inspired by the New Law.[37] The Church
is in fact a communion both of faith and of life; her rule of
life is "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6).
No damage must be done to the
harmony between faith and life: the unity of the Church
is damaged not only by Christians who reject or distort the truths
of faith but also by those who disregard the moral obligations
to which they are called by the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-13). The
Apostles decisively rejected any separation between the commitment
of the heart and the actions which express or prove it (cf. 1
Jn 2:3-6). And ever since Apostolic times the Church's Pastors
have unambiguously condemned the behaviour of those who fostered
division by their teaching or by their actions.[38]
27. Within the unity of the Church,
promoting and preserving the faith and the moral life is the
task entrusted by Jesus to the Apostles (cf. Mt 28:19-20), a
task which continues in the ministry of their successors. This
is apparent from the living Tradition, whereby--as the
Second Vatican Council teaches--"the Church, in her teaching,
life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to every generation
all that she is and all that she believes. This Tradition which
comes from the Apostles, progresses in the Church under the assistance
of the Holy Spirit".[39] In the Holy Spirit, the Church
receives and hands down the Scripture as the witness to the "great
things" which God has done in history (cf. Lk 1:49); she
professes by the lips of her Fathers and Doctors the truth of
the Word made flesh, puts his precepts and love into practice
in the lives of her Saints and in the sacrifice of her Martyrs,
and celebrates her hope in him in the Liturgy. By this same Tradition
Christians receive "the living voice of the Gospel",[40]
as the faithful expression of God's wisdom and will.
Within Tradition, the authentic
interpretation of the Lord's law develops, with the help
of the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit who is at the origin of the
Revelation of Jesus' commandments and teachings guarantees that
they will be reverently preserved, faithfully expounded and correctly
applied in different times and places. This constant "putting
into practice" of the commandments is the sign and fruit
of a deeper insight into Revelation and of an understanding in
the light of faith of new historical and cultural situations.
Nevertheless, it can only confirm the permanent validity of revelation
and follow in the line of the interpretation given to it by the
great Tradition of the Church's teaching and life, as witnessed
by the teaching of the Fathers, the lives of the Saints, the
Church's Liturgy and the teaching of the Magisterium.
In particular, as the Council
affirms, "the task of authentically interpreting the
word of God, whether in its written form or in that of Tradition,
has been entrusted only to those charged with the Church's living
Magisterium, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus
Christ."[41] The Church, in her life and teaching, is
thus revealed as "the pillar and bulwark of the truth"
(1 Tm 3:15), including the truth regarding moral action. Indeed,
"the Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim
moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to
make judgments about any human matter in so far as this is required
by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls."[42]
Precisely on the questions frequently
debated in moral theology today and with regard to which new
tendencies and theories have developed, the Magisterium, in fidelity
to Jesus Christ and in continuity with the Church's tradition,
senses more urgently the duty to offer its own discernment and
teaching, in order to help man in his journey towards truth and
freedom.
Chapter II
"Do not be conformed
to this world"
(Rom 12:2)
THE CHURCH AND THE DISCERNMENT
OF CERTAIN TENDENCIES IN PRESENT-DAY MORAL THEOLOGY
Teaching what befits sound doctrine (cf. Tit 2:1)
28. Our meditation on the dialogue
between Jesus and the rich young man has enabled us to bring
together the essential elements of revelation in the Old and
New Testament with regard to moral action. These are: the subordination
of man and his activity to God, the One who "alone is
good"; the relationship between the moral good of
human acts and eternal life; Christian discipleship, which
opens up before man the perspective of perfect love; and finally
the gift of the Holy Spirit, source and means of the moral
life of the "new creation" (cf. 2 Cor 5:17).
In her reflection on morality,
the Church has always kept in mind the words of Jesus
to the rich young man. Indeed, Sacred Scripture remains the living
and fruitful source of the Church's moral doctrine; as the Second
Vatican Council recalled, the Gospel is "the source of all
saving truth and moral teaching".[43] The Church has faithfully
preserved what the word of God teaches, not only about truths
which must be believed but also about moral action, action pleasing
to God (cf. 1 Th 4:1)); she has achieved a doctrinal development
analogous to that which has taken place in the realm of the truths
of faith. Assisted by the Holy Spirit who leads her into all
the truth (cf. Jn 16:13), the Church has not ceased, nor can
she ever cease, to contemplate the "mystery of the Word
Incarnate", in whom "light is shed on the mystery of
man".[44]
29. The Church's moral reflection,
always conducted in the light of Christ, the "Good Teacher",
has also developed in the specific form of the theological science
called moral theology, a science which accepts and examines Divine
Revelation while at the same time responding to the demands of
human reason. Moral theology is a reflection concerned with "morality",
with the good and the evil of human acts and of the person who
performs them; in this sense it is accessible to all people.
But it is also "theology", inasmuch as it acknowledges
that the origin and end of moral action are found in the One
who "alone is good" and who, by giving himself to man
in Christ, offers him the happiness of divine life.
The Second Vatican Council invited
scholars to take "special care for the renewal of moral
theology," in such a way that "its scientific presentation,
increasingly based on the teaching of Scripture, will cast light
on the exalted vocation of the faithful in Christ and on their
obligation to bear fruit in charity for the life of the world".[45]
The Council also encouraged theologians, "while respecting
the methods and requirements of theological science, to look
for a more appropriate way of communicating doctrine to
the people of their time; since there is a difference between
the deposit or the truths of faith and the manner in which they
are expressed, keeping the same meaning and the same judgment".[46]
This led to a further invitation, one extended to all the faithful,
but addressed to theologians in particular: "The faithful
should live in the closest contact with others of their time,
and should work for a perfect understanding of their modes of
thought and feelings as expressed in their culture".[47]
The work of many theologians
who found support in the Council's encouragement has already
borne fruit in interesting and helpful reflections about the
truths of faith to be believed and applied in life, reflections
offered in a form better suited to the sensitivities and questions
of our contemporaries. The Church, and particularly the Bishops,
to whom Jesus Christ primarily entrusted the ministry of teaching,
are deeply appreciative of this work, and encourage theologians
to continue their efforts, inspired by that profound and authentic
"fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom"
(cf. Prov 1:7).
At the same time, however, within
the context of the theological debates which followed the Council,
there have developed certain interpretations of Christian
morality which are not consistent with "sound teaching"
(2 Tm 4:3). Certainly the Church's Magisterium does not intend
to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system,
still less a philosophical one. Nevertheless, in order to "reverently
preserve and faithfully expound" the word of God,[48] the
Magisterium has the duty to state that some trends of theological
thinking and certain philosophical affirmations are incompatible
with revealed truth.[49]
30. In addressing this Encyclical
to you, my Brother Bishops, it is my intention to state the principles
necessary for discerning what is contrary to "sound doctrine",
drawing attention to those elements of the Church's moral teaching
which today appear particularly exposed to error, ambiguity or
neglect. Yet these are the very elements on which there depends
"the answer to the obscure riddles of the human condition
which today also, as in the past, profoundly disturb the human
heart. What is man? What is the meaning and purpose of our life?
What is good and what is sin? What origin and purpose do sufferings
have? What is the way to attaining true happiness? What are death,
judgment and retribution after death? Lastly, what is that final,
unutterable mystery which embraces our lives and from which we
take our origin and towards which we tend?"[50] These and
other questions, such as: what is freedom and what is its relationship
to the truth contained in God's law? what is the role of conscience
in man's moral development? how do we determine, in accordance
with the truth about the good, the specific rights and duties
of the human person?can all be summed up in the fundamental
question which the young man in the Gospel put to Jesus: "Teacher,
what good must I do to have eternal life?" Because the Church
has been sent by Jesus to preach the Gospel and to "make
disciples of all nations..., teaching them to observe all"
that he has commanded (cf. Mt 28:19-20), she today once more
puts forward the Master's reply, a reply that possesses a
light and a power capable of answering even the most controversial
and complex questions. This light and power also impel the Church
constantly to carry out not only her dogmatic but also her moral
reflection within an interdisciplinary context, which is especially
necessary in facing new issues.[51]
It is in the same light and power
that the Church's Magisterium continues to carry out its task
of discernment, accepting and living out the admonition addressed
by the Apostle Paul to Timothy: "I charge you in the presence
of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the
dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word,
be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and
exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time
will come when people will not endure sound teaching, but having
itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to
suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to
the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady,
endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry"
(2 Tim 4:1-5; cf. Tit 1:10,13-14).
You will know the truth,
and the truth will make you free (Jn 8:32)
31. The human issues most frequently
debated and differently resolved in contemporary moral reflection
are all closely related, albeit in various ways, to a crucial
issue: human freedom.
Certainly people today have a
particularly strong sense of freedom. As the Council's Declaration
on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae had already observed,
"the dignity of the human person is a concern of which people
of our time are becoming increasingly more aware".[52] Hence
the insistent demand that people be permitted to "enjoy
the use of their own responsible judgment and freedom, and decide
on their actions on grounds of duty and conscience, without external
pressure or coercion".[53] In particular, the right to religious
freedom and to respect for conscience on its journey towards
the truth is increasingly perceived as the foundation of the
cumulative rights of the person.[54]
This heightened sense of the
dignity of the human person and of his or her uniqueness, and
of the respect due to the journey of conscience, certainly represents
one of the positive achievements of modern culture. This perception,
authentic as it is, has been expressed in a number of more or
less adequate ways, some of which however diverge from the truth
about man as a creature and the image of God, and thus need to
be corrected and purified in the light of faith.[55]
32. Certain currents of modern
thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent
that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of
values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have
lost the sense of the transcendent which are explicitly atheist.
The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme
tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible
decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has
a duty to follow one's conscience is unduly added the affirmation
that one's moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it
has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable
claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion
of sincerity, authenticity and "being at peace with oneself",
so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic
conception of moral judgment.
As is immediately evident, the
crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development.
Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by
human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also
changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial
reality as an act of a person's intelligence, the function of
which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific
situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct
to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant
to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently
determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.
Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic,
wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different
from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences,
this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human
nature.
These different notions are at
the origin of currents of thought which posit a radical opposition
between moral law and conscience, and between nature and freedom.
33. Side by side with
its exaltation of freedom, yet oddly in contrast with it, modern
culture radically questions the very existence of this freedom.
A number of disciplines, grouped under the name of the "behavioural
sciences", have rightly drawn attention to the many kinds
of psychological and social conditioning which influence the
exercise of human freedom. Knowledge of these conditionings and
the study they have received represent important achievements
which have found application in various areas, for example in
pedagogy or the administration of justice. But some people, going
beyond the conclusions which can be legitimately drawn from these
observations, have come to question or even deny the very reality
of human freedom.
Mention should also be made here
of theories which misuse scientific research about the human
person. Arguing from the great variety of customs, behaviour
patterns and institutions present in humanity, these theories
end up, if not with an outright denial of universal human values,
at least with a relativistic conception of morality.
34. "Teacher, what good
must I do to have eternal life?" The question of morality,
to which Christ provides the answer, cannot prescind from
the issue of freedom. Indeed, it considers that issue central,
for there can be no morality without freedom: "It is only
in freedom that man can turn to what is good".[56] But
what sort of freedom? The Council, considering our contemporaries
who "highly regard" freedom and "assiduously pursue"
it, but who "often cultivate it in wrong ways as a licence
to do anything they please, even evil", speaks of "genuine"
freedom: "Genuine freedom is an outstanding manifestation
of the divine image in man. For God willed to leave man 'in the
power of his own counsel' (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he would seek
his Creator of his own accord and would freely arrive at full
and blessed perfection by cleaving to God".[57] Although
each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey
in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation,
and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it
once it is known.[58] As Cardinal John Henry Newman, that outstanding
defender of the rights of conscience, forcefully put it: "Conscience
has rights because it has duties".[59]
Certain tendencies in contemporary
moral theology, under the influence of the currents of subjectivism
and individualism just mentioned, involve novel interpretations
of the relationship of freedom to the moral law, human nature
and conscience, and propose novel criteria for the moral evaluation
of acts. Despite their variety, these tendencies are at one in
lessening or even denying the dependence of freedom on truth.
If we wish to undertake a critical
discernment of these tendenciesa discernment capable of
acknowledging what is legitimate, useful and of value in them,
while at the same time pointing out their ambiguities, dangers
and errors--we must examine them in the light of the fundamental
dependence of freedom upon truth, a dependence which has found
its clearest and most authoritative expression in the words of
Christ: "You will know the truth, and the truth will set
you free" (Jn 8:32).
I. Freedom and Law
Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not
eat (Gen 2:17)
35. In the Book of Genesis we
read: "The Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may
eat freely of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat of it you shall die"' (Gen 2: 16-17).
With this imagery, Revelation
teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is
evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. The man is
certainly free, inasmuch as he can understand and accept God's
commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom,
since he can eat "of every tree of the garden". But
his freedom is not unlimited: it must halt before the "tree
of the knowledge of good and evil", for it is called to
accept the moral law given by God. In fact, human freedom finds
its authentic and complete fulfilment precisely in the acceptance
of that law. God, who alone is good, knows perfectly what is
good for man, and by virtue of his very love proposes this good
to man in the commandments.
God's law does not reduce, much
less do away with human freedom; rather, it protects and promotes
that freedom. In contrast, however, some present-day cultural
tendencies have given rise to several currents of thought in
ethics which centre upon an alleged conflict between freedom
and law. These doctrines would grant to individuals or social
groups the right to determine what is good or evil. Human
freedom would thus be able to "create values" and would
enjoy a primacy over truth, to the point that truth itself would
be considered a creation of freedom. Freedom would thus lay claim
to a moral autonomy which would actually amount to an
absolute sovereignty.
36. The modern concern for the
claims of autonomy has not failed to exercise an influence
also in the sphere of Catholic moral theology. While the
latter has certainly never attempted to set human freedom against
the divine law or to question the existence of an ultimate religious
foundation for moral norms, it has, nonetheless, been led to
undertake a profound rethinking about the role of reason and
of faith in identifying moral norms with reference to specific
"inner-worldly" kinds of behaviour involving oneself,
others and the material world.
It must be acknowledged that
underlying this work of rethinking there are certain positive
concerns which to a great extent belong to the best tradition
of Catholic thought. In response to the encouragement of the
Second Vatican Council,[60] there has been a desire to foster
dialogue with modern culture, emphasizing the rational--and thus
universally understandable and communicable character of moral
norms belonging to the sphere of the natural moral law.[61] There
has also been an attempt to reaffirm the interior character of
the ethical requirements deriving from that law, requirements
which create an obligation for the will only because such an
obligation was previously acknowledged by human reason and, concretely,
by personal conscience.
Some people, however, disregarding
the dependence of human reason on Divine Wisdom and the need,
given the present state of fallen nature, for Divine Revelation
as an effective means for knowing moral truths, even those of
the natural order,[62] have actually posited a complete sovereignty
of reason in the domain of moral norms regarding the right
ordering of life in this world. Such norms would constitute the
boundaries for a merely "human" morality; they would
be the expression of a law which man in an autonomous manner
lays down for himself and which has its source exclusively in
human reason. In no way could God be considered the Author of
this law, except in the sense that human reason exercises its
autonomy in setting down laws by virtue of a primordial and total
mandate given to man by God. These trends of thought have led
to a denial, in opposition to Sacred Scripture (cf. Mt 15:3-6)
and the Church's constant teaching, of the fact that the natural
moral law has God as its author, and that man, by the use of
reason, participates in the eternal law, which it is not for
him to establish.
37. In their desire, however,
to keep the moral life in a Christian context, certain moral
theologians have introduced a sharp distinction, contrary to
Catholic doctrine.[63] between an ethical order. which
would be human in origin and of value for this world alone,
and an order of salvation for which only certain intentions
and interior attitudes regarding God and neighbor would be significant.
This has then led to an actual denial that there exists, in Divine
Revelation, a specific and determined moral content, universally
valid and permanent. The word of God would be limited to proposing
an exhortation, a generic paraenesis, which the autonomous reason
alone would then have the task of completing with normative directives
which are truly "objective", that is, adapted to the
concrete historical situation. Naturally, an autonomy conceived
in this way also involves the denial of a specific doctrinal
competence on the part of the Church and her Magisterium with
regard to particular moral norms which deal with the so-called
"human good". Such norms would not be part of the proper
content of Revelation, and would not in themselves be relevant
for salvation.
No one can fail to see that such
an interpretation of the autonomy of human reason involves positions
incompatible with Catholic teaching.
In such a context it is absolutely
necessary to clarify, in the light of the word of God and the
living Tradition of the Church, the fundamental notions of human
freedom and of the moral law, as well as their profound and intimate
relationship. Only thus will it be possible to respond to the
rightful claims of human reason in a way which accepts the valid
elements present in certain currents of contemporary moral theology
without compromising the Church's heritage of moral teaching
with ideas derived from an erroneous concept of autonomy.
God left man in the power
of his own counsel (Sir 15:14)
38. Taking up the words of Sirach,
the Second Vatican Council explains the meaning of that "genuine
freedom" which is "an outstanding manifestation of
the divine image" in man: "God willed to leave man
in the power of his own counsel, so that he would seek his Creator
of his own accord and would freely arrive at full and blessed
perfection by cleaving to God".[64] These words indicate
the wonderful depth of the sharing in God's dominion to
which man has been called: they indicate that man's dominion
extends in a certain sense over man himself. This has been a
constantly recurring theme in theological reflection on human
freedom, which is described as a form of kingship. For example,
Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The soul shows its royal
and exalted character... in that it is free and self-governed,
swayed autonomously by its own will. Of whom else can this be
said, save a king?... Thus human nature, created to rule other
creatures, was by its likeness to the King of the universe made
as it were a living image, partaking with the Archetype both
in dignity and in name".[65]
The exercise of dominion over
the world represents a great and responsible task
for man, one which involves his freedom in obedience to the Creator's
command: "Fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen 1:28).
In view of this, a rightful autonomy is due to every man, as
well as to the human community, a fact to which the Council's
Constitution Gaudium et Spes calls special attention.
This is the autonomy of earthly realities, which means that "created
things have their own laws and values which are to be gradually
discovered, utilized and ordered by man".[66]
39. Not only the world, however,
but also man himself has been entrusted to his own
care and responsibility. God left man "in the power
of his own counsel" (Sir 15:14), that he might seek his
Creator and freely attain perfection. Attaining such perfection
means personally building up that perfection in himself.
Indeed, just as man in exercising his dominion over the world
shapes it in accordance with his own intelligence and will, so
too in performing morally good acts, man strengthens, develops
and consolidates within himself his likeness to God.
Even so, the Council warns against
a false concept of the autonomy of earthly realities, one which
would maintain that "created things are not dependent on
God and that man can use them without reference to their Creator".[67]
With regard to man himself, such a concept of autonomy produces
particularly baneful effects, and eventually leads to atheism:
"Without its Creator the creature simply disappears... If
God is ignored the creature itself is impoverished".[68]
40. The teaching of the Council
emphasizes, on the one hand, the role of human reason
in discovering and applying the moral law: the moral life calls
for that creativity and originality typical of the person, the
source and cause of his own deliberate acts. On the other hand,
reason draws its own truth and authority from the eternal law,
which is none other than divine wisdom itself.[69] At the heart
of the moral life we thus find the principle of a "rightful
autonomy"[70] of man, the personal subject of his actions.
The moral law has its origin in God and always finds its source
in him: at the same time, by virtue of natural reason, which
derives from divine wisdom, it is a properly human law.
Indeed, as we have seen, the natural law "is nothing other
than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby
we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. God
gave this light and this law to man at creation".[71] The
rightful autonomy of the practical reason means that man possesses
in himself his own law, received from the Creator. Nevertheless,
the autonomy of reason cannot mean that reason itself
creates values and moral norms.[72] Were this autonomy
to imply a denial of the participation of the practical reason
in the wisdom of the divine Creator and Lawgiver, or were it
to suggest a freedom which creates moral norms, on the basis
of historical contingencies or the diversity of societies and
cultures, this sort of alleged autonomy would contradict the
Church's teaching on the truth about man.[73] It would be the
death of true freedom: "But of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat
of it you shall die" (Gen 2:17).
41. Man's genuine moral autonomy
in no way means the rejection but rather the acceptance of the
moral law, of God's command: "The Lord God gave this command
to the man. . . " (Gen 2:16). Human freedom and God's
law meet and are called to intersect, in the sense of man's
free obedience to God and of God's completely gratuitous benevolence
towards man. Hence obedience to God is not, as some would believe,
a heteronomy, as if the moral life were subject to the
will of something all-powerful, absolute, extraneous to man and
intolerant of his freedom. If in fact a heteronomy of morality
were to mean a denial of man's self-determination or the imposition
of norms unrelated to his good, this would be in contradiction
to the Revelation of the Covenant and of the redemptive Incarnation.
Such a heteronomy would be nothing but a form of alienation,
contrary to divine wisdom and to the dignity of the human person.
Others speak, and rightly so,
of theonomy, or participated theonomy, since man's
free obedience to God's law effectively implies that human reason
and human will participate in God's wisdom and providence. By
forbidding man to "eat of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil", God makes it clear that man does not originally
possess such "knowledge" as something properly his
own, but only participates in it by the light of natural reason
and of Divine Revelation, which manifest to him the requirements
and the promptings of eternal wisdom. Law must therefore be considered
an expression of divine wisdom: by submitting to the law, freedom
submits to the truth of creation. Consequently one must acknowledge
in the freedom of the human person the image and the nearness
of God, who is present in all (cf. Eph 4:6). But one must likewise
acknowledge the majesty of the God of the universe and revere
the holiness of the law of God, who is infinitely transcendent:
Deus semper maior.[74]
Blessed is the man who
takes delight in the law of the Lord (cf. Ps 1:1-2)
42. Patterned on God's freedom,
man's freedom is not negated by his obedience to the divine law;
indeed, only through this obedience does it abide in the truth
and conform to human dignity. This is clearly stated by the Council:
"Human dignity requires man to act through conscious and
free choice, as motivated and prompted personally from within,
and not through blind internal impulse or merely external pressure.
Man achieves such dignity when he frees himself from all subservience
to his feelings, and in a free choice of the good, pursues his
own end by effectively and assiduously marshaling the appropriate
means".[75]
In his journey towards God, the
One who "alone is good", man must freely do good and
avoid evil. But in order to accomplish this he must be able
to distinguish good from evil. And this takes place above
all thanks to the light of natural reason, the reflection
in man of the splendour of God's countenance. Thus Saint Thomas,
commenting on a verse of Psalm 4, writes: "After saying:
Offer right sacrifices (Ps 4:5), as if some had then asked him
what right works were, the Psalmist adds: There are many who
say: Who will make us see good? And in reply to the question
he says: The light of your face, Lord, is signed upon us,
thereby implying that the light of natural reason whereby we
discern good from evil, which is the function of the natural
law, is nothing else but an imprint on us of the divine light".[76]
It also becomes clear why this law is called the natural law:
it receives this name not because it refers to the nature of
irrational beings but because the reason which promulgates it
is proper to human nature.[77]
43. The Second Vatican Council
points out that the "supreme rule of life is the divine
law itself, the eternal, objective and universal law by which
God out of his wisdom and love arranges, directs and governs
the whole world and the paths of the human community. God has
enabled man to share in this divine law, and hence man is able
under the gentle guidance of God's providence increasingly to
recognize the unchanging truth".[78]
The Council refers back to the
classic teaching on God's eternal law. Saint Augustine
defines this as "the reason or the will of God, who commands
us to respect the natural order and forbids us to disturb it".[79]
Saint Thomas identifies it with "the type of the divine
wisdom as moving all things to their due end".[80] And God's
wisdom is providence, a love which cares. God himself loves and
cares, in the most literal and basic sense, for all creation
(cf. Wis 7:22; 8:11). But God provides for man differently from
the way in which he provides for beings which are not persons.
He cares for man not "from without", through the laws
of physical nature, but "from within", through reason,
which, by its natural knowledge of God's eternal law, is consequently
able to show man the right direction to take in his free actions.[81]
In this way God calls man to participate in his own providence,
since he desires to guide the world--not only the world of nature
but also the world of human persons--through man himself, through
man's reasonable and responsible care. The natural law
enters here as the human expression of God's eternal law. Saint
Thomas writes: "Among all others, the rational creature
is subject to divine providence in the most excellent way, insofar
as it partakes of a share of providence, being provident both
for itself and for others. Thus it has a share of the Eternal
Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act
and end. This participation of the eternal law in the rational
creature is called natural law".[82]
44. The Church has often made
reference to the Thomistic doctrine of natural law, including
it in her own teaching on morality. Thus my Venerable Predecessor
Leo XIII emphasized the essential subordination of reason
and human law to the Wisdom of God and to his law. After
stating that "the natural law is written and engraved
in the heart of each and every man, since it is none other than
human reason itself which commands us to do good and counsels
us not to sin", Leo XIII appealed to the "higher reason"
of the divine Lawgiver: "But this prescription of human
reason could not have the force of law unless it were the voice
and the interpreter of some higher reason to which our spirit
and our freedom must be subject". Indeed, the force of law
consists in its authority to impose duties, to confer rights
and to sanction certain behaviour: "Now all of this, clearly,
could not exist in man if, as his own supreme legislator, he
gave himself the rule of his own actions". And he concluded:
"It follows that the natural law is itself the eternal
law, implanted in beings endowed with reason, and inclining
them towards their right action and end, it is none other
than the eternal reason of the Creator and Ruler of the universe".[83]
Man is able to recognize good
and evil thanks to that discernment of good from evil which he
himself carries out by his reason, in particular by his reason
enlightened by Divine Revelation and by faith, through the
law which God gave to the Chosen People, beginning with the commandments
on Sinai. Israel was called to accept and to live out God's
law as a particular gift and sign of its election and
of the divine Covenant, and also as a pledge of God's blessing.
Thus Moses could address the children of Israel and ask them:
"What great nation is that that has a god so near to it
as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And
what great nation is there that has statutes and ordinances so
righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?"
(Dt 4:7-8). In the Psalms we encounter the sentiments of praise,
gratitude and veneration which the Chosen People is called to
show towards God's law, together with an exhortation to know
it, ponder it and translate it into life. "Blessed is the
man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in
the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers, but his
delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates
day and night" (Ps 1:1-2). "The law of the Lord is
perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing
the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening
the eyes" (Ps 18/19:8-9).
45. The Church gratefully accepts
and lovingly preserves the entire deposit of Revelation, treating
it with religious respect and fulfilling her mission of authentically
interpreting God's law in the light of the Gospel. In addition,
the Church receives the gift of the New Law, which is the "fulfilment"
of God's law in Jesus Christ and in his Spirit. This is an "interior"
law (cf. Jer 3 1:3 1-33), "written not with ink but with
the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on
tablets of human hearts" (2 Cor 3:3); a law of perfection
and of freedom (cf. 2 Cor 3:17); "the law of the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:2). Saint Thomas writes
that this law "can be called law in two ways. First, the
law of the spirit is the Holy Spirit... who, dwelling in the
soul, not only teaches what it is necessary to do by enlightening
the intellect on the things to be done, but also inclines the
affections to act with uprightness... Second, the law of the
spirit can be called the proper effect of the Holy Spirit, and
thus faith working through love (cf. Gal 5:6), which teaches
inwardly about the things to be done... and inclines the affections
to act".[84]
Even if moral-theological reflection
usually distinguishes between the positive or revealed law of
God and the natural law, and, within the economy of salvation,
between the "old" and the "new" law, it must
not be forgotten that these and other useful distinctions always
refer to that law whose author is the one and the same God and
which is always meant for man. The different ways in which God,
acting in history, cares for the world and for mankind are not
mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they support each other
and intersect. They have their origin and goal in the eternal,
wise and loving counsel whereby God predestines men and women
"to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29).
God's plan poses no threat to man's genuine freedom; on the contrary,
the acceptance of God's plan is the only way to affirm that freedom.
What the law requires is
written on their hearts (Rom 2:15)
46. The alleged conflict between
freedom and law is forcefully brought up once again today with
regard to the natural law, and particularly with regard to nature.
Debates about nature and freedom have always marked the
history of moral reflection; they grew especially heated at the
time of the Renaissance and the Reformation, as can be seen from
the teaching of the Council of Trent.[85] Our own age is marked,
though in a different sense, by a similar tension. The penchant
for empirical observation, the procedures of scientific objectification,
technological progress and certain forms of liberalism have led
to these two terms being set in opposition, as if a dialectic,
if not an absolute conflict, between freedom and nature were
characteristic of the structure of human history. At other periods,
it seemed that "nature" subjected man totally to its
own dynamics and even its own unbreakable laws. Today too, the
situation of the world of the senses within space and time, physio-chemical
constants, bodily processes, psychological impulses and forms
of social conditioning seem to many people the only really decisive
factors of human reality. In this context even moral facts, despite
their specificity, are frequently treated as if they were statistically
verifiable data, patterns of behaviour which can be subject to
observation or explained exclusively in categories of psychosocial
processes. As a result, some ethicists, professionally
engaged in the study of human realities and behaviour, can be
tempted to take as the standard for their discipline and even
for its operative norms the results of a statistical study of
concrete human behaviour patterns and the opinions about morality
encountered in the majority of people.
Other moralists,
however, in their concern to stress the importance of values,
remain sensitive to the dignity of freedom, but they frequently
conceive of freedom as somehow in opposition to or in conflict
with material and biological nature, over which it must progressively
assert itself. Here various approaches are at one in overlooking
the created dimension of nature and in misunderstanding its integrity.
For some, "nature" becomes reduced to raw material
for human activity and for its power: thus nature needs to be
profoundly transformed, and indeed overcome by freedom, inasmuch
as it represents a limitation and denial of freedom. For others,
it is in the untrammelled advancement of man's power, or of his
freedom, that economic, cultural, social and even moral values
are established: nature would thus come to mean everything found
in man and the world apart from freedom. In such an understanding,
nature would include in the first place the human body, its make-up
and its processes: against this physical datum would be opposed
whatever is "constructed", in other words "culture",
seen as the product and result of freedom. Human nature, understood
in this way, could be reduced to and treated as a readily available
biological or social material. This ultimately means making freedom
self-defining and a phenomenon creative of itself and its values.
Indeed, when all is said and done man would not even have a nature;
he would be his own personal life-project. Man would be nothing
more than his own freedom!
47. In this context, objections
of physicalism and naturalism have been leveled against the
traditional conception of the natural law, which is accused
of presenting as moral laws what are in themselves mere biological
laws. Consequently, in too superficial a way, a permanent and
unchanging character would be attributed to certain kinds of
human behaviour, and, on the basis of this, an attempt would
be made to formulate universally valid moral norms. According
to certain theologians, this kind of "biologistic or naturalistic
argumentation" would even be present in certain documents
of the Church's Magisterium, particularly those dealing with
the area of sexual and conjugal ethics. It was, they maintain,
on the basis of a naturalistic understanding of the sexual act
that contraception, direct sterilization, autoeroticism, pre-marital
sexual relations, homosexual relations and artificial insemination
were condemned as morally unacceptable. In the opinion of these
same theologians, a morally negative evaluation of such acts
fails to take into adequate consideration both man's character
as a rational and free being and the cultural conditioning of
all moral norms. In their view, man, as a rational being, not
only can but actually must freely determine the meaning
of his behaviour. This process of "determining the meaning"
would obviously have to take into account the many limitations
of the human being, as existing in a body and in history. Furthermore,
it would have to take into consideration the behavioural models
and the meanings which the latter acquire in any given culture.
Above all, it would have to respect the fundamental commandment
of love of God and neighbour. Still, they continue, God made
man as a rationally free being; he left him "in the power
of his own counsel" and he expects him to shape his life
in a personal and rational way. Love of neighbour would mean
above all and even exclusively respect for his freedom to make
his own decisions. The workings of typically human behaviour,
as well as the so-called "natural inclinations", would
establish at the most so they say--a general orientation towards
correct behaviour, but they cannot determine the moral assessment
of individual human acts, so complex from the viewpoint of situations.
48. Faced with this theory, one
has to consider carefully the correct relationship existing between
freedom and human nature, and in particular the place of the
human body in questions of natural law.
A freedom which claims to be
absolute ends up treating the human body as a raw datum, devoid
of any meaning and moral values until freedom has shaped it in
accordance with its design. Consequently, human nature and the
body appear as presuppositions or preambles, materially
necessary for freedom to make its choice, yet extrinsic
to the person, the subject and the human act. Their functions
would not be able to constitute reference points for moral decisions,
because the finalities of these inclinations would be merely
physical goods, called by some "pre-moral".
To refer to them, in order to find in them rational indications
with regard to the order of morality, would be to expose oneself
to the accusation of physicalism or biologism. In this way of
thinking, the tension between freedom and a nature conceived
of in a reductive way is resolved by a division within man himself.
This moral theory does not correspond
to the truth about man and his freedom. It contradicts the Church's
teachings on the unity of the human person, whose rational
soul is per se et essentialiter the form of his body.[86]
The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of
the human being, whereby it exists as a whole--corpore et
anima unus[87]-- as a person. These definitions not only
point out that the body, which has been promised the resurrection,
will also share in glory. They also remind us that reason and
free will are linked with all the bodily and sense faculties.
The person, including the body, is completely entrusted to
himself, and it is in the unity of body and soul that the person
is the subject of his own moral acts. The person, by the
light of reason and the support of virtue, discovers in the body
the anticipatory signs, the expression and the promise of the
gift of self, in conformity with the wise plan of the Creator.
It is in the light of the dignity of the human person--a dignity
which must be affirmed for its own sake--that reason grasps the
specific moral value of certain goods towards which the person
is naturally inclined. And since the human person cannot be reduced
to a freedom which is self-designing, but entails a particular
spiritual and bodily structure, the primordial moral requirement
of loving and respecting the person as an end and never as a
mere means also implies, by its very nature, respect for certain
fundamental goods, without which one would fall into relativism
and arbitrariness.
49. A doctrine which dissociates
the moral act from the bodily dimensions of its exercise is contrary
to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition. Such a doctrine
revives, in new forms, certain ancient errors which have always
been opposed by the Church, inasmuch as they reduce the human
person to a "spiritual" and purely formal freedom.
This reduction misunderstands the moral meaning of the body and
of kinds of behaviour involving it (cf. 1 Cor 6:19). Saint Paul
declares that "the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual
perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers"
are excluded from the Kingdom of God (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). This condemnation--repeated
by the Council of Trent"[88]--lists as "mortal sins"
or "immoral practices" certain specific kinds of behaviour
the willful acceptance of which prevents believers from sharing
in the inheritance promised to them. In fact, body and soul
are inseparable: in the person, in the willing agent and
in the deliberate act, they stand or fall together.
50. At this point the true meaning
of the natural law can be understood: it refers to man's proper
and primordial nature, the "nature of the human person",[89]
which is the person himself in the unity of soul and body,
in the unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and
of all the other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit
of his end. "The natural moral law expresses and lays down
the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily
and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law
cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological
level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby
man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life
and actions and in particular to make use of his own body".[90]
To give an example, the origin and the foundation of the duty
of absolute respect for human life are to be found in the dignity
proper to the person and not simply in the natural inclination
to preserve one's own physical life. Human life, even though
it is a fundamental good of man, thus acquires a moral significance
in reference to the good of the person, who must always be affirmed
for his own sake. While it is always morally illicit to kill
an innocent human being, it can be licit, praiseworthy or even
imperative to give up one's own life (cf. Jn 15:13) out of love
of neighbour or as a witness to the truth. Only in reference
to the human person in his "unified totality", that
is, as "a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body
informed by an immortal spirit",[91] can the specifically
human meaning of the body be grasped. Indeed, natural inclinations
take on moral relevance only insofar as they refer to the human
person and his authentic fulfilment, a fulfilment which for that
matter can take place always and only in human nature. By rejecting
all manipulations of corporeity which alter its human meaning,
the Church serves man and shows him the path of true love, the
only path on which he can find the true God.
The natural law thus understood
does not allow for any division between freedom and nature. Indeed,
these two realities are harmoniously bound together, and each
is intimately linked to the other.
From the beginning it was
not so (Mt 19:8)
51. The alleged conflict between
freedom and nature also has repercussions on the interpretation
of certain specific aspects of the natural law, especially its
universality and immutability. "Where then are these
rules written", Saint Augustine wondered, "except in
the book of that light which is called truth? From thence every
just law is transcribed and transferred to the heart of the man
who works justice, not by wandering but by being, as it were,
impressed upon it, just as the image from the ring passes over
to the wax, and yet does not leave the ring".[92]
Precisely because of this "truth"
the natural law involves universality. Inasmuch as it
is inscribed in the rational nature of the person, it makes itself
felt to all beings endowed with reason and living in history.
In order to perfect himself in his specific order, the person
must do good and avoid evil, be concerned for the transmission
and preservation of life, refine and develop the riches of the
material world, cultivate social life, seek truth, practise good
and contemplate beauty.[93]
The separation which some have
posited between the freedom of individuals and the nature which
all have in common, as it emerges from certain philosophical
theories which are highly influential in present-day culture,
obscures the perception of the universality of the moral law
on the part of reason. But inasmuch as the natural law expresses
the dignity of the human person and lays the foundation for his
fundamental rights and duties, it is universal in its precepts
and its authority extends to all mankind. This universality
does not ignore the individuality of human beings, nor is
it opposed to the absolute uniqueness of each person. On the
contrary, it embraces at its root each of the person's free acts,
which are meant to bear witness to the universality of the true
good. By submitting to the common law, our acts build up the
true communion of persons and, by God's grace, practise charity,
"which binds everything together in perfect harmony"
(Col 3:14). When on the contrary they disregard the law, or even
are merely ignorant of it, whether culpably or not, our acts
damage the communion of persons, to the detriment of each.
52. It is right and just, always
and for everyone, to serve God, to render him the worship which
is his due and to honour one's parents as they deserve. Positive
precepts such as these, which order us to perform certain actions
and to cultivate certain dispositions, are universally binding;
they are "unchanging".[94] They unite in the same common
good all people of every period of history, created for "the
same divine calling and destiny".[95] These universal and
permanent laws correspond to things known by the practical reason
and are applied to particular acts through the judgment of conscience.
The acting subject personally assimilates the truth contained
in the law. He appropriates this truth of his being and makes
it his own by his acts and the corresponding virtues. The negative
precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige
each and every individual, always and in every circumstance.
It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper
et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this
kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness
of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with
God and to communion with his neighbour. It is prohibited--to
everyone and in every case--to violate these precepts. They oblige
everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone,
beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.
On the other hand, the fact that
only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances
does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important
than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandments.
The reason is this: the commandment of love of God and neighbour
does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have
a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken. Furthermore,
what must be done in any given situation depends on the circumstances,
not all of which can be foreseen; on the other hand there are
kinds of behaviour which can never, in any situation, be a proper
response a response which is in conformity with the dignity of
the person. Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result
of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing
certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing
certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than
to do evil.
The Church has always taught
that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the
moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and
New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that
these prohibitions allow no exceptions: "If you wish to
enter into life, keep the commandments ... You shall not murder,
You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall
not bear false witness" (Mt 19: 17-18).
53. The great concern of our
contemporaries for historicity and for culture has led some to
call into question the immutability of the natural law
itself, and thus the existence of "objective norms of morality"[96]
valid for all people of the present and the future, as for those
of the past. Is it ever possible, they ask, to consider as universally
valid and always binding certain rational determinations established
in the past, when no one knew the progress humanity would make
in the future?
It must certainly be admitted
that man always exists in a particular culture, but it must also
be admitted that man is not exhaustively defined by that same
culture. Moreover, the very progress of cultures demonstrates
that there is something in man which transcends those cultures.
This "something" is precisely human nature: this nature
is itself the measure of culture and the condition ensuring that
man does not become the prisoner of any of his cultures, but
asserts his personal dignity by living in accordance with the
profound truth of his being. To call into question the permanent
structural elements of man which are connected with his own bodily
dimension would not only conflict with common experience, but
would render meaningless Jesus' reference to the "beginning,"
precisely where the social and cultural context of the time had
distorted the primordial meaning and the role of certain moral
norms (cf. Mt 19:1-9). This is the reason why "the Church
affirms that underlying so many changes there are some things
which do not change and are ultimately founded upon Christ,
who is the same yesterday and today and for ever."[97] Christ
is the "Beginning" who, having taken on human nature,
definitively illumines it in its constitutive elements and in
its dynamism of charity towards God and neighbour.[98]
Certainly there is a need to
seek out and to discover the most adequate formulation
for universal and permanent moral norms in the light of different
cultural contexts, a formulation most capable of ceaselessly
expressing their historical relevance, of making them understood
and of authentically interpreting their truth. This truth of
the moral law--like that of the "deposit of faith"--unfolds
down the centuries: the norms expressing that truth remain valid
in their substance, but must be specified and determined "eodem
sensu eademque sententia"[99] in the light of historical
circumstances by the Church's Magisterium, whose decision is
preceded and accompanied by the work of interpretation and formulation
characteristic of the reason of individual believers and of theological
reflection.[100]
II. Conscience and Truth
Man's sanctuary
54. The relationship between
man's freedom and God's law is most deeply lived out in the "heart"
of the person, in his moral conscience. As the Second Vatican
Council observed: "In the depths of his conscience man detects
a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him
to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil,
the voice of conscience can when necessary speak to his heart
more specifically: '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 (cf. Rom 2:14-16)".[101]
The way in which one conceives
the relationship between freedom and law is thus intimately bound
up with one's understanding of the moral conscience. Here the
cultural tendencies referred to above in which freedom and law
are set in opposition to each another and kept apart, and freedom
is exalted almost to the point of idolatry--lead to a "creative"
understanding of moral conscience, which diverges from the
teaching of the Church's tradition and her Magisterium.
55. According to the opinion
of some theologians, the function of conscience had been reduced,
at least at a certain period in the past, to a simple application
of general moral norms to individual cases in the life of the
person. But those norms, they continue, cannot be expected to
foresee and to respect all the individual concrete acts of the
person in all their uniqueness and particularity. While such
norms might somehow be useful for a correct assessment
of the situation, they cannot replace the individual personal
decision on how to act in particular cases. The critique
already mentioned of the traditional understanding of human nature
and of its importance for the moral life has even led certain
authors to state that these norms are not so much a binding objective
criterion for judgments of conscience, but a general perspective
which helps man tentatively to put order into his personal and
social life. These authors also stress the complexity
typical of the phenomenon of conscience, a complexity profoundly
related to the whole sphere of psychology and the emotions, and
to the numerous influences exerted by the individual's social
and cultural environment. On the other hand, they give maximum
attention to the value of conscience, which the Council itself
defined as "the sanctuary of man, where he is alone with
God whose voice echoes within him".[102] This voice, it
is said, leads man not so much to a meticulous observance of
universal norms as to a creative and responsible acceptance of
the personal tasks entrusted to him by God.
In their desire to emphasize
the "creative" character of conscience, certain authors
no longer call its actions "judgments" but "decisions":
only by making these decisions "autonomously" would
man be able to attain moral maturity. Some even hold that this
process of maturing is inhibited by the excessively categorical
position adopted by the Church's Magisterium in many moral questions;
for them, the Church's interventions are the cause of unnecessary
conflicts of conscience.
56. In order to justify these
positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status
of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one
would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete
existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances
and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain
exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to
do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically
evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is
thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept,
which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience,
which would in fact make the final decision about what is good
and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize
so-called "pastoral" solutions contrary to the teaching
of the Magisterium, and to justify a "creative" hermeneutic
according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged,
in every case, by a particular negative precept.
No one can fail to realize that
these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of
the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God's
law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship,
based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment
concerning this "creative" understanding of conscience.
The judgment of conscience
57. The text of the Letter to
the Romans which has helped us to grasp the essence of the natural
law also indicates the biblical understanding of conscience,
especially in its specific connection with the law: "When
Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires,
they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have
the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their
hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting
thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them" (Rom 2:14-15).
According to Saint Paul, conscience
in a certain sense confronts man with the law, and thus becomes
a "witness" for man: a witness of his own faithfulness
or unfaithfulness with regard to the law, of his essential moral
rectitude or iniquity. Conscience is the only witness,
since what takes place in the heart of the person is hidden from
the eyes of everyone outside. Conscience makes its witness known
only to the person himself. And, in turn, only the person himself
knows what his own response is to the voice of conscience.
58. The importance of this interior
dialogue of man with himself can never be adequately appreciated.
But it is also a dialogue of man with God, the author
of the law, the primordial image and final end of man. Saint
Bonaventure teaches that "conscience is like God's herald
and messenger; it does not command things on its own authority,
but commands them as coming from God's authority, like a herald
when he proclaims the edict of the king. This is why conscience
has binding force".[103] Thus it can be said that conscience
bears witness to man's own rectitude or iniquity to man himself
but, together with this and indeed even beforehand, conscience
is the witness of God himself; whose voice and judgment
penetrate the depths of man's soul, calling him fortiler et
suaviter to obedience. "Moral conscience does not close
man within an insurmountable and impenetrable solitude, but opens
him to the call, to the voice of God. In this, and not in anything
else, lies the entire mystery and the dignity of the moral conscience:
in being the place, the sacred place where God speaks to man".[104]
59. Saint Paul does not merely
acknowledge that conscience acts as a "witness"; he
also reveals the way in which conscience performs that function.
He speaks of "conflicting thoughts" which accuse or
excuse the Gentiles with regard to their behaviour (cf. Rom 2:15).
The term "conflicting thoughts" clarifies the precise
nature of conscience: it is a moral judgment about man and
his actions, a judgment either of acquittal or of condemnation,
according as human acts are in conformity or not with the law
of God written on the heart. In the same text the Apostle clearly
speaks of the judgment of actions, the judgment of their author
and the moment when that judgment will be definitively rendered:
"(This will take place) on that day when, according to my
Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Rom
2:16).
The judgment of conscience is
a practical judgment, a judgment which makes known what
man must do or not do, or which assesses an act already performed
by him. It is a judgment which applies to a concrete situation
the rational conviction that one must love and do good and avoid
evil. This first principle of practical reason is part of the
natural law; indeed it constitutes the very foundation of the
natural law, inasmuch as it expresses that primordial insight
about good and evil, that reflection of God's creative wisdom
which, like an imperishable spark (scintilla animae),
shines in the heart of every man. But whereas the natural law
discloses the objective and universal demands of the moral good,
conscience is the application of the law to a particular case;
this application of the law thus becomes an inner dictate for
the individual, a summons to do what is good in this particular
situation. Conscience thus formulates moral obligation
in the light of the natural law: it is the obligation to do what
the individual, through the workings of his conscience, knows
to be a good he is called to do here and now. The universality
of the law and its obligation are acknowledged, not suppressed,
once reason has established the law's application in concrete
present circumstances. The judgment of conscience states "in
an ultimate way" whether a certain particular kind of behaviour
is in conformity with the law; it formulates the proximate norm
of the morality of a voluntary act, "applying the objective
law to a particular case".[105]
60. Like the natural law itself
and all practical knowledge, the judgment of conscience also
has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with
it. If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he
lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined
act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own
conscience, the proximate norm of personal morality. The
dignity of this rational forum and the authority of its voice
and judgments derive from the truth about moral good and
evil, which it is called to listen to and to express. This truth
is indicated by the "divine law", the universal
and objective norm of morality. The judgment of conscience
does not establish the law; rather it bears witness to the authority
of the natural law and of the practical reason with reference
to the supreme good, whose attractiveness the human person perceives
and whose commandments he accepts. "Conscience is not an
independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and
what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a
principle of obedience vis-a-vis the objective norm which establishes
and conditions the correspondence of its decisions with the commands
and prohibitions which are at the basis of human behaviour".[106]
61. The truth about moral good,
as that truth is declared in the law of reason, is practically
and concretely recognized by the judgment of conscience, which
leads one to take responsibility for the good or the evil one
has done. If man does evil, the just judgment of his conscience
remains within him as a witness to the universal truth of the
good, as well as to the malice of his particular choice. But
the verdict of conscience remains in him also as a pledge of
hope and mercy: while bearing witness to the evil he has done,
it also reminds him of his need, with the help of God's grace,
to ask forgiveness, to do good and to cultivate virtue constantly.
Consequently in the practical
judgment of conscience, which imposes on the person the obligation
to perform a given act, the link between freedom and truth
is made manifest. Precisely for this reason conscience expresses
itself in acts of "judgment" which reflect the truth
about the good, and not in arbitrary "decisions". The
maturity and responsibility of these judgments--and, when all
is said and done, of the individual who is their subject--are
not measured by the liberation of the conscience from objective
truth, in favour of an alleged autonomy in personal decisions,
but, on the contrary, by an insistent search for truth and by
allowing oneself to be guided by that truth in one's actions.
Seeking what is true and
good
62. Conscience, as the judgment
of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the
Council puts it, "not infrequently conscience can be mistaken
as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on
that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when
a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good,
and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed
to sin".[107] In these brief words the Council sums up the
doctrine which the Church down the centuries has developed with
regard to the erroneous conscience.
Certainly, in order to have a
"good conscience" (1 Tim 1:5), man must seek the truth
and must make judgments in accordance with that same truth. As
the Apostle Paul says, the conscience must be "confirmed
by the Holy Spirit" (cf. Rom 9:1); it must be "clear"
(2 Tim 1:3); it must not "practise cunning and tamper with
God's word", but "openly state the truth" (cf.
2 Cor 4:2). On the other hand, the Apostle also warns Christians:
"Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by
the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will
of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2).
Paul's admonition urges us to
be watchful, warning us that in the judgments of our conscience
the possibility of error is always present. Conscience is
not an infallible judge; it can make mistakes. However, error
of conscience can be the result of an invincible ignorance,
an ignorance of which the subject is not aware and which he is
unable to overcome by himself.
The Council reminds us that in
cases where such invincible ignorance is not culpable, conscience
does not lose its dignity, because even when it directs us to
act in a way not in conformity with the objective moral order,
it continues to speak in the name of that truth about the good
which the subject is called to seek sincerely.
63. In any event, it is always
from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives. In the
case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective
truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience,
it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively
considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a "subjective"
error about moral good with the "objective" truth rationally
proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value
of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent
to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment
of an erroneous conscience.[108] It is possible that the evil
done as the result of invincible ignorance or a non-culpable
error of judgment may not be imputable to the agent; but even
in this case it does not cease to be an evil, a disorder in relation
to the truth about the good. Furthermore, a good act which is
not recognized as such does not contribute to the moral growth
of the person who performs it; it does not perfect him and it
does not help to dispose him for the supreme good. Thus, before
feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should
reflect on the words of the Psalm: "Who can discern his
errors? Clear me from hidden faults" (Ps 19:12). There are
faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults,
because we have refused to walk towards the light (cf. Jn 9:39-41).
Conscience, as the ultimate concrete
judgment, compromises its dignity when it is culpably erroneous,
that is to say, "when man shows little concern for seeking
what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost
blind from being accustomed to sin".[109] Jesus alludes
to the danger of the conscience being deformed when he warns:
"The eye is the lamp of the body. So if your eye is sound,
your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not
sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the
light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Mt
6:22-23).
64. The words of Jesus just quoted
also represent a call to form our conscience, to make
it the object of a continuous conversion to what is true and
to what is good. In the same vein, Saint Paul exhorts us not
to be conformed to the mentality of this world, but to be transformed
by the renewal of our mind (cf. Rom 12:2). It is the "heart"
converted to the Lord and to the love of what is good which is
really the source of true judgments of conscience. Indeed,
in order to "prove what is the will of God, what is good
and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2), knowledge of God's
law in general is certainly necessary, but it is not sufficient:
what is essential is a sort of "connaturality" between
man and the true good.[110] Such a connaturality is rooted
in and develops through the virtuous attitudes of the individual
himself: prudence and the other cardinal virtues, and even before
these the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. This
is the meaning of Jesus' saying: "He who does what is true
comes to the light" (Jn 3:21).
Christians have a great help
for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium.
As the Council affirms: "In forming their consciences the
Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred
and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is
by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to
announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ,
and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm
the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature
itself".[111] It follows that the authority of the Church,
when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines
the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only
because freedom of conscience is never freedom "from"
the truth but always and only freedom "in" the truth,
but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian
conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings
to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing
them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith.
The Church puts herself always and only at the service of
conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by
every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14),
and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of
man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain
the truth with certainty and to abide in it.
III. Fundamental Choice and
Specific Kinds of Behavior
Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh
(Gal 5:13)
65. The heightened concern for
freedom in our own day has led many students of the behavioural
and the theological sciences to develop a more penetrating analysis
of its nature and of its dynamics. It has been rightly pointed
out that freedom is not only the choice for one or another particular
action; it is also, within that choice, a decision about oneself
and a setting of one's own life for or against the Good, for
or against the Truth, and ultimately for or against God. Emphasis
has rightly been placed on the importance of certain choices
which "shape" a person's entire moral life, and which
serve as bounds within which other particular everyday choices
can be situated and allowed to develop.
Some authors, however, have proposed
an even more radical revision of the relationship between
person and acts. They speak of a "fundamental freedom",
deeper than and different from freedom of choice, which needs
to be considered if human actions are to be correctly understood
and evaluated. According to these authors, the key role in
the moral life is to be attributed to a "fundamental
option", brought about by that fundamental freedom whereby
the person makes an overall self-determination, not through a
specific and conscious decision on the level of reflection, but
in a "transcendental" and "athematic" way.
Particular acts which flow from this option would constitute
only partial and never definitive attempts to give it expression;
they would only be its "signs" or symptoms. The immediate
object of such acts would not be absolute Good (before which
the freedom of the person would be expressed on a transcendental
level), but particular (also termed "categorical")
goods. In the opinion of some theologians, none of these goods,
which by their nature are partial, could determine the freedom
of man as a person in his totality, even though it is only by
bringing them about or refusing to do so that man is able to
express his own fundamental option.
A distinction thus comes
to be introduced between the fundamental option and deliberate
choices of a concrete kind of behaviour. In some authors
this division tends to become a separation, when they
expressly limit moral "good" and "evil" to
the transcendental dimension proper to the fundamental option,
and describe as "right" or "wrong" the choices
of particular "innerworldly" kinds of behaviour: those,
in other words, concerning man's relationship with himself, with
others and with the material world. There thus appears to be
established within human acting a clear disjunction between two
levels of morality: on the one hand the order of good and evil,
which is dependent on the will, and on the other hand specific
kinds of behaviour, which are judged to be morally right or wrong
only on the basis of a technical calculation of the proportion
between the "premoral" or "physical" goods
and evils which actually result from the action. This is pushed
to the point where a concrete kind of behaviour, even one freely
chosen, comes to be considered as a merely physical process,
and not according to the criteria proper to a human act. The
conclusion to which this eventually leads is that the properly
moral assessment of the person is reserved to his fundamental
option, prescinding in whole or in part from his choice of particular
actions, of concrete kinds of behaviour.
66. There is no doubt that Christian
moral teaching, even in its Biblical roots, acknowledges the
specific importance of a fundamental choice which qualifies the
moral life and engages freedom on a radical level before God.
It is a question of the decision of faith, of the obedience
of faith (cf. Rom 16:26) "by which man makes a total
and free self-commitment to God, offering 'the full submission
of intellect and will to God as he reveals'"[112] This faith,
which works through love (cf. Gal 5:6), comes from the core of
man, from his "heart" (cf. Rom 10:10), whence it is
called to bear fruit in works (cf. Mt 12:33-35; Lk 6:43-45; Rom
8:5-10; Gal 5:22). In the Decalogue one finds, as an introduction
to the various commandments, the basic clause: "I am the
Lord your God..." (Ex 20:2), which, by impressing upon the
numerous and varied particular prescriptions their primordial
meaning, gives the morality of the Covenant its aspect of completeness,
unity and profundity. Israel's fundamental decision, then, is
about the fundamental commandment (cf. Jos 24:14-25; Ex 19:3-8;
Mic 6:8). The morality of the New Covenant is similarly dominated
by the fundamental call of Jesus to follow him--thus he also
says to the young man: "If you wish to be perfect... then
come, follow me" (Mt 19:21); to this call the disciple must
respond with a radical decision and choice. The Gospel parables
of the treasure and the pearl of great price, for which one sells
all one's possessions, are eloquent and effective images of the
radical and unconditional nature of the decision demanded by
the Kingdom of God. The radical nature of the decision to follow
Jesus is admirably expressed in his own words: "Whoever
would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life
for my sake and the Gospel's will save it" (Mk 8:35).
Jesus' call to "come, follow
me" marks the greatest possible exaltation of human freedom,
yet at the same time it witnesses to the truth and to the obligation
of acts of faith and of decisions which can be described as involving
a fundamental option. We find a similar exaltation of human freedom
in the words of Saint Paul: "You were called to freedom,
brethren" (Gal 5:13). But the Apostle immediately adds a
grave warning: "Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity
for the flesh". This warning echoes his earlier words: "For
freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do
not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal 5:1). Paul encourages
us to be watchful, because freedom is always threatened by slavery.
And this is precisely the case when an act of faith--in the sense
of a fundamental option--becomes separated from the choice of
particular acts, as in the tendencies mentioned above.
67. These tendencies are therefore
contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself, which sees the
fundamental option as a genuine choice of freedom and links that
choice profoundly to particular acts. By his fundamental choice,
man is capable of giving his life direction and of progressing,
with the help of grace, towards his end, following God's call.
But this capacity is actually exercised in the particular choices
of specific actions, through which man deliberately conforms
himself to God's will, wisdom and law. It thus needs to be stated
that the so-called fundamental option, to the extent that
it is distinct from a generic intention and hence one not
yet determined in such a way that freedom is obligated, is always
brought into play through conscious and free decisions. Precisely
for this reason, it is revoked when man engages his freedom
in conscious decisions to the contrary, with regard to morally
grave matter.
To separate the fundamental option
from concrete kinds of behaviour means to contradict the substantial
integrity or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and
in his soul. A fundamental option understood without explicit
consideration of the potentialities which it puts into effect
and the determinations which express it does not do justice to
the rational finality immanent in man's acting and in each of
his deliberate decisions. In point of fact, the morality of human
acts is not deduced only from one's intention, orientation or
fundamental option, understood as an intention devoid of a clearly
determined binding content or as an intention with no corresponding
positive effort to fulfil the different obligations of the moral
life. Judgments about morality cannot be made without taking
into consideration whether or not the deliberate choice of a
specific kind of behaviour is in conformity with the dignity
and integral vocation of the human person. Every choice always
implies a reference by the deliberate will to the goods and evils
indicated by the natural law as goods to be pursued and evils
to be avoided. In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence
always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific
situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be
more important or urgent. But the negative moral precepts, those
prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as
intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception.
They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the
"creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever.
Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal
rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that
of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which
it forbids.
68. Here an important pastoral
consideration must be added. According to the logic of the positions
mentioned above, an individual could, by virtue of a fundamental
option, remain faithful to God independently of whether or not
certain of his choices and his acts are in conformity with specific
moral norms or rules. By virtue of a primordial option for charity,
that individual could continue to be morally good, persevere
in God's grace and attain salvation, even if certain of his specific
kinds of behaviour were deliberately and gravely contrary to
God's commandments as set forth by the Church.
In point of fact, man does not
suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental
option whereby he has made "a free self-commitment to God".[113]
With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the
giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to
the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith,
he loses "sanctifying grace", "charity" and
"eternal happiness".[114] As the Council of Trent teaches,
"the grace of justification once received is lost not only
by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other
mortal sin".[115]
Mortal and venial sin
69. As we have just seen, reflection
on the fundamental option has also led some theologians to undertake
a basic revision of the traditional distinction between mortal
sins and venial sins. They insist that the opposition
to God's law which causes the loss of sanctifying grace and eternal
damnation, when one dies in such a state of sin--could only be
the result of an act which engages the person in his totality:
in other words, an act of fundamental option. According to these
theologians, mortal sin, which separates man from God, only exists
in the rejection of God, carried out at a level of freedom which
is neither to be identified with an act of choice nor capable
of becoming the object of conscious awareness. Consequently,
they go on to say, it is difficult, at least psychologically,
to accept the fact that a Christian, who wishes to remain united
to Jesus Christ and to his Church, could so easily and repeatedly
commit mortal sins, as the "matter" itself of his actions
would sometimes indicate. Likewise, it would be hard to accept
that man is able, in a brief lapse of time, to sever radically
the bond of communion with God and afterwards be converted to
him by sincere repentance. The gravity of sin, they maintain,
ought to be measured by the degree of engagement of the freedom
of the person performing an act, rather than by the matter of
that act.
70. The Post-Synodal Apostolic
Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paentientia reaffirmed the
importance and permanent validity of the distinction between
mortal and venial sins, in accordance with the Church's tradition.
And the 1983 Synod of Bishops, from which that Exhortation emerged,
"not only reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent
concerning the existence and nature of mortal and venial sins,
but it also recalled that mortal sin is sin whose object is grave
matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate
consent."[116]
The statement of the Council
of Trent does not only consider the "grave matter"
of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is
"full awareness and deliberate consent". In any event,
both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar
with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter
does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness
or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it.
Even so, "care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal
sin to an act of 'fundamental option'--as is commonly
said today--against God", seen either as an explicit and
formal rejection of God and neighbour or as an implicit and unconscious
rejection of love. "For mortal sin exists also when a person
knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something
gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt
for the divine law, a rejection of God's love for humanity and
the whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses
charity. Consequently, the fundamental orientation can be
radically changed by particular acts. Clearly, situations
can occur which are very complex and obscure from a psychological
viewpoint, and which influence the sinner's subjective imputability.
But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot
proceed to create a theological category, which is precisely
what the 'fundamental option' is, understanding it in such a
way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional
concept of mortal sin".[117]
The separation of fundamental
option from deliberate choices of particular kinds of behaviour,
disordered in themselves or in their circumstances, which would
not engage that option, thus involves a denial of Catholic doctrine
on mortal sin: "With the whole tradition of the Church,
we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously
rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring
to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality,
something contrary to the divine will (conversto ad creaturam).
This can occur in a direct and formal way, in the sins of idolatry,
apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way, as in every act
of disobedience to God's commandments in a grave matter".[118]
IV. The Moral Act
Teleology and teleologism
71. The relationship between
man's freedom and God's law, which has its intimate and living
centre in the moral conscience, is manifested and realized in
human acts. It is precisely through his acts that man attains
perfection as man, as one who is called to seek his Creator of
his own accord and freely to arrive at full and blessed perfection
by cleaving to him.[119]
Human acts are moral acts because
they express and determine the goodness or evil of the individual
who performs them.[120] They do not produce a change merely in
the state of affairs outside of man but, to the extent that they
are deliberate choices, they give moral definition to the very
person who performs them, determining his profound spiritual
traits. This was perceptively noted by Saint Gregory of Nyssa:
"All things subject to change and to becoming never remain
constant, but continually pass from one state to another, for
better or worse... Now, human life is always subject to change;
it needs to be born ever anew... But here birth does not come
about by a foreign intervention, as is the case with bodily beings...;
it is the result of a free choice. Thus we are in a certain
way our own parents, creating ourselves as we will, by our decisions".[121]
72. The morality of acts
is defined by the relationship of man's freedom with the authentic
good. This good is established, as the eternal law, by Divine
Wisdom which orders every being towards its end: this eternal
law is known both by man's natural reason (hence it is "natural
law"), and--in an integral and perfect way--by God's supernatural
Revelation (hence it is called "divine law"). Acting
is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity
with man's true good and thus express the voluntary ordering
of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the supreme
good in whom man finds his full and perfect happiness. The first
question in the young man's conversation with Jesus: "What
good must I do to have eternal life?" (Mt 19:6) immediately
brings out the essential connection between the moral value
of an act and man's final end. Jesus, in his reply, confirms
the young man's conviction: the performance of good acts, commanded
by the One who "alone is good", constitutes the indispensable
condition of and path to eternal blessedness: "If you wish
to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). Jesus'
answer and his reference to the commandments also make it clear
that the path to that end is marked by respect for the divine
laws which safeguard human good. Only the act in conformity
with the good can be a path that leads to life.
The rational ordering of the
human act to the good in its truth and the voluntary pursuit
of that good, known by reason, constitute morality. Hence human
activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is
a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply
because the subject's intention is good.[122] Activity is morally
good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering
of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete
action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth
by reason. If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony
with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes
our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict
with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself.
73. The Christian, thanks to
God's Revelation and to faith, is aware of the "newness"
which characterizes the morality of his actions: these actions
are called to show either consistency or inconsistency with that
dignity and vocation which have been bestowed on him by grace.
In Jesus Christ and in his Spirit, the Christian is a "new
creation", a child of God; by his actions he shows his likeness
or unlikeness to the image of the Son who is the first-born among
many brethren (cf. Rom 8:29), he lives out his fidelity or infidelity
to the gift of the Spirit, and he opens or closes himself to
eternal life, to the communion of vision, love and happiness
with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[123] As Saint Cyril
of Alexandria writes, Christ "forms us according to his
image, in such a way that the traits of his divine nature shine
forth in us through sanctification and justice and the life which
is good and in conformity with virtue... The beauty of this image
shines forth in us who are in Christ, when we show ourselves
to be good in our works".[124]
Consequently the moral life has
an essential "teleological" character, since
it consists in the deliberate ordering of human acts to God,
the supreme good and ultimate end (telos) of man. This
is attested to once more by the question posed by the young man
to Jesus: "What good must I do to have eternal life?".
But this ordering to one's ultimate end is not something subjective,
dependent solely upon one's intention. It presupposes that such
acts are in themselves capable of being ordered to this end,
insofar as they are in conformity with the authentic moral good
of man, safeguarded by the commandments. This is what Jesus himself
points out in his reply to the young man: "If you wish to
enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17).
Clearly such an ordering must
be rational and free, conscious and deliberate, by virtue of
which man is "responsible" for his actions and subject
to the judgment of God, the just and good judge who, as the Apostle
Paul reminds us, rewards good and punishes evil: "We must
all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one
may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the
body" (2 Cor 5:10).
74. But on what does the moral
assessment of man's free acts depend? What is it that ensures
this ordering of human acts to God? Is it the intention
of the acting subject, the circumstances--and in particular
the consequences--of his action, or the object itself
of his act?
This is what is traditionally
called the problem of the "sources of morality". Precisely
with regard to this problem there have emerged in the last few
decades new or newly-revived theological and cultural trends
which call for careful discernment on the part of the Church's
Magisterium.
Certain ethical theories,
called "teleological," claim to be concerned
for the conformity of human acts with the ends pursued by the
agent and with the values intended by him. The criteria for evaluating
the moral rightness of an action are drawn from the weighing
of the non-moral or pre-moral goods to be gained and the
corresponding non-moral or pre-moral values to be respected.
For some, concrete behaviour would be right or wrong according
as whether or not it is capable of producing a better state of
affairs for all concerned. Right conduct would be the one capable
of "maximizing" goods and "minimizing" evils.
Many of the Catholic moralists
who follow in this direction seek to distance themselves from
utilitarianism and pragmatism, where the morality of human acts
would be judged without any reference to the man's true ultimate
end. They rightly recognize the need to find ever more consistent
rational arguments in order to justify the requirements and to
provide a foundation for the norms of the moral life. This kind
of investigation is legitimate and necessary, since the moral
order, as established by the natural law, is in principle accessible
to human reason. Furthermore, such investigation is well-suited
to meeting the demands of dialogue and cooperation with non-Catholics
and non-believers, especially in pluralistic societies.
75. But as part of the effort
to work out such a rational morality (for this reason it is sometimes
called an "autonomous morality") there exist false
solutions, linked in particular to an inadequate understanding
of the object of moral action. Some authors do not take into
sufficient consideration the fact that the will is involved in
the concrete choices which it makes: these choices are a condition
of its moral goodness and its being ordered to the ultimate end
of the person. Others are inspired by a notion of freedom
which prescinds from the actual conditions of its exercise, from
its objective reference to the truth about the good, and from
its determination through choices of concrete kinds of behaviour.
According to these theories, free will would neither be morally
subjected to specific obligations nor shaped by its choices,
while nonetheless still remaining responsible for its own acts
and for their consequences. This "teleologism",
as a method for discovering the moral norm, can thus be called--according
to terminology and approaches imported from different currents
of thought--"consequentialism" or "proportionalism."
The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a
given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable
consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing
the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on
the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects
of that choice, with a view to the "greater good" or
"lesser evil" actually possible in a particular situation.
The teleological ethical theories
(proportionalism, consequentialism), while acknowledging
that moral values are indicated by reason and by Revelation,
maintain that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition
of particular kinds of behaviour which would be in conflict,
in every circumstance and in every culture, with those values.
The acting subject would indeed be responsible for attaining
the values pursued, but in two ways: the values or goods involved
in a human act would be, from one viewpoint, of the moral
order (in relation to properly moral values, such as love
of God and neighbour, justice, etc.) and, from another viewpoint,
of the pre-moral order, which some term non-moral, physical
or ontic (in relation to the advantages and disadvantages accruing
both to the agent and to all other persons possibly involved,
such as, for example, health or its endangerment, physical integrity,
life, death, loss of material goods, etc.). In a world where
goodness is always mixed with evil, and every good effect linked
to other evil effects, the morality of an act would be judged
in two different ways: its moral "goodness" would be
judged on the basis of the subject's intention in reference to
moral goods, and its "rightness" on the basis of a
consideration of its foreseeable effects or consequences and
of their proportion. Consequently, concrete kinds of behaviour
could be described as "right" or "wrong",
without it being thereby possible to judge as morally "good"
or "bad" the will of the person choosing them. In this
way, an act which, by contradicting a universal negative norm,
directly violates goods considered as "pre-moral" could
be qualified as morally acceptable if the intention of the subject
is focused, in accordance with a "responsible" assessment
of the goods involved in the concrete action, on the moral value
judged to be decisive in the situation.
The evaluation of the consequences
of the action, based on the proportion between the act and its
effects and between the effects themselves, would regard only
the pre-moral order. The moral specificity of acts, that is their
goodness or evil, would be determined exclusively by the faithfulness
of the person to the highest values of charity and prudence,
without this faithfulness necessarily being incompatible with
choices contrary to certain particular moral precepts. Even when
grave matter is concerned, these precepts should be considered
as operative norms which are always relative and open to exceptions.
In this view, deliberate consent
to certain kinds of behaviour declared illicit by traditional
moral theology would not imply an objective moral evil.
The object of the deliberate
act
76. These theories can gain a
certain persuasive force from their affinity to the scientific
mentality, which is rightly concerned with ordering technical
and economic activities on the basis of a calculation of resources
and profits, procedures and their effects. They seek to provide
liberation from the constraints of a voluntaristic and arbitrary
morality of obligation which would ultimately be dehumanizing.
Such theories however are not
faithful to the Church's teaching, when they believe they can
justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behaviour
contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. These
theories cannot claim to be grounded in the Catholic moral tradition.
Although the latter did witness the development of a casuistry
which tried to assess the best ways to achieve the good in certain
concrete situations, it is nonetheless true that this casuistry
concerned only cases in which the law was uncertain, and thus
the absolute validity of negative moral precepts, which oblige
without exception, was not called into question. The faithful
are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts
declared and taught by the Church in the name of God, the Creator
and Lord.[125] When the Apostle Paul sums up the fulfilment of
the law in the precept of love of neighbour as oneself (cf. Rom
13:8-10), he is not weakening the commandments but reinforcing
them, since he is revealing their requirements and their gravity.
Love of God and of one's neighbour cannot be separated from
the observance of the commandments of the Covenant renewed
in the blood of Jesus Christ and in the gift of the Spirit. It
is an honour characteristic of Christians to obey God rather
than men (cf. Acts 4:19; 5:29) and accept even martyrdom as a
consequence, like the holy men and women of the Old and New Testaments,
who are considered such because they gave their lives rather
than perform this or that particular act contrary to faith or
virtue.
77. In order to offer rational
criteria for a right moral decision, the theories mentioned above
take account of the intention and consequences of human
action. Certainly there is need to take into account both the
intention--as Jesus forcefully insisted in clear disagreement
with the scribes and Pharisees, who prescribed in great detail
certain outward practices without paying attention to the heart
(cf. Mk 7:20-21; Mt 15:19)- -and the goods obtained and the evils
avoided as a result of a particular act. Responsibility demands
as much. But the consideration of these consequences, and also
of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality
of a concrete choice. The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable
as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for
determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behaviour
is "according to its species", or "in itself",
morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences
are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable
of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter
its moral species.
Moreover, everyone recognizes
the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of evaluating all
the good and evil consequences and effects--defined as pre-moral--of
one's own acts: an exhaustive rational calculation is not possible.
How then can one go about establishing proportions which depend
on a measuring, the criteria of which remain obscure? How could
an absolute obligation be justified on the basis of such debatable
calculations?
78. The morality of the human
act depends primarily and fundamentally on the "object"
rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out
by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint
Thomas.[126] In order to be able to grasp the object of an act
which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to
place oneself in the perspective of the acting person.
The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind
of behaviour. To the extent that it is in conformity with the
order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will;
it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate
end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a
given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event
of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of
its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside
world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate
decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the
acting person. Consequently, as the Catechism of the Catholic
Church teaches, "there are certain specific kinds of
behaviour that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them
involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil".[127]
And Saint Thomas observes that "it often happens that man
acts with a good intention, but without spiritual gain, because
he lacks a good will. Let us say that someone robs in order to
feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good,
the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil
done with a good intention can be excused. 'There are those who
say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation
is just' (Rom 3:8)".[128]
The reason why a good intention
is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is
also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether
that object is capable or not of being ordered to God,
to the One who "alone is good", and thus brings about
the perfection of the person. An act is therefore good if its
object is in conformity with the good of the person with respect
for the goods morally relevant for him. Christian ethics, which
pays particular attention to the moral object, does not refuse
to consider the inner "teleology" of acting, inasmuch
as it is directed to promoting the true good of the person; but
it recognizes that it is really pursued only when the essential
elements of human nature are respected. The human act, good according
to its object, is also capable of being ordered to its
ultimate end. That same act then attains its ultimate and decisive
perfection when the will actually does order it to God
through charity. As the Patron of moral theologians and confessors
teaches: "It is not enough to do good works; they need to
be done well. For our works to be good and perfect, they must
be done for the sole purpose of pleasing God."[129]
"Intrinsic evil":
it is not licit to do evil that good may come of it
(cf. Rom 3:8)
79. One must therefore reject
the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist
theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as
morally evil according to its species--its "object"--the
deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts,
apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice
is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that
act for all persons concerned.
The primary and decisive element
for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes
whether it is capable of being ordered to the good and to
the ultimate end, which is God. This capability is grasped
by reason in the very being of man, considered in his integral
truth, and therefore in his natural inclinations, his motivations
and his finalities, which always have a spiritual dimension as
well. It is precisely these which are the contents of the natural
law and hence that ordered complex of "personal goods"
which serve the "good of the person": the good which
is the person himself and his perfection. These are the goods
safeguarded by the commandments, which, according to Saint Thomas,
contain the whole natural law.[130]
80. Reason attests that there
are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable
of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict
the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts
which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically
evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always
and per se, in other words, on account of their very object,
and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting
and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying
the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially
by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts
which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances,
are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".[131]
The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect
due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts:
"Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of
homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide;
whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as
mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce
the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman
living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery,
prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading
conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments
of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and
the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization
they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer
injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".[132]
With regard to intrinsically
evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby
the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul
VI teaches: "Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful
to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil
or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even
for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it
(cf. Rom 3:8)--in other words, to intend directly something which
of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must
therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention
is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family
or of society in general".[133]
81. In teaching the existence
of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of
Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: "Do
not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God"
(1 Cor 6:9-10).
If acts are intrinsically evil,
a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their
evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain "irremediably"
evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable
of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. "As
for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata
sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy,
who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis
bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more
absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?".[134]
Consequently, circumstances or
intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue
of its object into an act "subjectively" good or defensible
as a choice.
82. Furthermore, an intention
is good when it has as its aim the true good of the person in
view of his ultimate end. But acts whose object is "not
capable of being ordered" to God and "unworthy of the
human person" are always and in every case in conflict with
that good. Consequently, respect for norms which prohibit such
acts and oblige semper et pro semper, that is, without
any exception, not only does not inhibit a good intention, but
actually represents its basic expression.
The doctrine of the object as
a source of morality represents an authentic explicitation of
the Biblical morality of the Covenant and of the commandments,
of charity and of the virtues. The moral quality of human acting
is dependent on this fidelity to the commandments, as an expression
of obedience and of love. For this reason--we repeat--the opinion
must be rejected as erroneous which maintains that it is impossible
to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate
choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, without
taking into account the intention for which the choice was made
or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for
all persons concerned. Without the rational determination
of the morality of human acting as stated above, it would
be impossible to affirm the existence of an "objective moral
order"[135] and to establish any particular norm the content
of which would be binding without exception. This would be to
the detriment of human fraternity and the truth about the good,
and would be injurious to ecclesial communion as well.
83. As is evident, in the question
of the morality of human acts, and in particular the question
of whether there exist intrinsically evil acts, we find ourselves
faced with the question of man himself, of his truth
and of the moral consequences flowing from that truth. By acknowledging
and teaching the existence of intrinsic evil in given human acts,
the Church remains faithful to the integral truth about man;
she thus respects and promotes man in his dignity and vocation.
Consequently, she must reject the theories set forth above, which
contradict this truth.
Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,
we must not be content merely to warn the faithful about the
errors and dangers of certain ethical theories. We must first
of all show the inviting splendour of that truth which is Jesus
Christ himself. In him, who is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6), man can
understand fully and live perfectly, through his good actions,
his vocation to freedom in obedience to the divine law summarized
in the commandment of love of God and neighbour. And this is
what takes place through the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit
of truth, of freedom and of love: in him we are enabled to interiorize
the law, to receive it and to live it as the motivating force
of true personal freedom: "the perfect law, the law of liberty"
(Jas 1:25).
Chapter III
"Lest the Cross
of Christ be Emptied of Its Power"
(1 Cor 1:17)
Moral Good for the Life of
the Church and of the World
For freedom Christ has set us free (Gal 5:1)
84. The fundamental question
which the moral theories mentioned above pose in a particularly
forceful way is that of the relationship of man's freedom to
God's law; it is ultimately the question of the relationship
between freedom and truth.
According to Christian faith
and the Church's teaching, "only the freedom which submits
to the Truth leads the human person to his true good. The good
of the person is to be in the Truth and to 'do' the Truth".[136]
A comparison between the Church's
teaching and today's social and cultural situation immediately
makes clear the urgent need for the Church herself to develop
an intense pastoral effort precisely with regard to this fundamental
question. "This essential bond between Truth, the Good
and Freedom has been largely lost sight of by present-day culture.
As a result, helping man to rediscover it represents nowadays
one of the specific requirements of the Church's mission, for
the salvation of the world. Pilate's question: 'What is truth'
reflects the distressing perplexity of a man who often no longer
knows who he is, whence he comes and where he is
going. Hence we not infrequently witness the fearful plunging
of the human person into situations of gradual self-destruction.
According to some, it appears that one no longer need acknowledge
the enduring absoluteness of any moral value. All around us we
encounter contempt for human life after conception and before
birth; the ongoing violation of basic rights of the person; the
unjust destruction of goods minimally necessary for a human life.
Indeed, something more serious has happened: man is no longer
convinced that only in the truth can he find salvation. The saving
power of the truth is contested, and freedom alone, uprooted
from any objectivity, is left to decide by itself what is good
and what is evil. This relativism becomes, in the field of theology,
a lack of trust in the wisdom of God, who guides man with the
moral law. Concrete situations are unfavourably contrasted with
the precepts of the moral law, nor is it any longer maintained
that, when all is said and done, the law of God is always the
one true good of man."[137]
85. The discernment which the
Church carries out with regard to these ethical theories is not
simply limited to denouncing and refuting them. In a positive
way, the Church seeks, with great love, to help all the faithful
to form a moral conscience which will make judgments and lead
to decisions in accordance with the truth, following the exhortation
of the Apostle Paul: "Do not be conformed to this world
but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may
prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and
perfect" (Rom 12:2). This effort by the Church finds its
support--the "secret" of its educative power--not so
much in doctrinal statements and pastoral appeals to vigilance,
as in constantly looking to the Lord Jesus. Each day the
Church looks to Christ with unfailing love, fully aware that
the true and final answer to the problem of morality lies in
him alone. In a particular way, it is in the Crucified Christ
that the Church finds the answer to the question troubling
so many people today: how can obedience to universal and unchanging
moral norms respect the uniqueness and individuality of the person,
and not represent a threat to his freedom and dignity? The Church
makes her own the Apostle Paul's awareness of the mission he
had received: "Christ... sent me... to preach the Gospel,
and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied
of its power... We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block
to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both
Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God"
(1 Cor 1:17,23-24). The Crucified Christ reveals the authentic
meaning of freedom, he lives it fully, in the total gift of himself
and calls his disciples to share in his freedom.
86. Rational reflection and daily
experience demonstrate the weakness which marks man's freedom.
That freedom is real but limited: its absolute and unconditional
origin is not in itself, but in the life within which it is situated
and which represents for it, at one and the same time, both a
limitation and a possibility. Human freedom belongs to us as
creatures; it is a freedom which is given as a gift, one to be
received like a seed and to be cultivated responsibly. It is
an essential part of that creaturely image which is the basis
of the dignity of the person. Within that freedom there is an
echo of the primordial vocation whereby the Creator calls man
to the true Good, and even more, through Christ's Revelation,
to become his friend and to share his own divine life. It is
at once inalienable self-possession and openness to all that
exists, in passing beyond self to knowledge and love of the other.[138]
Freedom then is rooted in the truth about man, and it is ultimately
directed towards communion.
Reason and experience not only
confirm the weakness of human freedom; they also confirm its
tragic aspects. Man comes to realize that his freedom is in some
mysterious way inclined to betray this openness to the True and
the Good, and that all too often he actually prefers to choose
finite, limited and ephemeral goods. What is more, within his
errors and negative decisions, man glimpses the source of a deep
rebellion, which leads him to reject the Truth and the Good in
order to set himself up as an absolute principle unto himself:
"You will be like God" (Gen 3:5). Consequently, freedom
itself needs to be set free. It is Christ who sets it free:
he "has set us free for freedom" (cf. Gal 5:1).
87. Christ
reveals, first and foremost, that the frank and open acceptance
of truth is the condition for authentic freedom: "You will
know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (Jn 8:32).[139]
This is truth which sets one free in the face of worldly power
and which gives the strength to endure martyrdom. So it was with
Jesus before Pilate: "For this I was born, and for this
I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth"
(Jn 18:37). The true worshippers of God must thus worship him
"in spirit and truth" (Jn 4:23): in this worship
they become free. Worship of God and a relationship with
truth are revealed in Jesus Christ as the deepest foundation
of freedom.
Furthermore, Jesus reveals by
his whole life, and not only by his words, that freedom is acquired
in love, that is, in the gift of self The one who says:
"Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13), freely goes out to
meet his Passion (cf. Mt 26:46), and in obedience to the Father
gives his life on the Cross for all men (cf. Phil 2:6-11). Contemplation
of Jesus Crucified is thus the highroad which the Church must
tread every day if she wishes to understand the full meaning
of freedom: the gift of self in service to God and one's brethren.
Communion with the Crucified and Risen Lord is the never-ending
source from which the Church draws unceasingly in order to live
in freedom, to give of herself and to serve. Commenting on the
verse in Psalm 100 "Serve the Lord with gladness",
Saint Augustine says: "In the house of the Lord, slavery
is free. It is free because it serves not out of necessity, but
out of charity... Charity should make you a servant, just as
truth has made you free... you are at once both a servant and
free: a servant, because you have become such; free, because
you are loved by God your Creator; indeed, you have also been
enabled to love your Creator... You are a servant of the Lord
and you are a freedman of the Lord. Do not go looking for a liberation
which will lead you far from the house of your liberator!"[140]
The Church, and each of her members,
is thus called to share in the munus regale of the Crucified
Christ (cf. Jn 12:32), to share in the grace and in the responsibility
of the Son of man who came "not to be served but to serve,
and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28).[141]
Jesus, then, is the living, personal
summation of perfect freedom in total obedience to the will of
God. His crucified flesh fully reveals the unbreakable bond between
freedom and truth, just as his Resurrection from the dead is
the supreme exaltation of the fruitfulness and saving power of
a freedom lived out in truth.
Walking in the light
(cf. 1 Jn 1:7)
88. The attempt to set freedom
in opposition to truth, and indeed to separate them radically,
is the consequence, manifestation and consummation of another
more serious and destructive dichotomy, that which separates
faith from morality.
This separation represents one
of the most acute pastoral concerns of the Church amid today's
growing secularism, wherein many, indeed too many, people think
and live "as if God did not exist". We are speaking
of a mentality which affects, often in a profound, extensive
and all-embracing way, even the attitudes and behaviour of Christians,
whose faith is weakened and loses its character as a new and
original criterion for thinking and acting in personal, family
and social life. In a widely de-christianized culture, the criteria
employed by believers themselves in making judgments and decisions
often appear extraneous or even contrary to those of the Gospel.
It is urgent then that Christians
should rediscover the newness of the faith and its power to
judge a prevalent and all-intrusive culture. As the Apostle
Paul admonishes us: "Once you were darkness, but now you
are light in the Lord; walk as children of the light (for the
fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and
true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no
part in the unfruitful words of darkness, but instead expose
them... Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but
as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil"
(Eph 5:8-11,15-16; cf. 1 Th 5:4-8).
It is urgent to rediscover and
to set forth once more the authentic reality of the Christian
faith, which is not simply a set of propositions to be accepted
with intellectual assent. Rather, faith is a lived knowledge
of Christ, a living remembrance of his commandments, and a truth
to be lived out. A word, in any event, is not truly received
until it passes into action, until it is put into practice. Faith
is a decision involving one's whole existence. It is an encounter,
a dialogue, a communion of love and of life between the believer
and Jesus Christ, the Way, and the Truth, and the Life (cf. Jn
14:6). It entails an act of trusting abandonment to Christ, which
enables us to live as he lived (cf. Gal 2:20), in profound love
of God and of our brothers and sisters.
89. Faith also possesses a moral
content. It gives rise to and calls for a consistent life commitment;
it entails and brings to perfection the acceptance and observance
of God's commandments. As Saint John writes, "God is light
and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship
with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according
to the truth... And by this we may be sure that we know him,
if we keep his commandments. He who says 'I know him' but disobeys
his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but
whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected.
By this we may be sure that we are in him: he who says he abides
in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked"
(1 Jn 1:5 -6; 2:3 -6).
Through the moral life, faith
becomes "confession", not only before God but also
before men: it becomes witness. "You are the light
of the world", said Jesus; "a city set on a hill cannot
be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but
on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your
light so shine before men, that they may see your good works
and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Mt 5:14-16).
These works are above all those of charity (cf. Mt 25:31-46)
and of the authentic freedom which is manifested and lived in
the gift of self, even to the total gift of self, like
that of Jesus, who on the Cross "loved the Church and gave
himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). Christ's witness is the
source, model and means for the witness of his disciples, who
are called to walk on the same road: "If any man would come
after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and
follow me" (Lk 9:23). Charity, in conformity with the radical
demands of the Gospel, can lead the believer to the supreme witness
of martyrdom. Once again this means imitating Jesus who
died on the Cross: "Be imitators of God, as beloved children",
Paul writes to the Christians of Ephesus, "and walk in love,
as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering
and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:1-2).
Martyrdom, the exaltation
of the inviolable holiness of God's law
90. The relationship between
faith and morality shines forth with all its brilliance in the
unconditional respect due to the insistent demands of the
personal dignity of every man, demands protected by those
moral norms which prohibit without exception actions which are
intrinsically evil. The universality and the immutability of
the moral norm make manifest and at the same time serve to protect
the personal dignity and inviolability of man, on whose face
is reflected the splendour of God (cf. Gen 9:5-6).
The unacceptability of "teleological",
"consequentialist" and "proportionalist"
ethical theories, which deny the existence of negative moral
norms regarding specific kinds of behaviour, norms which are
valid without exception, is confirmed in a particularly eloquent
way by Christian martyrdom, which has always accompanied and
continues to accompany the life of the Church even today.
91. In the Old Testament we already
find admirable witnesses of fidelity to the holy law of God even
to the point of a voluntary acceptance of death. A prime example
is the story of Susanna: in reply to the two unjust judges who
threatened to have her condemned to death if she refused to yield
to their sinful passion, she says: "I am hemmed in on every
side. For if I do this thing, it is death for me; and if I do
not, I shall not escape your hands. I choose not to do it and
to fall into your hands, rather than to sin in the sight of the
Lord!" (Dan 13:22-23). Susanna, preferring to "fall
innocent" into the hands of the judges, bears witness not
only to her faith and trust in God but also to her obedience
to the truth and to the absoluteness of the moral order. By her
readiness to die a martyr, she proclaims that it is not right
to do what God's law qualifies as evil in order to draw some
good from it. Susanna chose for herself the "better part":
hers was a perfectly clear witness, without any compromise, to
the truth about the good and to the God of Israel. By her acts,
she revealed the holiness of God.
At the dawn of the New Testament,
John the Baptist, unable to refrain from speaking of the
law of the Lord and rejecting any compromise with evil, "gave
his life in witness to truth and justice",[142] and thus
also became the forerunner of the Messiah in the way he died
(cf. Mk 6:17-29). "The one who came to bear witness to the
light and who deserved to be called by that same light, which
is Christ, a burning and shining lamp, was cast into the darkness
of prison... The one to whom it was granted to baptize the Redeemer
of the world was thus baptized in his own blood".[143]
In the New Testament we find
many examples of followers of Christ, beginning with the
deacon Stephen (cf. Acts 6:8-7:60) and the Apostle James (cf.
Acts 12:1-2), who died as martyrs in order to profess their faith
and their love for Christ, unwilling to deny him. In this they
followed the Lord Jesus who "made the good confession"
(1 Tim 6:13) before Caiaphas and Pilate, confirming the truth
of his message at the cost of his life. Countless other martyrs
accepted persecution and death rather than perform the idolatrous
act of burning incense before the statue of the Emperor (cf.
Rev 13:7-10). They even refused to feign such worship, thereby
giving an example of the duty to refrain from performing even
a single concrete act contrary to God's love and the witness
of faith. Like Christ himself, they obediently trusted and handed
over their lives to the Father, the one who could free them from
death (cf. Heb 5:7).
The Church proposes the example
of numerous Saints who bore witness to and defended moral truth
even to the point of enduring martyrdom, or who preferred death
to a single mortal sin. In raising them to the honour of the
altars, the Church has canonized their witness and declared the
truth of their judgment, according to which the love of God entails
the obligation to respect his commandments, even in the most
dire of circumstances, and the refusal to betray those commandments,
even for the sake of saving one's own life.
92. Martyrdom, accepted as an
affirmation of the inviolability of the moral order, bears splendid
witness both to the holiness of God's law and to the inviolability
of the personal dignity of man, created in God's image and likeness.
This dignity may never be disparaged or called into question,
even with good intentions, whatever the difficulties involved.
Jesus warns us most sternly: "What does it profit a man,
to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?" (Mk 8:36).
Martyrdom rejects as false and
illusory whatever "human meaning" one might claim to
attribute, even in "exceptional" conditions, to an
act morally evil in itself. Indeed, it even more clearly unmasks
the true face of such an act: it is a violation of man's "humanity,"
in the one perpetrating it even before the one enduring it.[144]
Hence martyrdom is also the exaltation of a person's perfect
"humanity" and of true "life", as is attested
by Saint Ignatius of Antioch, addressing the Christians of Rome,
the place of his own martyrdom: "Have mercy on me, brethren:
do not hold me back from living; do not wish that I die... Let
me arrive at the pure light; once there I will be truly a
man. Let me imitate the passion of my God."[145]
93. Finally, martyrdom is an
outstanding sign of the holiness of the Church. Fidelity
to God's holy law, witnessed to by death, is a solemn proclamation
and missionary commitment usque ad sanguinem, so that
the splendour of moral truth may be undimmed in the behaviour
and thinking of individuals and society. This witness makes an
extraordinarily valuable contribution to warding off, in civil
society and within the ecclesial communities themselves, a headlong
plunge into the most dangerous crisis which can afflict man:
the confusion between good and evil, which makes it impossible
to build up and to preserve the moral order of individuals and
communities. By their eloquent and attractive example of a life
completely transfigured by the splendour of moral truth, the
martyrs and, in general, all the Church's Saints, light up every
period of history by reawakening its moral sense. By witnessing
fully to the good, they are a living reproof to those who transgress
the law (cf. Wis 2:12), and they make the words of the Prophet
echo ever afresh: "Woe to those who call evil good and good
evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who
put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Is 5:20).
Although martyrdom represents
the high point of the witness to moral truth, and one to which
relatively few people are called, there is nonetheless a consistent
witness which all Christians must daily be ready to make, even
at the cost of suffering and grave sacrifice. Indeed, faced with
the many difficulties which fidelity to the moral order can demand,
even in the most ordinary circumstances, the Christian is called,
with the grace of God invoked in prayer, to a sometimes heroic
commitment. In this he or she is sustained by the virtue of fortitude,
whereby--as Gregory the Great teaches--one can actually "love
the difficulties of this world for the sake of eternal rewards".[146]
94. In this witness to the absoluteness
of the moral good Christians are not alone: they are supported
by the moral sense present in peoples and by the great religious
and sapiential traditions of East and West, from which the interior
and mysterious workings of God's Spirit are not absent. The words
of the Latin poet Juvenal apply to all: "Consider it the
greatest of crimes to prefer survival to honour and, out of love
of physical life, to lose the very reason for living".[147]
The voice of conscience has always clearly recalled that there
are truths and moral values for which one must be prepared to
give up one's life. In an individual's words and above all in
the sacrifice of his life for a moral value, the Church sees
a single testimony to that truth which, already present in creation,
shines forth in its fullness on the face of Christ. As Saint
Justin put it, "the Stoics, at least in their teachings
on ethics, demonstrated wisdom, thanks to the seed of the Word
present in all peoples, and we know that those who followed their
doctrines met with hatred and were killed".[148]
Universal and unchanging
moral norms at the service of the person and of society
95. The Church's teaching, and
in particular her firmness in defending the universal and permanent
validity of the precepts prohibiting intrinsically evil acts,
is not infrequently seen as the sign of an intolerable intransigence,
particularly with regard to the enormously complex and conflict-filled
situations present in the moral life of individuals and of society
today; this intransigence is said to be in contrast with the
Church's motherhood. The Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding
and compassion. But the Church's motherhood can never in fact
be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always
carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in
person. "As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the
moral norm... The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter
of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose
image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person,
the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people
of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and
perfection".[149]
In fact, genuine understanding
and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good,
for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly,
from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing
it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal
Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to
man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his
happiness.[150]
Still, a clear and forceful presentation
of moral truth can never be separated from a profound and heartfelt
respect, born of that patient and trusting love which man always
needs along his moral journey, a journey frequently wearisome
on account of difficulties, weakness and painful situations.
The Church can never renounce "the principle of truth and
consistency, whereby she does not agree to call good evil and
evil good";[151] she must always be careful not to break
the bruised reed or to quench the dimly burning wick (cf. Is
42:3). As Paul VI wrote: "While it is an outstanding manifestation
of charity towards souls to omit nothing from the saving doctrine
of Christ, this must always be joined with tolerance and charity,
as Christ himself showed by his conversations and dealings with
men. Having come not to judge the world but to save it, he was
uncompromisingly stern towards sin, but patient and rich in mercy
towards sinners",[152]
96. The Church's firmness in
defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning
at all. Its only purpose is to serve man's true freedom. Because
there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth,
the categorical--unyielding and uncompromising--defence of the
absolutely essential demands of man's personal dignity must be
considered the way and the condition for the very existence of
freedom.
This service is directed to every
man, considered in the uniqueness and singularity of his
being and existence: only by obedience to universal moral norms
does man find full confirmation of his personal uniqueness and
the possibility of authentic moral growth. For this very reason,
this service is also directed to all mankind: it is not
only for individuals but also for the community, for society
as such. These norms in fact represent the unshakable foundation
and solid guarantee of a just and peaceful human coexistence,
and hence of genuine democracy, which can come into being and
develop only on the basis of the equality of all its members,
who possess common rights and duties. When it is a matter
of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges
or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether
one is the master of the world or the "poorest of the poor"
on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are
all absolutely equal.
97. In this way, moral norms,
and primarily the negative ones, those prohibiting evil, manifest
their meaning and force, both personal and social. By
protecting the inviolable personal dignity of every human being
they help to preserve the human social fabric and its proper
and fruitful development. The commandments of the second table
of the Decalogue in particular--those which Jesus quoted to the
young man of the Gospel (cf. Mt 19:19)--constitute the indispensable
rules of all social life.
These commandments are formulated
in general terms. But the very fact that "the origin, the
subject and the purpose of all social institutions is and should
be the human person"[153] allows for them to be specified
and made more explicit in a detailed code of behaviour. The fundamental
moral rules of social life thus entail specific demands
to which both public authorities and citizens are required to
pay heed. Even though intentions may sometimes be good, and circumstances
frequently difficult, civil authorities and particular individuals
never have authority to violate the fundamental and inalienable
rights of the human person. In the end, only a morality which
acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone,
with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social
coexistence, both on the national and international levels.
Morality and the renewal
of social and political life
98. In the face of serious forms
of social and economic injustice and political corruption affecting
entire peoples and nations, there is a growing reaction of indignation
on the part of very many people whose fundamental human rights
have been trampled upon and held in contempt, as well as an ever
more widespread and acute sense of the need for a radical
personal and social renewal capable of ensuring justice,
solidarity, honesty and openness.
Certainly there is a long and
difficult road ahead; bringing about such a renewal will require
enormous effort, especially on account of the number and the
gravity of the causes giving rise to and aggravating the situations
of injustice present in the world today. But, as history and
personal experience show, it is not difficult to discover at
the bottom of these situations causes which are properly "cultural",
linked to particular ways of looking at man, society and the
world. Indeed, at the heart of the issue of culture we find the
moral sense, which is in turn rooted and fulfilled in
the religious sense.[154]
99. Only God, the Supreme Good,
constitutes the unshakable foundation and essential condition
of morality, and thus of the commandments, particularly those
negative commandments which always and in every case prohibit
behaviour and actions incompatible with the personal dignity
of every man. The Supreme Good and the moral good meet in truth:
the truth of God, the Creator and Redeemer, and the truth of
man, created and redeemed by him. Only upon this truth is it
possible to construct a renewed society and to solve the complex
and weighty problems affecting it, above all the problem of overcoming
the various forms of totalitarianism, so as to make way for the
authentic freedom of the person. "Totalitarianism
arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there
is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves
his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing
just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class,
group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one
another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then
the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make
full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his
own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights
of others... Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be
found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human
person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore
by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate
no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority
of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the
minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting
to annihilate it".[155]
Consequently, the inseparable
connection between truth and freedom--which expresses the essential
bond between God's wisdom and will--is extremely significant
for the life of persons in the socio-economic and socio-political
sphere. This is clearly seen in the Church's social teaching--which
"belongs to the field... of theology and particularly of
moral theology"[156]--and from her presentation of commandments
governing social, economic and political life, not only with
regard to general attitudes but also to precise and specific
kinds of behaviour and concrete acts.
100. The Catechism of the
Catholic Church affirms that "in economic matters, respect
for human dignity requires the practice of the virtue of temperance,
to moderate our attachment to the goods of this world; of the
virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbour's rights
and to render what is his or her due; and of solidarity,
following the Golden Rule and in keeping with the generosity
of the Lord, who 'though he was rich, yet for your sake... became
poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich' (2 Cor 8:9)".[157]
The Catechism goes on to present a series of kinds of behaviour
and actions contrary to human dignity: theft, deliberate retention
of goods lent or objects lost, business fraud (cf. Dt 25:13-16),
unjust wages (cf. Dt 24:14-15), forcing up prices by trading
on the ignorance or hardship of another (cf. Am 8:4-6), the misappropriation
and private use of the corporate property of an enterprise, work
badly done, tax fraud, forgery of cheques and invoices, excessive
expenses, waste, etc.[158] It continues: "The seventh commandment
prohibits actions or enterprises which for any reason--selfish
or ideological, commercial or totalitarian--lead to the enslavement
of human beings, disregard for their personal dignity, buying
or selling or exchanging them like merchandise. Reducing persons
by violence to use-value or a source of profit is a sin against
their dignity as persons and their fundamental rights. Saint
Paul set a Christian master right about treating his Christian
slave 'no longer as a slave but... as a brother... in the Lord'
(Philem 16)".[159]
101. In the political sphere,
it must be noted that truthfulness in the relations between those
governing and those governed, openness in public administration,
impartiality in the service of the body politic, respect for
the rights of political adversaries, safeguarding the rights
of the accused against summary trials and convictions, the just
and honest use of public funds, the rejection of equivocal or
illicit means in order to gain, preserve or increase power at
any cost--all these are principles which are primarily rooted
in, and in fact derive their singular urgency from, the transcendent
value of the person and the objective moral demands of the functioning
of States.[160] When these principles are not observed, the very
basis of political coexistence is weakened and the life of society
itself is gradually jeopardized, threatened and doomed to decay
(cf. Ps 14:3-4; Rev 18:2-3, 9-24). Today, when many countries
have seen the fall of ideologies which bound politics to a totalitarian
conception of the world--Marxism being the foremost of these--there
is no less grave a danger that the fundamental rights of the
human person will be denied and that the religious yearnings
which arise in the heart of every human being will be absorbed
once again into politics. This is the risk of an alliance
between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove
any sure moral reference point from political and social life,
and on a deeper level make the acknowledgment of truth impossible.
Indeed, "if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct
political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be
manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a
democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised
totalitarianism".[161]
Thus, in every sphere of personal,
family, social and political life, morality--founded upon truth
and open in truth to authentic freedom--renders a primordial,
indispensable and immensely valuable service not only for the
individual person and his growth in the good, but also for society
and its genuine development.
Grace and obedience to
God's law
102. Even in the most difficult
situations man must respect the norm of morality so that he can
be obedient to God's holy commandment and consistent with his
own dignity as a person. Certainly, maintaining a harmony between
freedom and truth occasionally demands uncommon sacrifices, and
must be won at a high price: it can even involve martyrdom. But,
as universal and daily experience demonstrates, man is tempted
to break that harmony: "I do not do what I want, but I do
the very thing I hate... I do not do the good I want, but the
evil I do not want" (Rom 7:15,19).
What is the ultimate source of
this inner division of man? His history of sin begins when he
no longer acknowledges the Lord as his Creator and himself wishes
to be the one who determines, with complete independence, what
is good and what is evil. "You will be like God, knowing
good and evil" (Gen 3:5): this was the first temptation,
and it is echoed in all the other temptations to which man is
more easily inclined to yield as a result of the original Fall.
But temptations can be overcome,
sins can be avoided, because together with the commandments the
Lord gives us the possibility of keeping them: "His eyes
are on those who fear him, and he knows every deed of man. He
has not commanded any one to be ungodly, and he has not given
any one permission to sin" (Sir 15:19-20). Keeping God's
law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult,
but it is never impossible. This is the constant teaching of
the Church's tradition, and was expressed by the Council of Trent:
"But no one, however much justified, ought to consider himself
exempt from the observance of the commandments, nor should he
employ that rash statement, forbidden by the Fathers under anathema,
that the commandments of God are impossible of observance by
one who is justified. For God does not command the impossible,
but in commanding he admonishes you to do what you can and to
pray for what you cannot, and he gives his aid to enable you.
His commandments are not burdensome (cf. 1 Jn 5:3); his yoke
is easy and his burden light (cf. Mt 11:30)".[162]
103. Man always has before him
the spiritual horizon of hope, thanks to the help of divine
grace and with the cooperation of human freedom.
It is in the saving Cross of
Jesus, in the gift of the Holy Spirit, in the Sacraments which
flow forth from the pierced side of the Redeemer (cf. Jn 19:34),
that believers find the grace and the strength always to keep
God's holy law, even amid the gravest of hardships. As Saint
Andrew of Crete observes, the law itself "was enlivened
by grace and made to serve it in a harmonious and fruitful combination.
Each element preserved its characteristics without change or
confusion. In a divine manner, he turned what could be burdensome
and tyrannical into what is easy to bear and a source of freedom".[163]
Only in the mystery of Christ's
Redemption do we discover the 'concrete' possibilities of man.
"It would be a very serious error to conclude... that the
Church's teaching is essentially only an 'ideal' which must then
be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete
possibilities of man, according to a 'balancing of the goods
in question'. But what are the 'concrete possibilities of man'?
And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated
by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is
at stake: the reality of Christ's redemption. Christ
has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility
of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set
our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence.
And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection
of Christ's redemptive act, but to man's will not to avail himself
of the grace which flows from that act. God's command is of course
proportioned to man's capabilities; but to the capabilities of
the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who,
though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy
the presence of the Holy Spirit".[164]
104. In this context, appropriate
allowance is made both for God's mercy towards the sin
of the man who experiences conversion and for the understanding
of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising
and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt
it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner
to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings;
what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own
weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he
can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse
to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality
of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity
of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness
of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends
up by confusing all judgments about values.
Instead, we should take to heart
the message of the Gospel parable of the Pharisee and the
tax collector (cf. Lk 18:9-14). The tax collector might possibly
have had some justification for the sins he committed, such as
to diminish his responsibility. But his prayer does not dwell
on such justifications, but rather on his own unworthiness before
God's infinite holiness: "God, be merciful to me a sinner!"
(Lk 18:13). The Pharisee, on the other hand, is self-justified,
finding some excuse for each of his failings. Here we encounter
two different attitudes of the moral conscience of man in every
age. The tax collector represents a "repentant" conscience,
fully aware of the frailty of its own nature and seeing in its
own failings, whatever their subjective justifications, a confirmation
of its need for redemption. The Pharisee represents a "self-satisfied"
conscience, under the illusion that it is able to observe the
law without the help of grace and convinced that it does not
need mercy.
105. All people must take great
care not to allow themselves to be tainted by the attitude of
the Pharisee, which would seek to eliminate awareness of one's
own limits and of one's own sin. In our own day this attitude
is expressed particularly in the attempt to adapt the moral norm
to one's own capacities and personal interests, and even in the
rejection of the very idea of a norm. Accepting, on the other
hand, the "disproportion" between the law and human
ability (that is, the capacity of the moral forces of man left
to himself) kindles the desire for grace and prepares one to
receive it. "Who will deliver me from this body of death?"
asks the Apostle Paul. And in an outburst of joy and gratitude
he replies: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
(Rom 7:24-25).
We find the same awareness in
the following prayer of Saint Ambrose of Milan: "What then
is man, if you do not visit him? Remember, Lord, that you have
made me as one who is weak, that you formed me from dust. How
can I stand, if you do not constantly look upon me, to strengthen
this clay, so that my strength may proceed from your face? When
you hide your face, all grows weak (Ps 104:29): if you turn
to look at me, woe is me! You have nothing to see in me but the
stain of my crimes; there is no gain either in being abandoned
or in being seen, because when we are seen, we offend you. Still,
we can imagine that God does not reject those he sees, because
he purifies those upon whom he gazes. Before him burns a fire
capable of consuming our guilt (cf. Joel 2:3)".[165]
Morality and new evangelization
106. Evangelization is the most
powerful and stirring challenge which the Church has been called
to face from her very beginning. Indeed, this challenge is posed
not so much by the social and cultural milieux which she encounters
in the course of history, as by the mandate of the Risen Christ,
who defines the very reason for the Church's existence: "Go
into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation"
(Mk 16:15).
At least for many peoples, however,
the present time is instead marked by a formidable challenge
to undertake a "new evangelization", a proclamation
of the Gospel which is always new and always the bearer of new
things, an evangelization which must be "new in its ardour,
methods and expression".[166] Dechristianization, which
weighs heavily upon entire peoples and communities once rich
in faith and Christian life, involves not only the loss of faith
or in any event its becoming irrelevant for everyday life, but
also, and of necessity, a decline or obscuring of the moral
sense. This comes about both as a result of a loss of awareness
of the originality of Gospel morality and as a result of an eclipse
of fundamental principles and ethical values themselves. Today's
widespread tendencies towards subjectivism, utilitarianism and
relativism appear not merely as pragmatic attitudes or patterns
of behaviour, but rather as approaches having a basis in theory
and claiming full cultural and social legitimacy.
107. Evangelization--and
therefore the "new evangelization"--also involves
the proclamation and presentation of morality. Jesus himself,
even as he preached the Kingdom of God and its saving love, called
people to faith and conversion (cf. Mk 1:15). And when Peter,
with the other Apostles, proclaimed the Resurrection of Jesus
of Nazareth from the dead, he held out a new life to be lived,
a "way" to be followed, for those who would be disciples
of the Risen One (cf. Acts 2:37-41; 3: 17-20).
Just as it does in proclaiming
the truths of faith, and even more so in presenting the foundations
and content of Christian morality, the new evangelization will
show its authenticity and unleash all its missionary force when
it is carried out through the gift not only of the word proclaimed
but also of the word lived. In particular, the life of holiness
which is resplendent in so many members of the People of God,
humble and often unseen, constitutes the simplest and most attractive
way to perceive at once the beauty of truth, the liberating force
of God's love, and the value of unconditional fidelity to all
the demands of the Lord's law, even in the most difficult situations.
For this reason, the Church, as a wise teacher of morality, has
always invited believers to seek and to find in the Saints, and
above all in the Virgin Mother of God "full of grace"
and "all-holy", the model, the strength and the joy
needed to live a life in accordance with God's commandments and
the Beatitudes of the Gospel.
The lives of the saints, as a
reflection of the goodness of God--the One who "alone is
good"--constitute not only a genuine profession of faith
and an incentive for sharing it with others, but also a glorification
of God and his infinite holiness. The life of holiness thus brings
to full expression and effectiveness the threefold and unitary
munus propheticum, sacerdotale et regale which every Christian
receives as a gift by being born again "of water and the
Spirit" (Jn 3:5) in Baptism. His moral life has the value
of a "spiritual worship" (Rom 12:1; cf. Phil 3:3),
flowing from and nourished by that inexhaustible source of holiness
and glorification of God which is found in the Sacraments, especially
in the Eucharist: by sharing in the sacrifice of the Cross, the
Christian partakes of Christ's self-giving love and is equipped
and committed to live this same charity in all his thoughts and
deeds. In the moral life the Christian's royal service is also
made evident and effective: with the help of grace, the more
one obeys the new law of the Holy Spirit, the more one grows
in the freedom to which he or she is called by the service of
truth, charity and justice.
108. At the heart of the new
evangelization and of the new moral life which it proposes and
awakens by its fruits of holiness and missionary zeal, there
is the Spirit of Christ, the principle and strength of
the fruitfulness of Holy Mother Church. As Pope Paul VI reminded
us: "Evangelization will never be possible without the action
of the Holy Spirit".[167] The Spirit of Jesus, received
by the humble and docile heart of the believer, brings about
the flourishing of Christian moral life and the witness of holiness
amid the great variety of vocations, gifts, responsibilities,
conditions and life situations. As Novatian once pointed out,
here expressing the authentic faith of the Church, it is the
Holy Spirit "who confirmed the hearts and minds of the disciples,
who revealed the mysteries of the Gospel, who shed upon them
the light of things divine. Strengthened by his gift, they did
not fear either prisons or chains for the name of the Lord; indeed
they even trampled upon the powers and torments of the world,
armed and strengthened by him, having in themselves the gifts
which this same Spirit bestows and directs like jewels to the
Church, the Bride of Christ. It is in fact he who raises up prophets
in the Church, instructs teachers, guides tongues, works wonders
and healings, accomplishes miracles, grants the discernment of
spirits, assigns governance, inspires counsels, distributes and
harmonizes every other charismatic gift. In this way he completes
and perfects the Lord's Church everywhere and in all things".[168]
In the living context of this
new evangelization, aimed at generating and nourishing "the
faith which works through love" (cf. Gal 5:6), and in relation
to the work of the Holy Spirit, we can now understand the proper
place which continuing theological reflection about the moral
life holds in the Church, the community of believers. We
can likewise speak of the mission and the responsibility proper
to moral theologians.
The service of moral theologians
109. The whole Church is called
to evangelization and to the witness of a life of faith, by the
fact that she has been made a sharer in the munus propheticum
of the Lord Jesus through the gift of his Spirit. Thanks to the
permanent presence of the Spirit of truth in the Church (cf.
Jn 14:16-17), "the universal body of the faithful who have
received the anointing of the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20,27) cannot
be mistaken in belief. It displays this particular quality through
a supernatural sense of the faith in the whole people when, 'from
the Bishops to the last of the lay faithful', it expresses the
consensus of all in matters of faith and morals".[169]
In order to carry out her prophetic
mission, the Church must constantly reawaken or "rekindle"
her own life of faith (cf. 2 Tim 1:6), particularly through an
ever deeper reflection, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
upon the content of faith itself. The "vocation"
of the theologian in the Church is specifically at the service
of this "believing effort to understand the faith".
As the Instruction Donum Veritatis teaches: "Among
the vocations awakened by the Spirit in the Church is that of
the theologian. His role is to pursue in a particular way an
ever deeper understanding of the word of God found in the inspired
Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church.
He does this in communion with the Magisterium, which has been
charged with the responsibility of preserving the deposit of
faith. By its nature, faith appeals to reason because it reveals
to man the truth of his destiny and the way to attain it. Revealed
truth, to be sure, surpasses our telling. All our concepts fall
short of its ultimately unfathomable grandeur (cf. Eph 3: 19).
Nonetheless, revealed truth beckons reason--God's gift fashioned
for the assimilation of truth--to enter into its light and thereby
come to understand in a certain measure what it has believed.
Theological science responds to the invitation of truth as it
seeks to understand the faith. It thereby aids the People of
God in fulfilling the Apostle's command (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) to give
an accounting for their hope to those who ask it".[170]
It is fundamental for defining
the very identity of theology, and consequently for theology
to carry out its proper mission, to recognize its profound
and vital connection with the Church, her mystery, her life and
her mission: "Theology is an ecclesial science because
it grows in the Church and works on the Church... It is a service
to the Church and therefore ought to feel itself actively involved
in the mission of the Church, particularly in its prophetic mission".[171]
By its very nature and procedures, authentic theology can flourish
and develop only through a committed and responsible participation
in and "belonging" to the Church as a "community
of faith". In turn, the fruits of theological research and
deeper insight become a source of enrichment for the Church and
her life of faith.
110. All that has been said about
theology in general can and must also be said for moral theology,
seen in its specific nature as a scientific reflection on the
Gospel as the gift and commandment of new life, a reflection
on the life which "professes the truth in love" (cf.
Eph 4:15) and on the Church's life of holiness, in which there
shines forth the truth about the good brought to its perfection.
The Church's Magisterium intervenes not only in the sphere of
faith, but also, and inseparably so, in the sphere of morals.
It has the task of "discerning, by means of judgments normative
for the consciences of believers, those acts which in themselves
conform to the demands of faith and foster their expression in
life and those which, on the contrary, because intrinsically
evil, are incompatible with such demands".[172] In proclaiming
the commandments of God and the charity of Christ, the Church's
Magisterium also teaches the faithful specific particular precepts
and requires that they consider them in conscience as morally
binding. In addition, the Magisterium carries out an important
work of vigilance, warning the faithful of the presence of possible
errors, even merely implicit ones, when their consciences fail
to acknowledge the correctness and the truth of the moral norms
which the Magisterium teaches.
This is the point at which to
consider the specific task of all those who by mandate of their
legitimate Pastors teach moral theology in Seminaries and Faculties
of Theology. They have the grave duty to instruct the faithful--especially
future Pastors--about all those commandments and practical norms
authoritatively declared by the Church.[173] While recognizing
the possible limitations of the human arguments employed by the
Magisterium, moral theologians are called to develop a deeper
understanding of the reasons underlying its teachings and to
expound the validity and obligatory nature of the precepts it
proposes, demonstrating their connection with one another and
their relation with man's ultimate end.[174] Moral theologians
are to set forth the Church's teaching and to give, in the exercise
of their ministry, the example of a loyal assent, both internal
and external, to the Magisterium's teaching in the areas of both
dogma and morality.[175] Working together in cooperation with
the hierarchical Magisterium, theologians will be deeply concerned
to clarify ever more fully the biblical foundations, the ethical
significance and the anthropological concerns which underlie
the moral doctrine and the vision of man set forth by the Church.
111. The service which moral
theologians are called to provide at the present time is of the
utmost importance, not only for the Church's life and mission,
but also for human society and culture. Moral theologians have
the task, in close and vital connection with biblical and dogmatic
theology, to highlight through their scientific reflection "that
dynamic aspect which will elicit the response that man must give
to the divine call which comes in the process of his growth in
love, within a community of salvation. In this way, moral theology
will acquire an inner spiritual dimension in response to the
need to develop fully the imago Dei present in man, and
in response to the laws of spiritual development described by
Christian ascetical and mystical theology".[176]
Certainly moral theology and
its teaching are meeting with particular difficulty today. Because
the Church's morality necessarily involves a normative
dimension, moral theology cannot be reduced to a body of knowledge
worked out purely in the context of the so-called behavioural
sciences. The latter are concerned with the phenomenon of
morality as a historical and social fact; moral theology, however,
while needing to make use of the behavioural and natural sciences,
does not rely on the results of formal empirical observation
or phenomenological understanding alone. Indeed, the relevance
of the behavioural sciences for moral theology must always be
measured against the primordial question: What is good or
evil? What must be done to have eternal life?
112. The moral theologian must
therefore exercise careful discernment in the context of today's
prevalently scientific and technical culture, exposed as it is
to the dangers of relativism, pragmatism and positivism. From
the theological viewpoint, moral principles are not dependent
upon the historical moment in which they are discovered. Moreover,
the fact that some believers act without following the teachings
of the Magisterium, or erroneously consider as morally correct
a kind of behaviour declared by their Pastors as contrary to
the law of God, cannot be a valid argument for rejecting the
truth of the moral norms taught by the Church. The affirmation
of moral principles is not within the competence of formal empirical
methods. While not denying the validity of such methods, but
at the same time not restricting its viewpoint to them, moral
theology, faithful to the supernatural sense of the faith, takes
into account first and foremost the spiritual dimension of
the human heart and its vocation to divine love.
In fact, while the behavioural
sciences, like all experimental sciences, develop an empirical
and statistical concept of "normality", faith teaches
that this normality itself bears the traces of a fall from man's
original situation--in other words, it is affected by sin. Only
Christian faith points out to man the way to return to "the
beginning" (cf. Mt 19:8), a way which is often quite different
from that of empirical normality. Hence the behavioural sciences,
despite the great value of the information which they provide,
cannot be considered decisive indications of moral norms. It
is the Gospel which reveals the full truth about man and his
moral journey, and thus enlightens and admonishes sinners; it
proclaims to them God's mercy, which is constantly at work to
preserve them both from despair at their inability fully to know
and keep God's law and from the presumption that they can be
saved without merit. God also reminds sinners of the joy of forgiveness,
which alone grants the strength to see in the moral law a liberating
truth, a grace-filled source of hope, a path of life.
113. Teaching moral doctrine
involves the conscious acceptance of these intellectual, spiritual
and pastoral responsibilities. Moral theologians, who have accepted
the charge of teaching the Church's doctrine, thus have a grave
duty to train the faithful to make this moral discernment, to
be committed to the true good and to have confident recourse
to God's grace.
While exchanges and conflicts
of opinion may constitute normal expressions of public life in
a representative democracy, moral teaching certainly cannot depend
simply upon respect for a process: indeed, it is in no way established
by following the rules and deliberative procedures typical of
a democracy. Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated
protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed
to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the
hierarchical constitution of the People of God. Opposition
to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate
expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of
the Spirit's gifts. When this happens, the Church's Pastors have
the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting
that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine
in its purity and integrity must always be respected. "Never
forgetting that he too is a member of the People of God, the
theologian must be respectful of them, and be committed to offering
them a teaching which in no way does harm to the doctrine of
the faith".[177]
Our own responsibilities
as Pastors
114. As the Second Vatican Council
reminds us, responsibility for the faith and the life of faith
of the People of God is particularly incumbent upon the Church's
Pastors: "Among the principal tasks of Bishops the preaching
of the Gospel is pre-eminent. For the Bishops are the heralds
of the faith who bring new disciples to Christ. They are authentic
teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ,
who preach to the people entrusted to them the faith to be believed
and put into practice; they illustrate this faith in the light
of the Holy Spirit, drawing out of the treasury of Revelation
things old and new (cf. Mt 13:52); they make it bear fruit and
they vigilantly ward off errors that are threatening their flock
(cf. 2 Tim 4:1-4)".[178]
It is our common duty, and even
before that our common grace, as Pastors and Bishops of the Church,
to teach the faithful the things which lead them to God, just
as the Lord Jesus did with the young man in the Gospel. Replying
to the question: "What good must I do to have eternal life?",
Jesus referred the young man to God, the Lord of creation and
of the Covenant. He reminded him of the moral commandments already
revealed in the Old Testament and he indicated their spirit and
deepest meaning by inviting the young man to follow him in poverty,
humility and love: "Come, follow me!". The truth of
this teaching was sealed on the Cross in the Blood of Christ:
in the Holy Spirit, it has become the new law of the Church and
of every Christian.
This "answer" to the
question about morality has been entrusted by Jesus Christ in
a particular way to us, the Pastors of the Church; we have been
called to make it the object of our preaching, in the fulfilment
of our munus propheticum. At the same time, our responsibility
as Pastors with regard to Christian moral teaching must also
be exercised as part of the munus sacerdotale: this happens
when we dispense to the faithful the gifts of grace and sanctification
as an effective means for obeying God's holy law, and when with
our constant and confident prayers we support believers in their
efforts to be faithful to the demands of the faith and to live
in accordance with the Gospel (cf. Col 1:9-12). Especially today,
Christian moral teaching must be one of the chief areas in which
we exercise our pastoral vigilance, in carrying out our munus
regale.
115. This is the first time,
in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church has set forth in
detail the fundamental elements of this teaching, and presented
the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical
and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial.
In the light of Revelation and
of the Church's constant teaching, especially that of the Second
Vatican Council, I have briefly recalled the essential characteristics
of freedom, as well as the fundamental values connected with
the dignity of the person and the truth of his acts, so as to
be able to discern in obedience to the moral law a grace and
a sign of our adoption in the one Son (cf. Eph 1:4-6). Specifically,
this Encyclical has evaluated certain trends in moral theology
today. I now pass this evaluation on to you, in obedience to
the word of the Lord who entrusted to Peter the task of strengthening
his brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), in order to clarify and aid our
common discernment.
Each of us knows how important
is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical
and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor
of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved,
not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with
the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of
the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit
always and without exception intrinsically evil acts.
In acknowledging these commandments,
Christian hearts and our pastoral charity listen to the call
of the One who "first loved us" (1 Jn 4:19). God asks
us to be holy as he is holy (cf. Lev 19:2), to be--in Christperfect
as he is perfect (cf. Mt 5:48). The unwavering demands of that
commandment are based upon God's infinitely merciful love (cf.
Lk 6:36), and the purpose of that commandment is to lead us,
by the grace of Christ, on the path of that fullness of life
proper to the children of God.
116. We have the duty, as Bishops,
to be vigilant that the word of God is faithfully taught.
My Brothers in the Episcopate, it is part of our pastoral ministry
to see to it that this moral teaching is faithfully handed down
and to have recourse to appropriate measures to ensure that the
faithful are guarded from every doctrine and theory contrary
to it. In carrying out this task we are all assisted by theologians;
even so, theological opinions constitute neither the rule nor
the norm of our teaching. Its authority is derived, by the assistance
of the Holy Spirit and in communion cum Petro et sub Petro,
from our fidelity to the Catholic faith which comes from the
Apostles. As Bishops, we have the grave obligation to be personally
vigilant that the "sound doctrine" (1 Tim 1:10) of
faith and morals is taught in our Dioceses.
A particular responsibility is
incumbent upon Bishops with regard to Catholic institutions.
Whether these are agencies for the pastoral care of the family
or for social work, or institutions dedicated to teaching or
health care, Bishops can canonically erect and recognize these
structures and delegate certain responsibilities to them. Nevertheless,
Bishops are never relieved of their own personal obligations.
It falls to them, in communion with the Holy See, both to grant
the title "Catholic" to Church-related schools,[179]
universities,[180] health-care facilities and counseling services,
and, in cases of a serious failure to live up to that title,
to take it away.
117. In the heart of every Christian,
in the inmost depths of each person, there is always an echo
of the question which the young man in the Gospel once asked
Jesus: "Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?"
(Mt 19:16). Everyone, however, needs to address this question
to the "Good Teacher", since he is the only one who
can answer in the fullness of truth, in all situations, in the
most varied of circumstances. And when Christians ask him the
question which rises from their conscience, the Lord replies
in the words of the New Covenant which have been entrusted to
his Church. As the Apostle Paul said of himself, we have been
sent "to preach the Gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom,
lest the Cross of Christ be emptied of its power" (1 Cor
1: 17). The Church's answer to man's question contains the wisdom
and power of Christ Crucified, the Truth which gives of itself.
When people ask the Church
the questions raised by their consciences, when the
faithful in the Church turn to their Bishops and Pastors, the
Church's reply contains the voice of Jesus Christ, the voice
of the truth about good and evil. In the words spoken by
the Church there resounds, in people's inmost being, the voice
of God who "alone is good" (cf. Mt 19:17), who alone
"is love" (1 Jn 4:8,16).
Through the anointing of the
Spirit this gentle but challenging word becomes light and
life for man. Again the Apostle Paul invites us to have confidence,
because "our competence is from God, who has made us competent
to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but
in the Spirit... The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit
of the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled
faces, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being changed into
his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes
from the Lord, the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:5-6,17-18).
Conclusion
Mary, Mother of Mercy
118. At the end of these considerations,
let us entrust ourselves, the sufferings and the joys of our
life, the moral life of believers and people of good will, and
the research of moralists, to Mary, Mother of God and Mother
of Mercy.
Mary is Mother of Mercy because
her Son, Jesus Christ, was sent by the Father as the revelation
of God's mercy (cf. Jn 3:16-18). Christ came not to condemn but
to forgive, to show mercy (cf. Mt 9:13). And the greatest mercy
of all is found in his being in our midst and calling us to meet
him and to confess, with Peter, that he is "the Son of the
living God" (Mt 16:16). No human sin can erase the mercy
of God, or prevent him from unleashing all his triumphant power,
if we only call upon him. Indeed, sin itself makes even more
radiant the love of the Father who, in order to ransom a slave,
sacrificed his Son:[181] his mercy towards us is Redemption.
This mercy reaches its fullness in the gift of the Spirit who
bestows new life and demands that it be lived. No matter how
many and great the obstacles put in his way by human frailty
and sin, the Spirit, who renews the face of the earth (cf. Ps
104:30), makes possible the miracle of the perfect accomplishment
of the good. This renewal, which gives the ability to do what
is good, noble, beautiful, pleasing to God and in conformity
with his will, is in some way the flowering of the gift of mercy,
which offers liberation from the slavery of evil and gives the
strength to sin no more. Through the gift of new life, Jesus
makes us sharers in his love and leads us to the Father in the
Spirit.
119. Such is the consoling certainty
of Christian faith, the source of its profound humanity and extraordinary
simplicity. At times, in the discussions about new and complex
moral problems, it can seem that Christian morality is in itself
too demanding, difficult to understand and almost impossible
to practise. This is untrue, since Christian morality consists,
in the simplicity of the Gospel, in following Jesus Christ,
in abandoning oneself to him, in letting oneself be transformed
by his grace and renewed by his mercy, gifts which come to us
in the living communion of his Church. Saint Augustine reminds
us that "he who would live has a place to live, and has
everything needed to live. Let him draw near, let him believe,
let him become part of the body, that he may have life. Let him
not shrink from the unity of the members".[182] By the light
of the Holy Spirit, the living essence of Christian morality
can be understood by everyone, even the least learned, but particularly
those who are able to preserve an "undivided heart"
(Ps 86:11). On the other hand, this evangelical simplicity does
not exempt one from facing reality in its complexity; rather
it can lead to a more genuine understanding of reality, inasmuch
as following Christ will gradually bring out the distinctive
character of authentic Christian morality, while providing the
vital energy needed to carry it out. It is the task of the Church's
Magisterium to see that the dynamic process of following Christ
develops in an organic manner, without the falsification or obscuring
of its moral demands, with all their consequences. The one who
loves Christ keeps his commandments (cf. Jn 14:15).
120. Mary is also Mother of Mercy
because it is to her that Jesus entrusts his Church and all humanity.
At the foot of the Cross, when she accepts John as her son, when
she asks, together with Christ, forgiveness from the Father for
those who do not know what they do (cf. Lk 23:34), Mary experiences,
in perfect docility to the Spirit, the richness and the universality
of God's love, which opens her heart and enables it to embrace
the entire human race. Thus Mary becomes Mother of each and every
one of us, the Mother who obtains for us divine mercy.
Mary is the radiant sign and
inviting model of the moral life. As Saint Ambrose put it, "The
life of this one person can serve as a model for everyone",[183]
and while speaking specifically to virgins but within a context
open to all, he affirmed: "The first stimulus to learning
is the nobility of the teacher. Who can be more noble than the
Mother of God? Who can be more glorious than the one chosen by
Glory Itself?".[184] Mary lived and exercised her freedom
precisely by giving herself to God and accepting God's gift within
herself. Until the time of his birth, she sheltered in her womb
the Son of God who became man; she raised him and enabled him
to grow, and she accompanied him in that supreme act of freedom
which is the complete sacrifice of his own life. By the gift
of herself, Mary entered fully into the plan of God who gives
himself to the world. By accepting and pondering in her heart
events which she did not always understand (cf. Lk 2:19), she
became the model of all those who hear the word of God and keep
it (cf. Lk 11:28), and merited the title of "Seat of Wisdom".
This Wisdom is Jesus Christ himself, the Eternal Word of God,
who perfectly reveals and accomplishes the will of the Father
(cf. Heb 10:5-10). Mary invites everyone to accept this Wisdom.
To us too she addresses the command she gave to the servants
at Cana in Galilee during the marriage feast: "Do whatever
he tells you" (Jn 2:5).
Mary shares our human condition,
but in complete openness to the grace of God. Not having known
sin, she is able to have compassion on every kind of weakness.
She understands sinful man and loves him with a Mother's love.
Precisely for this reason she is on the side of truth and shares
the Church's burden in recalling always and to everyone the demands
of morality. Nor does she permit sinful man to be deceived by
those who claim to love him by justifying his sin, for she knows
that the sacrifice of Christ her Son would thus be emptied of
its power. No absolution offered by beguiling doctrines, even
in the areas of philosophy and theology, can make man truly happy:
only the Cross and the glory of the Risen Christ can grant peace
to his conscience and salvation to his life.
O Mary, Mother of Mercy, watch
over all people, that the Cross of Christ may not be emptied
of its power, that man may not stray from the path of the good
or become blind to sin, but may put his hope ever more fully
in God who is "rich in mercy" (Eph 2:4). May he carry
out the good works prepared by God beforehand (cf. Eph 2:10)
and so live completely "for the praise of his glory"
(Eph 1:12).
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's,
on 6 August, Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, in the
year 1993, the fifteenth of my Pontificate.
Joannes Paulus II
Notes
1. Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22.
2. Cf. Dogmatic Constitution
on the Church Lumen Gentium, 1.
3. Cf. ibid., 9.
4. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 4.
5. Paul VI, Address to
the General Assembly of the United Nations (4 October 1965),
1: AAS 57 (1965), 878; cf. Encyclical Letter "Populorum
Progressio" (26 March 1967), 13: AAS 59 (1967),
263-264.
6. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 16.
7. Dogmatic Constitution on the
Church Lumen Gentium, 16.
8. Pius XII had already pointed
out this doctrinal development: cf. "Radio Message"
for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Encyclical Letter "Rerum
Novarum" of Leo XIII (1 June 1941): AAS 33 (1941),
195-205. Also John XXIII, Encyclical Letter "Mater et
Magistra" (15 May 1961): AAS 53 (1961), 410-413.
9. Apostolic Letter "Spiritus
Domini" (1 August 1987): AAS 79(1987), 1374.
10. "Catechism of the
Catholic Church," No. 1692.
11. Apostolic Constitution "Fidei
Depositum" (11 October 1992), 4.
12. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation "Dei
Verbum," 10.
13. Cf. Apostolic Epistle "Parati
Semper" to the Young People of the World on the occasion
of the International Year of Youth (31 March 1985), 2-8: AAS
77 (1985), 581-600.
14. Cf. Decree on Priestly Formation
"Optatam Totius," 16.
15. Encyclical Letter "Redemptor
Hominis" (4 March 1979), 13: AAS 71 (1979), 282.
16. Ibid 10; loc. cit.,
274.
17. "Exaneron,"
Dies VI, Sermo IX, 8, 50: CSEL 32, 241.
18. Saint Leo the Great, "Sermo
XCII," Chap. III PL 54 454.
19. Saint Thomas Aquinas, "In
Duo Praecepta Caritatis et in Decem Legis Praecepta. Prologus:
Opuscula Theologica," II, No. 1129, Ed. Taurinen. (1954),
245; cf. "Summa Theologia," I-II, q. 91, a.
2; "Catechism of the Catholic Church," No. 1955.
20. Cf. Saint Maximus the Confessor,
"Quaestiones ad Thalassium," Q. 64: PG
90, 723-728.
21. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 24.
22. "Catechism of the
Catholic Church," No. 2070.
23. "In Johannis Evangelium
Tractatus," 41, 10: CCL 36, 363.
24. Cf. Saint Augustine, "De
Sermone Domini in Monte," I, 1, 1: CCL 35, 1-2.
25. "In Psalmum CXVIII
Expositio", Sermo 18 37 PL 15, 1541; cf. Saint
Chromatius of Aquileia, "Tractatus in Matthaeum,"
XX, I, 1-4: CCL 9/A, 291-292.
26. Cf. "Catechism of
the Catholic Church," No. 1717.
27. "In Johannis Evangelium
Tractatus," 41, 10: CCL 36, 363.
28. Ibid, 21, 8 CCL
36 216.
29. Ibid., 82, 3: CCL
36, 533.
30. "De Spiritu et Littera,"
19, 34: CSEL 60 187.
31. "Confessiones,"
X, 29 40 CCL 27, 176; cf "De Gratia el Libero Arbitrio,"
XV: PL 44 899.
32. Cf. "De Spiritu et
Littera," 21, 36; 26, 46: CSEL 60, 189-190 200-201.
33. Cf. "Summa Theologia,"
I-II, q. 106, a. 1 conclusion and ad 2um.
34. "In Matthaeum,"
Hom. I, 1: PG 57, 15.
35. Cf. Saint Irenaeus, "Adversus
Haereses," IV, 26, 2-5: SCh 100/2, 718-729.
36. Cf. Saint Justin, "Apologia,"
I, 66: PG 6, 427-430.
37. Cf. 1 Pt 2: 12 ff.; Cf. "Didache,"
II, 2: "Patres Apostolici;" ed. F. X. Funk,
I, 6-9; CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, "Paelagogus,"
I, 10; II, 10: PG 8, 355-364; 497-536; Tertullian, "Apologeticum,"
IX, 8: CSEL, 69, 24.
38. Cf. Saint Ignatius of Antioch,
"Ad Magnesios," VI, 1-2: "Patres Apostolici,"
ed. F. X. Funk, I, 234-235; Saint Irenaeus, "Adversus
Haereses," IV, 33: 1, 6, 7: SCh 100/2, 802-805;
814-815; 816-819.
39. Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation "Dei Verbum," 8.
40. Cf. ibid.
41. Ibid, 10.
42. Code of Canon Law,
Canon 747, 2.
43. Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation "Dei Verbum," 7.
44. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 22.
45. Decree on Priestly Formation
"Optatam Totius." 16.
46. Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 62.
47. Ibid.
48. Cf Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation "Dei
Verbum," 10.
49. Cf First Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith "Dei
Filius, Chap 4: DS, 3018.
50. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian
Religions "Nostra Aetate," 1.
51. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 43-44.
52. Declaration on Religious
Freedom "Dignitalis Humanae," 1, referring to
John XXIII, Encyclical Letter "Pacem in Terris"
(11 April 1963): AAS 55 (1963), 279; ibid, 265,
and to Pius XII, "Radio Message" (24 December
1944): AAS 37 (1945), 14.
53. Declaration on Religious
Freedom "Dignitatis Humanae," 1.
54. Cf. Encyclical Letter "Redemptor
Hominis" (4 March 1979), 17: AAS 71 (1979), 295-300;
Address To those taking part in the Fifth International
Colloquium of Juridical Studies (10 March 1984), 4: "Insegnamenti,"
VII 1 (1984), 656; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation "Libertatis
Conscientia" (22 March 1986), 19: AAS 79 (1987),
561.
55. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 11.
56. Ibid, 17.
57. Ibid.
58. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Declaration on Religious Freedom "Dignitatis
Humanae," 2; cf also GREGORY XVI, Encyclical Epistle
"Mirari Vos Arbitramur" (15 August 1832): "Acta
Gregorii Papae XVI," I, 169-174; Pius IX, Encyclical
Epistle "Quanta Cura" (8 December 1864): Pii
IX PM. "Acta," I, 3, 687-700; LEO XIII, Encyclical
Letter "Libertas Praestantissimum" (20 June
1888): "Leonis XIII PM. Acta, VIII", Romae
1889, 212-246.
59. "A Letter Addressed
to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk: Certain Difficulties Felt by
Anglicans in Catholic Teaching" (Uniform Edition: Longman,
Green and Company, London, 1868-1881), vol. 2, p 250.
60. Cf. Pastoral Constitution
on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 40
and 43.
61. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas,
"Summa Theologia," I-II, q. 71, a. 6, see also
ad 5um.
62. Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical
Letter "Humani Generis" (12 August 1950): AAS
42 (1950), 561-562.
63. Cf. Ecumenical Council of
Trent, Sess. VI, Decree on Justification "Cum Hoc Tempore,"
Canons 19-21: DS, 1569-1571.
64. Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 17.
65. "De Hominis Opificio"
Chap. 4: PG 44, 135-136.
66. Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 36.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid.
69. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas,
"Summa Theologia," I-II, q. 93 a. 3, ad 2um,
cited by John XXIII, Encyclical Letter "Pacem in Terris"
(11 April 1963): AAS 55 (1963), 271.
70. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 41.
71. Saint Thomas Aquinas, "In
Duo Praecepta Caritatis et in Decem Legis Praecepta. Prologus:
Opuscula Theologica," II, No. 1129, Ed. Taurinen. (1954),
245.
72. Cf. Address to a Group
of Bishops from the United States on the occasion of their "ad
Limina" Visit (15 October 1988), 6: "Insegnamenti,"
XI, 3 (1988), 1228.
73. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 47.
74. Cf. Saint Augustine, "Enarratio
in Psalmum LXII," 16: CCL 39, 804.
75. Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 17.
76. "Summa Theologia,"
I-II, q. 91, a. 2.
77. Cf. "Catechism of
the Catholic Church," No. 1955.
78. Declaration on Religious
Freedom "Dignitatis Humanae," 3.
79. "Contra Faustum,"
Bk 22, Chap. 27: PL 42, 418.
80. "Summa Theologia
I-II, q. 93, a. 1.
81. Cf. ibid, I-II, q.
90, a. 4, ad 1um.
82. Ibid, I-II, q. 91,
a. 2.
83. Encyclical Letter "Libertas
Praestantissimum" (20 June 1888): "Leonis XIII
P. M. Acta," VIII, Romae 1889, 219.
84. "In Epistulam ad
Romanos," c. VIII, lect. 1.
85. Cf. Sess. IV, Decree on Justification
"Cum Hoc Tempore," Chap. 1: DS, 1521.
86. Cf. Ecumenical Council of
Vienne, Constitution "Fidei Catholicae:" DS,
902; Fifth Lateran Ecumenical Council, Bull "Apostolici
Regiminis:" DS, 1440.
87. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 14.
88. Cf. Sess. VI, Decree on Justification
"Cum Hoc Tempore," Chap. 15: DS, 1544.
The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on Reconciliation and
Penance in the Mission of the Church Today cites other texts
of the Old and New Testaments which condemn as mortal sins certain
modes of conduct involving the body: cf. "Reconciliatio
et Paenitentia" (2 December 1984), 17: AAS 77
(1985), 218-223.
89. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 51.
90. Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its
Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation "Donum Vitae"
(22 February 1987), Introduction, 3: AAS 80 (1988), 74;
cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae (25 July
1968), 10: AAS 60 (1968), 487- 488.
91. Apostolic Exhortation "Familiaris
Consortio" (22 November 1981) 11 AAS 74 (1982),
92.
92. "De Trinitate,"
XIV, 15, 21: CCL 50/A, 451.
93. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas,
"Summa Theologia," I-II, q. 94, a. 2.
94. Cf. SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL.
COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 10; SACRED Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions concerning
Sexual Ethics "Persona Humana" (29 December
1975), 4: AAS 68 (1976), 80: "But in fact, divine
Revelation and, in its own proper order, philosophical wisdom,
emphasize the authentic exigencies of human nature. They thereby
necessarily manifest the existence of immutable laws inscribed
in the constitutive elements of human nature and which are revealed
to be identical in all beings endowed with reason".
95. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 29.
96. Cf. ibid, 16.
97. Ibid, 10.
98. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas,
"Summa Theologia" I-II, q. 108, a. 1. St. Thomas
bases the fact that moral norms, even in the context of the New
Law, are not merely formal in character but have a determined
content, upon the assumption of human nature by the Word.
99. Saint Vincent of Lerins,
"Commonitorium Primum," c. 23: PL 50,
668.
100. The development of the Church's
moral doctrine is similar to that of the doctrine of the faith
(cf. First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution
on the Catholic Faith "Dei Filius," Chap. 4:
DS, 3020, and Canon 4: DS, 3024). The words spoken
by John XXIII at the opening of the Second Vatican Council can
also be applied to moral doctrine: "This certain and unchanging
teaching (i. e., Christian doctrine in its completeness), to
which the faithful owe obedience, needs to be more deeply understood
and set forth in a way adapted to the needs of our time. Indeed,
this deposit of the faith, the truths contained in our time-honoured
teaching, is one thing; the manner in which these truths are
set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something
else": AAS 54 (1962), 792; cf. "L'Osservatore
Romano," 12 October 1962, p. 2.
101. Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 16.
102. Ibid.
103. "In II Librum Sentent",
dist. 39, a. 1, q. 3, conclusion: Ed. Ad Claras Aquas, II, 907b.
104. Address (General
Audience, 17 August 1983), 2: "Insegnamenti,"
VI, 2 (1983), 256.
105. Supreme Sacred Congregation
of the Holy Office, Instruction on "Situation Ethics"
"Contra Doctrinam" (2 February 1956) AAS
48 (1956), 144.
106. Encyclical Letter "Dominum
et Vivificantem" (18 May 1986), 43: AAS 78 (1986),
859; Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 16;
Declaration on Religious Freedom "Dignitatis Humanae,"
3.
107. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council., Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 16.
108. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas,
"De Veritate," q 17, a. 4.
109. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council., Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 16.
110. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas,
"Summa Theologia," II-II, q. 45, a. 2.
111. Declaration on Religious
Freedom "Dignitatis Humanae," 14.
112. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, "Dei
Verbum," 5; cf. First Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith "Dei Filius,"
Chap. 3: DS, 3008.
113. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation "Dei
Verbum," 5. Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions regarding Sexual
Ethics "Persona Humana" (29 December 1975),
10: AAS 68 (1976), 88-90.
114. Cf . Post-Synodal Apostolic
Exhortation "Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" (2
December 1984), 17: AAS 77 (1985), 218-223.
115. Sess. VI, Decree on Justification
"Cum Hoc Tempore," Chap. 15: DS, 1544;
Canon 19: DS, 1569.
116. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
"Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" (2 December 1984),
17: AAS 77 (1985), 221.
117. Ibid: loc. cit.,
223.
118. Ibid.: loc. cit.,
222.
119. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 17.
120. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas,
"Summa Theologia," I-II, q. 1, a. 3: "Idem
sunt actus morales et actus humani".
121. "De Vita Moysis,"
II, 2-3: PG 44, 327-328.
122. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas,
"Summa Theologia," II-II, q. 148, a. 3.
123. The Second Vatican Council,
in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,
makes this clear: "This applies not only to Christians but
to all men of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at
work since Christ died for all and since man's ultimate calling
comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged
to hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of
sharing in this paschal mystery in a manner known to God":
Gaudium et Spes, 22.
124. "Tractatus ad Tiberium
Diaconum sociosque, II. Responsiones ad Tiberium Diaconum sociosque:"
SaintCyril of Alexandria, "In Divi Johannis Evangelium,"
vol. III, ed. Philip Edward Pusey, Brussels, Culture et Civilisation
(1965), 590.
125. Cf. Ecumenical Council of
Trent, Session VI, Decree on Justification "Cum Hoc Tempore,"
Canon 19: DS, 1569. See also: CLEMENT XI, Constitution
"Unigenitus Dei Filius" (8 September
1713) against the Errors of Paschasius Quesnel, Nos. 53-56: DS,
2453-2456.
126. Cf. Summa Theologia,"
I-II, q. 18, a 6.
127. "Catechism of the
Catholic Church," No. 1761.
128. "In Duo Praecepta
Caritatis et in Decem Legis Praecepta. De Dilectione Dei: Opuscula
Theologica," II, No. 1168, Ed. Taurinen. (1954) 250.
129. Saint Alphonsus Maria De
Liguori, "Pratica di amar Gesu Cristo," VII,
3.
130. Cf. "Summa Theologia,"
I-II, q. 100, a. 1.
131. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
"Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" (2 December 1984),
17 AAS 77 (1985), 221; cf. Paul VI, Address to
Members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, (September
1967): AAS 59 (1967), 962: "Far be it from Christians
to be led to embrace another opinion, as if the Council taught
that nowadays some things are permitted which the Church had
previously declared intrinsically evil. Who does not see in this
the rise of a depraved "moral relativism," one that
clearly endangers the Church's entire doctrinal heritage?"
132. Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 27.
133. Encyclical Letter Humanae
Vitae (25 July 1968), 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491.
134. "Contra Mendacium,
VII, 18: PL 40, 528, cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, "Quaestiones
Quodlibetales," IX, q. 7, a. 2; "Catechism of
the Catholic Church," Nos. 1753-1755.
135. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Declaration on Religious Freedom "Dignitatis
Humanae," 7.
136. Address to those taking
part in the International Congress of Moral Theology (10 April
1986), 1: "Insegnamenti" IX, 1 (1986), 970.
137. Ibid., 2: loc.
cit., 970-971.
138. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 24.
139. Cf. Encyclical Letter "Redemptor
Hominis" (4 March 1979), 12: AAS 71 (1979), 280-281.
140. "Enarratio in Psalmum"
XCIX, 7: CCL 39, 1397.
141. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium,
36; cf. Encyclical Letter "Redemptor Hominis"
(4 March 1979), 21: AAS 71 (1979), 316-317.
142. Roman Missal, Prayer
for the Memorial of the Beheading of John the Baptist, Martyr,
August 29.
143. Saint Bede the Venerable,
"Homeliarum Evangelii Libri," II, 23: CCL
122, 556-557.
144. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 27.
145. "Ad Romanos,"
VI, 2-3: "Patres Apostolici," ed. F. X. FUNK,
I, 260-261.
146. "Moralia in Job,"
VII, 21, 24: PL 75, 778: "huius mundi aspera pro
aeternis praemiis amare".
147. "Summum crede nefas
animam praeferre pudori et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas":
Satirae, VIII, 83-84.
148. Apologia II, 8: PG
6, 457-458.
149. Apostolic Exhortation "Familiaris
Consortio" (22 November 1981) 33: AAS 74 (1982),
120.
150. Cf. ibid, 34: loc.
cit., 123-125
151. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Reconciliatio et Paenitentia" (2 December 1984),
34: AAS 77 (1985), 272.
152. Encyclical Letter Humanae
Vitae (25 July 1968), 29: AAS 60 (1968), 501.
153. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World
Gaudium et Spes, 25.
154. Cf. Encyclical Letter Centesimus
Annus (1 May 1991), 24: AAS 83 (1991), 821-822.
155 Ibid., 44: loc.
cit., 848-849; cf. LEO XIII, Encyclical Letter "Libertas
Praestantissimum" (20 June 1888): "Leonis XIII
P.M. Acta," VIII, Romae 1889, 224-226.
156. Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo
Rei Socialis (30 December 1987), 41: AAS 80 (1988),
571.
157. "Catechism of the
Catholic Church," No. 2407.
158. Cf. ibid., Nos. 2408-2413
159. Ibid., No 2414.
160. Cf. Encyclical Letter Christifideles
Laici (30 December 1988), 42: AAS 81 (1989), 472-476.
161. Encyclical Letter Centesimus
Annus (1 May 1991), 46: AAS 83), 850.
162. Sess. VI, Decree on Justification
"Cum Hoc Tempore," Chap. 11: DS, 1536;
cf. Canon 18: DS, 1568. The celebrated text from Saint
Augustine, which the Council cites, is found in "De Natura
et Gratia," 43, 40 (CSEL 60, 270).
163. Oratio I: PG
97, 805-806.
164. Address to those
taking part in a course on "responsible parenthood"
(1 March 1984), 4: "Insegnamenti" VII, I (1984),
583.
165. "De Interpellatione
David," IV, 6, 22: CSEL 32/2, 283-284.
166. Address to the Bishops
of CELAM (9 March 1983), III: "Insegnamenti, VI,
1 (1983), 698.
167. Apostolic Exhortation "Evangelii
Nuntiandi" (8 December 1975) 75: AAS 68 (1976),
64.
168. "De Trinitate,"
XXIX, 9-10: CCL 4, 70.
169. Second Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium,
12.
170. Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
"Donum Veritatis" (24 May 1990), 6: AAS 82 (1990),
1552.
171. Address to the Professors
and Students of the Pontifical Gregorian University (15 December
1979), 6: "Insegnamenti" II, 2 (1979), 1424.
172. Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation
of the Theologian "Donum Veritatis" (24 May
1990), 16: AAS 82 (1990), 1557.
173. Cf. Code of Canon Law,
Canons 252, 1; 659, 3.
174. Cf. First Vatican Ecumenical
Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith "Dei
Filius," Chap. 4: DS, 3016.
175. Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical
Letter Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968), 28: AAS 60
(1968), 501.
176. Sacred Congregation for
Catholic Education, "The Theological Formation of Future
Priests" (22 February 1976), No. 100. See Nos. 95-101,
which present the prospects and conditions for a fruitful renewal
of moral theology: loc. cit., 39-41.
177. Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
"Donum Veritatis" (24 May 1990), 11: AAS
82 (1990), 1554; cf. in particular Nos. 32-39, devoted to the
problem of dissent: ibid., loc. cit., 1562-1568.
178. Dogmatic Constitution on
the Church Lumen Gentium, 25.
179. Cf. Code of Canon Law,
Canon 803, 3.
180. Cf. Code of Canon Law,
Canon 808
181. "O inaestimabilis
dilectio caritatis: ut servum redimeres, Filium tradidisti!":
"Missale Romanum, In Resurrectione Domini, Praeconium Paschale."
182. "In Johannis Evangelium
Tractatus," 26, 13: CCL, 36, 266.
183. "De Virginibus,"
Bk. II, Chap. II, 15: PL 16, 222.
184. Ibid., Bk. II, Chap.
II, 7: PL 16, 220.
|