INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN ETHICS – BST 113

COURSE OUTLINE
1. General Introduction
a) Definition of Moral Theology/Christian Ethics
b) Sources of Moral Theology
c) Moral Theology and other Disciplines
2. Human Acts
3. Human Freedom
4. Morally Bad Action: Sin
5. The Moral Law/Natural Law
6. Human Conscience
7. Situation Ethics

REFERENCES”

1. PESCHKE, K. H. (1993) CHRISTIAN ETHICS: MORAL THEOLOGY IN THE

LIGHT OF VATICAN II, VOL.1. REVISED EDITION. ALCESTER: C.
GOODLIFE.
2. PAZHAYAMPALLIL, THOMAS (2004) PASTORAL GUIDE VOL.1
3. AUSTIN FAGOTHEY, RIGHT AND REASON, 2 ND EDITION. BANGALORE:
KRISTU JYOTI PUBLICATIONS.
4. PATRICIA LAMOUREX AND P. WADELL, (2011) THE CHRISTIAN MORAL
LIFE. BANGALORE: THEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS.
5. LOBO, GEORGE V. (2003) MORAL THEOLOGY TODAY: CHRISTIAN LIVING
ACCORDING TO VATICAN II. BANGALORE: THEOLOGICAL
PUBLICATIONS.
6. CURRAN, CHARLES E (ED., 2004) CONSCIENCE: READINGS IN MORAL
THEOLOGY NO. 4. NEW YORK: PAULIST PRESS.
7. MAY, WILLIAM E. (2003) AN INTRODUCTION TO MORAL THEOLOGY, 2 ND
EDITION. HUNTINGTON, OUR SUNDAY VISITOR PUBLISHING DIVISION
8. H. DAVIS, MORAL AND PASTORAL THEOLOGY IN 4 VOLUMES
9. JOSEPH FLETCHER, SITUATION ETHICS.
10. O’CONNELL, TIMOTHY E. (1990) PRINCIPLES FOR A CATHOLIC
MORALITY, REVISED EDITION. NEW YORK, HARPERCOLLINS
PUBLISHERS

1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
There are certain actions which all of us would condemn as morally wrong and ought not
to be done by anybody, for example armed robbery, embezzlement of public fund, stealing,
adultery, dishonesty, killing, etc. Even those who engage in these kinds of actions would agree
that the actions are morally wrong, which nobody ought to perform, hence they try to escape and
avoid being caught. There are also certain kinds of actions which all would consider as morally
right, for example, respect for human life, honesty, helping those in need, expression of love to
others, etc.
Also, there are certain kinds of action about which opinions differ. Some people consider
them as wrong while others consider them as right. Example of such actions are the use of
contraceptives, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, etc. Hence the following question: why do we
decide certain actions as right and others as wrong? How do we decide which actions are right
and which actions are wrong? What is the criterion or standard for making such judgements? Is it
up to the individual to decide for himself or herself which actions he is to consider as right and
which to consider as wrong? What would it mean to live in a way that is truly becoming of a
human being?
These and similar question drive the study of Ethics in general, either philosophical or
theological ethics, because the most central concern of studying ethics is to help one DISCOVER
what a good human life is and what one has to do to achieve it. The basic ethical question
therefore simply is: What does it mean to act rightly and well? This is why Ethics is not
interested in what a man does except to compare it with what he “ought” to do. As creatures of
God, we are not born morally good or bad but we grow up to be either good or bad person by
choice, through performing good or bad acts. These acts that either make us good or bad always
proceed from freedom of choice, carried out deliberately and having the full knowledge of the
object of the act itself. Hence the study of Christian Ethics.

Definition of Christian Ethics

Christian Ethics, also known as Moral Theology or Theological Ethics is commonly
defined as that part of theology which studies the guidelines a person must follow to attain his or
her final goal in the light of Christian faith (Peschke 3). It is a part of theology that is concerned
with God’s revelation of himself in Christ through the Spirit as an invitation which demands our
response by our free will. It emphasizes how we should behave and live. It proposes Christian
2
doctrine as truth to be lived and not only believed. The proper context of Moral Theology
embraces the salvation – redemption revealed in Christ and accepted by the Christian in faith. It
reflects primarily, therefore, on the revelation by which the triune God, in Christ and through his
church manifests himself to human beings.
In short, moral theology is interested in the implications of Christian faith for the sort of
persons we ought to be (this is often called “an ethics of being” or “ethics of character”) and the
sort of actions we ought to perform (this is often called “ethics of doing”). The elaboration of the
guidelines, that is, the moral norms which ought to be followed, is an essential task of moral
theology. It is also the task of moral theology to pay attention to the type of person a human
being and a Christian ought to be. These tasks of moral theology are summarized by R.M Gula in
his book Reason Informed by Faith that: “Moral goodness is a quality of the person, constituted
not by rule keeping behavior alone, but by cultivating certain virtues, attitudes, and
outlooks”(7). The ethics of being focuses on the formation of character, patterns of action, the
right vision of life, the basic values and convictions which move a person to do what he or she
believes to be right. Therefore, both concerns – “ethics of doing” and “ethics of being” need to
be considered in any complete project of moral theology.
For us as Christian, the question to be asked is: What sort of person should I become
because I believe in Christ? Considering this, moral theology is also concerned with the moral
dispositions and virtues which a person ought to acquire and to possess. The broad context of
Christian ethics, therefore, includes all human and created values and norms based on God’s
revelation and their consequences for Christ-like living. Hence we adopt the definition of Henry
Peschke in his book Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II that: “Christian
ethics could be defined as that part of theology whose object is the foundations, attitudes and
guidelines which enable a person to attain to his or her final goal in the light of reason and
Christian faith.”
Christian ethics is presupposed by two postulations: (1) freedom of will and (2)
accountability to an ultimate Being. For ethics to be possible, it must presuppose that man
possesses freedom of will. This shows that if human activities were entirely predetermined by
physical and psychological causalities, moral appeals to personal responsibility would be
impossible. Man’s action could only be influenced by the pressure of physical or psychological

3
force. Men experience themselves not merely as instruments in the hands of higher forces, but as
creative agents, able to choose among alternatives and capable of self-determination.
Ethics also presupposes that man is accountable to an Ultimate Value or Authority, which
can claim his unconditional obedience. This ultimate accountability is what gives the moral
demand its categorical character. Only on this condition is it possible to speak of moral duties in
the strict sense which bind a person in conscience and which he or she cannot refuse to obey
without becoming guilty. From the commitment to this supreme value, human life at the same
time also receives its ultimate meaning. For us Christians, the ultimate value is God, the creator
of all that exists.

Ethics and Morality

Ethics is derived from the Greek word “ethos” which means primarily “custom: it is often
used to refer to a man’s character. Related to this is the Latin word for character “mos” and the
plural rendering for “mores” which has the same meaning with “moral” and “morality” which
means the rightness or wrongness of human acts. Ethics is also called moral philosophy.
By derivation of the word, ethics is the study of human customs. But by classical
definition ethics is the science of human conduct and it issues from critical reflection on the
meaning of the words, good and bad as applied to human activity and especially to decision
making. This is why it is the philosophical study of morality, that is, of right conduct, moral
obligation, moral character, social justice and the nature of a good life. Thus ethics rests on a fact
of experience, that is, men’s conviction that some acts are right and ought to be done, others are
wrong and ought not to be done. Hence, ethics is the study of “right” and “wrong”, of “good”
and “evil” in human conduct.
Morality on the other hand means the rightness or wrongness of human acts. Morality is
the quality in human acts by which we call them right or wrong, good or evil. Hence the terms
“ethics”, “morals” and “morality” are often used synonymously. The same is true of “ethical”
and “moral.” Thus to act ethically or morally means to act in accord with accepted relies of
conduct which cover moral matters. To have ethics or a morality is to hold a set of beliefs about
that which is good and evil, commanded or forbidden.
It is good at this point to differentiate between terms “moral”, “amoral” and “immoral”.
Moral: - This is opposed to “amoral” – it means “subject to moral law” or “morally
responsible”. We say that, for example, a free and rational being is a moral being, or in order
4
words, that man is by nature a moral being. This means that man (in as much as he is free and
rational being) is subject to the moral law and morally responsible for his actions. The other
meaning of “moral” is opposed to the term “immoral”. For example, we say that a man is living a
moral life, or a criminal is not living a moral life. In this sense, moral means “good” or “praise
worthy”.
Amoral: - the term “amoral” means “not subject to moral law”, “cannot be held morally
responsible” or again “has nothing to do with morality”. Thus, for example, animals are amoral,
infants are amoral. This means that they cannot be held responsible for what they do or that they
are not subject to moral law.
Immoral: - the term “immoral” means “morally bad” or “morally evil”. We say for example that
criminals are living immoral lives.
However, some scholars have tried to distinguish between ethics and morals; words that
seem to suggest the same meaning. Among the contemporary scholars that made the attempt was
James M. Gustafson, a leading Protestant ethicist in America in his book The Moral Teaching of
the New Testament. According to him, Ethics is the theoretical part of moral theology. By this he
meant that ethics is the level of thinking that is prior to action, and serves as the basis for
answering the practical question: “what should I do?” According to him, ethics is made up of
three formal elements:
1. An understanding of the human person as a moral agent;
2. An understanding of the good as the goal of moral conduct;
3. Points of reference (like moral norms) which serve as criteria for moral judgement.
Morals in Gustafson’s terms is the practical level of moral theology. Morals are concerned with
answering the practical question what should I do? Answering this question involves at least four
tasks according to him. These include:
 Analyzing the situation in which the moral dilemma arises – this involves a careful
gathering of data in order to get the lay of the moral land;
 Knowing the specific character of the moral agent who must decide and act in this
situation – this involves a consideration of the agent’s capacities, dispositions, intentions,
and the like;

5
  Considering the agent’s basic religious beliefs and fundamental convictions – these
influence the interpretation the agent makes of the moral situation and the direction the
agent takes in life;
 Appealing to appropriate norms – this enlightens and guides the agent in order to ensure
that significant values are properly respected (What are They Saying about Moral Norms?
Pp 9 – 10).
Morality is the basis of ethics. Ever before we started studying ethics, we already have a
sense of morality and we already make moral judgements even without reflecting explicitly on
the principles underlying our moral judgements. Ethics presupposes that we already have a sense
of morality and it is the systematic study of the fundamental principles underlying morality.
Hence morality is the basic of ethics, the latter is the explicit reflection on, and the systematic
study of the former.

Sources of Moral Theology

The sources of moral theology refer to work or documents in which the moral law is
expressed and from which we learn its meaning and its applications. The sources of Moral
Theology include: Sacred Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, the writings of the Fathers, Doctors
of the Church and Theologians of the Church, Natural Law, the Sense of Faith and Civil Law.
However, among all these, the primary sources are the Sacred Scripture, Magisterium and
Tradition. These three are closely connected with one another. Dei Verbum 10 points out that: “It
is clear… that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture
and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one cannot stand
without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit,
they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

i. Sacred Scripture
Scripture has traditionally been seen as an authoritative source of moral formation,
inspiration, and instruction, expressing God’s will concerning who we should be and what we
should do. In the words of St. Timothy, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for
teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who
belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3: 16-17). Theology

6
generally, has as its basis the Sacred Scripture. The Second Vatican Council in Presbyterorum
Ordinis (16) maintains that Holy Scripture should be the soul, as it were, of all theology. Pope
Paul VI in Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum states that Sacred Scripture is “a perpetual
source of spiritual life, the chief instrument for handing down Christian doctrine, and the centre
of all theological study.” The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation also states the
following about the relationship between Sacred Scripture and theology: “Sacred theology rests
on the written Word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual
foundation. By scrutinizing in the light of faith all truth stored up in the mystery of Christ,
theology is most powerfully strengthened and constantly rejuvenated by that Word. For the
Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the
soul of sacred theology” (24).

Vatican II thus views Sacred Scripture as the nourishment of moral theology and the soul of
all sacred theology, terms which indicate how close the relationship should be. Sacred Scripture
does not merely serve as just another argument or proof for some moral principles and particular
norms. It should constitute the basic source giving moral theology its main orientation. In this
way, moral theology retains contact with the mystery of Christ and God’s revealed ways of
dealing with men. Together with Tradition, Sacred Scripture is the fount of all saving truth and
the rules of conduct. It is the source of holiness, of spiritual life and of Church communion in
truth and love, and the soul of Catechesis and of theology. The Holy Scripture is divided into two
– Old Testament and New Testament. There are 46 books in the OT and 27 books in the NT. All
together there are 73 books.

In the OT, there are ceremonial precepts, judicial precepts, and moral precepts. The
ceremonial precepts were those which prescribed the manner of performing divine worship.
They were the rites, the ministers and legal purity and conditions required for participation in
divine worship. Their function was to keep awake the yearning for Christ and excite a sense of
sin and of the need for the redemption from God, and when eventually Christ came and perfect
cult was established, the ceremonial law of the OT was abolished (cf. Heb. 9: 9-12).

The judicial precepts regulated the daily life of the people, domestic, social, economic and
judicial affairs. The judicial precepts determined the justice that should be maintained among the
people of Israel. An example of a judicial precept in the OT is (Deut. 25: 1-3). The moral

7
precepts defined the duties to God and man that arise from the dictates of reason and the natural
law. The substance of the moral precepts of the OT such as, “Thou shall not kill,” “Thou shall
not steal,” etc., preserved their binding force also in the New Testament.

According to the Council of Trent, the Gospel is the source of all salutary truth and of all
moral rules. However, John Paul II points out that “The Gospel does not present immediate
solutions to problems, but enlightens man’s mind to find the total meaning of life, of the person,
of human values such as freedom, love, family, work, culture, etc…” (Address to the Youth of
the three Venezias in the Appiani Stadium, Padua, 12 Sept, 1982, cf. L’Ossevatore Romano, ed.
English, 11 October 1982, p, 10). However the Church offers her contributions to the solution of
the urgent problem of development when she proclaims the truth about Christ, about herself and
about man, applying this truth to a concrete situation.
In the NT, there are precepts and counsels, such as divorce (Mt 5: 32), oaths (Mt 5: 34) etc.,
however, it is difficult to distinguish which is precept and which is counsel, hence the need for
authentic interpretation. The Magisterium of the Church is a sure guide in this.

Morality in general terms is concerned with preserving and fostering the standards judged to
be required for human well-being and flourishing, and while it attempts to give direction and
meaning to an individual’s life and the lives of others, Christian morality flowing from a
religious faith in Jesus as the Son of God and as revealed in the Scriptures has something special
to offer. Scripture calls us to greater things. The New Testament exhorts us to be holy (cf. Eph.
5: 1-2). The primary concern is not merely to discern what is permitted and what is prohibited,
rather, the primary concern of the Scripture in terms of morality is to exhort people to be and do
more than the minimum. Scriptures offer encouragement to walk towards Christian sanctity and
to live as Christ did, to imitate his freedom of heart, his love for the poor, his kindness and
compassion. In other words, the Scripture calls us to do more than just avoid certain behaviours
or even to be satisfied with behaviour that does not harm. Scripture should make us ask the
question: “What will lead the Christian community to grow in love and hope?”

The Scripture is also the basis for love responding to love. The Word of God reveals to us
that we are loved by God. This reality is the basis of the Christian moral life. Once we believe
the actuality of this, then the same Word of God calls or exhorts us to respond to the One who
loves us. We respond by becoming a certain type of person and by acting in a certain way.

8
Important commands in the Word of God concern what kind of character we should form and
what sort of actions we should perform. However, these commands come as a response to God’s
love.

ii. Tradition
The term tradition means “handing on” by words of mouth. It is through traditions that all
societies are nurtured, and through which they derive their original purpose, their constitution
and organisation, their basic principle and their ideals, their way of life, their rules and laws.
Tradition can be understood as a fundamental structure of human and social life. It can be seen as
a basis of various cultures throughout the world during their long history. But there is always a
hierarchy in what is passed on. The various traditions of a given society are relative to a central
tradition that may be in the public domain or may be kept by a few as a precious secret. The
central tradition determines the very nature of society.
Often the core of tradition can come from what is conceived as a divine source, or at least an
authoritative source, it is to be found in the myths of peoples, the way people act, speak, and
worship with the help of sacred texts, rituals and liturgy. It is also expressed in the way people
think and behave, aided by precepts and doctrines. In fact, tradition is all about the transmission,
or the handing on of the meaning of life. Traditions are therefore, a guide to living, a map for the
difficult terrain of living, surviving, and even flourishing with meaning and purpose. Tradition is
all about truths received and transmitted further along the line of humanity.

Tradition, according to Catholic teaching, is one of the sources of divine revelation together
with the Sacred Scripture (Dei Verbum 10; CCC 80-83). So God’s Word of revelation is handed
on from generation to generation through the Scriptures and through Tradition. This sacred
Tradition includes all what the Apostles received – whether from the lips of Christ, from his way
of life and his works, or by coming to know it through the promptings of the Holy Spirit (Dei
Verbum 7). The Apostles handed the Tradition on through their preaching, their examples, their
instructions, and in turn, the Church through her teaching, worship and life continues to pass on
the Tradition (CCC173).

The Holy Spirit is the invisible source of the “memory” of the Church which is manifested in
Tradition. Jesus told his Apostles “I have said these things to you while I am with you. But the
Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything,

9
and remind you of all that I have said to you” (John 14: 25-26). Tradition is the remembrance or
memory of all that the Church has been told by Christ: the entire inheritance of Revelation and
faith (John Paul II, Regina Caeli Message, 20 April 1986). “Hence, there exists a close
connection between the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from
the same divine well spring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend towards the same end”
(Dei Verbum 9). It continues that: “What was handed on by the Apostles comprises everything
that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith. In this
way the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation
all that she herself is, all that she believes” (Dei Verbum 8).

St Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 3-8; 11: 2 points out that, for the first Christian generation, the tradition
(paradosis) is the proclamation of the event of Christ and its actual meaning, which effects
salvation through the action of the Holy Spirit. The tradition of the Lord’s words and actions was
gathered in the four Gospels. St. Paul writes: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold
fast to the tradition that you were taught by us, either by words of mouth or by our letter” (2
Thess. 2: 15). It not only concerns the “deposit” of the “true doctrine” (cf. 2 Tim 1: 12; Tit 1: 9),
but also the norms of behaviour and the rules for community life (1 Thess. 4: 1-7; 1 Cor. 4: 17; 7:
17; 11: 16).

The understanding of the NT is closely bound up with that of the first Christians during the
early centuries of the Church. The NT is not a book which fell out of the blue, and which we
only need to read in order to understand without any need for external help. The NT is the result
of a living, oral tradition which was not exhausted the moment the various apostolic authors
confided their testimonies to paper. The Church continues to read the Scripture in the light of the
“rule of faith, that is, of her living faith that has remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles.

iii. Various Traditions

Tradition may contain what Our Lord Jesus himself said and did or what the Apostles
said either in their capacity as transmitter of divine Revelation (Divine Tradition), or in their
capacity as the teachers and rulers of the first Christian communities (Apostolic Tradition) or
what the Church taught from the beginning (Ecclesial Tradition). The Apostolic Tradition
“comes from the Apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example
and what they learned from the Holy Spirit…” (CCC83).

10
 Theologians often make a distinction between Tradition (beginning with a capital “T”)
and tradition (beginning with small “t”). The Catholic Church has a rich and venerable Tradition
(with “T”) – from the great Creedal statements of Faith, the Apostles’ Creed and the
NiceneConstantinopolitan Creed, to dogmas of the faith, such as Immaculate Conception and the
Assumption of Mary into heaven, to the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils. This Tradition is
not separate from the Scripture, hence it is referred to as “Word of God Tradition.” Tradition
with capital “T” is central. It is always binding for Catholics.

Along with the “Word of God” Tradition, there also develop in the Church various
traditions (with the small “t”). Tradition with small “t” on the other hand, are peripheral. They
include much that may be transitory, such as, the touching and kissing of Statues of Jesus, Mary
and the Saints, certain holy days of obligation, kneeling and standing in the Church, etc. Such
practices are not to be put on the same level as the “Word of God” Tradition which is part of the
deposit of the faith. Sometimes such traditions spring up, change and die out. Sometimes they
need to change, to be refined or even to cease. However, both kinds of tradition, refer to Catholic
beliefs or practices passed on from generation to generation.

Tradition is the ongoing life, teaching and worship of the Church which flows from scripture
and which in turn elucidates, clarifies the Word of God. Like any living thing, Tradition grows,
but this growth must be in continuity with the past.

iv. Magisterium
The word “Magisterium” comes from the Latin word “Magister” which means “Teacher”, or
even closer “Master”, in the sense of one who is highly competent in a particular area. When
used with regards to the Church, the Magisterium means the power which the Church has to
teaching authoritatively the truths connected with the salvation of souls. The ecclesiastical
Magisterium is a positive source of truth. It authentically interprets the natural law. Moreover, it
is the custodian of Revelation. The Bishops of the Church comprise the Magisterium, they are
the authoritative teachers in the community.

The Bishops of the Church have threefold ministry of sanctifying, governing, and teaching
the People of God. Our focus here is the teaching ministry. Giving “an authentic (authoritative)
interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has

11
been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is
exercised in the name of Jesus Christ (cf. Dei Verbum 10). The Magisterium interprets Scriptures
and Tradition for the community. In doing so, it requires other avenues to moral truth, such as
natural laws and the human science. In fact, much of the teaching of the Magisterium within the
moral tradition rests on its interpretation of the natural law. However, the Magisterium’s
principal competency are Scripture and Tradition. The Magisterium interprets these two avenues
to moral truth in a way that is faithful to them and strengthening for the people of God.

For this reason, “the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but, rather is its
servants. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help
of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devoutly, guards it reverently, and expounds it faithfully” (Dei
Verbum 10). The Magisterium stands within the Roman Catholic Tradition, and furthers it as it
interprets the Sacred Scripture in our world today. The Roman Catholic Tradition traces a
connection from the Bishops of today back to the Apostles and to Christ himself. The Second
Vatican Council teaches that Bishops “have by divine institution taken the place of the Apostles
as pastors of the Church in such wise that whoever hears them hears Christ and whoever rejects
them rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ (cf. Luke 10: 16)” (GS 20).

Varieties of Expression of the Magisterium

Within the Church, the Magisterium fulfils its task as authoritative interpreter of
Scripture and Tradition in a variety of ways. These range from a single letter written by a Bishop
in his Diocese to a statement by a National Conference of Bishops to a document approved by
the Bishops gathered with the Pope in Ecumenical Council to a statement made by the Pope
alone. All of these are the voices of the Magisterium. They fall, however, under two main
categories, the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium, depending on the
nature of the teaching and who is proposing it.

 Extraordinary Magisterium
The extraordinary Magisterium proposes teachings infallibly to the Church. This teaching may
be done by the whole College of Bishops, who only have authority if they are in communion
with the Pope. The Pope alone, as the head of the College of Bishops and universal head of the
Church, may also propose teachings infallibly (cf. GS 22).
 Ordinary Magisterium

12
 This refers to the common or usual teaching of the Bishops of the Church. When a
conference of Bishops from a particular country offers a teaching unanimously, confirmed by the
conference or approved by the two-thirds of the conference with subsequent approval by the
Vatican, it is an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium. Any teaching offered by a Bishop or
Bishops in his or their official capacity as pastors of the people of God falls under the category of
the ordinary Magisterium. Therefore, exercise of the ordinary Magisterium may include a
statement by the Pope alone, the Pope teaching with the Bishops, a Conference of Bishops, or an
individual Bishops. They offer or reaffirm a teaching for the good of the community in order that
the implications of faith for understanding and Christian practice may be more clearly
comprehended.

v. Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

 Fathers of the Church
Fathers of the Church refer to those Saints who by the power of their faith, the depth and
richness of their teachings, gave the Church new life and increase in the course of the first
centuries. They are in the real sense of it “Fathers” of the Church. This is because by means of
the Gospel, the Church received life from them. They are the builders of the Church because they
were the people who set up the main structures of the Church of God on the only one foundation
laid by the Apostles. This one foundation is none other than Christ Himself. Even today, the
Church still lives by the life received from the Fathers and on the structures erected by them.
According to John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter on the 16 th Centenary of St. Basil, “Every
subsequent proclamation and Magisterium, if it is to be authentic, must be compared with their
proclamation and their Magisterium. Every charism and every ministry must draw from the vital
source of their Fatherhood, and every new stone, added to the sacred edifice that grows and
expands, must be set in the structures already placed by them and must be welded and joined to
them” (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter on the 16 th Century of St. Basil, Patres Ecclesia, 2nd
January, 1980, in L’Ossevatore Romano, ed. English, 25 February 1980, 6).

The following four characteristics features distinguish the Fathers of the Church from
ecclesiastical writers:

1. Antiquity
2. Orthodox doctrine

13
 3. Holiness of life
4. The approval of the Church.

The Fathers are the transmitters and witnesses of the true doctrine, life, worship and holiness of
the Church.

 Doctors of the Church

A Doctor of the Church is one whose influence is left in the whole Church as that of a
teacher, even if he is set in the framework of the culture of the time. And since teaching in the
Church is, by logical consistency between teaching and the practice of one’s life, also a witness
of adherence to Christ in a perfect degree, the true Doctor of the Church must combine, with a
very high level of knowledge, holiness of life. Therefore, the criteria and conditions for
recognition as a Doctor of the Church are three: eminent doctrine, outstanding holiness of life,
and the declaration by the Church herself.

 Theologians of the Church

A theologian in the strict sense is one who is regarded as an expert in theology. He
derives his theological authority from his scholarship and scientific knowledge (John Paul II,
1990, Address at St. Alphonsus’ Tomb on 12 th November, 1990). According to George M.
Regan, the unanimous teachings of theologians merit respect as valuable sources of authentic
Christian witness to Christian belief, when proposed uninterruptedly with full acceptance by the
Christian community (New Trends in Moral Theology, 15). However, theologians are private
teachers. One can therefore follow their teaching if they prove what they teach.

Christian Ethics and Other Disciplines

1. Moral Theology and Dogmatic Theology

Dogmatic Theology and Moral Theology constitute Systematic Theology, which reflects upon
the totality of God’s self-manifestation in Christ. These disciplines seek a deeper understanding
of God’s word and are essentially one whole. St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica dealt
with Systematic Theology as one science and made no distinction between Dogmatic and Moral
Theology, but the two disciplines were later separated, especially after the Council of Trent
(1545 – 1563). The study of moral life was assigned to Practical or Moral Theology and the
theoretical aspect was assigned to Speculative or Dogmatic theology.
14
 Speculative theology treats of God as one and triune and as the beginning and end of
things, as truth “to be believed.” Practical theology studies God in himself and as the beginning
and end of things, not merely to be known, but in order that man may acknowledge him as his
Creator and that he may direct all his actions to him. Practical theology, then, is concerned with
things “to be done.” Speculative Theology is Dogmatic Theology while Practical Theology is
Moral Theology.
Dogmatic theology is faith seeking understanding and moral theology is faith seeking
authentic living. While availing itself of the theological and anthropological insights of dogmatic
theology, moral theology takes into account the findings of the various anthropological and
natural science, it draws consequences for the molding of the human person as well as for the
right actions and gives guidance to man in the realization of his final goal.

2. Moral Theology and Ethics

Ethics is a term used to mean Moral Philosophy. Moral theology differs essentially in sources of
knowledge, content, objective and methodology from philosophical ethics. Philosophical ethics
treats of the morality of human acts through the medium of natural reason alone. It views man as
he really exists, but only as know from man’s personal and collective experiences accumulated
through the centuries. Moral theology considers man as he is elevated to the supernatural destiny,
fallen and redeemed. It studies man’s actions especially under the supernatural light of
Revelation and teaching of the church. Moral theology thus has an approach that is totally
different from that of ethics, however, moral theology can incorporate the insight of ethics which
treats man’s moral project in the light of reason, while remaining open to faith. In manifesting
himself in Christ, God does not contradict man’s created endowment. A philosophical ethics
which bases itself on man’s moral ability founded in God’s created gifts can contribute to moral
theology many valid reflections which must then be integrated into a higher unity.
3. Moral Theology and Canon Law
Moral theology embraces the total response of the Christian to God’s invitation. All human acts,
viz acts which proceed from the free will of man come under the moral order. These acts are
either good or bad. For, man is free either to direct them or not to direct them to God. Within the
moral order, there is what is called social order which comprises certain acts done according to
certain norms which govern men’s relationship with one another. Some of these norms however
are not strictly obligatory, while there are certain norms which are obligatory for the smooth
15
running of a society, normally prescribed and enforced by competent authority; such norms form
the juridical order. The juridical order is part of the social and moral order. Canon Law in
general is concerned with the maintenance of the social and juridical order and the common good
of the church. Moral theology then is related to Canon Law because the latter obliges in
conscience; it imposes a moral obligation. The church’s laws pertain to the building up of the
church for which the Christian has responsibility. The entire legal ordering of the church, if
rightly understood, is only an expression of the loving pastoral care of the church towards her
members.
HUMAN ACTS
Our acts of virtue and our sins are the embodiment of our conscious free choices, of our
decision making. They are the fruits of the quality of our relationships or lack thereof in our
lives. They enflesh the values or disvalues that motivate us. When performed with full consent
and sufficient reflection, they are exercise of our personal “response-ability” and express the
fundamental orientation or basic direction of our lives. The aim of moral theology is to teach
man the means of attaining eternal salvation. These means are good acts that we perform – that is
the HUMAN ACTS.
Traditionally, Roman Catholic Moral Theology has made a distinction between a human
act and the act of man. This distinctiveness of the human response lies principally in the capacity
of human beings to know what they are doing and to freely will to do it.
Human acts (actushumani) are actions that proceed from insight into the nature and
purpose of one’s doing and from consent of free will. They can also be rightly called “Personal
acts.” The human act is one that is proper to a human being, an act that proceeds from insight
and the free will of man. It presupposes in the intellect some knowledge of the particular purpose
of the act, and in the will freedom of choice to perform it or not to perform it.
A human act (actus humans) is different from an act of man (actus hominis). Act of man
is that which is performed by human beings, but does not proceed from free will and it is without
the intervention of the intellect. They comprise all spontaneous biological and sensual processes,
such as, breathing, sensory impulse like feeling pain, spontaneous psychic reactions that proceed
the activity of intellect and will, like first reactions of anger or sympathy as well as all acts
performed by those who have not use of reason, like people asleep, lunatics, drunken people, etc.
Only the human act is the subject of moral value. It is the person in act.

16
 Through an objective evaluation of the human act, it is possible to access the acts moral
significance. Thus Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (71) states: “Human acts are moral
acts because they express and determine the goodness or evil of the individual who performs
them. They do not produce a change merely in the state of affairs outside of man, but to the
extent that they are deliberate choice, they give moral definition to the very person who performs
them, determining his profound spiritual traits.” Thus in a very real sense, all actions are
automatically and immediately inseparable from the person who performs them.
Human acts are distinguished as follows:
1. Elicited and Commanded: Elicited: It is in the will that choice and consent reside, and it
is these that give an act specifically human character. Hence if a man decide to do something
with clear consent of his will, but is prevented by circumstances from carrying out his decision,
he is responsible for this consent. Thus a man can be guilty of murder in intent although he never
gets the chance to execute his plans. This fully corresponds to the teaching of the Holy Scripture
that made Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his son equivalent with the actual fulfillment of the
deed.
A commanded act on the other hand is that which proceeds immediately from another faculty but
at the command of the will, such as the act of walking down the street. Physically, the act of the
will is distinct from the act of the commanded faculty; but morally the two are regarded as a
single act. The will makes decisions but actually relies on other faculties to carry out. The will
can decide to walk but cannot do the walking, it commands the legs to do the walking. Also, the
will decides to think, but it cannot do the thinking: it commands the intellect, the faculty of
understanding, to turn its attention to this thought rather than that.
2. Internal and External: An internal act proceeds from an internal faculty, such as the
intellect, the will or the memory: while an external human act proceeds from an external faculty
at the direction of the will, such as the hand, the tongue, the eyes etc. An external human act is
always a commanded act; but an internal act can be either elicited (if it proceeds immediately
from the will) or commanded (such as an act of faith elicited by the intellect at the command of
the will).
Two essential constitutive elements to human act include: COGNITIVE ELEMENT
AND VOLITIVE ELEMENT.

17
 i. Cognitive Element (Previous knowledge of the intellect)
The human act has a cognitive element, since man cannot will without knowing, even though his
knowledge itself depends upon his willing. We speak of previous knowledge because it is this
knowledge that determines the morality of the act. An act is morally good or bad when the
intellect perceives its goodness or malice before the act is done, and the will chooses it. The
knowledge which the intellect has of the act after it has been done does not affect the morality of
the act. Hence the human act is voluntary only if its different elements are sufficiently known.
The human act requires as essential conditions, knowledge of the aspired object, attention to the
action with which the objects is to be pursued, and judgement on the value of the act. The reason
is that man cannot will without knowing what object he is concerned with, without being master
and therefore consciously evaluating the action in its concrete nature as a desirable good or
undesirable evil, which appraisal also includes the judgement on the moral value of the act.
Hence the importance of discernment for freedom is thus evident. Discernment means here the
knowledge and reflection by which the value of an object is assessed. This is why an evaluative
knowledge is needed, which touches and involves the heart of the person.
An action is human, and therefore good or bad, only under those of its aspects which are
known. If a man robs and strikes a person not knowing him to be a priest, he is guilty of criminal
injury but not of a personal sacrilege. If a woman receives a gift of a pearl necklace, not knowing
that it is stolen, she is not guilty of any offence, but a victim of ignorance which excuses her
from guilt.
This previous knowledge may be speculative or practical.
- Speculative knowledge: is had when the intellect perceives the morality of the act which
the will does not intend to do; the intellect only wants to know its morality.
- Practical knowledge: is had when the intellect perceives the morality of the act which
the will intends to do, and because the will intends to do the act, the intellect considers its
morality. It is this practical knowledge that is the fundamental constitutive element of the
human act.
The practical knowledge may be complete or incomplete, distinct or obscure.
- Complete: the mind is fully conscious of that which the will does. It is not distracted.
- Incomplete: the mind is not fully conscious of that which the will does. It is distracted.

18
 - Distinct: the mind clearly perceives the goodness or malice of the act which the will
does, e.g., murder.
- Obscure: the mind does not perceive clearly the goodness or malice of the act which the
will does, e.g., one does not know clearly what marriage life will entails.
- Principle:
To constitute a human act, there is no need of a clear distinct knowledge of the object.
Obscure knowledge is sufficient, for one who has obscure knowledge can will the object all the
same, e.g. a young man may will to go into priesthood, although he may not have a clear
knowledge of what priesthood entails. Also, it suffices that one has no obscure knowledge that
bodily co-operation is required for the birth of offspring, and that one surrenders whatever right
is necessary for the cooperation and accepts a similar right from the other party; it is not
necessary that one should have exact knowledge of the technique of carnal relations. However,
the clearer the knowledge, the more human the act and hence more imputable.
ii. Volitive Element:
In order that an act may be said to be human, it must be willed and freely willed. Consent is an
element that properly constitutes the human act. It must be a voluntary act (actusvoluntarius). By
“voluntary”, classical moral theology means every act that proceeds from the will. Therefore it
means acts of the will itself that is an act performed in and by the will – the consent to or
approval of a particular course of action. Willingness or Voluntariness is something that
proceeds from intrinsic principle of man, otherwise what is done is not a human act, but an act of
man, e.g. sneezing.
In contrast to what is voluntary (the voluntarium), there is also that which is merely
wished or desired, but not put into effect by the will. One may desire rain but he cannot really
will it. Also if one would be pleased by the death of a certain person, his death is desired but not
willed. We are responsible always and only for what is voluntary. Voluntariness may be:
a) Perfect and Imperfect Voluntary Act.
Perfect Voluntariness (Voluntarium Perfectum): This is that which proceeds from the will
with full knowledge and with full consent of the will.
Imperfect Voluntariness (Voluntarium Imperfectum): This is an act which proceeds from the
will without full knowledge and full consent of the will, e.g., an act done when half asleep.

19
b) The Directly and Indirectly Voluntary Effect.
Directly Voluntary Effect (Voluntarium Directum): This is an act which one considers and
directly seeks. It is an act which the will wills and which it does because it wants to do it, e.g.
Cain wanted to kill Abel, and he killed him. Also murder for the sake of revenge.
Indirect Voluntary Act (Voluntarium Indirectum): This is that which is not intended but
merely permitted as the inevitable result of an object directly willed. One knows that a certain
effect will follow from an action or omission of his, nevertheless wills it. This distinction is of
great practical importance for the evaluation of actions that have a double effect, that is, an
action that has a good and an evil result.

c) The Positively and Negatively Voluntary Effect.

Positively Voluntary Effect: The will effects something positively by exercising active
influence on the causation of an object, for an example, injuring a neighbor by setting his house
on fire. Hiding a friend’s book so that he can fail examination.
Negatively Voluntary Effect: This is when the will effects something negatively by voluntary
omission of an act which could have averted an evil from another person or helped him to secure
a good.
It is good to point out that for an act to be human it must not only be voluntary, but must
also be freely willed. “CCC 1731 – 1734.” Freedom is not the ability to bring about any kind of
situation one wishes. It is the ability to deal with the situation which actually exists. Human
freedom is a limited freedom. We operate in a world which we did not create, a world with its
own possibilities and limitations, hence freedom does not mean doing everything that one likes
or wants. Freedom contains in itself the criterion of truth, the discipline of truth.
In moral sense, one is said to be truly free when he is master of his actions. Freedom then
implies that we are capable of doing good without constraint. Man is free because he possesses
the faculty of determining himself with regard to what is good and possesses the faulty of choice.
To be free is to be able to choose and to want to choose. To be really free is to live according to
one’s conscience. Freedom is the capacity to decide what is good by oneself and not through
external constraint. GS (17) says: “It is however, only in freedom… or by mere external
constraint.” Freedom is not an end in itself, it is the means, the path to attain the true good,
objective good, in a responsible manner.

20
Impediments to Human Acts
In judging human acts, ethics and jurisprudence take into consideration numerous factors
which can inhibit truly human behavior. Human beings are preconditioned in many ways that
make them not to be totally free. This is no denial of a realm genuine freedom in man, a realm
which ought to be increased by pushing back the margin of ignorance and undue pressure even
farther. But certain limits of freedom will always remain, and at times unfavorable condition can
impair it grievously or even totally.
The following are obstacles to human acts: (i) Ignorance (ii) Error (iii) Inattention (iv)
Passion (v) Violence (vi) Fear (vii) Disposition and Habits. Ignorance, error and inattention do
not impair the origination of a human act but only the voluntariness, and consequently the
imputability, of its effects by preventing a clear knowledge of the object of the act – These are
regarded as impediments to required knowledge. Passion, violence, fear, and disposition and
habit are impediments to free consent (the volitive constituent). These obstacles impair the
coming about of a human acts in its roots by diminishing or preventing the consent of free will.

Impediments to required knowledge:

1. Ignorance: - This is lack of knowledge a person should possess when one acts. Thus, in a
physician, lack of medical knowledge is ignorance, but not lack of knowledge of astronomy.
Ignorance is also different from error which is the false notion of a thing. Ignorance is also
different from inadvertence which is failure to apply one’s habitual knowledge to present
circumstances. Ignorance is also different from forgetfulness which is the ignorance of what was
once known. From the moral standard inadvertence is equivalent to ignorance.
Ignorance may be invincible or vincible.
a. Invincible Ignorance: Ignorance is invincible when it is not due to one’s own fault. It is
that which one could not overcome or remove by the use of morally possible and due diligence,
and therefore is inculpable. One is not required to use all possible diligence. It is sufficient to use
that diligence which the seriousness of the matter requires, and then circumstances allow, such as
saving another person from dangers to health and life. Invincible ignorance is also characterized
as antecedent ignorance, because it precedes any voluntary act and is not willed by any consent
of the will. For example if a person is sick on Sunday and could not attend Mass and in
consequence does not learn that Wednesday is a day of abstinence, he is guilty of no sin if he
21
eats meat on Wednesday, for his ignorance is inculpable, and consequently acts proceeding from
it are involuntary or non-voluntary as far as their morality in concerned.
b. Vincible Ignorance:Vincible Ignorance is that which one could overcome by the use of
morally possible and due diligence, and hence if he did not because of negligence or bad will, he
is at fault. In other words, if after the doubt regarding the lawfulness of a certain culpable action
has arisen, adequate means are not used to overcome the doubt, the ignorance is called vincible.
Vincible ignorance is also described as consequent ignorance because it is admitted or willed
either directly or indirectly, flowing thus as a consequence from a previous decision of the free
will. It should be noted that the neglect to acquire knowledge necessary to observe the law is
sinful, since in that event, the ignorance is voluntary in cause, as in the case of a doctor who
neglects to study sufficiently about a rare disease afflicting one of his patients, because the study
is too irksome.
There are various degrees of vincible ignorance. If a person has not used sufficient diligence, his
ignorance is “Simple Vincible”; instead if one has used no diligence, or no serious effort has
been taken to remove the ignorance it is called “Crass or Supine”; lastly, if one deliberately
wills to remain ignorant, if one has directly desired and preserved the ignorance to facilitate the
transgression of the law, the ignorance is called “Affected Vincible”. An example of the affected
vincible ignorance would be a case of a Catholic Doctor who would not attend lectures on
Medical Ethics, lest he learn that certain of his practices are condemned by the Catholic Church
as opposed to the law of God. The ignorance of the Priest who would seriously neglected to
continue his sacred studies and therefore makes mistake is simply vincible or crass or supine
according to the degree of his negligence.

Principles and Imputability of Ignorance

 Invincible Ignorance destroys voluntariness: Any kind of invincible ignorance prevents
the human act from being voluntary in regard to that which is not known. The reason is that
nothing is willed except what is known, and what is not known with invincible ignorance, is not
voluntary in its cause either. For example, if a cook caused the death of some people by
unknowingly serving them poisonous food, which has been sold to him by careless merchants, he
is innocent of this calamity and not imputable.

22
  Vincible ignorance does not remove voluntariness but only diminishes or lessens the
culpability of the act: Vincible ignorance does not prevent voluntariness, since the ignorance is
voluntary in its cause, provoked by negligence or laziness or even bad will. The effects that
follow from this ignorance are voluntary in cause, for they are foreseen consequence.
Nevertheless, vincible ignorance usually diminishes voluntariness and guilt, since the
imputability of an action essentially depends on the insight a person has of a matter, and this
insight is deficient in this case; and simple negligence or laziness do not usually imply a full
consent to all the possible evil consequences which may come there from. The greater the
neglect is, the greater is the guilt. Crass ignorance in a serious matter will generally make the sin
grave, simple ignorance will reduce the guilt somewhat. For example, a physician who endangers
a patient’s life because of crass ignorance is guilty of grave irresponsibility.
Affected ignorance however does not diminish culpability because ignorance here is kept
up intentionally, so that a person may not be bound by the law and have greater freedom to
commit sin. There is full consent to the sinful effects which results from such ignorance, because
there is no real effort and no intention to avoid them.
 Even ignorance that is “directly” invincible can be indirectly vincible and hence acts
done out of invincible ignorance can be imputed to the agent. Thus acts done by a drunkard in
the state of drunkenness are “directly” invincible but “indirectly vincible.”
a. Error: This implies having a false notion of a thing. The origin of error may lie in faulty
education, the influence of bad company, the reading of misleading books and papers etc. This is
one of the greatest hazards to freedom in our time. Acts carried out in error are not imputable.
However, man is challenged to overcome the errors which hold him under their sway in personal
search for truth, to escape the negative influence of those forces which misguide him and to
reach views based on sound reasons.
b. Inattention: While ignorance and error are habitual privation of knowledge and true
insight, inattention is an actual momentary privation of knowledge. When someone pays no
attention to what he is doing it is not a human act (e.g. when someone injures another
accidentally). The moral responsibility for such an act depends on the degree to which the
inattention is blameworthy.
i. If a person does not attend at all to what he is doing, he does not accomplish a human act
and therefore in principle not culpable or imputable. Acts performed in a state of complete

23
 intoxication, fogging by drugs, and the like are not human acts either, but sometimes these acts
may be voluntary in cause, e.g. damage caused by a drunkard who had foreseen that such
behavior would possibly be the result of his drinking. These become human acts.
ii. If a person is only half-attending to what he is doing, the acts he performs are only
imperfect human acts. With this half-attention, a grave moral act and therefore also a grave sin is
excluded. A perfect human act is only performed when full attention is had to what one is doing.
Impediments to Free Consent
1. Violence/Force: This is external power brought to bear on a person to compel him/her to
do something which he/she does not will. For example, a man might be compelled through
violence to drink an excessive amount of intoxicating liquor; a girl might be physically forced to
submit to a sexual attack. Violence is not caused by moral force as fear but only by the
compulsive force of some extrinsic or psychic agent.
While internal resistance of the will is essential for violence active external resistance is
not always called for. However, it is required if there is hope that the force can be repelled by
counteraction; or if it necessary to preclude the danger of internal consent, or if there is need to
prevent others from thinking that consent has been given.
When violence is complete or absolute or perfect that is when the victim resists
physically as much as he can – any action performed by force of the violence is involuntary. At
times, however, there is no obligation to use as much physical resistance as one can – that is,
when there is no question of merely submitting to another’s evil act, not of performing a bad act
oneself. Thus, if an attacker threatens a girl that he will kill her if she attempts resistance, she
may submit passively, as long as her will is opposed to the deed, and there is no proximate
danger that she will give consent to the resultant sensual pleasure. In such a case her part in the
attack is non-voluntary.
Violence is relative or imperfect if the victim resists less than he should and can,
because he really wishes the evil deed to take place, there is strictly no question of violence, and
the bad act is really voluntary on his part though it can be said to be partially involuntary. This
would be the case if the man being forced to drink too much liquor resists halfheartedly because
he really wishes to get drunk.
Catholic moral tradition teaches that force cannot reach the will directly for it touches
only external acts and not the internal act of the will itself, in which voluntariness resides. We

24
can continue to will the opposite, no matter how violently we are forced to do an act. Hence the
act we are forced to do is involuntary, so long as it is resisted.
Principle and Immutability of Violence
i. Absolute or Perfect Violence excludes any voluntariness from the forced action. The
reason is that lack of consent precludes a human act and consequently not imputable (cf. CIC
125, 1).
ii. Relative or Imperfect Violence does not impair voluntariness completely but lessens it.
Voluntariness is not completely taken away since there is a partial consent of the will. But
voluntariness is lessened because relative violence makes a person carry out what otherwise he
will not do.
2. Passion: We talk more of passion as affecting the freedom of a human act rather than its
voluntariness, for passion makes us will a thing more strongly but with less self-control. Passion,
also called concupiscence is a movement of the sensitive appetite which is produced by good or
evil as apprehended by the imagination. Like fear, it can sometimes deprive a person temporarily
of the use of reason and free will, and in that event, action performed under the influence of
passion is not voluntary or culpable. When it does not go this far, it diminishes the imputability
of the act and the gravity of sin, sometimes to the extent of rendering what is objectively a mortal
sin only a venial sin.
Passions are grouped into two classes by scholastic theology: the concupiscible and the
irascible. The concupiscible comprises of love, hatred, desire, joy, sadness. The irascible
includes anger, courage, fear, hope, despair, pity etc. Movements of the passion are frequently
also called feelings, especially if not vehement.
It is good to point out that concupiscence in the sense here defined has no connotation of
evil. God has endowed man with these appetites, which pervade his whole sensitive life. They
are instrument for self-preservation of the individual and the human race. Hence the concept of
concupiscence is here not used in the Pauline sense of inclination to evil (cf. Rm 7:8), nor is it
limited to the sexual desire. A man without them would be with no capacity for self-defense,
growth, improvement and devotion. However, passions become distractive and evil only if there
spur is not controlled by reason.

25
 Physically passions are good; morally passion are indifferent if they are viewed in the
abstract as the product of the sensitive appetite. If they are viewed in concrete, they are good or
bad. For in concrete, they are deliberate acts. As deliberate acts, they are either good or bad.
Division: Passion or concupiscence can be antecedent or consequent.
a. Antecedent Passion: This is that which naturally arises and precedes the deliberation of
the will to do the act to which the sensitive appetite tends. It also induces the will to consent.
This takes place in involuntary movements. For example, delicious food served at table
spontaneously causes appetite and the desire to eat. They often occur in us without our will or
against our will.
b. Consequent Passion: This is that which follows the free determination of the will and is
either freely admitted and consented to or deliberately aroused. It is premeditated or willed, for
example a man may arouse his anger by dwelling on the insults he has received from his
neighbour. Again a person may deliberately frequent some occasions of impurity, knowing that
his passions will thus be aroused; and in that case, the subsequent sins are in no wise diminished
by the fact that he committed them under the influence of strong passion.
Antecedent passion is but an act of man, but consequent passion is a human act.
However, antecedent passion becomes consequent when it is recognized for what it is and then is
deliberately retained of fostered.

Principles and Imputability of Passion or Concupiscence

i. Antecedent passion always lessens freedom and sometimes precludes it completely.
Passion lessens freedom because it hinders the reflection of reason and weakens it attention. At
the same time it strongly urges to action and entices the will to consent. The more intensive
concupiscence is, the weaker are intellect and will. This explains why a very vehement passion
can occasionally, though only seldom impedes the use of reason in such a way that free choice
and a voluntary human act are excluded.
ii. Antecedent passion which does not take away the use of reason does not remove
freedom; it only lessens it. Man at times is so beset with the urge and drive of passion that his
actions are not fully free and therefore not gravely sinful. But this does not preclude that a grave
offence may be committed, for in most cases, a man, even while upset by passion remains master
of his acts. Nevertheless, if one deliberately frequents certain occasions, for example, of

26
impurity, knowing that his passion would be aroused, the sin committed under the influence of
passion are not diminished in their gravity.
iii. Consequent passion does not lessen voluntariness but may increase it and is therefore
good or bad. Consequent passion is freely accepted or even deliberately aroused; for this reason,
it is voluntary in itself and the consequences. It is therefore imputable. The act resulting from the
passion is voluntary either in itself or in its cause. A man intentionally broods over an insult in
order to nerve himself for an act of revenge; he uses the passion as a means and the revenge as an
end. Both are voluntary in themselves.
3. Fear
Fear is the disturbance of the mind caused by some present or future danger. Fear or mental
anxiety because of an impending or future evil, may at times be so overwhelming that it deprives
a person temporarily of the use of reason; and in that event, an action by the instigation of that
fear is not a human act, and consequently not imputable. There is also an intellectual fear,
comprising an understanding of a threatened evil and movement of the will to avoid this evil by
rationally devised means. This kind of fear may have no emotional component. Thus a man may
steal because he is afraid of poverty, may commit murder because he is afraid of blackmail etc.
Ordinarily fear, however great, does not take away the use of reason and hence does not
justify a person in performing an action which is intrinsically wrong, such as denying the faith or
committing murder (e.g. abortion), though it might diminish the culpability to some extent. Fear
could at times excuse one from the observance of a positive law, such as the observance of the
Sunday obligation. Moreover, by special legislation of the church, certain acts performed under
the influence of fear are null and void. For example, a marriage is invalid if it is entered into
through grave, unjust fear exerted by another person, in such a wise that a person is forced to
choose marriage in order to rid himself of the fear (Can 1087).
Division: Fear may be grave or slight according to whether it is caused by a grave evil which
one cannot easily escape; or only by a slight evil, or by a grave evil which one can however
easily avoid. Fear is grave when the present or future danger is as serious and imminent as to
cause grave mental anxiety; otherwise it is light. Fear is absolutely grave if it exercises a great
deterrence upon the average person, like death, torture, unemployment. When for all, even for
the bravest man it is grave, then fear is said to be absolutely grave. Fear is relatively grave, if
the threatened evil is objectively only light but frightens a particular person very much because

27
of his/her subjective condition e.g. locking of a female inmate with fierce looking male inmates.
Another kind of a relatively grave fear is reverential fear. It is the trepidation of the mind due to
the expectation of future harm as a result of opposing one’s parents, superiors, or other person
under whose authority one is and to whom one owes reverence. Although it is usually accounted
as light fear, it can seriously impair freedom of decision. For example, a girl out of fear of
opposing her parents marries a boy of their choice. At times reverential fear can be absolutely
grave, if fear of opposition against a person in authority would result in long lasting disfavour or
continual vexation.
Fear may also be:
- Intrinsic: when the immediate cause of fear is from the agent himself e.g. fear of hell –
fire.
- Extrinsic: when the immediate cause of the fear is from an external cause. This external
cause can be free cause (a human person) or a necessary cause, e.g. thunder.
- Just: when the person causing the fear is justified in doing so. Fear is inflicted justly if it
is justified by a person’s guilt or potential misbehavior. For example threatening a rapist
with prosecution and prison.
- Unjust: when the person causing the fear is not justified in doing so. Fear is inflicted
unjustly if is not justified by any guilt or potential misbehavior of a person or is not of
proportion to them. For example, it is unjust to threaten a person with the loss of job if he
continues to be a practicing Christian.
Fear is a modifier of voluntariness only when it is a motive for acting and not a mere
accompaniment of our act; when we act from fear and not merely with fear.

Principle and Imputability of Fear.

i. If the fear is such as to intercept the use of reason, then acts done out of such fear are
involuntary. This happens only rarely.
ii. Fear does not destroy the voluntary character of an action; but it lessens its guilt as well
as it merit. Acts done out of even grave fear which does not intercept the use of reason are
voluntary. According to the accepted principles of moral theology, no degree of fear, unless it
hampers the use of reason, destroys voluntariness and excuses from sin. Even though the act has
an involuntary aspect, it holds that a person who executes a certain action to avoid an evil which
he fears does so with knowledge and by decision of his will and therefore performs a human act.
28
Thus in times of persecution, the fear of death was never taken as an excuse for apostasy.
However fear often diminishes guilt and merit, because there is an involuntary aspects in so far
as fear makes a person will what otherwise he would not will. This happens if the threatening
evil is very great, such as torture.
iii. Grave fear does not justify a person in performing an action which is intrinsically evil,
e.g. abortion, denial of faith, blasphemy, murder, etc. “Any action which deliberately violates
these principle (universal principle of natural law) and any order which commands such action is
criminal and blind obedience cannot excuse those who carry them out…….and we cannot
commend too highly the courage of the men who openly and fearlessly resist those who issue
orders of this kind” (GS 79).
Nevertheless, grave fear usually excuses from the obligation of positive ecclesiastical or
civil law (unless they are at the same time precept of the natural moral law). Thus, grave fear
exempts the faithful from assisting at Sunday Mass. But fear does not excuse if a positive law is
of such a nature that its violation would cause great harm to the common good. Hence under no
circumstance is it lawful for a priest to reveal confessional secrets. Human law, however, may
declare certain acts done with grave fear invalid. Thus, for example, ecclesiastical law
invalidates the following act from the very beginning if undertaken as a result of grave fear
unjustly imposed: admission into the novitiate, matrimony CIC 643. (CIC 125&2).
Disposition and Habit
There are natural dispositions which incline one person more than another to certain ways of
reactions and conducts, and which have their roots in his character and inherited propensities.
The early family background, the influence to which one is subjected in one’s first contacts with
the outside world, the contexts of one’s early education, the compensation and frustration in
adolescence, the possibilities for making one’s first choices with regard to one’s future; these and
many others profoundly affect the complexes of one’s actions.
According to findings by psychologists, a person’s past experiences, especially the
experience of early childhood, build up unconscious patterns of behavior and motivations which
can exert psychic pressure upon him, and sometimes a very powerful oneParental rejection,
severe discipline, over protection, rigid sexual morals, chronic insecurity and inconsistent
discipline are some of the more important family conditions which predispose a child to the
development of later psychopathology. The fact that education is so powerful in forming good or

29
bad attitudes and habits makes it necessary that the child be gently trained from his early years to
subdue evil inclinations, to acquire good habits and to practice Christian virtues.
Also one’s social, economic and geographic environment cannot be neglected in
evaluating one’s moral sense and the sense of responsibility for one’s actions. According to
Marie Mascharenhas in her book A Teenager’s Guide to Love, Sex and Marriage (1988), we
inherit about fifty percent of our characteristics, while the remaining fifty percent is determined
by environment and hence, even the inherited tendencies or predispositions can be changed for
better or for worse depending on the environment we have. Nevertheless, as a general rule, the
hereditary dispositions, social, economic and geographic environment, etc., regularly do not
remove voluntariness although they affect it.
vi. Habits
Habit is defined as a constant way of acting obtained by repetition of the same act. Not
infused habit but acquired. When a habit has been acquired, the actions follow so smooth and
effortless that habit is called “second nature.” The habit makes a person at times perform his
action without adverting to them. Such acts are said to be done merely out of habit.
Habits can be acquired in the following ways:
1. We may set out deliberately to acquire a habit, as when we try to learn a sport or to play a
musical instrument, then the habit is voluntary in itself, and the acts resulting from it are either
voluntary in themselves if intended or at least voluntary in cause if they are the unintended but
foreseen consequences of the habit.
2. We may not intend to acquire a habit for its own sake, but voluntarily perform acts which we
know are habit forming, as a person who takes up smoking. Here the acts are voluntary in
themselves and the forming of the habit is voluntary in cause. After the habit has been acquired,
acts unintentionally following from it are also voluntary in cause.
3. We may discover that we have inadvertently acquired a habit, either because we did not
realize that we had done the same thing in the same way so often, or because it did not occur to
us that such actions are habit forming. In this way we are not responsible for the existence of the
habit. However, only a gross lack of reflectiveness could cause this condition to remain
indefinitely, but it can happen.

30
Principle and Imputability of Habits
i. A deliberately admitted habit does not lessen voluntariness even though a person may not
be free from the force of his habit at the moment he acts, he is still responsible for his actions if
he consents by free decision to the habit as such.
ii. An opposed habit lessens voluntariness and sometimes precludes it completely. When a
person earnestly strives to rid himself of a bad habit, he will frequently be excused from sin if he
nevertheless yields to temptations.
vii. Pathological Conditions – (Read Henry PeschkeVol 1. – P 250).

Determinants of Human Acts

Moral theology is all about evaluating and understanding free actions, the things we do
intentionally in our quest for happiness in life. The norm which determines or measures the
morality of a human act is objectively the moral law and subjectively a person’s conscience. By
applying the proximate norm of morality, we can tell whether a certain kind of human act is
morally good, bad, or indifferent. If right reason shows that it agrees with human nature taken
completely in all its parts and relations, the act is good; if right reason shows that it disagrees, the
act is bad; if according to right reason it neither agrees nor positively disagrees but is neutral, this
kind of act, abstractly considered is morally indifferent. The evaluative analysis traditionally
considers three components: the moral object, circumstances and subjective intention. For an act
to be “good”, it must be good in object, circumstances and intention.
1. Moral Object (the “finis operis”): This literally means the “end of the act.” The object
of human act is that effect which an action primarily and directly causes. It is that which is
directly attained by an act, independent of any circumstances or of the intention of the agent.
Thus, the object of an act of religion is worship rendered to God; the object of the murderer’s act
is the death of his victim. Human language identifies the various types or categories of actions by
certain words and descriptions, such as theft, abortion, almsgiving, etc. However, the object of
the actions thus identified is that effect which pertains to the essence of the act and without
which the action would no longer be the same. Thus the object of theft is always the
appropriation of another person’s goods against his will; the object of an abortion is always the
forcible removal of the non-viable human being from the mother’s womb, whether it is done to
avoid public shame or for therapeutic reasons.

31
 The effect of the human act transcends the material object of the physical or biological or
psychological which an act brings about. Although the effect of human act is first of all in these
realms, yet these changes alone do not yield much for the moral evaluation of the act. Theft,
abortion, etc. do not yet state anything about the moral qualification of the act. However, the act
is determined by its relation to the objective order established by God. The effects of the human
act is the impact of the act on rights and claims of persons, whether of other persons or of the
agent himself, and the changes the act brings about in this sphere, i.e. in the case of theft,
appropriation. When we speak of the object of the act, we do not mean the material object, the
external performance taken as a purely observable physical event.
We speak of the moral object of the human act, that is the act that is done with
knowledge and will. The moral object is the object of the inner act of choice and in the sense the
formal object could not not be intended by the agent. In choosing the moral object, the agent has
to intend it, that is, will it. This aspect of the formal object (finis operis) is distinct from the
agent’s intention or end (finis operantis). The latter refers to the agents more personal purpose or
end in eliciting the moral object. For example, the moral object of almsgiving is to help another.
To the moral object, there can be a more personal purpose of end, e.g. to atone for one’s sins.
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 good and to the ultimate end which is God.
The church’s moral tradition termed some acts as “intrinsically evil.” These are objects of
the human act, which are by their very nature incapable of being ordered to God, because they
radically contradict the good of the person made in the image of God (GS 27). Catholic Moral
tradition also holds that the object of a human act can be morally good, evil or indifferent.
Indifferent from the view point of the object are, e.g. the playing of an instrument or taking of a
walk. But this does not mean that the entire action is morally indifferent, for its morality further
depends on the circumstances and particularly on the intention of the agent. It is good to point
out that no purpose or intention, be it ever so good can permit the object of the human act that is
morally evil. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor states: “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” (78). He
adds as a reason: “The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of

32
action 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” (78).
2. The Circumstances: Circumstances are those particulars of the concrete human act
which are not necessarily connected with its object, that help in determining its moral nature.
Circumstances are classically enumerated as follows: who, how, where, when, with what means,
to whom. (Who does the action? – a priest, or a lay person?); (where – place; murder committed
in a church becomes also a sacrilege); (with what means – collaborators – with violence, tricky
contraceptives?); (when – the time – work done on a day of obligation); (the intensity with which
an act is performed – to steal sacred or profane objects).
The circumstances can alter the morality of human act for better or for worse. For
example, the sexual embrace between a man and a woman who are married to each other can be
a beautiful celebration and expression of their covenanted love. If however, they are married to
someone else or not married at all, the same physical act assumes an entirely different moral
significance because it embodies different (dis)values. Another example could be seen in the
teaching of Jesus Christ in Mk 12:41-44; Lk 21:1-4 where he points out that the good act of
giving alms; indeed, became nobler when it was done by a poor window.
In particular, circumstances can influence the morality of an action in the following ways:
i. In the positive sense:
a. A circumstance can make better an act good in its object. If a poor man gives alms, the
act of clearly is greater (Mk 12:41-44).
b. A circumstance can make good an act indifferent in its object.
c. A circumstance can make less evil an act evil in its object, for example, the denial of faith
under threat of torture is less than denial of faith for a promotion in office.
ii. In the negative sense:
a. A circumstance can make worse an act evil in its object.
b. A circumstance can also make evil an act indifferent in its object – for circumstance, the
playing of a radio may become evil if it is so loud that it seriously disturbs others.
c. A circumstance can make less good or evil an act good in its object – building of a church
with stolen materials.
3. The Subjective Intention/Motive (finis operantis)

33
 The subjective intention or motive is the end or reason for which a particular person does
an act. It is the specification of our desire, the goal or purpose that the moral agent has in mind
for performing a particular action. Often we use phrases such as “in order to” or “so that” when
we reveal our intentions. The intention can therefore be defined as that effect which the agent
subjectively aims at in his action. It answers the question “what do you want?”
Intention makes our act meaningful. Intention does not only prompt actions, but it also
makes the action intelligible. When a man directs his action to some consciously intended
purpose, he deliberately wills this purpose together with the act, and both are voluntary. The act
itself is used as the means to accomplish this end. Therefore, in addition to the morality which
the act has by its own nature, the act also derives morality from the motive with which it is
performed.
The end modifies the morality of an act in similar ways as circumstance do.
i. In a positive sense:
a. A good end can make better an act good in its object;
b. A good end makes good an act indifferent in its object;
c. A good end makes less evil an act evil in its object.
ii. In a negative sense:
a. A bad end makes worse an act evil in its object;
b. A bad end makes evil an act indifferent in its object,
c. A bad end makes less good or evil an act good in its object.
If the good or evil intended by the agent is identical with the good or evil object of the act, no
further goodness or badness is added to the act. In moral evaluation of an act, the end therefore is
of great importance. Good intention alone is not sufficient because the end cannot justify any
means whatsoever.
In conclusion, to be morally good, a human act must agree with the norm of morality on
all three counts; in its nature, its motive and its circumstances. Disconformity in any of them
makes the act morally wrong. Hence:
1. An act that is bad in itself cannot become good or indifferent by a good motive or good
circumstances. Though a good end renders good the use of indifferent means, a good end cannot
justify the use of evil means. We are therefore not allowed to do evil that good may come of it.

34
2. An act that is good in itself becomes better by each good motive and circumstance added
to it. But any gravely bad motive or circumstance is sufficient to render the act wholly and
gravely bad, no matter how good it may otherwise seem.
3. An act that is indifferent in itself since it has moral quality of its own, must derive all its
moral goodness or badness from the motive and circumstances. These must all be good or at
least indifferent if the act is to be morally acceptable.

Imputability of Indirectly Willed Effect (Principle of Double Effect)

Often the mixture of good and evil occurs not so much in the act and its immediate
surroundings but in its consequences that follow from it. How responsible are we for unintended
but foreseen consequences of each of our actions? Are we obliged to make sure that every single
consequence of each of our acts will be morally good, or at least not bad? If so, the scope of
human activity becomes so limited as to make life unlivable. For instance, a doctor who tends the
sick during a plague exposes himself to catching the disease. We seem to be caught on the horns
of dilemma. We find the solution to the dilemma in the PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT,
This principle developed by St. Thomas Aquinas is based on the fact that evil must never be
voluntary in itself, must never be willed either as an end or a means, for then, it is the direct
object of the will – and necessarily renders the act evil.
However, it is good to point out that an indirectly willed evil effect is imputed to the
agent whenever he could have and should have avoided it. This follows from the most basic
moral principle: “Good is to be done, and evil to be avoided.” A man is obliged to avoid the evil
effects of his actions as much as possible. If he permits an evil effect which he could and should
have avoided, then he is certainly responsible for it. The more certain and immediate the
foreseen effect is, the imputability.
The Principle of Double Effect spells out the conditions, under which an indirectly willed
evil effect may be permissible or not imputable to the agent:
i. The action itself must be morally good or at least morally indifferent. The moral object
may not be evil in itself, like torture, direct abortion, or extramarital intercourse.
ii. The bad effect is not the means by which the good effect is achieved. The good and the
evil effects must proceed at least equally directly from the act. For example, morphine
administered to relieve pain may endanger the life of the patient. This is quite different from the

35
medieval practice of castrating young boys in order to maintain their beautiful soprano voices. In
other words, the immediate effect must not be solely evil; the good effect should not physically
result from the evil effect.
iii. The motive must be the achievement of the good effect only. The agent may not intend or
approve the evil effect. Thus it would be a malicious deception to maintain that morphine is for
relieving pain, when in fact the death of the patient is being sought.
iv. There must be a proportionate grave reason in order to allow the evil effect. This means
that the good effect is at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect. Proportionate here
means that if the evil effect is slight, a slight reason suffices; if the evil, effect is serious, a
serious reason is required to justify the action. In the end, the virtue of prudence or discernment
must be exercised.
An example of the application of this principle is an operation to remove the cancerous
uterus of a pregnant woman, which also has the foreseen side effect of the death of the fetus. The
physician rightly decides that this is ethical because his direct intention is morally good (to save
the woman’s life from the cancer), thus fulfilling the first condition; and he knows that he is
being honest in his decision because he would save the child life if he could (second condition);
it is the removal of the cancer not the child’s death that is the means to save the woman’s life
(third condition); the moral value of the mother’s life equals that of the child’s life, i.e. all
persons have an equal right to life (fourth condition).
Following from this, the principle of double effect could be briefly defined as
undertaking an action from which a good and evil effect are foreseen is permissible if the action
itself is not evil, if the bad effect is not intended, and if there is sufficiency grave reason to
permit the evil effect.
Other examples include:
- A doctor who intends to hasten the death of a terminally ill patient by injecting a large
dose of morphine would act impermissibly because he intends to bring about the patient’s
death. However, a doctor who intends to relieve the patient’s pain with the same dose and
merely foresaw the hastening of the patients death would act permissibly.
- To kill a person whom you know to be plotting to kill you would be impermissible
because it would be a case of intentional killing; however, to strike in self-defense against

36
 an aggressor is permissible even if one foresees that the blow by which one defends
oneself will be fatal.
HUMAN FREEDOM
The Church and Human Freedom

The demand for freedom in human activities has engaged the attention of the world in
general. Freedom has been associated with the nobility of human creation. Freedom is
indispensable, not lacking in firmness and determination. It means free from any type of duress
and force, inducement, loss of reason, fear and material want and persecution.

A brief understanding of the word freedom” will be important here. From the general
understanding of the meaning, some scholars classify it into three basic different levels:

a). Physical Level: On the physical level, freedom is the absence of physical pressure or
limitation/constraints. This is enjoyed to the full by wild animals, certainly not humans.

b). Social level: On the social level, freedom is described as the absence of social demands and
restrictions and hence, the facility to do as one pleases. This is merely external and, as such, is
not an unqualified good. However, theologians agree that an unlimited freedom of this kind is
undesirable for persons living in close relationships, since the social order would thereby
collapse. What is important is the ability to participate in appropriate ways in social life by being
able to direct one’s relationship to personal perfection and the common good.

c). Personal Level: On the personal level, freedom is seen as the spontaneous creativity of the
human person determining himself. Inner determinisms or limitations block the individual from
doing as he ought to do or what he desires to do from the depths of his being. On this,
theologians argue that true freedom is and should be self-determining, shaping one’s own life
according to one’s ideals. That such freedom in man is initially found only in germ. It has to be
developed through the exercise of the capacity of the will to tend to the good.

The freedom the Church has in mind is a responsible freedom, not an irresponsible freedom
that enslaves. John Paul II defines freedom as “that which consists not in doing what we like, but
in having the right to do what we ought to do (1995). This is evidently correct as the scripture
confirms, “…for freedom, Christ has set us free” (Gal.5.1).

37
 Nature of Freedom

A Gift from God: The church maintains that the fullness of freedom consists in the capacity
to be in possession of oneself in view of the genuine good. The Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World says that genuine “freedom is an exceptional sign of the image of
God in humanity. For God willed that men and women should ‘be left free to make their own
decisions’ (cf. Sir 15: 14), so that they might of their own accord seek their Creator and freely
attain their full and blessed perfection by cleaving to God” (17). Freedom then is not an end in
itself, but rather a gift to direct our lives in accord with our meaning and purpose, that is, giving
and receiving love and reaching fullness in union with God.

Freedom as obedience to God: Drawing inspiration from the scripture also, Pope Benedict
XVI states categorically that one simply understands freedom as ‘obedience to God’. This also
throws light to what the Catechism of the Church states: that “the exercise of freedom does not
imply a right to say or do everything” a person wants, rather it consists in obedience to God
(CCC 1740). To explain this further, we read, “Since man’s true freedom is not found in
everything that the various systems and individuals see and propagate as freedom, the church,
because of her divine mission, becomes all the more the guardian of this freedom, which is the
condition and basis for the human person’s dignity” (RedemptorisHominis, 12).

Service in Community: Freedom is a central value of the Church’s social doctrine, along with
truth, justice and love. However, freedom is one of those words that is so easily abused. The
church clearly speaks of freedom as that which is exercised not only for oneself, but with regard
to others, that is to say, communally. Hence the understanding by moral theologians that freedom
is necessarily ‘exercised in relationships between human beings’. For this reason also, the
“meaning of freedom must not be restricted, considering it from a purely individualistic
perspective and reducing it to the arbitrary and uncontrolled exercise of one’s own personal
autonomy” (Compendium of Theology, no. 199).

A more scientific Christian definition of freedom can be found in the Catechism of the
Church. It states: “Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this
or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes
ones’ life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness. It attains its

38
perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude” (CCC No. 1731). The gift of reason and
free will are the qualities which animals lack. These qualities separate man morally from the
animal world. The free will makes an agent answer for his actions, responsible and accountable
for his acts and be prepared to face the imputability, changeability and attributability of his acts.
Free will is the power of choosing between opposite values. The person is master of his own
acts, his own objects and judgements.

To be free is to be present to oneself, to be in possession of oneself, to be conscious of

oneself as a distinct responsible being. However, our freedom is limited. Only God has absolute
freedom, fully and perfectly, self-possessive and responsible. Human freedom is limited by
external and internal factors, which really condition a person in his judgements and decisions.

Kinds of Human Freedom

Moral Theology identifies FOUR different types of Freedom. These include:

i. Freedom of Choice/ Psychological Freedom

Discussing Freedom of Choice from the Christian point of view gives the understanding that
a man can determine his conduct by his own choices. Here the person freely determines his
actions and carries them out without any coercion. For example, a trader may decide to be just
and only accepts a just profit in spite of the fact that his rivals are making a greater (unjust)
profit. Again, a priest may choose to be equally caring to the rich and the poor in his parish.
Therefore, the extent to which one is able to determine his behaviour to such an extent only can
one be said to have freedom of choice. To have freedom of choice therefore, one must not be
restrained by any external compulsion. Compulsion from within can only be experienced by the
person who is forced by his inner feelings to behave in a certain way. For example, a person due
to fear for his life fails to rescue a drowning child will be compelled internally to behave in this
way. To have freedom of choice one must not be forced by any internal compulsion.

The determinist does not believe in freedom of choice. He/She maintains that the human
being is determined to act in a certain way and is therefore not free. It can be argued by
determinist that one is determined psychologically – thus the one who does not receive love as a
child will not generally be able to love as an adult. However, many ingenious arguments have

39
been put forward in the history of philosophy aimed either at establishing the reality of free
choice or at showing that all action is determined in advance by factors other than a conscious
choice between alternatives. Whatever the arguments it would seem that none of them is
conclusive. The task of a course in ethics is not to prove the existence of free choice. This task
falls within the jurisdiction of philosophy. However, in ethics, we do accept that freedom of
choice exists, otherwise there will be no ethics since it deals with choosing to do one thing rather
than another. Also, ethics teaches that one’s freedom of choice can be limited- the extent to
which this happens renders the acts unethical.

Moral theology teaches therefore in order to have freedom of choice one needs more than
simply the act of the will or behaviour. One needs knowledge and ability to use this knowledge
to make a truly free choice. If a person fails to escape from a burning building through a door he
does not know exist he cannot be said to have freedom of choice because he does not have the
necessary knowledge. Another example, if a woman fails to give her sick child a certain drug
because she does not know such drug exists and eventually the child dies as a result, the woman
cannot be said to have freedom of choice. Here, we can see that ignorance can be a bid obstacle
to human freedom.

Freedom is used rightly when people choose those things that will contribute to their
authentic human good, understanding this choice most fully as promoting right relationships with
God, others, themselves, and all of creation.

ii. Moral Freedom:

This is the freedom of the good man who has committed himself to doing good: being kind,
charitable, honest, industrious, etc. A person needs to be morally free to behave in this way. The
opposite would be the person who is enslaved by vices: being unkind, rude, dishonest,
uncharitable, etc. The morally free man is a virtuous somebody who is constant in his disposition
of doing the good. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the virtuous person as one
who “tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and
chooses it in concrete action” (CCC 1803). We might think of a virtuous person as one who
longs for the good in all aspects of his or her life and acts so as to achieve it.

40
 Moral freedom shows itself in good acts which manifest good attitudes. The kind act to a
child who has fallen and hurt himself will manifest in an attitude of kindness toward him by
helping him treat his wounds. The honesty of the customer who returns left over change will
show in an attitude of honesty. These acts are known as virtues. The person who is not morally
free will be the one who is trapped by vice. Here, you will have the harness of a man who only
delights in seeing people suffer and he does nothing. Or the dishonesty of the trader who cheats a
customer is another example of someone who is not morally free.

The gift of freedom is also a task, inasmuch as freedom is for service and Christian vocation
to freedom, and it is also a call to responsibility. Responsibility means that man responds to God
by responding to persons, values and exigencies within the real world of experience. The moral
response is ultimately a religious response, for each moral act is directed to the ordering and
bettering of the human world as an answer to God’s call and covenant.

iii. Christian Freedom

The theological conception of Christian freedom appears almost exclusively in the Pauline
and Johannine writings. However, it can be traced back to the Old Testament writings. In the
Judeo-Christian tradition, the act of creation itself is pictured, not as an accident, not as
something God had to do, not as a means of achieving some need, but as a sovereignly free act.
Since man is made to the image of God, he somehow possesses a freedom that resembles God’s
creative freedom. Theologians also see that, throughout salvation history God appears as a
liberator. Thus God frees the Israelites from slavery of Egypt for a free service as His chosen
people.

Also, as taught by St. Paul, the Christian freedom is that which “through the dwelling within
us the Spirit of Christ, leads us to renounce our selfish, worldly inclinations and fixes our minds
on the things of the spirit” (Fuchs J. Hurnan: Values in Christian Morality). This is to say, it is
the power or capability which grace gives us to do good.

Theology therefore teaches that, the Christian obtains freedom from sin (Rm. 6:18-23; Jn.
8:31-36). He also obtains freedom from the obligation of observing the Jewish law (Rm. 7:3;
1Cor. 10:29; Gal. 2:4; 4:21-31). Freedom from death (Rm. 6:21), and that this freedom is

41
brought to us by Christ (Gal.5:1) and the Son frees from sin (Jn.8:36). Christian freedom is also
knowledge of the truth revealed by the Son which frees from sin.

The freedom of the Christian is freedom under discipline, which is obtained through
obedience (Rm. 6:17ff). However, theologians will always maintain that freedom from sin is not
only freedom from guilt and punishment for the past sins but freedom from bondage to
concupiscence which impels from slavery to his own desires (see Rm. 7:3-25). Rather, Christian
freedom is a freedom under new law, the law of love (Gal.5:13) whereby the old law is being
replaced by the law of the gospel which liberates (James 1:25, 2:12). Again, Christian freedom
can be said to be the Spirit itself; for where the spirit of the Lord is there is freedom (1cor. 3:17).
It is the infusion of the spirit, in contrast to the letter of the law and the Jewish tradition, that the
life of the Christian is to be governed.

iv. Basic Freedom

This is a recent idea in Catholic Theology, but today it is widely accepted. This is a freedom
that differentiates between the acts of the person and his basic orientation. It does not oppose
them, rather it distinguishes them. This freedom shows itself in the human act, for instance, a
person may perform an act which is wrong in itself yet he may not show some basic orientation
toward it. Take for instance in the distant past where many people have had human sacrifices to
the gods as part of their religious systems. Morally speaking, this is a condemnable wrong act,
but those who did such, presumably supposed they carried out some good and pious acts which
were approved as an act of reverence to God. The direction of the lives of these people was
towards good and not evil, even though the act in itself was bad. Likewise, one may perform
good acts and may not indicate that he has an orientation for such goodness. For example, a rich
man may decide to build hospitals in order to receive praise and not because he is inclined
towards charity or goodness.

However, theologians understand that Basic Freedom is exercised at a very deep level of the
human person, a level which is really known to God, yet a level the existence of which we can
argue on. Therefore, a person may lack freedom of choice and other forms of freedom but will
still have basic freedom. Another name for this type of freedom is called Fundamental option.

42
Here it is explained that man is totally seen in the dependence of God, the ultimate origin and is
called to give his response to that God by the whole orientation of his life.

Basic freedom can further be understood by realising that we can never be certain that we
have exercised it for good. Our motives or reasons for acting in a particular manner may not be
clear. Externally our acts may be good, but we may be looking for self-praise, as mentioned
above. We are to understand here that individual acts may be wrong and may even be performed
with freedom of choice and even moral freedom and yet may not indicate a basic orientation
towards them. An atheist may deny the existence of God, yet exercises basic freedom by even
behaving godly because his conscience guides him toward choices and performing good acts
also.

Conditions Limiting Human Freedom

- Natural law
- Respect for the dignity of the human person
- Respect for the rights of others
- Promotion of common good
- Promotion of peace and harmony in the society
- Respect for moral order.

SIN
Man has to reach his ultimate end by good actions, that is, those actions that are in
conformity with the moral law and his conscience. However, it may happen that his actions
deviate from the given moral law and his conscience. These actions are called sins. Sin is an
offence against God. It is an evil act, which violates the rational nature of man as well as the
eternal law. St. Augustine defines sin as word, or desire in opposition to the eternal law of God.
In its original meaning, the Latin term “Peccatum” indicates “a fall” or “ruin”. Sin,
therefore, is a fall in the moral sense. Sin is failure to be what one ought to be. It is losing the
way; straying from the right path; slipping away from the truth; it is failure to reach the goal and
journey’s end. When one commits sin, one falls from his dignity or moral perfection. For man is
created in the image of God. He is fully alive by the life of God, that is, by the grace of God. To
depend on God is man’s great privilege and dignity. By grave sin, man rejects this dependence

43
on God, he cuts himself off from divine life. Sin then is a betrayal of the essential vocation of
man, and a denial and degradation of his own dignity. Gaudium et Spes 13 states: “Sin has
diminished man, blocking his path to fulfillment.”
Sin is the freely willed infringement of the moral order. Since biblical and Christian
thinking considers God as the author of the moral law, the disregard of the moral order is always
at the same times and injury against God. From this point of view, sin can be considered as
disobedience against God’s will and an offence against him.
The concept of sin is very closely related to that of guilt. Sin and moral guilt designate
the same reality, though under different aspects. Sin always involves moral guilt, and moral guilt
always presupposes sin. Both always exist together. Sin expresses the truth that a wrongful act is
morally evil and an offence against God. Guilt on the other hand denotes the fact that a person is
liable for the evil he has done and that it is attributed to him as the responsible agent.
The loss of the sense of sin in modern times can be attributed to several factors:
1. Science achievements and philosophical theories
2. The advanced secularism lessened the sense of God and promoted a world-wide decline
in respect for authority.
3. Certain schools of psychology confused sin with neurotic feelings of guilt and frequently
stressed the role of psychic determinism at the expense of moral responsibility.
4. Conscience has been frequently equated with subjective feelings
5. Overemphasis has been placed on collective responsibility for sinful social structures
downplaying personal guilt.
6. Reaction against an overemphasis on sexual sins as well as against a legalistic,
formalistic and juridical notion of sin and morality.

Biblical Perspectives of Sin

Throughout the scriptures, sin is seen first of all, as a universal power active in our lives
and within the world that is hostile to God and to his plan. It always strikes at the heart of our
relationship to God, to ourselves, to others and to all of creation. It is the complete opposite of
the love and reconciliation that Jesus reveals on the cross. More than the mere violation of a law
or an idea, sin is a rebellion against the person we are called to be.

44
The Old Testament
From the very beginning of the Old Testament, in the Book of Genesis, sin is presented
as a rebellion against God. The epic story of the creation of man and woman stresses that sin is
about breaking a covenant of relationship with God. Created in God’s image and gifted with
freedom, Adam and Eve wanted to become like God, deciding for themselves what is good and
bad. In fact, they wanted to be like God, for they believed what the tempter told them, namely, if
they eat the fruit, they will have the knowledge and wisdom of God (Gen 2:17; 3:5). Their
inordinate pride led them to betray the very gift of freedom that God gave them. Immediately
after eating the fruit, Adam and Eve saw themselves as naked for the first time (3:7). This nudity
is not limited to the sexual, rather, it signifies a loss of dignity, a dignity that was based on their
relationship with the creator. The result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve to God, however,
does not have consequence only for Adam and Eve; it also becomes a source of evil for all
mankind. Toil, suffering and death of humans have their origin in sin. Even though the sin of
Adam and Eve was mitigated by the fact that they were tempted and seduced by the devil,
nevertheless, Scripture regards the offence in principle as a free, imputable act.
The breakdown of relationship continues as Genesis describes Cain, out of envy, killing
his brother Able. The story of Cain shows that separation from God gives rise to separation from
other men (cf. Gen 4:8). In the account of the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9), the sin of arrogance
leads to a catastrophe. The common effort at usurping the sovereignty of God leads to confusion
and alienation.
Throughout the remaining books of the Old Testament, the understanding of the gravity
of sin is seen in the covenant relationship between God and man. Moses’ breaking of the tablets
with the Ten Commandments when he saw that the people had turned away from God to worship
an idol symbolizes the breaking of the covenantal relationship that gave the Decalogue its whole
meaning (cf. Deut. 9:16-17). Thus, the most common Hebrew word used to describe sin is
“hatt’ah” which means basically “to miss mark.” The “mark” that is missed by sin is not the
mere breaking of some laws, but the covenant relationship itself. To sin is not simply to break a
rule, it is to fail to respond to another.
Sin is also described in the Old Testament as “rebellion” (Pesha), it is frequently
associated with the “heart” because it is basically a failure to love God. To sin is to harden one’s

45
heart to Gods love (cf. Isiah 29:13). Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak about the law of the new
covenant that God will write on people’s hearts so that they will know almost instinctively right
from wrong (Jer. 31:33-34; Ez. 36:25-27). Sin is also presented as harlotry, the violation of
spousal relationship (cf. Hos 2; Jer. 3:1-5; Ez. 16:23-43). Furthermore, there is no concept of
private sin in the Old Testament. Sin, even if committed alone, weakened the community since it
affected the relationship with Yahweh, Lord of the people.
From the Old Testament, we also learn that the concept of sin includes the consequences
of the act, namely, the disintegration of the soul. Sin brings with it the “wrath” of God (cf. Ps
74:1) which means that, because of the alienation from God, sin produces loneliness and
insecurity. Thus sin and unhappiness go together. Sin is revealed through divine punishment,
whether collective or individual (cf. 2Kgs 21:24). But punishment is meant, to lead to
conversion, which brings happiness.
Also sin ultimately leads to “death” both spiritual and physical. Death was not part of the
original plan of God for man. “For God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image
of his own eternity; but through the devil’s envy, death entered the world” (Wis. 2:23-24). By
refusing to surrender to the Author of life in the very act of affirming himself to be the ultimate
source of good and evil, man was cutting himself off from the very source of life. In this way
death entered into the world.

The New Testament

In the New Testament, sin is seen as a rejection of the kingdom of God. More specially, it
is a denial of Jesus Christ, who embodies in his own person God’s Kingdom and the truth for our
own humanity (Matt 10:33; 12:30; John 15:23-25). Sin is refusal to believe and to repent, a
refusal to live by the Spirit of God (John 16:9; Mk 3:29). It is a rejection of love, an
unwillingness to remain in relationship (1Jn 4:15-16).
In the parable of the prodigal son, sin is considered as ungrateful desertation of the Lord.
Here as in other parables, sin is represented by the loss of the very meaning of existence and by
separation from God. He who separates himself from the saving will of God is lost and frustrates
the very meaning of his existence.
Sin is also presented as the antithesis to charity and an offence against love, that is, as
selfishness and hatred (Luke 7:47; 1 John 4:7; 20). In the writings of Paul and John, sin is a

46
regarded as refusal of light (John 3:19; 1John 2:8-11; Eph. 5:8-14) and of the truth (John 8:44;
Rm 1:18.25) and therefore as darkness and lie. It is lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:3, 8; 1Jn 3:4) and
disobedience against God (Rm 11:30-32; Eph. 5:6).
Sin from the Pauline perspective is a personal, demoniacal being that dwells in us (Rm
7:20) and has enslaved us (Rm 7:14). It strikes at the root of our personhood in such a way that
we lose to it our own existence as a person. It brings about a division within us (Rm 7:19) and
produces alienating, antisocial behaviour. Paul’s lists of vices (1Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Rm
1:24-32; 13:13) suggest not only failure to recognize the other, but an active repulsion of the
other. Sin is thus negation of the personal and relational, and ultimately the denial of Jesus Christ
who is the concrete, personal norm of all that it means to be a human being.
Also Paul sees in man’s wickedness a denial of the glorification due to God and
presumptive attempt to be one’s own Lord (Rm 1:18-32). The sinner lives in enmity against God:
“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it
cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rm 8:7; cf. 5:10-12; Eph. 2:1.4; Col
1:21) therefore sinners are excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9f; Gal 5:19-21).
In the Johannine view, sin is primarily a refusal to believe in Christ (John 16:9), to listen
to his word (John 15:22). Sin is lawlessness (1John 3:4); the rejection of God’s will; it is living
outside the divine life for, “No one who remains in him sins” (1John 3:6). Further, it is
“wrongdoing” (1John 5:17), the denial of divine righteousness and justice. Ultimately, sin is the
refusal to love and to be loved (1John 4:16). ‘If we say, “We are without sin’, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ (1John 1:8). The sinner “hates the light; namely Christ, and
does not come toward the light (John 3:20).
Throughout the New Testament, sin is never viewed in a legalistic sense as the mere
violation of some precept or impersonal abstract norm. Fighting sin, which is presented as an
essential component of the Christian life, therefore, is never a question of fleeing from a taboo,
but of conforming oneself to the mystery of Christ.
The New Testament teaching about sin is always within the context of our salvation, of our being
reconciled to Christ Jesus (Col 3:1). The teaching is always accompanied by the idea of
forgiveness. Christ came to save men, to offer them divine forgiveness and to make of them
children of the kingdom (John 1:29). Also sins are considered as directly affecting the
community, whether internally or externally, therefore, another concern of the NT Churches was

47
to reconcile sinful members, welcoming them back, while maintaining the holiness of the church
derived from Christ’s dying and rising (Eph. 5:25).
Dimensions of Sin
1. Original Sin
Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which, through the fault of
the first parents has been diverted from its supernatural end. It is a “sin of nature.” It is the
rejection of the will of God, the bestower of this gift. Sanctifying grace has ceased to constitute
the supernatural enrichment of that nature, which the first parents passed on to all their
descendants in the state in which it existed when human generation began. Therefore man is
conceived and born without sanctifying grace. Human nature after original sin is no longer in the
state at which it was at first in our first parents. It is fallen since it is deprived of sanctifying
grace.
Adam and Eve committed a personal sin; however their sin of disobedience has affected
our human nature. Their sin has in fact wounded our human nature so that we are subject to
suffering, ignorance and death as well as battle with the inclination to evil. This original sin was
not committed by us; rather it is passed on to us. It is a state which we inherit rather than an act
that we do. It is not an act, but a state, hence the expression “state of nature”. St Paul affirms that
Adam is the very source of death and sin for all humanity (Rm 5:12; 18-19; 1or 15:21-22).
Original sin is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by
transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why
original sin is called “Sin” only in analogical sense; it is a sin “Contracted” and not sin
“committed” – a state and not an act” (ccc 404).
The church’s teaching on original sin, first developed by St Augustine maintains that a
personal actual sin of the first human being has led to the loss of sanctifying grace, or the divine
self-communication, for every member of the human race. “By yielding to the tempter, Adam
and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then
transmit in a fallen state.
2. Personal Sin (Actual Sin):
Personal sin is an exercise of freedom on the part of the individual person by which he or she
ratifies the false value-system of the world by choosing to act in conformity with it. Different
from unavoidable failure and limitation, personal sin is a “spirit of selfishness rooted in our

48
hearts and wills which wages war against God’s plan for our fulfillment. As selfishness, personal
sin is a refusal of love, a turning away from relationships. GS 13 points out that by sinning a man
misses his proper destiny and this failure must inevitably result in disharmony and frustration.
The sinner deprives his life of its meaning or at least gives it less meaning.
Personal sin is presented in the Bible under many images: disobedience – transgression of
a prohibition laid down by God (Gen 2:16-17; 3:5-13), despising God (2Sam 12:10), infidelity
(Jer. 3:20), foolishness (Deut. 32:6), abandonment of God (Lk 15:11), slavery (John 8:34), Death
(Rm6:23), work of the flesh (Gal 15:19-23), rebellion (Is 1:2-4), pollution (Isa 24:5; Ps 50:9),
stain (Ps 50:4); alienation (John 15:2-6), debt (Mt 6:12), negation of God (Gen 3:5), offence
against God (Ps 50:5-6; Lk 15:21).
Sin in the proper sense is always a personal act since it is an act of freedom on the part of
an individual person and not properly of a group or community. As a personal act, sin has its first
and most important consequence on the sinner himself that is, on his relationship with God.

3. Social Sin
Social sin is the conscious and willful participation of a group or a society in cooperating
with sinful structures and thus maintaining and perpetuating them and failing to do anything to
change them when it is possible. Also, each individual’s sin in some manner affects other people
and in this way, sin is social. All sins, even those of most personal character, have a social
dimension. Every sin constitutes an impairment of the realization of the common ultimate task.
For the sinner refuses in every sin to work for this task and instead strive after different goals of
his own liking.
Social sin may be taken in three meanings:
1. Sin which by its very object constitutes a direct attack on others, for example, theft, murder,
damaging public property. These have direct social consequences. They directly inflict damage
on another. Also social is the sin against justice in interpersonal relationships, committed by the
individual against the community or by the community against the individual. The social nature
of sin becomes even more obvious when we consider sins committed against the rights of the
human person, such as, right to life, right to basic needs; also acts against others freedom, such
as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc.

49
2. Any sin, even a sin of thought, which by its object does not constitute a direct attack on
another, but has social dimension. Those with personal character that have more subtle, indirect
nature. For example, laziness, addiction to drugs, etc. do have effects on those with whom we
live. The human community suffer from the defects of these because they hamper man in
contributing as efficiently to the welfare of society and to the common task as he should and
could. Also, every sin is social in so far as, and because it also has social, repercussion. Every
inner disorder has the tendency to embody itself in action, e.g. thoughts of revenge. By such
inner sins, therefore, man offends against neighbour and society in as much as he permits
dispositions to develop which by their nature have the perilous proneness to reactions and effects
detrimental to society.
3. Sin-embodying and Sin-producing structures: These can be seen in i.) certain
relationships between the various communities which are not in accordance with the plan of God
who intends that there be justice in the world, and freedom and peace between individuals, and
group and peoples. These include: class struggle, obstinate confrontation between one nation and
another, between different groups within the same nation. ii.); organized crime and violence
against life, contempt for human rights, immorality, corruption, favouritism etc.; iii.) a welfare
system which makes little or no distinction between rich and poor in its disbursement of benefits,
and a taxation system which penalizes a needy section of the community to the benefit of another
more affluent ones.
Social sin can also be applied to sins of commission and omission on the art of the
political, economic or trade union leaders. This is seen in what can be termed as “sinful
structures.” Sinful structures could be identified as political institutions that oppress persons and
violate their human dignity; they stifle freedom and foster inequality. They are usually the
products of some person’s or group’s greed, egoism, ambition, or even cruelty. This can occur
when those who though in a position to promote common good do not work diligently and
wisely for the improvement and transformation of society according to the requirements and
potential of the given historic movement; also on the part of workers who through absenteeism
or non-cooperation fail to ensure that their industries can continue to advance the well-being of
the workers themselves, of their families and of the whole of society.

50
Kinds of Sins
1. Internal Sins: This is also known as sinful thoughts and attitude. Internal sins are sins
which are consummated in the mind. They are sins of the heart usually called “bad thoughts.”
They are evil desires, mental complacency and sinful joy. Evil desire concerns the future; mental
complacency concerns the present; sinful joy concerns the past. It is from internal sins that the
terrain is prepared for the sins of action.
(a). Evil Desire: This is the longing to do something evil, something forbidden. It is a
deliberate desire to do an evil thing. This sin takes on the malice of the thing desired to be done.
Thus the desire to kill a priest has the malice of murder and sacrilege. An evil desire is
efficacious if it constitutes a firm intention or resolution. One is guilty of this desire even though
some external circumstances may prevent its realization. Bad will alone is a sin, even if the effect
is lacking, that is, if there is no power to carry it out.
(b). Mental Complacency or Desire: This means to take pleasure in sinful fantasies and
thoughts without the desire to bring them into action. Such deliberate complacency is called
mental complacency because, the will lingers on the evil thing even though this lingering is only
for a moment. This is different from merely thinking about something sinful.
(c). Sinful Joy: This is an act of the will which one takes delight in sins already committed by
oneself or by others. For example, an unjust and revengeful man rejoices when he thinks of the
oppression he exercised against some helpless person who had incurred his wrath. It has the
same malice as the evil deed itself. This also involves boasting about one’s sin and also sinful
regret for not having done a wicked deed.
2. Capital Sins: - Capital sins are those which are the sources of other sins. They offer very
strong incentives for committing other sins. Gregory the Great drew up a list of seven capital
sins: pride, avarice, envy, lust, gluttony, anger and sloth.
3. Sins of Omission and Commission: - A sin of commission is the performance of a
forbidden act while a sin of omission, is the failure to perform an obligatory act. Sins of omission
remain more easily unnoticed, and that is why they are particularly dangerous. The possibilities
of omission are manifold: neglect of one’s professional duties, neglect to reform oneself, neglect
to fight deficient and evil public conditions, and neglect to show concern and fraternal love for
one’s neighbour.

51
Degrees of Sin / Gradations of Sin
(1). Mortal Sin
Mortal sin may be defined as an act or an omission which dissolves friendship with God
and merits eternal punishment. Mortal sin is a fundamental option against God. It implies a total
engagement of self against God, a turning away from him, the complete perversion of God’s plan
in man. It is a morally wrong decision which is so intensive that it gives a wrong orientation to
man’s life. Mortal sin destroys love in our hearts and it turns us away from eternal happiness
(CCC 1855). Some example of grave matter are listed in the Decalogue and include all kinds of
direct killing of the innocent, adultery, stealing, false witness, defrauding, etc. Pope John Paul II
in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor lists, many more grave matters which if chosen with
knowledge and will would certainly fall under the category of mortal sin – e.g. euthanasia,
slavery, abortion, degrading working conditions and torture (80).
(2). Venial Sin
Venial sin is an act or an omission which does not dissolve friendship with God. It is
merely a lack of order of an accidental nature, a partial disorientation that mars the harmony
which directs us to our final end and ordering of the means. Venial sin wounds or weakens
charity in our hearts, it also weakens virtues, but it does not turn us away from our God. Of
course one sin can lead to another sin and over time what began as small can slowly grow into
something serious. For example, taking small amounts of money, spreading uncharitable tales
about others, those little burst of anger and uncontrolled thoughts may lead to grave matters.
In summary, the essence of mortal sin consists in the turning away from God our ultimate
end, through the fully deliberate choice of an object that is opposed to God’s love. And the
essence of venial sin consists in the choice of an object which while not being pleasing to God, at
the same time does not turn man away from God. As a consequence of mortal sin, man loses
God’s friendship and merits eternal punishment; by venial sin he minimizes God’s favour and
merits temporal punishment. However, venial sin could dispose us to mortal sin in three ways:
first by weakening the disposition of the will to obey God; secondly, by forfeiting the excellent
and copious help of God’s grace without which one might succumb to temptation; thirdly by
making the will more inclined towards evil.
According to Catholic Moral Tradition, mortal sin is comprised of three essential
elements: grave matter, full consent of the will, and full awareness.

52
(a). Grave Matter: To constitute a mortal sin, first of all, the matter must be grave. Normally,
it is only in a grave matter that one is fully involved as a person and commits oneself in one’s
basic stand in relation to God. The following constitute grave matter:
(i). A sinful matter is grave when it constitute a grave injury to a good of great value. Grave
matter, according to Peschke, can be defined as a grave injury to man’s existential ends and his
ultimate goal. This can be seen in substantial violation of the natural law. Natural law has to do
with the essential order, which one has to keep in his relation to God, to self and to one’s
neighbour. Substantial violation with regard to God is when one refuses to subject oneself to
God; with regard to oneself, when one arrogates the dominion which God has over him,, e.g. by
committing suicide or grave mutilation; with regard to one’s neighbour, when one causes a
notable harm to one’s neighbour’s person or property. Also violation of the common good
constitute grave matter.
(ii). All those objects which the scripture considers as abominable and for which one is
excluded from the kingdom of God or for which one deserves death, hell fire, etc. “Do not be
deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy,
drunkard, revilers, robbers none of these will inherit the kingdom of God” (1Cor 6:9-10)”. Those
who practice such things (envy, murder, strife, slander, etc.) deserve to die yet they not only do
them but even applaud others who practice them (Rm 1:32; CCC 1858).
(iii). Also, those actions that are punishable according to the teaching of the church are
considered gravely sinful (CIC 1321, 1). These include the official teachings of the Popes and
Councils. The decisions of the magisterium of the church (LG 15; GS 50) that the faithful are to
carefully adhere to.
(iv). The things that the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and theologians of the church say
constitute grave matter. However, only those things that are manifestly so by clear and
convincing reasons or by unambiguous authority, should be considered as grave.
(b). Full Awareness: The second necessary element of mortal sin means having acquired
evaluative knowledge. There is need for full knowledge regarding the seriousness of the law.
Evaluative knowledge expresses what importance or worth the object has or what value it has. It
deals with the goodness or beauty of a thing. It implies a critical reflective judgement about the
values involved in a thing. It is concrete knowledge and it is particular way of knowing the
individual existing thing. It deals, therefore, not with essence but with existence. Evaluative

53
knowledge is more personal, more self-involving than conceptual knowledge of facts or ideas,
for it has to do with grasping the quality of a person, object or event. To constitute a grave sin,
full evaluative knowledge is necessary. However, for a grave sin, the knowledge need not be the
most perfect or clear and distinct. Obscure knowledge is sufficient. Unless we have an
appreciation of the value (Moral Object) in question through our personal appropriation of it, we
act only on hearsay, rather than on the basis of what we have discovered to be valuable.
(c). Full consent of the Will: To constitute a grave matter, there must be full consent of the
will. Such consent must arise from the exercise of basic or transcendental freedom. It is a matter
of the “heart.” There we say “No” to God’s self-gift of life, truth and love. The consent of the
will is the acceptance and complacency of the will in the pleasure proposed to it by the intellect.
To constitute a human act, the will must enjoy a considerable degree of freedom from
psychological pressures, obstacles and difficulties. Usually, when there is full knowledge, there
is also full consent. However, there are cases in which there is full knowledge without full
consent. This happens when the will is influenced by grave fear, violence, etc. Also, there could
be a case whereby there is full consent without full knowledge. This happens when the
knowledge was full in the beginning but due to frequent consenting to temptations and pleasure,
one would come to look upon them as not grave, that is, his awareness about the gravity might
diminish.
Effects of Sins
The Holy Scripture alludes to the effects of sins in the following passages: (Joshua 22:
17-18; Jer. 2: 22 Hosea 5:11). The effects of sins could be seen under the following.
(1). Consequent Guilt: - This is a state of one who by violation of law had made himself
deserving of punishment. This is feeling sorry for having offended God. It could also involve
guilt feelings such as those guilt feeling which mean experiences without hope of necessary
forgiveness. Sin causes loneliness and anxiety. As Bernard Haring writes: As he losses the grace
and peace that come from God, he becomes all the more unable to transcend himself and to
establish authentic relationships with others. the sin which damages lies capacity to love, to
listen, to accept others and to make them happy, destroys man in his inner core” (Sin in a Secular
Age, Slough: St Paul, 1974, 60).
(2). Consequent Penalty: - Every sin brings also some penalty to be paid in the future life or
in this life (Mt 12:36). Sin ultimately leads to death. Sin is the refusal of divine life. Also, the

54
church teaches that hell exist, that hell is eternal, and that hell is the lot of those who die in the
state of mortal sin and that it follows immediately after death and that it includes horrible
suffering, especially the loss of the vision of God. Hell is the final consequence of sin. It is that
uttermost loneliness in which man is definitely estranged from God and his fellowmen.
(3). Consequential Stain: - This is the deprivation of sanctifying grace whereby the sinner
loses the spiritual beauty to which sin is opposed.
Sources of Sins
(1). Temptation: This is the incitement acting upon a person to do evil. It is the attraction by a
good which in the larger context of the entire hierarchy of values constitutes an evil – God does
not tempt men, for God does not lead men into evil. Temptation arises from the fact that evil
presents itself as desirable. Ultimately the possibility of temptation is rooted in the gift of
freedom, which God has endowed men. The gift of freedom inevitably includes the risks of
temptation and sin.
(2). Seduction and Scandal: Seduction is a deliberate effort to lead others to sin. This is sin
against charity and sin against moral duty. Seduction presupposes that the seduced person is led
to an action which stands in contradiction to his or her original personal intention and mind.
Scandal can be described as conduct of individuals or groups by which they tempt others to evil
more or less imputably.One may be the indirect cause of another’s sin in many ways: (i) by the
transmission of original sin; (ii) by inducing another to actual sin, especially by scandal; (iii) by
co-operating with another’s sin.
(3). One’s own past actual sins can also be the indirect cause of other sins (i) by disposing
him to commit similar sins; (ii) one evil action done because of some other evil action (iii) by
removing the shame of committing sin.
Fundamental Option
In recent decades Catholic moralists have introduced the category of “Fundamental
Option” to describe our exercise of transcendental or core freedom. The term “fundamental”
means “stable” or “basic”. This means what is basic – the foundation. The term “option” means
“decision”, “intention”, or “choice.” The fundamental life’s orientation, deep direction of the
will, the fundamental life’s choice and orientation, the style of life, basic intention and resolve,
the fundamental attitude, life’s concept, plan of life, the deepest directedness of the person, the
personal decision for good or evil etc. are the other terms used for fundamental option.

55
 Fundamental option means that when one chooses God or some created good that is in
opposition to God, one gives oneself entirely to the object of one’s decision. Our moral life
should be looked upon as a continuous process with a definite moral direction rather than a
sequence of unconnected actions. Our life should be seen as a unity, a whole, a totality which is
given a direction by a free decision of conscience, it is a persistent will or attitude that shapes
one’s life. It is a basic stance which in fact determines many choices that people makes even
everyday of their life.
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1975 maintains that “In reality
it is preciously the fundamental option which in last resort defines a person’s moral disposition
(10). Again VeritatisSplendor States: “Scripture itself… see the fundamental option as a genuine
choice of freedom and links that choice profoundly to particular acts…. To separate the
fundamental option from concrete kinds of behavior means to contradict the substantial integrity
or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul.”
Mortal sin is first of all the complete and decisive rupture of man’s relationship with
God; it is choosing a new life style. It is therefore a fundamental option against God. It affects
the very core of man’s personality. Venial sin on the other hand is not a fundamental option
against God. It is a partial disposal of some one’s acts against God. Venial sin is a moral choice
which occurs in the periphery of one’s personality. It is not an existential involvement of one’s
whole person against God.
NATURAL LAW
Nature comes from the Latin word “nascor”, “nasci”, “natus sum” which means “what is
given by birth”, “what is inborn.” By nature here, we do not mean physical or biological nature
but metaphysical, supernatural nature. It is the spiritual-corporeal essence of man as the principle
of man’s action. It is that element which is present in every man and in every circumstance, and
which distinguishes man from every other being.
Human being are governed first of all by the natural law, that is, a norm or body of norms
of human conduct derived from human nature and known to or knowable by human reason. This
is the concept of the natural law that is implied in the letter of St Paul to the Romans. St Paul in
Rm 2:14-15 writes: “When Gentiles who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law
requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law

56
requires is written on their hearts to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their
conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them”.
The concept of natural law is found in the works of the ancient Christian writers and the
Fathers of the church, perfected by St Thomas Aquinas when he says that “The natural law is
nothing other than the participation in the eternal law by rational creatures” (St Thomas I-II,
91,2). According to him, the notion of natural law can be understood from two points of view:
the first refers to the eternal law of God that Thomas understands as a concern to ordain the
world not in unusual but in a providential way, which is for the good of creation itself. The
second concerns instead, participation; it is God’s calling to man so that he be part of eternal law,
that is, of the divine preoccupation to maintain order, or better still, providence in creation.
Natural law is thus understood as the participation of the rational creature in eternal law of God.
Natural law is the light of understanding infuse 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. The existence of the natural law is the direct result of the existence of human nature.
Man is responsible to God in his being for his acts cannot take it upon himself to act according to
the whims of the moment without reference to his creator, to his fellowmen and to himself.
St Thomas points out that it is a personal participation in God’s plan, his providence and
wisdom, for the eternal law is God himself as the source of moral law and obligation in our
world. Eternal law is God under the aspect of law giver, while natural law is human nature under
the aspect of inherent obligation. Natural law according to St Thomas consists in certain
fundamental moral judgement acquired intuitively and not by deductive reason. These self-
evident principle of the moral order can be reduced to “God is to be done, and evil is to be
avoided”. This imprint in the heart only means that human beings have been given the radical
capacity for self-reflection and thereby can discern how they should act in particular situations.
Veritatis Splendor summarizes the presentation of natural law thus: “The natural law does not
impose itself upon us from without, as do the laws of physical nature or civil prohibitions. It
affects us from within, in the form of deep inclinations which move us, in the intimacy of our
hearts, towards the end destined by our spiritual nature, toward the happiness to which God calls
us” (43). The encyclical frequently mentions the five natural inclinations noted by St. Thomas:
desire for the good; the instinct of self-preservation, the generation and rearing of children, the

57
seeking of truth and the cultivation of social life. It adds to these the contemplation of beauty.
(Read more in George V. Lobo P 180).
On the whole, Catholic tradition has identified the Ten Commandments, especially the
last seven as being precepts of the natural law. The person-centered approach to morality called
for by the Second Vatican Council as being some extrinsic limitation arbitrarily imposed upon us
by religious or society. It strives, rather, to place before us our extrinsic nature as embodied spirit
living now in the dual realms of time and eternity of “becoming” and “Being”.
The human conscience reveals to man certain moral norms which he feels bound to obey,
independent of his will. It implies that man has freely to act according to the divine plan for
which he has been created. He has to discern responsibly what action conduces to the glory of
God and his own true fulfilment.
The natural law signifies the plan of God in relation to human life and action, for Vatican
II says: “The highest norm of human life is the divine law itself – eternal, objective and
universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the whole world and the ways of the human
community according to a plan concerned in his wisdom and love. God has enabled man to
participate in the law of his so that, under the gentle disposition of divine providence, many may
be able to arrive at a deeper and deeper knowledge of unchangeable truth” (DignitatisHumanae
3). The Catechism of the Catholic Church recalls the need for natural law: it “expresses the
original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and
the lies (1954). Humanae Vitae calls natural law “an expression of the divine will” (4).

Relevance of Natural Law

Although the primary source of Christian morality is the interior grace of the spirit of
Christ, still the weakness of man needs the aid of law. Just as without the physical laws the
whole universe would collapse, so also without the natural law, human life would be morally
impossible. Natural law doctrine is of fundamental relevance above all on two accounts: (i) it is
the basis of a moral order of universal character and constitutes a source of ethical wisdom which
Christians share with all mankind. (ii) Natural law is the only adequate safeguard against
arbitrary exercise of political and legislative power. It is the final court of appeal against unjust,
prejudiced laws of human authorities.

58
 No human law can contradict the natural law, because no law is really human when it
violates human dignity. Human dignity is God’s gift. It is God’s law. Man is made in the image
of God. No human law can deprive man of his God given dignity.
Properties of Natural Law
The properties of natural law include: (i) Universality, (ii) Immutability and Historicity,
(iii) Indispensability
Universality of Natural Law
Inasmuch as the natural law is based on the enduring nature of man, it binds every man at
all times and in all places. According to Henry Peschke, “All are called to attain the same final
goal and to respect the same existential ends in essentially the same way, even if this way
presents a varied picture in details of its realization. For example, slavery and torture are always
evil inasmuch as they strike against the basic dignity of man. But slavery may have become such
a part of the social system that no one in a particular culture saw anything wrong in it. It cannot,
however, be said that it was ‘right’, under certain circumstances. Toleration or silence by some
NT writes should not be understood to mean approval.
According to the principle of universality, no one is free from the obligation of fulfilling
this duty; no one is superior to the guidelines which show him the way to it; no one is beyond
good and evil. Even those who are temporarily or permanently without the use of reason are not
exempted from this obligation. Although they do not sin subjectively in offending against natural
law, they break it materially and therefore can and often must be hindered from doing so (e.g.
Mentally sick person who endanger the lives of others). Of course no law can be binding in
conscience as long as it is not known. But whoever has the reason cannot remain ignorant of
natural law for long, at least not of its basic principle. The most universal principle of natural law
runs; “God must be done and evil must be avoided”.
Pope John Paul II writes: “In as much as the natural law 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, practice good and contemplate beauty. In as much 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 does not

59
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” (Vertitatis Splendor, 51).
Moral law in its must universal meaning is a directive ordering man’s activity towards the
ultimate end. This def. includes obligatory demands as well as counsels, recommendations,
permissions. It comprises common laws, interning all men or groups of men, and personal
commands, resulting from an individual call addressed to an appointed person. According to this
definition, every genuine moral law must be good and holy in the sense that it must guide human
activity to contribute to the realization of the find goal of human history and of creation, and that
it prevents men from obstructing the attainment of this end. A norm which does not contribute at
all to the final end has no moral force binding the will. Simply put, moral law is a directive of
obligatory, general and stable character, ordering man’s activity towards the ultimate end. This is
also called natural moral law, natural law or divine natural law. It is that moral order which
arises from the nature of man and creation and which can be recognized by man’s reason. It is
called divine natural law because its origin is ultimately traced back to the will of God who
created nature and who there with also willed the laws resulting from it. This is different from
human laws which its immediate source of origin in human authority. However, human law may
also reaffirm obligations of natural law e.g. the prohibitions of murder or stealing.
The term natural law refers to those moral insight which man is able to know by means of
his reason, independently of the verbal revelation of God. The word ‘natural’ in the tern has the
meaning of (1) not supernatural, i.e. not communicated in a super natural way: (2) not positive,
i.e. not the result of a command of a legislative authority: (3) found in tent derived from the
nature of man.
According to trade moral theology, natural moral law is that law of human conduct which
arises from the full reality of human nature as ordered to its ultimate end and which is recognized
by the natural light of reason independent of positive. This means that the subjective medium of
cognition is reason alone –human nature not elevated by grace. P
ii. Immutability and Historicity of Natural Law
Permanence and historicity alike characterize the nature of man and his world.
Immutability of natural moral law means that as soon as human beings, endowed with reason had
appeared, certain fundamental norms concerning good and evil emerged from their nature, and

60
these will exist as long as human nature exists. There is a constant in human nature which
remains throughout all historical and cultural change.
The natural law does not change with time. At times the circumstance or the matter to
which the law is to be applied may change, in which case it might seem that the law itself has
changed, but in reality, the law has not changed; it is applied in a different circumstance. In other
words, the application of natural law is variable according to the change of conditions of the just,
the useful and the possible in which our actions take place. For example, it is an immutable
principle of the natural law that every man has the right to his dignity as a human person. From
this principle, it follows that slavery is unlawful at any time.
There is however also the fact that man himself and his conditions of existence change.
Such changes indeed bring about alterations in the norms of natural law which are objective and
real. As man and his living conditions change, the application of the same basic principles lead to
different conclusion. This signifies a historicity and mutability of natural law in the proper sense.
The changes may result from alterations of human nature itself. The changes in man’s condition
of existence however are many and they accelerate at an ever faster pace. Thus natural law is by
no means a static reality but a reality of dynamic character. The content of the natural law is not
given to man in a fully developed form from the beginning, but must be evolved, as he
progresses in other forms of knowledge, e.g. in the knowledge of the physical or biological laws
of nature. For example, in the past, in ectopic pregnancy, there was no other alternative than to
allow the mother and the child to die, today we know that ectopic pregnancy is a disorder in the
body. Hence it can be corrected applying the principle of double effect.
iii. Indispensability of Natural Law
Indispensability of natural law simply means that nobody may dispense from its
observance, because the natural law is necessarily connected with rational nature. As long as
rational nature remains what it is, the natural law also must remain the same. In the true sense of
the word, no dispensation from natural law is possible, at least not from the side of human
authority, since human nature and the ultimate end from which natural law derives are not
created and set up by man but by a power superior to him, natural law likewise exists
independent of man’s assent. It is withdrawn from his power of free disposal. For Christians, as
for many other religious, as well the power which created man and claims him unconditionally is
God. The origin of the orders of natural law is also God, therefore natural law is identical with

61
God’s will. No man therefore has authority over a law of this status. Exceptions or dispensations
from natural law based on purely human authority are usurpations of a right man do not possess.
They are violations of the divinely willed order. Only God has the power to allow for an
exception from natural law in some extraordinary cases, as long as the exception does not
contradict God’s own nature – example – God’s command of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
Is the doctrine of Epikeia applicable in natural law? Epikeia is the doctrine that allows
certain exceptions from human laws, made by private authority in some particularly difficult
case. The need for such exception arises from the fact that human laws are often imperfectly
formulated, either because the legislator did not find the right words or because certain instance
which should or should not have been covered by the law escaped his attention. Exception could
be allowed here and the justification is ultimately the greater justice of natural law. Applying this
to natural law, it has been established that natural law is the work of God which does not permit
of dispensation. However, the formulations of natural law are the work of man, they are
nevertheless subject to imperfections of human language and insight in a similar way as the
wordings of human laws are. In order to compensate for these imperfections, Epikeia may at
times be called for. For example – prohibition of lying as a precept of natural law which permits
of no exceptions, but in order to save an innocent life it might be justified. The decision to resort
to an exception in this situation is an instance of Epikeia from natural law in the asserted,
improper sense. It can then be described as an exception from the human wording of a natural
law.
Existence and Ultimate Bases of Natural Law – (Peschke 117)
The Bible on Natural Law
CONSCIENCE
God calls each person to conform himself to Christ through the action of the Holy Spirit.
If this call remains unknown, the Christian cannot respond freely to it. How then does a Christian
recognize God’s invitation in concrete situation? For example, how does a person know that God
desires the preservation of an aged man’s life and forbids euthanasia? The answer can be found
in the voice of God that is heard deep within inside of man, that is, his CONSCIENCE – the
faculty by which an individual judges the morality of a proposed act.

62
What is Conscience?
Conscience is the moral faculty which tells people subjectively what is good and evil, and
which manifests their moral obligation to them. It is that through which the general norms of the
moral law are applied to a concrete action which a person is about to perform or has performed,
telling the person what his obligation is here and now or judging his past acts. Here, according to
St. Thomas Aquinas, conscience is considered as a judgement of the practical reason. The faculty
of conscience goes into action when the morality of a concrete line of conduct, which a person
wants to follow or has followed, and the moral obligation in the concrete situation are to be
judged. Conscience, is therefore the ultimate practical judgement of morality of a concrete action
– it commands to do what is good and to avoid what is evil. It is called practical judgement
because it is related to the “praxis” of the moral activity.
For St. Augustine, conscience is the place of the innermost encounter between God and
man, therefore it is the “Voice of God.” It is the divine center of the person, from where he is
addressed by God. In it, man is aware of God and the soul. It is that faculty situated in the very
depth and center of the human person, which accords to man an understanding of his meaning
and destiny, an awareness of the divine purpose behind the world, a perception of his calling
within God’s plan, and an experience of the imperative character of this calling. All this makes it
clear that conscience by its very nature has a religious dimension. It is the place where a person
is called to responsibility before God. It can then be described as the faculty which makes known
to man his moral obligations and urges him to fulfil them.
By this practical judgement of conscience involving the exercise of our knowledge and
freedom, we respond to value, we enflesh our relationships of love and mature according to
God’s plan. Conscience is thus the faculty to responsibility and discernment through which we
answer God’s loving call within the very depths of our being and then live out that call by
enmeshing this law of love in all practical decisions of our everyday lives.
Conscience is not mere reason, because it is more than mere executive agent of pre-
existent moral laws, whose only task it is to apply the laws to concrete situations here and now. It
is not also identical with the power of the will, since man may will and do what is against his
conscience. Accordingly, conscience is a faculty in its own right, distinct from reason, will, and
feeling. It is not a matter of “It feels right, do it.”

63
 The Second Vatican Council in Gaudium et Spes (16) gives a clear description of what
conscience is: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon
himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to
avoid evil, tells him inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a
law inscribed by God. His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he will be judged. His
conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice
echoes in his depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, the law is made known which is
fulfilled in the love of God and of one’s neighbour.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that conscience is “a judgement of reason
whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to
perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed” (1778). It says further that
“Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (Synderesis); their application
in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgement
about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed” (1780).
Conscience includes both the disposition or inclination to do good and the practical
judgement for this or that action. Although formed in part by our family, our faith community,
and many other cultural influences, conscience arises from within the person; it is not imposed
from outside of us.
Conscience in Sacred Scripture
Although the word ‘conscience’ is not found in the OT, except in Wisdom 17:11, a
description of conscience is found already in the Book of Genesis, when it recounts the sin of
Adam and Eve. The action of the couple who “hid themselves from the Lord God among the
trees of the garden” (Gen 3:8) points to the operation of a “consequent” or “judicial conscience”,
that is, a conscience which experiences guilt and shame after committing a sinful act. The
judgement of conscience too could be found in the example of Cain remorse after he had killed
his brother Abel (Gen 4:9-14): in David whose heart reproved him because he had numbered the
people against the will of God (2 Sam 24:10).
The only OT use of the term ‘conscience’ is found in wisdom 17:11 “for wickedness…
because of a distressed conscience always magnifies misfortunes.” Again here, we see the
functioning of a consequent conscience evidenced in the pain of remorse. Other works employ
“the heart” and “loins” to describe the whole inner person made by and known to God alone (Ps

64
7:10; 26:2; Jer. 12:20; 17:10; 20:12). Nowhere in the OT, however do we find an “antecedent
conscience” where a person assesses beforehand the moral implications of a contemplated
action.
In the New Testament, Christ himself and the Gospel do not use the term conscience but
Jesus always speaks of “the heart” as the center of the moral person (Mk 7:19). He called those
pure of heart (that is, the single minded and simple) “blessed” (Mt 5:8). He teaches that our
hearts should not be fixed upon earthly treasures, but upon the things of heaven (Mt 6:19-21) and
that sin, such as adultery, is a matter first of the heart, a lustful look, before it is an external
action (Mt 5:28). For the Hebrew in Jesus day, “the heart was the seat of thoughts, desires and
emotions, and also of the moral judgement, taking over the functions we ascribe to the
conscience, for which there is no specific word in the gospels. Jesus thus demands that our
actions be the fruit of our inner disposition (Lk 6:43-45).
Nevertheless, the term conscience occurs repeatedly in the other writings of the New
Testament. St. Paul uses the Greek word “Syneidesis” (consciousness) some twenty times in his
writings. In the Stoic understanding of the term it referred to self-consciousness passing moral
judgment. For Paul, “conscience” serves as the internal coordinate to the civil power’s external
wrath (Rm 13:5); it refers to a personal awareness of moral responsibility. Most often Paul refers
to conscience as “a witness” (Rm 2:15; 9:1; 2Cor 1:12), which accompanies our actions and
attests to the truth of our assertions. Conscience is a principle of liberty (1Cor 10:29). Ultimately,
it refers to a person’s whole inner vision of reality, the world and human life, as seen through the
eyes of faith (Rm 14:23). Conscience governs the ‘new creature’s’ spontaneous reaction to daily
events. It is formed by examining or testing oneself (1Cor 11:28; Gal 6:4), by discerning God’s
will (Rom 12:2; Eph. 5:10) and discerning what is of value within the context of the two great
commandments love of God and love of neighbor. The judgments of conscience are not merely
natural insights, but judgements enlighten by faith (1timothy 1:5; 3:9).
Conscience finally is a universal endowment of all men. In Rm 2:14f Paul shows he is
convinced that the “Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires” and hence
are a law to themselves and in verse 15, he points out that the law is written on their hearts “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.”
Levels of Operation of Conscience

65
There are three levels in which Conscience is operative
(1). Antecedent Conscience: - Here the intellect judges the morality of the act before it is done.
One makes judgement about an action that one is considering doing or not doing. Conscience
here helps a person to sort out the data before a decision is made. It helps in examining the right
or wrong thing to do. It does this by reflecting on the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and His
Church, the rights of others, the helpfulness to one’s growth, etc. The antecedent conscience
commands, exhorts, permits or forbids. For the purpose of ethics, antecedent conscience is far
more important.
(2). Concomitant Conscience: - Here the intellect judges the morality of the act while it is being
done. One’s conscience is also at work when one is acting, through enabling him to makes a
judgement after considering the relevant data. It makes it possible for a person to continue to act
or not to continue to act, to hold an attitude or not. The concomitant conscience animates the
good action and distorts the one who does the evil.
(3). Consequent Conscience: - Here the intellect judges the morality of the act after it had been
done. One notices that conscience is at work after one had performed the act through any after
thought he may have about his action. It is clear that this judgement will not in any way change
the morality of the act already done. The reason being that the act is good or bad if at the
moment it was done the intellect judged it to be good or bad. Hence after the act has been done,
the judgement cannot make a good act bad or a bad act good. Consequent conscience approves,
excuses, reproves, or accuses.
Division of conscience
1. Certain or Doubtful Conscience
Certain Conscience judges without fear of error. Here the judgement of the practical
intellect is sure, without the fear of the opposite. For moral certainty, it suffices that all
reasonable fear be excluded. The doubtful conscience on the other hand is uncertain concerning
the morality of an action. Here the judgement of the practical intellect is not sure. There is some
fear of the opposite. It either hesitates to make any judgement at all or does not make a
judgement with misgiving that the opposite might equally be true. If it makes no judgement, the
intellect remains in suspense because it either sees no motives or equal motives on both sides. If
the intellect judges with fear of the opposite it ascents to one side but its judgement is only a

66
probable opinion; for this reason a doubtful conscience is always in a state of uncertainty as to
the lawfulness or obligation of an action.
The basic principle in doubtful conscience is that, in a practical doubt the lawfulness of
an action, one may not act. The reason is that by acting with a doubtful conscience, a person
would expose himself to the danger of injustice and sin. Hence actions in instances of a doubtful
conscience is regulated by: (1) the action must be postponed until certainty can be reached; (2) if
there is no possibility to solve the doubt, one must opt for the safer alternative, that is, one must
favour the alternative which excludes the danger of sin and injustice.
2. Correct or Erroneous Conscience
Since the judgement of conscience is the judgement of the intellect, and the intellect can
err, either by adopting false premises or by drawing an illogical conclusion, conscience can be
correct or erroneous. Conscience is Correct when it judges as good what is really good or as evil
what is really evil. Here, subjective and objective morality correspond. The person who judges
that it is not right to get a divorce simply because his wife is no longer beautiful, or a lady who
judges that she has a right not to go for abortion because she is pregnant out of wedlock has a
right or correct conscience. Correct conscience embodies virtuous acts and virtuous person, the
moral agent
Erroneous Conscience on the other hand judge as good what is really evil, or as evil what
is really good. All error involves ignorance, because a person cannot make a false judgement in
his mind unless he lacks knowledge of the truth. An erroneous conscience is either
INVINCIBLY or VINCIBLY so.
Vincibly Erroneous Conscience: This is when the error can be overcome and the
judgement corrected, at least by means any normally prudent man would be expected to use. The
vincibly erroneous conscience is culpable, because with some good will, its error could be
corrected.
Invincibly Erroneous Conscience: This is when the error cannot be overcome and the
judgement cannot be corrected at least by means any normally prudent man would be expected
to use. The invincibly erroneous conscience is inculpable, since the person has no awareness of
the possibility of error.

3. Perplexed, Scrupulous and Lax Conscience

67
These are species of the erroneous conscience
(a). Perplexed Conscience is a type of erroneous conscience which, in a conflict of duties, fears
sin in whatever choice it makes. A perplexed conscience belongs to one who cannot make up his
mind and remains in a state of indecisive anguish, especially if he thinks that he will be doing
wrong whichever alternative he chooses. Confronted with moral problems, one may take
different attitudes, when one is in doubt on what to do and is not able to solve the doubt, his
conscience is said to be perplexed. For example in a situation of a doubt whether a confessor
should absolve a penitent or not, the confessor may hesitate as to which course to follow. If he
absolves, he thinks that he is administering the sacrament unworthy. If he does not absolve, he
thinks, on the contrary, that he is turning the penitent away from the reception of the sacraments.
In a situation of this type, if the decision can be delayed, one must first postpone the action in
order to obtain information and deliberate on it. If time permits, he should ask counsel or consult
books. However, if the decision cannot be postponed, one must choose the lesser evil.

(b). Scrupulous Conscience:- A Scrupulous conscience is that conscience which for slight
motives or without any motive at all, often fears to perform an action thinking that it is a sin.
Scrupulosity is the persistent, gnawing, unreasonable fear that one has offended God or is about
to do so. The scrupulous person is in constant dread of sin where there is none or of grave sin
where there is only venial sin. A scrupulous conscience torments it owner by rehearsing over and
over again doubt that were once settled, finding new sources of guilt in old deeds that were best
forgotten, striving for a kind of certainty about one’s state of soul that is beyond our power in
this world.
Scrupulosity can be a serious form of spiritual self-torture, mounting to neurotic anxiety
that is mere of a psychological than an ethical condition. The person needs to learn, not the
distinction between right and wrong, which he may know very well, but how to stop worrying
over groundless fears, how to end his ceaseless self-examination and face life in a more
confident spirit. Scrupulosity is a religious-moral-psychological state of anxiety, fear and
indecision.
A scrupulous conscience is different from delicate conscience. Delicate conscience is a
God-fearing conscience, which avoids even the smallest sin. It judges correctly the goodness or

68
malice of an action, without any anxiety or fear. However, there is the danger of one with a
delicate conscience becoming egocentric and timid.
Signs of a scrupulous conscience
1. Stubbornness of judgement
2. Frequent change of judgement
3. Impertinent reflections
4. Fear of committing sin in everything
5. Continuous anxiety with regard to the validity of previous confession

(c). Lax Conscience:- The lax or dulled conscience is that which is inclined, on insufficient
grounds, to judge a thing to be lawful which is sinful, or to judge as not grave or licit what is
really grave or illicit. One who with knowledge and will acts with a lax conscience sins gravely
in a grave matter. Hence a person who is of lax conscience has the general and grave obligation
to reform this state of mind, since it exposes him to the danger of sin. Lax conscience can be
considered as vincibly erroneous.
The Binding Force of Conscience
1. A certain conscience must always be obeyed when it commands or forbids. It may always
be followed when it permits
2. The certainty required for the judgement of conscience generally need not be a strict
moral certainty, but a wide moral certainty is sufficient. Strict moral certainty excludes
any reasonable fear of error while wide moral certainty is accompanied by a slight yet
negligible fear of error, because the possibility of error is of little probability. This is also
called “Prudential Certainty.” Wide certainty is sufficient for licit operation in general
conditions of life, because frequently only this certainty can be obtained. Always to
require strict moral certainty for lawful action would burden life with many anxieties and
render it intolerable.
3. The invincibly erroneous conscience must be followed just the same as a certain
conscience which is right.
4. The vincibly erroneous conscience must not be followed as a legitimate rule of action.
Importance of the formation of conscience

69
 Conscience is the ultimate subjective norm of moral conduct. Hence it is of utmost
importance to have a true and upright conscience. In order to form an upright conscience, one
must love truth and should look upon law as a guide, and not as a burden. He should acquire the
habit of reflecting before speaking and acting. He should ask counsel and pray for the gifts of the
Holy Spirit.
Although each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own moral judgement and
actions, the formation of conscience is actually a communal effort, it is a matter of appropriating
a shared vision and living one’s life accordingly. A Christian conscience is formed within the
context of a communal faith that sees in Jesus Christ the revelation of God’s plan for the world
and the ultimate of human existence.
The principle elements in the formation of conscience include:
(1). Developing a Christian vision or worldview: - Our choices and actions flow from the way
we see reality, our philosophy of life, our worldview. In order words, we choose what we do on
the basis of what we see, and we see what we see because of who we are, our character.
(2). The involvement of the Magisterium
(3). Spiritual Discernment – (i) Prayer – meditation and contemplation lead one into inner life of
the soul and God’s presence there. Through prayer and disciplined reflection, we can become
aware of God’s will for us, of his kingdom breaking into our lives. (ii) Making examination of
conscience – This helps to probe our personal response to God’s living call in the depths of our
hearts. It examines our attitudes and choices within the context of the quality of our relationship
to God, neighbour, self, and all of creation.
(4). Spiritual Direction – This essentially is concerned with the discernment of spirits and the
finding of the will of God in a concrete situation.
Four Moments in the Formation and Exercise of Conscience
1. Conscience as desiring and knowing the good
2. Conscience as desiring the particular good: - This includes analysis of the situation, gathering
information, and seeking counsel, followed by reflection which should move one toward a
judgement of conscience.
3. Conscience as a judgement for right action: - Here we judge the rightness or wrongness of a
particular action under consideration in order to resolve the moral dilemma that we face.

70
4. Conscience as self-evaluation:- At this point, we look back at our judgement of conscience.
We do so out of integrity, out of desire to evaluate and to learn from our moral experience. If
upon reflection, we praise our judgement of conscience, we confirm the sensitivity to good and
evil present in that judgement of conscience and strengthen our moral character. On the other
hand, a negative evaluation of our judgement of conscience invites us to correct that judgement
when possible and also to learn from the mistaken judgement.
SITUATION ETHICS
Situation ethics, otherwise known as the New Morality is the ethics which emphasizes the
situation as the determining factor in morality of any action. Taking their direction from the
Enlightenment, liberal Protestant theologians in the twentieth century gave birth to “Situation
ethics” which gives primordial importance to the situation and only a minor place to norms.
Situation ethics is largely a reaction against “legalistic” tendencies in ethics, especially in the
classical Christian ethics which maintains that certain actions are intrinsically evil, meaning that
such actions are always evil whenever and wherever they are performed, irrespective of the
situation in which they are performed. Situation ethics denies that any action is intrinsically evil,
that is, always evil irrespective of the situation in which it is performed. The same action which
is bad in one situation can become good in another situation, and conversely, an action which is
good in one situation can become bad in another situation.
The doctrine of situation ethics maintains that moral decisions should no longer be based
on universal moral laws, such as, the Ten Commandments, but rather on the concrete, individual
situation being unique and unrepeatable, the individual’s conscience alone must determine his
right moral decision, apart from any universal principle or law. According to situation ethics, the
moral law, if it exists at all, does not have a universal and absolute character. It cannot cover all
the concrete situation of everyday life; these are unique and must ultimately be judged by the
individual according to his own conscience. The laws are general guide-posts; they are not a
body of premises from which conscience can argue as to what is right or wrong in individual
cases. The person himself must reach this decision on the basis of his own immediate and direct
relationship with God. Situation ethics claim that God’s interest is not in the objective character
of the act, that is, its agreement or disagreement with the so called “moral laws”, but in the “right
intention” without the slightest trace of intervention by any law, any authority, any community,
any form of worship or religion.

71
 Situation ethics vindicates the autonomy of the individual’s conscience from the ecclesial
Magisterium and exalts one’s personal responsibility and freedom. All forms of situation ethics
reject objective rules as absolutely valid and maintain that all moral laws can suffer exceptions,
whether they concern suicide, direct abortion, adultery, destruction of innocent life, etc.
The main figure in situation ethics is the American moralist, Joseph Fletcher. Every
situation, Fletcher maintains, is unique, consequently the same kind of action cannot remain
morally the same in all situation. Whether an action is to be considered as good or evil depends
on the situation in which it is performed. Goodness or badness is not something that can be found
inherent in certain actions as properties of such action. They are not properties inherent in
actions, but predicates and whether an action is to be predicated with the term “good” or “bad”
depends on the situation in which it is performed. Fletcher gives various examples in his book to
illustrate his point that what is bad in one situation can become good in another situation. One of
these examples is that of a family which was scattered during the Second World War. The man
was captured and taken to a prison camp in Ukraine and the children were all scattered.
The man however, was soon released and he came back home to Germany, and after
weeks of searching found his children. But neither he nor the children had any idea where his
wife was, and they were desperately looking for her, news got to his wife in the prison camp in
Ukraine that her family was together again and were desperately looking for her. But she could
not be released because release was granted only on either of two conditions, namely, serious
illness that the camp cannot handle or pregnancy in the case of women. The wife decided to
become pregnant so that she could be released and go back to join her family. She then arranged
with one of the prison guards to impregnate her and he did. Her condition was medically verified
and she was sent away from the camp. She rushed back home to her family and explained to her
husband, who was happy to see her and entirely approved of her action. Situation ethics approves
this type of situation as a good action in view of the situation in which it was performed. The
situation makes it a good action.
Moral judgement, according to situation ethics, is always a posteriori and never a priori.
While traditional Christian ethics admits several absolute moral norms, situation ethics maintains
that all moral norms are relative except one. No moral norm or law is absolute, no moral law is
always applicable in all situations. A moral law that is applicable in one situation may not be
applicable in another situation. The only moral law which is absolute and applicable in all

72
situations is the law of love. Love is the only absolute law in ethics, but the expression or
application of love differs from one situation to another. Love is the only thing that is
intrinsically good, and any action that is motivated by love in any situation is a good action.
Justice, Fletcher says, is identical with love; the two are inseparable. There can be no love
without justice, for justice is love distributed to others. He concludes that situation ethics is not a
system, but a method of arriving at moral decisions.
According to Fletcher, there are three approaches to moral decision making. These
include: Legalism, Antinomianism and Situationism.
(1). Legalism: - Legalism sees moral rules and principle not as guides but absolutes norms that
must be obeyed at all cost and in all situations. Legalism looks at the letter of the law and insists
on its observance while ignoring the spirit of the law. The letter of the law therefore dominates.
But as St Paul tells us, the letter kills while the spirit saves. Legalism is out to destroy, and it
destroys rather than saves; it hurts rather than helps. It is unrealistic and destructive.
(2). Antinomianism: - Antinomianism is a lawless, principleless approach to moral decision
making. It rejects all moral laws and principles and insists that man is free to take any decision
he deems fit in any situation. A typical example of an antinominalist is Jean-Paul Sartre the
French existentialist philosopher who rejects the whole idea of universal laws and insists that
freedom is man’s only norm of action.
(3). Situationism: - Situationism accepts that there are universal moral principles. But it sees
them only as guide in one’s decision making. It does not see them as directives or as absolute
laws which must be obeyed at all cost.
Four Working Principles of Situation Ethics
According to Fletcher, there are four working principles of situation ethics: Pragmatism,
Relativism, Positivism and Personalism.
(1). Pragmatism: - Situation ethics is pragmatics in the sense that it insists on the workability of
any principle in practice. Any principle which turns out to be unrealistic and impracticable in
practice is rejected. It is utilitarian in the sense that it insists on the beneficial consequences of an
action. Any principle that produces disastrous consequences is to be rejected.
(2). Relativism: - Situation ethics is relativistic. It maintains that moral goodness or moral evil is
relative; it all depends on the situation and what is good in one situation can become bad in
another situation and what is bad in one situation can become good in another situation. It rejects

73
the idea of absolute goodness or absolute badness in human action. It rejects the idea of intrinsic
evil and maintains that no human action can be intrinsically evil. The so called intrinsically evil
actions can become good in certain situations.
(3). Positivism: - Situation ethics is positivistic, a posteriori and empirical. It adopts the
empirical approach to moral decision making, and rejects the metaphysical a priori approach.
(4). Personalism: - Situation ethics is personalistic in the sense that it is preoccupied with the
well-being of the human person. It maintains that morality is meant for the development and
growth of the human person, not to destroy him. Morality is meant for the human person, not the
human person for morality, for the human person is more important than the moral principles.
Kinds of love
Joseph Fletcher distinguishes between three kinds of love, namely, filia, eros and agape.
(1). Filia: - is friendly love or affection. It is ordinary love, the kind that a mother has for her
child.
(2). Eros: - is infatuation, from which the English phrase, erotic love derives. “Eros” is the Greek
god of love in Greek mythology, and it represents passionate sexual love.
(3). Agape: - is the Christian love, the Biblical love. It is the love for a person because of God,
the love for God extended to other people. This is the love recognized by situation ethics as the
absolute law in morality. To love one’s neighbour is the only absolute law which must be obeyed
in all situation without exception. It is the only law that has no exception. But its concrete
expression differs from one situation to another.
Six fundamental axioms of Love
Joseph Fletcher gives six fundamental principles of love:
a. Love is always good
b. Love is the only absolute norm
c. Love and justice are identical
d. Love is not killing
e. Love justifies its means
f. Love decides where and when.

Criticism

74
- Even though God wants, first and always, a right intention, He also wants the good
work
- For a good end, a bad action cannot be done. Intention does not justify the means.
The Machiavellian principle that “the end justifies the means” is objectionable and
unacceptable.
- There may be situation in which a man, and especially a Christian, cannot be unaware
of the fact that he must sacrifice everything, even his life in order to save his soul.

75