MoralApologetcs - 9 200709 085607

Evidence for Catholic
Moral Teaching
Lesson Guide
with Trent Horn

© 2020 Catholic Answers
All rights reserved. Except for quotations, no part of this book may be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, uploading to the internet, or by any information storage and
retrieval system without written permission from the publisher.
All emphasis in Scripture citations added.
Published by Catholic Answers, Inc.

2020 Gillespie Way
El Cajon, California 92020
1-888-291-8000 orders
619-387-0042 fax
catholic.com
Printed in the United States of America
Cover design by Mr. Wolf at 99Designs

Interior design by Russell Graphic Design
978-1-68357-010-3
Contents
Preface. . .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Lesson 1: The Nature of Morality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Lesson 2: Moral Skepticism. ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Lesson 3: Moral Relativism......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Lesson 4: Utilitarianism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Lesson 5: Natural Law... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Lesson 6: The Morality of Human Acts. ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Lesson 7: The Nature of Sin........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Lesson 8: The Morality of the Passions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Lesson 9: Morality and Conscience.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Lesson 10: The Authority of Church Teachings. ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Lesson 11: Free Will...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Lesson 12: Christian Anthropology............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Lesson 13: Sex and Gender. ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Lesson 14: Debunking Transgender Ideology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Lesson 15: Pastoral Advice for Confronting Transgender Ideology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Lesson 16: Theology of the Body. ................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Lesson 17: Biblical Sexual Ethics. ................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Lesson 18: The Teaching of the Magisterium on Sexual Ethics.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Lesson 19: Scholastic Natural Law on Sexual Ethics.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Lesson 20: New Natural Law on Sexual Ethics. ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Lesson 21: Same-Sex Marriage: Part 1........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Lesson 22: Same-Sex Marriage: Part 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Lesson 23: Marriage and Divorce. ................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5
Lesson 24: Divorce and Remarriage.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Lesson 25: Annulments.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Lesson 26: Contraception and History.. ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Lesson 27: The Pontifical Birth Control Commission.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Lesson 28: Philosophical Arguments Against Contraception.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Lesson 29: Contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Lesson 30: Sterilization and Health Issues. . .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Lesson 31: Masturbation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Lesson 32: Pornography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Lesson 33: Polygamy.... ............................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Lesson 34: Fornication/Cohabitation............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Lesson 35: Prostitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Lesson 36: Homosexuality and Culture. ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Lesson 37: Homosexuality and Catholicism. . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Lesson 38: Homosexuality and Natural Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Lesson 39: Homosexuality and the Old Testament.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Lesson 40: Homosexuality and the New Testament. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Lesson 41: Pragmatic Arguments for Abortion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Lesson 42: The Humanity of the Unborn........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Lesson 43: The Personhood of the Unborn. ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Lesson 44: Bodily Autonomy Arguments for Abortion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Lesson 45: Pro-Choice Theological Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Lesson 46: Embryo Ethics.......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Lesson 47: Stem Cell Research. ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Lesson 48: Human Cloning......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Lesson 49: Licit and Illicit Fertility Treatments. ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Lesson 50: In-Vitro Fertilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6
Lesson 51: History of Euthanasia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Lesson 52: History of Assisted Suicide.......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Lesson 53: Answering Assisted Suicide Arguments. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Lesson 54: The Catholic Position on End-of-Life Issues...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Lesson 55: Organ Donation and Mutilation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Lesson 56: The Duty to Defend Society. ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Lesson 57: Duty to the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Lesson 58: The Right to Migrate. . ................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Lesson 59: The Right to Own Private Property. ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Lesson 60: Religious Liberty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
List of Recommended Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
About the Instructor. . ... ............................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Answer Key................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7
Preface
Apologetics is the study of how to defend a position. In Moral Apologetics

we will look at the moral teachings of the Catholic faith and how to pres-
ent them in a persuasive way. The course consists of sixty video lessons
covering issues related to moral philosophy, moral theology, and con-
temporary moral issues.
After completing the course, the student will have a firm understand-
ing of Catholic moral theology and arguments for and against it as well
as the practical skills needed to present these teachings to others.
9
Lesson 1: The Nature of Morality
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of morality and how
it relates to the Christian faith.
OUTLINE:
1. Morality is not about what does happen but what should happen.
• It is about truths that tell us what we ought to do (i.e., prescrip-
tive truths) and not merely what people are likely to do (i.e., de-
scriptive truths)
• Morality’s fundamental concern is about actions that are praise-
worthy and blameworthy, good and evil, right and wrong.
2. Moral truths can be known from divine revelation, but also apart
from divine revelation.
• It is a caricature of the Christian position that we simply do what
the Bible tells us when it comes to moral issues. The founda-
tions of morality are deeper than just reading the Bible as if it
were some kind of instruction manual.
• The Bible is one source for moral theology, but not the only
source.
3. The Bible tells us that moral truths can be known through con-
science, and so morality is a universal human phenomenon.
• St. Paul says, “When Gentiles who have not the law do by na-
ture what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even
though they do not have the law. They show that what the law
requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also
bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps
excuse them” (Rom. 2:14–16).
11
QUESTIONS:
1. What is morality?
a. A description of how people often act
b. A series of prescriptions or rules governing how they should act
c. Something human beings invented
d. All of the above
e None of the above
2. What is morality fundamentally about?

a. Praiseworthy and blameworthy acts
b. Good and evil
c. Right and wrong
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
3. St. Paul says all people, no matter their historical circumstance,

can know moral truths through:
a. The Bible
b. Their conscience
c. The Church
d. All of the above
12
Lesson 2: Moral Skepticism
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine moral skepticism, or the

claim that there are no moral truths.
OUTLINE:
1. Moral skeptics claim that morality is just a matter of opinion, but
there are moral facts that almost everyone recognizes are true.
• E.g.: We ought to do good and avoid evil.
• E.g.: It is always wrong to torture a child for fun.
2. Moral skeptics reject the existence of moral facts because they
think a fact must be known through scientific inquiry. But there
are many facts that cannot be proven scientifically.
• E.g.: It is a fact that minds other than our own exist.
• E.g.: It is a fact that the external world is real.
• If we accept the reality of other minds and the external world
because they just appear to exist, then we should accept the
reality of moral truths because they simply appear to be real
as well.
3. Facts cannot be reduced simply to what we can apprehend with
our five senses. In fact, we have more than five senses, including a
“moral sense” we use to detect moral truths.
4. If moral facts didn’t exist, then we could never discuss moral is-
sues or make moral progress since any answer would just be
someone’s opinion rather than a truth.
QUESTIONS:
1. Moral skeptics claim moral truths:
a. Do not exist, they are only a matter of opinion
13
b. Do exist, they are a matter of fact
c. All of the above
d. None of the above
2. Moral skepticism is false because:

a. Science is not the only way to confirm truth.
b. Basic moral truths are as self-evident as the external world.
c. All of the above
14
Lesson 3: Moral Relativism
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine moral relativism, or the claim

that moral truths are not objective but rather derive their truth from the
opinions of the individual.
OUTLINE:
1. Moral relativism says moral truths such as “Abortion is wrong”
are not universal but depend on who is uttering them. For ex-
ample, “Abortion is wrong” is true for Catholics but not for many
non-Catholics.
• Relativism is self-contradictory. It assumes relativism is true for
everyone—which itself is an absolute, objective truth and thus
contradicts the basic thesis of relativism.
• It confuses objective claims (“Ice cream melts at room tempera-
ture”) with subjective claims (“I like chocolate ice cream”). Moral
truths deal with facts and not mere preferences.
• Relativists still usually believe that some moral truths are uni-
versal. Almost everyone believes in the wrongness of slavery
and murder.
2. Arguments in favor of relativism do not succeed, and many of

them actually support the objectivity of morality.
“Moral disagreement proves moral relativism.”
• People disagree about math problems on a test, but that
doesn’t prove math is relative.
• Moral disagreement is not as widespread as the critic thinks. There
are many universal moral norms. “Courage is better than coward-
ice.” “You ought to treat others how you’d want to be treated.”
• “Moral dilemmas prove moral relativism.”
15
• Dilemmas prove morality is objective because we agree there is
a right answer and we have trouble reaching it.
QUESTIONS:
1. Moral relativism claims:
a. Moral truths do not exist.
b. Moral truths are subjective and true for some people, but not
others.
c. Moral truths are universal and unchanging.
d. All of the above
2. Moral relativism is false because:

a. Relativism is supposed to be true for everyone.
b. Most relativists believe in universal moral truths.
c. Moral disagreement and dilemmas prove there are objective
moral truths we are trying to discover.
d. All of the above
16
Lesson 4: Utilitarianism
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine utilitarianism, or the claim

that morality is about maximizing well-being or only promoting good
consequences.
OUTLINE:
1. Utilitarianism: actions are moral if they maximize well-being or
utility – it is a completely consequence-based ethical system.
2. Objections to utilitarianism
• No one can perform the calculations necessary to know if an
action will increase well-being for all people into the future.
• Any action, including intrinsic evils such as rape or murder,
could become moral if it maximized well-being.
• It uses people as means rather than treating them as ends in
themselves.
3. Modified Utilitarianism: “An action is okay as long as it doesn’t hurt

anyone else.”
• It doesn’t explain the wrongness of acts that do not directly af-
fect other people, such as purposefully dwelling on evil thoughts.
QUESTIONS:
1. Utilitarianism is a moral system based on:
a. Promoting virtue
b. Following the natural law
c. Maximizing well-being
d. All of the above
17
2. If a mob threatens to burn down a town unless an innocent man is
executed, a utilitarian would probably:
a. Execute the man in order to minimize pain and loss of well-
being caused by the riot
b. Not execute the man, because it is always wrong to kill an inno-
cent person
c. Not execute the man, because a just person would not do such
a thing
3. Utilitarianism is false because:

a. No one can know how actions will maximize well-being in the
future.
b. It treats people as means instead of as ends with intrinsic dignity.
c. It can justify committing intrinsic evils.
d. All of the above
18
Lesson 5: Natural Law
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at natural law and how it relates
to the Christian faith.
OUTLINE:
1. What natural law is not:
• It is not what merely happens in nature.
• It is not what we innately feel like doing.
2. What natural law is:

• It is a kind of law. A law is “an ordinance of reason for the com-
mon good, made by him who has care of the community, and
promulgated” (Summa Theologiae, I–II:90:4).
• In this case, it is a law that governs creation and allows rational
creatures to participate in the eternal law of God.
3. Four kinds of law

• Eternal Law: God’s plan for the whole universe
• Divine Law: God’s revelation to us and how we ought to live
• Some divine laws can be known by reason (e.g., “Thou shall
not kill”), and others we could only know from revelation
(e.g., “Keep the Sabbath holy”).
• Human Law: Laws passed by men that seek to promote the
good and be in accordance with natural law
• Natural law: How rational creatures understand God’s eternal
plan and choose to conform to it
• There are different philosophical theories that describe nat-
ural law, but at their core they categorize how our moral ac-
tions conform to objective goods beyond our own desires.
19
QUESTIONS:
1. Natural law is:
a. A collection of the laws of nature, such as the law of thermody-
namics
b. How rational creatures participate in the eternal law of God
c. The actions people naturally feel disposed to choosing
d. All of the above
2. The most basic law that governs the universe is:

a. Human Law
b. Divine Law
c. Natural Law
d. Eternal Law
20
Lesson 6: The Morality of Human Acts
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at what makes human acts good
or evil.
OUTLINE:
1. The three elements of a moral act are the object, the intent, and the
circumstances. If any one of these is evil, then the act itself is evil.
2. The Object
• The object of the act can be summarized in the question, “What
am I doing?”
• “The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately
directs itself. It is the matter of a human act” (CCC 1751).
• In the case of abortion, the object is the direct killing of an in-
nocent human being. This is always wrong. We know this is the
object because if the abortion were to be performed and the
child were to live, the procedure would be considered a failure.
• In the case of a hysterectomy for a cancerous uterus during
pregnancy, the object is the removal of a damaged organ along
with dangerous cells. The child dies, but this is not the object of
the act; it’s an unintended result.
3. The Intent
• The intent of the act is the reason used by the person acting in
order to justify the act.
• “The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the pur-
pose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of
the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the
activity” (CCC 1752).
21
• A good intention cannot overturn a bad object. Abortion to al-
leviate economic hardship does not make abortion moral. You
can’t deny Christ in order to escape martyrdom.
• A bad intention can make a normally good act immoral (e.g.,
giving to the poor for vainglory).
4. The Circumstances
• The circumstances are the secondary elements of an act that
contribute or diminish its goodness or badness.
• “They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility
(such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of them-
selves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they
can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil”
(CCC 1754).
• Circumstances can make good acts imprudent, such as giving
money to help someone who you know will use it to buy drugs.
• Circumstances can make bad acts less bad if the person is co-
erced or pressured to perform them, or they can make bad acts
worse if they cause grave harm.
5. Intrinsic evils
• Intrinsic evils are actions which are always wrong no matter the
circumstances or intentions.
• “There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of
circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by rea-
son of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder
and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from
it” (CCC 1756).
QUESTIONS:
1. An intrinsic evil is justifiable:
a. If it is necessary to secure the greater good
22
b. If it will produce the most well-being
c. If your priest says it’s okay
d. All of the above
2. In a moral act, the good toward which the will directs itself, or what
the person is “trying to do,” is called the:
a. Object
b. Intent
c. Circumstance
d. All of the above
3. Which of the following is true of an act’s intention?

a. It is a movement of the will toward the end of an act, or the pur-
pose of the act itself.
b. A good intention cannot make an evil act become good.
c. A bad intention can make an otherwise good act become evil.
d. All of the above
23
Lesson 7: The Nature of Sin
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of sin and how it
relates to the Christian faith.
OUTLINE:
1. Sin is not a popular concept in the modern world, but it is a peren-

nial problem for human beings.
2. Sin comes from a Hebrew word that means “to miss the mark.”
When we sin, we fall short of what God, who is pure goodness it-
self, intends for us.
• “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience;
it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a
perverse attachment to certain goods” (CCC 1849).
3. All sins are either mortal or venial.

• Venial sin damages our relationship with God but does not end it.
• Mortal sin “destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave vio-
lation of God’s law” (CCC 1855). It severs our relationship with
God and risks our souls being lost for all eternity.
• In order for a sin to be mortal it must involve:
• Grave matter (usually a violation of one of the Ten Com-
mandments)
• Full knowledge (a person must know they have committed a
grave sin)
• “Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the
imputability of a grave offense” (CCC 1860).
• A deliberate choice
• Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of
evil, is the gravest” (CCC 1860).
24
• Coercion or other external pressures (such as threat of
torture or psychological disturbance) can reduce the cul-
pability of a grave act and make it a venial sin.
QUESTIONS:
1. Sin is:
a. A violation of God’s law
b. An offense against reason
c. A Hebrew word that means “to miss the mark”
d. All of the above
2. A sin that damages our relationship with God but does not destroy
charity in our souls is called:
a. Venial
b. Mortal
c. Grave
d. All of the above
3. Which condition would make a sin not be mortal?

a. Grave matter
b. Deliberate choice
c. Unintentional ignorance
d. All of the above
25
Lesson 8: The Morality of the Passions
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of the passions and
how they relate to the Christian faith.
OUTLINE:
1. Passions are the deep feelings within us that predispose us to

commit certain acts. “The human person is ordered to beatitude
by his deliberate acts: the passions or feelings he experiences can
dispose him to it and contribute to it” (CCC 1762).
2. Passions are neither good nor evil in themselves (CCC 1767). They
become good or evil when we conjoin them to good or evil acts of
the will.
3. The most fundamental passion is love, or the desire for the good.
• People do not choose evil for evil’s sake, but always some kind
of perceived good, whether it be pleasure, power, etc.
4. Jesus summed up man’s duties toward God in this saying: “You

shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your mind.”
5. Growth in moral perfection leads to the passions being united to

the will and desiring the good.
QUESTIONS:
1. Which is not true of the passions?
a. They predispose us to commit certain acts.
b. They are mildly evil in themselves.
c. They become good when they arouse good acts of the will.
26
d. All of the above
2. The most basic passion of man is:

a. Sadness
b. Pride
c. Anger
d. All of the above
27
Lesson 9: Morality and Conscience
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of the conscience

and how it relates to morality and the Christian faith.
OUTLINE:
1. All people have the natural capacity for conscience, or an internal

understanding of the law of morality (Rom. 2:14–16).
• Some people’s consciences (moral vision) can be damaged from
birth (sociopaths) just like physical vision. Some people can also
dull their consciences, just as you can ruin your physical vision
by staring into the sun.
2. Conscience is our “moral alarm,” and it works before, during, and

after we commit moral acts.
• “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human per-
son recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is
going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already
completed” (CCC 1778).
3. We must always follow the definitive judgment of our conscience

no matter what. When our conscience is uncertain, we may have
to refrain from acting.
• “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his
conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would
condemn himself” (CCC 1790).
4. Conscience is not a license to do whatever we want. Our con-

science can be in error, so we must make sure that our consciences
are properly formed.
28
• Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance
and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed
or already committed (CCC 1790).
QUESTIONS:
1. What is a conscience?
a. A judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes
the moral quality of certain acts
b. A merely emotional feeling we have about a situation
c. Our inner conditioning of what society says is right and wrong
d. All of the above
2. Which of the following is not true about the conscience?

a. It must always be obeyed.
b. It must be properly formed.
c. It is infallible.
d. All of the above
3. Which of the following is true of the conscience?

a. Some people have a damaged or deformed conscience.
b. Conscience functions before, during, and after moral acts.
c. Conscience is not a license to do whatever we want.
d. All of the above
29
Lesson 10: The Authority of Church Teachings
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of Church teachings,

especially those related to morality, and understand how the faithful are
to receive them.
OUTLINE:
1. Not every Catholic teaching is of equal authority. This is important
because some people ignore Church teachings (especially on moral-
ity) that must be believed while others contend the Church teaches
things that it actually doesn’t. In order to understand this we must
examine the different levels of authority a teaching can have.
2. Dogma
• These are truths the magisterium infallibly teaches to be divine-
ly revealed. Dogmas also are said to be those doctrines which
are to be believed with “divine and Catholic faith.”
• Examples of dogmas include the divinity of Christ, his real presence
in the Eucharist, and the moral teaching about “the grave immorali-
ty of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.”
3. Infallible teaching
• There are truths that are not divinely revealed but that the
Church could teach in an infallible, definitive way—e.g., the va-
lidity of popes or ecumenical councils.
• One example of this is the impossibility of ordaining women to
the priesthood. This could be defined later as a dogma, but for
now it is an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
• The wrongness of euthanasia would also be an example of a
non-dogmatic, infallible teaching because it is not explicitly ad-
dressed in Scripture yet is logically connected to the dogma of
the wrongness of murder.
30
4. Doctrine
• Doctrine is what the Church teaches. This includes teachings
that have been infallibly defined (see above) as well as teach-
ings that have not been defined. We must believe even those
teachings that haven’t been infallibly defined and can’t publicly
oppose them. However, because they have not been defined in
an infallible way by the Church they could be amended or even
cease to be taught.
• Most of the Church’s moral teachings are doctrines that require
submission of mind and will even if they aren’t proposed
definitively.
• An example of a moral teaching under this category would be
the wrongness of in-vitro fertilization. The Church teaches that
this is immoral but has not invoked the charism of infallibility in
doing so.
5. Permitted Opinions
• There are open questions in theology that the Church has not
issued a teaching on yet and so a range of opinions on the mat-
ters involved are permitted.
• For example, the Church currently permits the use of meth-
otrexate to end an ectopic pregnancy but it has not officially
weighed in on the matter.
QUESTIONS:
1. Truths the magisterium infallibly teaches to be divinely revealed
are properly called?
a. Doctrine
b. Dogma
c. Theology
d. All of the above
31
2. Which of the following moral teachings has the Church not taught
in an infallible way?
a. It is permissible to use methotrexate to end an ectopic preg-
nancy.
b. The direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is
immoral.
c. Direct abortion and euthanasia are immoral.
d. All of the above
32
Lesson 11: Free Will
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of free will and how
it relates to morality and the Christian faith.
OUTLINE:
1. Free will involves the ability to choose to act or not act in accord
with principles of reason.
• 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 (CCC 1731).
2. Animals don’t have free will because they don’t have the human
use of reason so they can’t be morally responsible for their ac-
tions. Human beings do have free will because they have the use
of reason.
3. Freedom doesn’t mean being able to do anything you want, but

the ability to choose the good.
4. An argument for free will:

• If humans don’t have free will, then they don’t have moral re-
sponsibility.
• Human beings do have moral responsibility.
• Therefore, human beings have free will.
5. Compatibilists say we can have responsibility without free will.

Compatibilists ground morality in our innate character.
• But if we don’t form our character, then how are we morally
responsible? Tigers have “innate character” too, in some sense,
but they aren’t morally responsible for their actions.
33
6. Determinists say moral responsibility is an illusion. However:
• Why should we doubt our deep sense of moral responsibility
any more than our deep sense that the external world really
exists and isn’t a dream or hallucination?
• What accounts for our understanding of humans not being
morally responsible when they are coerced or drugged but be-
ing morally responsible when they are of sound mind and body?
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of these is not true of free will?
a. It is the ability to do whatever we want.
b. It is the ability to choose to act or not act in accord with princi-
ples of reason.
c. It is something that only rational creatures like human beings
possess.
d. All of the above
2. A person who says free will doesn’t exist and moral responsibility
is an illusion would be called a:
a. Christian
b. Determinist
c. Compatibilist
d. All of the above
3. Which of these reasons supports the existence of moral responsi-

bility?
a. We have a deep intuitive understanding of moral responsibil-
ity on par with a deep intuitive understanding of other basic
truths of reality.
34
b. We recognize that not all physical causes of harm (e.g. floods, li-
ons) are morally responsible for their actions, and so there is a dif-
ference between physical responsibility and moral responsibility.
c. If free will does exist, then it follows that we are responsible for
the acts we freely choose.
d. All of the above
35
Lesson 12: Christian Anthropology
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of the human person.
OUTLINE:
1. We aren’t merely souls or minds.
• We are a union of body and soul. That’s why we wait with hope
for the resurrection of the body.
2. We aren’t merely bodies.

• We can act rationally, and we are the same people who existed
as tiny embryos even though we don’t have those same cells
anymore. (The same wouldn’t be true of a car or object whose
parts were all replaced).
3. Because we are bodies (and don’t merely have bodies), what we do

in the body matters for our souls.
4. We human persons are not only physical and spiritual beings in

ourselves, but we have been created to be complementary in our
sexual identity as males and females.
• “Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept
his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and
complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage
and the flourishing of family life” (CCC 2333).
5. Through this union men and women procreate (a better term than
“reproduce”) new people. This means sexuality is incredibly im-
portant, and so we must carefully weigh the moral principles in-
volved with it.
36
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following is true of the human person?
a. It is only the soul, which happens to reside in a body.
b. It is a body without a soul.
c. It is a unity of soul and body.
d. All of the above
2. Because human beings are male and female, we say their bodies are:
a. Complementary
b. Contradictory
c. Constitutional
d. All of the above
37
Lesson 13: Sex and Gender
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of the human per-
son in virtue of their maleness and femaleness.
OUTLINE:
1. Being created God as male and female pertains to the essence of
the human person.
2. The Church also teaches that men and women are different but that
this does not contradict their fundamental equality before God.
3. The difference between sex and gender that many modern people
hold to be true:
• Sex (noun): The biological reality of being male or female. Sex
exists in species that engage in sexual reproduction.
• Gender: How one expresses oneself as male or female. Gender
is also considered fluid, and so a person can change his or her
gender identity over time.
4. Transgender
• A transgender man is a biological woman who claims to be a man.
• A transgender woman is a biological man who claims to be a
woman.
• Cisgender is a word used to describe people whose sense of gen-
der aligns with their biological sex.
5. Intersex
• There are cases where it can take time to establish whether
someone is a biological male or a biological female because of
a genetic or developmental abnormality. These cases refer to
38
people who are considered intersex. They do not refute the well-
established, biological differences between men and women.
6. Conversation goal
• Always get the discussion back to the question about what it
means to be a man or a woman. You should show that transgen-
der ideology is incoherent because it cannot explain the funda-
mental sexual differences that exist between men and women.
QUESTIONS:
1. A person’s subjective sense of their maleness or femaleness is
called their:
a. Sex
b. Gender
c. Intersex
d. All of the above
2. A transgender man is:

a. A biological woman who claims to be a man
b. A biological man who claims to be a woman
c. A biological woman who claims to be a woman
d. All of the above
39
Lesson 14: Debunking Transgender Ideology
OVERVIEW: In this section we will critically examine transgender ideology

and provide examples that refute its claims regarding the human person.
OUTLINE:
1. We should frame the discussion around not wanting to lie about
people’s fundamental identity, including their sex. We should also
be aware of the sensitive emotions involved in this issue.
2. It can be helpful to compare transgender identity to other recog-

nized identity disorders and ask why one is generally considered
to be a disorder but the other is not.
• Body identity integrity disorder
• Trans-racialism
3. Scientific studies on brain imaging only prove that transgender peo-

ple may have differences in brain structure in comparison to people
who don’t identify as transgender. Other psychological disorders
manifest themselves in the form of brain injuries. It doesn’t prove a
transgender person really belongs to the other biological sex.
4. We should point out that scientific studies that attempt to link criti-
cism of LGBT ideology to suicide among LGBT people are problematic.
There are no significant differences in mental health between LGBT
people in “affirming” countries and those in “non-affirming” countries.
5. Identifying transgender people by their preferred name is one

thing, but new pronouns are more problematic. You will have to
use your best judgment to see if the use of a new name or new
pronoun constitutes lying about the person. It may be the case for
some pronouns (like “him” for a biological female) but not for oth-
40
ers—such as those who prefer to use “they” as a singular pronoun
instead of he or she.
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following provides a good counterexample to the idea
that a person’s personal identity can change their biological makeup?
a. Body identity integrity disorder
b. Multiple personality disorder
c. Trans-racialism
d. All of the above
2. One effective way to communicate your opposition to accepting

transgender ideology and language to someone who supports this
view is to:
a. Express a desire to not want to lie about a person’s fundamen-
tal identity
b. Ridicule those who identify as transgender
c. Compare the LGBT movement to totalitarian regimes of the past
d. Not talk to anyone who identifies as LGBT
e. All of the above
41
Lesson 15: Pastoral Advice for Confronting Transgender Ideology
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at some ways to gently correct

those who embrace radical gender ideology, especially those people
who identify as transgender.
OUTLINE:
1. We should have compassion and try to put ourselves in the shoes
of those who advocate for these views.
2. We don’t want to be callous or look callous in how we talk about

this and other sensitive issues.
3. We have to make a distinction between professional advocates

and people who are struggling with these issues.
4. We should encourage people to not lock themselves into labels like

“LGBT” that may seem incompatible with being a follower of Christ.
• “The human person, made in the image and likeness of God,
can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference
to his or her sexual orientation” (Letter To The Bishops Of The
Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons).
5. We should be prepared to destroy arguments but not people.

• “For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a world-
ly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have
divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments
and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take
every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3–5).
QUESTION:
1. Which of the following should not be recommended as a pastoral
approach to those who identify as LGBT?
42
a. Using labels like transgender or “gay” to describe oneself
b. Mocking the appearance or mannerisms of those who identify
as LGBT
c. Refusing to empathize with those who have this disordered
sense of identity
d. All of the above
43
Lesson 16: Theology of the Body
OVERVIEW: In this section we will critically examine Pope St. John Paul
II’s Theology of the Body and how it relates to a Catholic defense of sex-
ual ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. Conversation stoppers
• Sometimes people we talk to will raise objections to the very
idea of the Church having the authority to teach what is moral
or immoral when it comes to sex.
• “You have no right to tell me what to do when it comes to sex!”
• It is loving to warn people about behaviors that are bad
for them. Secular people do this all the time with sexual
behaviors they consider immoral, such as incest, rape, and
sexual harassment. It boils down to “What is your standard
for sexual morality?”
• “Your priests are all pedophiles.”
• Determine if the person is genuinely struggling or out to score
cheap points in a debate. If the latter, point out that this is as
bigoted as saying all Muslim imams are terrorists or support
terrorism. Also, truth doesn’t change, even if some people who
are supposed to teach the truth fail to follow it. If the surgeon
general turned out to be a chain smoker, would it mean that
smoking does not cause lung cancer? If the former, empathize
and redirect to point out how scandals and sinful Christians
have been with the Church since the time of Judas Iscariot.
• “What can an old celibate man in Rome tell me about sex?”
• Knowing whether a behavior is right or wrong doesn’t re-
quire someone to engage in that behavior. An umpire can de-
clare a player has broken the rules even if he’s never played
44
a game of baseball himself. Understanding the rules and the
nature of something can be acquired through study and per-
sonal interviews.
2. History of Theology of the Body

• The Theology of the Body derives from a series of 129 lectures
given by Pope John Paul II during his Wednesday audiences in
St. Peter’s Square and the Paul VI Audience Hall between Sep-
tember 5, 1979 and November 28, 1984.
• The pope established themes about what it means to be a man
and woman in light of the fall and our redemption.
• He also discusses how the body expresses itself through a par-
ticular kind of language.
3. Language of the Body

• Sex is the nonverbal way of expressing marital love. It makes
marital love distinct from other kinds of love.
• Sexual sin is wrong because it is a form of lying. It expresses a
kind of love through the body that doesn’t exist because it is not
ordered to the goods of marriage.
QUESTIONS:
1. The idea that the body expresses truths and falsehoods through
physical acts is called
a. Utilitarianism
b. Natural law
c. The language of the body
d. All of the above
45
2. Which of the following analogies most effectively shows that a per-
son can speak authoritatively on the morality of an act even if he
has not engaged in the act itself?
a. An umpire can point out that a player has broken the rules even if
he has never played a game of baseball himself.
b. Smoking still causes lung cancer even if the surgeon general
turned out to be a chain smoker.
c. Jesus still founded the Church on Peter even if Judas betrayed him.
d. All of the above
46
Lesson 17: Biblical Sexual Ethics
OVERVIEW: In this section we will critically examine what the Scriptures

say about issues related to sexual ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. Genesis subverts a common trope in ancient Near-Eastern litera-
ture that claimed the gods did not want human beings to multiply
and be numerous.
2. Sex is good thing; God wants human beings to marry and multiply.
• God created man in his own image, in the image of God he cre-
ated him; male and female he created them. And God blessed
them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill
the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the
sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that
moves upon the earth” (Gen. 1:27–28).
3. Sexual intercourse is meant for the expression of marital love

which, by its nature, is ordered towards forming a real bodily union
between two people. However, the goodness of the sexual act has
been distorted because of original sin.
4. St. Paul had to rebuke an example of this sin in Corinth, where a

man was having sex with his stepmother.
• OST: “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you,
and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man
is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you
not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed
from among you” (1 Cor. 5:1–2).
47
5. St. Paul said the “immoral” would not inherit the kingdom. The
Greek word is pornoi, which in this context means “fornicators” or
“those who have sex outside the bonds of marriage.”
• OST: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor
the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit
the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10).
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following statements is not true?
a. The goodness of sex has been distorted by original sin.
b. God tolerates the intrinsic evil of sex because it leads to the
good of procreation
c. God wants human beings to be fruitful and multiply
d. All of the above
2. Which of the following sins did St. Paul say would cause someone
to not inherit the kingdom of God?
a. Drunkenness
b. Homosexual acts
c. Fornication
d. All of the above
48
Lesson 18: The Teaching of the Magisterium on Sexual Ethics
OVERVIEW: In this section we will critically examine what the teaching

office of the Church, or the magisterium, says about issues related to
sexual ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. The Church affirms that sex is a good thing God created for human
beings.
• “The mutual love that exists between man and woman ‘becomes
an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves
man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes’” (CCC 1604).
2. However, the goodness of sex has been marred by concupiscence,

which is a desire of the lower appetites that are contrary to reason.
3. In order to keep sex holy, we must remember its fundamental

purposes: babies and bonding. Marital love is ordered toward the
goods of marriage, which include procreation (i.e. babies) and the
unity of the spouses (i.e. bonding).
• Babies without (moral) bonding:
• Non-contraceptive adultery, polyamory, and fornication.
• Babies without any bonding:
• In-vitro fertilization.
• Bonding without babies
• Contraception.
• Sexual acts that lack the potential for either babies or bonding
• Homosexual acts and masturbation.
49
QUESTIONS:
1. Fill in the blank, “Marital love is ordered toward the goods of
marriage, which include _______________ and the _______________ of the
spouses.”
a. God; love
b. Marriage; happiness
c. Procreation; faith
2. In-vitro fertilization is an example of

a. Bonding without babies
b. Babies without bonding
c. Babies and bonding
d. All of the above
50
Lesson 19: Scholastic Natural Law on Sexual Ethics
OVERVIEW: In this section we will critically examine what scholastic nat-

ural law theory says about issues related to sexual ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. Scholastic Natural Law theory is derived from the teachings of St.
Thomas Aquinas and other medieval philosophers and theologians.
2. The fundamental principle of scholastic natural law is “Do good

and avoid evil.” Its conclusions are derived from examining our hu-
man nature and proper ends as rational creatures.
3. Under this view, “good” refers to something being in conformity

with its nature. A good tree is not withered; good squirrel gathers
nuts; good humans act as humans should act.
• Peter Geach gives the “good hygrometer” example. We can’t
know if a hygrometer is good unless we know what a hygrome-
ter is for (it measures humidity and water vapor in the air). Like-
wise, we can’t know whether a human being is good or whether
a sexual act is good unless we know what ends toward which
human beings and sexual acts are ordered.
4. We should act according to reason, and so we can look at the world

and understand the proper ends of things in it. For example:
• The digestive system is for eating.
• The respiratory system is for breathing.
• The reproductive system is for reproduction.
5. We can use these bodily systems even if the end goal is not achieved
(e.g., infertile couples may still enjoy sex, people who are sick and
unable to absorb nutrients may still eat if they choose). The problem
51
is when we pervert them or use them in a way that is contrary to
their proper end. For example some disordered acts include:
• Intentionally vomiting up nutritious food in order to avoid di-
gesting it
• Eating nails or glass (some people have a natural desire to do this)
• Engaging the sexual organs outside from the marital act is
wrong because it perverts their natural function.
6. “It is only injury that makes something wrong, not ‘unnaturalness’.”

• This doesn’t explain non-injurious wrongs such as violent fanta-
sies, or sexual disorders such as necrophilia or zoophilia.
7. “We do lots of unnatural things that aren’t immoral.”

• Things like eyeglasses, airplanes, and holding our breath do
not contradict our natural ends but merely delay or help us get
there in another way. Sexual sin is unnatural because it distorts
natural sexual behavior.
QUESTIONS:
1. Scholastic natural law teaches that something is good if:
a. God commanded it
b. It is in conformity with its nature
c. It generates the most well-being
d. All of the above
2. Which of the following would be an example of something that is

immoral because it is unnatural?
a. Sexual union between an infertile man and woman
b. A paraplegic using a wheelchair
c. Using eyeglasses to improve one’s vision
52
d. All of the above
3. Which of the following is the best behavior to use in order to show

that engaging in sexual acts outside of marriage is disordered and
thus immoral?
a. Eating food to acquire its taste before vomiting it up again in
order to avoid digesting it
b. Cheating on a tax return
c. Having an abortion
d. Announcing good deeds in order to earn public praise for them
53
Lesson 20: New Natural Law on Sexual Ethics
OVERVIEW: In this section we will critically examine what “new natural

law” theory says about issues related to sexual ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. New Natural Law is an extension of Aquinas’s thinking developed by
people including Germain Grisez, John Finnis, and Robert George.
• It still focuses on “Do good and avoid evil,” but with a differ-
ent way of understanding this maxim. Specifically, it focuses on
promoting and not acting against “basic goods.”
• Some goods are not basic, like wealth. Wealth is a good thing,
but only if you can spend it on something good. Other goods
are basic because possessing them is good in itself. These in-
clude things like knowledge, health, friendship, harmony with
God, and marriage.
2. Another important truth some new natural law thinkers espouse

is that all love seeks union with the beloved.
• Love of food leads to eating
• Friendship leads to quality time
• Marital love leads to bodily union (i.e., “becoming one flesh”)
3. The “one-flesh” nature of sexual union explains:

• Most people’s intuition that sex is “special” and gross promiscu-
ity is wrong
• Most people’s revulsion to bizarre sexual disorders like zoophilia
• The almost universal recognition of the wrongness of infidelity
4. Sex is for establishing the “one-flesh” spousal union, so acting

against that end of sex is bad for us and therefore wrong. Also, a
54
permanent commitment for sexual union makes sense for an act
that is ordered toward permanent effects (i.e., the creation of a
new human being with an immortal soul).
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following would be an example of a basic good that is
sought for its own sake?
a. Happiness
b. Life
c. God
d. All of the above
2. A lover always seeks what with that which he loves?

a. Quality conversation
b. Union
c. God
d. All of the above
3. Which of the following are clues that sex is for expressing perma-
nent marital love?
a. It can be extremely pleasurable.
b. It forms a total bodily union and can result in the permanent
consequence of procreation.
c. It is highly valued in society.
d. All of the above
55
Lesson 21: Same-Sex Marriage: Part 1
OVERVIEW: In this section we will critically examine so-called “same-sex

marriage” and defend a Catholic perspective on the topic.
OUTLINE:
1. James “Jim“ Obergefell and John Arthur decided to get married
to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. They married in
Maryland on July 11, 2013. After learning that their state of resi-
dence, Ohio, would not recognize their marriage, they filed a law-
suit. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell
v. Hodges that states cannot prevent two men or two women from
entering into a legal marriage.
2. Don’t worry about being “on the right side of history.”

• Lots of bad things have been tolerated for a long time. The At-
lantic slave trade did not always exist and eventually went out
of existence. Catholics opposed divorce, contraception, and
abortion long before they were legal and even after they be-
came legal and fairly popular among the general public.
• Don’t get sidetracked on sociological arguments about superior
parenting or divorce rates. Focus on the question “What is mar-
riage and why do we need it?” We must compare two competing
views of marriage:
• Relational view of marriage: Affirms marriage as merely a spe-
cial kind of adult relationship. If true, then “same-sex marriage”
makes sense along with other absurd ideas about marriage.
• Conjugal view of marriage: Affirms marriage as that which
unites men and women to each other in a one-flesh bond.
In that view “same-sex marriage” makes no sense; it’s like
“square circle.”
56
• If marriage is redefined, it gets weakened until we don’t even need
it anymore because it only exists to affirm adult wants for them-
selves instead of restraining adult behavior for the good of others.
• Ask: “Which view of marriage best explains marriage’s essential
elements?”
QUESTIONS:
1. The most important question we should ask of people who think
“same-sex marriage” should be legal is:
a. What does the Bible say about marriage?
b. What is marriage and why do we need it?
c. What does the Church say about marriage?
d. Is homosexuality a sin?
2. The view that marriage is for uniting men and women in a one-
flesh bond is best described as:
a. The relational view of marriage
b. The emotional view of marriage
c. The conjugal view of marriage
d. The religious view of marriage
57
OVERVIEW: In this section we will continue our examination of so-called

“same-sex marriage” and defend a Catholic perspective on the topic.
OUTLINE:
1. Ask: “Which view of marriage best explains marriage’s essential
elements? The relational view or the conjugal view?”
2. Essential element 1: Government recognition

• When else does government meddle in private relationships?
• Government only has an interest in regulating relationships
that are, in principle, open to life.
3. Essential element 2: Ideally permanent

• No other adult relationship is expected to be lifelong so this
relational view doesn’t explain this element of marriage. Even
non-traditional people have “till death do us part” in their vows.
The conjugal view explains why marriage exists: to unite men
and women in a lifelong union.
4. Essential element 3: Two people

• No logical reason to limit relational marriage to two people, but
the conjugal view does explain this.
5. Essential element 4: Monogamous

• If the relational view is true, then why not have platonic mar-
riages be common? Why does marriage involve sex at all? It’s
because marriage is ordered toward providing a proper context
for sexual encounters.
58
6. The infertility objection
• A losing team is still a baseball team ordered toward the good
of winning games. Nine guys catching pop flies is not baseball
even if it shares some similar elements with baseball. Likewise,
an infertile man and woman can still be married because they
are ordered toward genuine goods of marriage, such as unity
and procreation.
7. Avoiding scandal in attending “same-sex weddings”

• “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do
evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s
tempter” (CCC 2284).
• Being present at something that claims to be a marriage but isn’t
could mislead other Catholics and cause scandal as a result.
8. It will be necessary for the faithful to live out the Church’s teaching
on marriage in the face of a society that rejects it.
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following is an essential element of marriage?
a. Social recognition
b. Ideally lifelong union
c. Monogamous
d. All of the above
2. Attending a “same-sex wedding” could result in the sin of:

a. Scandal
b. Detraction
c. Calumny
59
Lesson 23: Marriage and Divorce
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the issue of divorce and de-
fend the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.
OUTLINE:
1. The nature of marriage
• Every society came up with marriage as a response to our hu-
man nature; sex makes babies, and it’s good to unite parents to
one another before they have babies.
• This is a part of God’s design for human beings, the fullness of
which can be seen in the Church’s teaching on marriage.
• “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman
establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of
life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses
and the procreation and education of offspring; this cove-
nant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ
the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament” (CCC 1601).
• Because of sin, many marriages are broken or weakened, lead-
ing to the sin of divorce.
• “The disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from
the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their
relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had
for its first consequence the rupture of the original commu-
nion between man and woman. Their relations were distort-
ed by mutual recriminations” (CCC 1607).
2. The relational view of marriage gains popularity

• In 1644, John Milton, the author of Paradise Lost, published
another work called The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce. In it
he argued that England should change its laws based on Cath-
60
olic canon law that prohibited divorce. According to Milton,
marriage was not an indissoluble union that comprehensively
unites men and women. Instead, its purpose is to promote “the
apt and cheerful conversation of man with woman, to comfort
and refresh him against the evils of solitary life” (The Doctrine
and Discipline of Divorce).
• After hitting a high point in the 1980s, the divorce rate in the
United States has returned to the its level prior to no-fault di-
vorce; however, that’s only because fewer people are getting
married (35 percent fewer, to be precise). But that doesn’t mean
people have stopped engaging in the marital act.
• In 1963, only 7 percent of children were born out of wedlock.
Today that number is 40 percent, with 72 percent of African-
American children being born outside of marriage.
3. What the Catholic Church teaches about divorce:

• “For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel, and cover-
ing one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So take
heed to yourselves and do not be faithless” (Mal. 2:16).
• “[It] claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely
consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury
to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is
the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil
law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is
then in a situation of public adultery” (CCC 2384).
• Permanent divorce is different from temporary separation
• “The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage
bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by can-
on law” (CCC 2383).
4. We should have compassion for those who are involved in divorce,

but we must retain our fidelity to the truth for their sake.
61
QUESTIONS:
1. No-fault divorce can be linked to:
a. Fewer people choosing to marry
b. More people choosing to have children out of wedlock
c. Increasing disorder in the family
d. All of the above
2. Which of the following does the Church not teach when it comes to
divorce?
a. Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law.
b. Remarriage after divorce from a valid union constitutes adultery.
c. It is never permissible to separate from your spouse.
d. All of the above
62
Lesson 24: Divorce and Remarriage
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine how the Church under-

stands the issues of remarriage and divorce in relation to the indissol-
ubility of marriage.
OUTLINE:
1. “Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the
family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the de-
serted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their
parents and often torn between them, and because of its conta-
gious effect which makes it truly a plague on society” (CCC 2385).
• Children of divorce are more likely to develop asthma and can-
cer, have problems with substance abuse, and be physically or
sexually abused.
• A study that began in 1921 concluded that “parental divorce
during childhood was the single strongest social predictor of
early death, many years into the future.”
• Children of divorce are more likely to receive diagnoses of
depression, aggressiveness, and bipolar disorder.
• Children of divorce are more likely to abandon their faith and
to have earlier sexual experiences, with girls eight times more
likely to become pregnant in their teens (Made This Way 82–83).
• Divorced women are more likely to lose their health insurance
and have their incomes fall below the poverty line. Children of
single-parent homes are the least likely to improve their eco-
nomic situations when they enter adulthood.
• Children of divorce are forty percent more likely to have their
own marriages end in divorce. Children with parents who
remarry are ninety-one percent more likely to get divorced
(Made This Way 83).
63
2. For secular people, ask them why the marriage contract can be
broken easier than almost any other contract. For Christians, point
out that Jesus and the Church are clear on this issue:
• “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adul-
tery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries
another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11–12).
• “A married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as
he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law
concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adul-
teress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive.
But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she
marries another man she is not an adulteress” (Rom. 7:2–3).
• “Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law,
adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then
in a situation of public and permanent adultery” (CCC 2384).
3. Some people claim Jesus was not literally saying remarriage after
divorce is adulterous because he said women could divorce their
husbands, which was impossible in his time.
• Jesus was not being ironic. Though it was rare, in ancient times
women were able to divorce their husbands.
4. It is a heavy cross to bear when one is divorced against his or her

will. However, we are all called to carry our crosses in life and draw
from God’s grace to not fall into temptation.
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following is not true about the children of divorce:
a. Children of divorce are forty percent more likely to have their
own marriages end in divorce.
b. Children of divorce have no statistically different outcomes than
those of children whose parents remain married.
64
c. Children of divorce are more likely to abandon their faith and
have earlier sexual experiences.
d. Children of divorce are more likely to have problems with sub-
stance abuse and be physically or sexually abused.
2. Fill in the blank: “Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by

civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is
then in a situation of public and permanent _______________.”
a. Sin
b. Danger
c. Stress
d. Excommunication
65
Lesson 25: Annulments
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the Church’s teachings on

annulments and answer common misunderstandings of this practice.
OUTLINE:
1. Myth that annulments are a kind of Catholic divorce
• Annulments don’t end marriages; they reveal that some mar-
riages never existed in the first place.
• In order to be valid, a marriage must be:
• Freely contracted (CIC 1057)
• Celebrated according to proper form (CIC 1108)
• Contracted by parties that are able to marry (CIC 1073)
2. A marriage can be declared null if it doesn’t meet at least one of

these criteria. Examples:
• Pressured to marry (e.g., shotgun wedding)
• A Catholic who married outside the Church
• Just as a rep of the state must witness a civic wedding, a
rep of the Church must do the same for a Catholic wedding.
Catholics are bound to follow the laws of the Church.
• Lack of ability
• Lack of psychological maturity
• Already married or in sacred orders
• Close relatives
• Too young
• Impotence
66
• This is not the same as infertility. Impotence refers to the
inability to engage in the sexual act before a marriage and
for the foreseeable rest of the marriage.
3. The Church presumes all marriages are valid, but only consum-
mated, sacramental marriages (i.e., marriage between two bap-
tized Christians) are absolutely indissoluble.
QUESTIONS:
1. In order for a marriage to be valid, it must be:
a. Freely contracted
b. Celebrated according to proper form
c. Contracted by parties who are able to marry
d. All of the above
2. Which of the following situations would be an example of a wed-

ding not being celebrated according to a proper form?
a. Getting married in a courthouse by a justice of the peace
b. Feeling pressured to marry someone
c. Getting married when a previous marriage hasn’t been annulled
d. All of the above
3. Fill in the blank: “Annulments don’t _______________ marriages; they

reveal that some marriages never _______________ in the first place.”
a. Fix; happened
b. End; existed
c. Help; mattered
67
Lesson 26: Contraception and History
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the historical development

of the practice of contraception and how the morality of this issue has
been presented in Scripture and Church teaching.
OUTLINE:
1. Ancient History
• Thousands of years ago, Greeks and Egyptians used plants and
dung to make spermicides, and the Bible records a man named
Onan engaging in coitus interruptus (the so-called “withdrawal
method”) in order to avoid having a child—an act that was “dis-
pleasing in the sight of the Lord” (Gen. 38:9–10).
• The sin of Onan was probably not merely failing to provide chil-
dren for his deceased brother since later punishment for this
sin was public humiliation (Deut. 25:9), not death. It was the
way Onan failed to provide children for his brother’s name that
earned God’s wrath.
2. Christian History
• All Christian churches opposed contraception before 1930.
• “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your
wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the
sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer
or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called
husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality
of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame.
Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this,
that they even procure poisons of sterility” (St. Augustine,
Marriage and Concupiscence).
• Even some non-Christians opposed it.
68
• “If artificial [birth control] methods become the order
of the day, nothing but moral degradation can be the
result” (Mahatma Gandhi, “Birth Control”).
3. This changed with the Anglican Lambeth Conference that allowed

contraception for married couples experiencing hardship during
the Great Depression.
• Pope Pius XI reaffirms Church teaching in Casti Connubii (1930):
• “No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which
anything intrinsically against nature may become conform-
able to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the con-
jugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting
of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate
its natural power and purpose sin against nature and com-
mit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious” (Casti
Connubii, 54).
4. Modern history
• The 1960s saw the introduction of hormonal contraception;
theologians debated whether this constitutes “contraception.”
• In 1968, Pope Paul VI reaffirms the Church’s constant teaching.
• “[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal
act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a
means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil
(CCC 2370).
• He warns about social consequences of the widespread use
of contraceptives.
• “[It will] open wide the way for marital infidelity and a gen-
eral lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is
needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to under-
stand that human beings—and especially the young, who
are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the
69
moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to
break that law. . . . [A man will reduce a woman] to being
a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires,
no longer considering her as his partner whom he should
surround with care and affection” (Humanae Vitae 17).
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following is true about contraception?
a. Ancient peoples used primitive forms of contraception.
b. All Christian churches opposed contraception until 1930.
c. The Bible describes an act of contraception and a divine punish-
ment that followed.
d. All of the above
2. What is the name of the encyclical that Pope Paul VI authored that
upheld the Church’s teaching on contraception in 1968?
a. Casti Connubii
b. Rerum Novarum
c. Carpe Diem
d. Donum Vitae
70
Lesson 27: The Pontifical Birth Control Commission
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the role the Pontifical Birth
Control Commission played in the development of the teaching articu-
lated in Humanae Vitae and answer critics who use the commission to
argue against the Church’s teaching on contraception.
OUTLINE:
1. Some people say, “Pope Paul VI ignored the research of the very
commission he set up to determine if contraception is immoral. The
members of the commission agreed almost unanimously that the
Church should allow Catholics to use birth control in some cases.”
2. The commission was formed under Pope John XXIII to see if birth
control pills are contraceptive in the same way condoms are con-
traceptive. It also addressed the issue of overpopulation being dis-
cussed in media at the time.
• The pope wanted a commission that would give him arguments
to test, not advice to follow. The late moral theologian Germain
Grisez, who worked behind the scenes to help future commis-
sion member Fr. John Ford defend Church teaching, told the
Catholic News Agency:
• “[Pope Paul VI] was perfectly happy to have a lot of people
on the commission who thought that change was possible.
He wanted to see what kind of case they could make for that
view. He was not at all imagining that he could delegate to a
committee the power to decide what the Church’s teaching is
going to be” (“New documents reveal inner workings of papal
birth control commission,” 2011).
3. Lay people were added later to the commission. Patrick and Patty
Crowley, the Catholic founders of the Christian Family Movement,
71
conducted a survey of American Catholic attitudes toward contra-
ception and the rhythm method of birth control.
4. The main report (now called the “majority report”) and a rebuttal
from Fr. John Ford were given to Pope Paul VI on June 28, 1966. The
majority report was later leaked to the National Catholic Reporter.
Here’s the main argument it makes:
• “It is not to contradict the genuine sense of this tradition and
the purpose of the previous doctrinal condemnations if we
speak of the regulation of conception by using means, human
and decent, ordered to favoring fecundity in the totality of mar-
ried life and toward the realization of the authentic values of a
fruitful matrimonial community.”
5. What does this mean? Do couples have to make sure only that
they use contraception for nearly all but not every sexual act?
Do they just have to allow 51 percent of conjugal acts to have the
possibility of conception? Or would simply having the standard
2.1 children suffice?
• This reasoning could also justify occasional adultery as long
as one was faithful overall to the marriage and used “decent
means” (such as involving the other spouse in the decision).
• “The principle of totality cannot ground the claim that singular
acts which, taken as such are offensive, cease to be so when
considered in the light of the moral life taken as a whole. The
moral imperative is not that we should act well more often than
not. Rather it is: do good and avoid evil” (Ralph McInerny, Why
Humanae Vitae Was Right, 341).
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following is not true about the Pontifical Birth Control
Commission?
a. It included clergy and lay people.
72
b. Pope Paul VI only placed people on the commission that he al-
ways agreed with when it came to theology.
c. Almost every member of the commission concluded that the
Church should allow the use of birth control in some cases.
d. All of the above
2. The majority report justified changing Church teaching on contra-

ception by saying what mattered was a couple’s overall openness
to life rather than the couple being open to life in ever sexual act.
This has since been called:
a. The principle of totality
b. The principle of parsimony
c. The golden rule
d. All of the above
73
Lesson 28: Philosophical Arguments Against Contraception
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine arguments from reason that

support the Church’s teaching on contraception.
OUTLINE:
1. Sex is for two things: bonding and babies. That’s why people eu-
phemistically refer to sex as “making love” and “making babies.”
We’ve seen that sex is ordered towards forming a one-flesh union.
2. In order to be a true “union” or “one flesh,” you can’t just stick one
body part inside another. When a dentist sticks his fingers in my
mouth, we don’t become united as “one flesh.” Instead, a union oc-
curs when two separate bodies come together to serve some kind
of purpose or goal beyond themselves as individuals.
• “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and
the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the
sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s ex-
alted vocation to parenthood” (CCC 2369).
3. We can also articulate this argument through Pope John Paul II’s
“language of the body.” Every marital act renews the marital vows,
including the vow of being open to life. The use of contraception in
the marital act contradicts this meaning and the true purpose of sex.
• “The total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid,
through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language,
namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads
not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsifi-
cation of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to
give itself in personal totality” (Familiaris Consortio 32).
4. To make an analogy, there’s nothing wrong with choosing to not

eat for certain periods or to fast in a healthy way in order to lose
74
weight. But it is wrong and disordered to vomit up food intention-
ally after eating it. The same is true for sex. It becomes disordered
when it is purposefully divorced from its life-giving purpose. How-
ever, it is not disordered to abstain from sex for a period of time in
order to avoid conceiving children.
QUESTIONS:
1. Fill in the blank: “The total reciprocal self-giving of husband and
wife is overlaid, through _______________, by an objectively contra-
dictory language.”
a. Marriage
b. Sin
c. Concupiscence
d. Sex
2. Contraception is wrong because it prevents the sexual act from

becoming what?
a. A baby
b. A one-flesh union
c. Sinful
d. All of the above
75
Lesson 29: Contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP)
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine natural family planning and

show how it allows couples to space children without resorting to evils
like contraception.
OUTLINE:
1. NFP is a method of calculating when women are fertile and infer-
tile during their monthly cycle in order either to space the births of
children or to help conceive children.
2. NFP is not contraception

• In principle, it’s just information. It is not a sin to have normal,
marital relations on either a fertile or infertile day of a woman’s
cycle. Therefore, engaging in the marital act with knowledge of
whether one if fertile or infertile is not immoral. Such a decision
is not like using contraceptives because it does not deliberately
sterilize the marital act.
• “The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the
cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accept-
ing dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and
self-control. . . . In this context the couple comes to experi-
ence how conjugal communion is enriched with those values
of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul
of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also” (Familiaris
Consortio 32).
3. The wedding invitation analogy for marital relations

• Sex on a fertile day in a woman’s cycle is like choosing to cele-
brate a wedding on a day when particular guests (i.e., a future
child) are most likely to be able to attend.
76
• Sex on an infertile day in a woman’s cycle is like choosing to
celebrate a wedding on a day when particular guests are not
likely to be able to attend. However, if they do attend, then
they are welcomed.
• Using contraception is like sending a “dis-invitation” to partic-
ular guests saying you do not want them to attend no matter
what day you choose to celebrate.
QUESTIONS:
1. Natural family planning is not intrinsically evil like acts of contra-
ception because:
a. It does not deliberately sterilize the sexual act.
b. It is natural, whereas contraceptives use artificial things such as
condoms or pills to space children.
c. It is usually done with good intentions.
d. All of the above
2. In the “wedding invitation analogy,” choosing to celebrate a wed-

ding on a day when particular guests are not likely to be able to
attend corresponds to:
a. Sex on a fertile day in a woman’s cycle
b. Sex on an infertile day in a woman’s cycle
c. Using contraception
d. All of the above
77
Lesson 30: Sterilization and Health Issues
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine medical issues surrounding

fertility and contraceptives and how they relate to the Church’s teaching
on contraception.
OUTLINE:
1. Hormonal birth control can be used to treat medical conditions.
If no sexual activity takes place (e.g., as with an unmarried teen),
then there is no possibility to commit the sin of contraception.
• Caution should be taken, however, in regard to side effects and the
possibility of using birth control to merely mask symptoms and
carry out secular pediatric goals of getting teens on birth control.
2. Married couples can use medicines that cause infertility (either

temporarily or permanently) as a side effect as long as there is a
sufficient reason to do so, the infertility is foreseen but not intend-
ed, and the actions do not create worse evils.
• “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify
recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct
sterilization or contraception)” (CCC 2399).
3. Hysterectomy can be justified

• “. . . when the uterus is found to be irreversibly in such a state
that it is no longer suitable for procreation and medical experts
have reached the certainty that an eventual pregnancy will
bring about a spontaneous abortion before the fetus is able to
arrive at a viable state” (Responsum of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith to a question on the liceity of a hysterecto-
my in certain cases, March 1, 2019).
• It is not justified as a means of direct sterilization even because
of some other related health problem like high blood pressure.
78
4. Some couples must bear a heavy cross in planning intimacy know-
ing that, for reasons of health, they must not become pregnant. We
should respond to such couples with compassion and sensitivity.
QUESTIONS:
a. It is always wrong to ingest a hormonal contraceptive.
b. It is always wrong to remove the uterus through hysterectomy.
c. Sterilizations are okay if the couple feels like they have too many
children.
d. All of the above
2. Fill in the blank: Married couples can use medicines that cause infer-
tility (either temporarily or permanently) as a side effect as long as
there is a _______________ reason to do so, the infertility is foreseen
but not _______________, and the actions do not create worse evils.
a. Sinful; intended
b. Any; wanted
c. Sufficient; intended
d. Good; sinful
79
Lesson 31: Masturbation
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of masturbation

and how it relates to Catholic sexual ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. Most common non-marital sexual behavior
2. Go back to the question, “What are our sexual organs for?”

• Misusing them isn’t good for us. It turns a complete gift of self
into an inward obsession with self-pleasure.
3. What the Church teaches:

• “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustful-
ly has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt.
5:27–28).
• “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a con-
stant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been
in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an
intrinsically and gravely disordered action” (CCC 2352).
4. One extreme: It’s no big deal; it’s not sinful.
5. The other extreme: failing to recognize limited culpability

• “One must take into account the affective immaturity, force of
acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological
or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum,
moral culpability” (CCC 2352).
6. For those who object to this teaching, ask if they think any kind of
masturbation is wrong (fantasies about children, affairs, etc.).
80
7. Is it unhealthy not to masturbate?
• There are many conflicting studies on this issue, with some say-
ing that the risk of cancer is reduced in men over fifty who mas-
turbate and others saying that masturbation increases the risk
of developing prostate cancer. Currently, the American Cancer
Society does not list masturbation as even a potential factor
for reducing cancer risk. But even if it did, masturbation could
never be justified. As Jesus said, “For what will it profit a man, if
he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?” (Matt. 16:26).
8. Advice for teen boys: masturbation stunts human development

• “For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls
for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erot-
ic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival.
Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the
perfect lover: no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mor-
tification ever imposed on his vanity.” –C.S. Lewis, “Personal
Letter from Lewis to Keith Masson”
QUESTIONS:
1. In conversations about masturbation what is the best approach to
the issue?
a. Calmly explain the meaning of sex and how it’s naturally or-
dered to being a gift to another person.
b. Say, “It’s no big deal.”
c. Treat all people who commit this sin as having the same moral
culpability.
d. All of the above
2. Which of the following statements about masturbation is not true?

a. Masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.
81
b. Immaturity, force of acquired habit, and conditions of anxiety
can lessen or even reduce to a minimum moral culpability.
c. Masturbation is justified if can produce positive health conse-
quences like a reduction in cancer rates.
d. All of the above
82
Lesson 32: Pornography
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of pornography and

how it relates to Catholic sexual ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. What pornography is not
• Mere images of nude human beings
• Nude images can be okay when used in art/educational texts.
2. What pornography is
• “Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual
acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them
deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because
it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to
each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants
(actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object
of base pleasure and illicit profit for others” (CCC 2354).
• A broader definition can also include: “Anything that is used to
inappropriately stimulate sexual desire/arousal.”
3. Dehumanizes—Doesn’t show too much, shows too little

• Pornography is wrong because of what it does to sex and how
it harms those who produce and consume it. Pornography
“perverts the conjugal act” because it takes what is made to be
a sacred, intimate gift of self between husband and wife and
turns it into a public performance designed on a temporal level
to make a profit through addiction, and on a spiritual level to
tempt souls to infidelity, shattered families, darkness, despair,
and hell itself.”
83
4. Contributes abuse of “performers”
• A 2009 study in the Journal of Urban Health said that substance
abuse and mental health issues are common in the adult film
industry.
• “Although a legal industry, health risks among performers
are multiple and similar to sex workers in illegal industries
(for example, street prostitutes)” (“Pathways to Health Risk
Exposure in Adult Film Performers,” January 2009).
• Another study found that porn actors in Los Angeles have high-
er rates of STDs than prostitutes in Nevada.
5. Degrades the consumer and can lead to a compulsion

• In 2015 a comprehensive survey of different studies conclud-
ed that “internet pornography addiction fits into the addiction
framework and shares similar basic mechanisms with sub-
stance addiction” (“Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Ad-
diction: A Review and Update,” Sept. 18, 2015).
6. Bishop Thomas Olmsted’s exhortation to Catholic men, Into the

Breach, includes a line that points to our sons’ victory against the
beast of porn, if we parents help arm them for the battle:
• “Imagine standing before the throne of God on Judgment Day,
where the great saints of ages past, who themselves dealt with
preeminent sins in their own day, will say to each other, “We dealt
with the trouble of lust in our day, but those twenty-first-century
men! These happy few battled the beast up close!”
QUESTIONS:
1. Pornography is:
a. Any depiction of nude human beings
b. Not a big deal
84
c. Anything that is used to inappropriately stimulate sexual de-
sire/arousal
d. All of the above
2. Pornography is wrong because:

a. It perverts the sexual act because it should be a true gift of self
b. It harms the consumers by tempting them to misuse their sexu-
ality and numbing them to authentic love
c. It harms performers who are often degraded or injured
d. All of the above
85
Lesson 33: Polygamy
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of polygamy and

OUTLINE:
1. The coming challenge of polyamory
• Reduces the marital act from being a complete gift of self. We
don’t love anyone else except spouses with this kind of total,
monogamous, physically unitive love.
• Being argued for among academics
• “To promote awareness and inclusivity about consensual
non-monogamy and diverse expressions of intimate rela-
tionships. These include but are not limited to: people who
practice polyamory, open relationships, swinging, relation-
ship anarchy and other types of ethical non-monogamous
relationships” (American Psychological Association Consen-
sual Non-Monogamy Task Force).
2. Does the Bible say polygamy is okay?

• Just because something is recorded doesn’t always mean rec-
ommended.
• 1 Kings 11:3 says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concu-
bines, but it also says these women caused Solomon to “turn
away his heart after other gods,” just as Deuteronomy 17:17
said would happen.
• Polygamy is depicted as frequently leading to problems in
Scripture, but it isn’t condemned outright. Jacob’s polygamous
relationship with Rachel and Leah led to marital discord and
competition between his wives. Finally, many of the “bad kings”
who reigned during the divided kingdom, like Rehoboam,
86
Abijah, Jehoiachin, and one of the worst kings of all, Ahab,
practiced polygamy.
3. Why didn’t God condemn it?

• God tolerated people’s hard hearts. Divorce would be another
example.
• What about in 2 Samuel 12:8 where God tells David, “I gave
you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your
bosom.”
• This refers to God reminding David about how he was
generously given the Kingdom of Israel, not that every
part of that kingdom was God’s ideal for mankind.
• Just because the Bible regulates something doesn’t mean God
recommends it. For example, Exodus 21:18 describes what
should happen “if men quarrel and one strikes the other with
a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but keeps his
bed.” Clearly the sacred author is not commanding people to hit
each other in the head with rocks. He is just giving sound advice
about what should be done if something like this happens.
4. Jesus affirmed the standard we are to live by today:

• “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning
made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man
shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one.
What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asun-
der” (Matt. 19:4–6).
QUESTION:
1. Why don’t the Bible’s descriptions of polygamy prove polygamy is
morally acceptable?
87
a. Because they are in the Old Testament which is now obsolete
b. Because something’s being recorded in the Bible doesn’t al-
ways mean God endorses it
c. Because the Bible contains lots of errors and this is one of them
d. All of the above
88
Lesson 34: Fornication/Cohabitation
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of fornication and

cohabitation and how they relate to Catholic sexual ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. Stay focused on the main question: “What is sex for?”
• If sex expresses a permanent, one-flesh union than sex outside
of marriage is a lie.
• “Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and
an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of
persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered
to the good of spouses and the generation and education of
children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is cor-
ruption of the young” (CCC 2353).
2. An activity’s commonness doesn’t mean it’s moral. Lying and

cheating are common but most people admit that those things are
usually wrong.
• Cohabitation also involves sins of scandal and the near occa-
sion of sin.
3. Casual sex doesn’t make men manly and being the mere object
of sexual desire doesn’t give women value; these are cheap imita-
tions of authentic joy that comes from the marital act.
QUESTION:
1. The sin of cohabitation can include:
a. The sin of fornication
b. The sin of scandal
89
c. The near occasion of sin
d. All of the above
90
Lesson 35: Prostitution
OVERVIEW: In this section we will look at the nature of prostitution and

OUTLINE:
1. The Bible and the Church have always condemned prostitution as
a moral evil.
• Idolatry and prostitution often compared in Scripture, used as
metaphor
• “Plead with your mother, plead—for she is not my wife, and I
am not her husband—that she put away her harlotry from her
face, and her adultery from between her breasts” (Hosea 2:2).
• “On her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon
the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations.”
And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and
the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rev 17:5–6)
2. Some theologians argued it should be tolerated so that greater

evils do not abound.
• “Those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest
certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus
Augustine says: ‘If you do away with harlots, the world will be
convulsed with lust.’ Hence, though unbelievers sin in their
rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good
that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided” (Sum-
ma Theologiae, II–II, Q. 10, A. 11).
3. St. Alphonsus Liguori argued that greater evils are associated with
prostitution so he opposed its legality. The Church currently under-
stands it as an evil civil law should not tolerate. The law is a teacher
and keeping this legal may make people think prostitution is good.
91
• “Prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as dis-
graceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere
tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all
these things and others of their like are infamies indeed (Gaud-
ium et Spes 27).
QUESTIONS:
1. Why did some theologians defend legalized prostitution even while
condemning it as immoral?
a. Because they didn’t want to be persecuted by the state
b. Because they secretly visited prostitutes
c. Because they didn’t feel right imposing their beliefs on other
people
d. All of the above
2. What does the Church currently teach about prostitution?

a. It’s not a big deal if everyone is legally consenting.
b. It is an evil civil law should not tolerate.
c. It is only wrong for Catholics.
d. All of the above
92
Lesson 36: Homosexuality and Culture
OVERVIEW: In this section we will provide a brief introduction to the

“LGBT” identity in order to better understand how to approach sexual
issues involving people who identify this way.
OUTLINE:
1. One way to understand this group of people is through an acro-
nym the group uses for itself, LGBT. The full acronym (whose pre-
cise makeup no one agrees upon) is often said to be: LGBTQQI-
AIA2SP. We can divide this into:
2. Sexual attractions
• Gay—Men who are attracted to men
• Lesbian—Women who are attracted to women
• Bisexual—People who are attracted to men and women
• Pansexual—People who are attracted to any gender (or just to
“people”)
• Asexual—People without sexual attraction
3. Sexual identities
• Transgender—People who identify as a biological sex different
than their own
• Intersex—People whose biological sex is difficult to determine
due to a developmental or chromosomal anomaly
• Queer—Gender non-conforming people who have tried to ap-
propriate a word that is generally considered a slur
• 2 Spirit—A Native American tradition similar to transgender
and androgynous that recognizes combined maleness and fe-
maleness in someone
• Androgynous—People who identify as neither male nor female
93
4. Other
• Questioning—People who are unsure of their sexual identity
and/or attractions
• Ally—Someone who does not fall under the previous descrip-
tions but actively promotes and agrees with LGBT ideology
5. About 4 percent of the population (not 10 percent as some claim)

identify as LGBT.
QUESTIONS:
1. A person who claims to be attracted to any gender would usually
be called:
a. Gay
b. Lesbian
c. Pansexual
d. Asexual
2. A person whose biological sex is difficult to determine due to a

developmental or chromosomal anomaly would be called
a. Transgender
b. Bisexual
c. Queer
d. Asexual
94
Lesson 37: Homosexuality and Catholicism
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine what the Church teaches

about the issue of homosexuality.
OUTLINE:
1. What the Catechism says:
• “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between
women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual at-
traction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great va-
riety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its
psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself
on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of
grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual
acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natu-
ral law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not
proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
Under no circumstances can they be approved” (CCC 2357).
2. We don’t know exactly what causes homosexual inclinations. Hav-

ing inclinations is not sinful; it’s acting on them that’s the problem.
3. Some people say homosexual behavior is only “differently or-

dered.” But that is very misleading.
• Some homes are differently ordered (mom works vs. dad
works), but other homes are objectively disordered (young chil-
dren expected to be the caregivers for their dysfunctional par-
ents). Variations on reaching a good do not justify perversions
of the good.
4. “I was born/made this way.”
95
• New studies show some people exhibit SSA later in life, twin
studies
• Innate feelings are not always moral ones.
• We should avoid controversial analogies like pedophilia.
• Better examples are vengeful anger and sexual promiscuity.
• We all struggle with sinful temptations:
• “For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see
in my members another law at war with the law of my mind
and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my
members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from
this body of death?” (Rom. 7:22–24).
• The point is that the acts themselves are wrong.
• Watch out for language. We should focus on the act itself rather
than personal identities.
• Sodomy is wrong even for people with opposite-sex attrac-
tions.
5. “Love is love”
• We must distinguish love from sex.
• This would justify other immoral relationships like polygamy,
adult incest.
• We can’t know if sex is disordered unless we know what it is
properly ordered toward.
6. Helping those with same-sex attraction

• “The number of men and women who have deep-seated ho-
mosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which
is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.
They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensi-
tivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should
be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their
96
lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the
Lord’s cross the difficulties they may encounter from their con-
dition” (CCC 2358).
7. We must distinguish between just and unjust discrimination and

having same-sex attractions versus actively living and supporting
this lifestyle.
QUESTIONS:
1. If someone says homosexuality is not wrong because people with
these attractions were “born this way,” what is the most effective
response?
a. Deny that a person’s same-sex attractions feel unchosen.
b. Simply recite the Church’s teaching in the Catechism.
c. Compare the attraction to something controversial like pedo-
philic attractions to children.
d. Compare the attraction to other common sinful attractions to
things like vengeful anger or sexual promiscuity.
2. Which of the following would constitute “unjust discrimination” to-

ward people with same-sex attractions?
a. Graciously explaining why homosexual behavior in sinful
b. Not attending a same-sex wedding
c. Refusing to treat them in a hospital emergency room
d. All of the above
97
Lesson 38: Homosexuality and Natural Law

about the issue of homosexuality in regard to natural law.
OUTLINE:
1. Always return to the question: “What is sex for?”
• Sex is for a one-flesh union, their use becomes disordered out-
side of the marital act. Thus sodomy is disordered and immoral
to engage in.
2. “Homosexuality is natural”
• This objection confuses natural occurrences in the world
around us with what is proper to our human nature.
• Lots of sins seem to occur naturally but that doesn’t mean
they’re moral.
• We can’t know if sex is disordered unless we know what it is
ordered toward.
3. “We do lots of unnatural things” (e.g. walking on hands, licking stamps)

• These actions do not contradict the primary purpose of those
organs. Hands are for grasping, the tongue is for licking, but re-
productive organs are for acts that are reproductive in nature.
4. “As long as it’s consensual it doesn’t matter”

• People can consensually decide to do something that is harmful
or degrading to one or both of them.
• The case of the consensual cannibalism
• Who defines what is harmful? Ultimately our human nature and
God’s law tells us what is harmful for us.
98
QUESTION:
1. Saying homosexual behavior is unnatural means:
a. It doesn’t occur in the animal kingdom
b. It is not common
c. It is not in accord with human nature
d. All of the above
99
Lesson 39: Homosexuality and the Old Testament

about the issue of homosexuality in regard to the Old Testament.
OUTLINE:
1. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not the strongest Old Testa-
ment injunction against homosexual behavior, but it wasn’t just a sin
of “inhospitality.” The attempted rape of what appeared to be males
by the males of the city makes the story even worse than it already is.
2. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomina-

tion” (Lev. 18:22).
• “The Old Testament also prohibits eating shellfish!”
• Explain the difference between temporary ritual laws and per-
manent moral laws.
• “The [Mosaic] law was our custodian until Christ came, that we
might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are
no longer under a custodian; for in Christ Jesus you are all sons
of God, through faith” (Gal. 3:26–28).
• The word rendered “custodian” is paidagogos, from which we
get the English word “pedagogy.” In the ancient world, a paida-
gogos was a kind of babysitter who taught children in his care
valuable lessons, similar to the fictional nanny Mary Poppins.
• “Abomination” only refers to ritual impurity, not objectively im-
moral acts.
• The Hebrew word toevah can refer to this, but in the rest of the
Old Testament it usually refers to grave moral evils like child
sacrifice (Deut. 12:31), adultery (Ezek. 18:10–13), and murder
(Prov. 6:17). In Ezekiel 16:50 it refers to the sins of the people of
Sodom, which included homosexual intercourse.
100
• Leviticus 18:24–25 also makes it clear that actions like adultery,
bestiality, and same-sex relations were part of the moral law
that applied to non-Jews as well, because God had previously
judged other pagan nations for engaging in these practices.
3. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. Laws related to sexual
morality deepened in their scope under the New Covenant.
QUESTIONS:
1. The Old Testament’s condemnation of homosexual behavior:
a. Only applied to Jews
b. Was only a matter of the ritual law
c. Was part of God’s eternal moral law
d. All of the above
2. The Hebrew word for abomination, toevah:

a. Only refers to violations of the ritual purity laws
b. Only refers to violations of one of the Ten Commandments
c. Can refer to a violation of either a purity law or moral law de-
pending on the context
d. Is not relevant to modern Christian ethics
101
Lesson 40: Homosexuality and the New Testament

about the issue of homosexuality in regard to the New Testament.
OUTLINE:
1. “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.”
• Jesus also didn’t say anything about child sacrifice or incest ei-
ther. Just because Jesus didn’t condemn a behavior does not
mean the behavior is moral.
• Jesus rooted sexual ethics in creation, not mere consent.
• Through the Holy Spirit he inspired the authors of Scripture to
condemn same-sex behavior.
2. “The Bible only condemns pederasty or abuse, not modern homo-

sexuality.”
• Paul traveled throughout the ancient world. Plato’s Symposium
talks about consensual homosexual relationships. The biblical au-
thors were aware of consensual, adult homosexual relationships.
3. “God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women ex-

changed natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise
gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with
passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with
men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their
error” (Rom. 1:26–27).
• Paul is concerned with natural relations. Romans 1 is about how
pagans can know God and his basic morality from nature itself.
• Paul doesn’t even use the Greek words for men and women (anér,
gune); he uses the words for male and female that are found in
102
the Greek Old Testament account of Genesis, God made them
male and female (theleiai and arsene).
• Lesbianism wasn’t connected to pederasty in the ancient world,
so this is clearly about immoral adult relationships.
4. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi oute arsenokoitai] nor thieves,
nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inher-
it the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10).
5. The Greeks words translated “homosexuals” refer to specific be-

haviors rather than orientations. Arsenokoitai means “man-bed-
der” and malakoi means “soft ones.” It refers to the active and pas-
sive partners in homosexual relations.
• This can’t be about pederasty or abusive exploitation because
both parties are condemned.
6. No one is beyond the redeeming grace of Christ, no matter their

past or present struggles.
QUESTIONS:
1. Why is the argument that the New Testament only condemns male
abuse of boys as opposed to all homosexual relationships wrong?
a. The New Testament considers both partners in a homosexual
relationship to be equally sinning.
b. Paul condemns lesbian behavior.
c. The New Testament never explicitly refers to the abuse of boys
or pederasty.
d. All of the above
103
2. In 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, the Greek word Paul uses to refer to the
active partner in a homosexual relationship is:
a. Malakoi
b. Aresenokoitai
c. Arche
d. Doulos
104
Lesson 41: Pragmatic Arguments for Abortion
OVERVIEW: In this section we will refute common arguments made in

defense of abortion.
OUTLINE:
1. Use logical reasoning before theological arguments. Find common
ground.
2. Off-topic vs. On-topic arguments

• If the reason to justify abortion does not answer the question,
“What are the unborn?” then it is off-topic. If it does the answer
the question, then it is on-topic. We want to get from off-topic
reasons to on-topic reasons.
3. Use ”trot out a toddler“ to get from

• Agree
• Find any common ground you can with the reason that is
offered. You can also propose hypothetical common ground
for the sake of the argument (e.g. let’s say you’re right and
the world is overpopulated).
• Apply
• Apply the reason justifying abortion to the killing of a two-
year-old. (E.g. imagine I have a two-year-old here and his
mother believes the world is overpopulated; should she be
allowed to kill him?)
• Ask why
• Ask why the mother shouldn’t be allowed to kill the two-year-
old. Allow the other person to answer the question.
105
• Ah!
• Bring everything together and say the real issue is not what-
ever justified abortion (e.g. choice, poverty, overpopulation)
but “What are the unborn?”
4. Back-alley abortion
• Don’t deny that illegal abortions ever happened or that some
women died from them.
• Focus on the moral principles, “We shouldn’t make it legal for
bigger people to kill smaller people so that it’s safer for the big-
ger people.”
5. Rape
• Be empathetic. Admit this is a horrible situation for which
there are no ultimately satisfying answers. Propose abortion
as the most violent response that should not be entertained
as a valid answer.
QUESTIONS:
1. In “trot out a toddler” taking the reason justifying abortion and
using it to justify killing of a two-year old is called:
a. Agree
b. Apply
c. Ask why
d. Ah!
2. What is the most effective reply to the claim that abortion must re-
main legal so that it is safe and women won’t resort to dangerous
“back-alley” abortions?
a. Abortion is a highly dangerous procedure that is never safe for
women.
106
b. Back-alley abortions are a myth.
c. The Bible says abortion is wrong.
d. We shouldn’t use the law to make it safer for bigger people to
kill smaller people.
107
Lesson 42: The Humanity of the Unborn
OVERVIEW: In this section we will defend the humanity of the unborn as

a crucial truth in the case against abortion.
OUTLINE:
1. Human rights belong to human beings. Before we can prove the
unborn are persons with full human rights, we must prove they
are full human beings in the biological sense of that word.
• A quick summary: “If it’s growing, isn’t it alive? If it has human
parents, isn’t it human? And human beings like you and me are
valuable, aren’t we?”
2. The unborn are alive.

• They are growing by cellular reproduction.
• They turn food into energy.
3. The unborn are human.

• They have human DNA.
• They have human parents.
4. The unborn are whole organisms.

• Their parts work together for the good of the whole.
• NET Test (Nutrition, Environment, Time)
• A thing is an organism if, given proper nutrition and environ-
ment and enough time, that thing has the potential to devel-
op into a mature member of a species.
• Fetuses, infants, and you and I pass this test.
• Sperm, egg, and cancer cells do not.
• “Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is
a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a
108
new, genetically distinct human organism is formed” (Human
Embryology and Teratology 8).
QUESTIONS:
1. How do we know the unborn are organisms and not mere body parts?
a. They have the potential to develop into a mature member of a
species.
b. They have human DNA.
c. They are growing.
d. All of the above
2. How do we know the unborn are human?

a. They are growing.
b. They have a heartbeat.
c. They can die.
d. All of the above
109
Lesson 43: The Personhood of the Unborn
OVERVIEW: In this section we will defend the personhood of the unborn

as a crucial truth in the case against abortion.
OUTLINE:
1. What is a person?
• Individual member of a rational kind
• Ask the pro-choice advocate to define what a person is. Usually,
his definition will either exclude infants, include non-human an-
imals, or be total arbitrary and designed to simply exclude the
unborn for no good reason.
2. The SLED Test
• There are four differences between born and unborn humans,
and none of those differences justifies depriving the unborn of
their basic rights.
• Size
• The unborn are smaller, but so are newborns. Size does not
determine our value.
• Level of Development
• The unborn can’t think and feel like us but neither can new-
borns. Some born humans become injured or lose their func-
tional abilities with age but they don’t stop being persons.
Moreover, if merely feeling pain makes someone a person then
rats or pigeons would be persons. Personhood isn’t related to
what you can do but what you are: a member of a rational kind.
• Environment
• The unborn live in the womb, but human beings live in all
kinds of places. If moving any distance outside of the womb
does not cause us to lose personhood, then how could
110
traveling eight inches through the birth canal cause us to
become persons?
• Degree of Dependency
• The unborn are completely dependent on their mothers but
that doesn’t make them non-persons. We are all dependent
on one another and some people (injured adults, newborns)
can be in situations where they depend on one person to live
but that doesn’t make them non-persons.
QUESTIONS:
1. The “L” in the SLED acronym refers to:
a. Level of dependency
b. Level of development
c. Location
2. Someone who says the unborn are not persons because they
can’t survive outside of the womb would be appealing to which
part of SLED?
a. Size
b. Level of development
c. Environment
d. Degree of dependency
3. Which of the following would be a counterexample to the claim

that a person must be able to think rationally?
a. A person in a reversible coma
b. A newborn infant
c. A sleeping adult
d. All of the above
111
Lesson 44: Bodily Autonomy Arguments for Abortion
OVERVIEW: In this section we will refute arguments for abortion based

on bodily autonomy arguments.
OUTLINE:
1. This kind of arguments assumes or even admit the unborn are hu-
man beings. However, they claim the right to control one’s body
trumps another person’s right to life.
2. “My Body, my choice”

• Not literal part of a woman’s body
• Would justify causing birth defects and grave harm
• Would justify killing the unborn even if the mother voluntari-
ly moved the child from a neo-natal care until and placed him
back into her body
3. “Right to refuse to donate one’s body to another person”

• Based on the Thomson “violinist thought experiment”
• Basically says that just as you or I are not obligated to donate
our tissue or organs to strangers in need, a pregnant woman is
not obligated to “donate” her body to her unborn child and so
she can have an abortion
• Pregnancy is not like refusing to donate an organ:
• Responsibility objection—I don’t cause a sick person to need
my organs, but in 99 percent of cases a man and woman en-
gaged in an act known for creating children who need their
assistance.
• Killing vs. letting die—If I don’t donate an organ, I don’t kill
another person, I merely fail to save an already dying per-
112
son. Abortion, however, is not “failing to save” but the direct
killing of an innocent, healthy person.
• Organ’s natural purpose—My organs and tissue (kidneys,
bone marrow) were not made for another person’s body but
for whom is uterus designed. It is rational to believe the un-
born have a right to the one organ that is necessary to sus-
tain their existence.
• A child’s right to life only makes sense if there is a correspond-
ing duty to provide life from someone else.
QUESTIONS:
1. Bodily autonomy arguments usually assume or even admit the un-
born are:
a. Not human beings
b. Not persons
c. Human beings or persons like us
2. Which of the following are differences that show the right to refuse
to donate an organ to a sick person does not entail the right to
have an abortion?
a. The person whose organ is needed didn’t cause the need for an
organ in the other person.
b. Refusing to donate an organ fails to save life and isn’t a case of
direct killing.
c. The uterus is naturally designed to sustain an unborn child’s
life.
d. All of the above
113
Lesson 45: Pro-Choice Theological Arguments
OVERVIEW: In this section we will reexamine Church teaching on abor-

tion and address theological arguments in favor of abortion.
OUTLINE:
1. The prohibition on abortion is a universal, constant teaching of the
Church.
• OST: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral
evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed
and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abor-
tion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to
the moral law” (CCC 2271).
• Death of the child only allowed as an indirect result of licit
medicine.
• “Throughout Christianity’s 2,000-year history, this same doc-
trine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church
and by her pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophi-
cal discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the
spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the
moral condemnation of abortion” (Evangelium Vitae 61).
• There has been disagreement about when ensoulment occurs
and the Church hasn’t defined it, but we do know the unborn is
a human life and so it demands respect. Theologically, all living
things have souls, or life-principles ( James 2:26). Therefore, as
soon as there is a living organism, there is a soul (though some
people may say the soul doesn’t become a rational soul until
later). The most probable view is that rational ensoulment oc-
curs when the living organism comes into existence, which is
at conception.
114
2. Pro-choice Catholic arguments
• “God gave us free will.”
• We are responsible for the choices we make. Not a license to
do evil.
• “Abortion in Numbers 5”
• This is allegedly a case of a woman suspected of adultery
being punished with a miscarriage after presenting herself
to the priests.
• God can end people’s lives (e.g. the death of David’s son) be-
cause he gave us life. We can’t do the same to other human
beings.
• This passage probably refers to infertility rather than abor-
tion as a punishment for adultery.
• “The unborn can’t be human because of high embryo mortality
rates.”
• It is uncertain if miscarried embryos were fully human, but
even if they were, all human beings die at some point, that
doesn’t justify homicide of human beings who are at-risk.
• High child mortality rates in history do not justify infanticide.
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following is not true about the Church’s teaching on
abortion?
a. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of
every procured abortion.
b. Theologians have always agreed on when ensoulment occurs.
c. Disagreement over when ensoulment occurs has never given rise
to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.
d. All of the above
115
2. How should we answer the claim that “The unborn can’t be human
because large numbers of embryos and fetuses die before birth”?
a. All human beings die at some point but that doesn’t justify ho-
micide.
b. Sometimes in human history, half of all children died before the
age of five, but that would not have justified killing toddlers.
c. Along with these points, it is uncertain how many of these deaths
were of complete organisms instead of malformed tissue.
d. All of the above
116
Lesson 46: Embryo Ethics
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the nature of human embry-

os and answer arguments that try to dehumanize them.
OUTLINE:
1. We need to define the terms embryo and fetus.
• Embryo: a human being from conception until the seventh week
of life
• Fetus: a human being from the eighth week of life until birth
2. Embryonic cells are not a mere “collection of parts” in the same

way a collection of bottles in a bag are not a unified entity but
merely an aggregate of individual entities within a protective
barrier. There is evidence of interaction between the cells in the
early embryo.
3. Embryo refers to a stage of development in the life of a human

being.
• “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can
use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species homo sapiens.’
Whether a being is a member of a given species is something
that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the
nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In
this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its
existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is
a human being” (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics 73)
4. The developing embryo is like a Polaroid picture whose image is

present at the very beginning but needs time to develop.
5. The twinning objection to the embryo’s humanity
117
• Cutting a flatworm in half creates two flatworms; that doesn’t
disprove the existence of the original flatworm.
• We can twin if DNA is extracted from our body cells, that doesn’t
disprove our humanity.
6. The “fire in the IVF lab” objection

• Failing to save a person in one situation doesn’t justify actively
killing that person in another situation.
• Consider how a parent might save his child instead of five other
children in a disaster, but not kill those five children in another
instance in order to save his child.
• People are likely to save pregnant women over non-pregnant
women in an emergency situation, which cuts against this
argument.
7. Even if the infusion of the soul or completion of conception is un-

known in the early embryo, we shouldn’t risk killing a human being.
• “From the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability
that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an ab-
solutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a
human embryo” (Evangelium Vitae 60).
QUESTIONS:
1. Among humans, the term “embryo” refers to:
a. A human being from the eighth week of life until birth
b. A human being from conception until the seventh week of life
c. A human being just prior to and shortly after birth
2. Why doesn’t the twinning objection prove the embryo is not a hu-
man being?
118
a. The fact that an organism can become more than one organism
doesn’t disprove the original organism’s existence.
b. Failing to save a person in one situation doesn’t justify actively
killing that person in another situation.
c. Embryonic cells are not a mere “collection of parts.”
d. All of the above
119
Lesson 47: Stem Cell Research
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the issue of stem cell re-
search in light of what we know about embryo ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. What are stem cells?
• They are parts of developing embryo that become any type of
cell, considered useful in healing damaged tissue.
• They exist in umbilical cord blood or bone marrow. Extracting
these is licit.
• Embryonic stem cells are extracted in a way that kills the em-
bryo. This is illicit.
2. Embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is immoral because it directly

kills an innocent human being.
• Even if embryos are going to die in IVF storage facilities, that
does not justify killing them for research any more than it would
justify killing terminally ill adult patients for medical research.
3. ESCR has now been largely abandoned. More success has been
seen with adult stem cell research.
QUESTION:
1. Which of the following statements are true?
a. The Church opposes all stem cell research.
b. Embryonic stem cell research can be justified because of the
medical cures it might create.
c. Stem cells can only be extracted from embryos.
d. All of the above
120
Lesson 48: Human Cloning
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the issue of human cloning in

light of what we know about embryo ethics.
OUTLINE:
1. Cloning is the process of creating genetically identical organisms.
The first cloned mammal was Dolly the sheep in 1996.
2. Theoretically, the DNA of a body cell could be placed into an empty

human egg and a new organism could come into existence that
was a genetic copy of the human whose body cell was used.
3. What the Church teaches

• Attempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human being without
any connection with sexuality through “twin fission,” cloning
or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral
law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human
procreation and of the conjugal union (Donum Vitae 5).
• Human cloning is intrinsically illicit in that, by taking the ethical
negativity of techniques of artificial fertilization to their extreme, it
seeks to give rise to a new human being without a connection to the act
of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, with-
out any link to sexuality. This leads to manipulation and abuses
gravely injurious to human dignity (Dignitatis Personae 28).
4. Therapeutic cloning is not very therapeutic for the clone, because

he dies so that its body parts can be salvaged for medical purpos-
es for other people.
5. Reproductive cloning creates genetic copy of an existing individual

who is intended to be born.
• If cloning were to be done for reproduction, this would impose
121
on the resulting individual a predetermined genetic identity,
subjecting him—as has been stated—to a form of biological
slavery, from which it would be difficult to free himself. The fact
that someone would arrogate to himself the right to determine
arbitrarily the genetic characteristics of another person
represents a grave offense to the dignity of that person as well as
to the fundamental equality of all people (Dignitatis Personae 29).
6. Cloning is the final result of treating human beings like a mere

commodity or thing to purchase.
• To whom does the clone belong? Parents or the company who
created him or her from genetic materials?
• What if we clone an athlete but the resulting clone doesn’t want
to be an athlete? Are they now a defective product?
7. Children should never be a product that is produced but a child

who is received and cherished by the parents who brought him or
her into existence.
QUESTIONS:
1. Creating a person that is a genetic copy of an existing individual for
the purpose of being born would be called:
a. Reproductive cloning
b. Therapeutic cloning
c. In-vitro fertilization
2. All types of cloning are wrong because:

a. They involve directly killing a human being
b. The Bible says they is wrong
c. They treat children like a commodity and create them outside of
the marital act
122
Lesson 49: Licit and Illicit Fertility Treatments
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the Church’s teaching on fer-

tility treatments and see which treatments are morally licit and which
are not.
OUTLINE:
1. Understanding and responding to infertility
• “Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly . . .
Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encour-
aged, on condition that it is placed at the service of the human
person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good
according to the design and will of God” (CCC 2375).
2. “We adults tend to think of our “right” to a child, but the Church is
clear that:
• A child “is not something owed to one, but is a gift . . . . A child
may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an
alleged ‘right to a child’ would lead. In this area, only the child
possesses genuine rights” (CCC 2378).
3. In 2008, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith released Digni-

tatis Personae, which addresses questions related to the treatment
of infertility and the generation of human life. It laid down a clear
principle: fertility treatments that “substitute for the conjugal act”
are not permitted, but those that “act as an aid to the conjugal act
and its fertility” are permitted (12).
• In other words: “Does the treatment help a husband and wife
have sex and conceive a child from that union, or does it replace
the sexual act with something else?”
4. Examples of moral fertility treatment:
123
• Ovulation enhancers
• Fallopian tube surgery
• Gamete Intra-fallopian Transfer (GIFT) which involves acquiring
sperm through a perforated condom used during the marital
act and then inserting the sperm into the wife’s fallopian tubes
• The Church has not positively endorsed GIFT but allows it for now.
5. Examples of immoral fertility treatments

• Artificial insemination
• Heterologous, which involves donor sperm and egg, is always
wrong
• Homologous insemination, which involves the married cou-
ple’s gametes, only is wrong if it replaces the marital act, but
is an open question if used in something like GIFT.
• Use of donor eggs, sperm, and surrogates can lead to up to
five people being a child’s “parents.”
• “There is an ugly side to our conception: the masturba-
tion, the anonymity, the payment. It’s shameful to say, but
my father was paid roughly $75 to promise to have noth-
ing to do with me” (Alanna Newman, “Anonymous Us”).
• “Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife,
by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of
sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These
techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertiliza-
tion) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother
known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They be-
tray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only
through each other” (CCC 2376).
6. Bottom line: Should children be the fruit of marital love, or a com-

modity that is created in a laboratory?
124
QUESTIONS:
1. In order to determine if a fertility treatment is moral or immoral
the primary question we must ask is:
a. Does the treatment replace the marital act?
b. What does the Bible say?
c. Does it use technology or is it natural?
d. Has the Church specifically condemned it?
2. Which of the following fertility treatment techniques does the

Church allow?
a. In-vitro fertilization
b. Heterologous artificial insemination
c. The use of surrogate wombs
d. All of the above
125
Lesson 50: In-Vitro Fertilization
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the Church’s teaching on fer-

tility treatments and see which treatments are morally licit and which
are not.
OUTLINE:
1. How IVF works
• Involves acquiring sperm usually through masturbation (but
it can be achieved with a perforated condom used during the
marital act) and then acquiring eggs from a woman. The sperm
and egg are then combined in a laboratory and the resulting
embryo or embryos are implanted in the woman’s uterus.
2. Main ethical problem: a child is created outside the marital act and
placed in an unjust situation
• Such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo
into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the
domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the
human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself
contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to
parents and children” (Dignitatis Personae 17).
3. Children created through IVF are still human beings with full rights
and dignity. The existence of good people does not disprove the
badness of IVF. Intrinsically valuable children can be the product
of adultery or rape, but the value of these children doesn’t justify
the way they were conceived.
4. Should children be “produced” in this way? You should ask critics

to go beyond the view of happy couples adopting children and see
the implication of anyone “purchasing children.”
126
5. Secondary ethical problem: all the children who die or are abused
in the IVF process
• In some cases, extra embryos are created and then destroyed,
though some IVF facilities have tried to reduce the amount of
“wasted embryos.”
• Other times multiple embryos are implanted and some are
aborted later.
• Others that are not implanted are left in cold storage indefinitely.
6. Should we adopt frozen embryos?

• There is ongoing debate among reputable Catholic theologians
about this matter, and technically it remains an open question.
A recent Vatican document called Dignitas Personae expressed
serious moral reservations about the approach without, how-
ever, explicitly condemning it as immoral.
• We can agree on urging people not to create children outside
the marital act in the first place.
QUESTIONS:
1. What is the primary ethical problem with in-vitro fertilization that
always accompany the procedure?
a. Some embryos are not implanted but are instead left in cold
storage indefinitely.
b. A child is created outside the marital act and placed in an unjust
situation.
c. Extra embryos are created and then destroyed.
d. Multiple embryos are implanted and some are aborted later.
2. What is the most effective response to the objection that IVF has
led to the conception of many people we already love and value?
127
a. Pointing out that a person’s value does not determine the mo-
rality, good or bad, of how he was conceived.
b. The world is overpopulated, so they shouldn’t have been con-
ceived with IVF.
c. The Catholic Church teaches that IVF is intrinsically evil.
d. All of the above
128
Lesson 51: History of Euthanasia
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the historical background of

euthanasia and define different kinds of euthanasia that are practiced
today.
OUTLINE:
1. Euthanasia literally means “good death” and refers to the killing of
an innocent person in order to alleviate some kind of suffering or
disability.
2. Definitions
• It can be voluntary (requested by the patient) or involuntary
(not requested or opposed by the patient).
• It can be active (using drugs or methods to directly kill) or pas-
sive (withholding the necessities of life like food in order to kill a
person).
• Finally, it is considered “assisted suicide” if a doctor gives a patient
a substance for him to ingest when he wants to end his own life.
3. Ancient Greece
• “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and
judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Nei-
ther will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do
so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to
a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and
holy both my life and my art” (Hippocratic Oath).
4. Modern euthanasia and assisted suicide began in nineteenth cen-

tury with the development of morphine.
• Support dropped in light of Nazi euthanasia programs
129
5. 1976: Karen Ann Quinlan
• Fell into a persistent vegetative state after a drug overdose
• Was on a feeding tube and ventilator. Her parents fought to
have her ventilator removed, which was eventually granted and
Quinlan lived for another nine years.
6. 1990: Nancy Cruzan

• Fell into a persistent vegetative state after a car accident
• Courts ruled that “clear and convincing evidence” was needed
to remove feeding tubes. Cruzan’s hospital opposed removing
her feeding tube. The tube was removed later after the hospital
withdrew from the case.
• The case showed there is no constitutional right to die.
• It spurred development of advanced directives to provide “clear
and convincing evidence” of a patient’s wish to not be kept alive
through artificial means.
7. 2005: Terri Schiavo

• Collapsed at home, fell into a persistent vegetative state
• Her husband requested to have her feeding tube removed; her
parents opposed the decision.
• Public opinion changes and begins to see artificial nutrition and
hydration as medicine to be declined after an injury rather than
basic care to always provide a patient.
QUESTIONS:
1. Directly injecting an unconscious patient with morphine that caus-
es the patient to die because his life is considered “not worth liv-
ing” would be an example of:
a. Assisted suicide
b. Involuntary, passive euthanasia
130
c. Involuntary, active euthanasia
d. Voluntary, active euthanasia
2. Recent examples of euthanasia in the news have caused people to

embrace the false view that:
a. Artificial nutrition and hydration are medicines to be declined
rather than basic care to always provide patients
b. They should have advanced directives to plan for their end of
life care
c. All life should be valued, including the lives of the sick and disabled
d. All of the above
131
Lesson 52: History of Assisted Suicide
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the historical background of

assisted suicide and its current legal status today.
OUTLINE:
1. 1980: Derek Humphries founded the Hemlock society, helped peo-
ple commit suicide. Published the book Final Exit in 1991.
2. 1997: Oregon passed the “Death with Dignity Act” legalizing assist-
ed suicide
• It was upheld in a later voter referendum and expanded in 2019
to remove the fifteen-day waiting period for gravely ill patients.
• Some Oregon insurance companies have denied coverage for
experimental treatments but reminded patients that assisted
suicide was covered.
3. 1999: Jack Kevorkian (“Dr. Death”) went to prison for killing a dis-
abled man. Was involved with a large number of assisted suicides
in violation of state of law.
4. 1999: In Washington v Glucksberg the Supreme Court of the United

States ruled 9-0 that there is no right to assisted suicide. States
may legalize assisted suicide but they don’t have to legalize it.
5. 2002: Netherlands passed euthanasia law that allows euthanasia

under these conditions:
• The patient’s suffering is unbearable with no prospect of im-
provement;
• The patient’s request for euthanasia must be voluntary and
persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under
the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs);
132
• The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects,
and options there must be consultation with at least one other
independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions men-
tioned above the death must be carried out in a medically ap-
propriate fashion by the doctor or patient;
• The doctor must be present the patient is at least twelve years
old (patients between twelve and sixteen years of age require
the consent of their parents).
6. 2008: Washington passed its assisted suicide law.
7. 2014: Brittany Maynard Case traveled to Oregon to choose assist-

ed suicide. Her cause of death was listed as a brain tumor. This
spurred passage of California’s assisted suicide law.
• Note how language is used in these cases; even with Maynard
suicide isn’t mentioned by death with dignity. We must be cog-
nizant of language to put forward our own arguments in de-
fense of life.
QUESTION:
1. The Supreme Court has ruled:
a. There is a constitutional right to die
b. States can outlaw assisted suicide
c. States must allow people to choose assisted suicide
d. All of the above
133
Lesson 53: Answering Assisted Suicide Arguments
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the common arguments of-

fered in defense of assisted suicide and euthanasia as well effective re-
sponses to those arguments.
OUTLINE:
1. Answering assisted suicide arguments
2. “People have the right to die.”

• People don’t have the right to die any more than the right to be
treated like an object or chattel slave. Basic rights can’t contra-
dict other basic rights.
• We don’t really believe this because we forcibly stop healthy
people from killing themselves.
• Assisted suicide laws are discriminatory; they say some people
don’t deserve to be protected from suicidal impulses.
• Many people who survive suicide attempts regret their decision.
• Suicide is a grave sin, though psychological defects can di-
minish culpability.
• “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons
who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone,
God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.
The Church prays for persons who have taken their own
lives” (CCC 2283).
3. “There’s no harm in letting people end their lives.”

• If it’s legal, people can feel external and internal pressure to
choose suicide when they normally wouldn’t.
• Leads to a devaluing of life just because it is disabled or termi-
nally ill
134
• Safeguards inevitably lead to greater expansion, involuntary
euthanasia, assisted suicide of the mentally ill and children,
4. “People shouldn’t be kept in intractable pain—it’s inhumane.”

• We can and should kill pain, but we shouldn’t kill people.
• Most people choose assisted suicide not because of pain but
because of a loss of autonomy and fear of burdening others.
• There is no logical stopping point when it comes to the suffering
to justify assisted suicide—what about quadriplegics, paraple-
gics, widows, and the depressed?
• It is permissible to administer painkillers if it has an indirect
shortening of life.
• “Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed
to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use
of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at
the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformi-
ty with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end
or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable
Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As
such it should be encouraged” (CCC 2279).
QUESTIONS:
1. Why should we believe people do not have a general “right to die”?
a. The right to life is a basic right that can’t be revoked.
b. We stop healthy people from “exercising” this right when they
want to commit suicide.
c. Suicide is a grave harm and no has the right to gravely harm
himself.
d. All of the above
135
2. What would be the most effective response to a critic who defends
the claim that assisted suicide should only be allowed to people
who are suffering and will die?
a. People need to learn how to embrace suffering or they will be-
come soft and weak.
b. This would entail letting anyone who is suffering end his own
life even if he is not terminally ill, which is something most de-
fenders of assisted suicide do not support.
c. All pain can be effectively treated without recourse to suicide.
d. Most people are against assisted suicide so we shouldn’t allow it.
136
Lesson 54: The Catholic Position on End-of-Life Issues
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the Church’s position on end-

of-life issues, especially the specific moral obligations people have when
it comes to continuing and refusing medical treatment.
OUTLINE:
1. One extreme is welcoming death as some kind of relief or good
thing that benefits people. Death is bad even though eternal life
awaits us because life is good and God gave us life; only he has the
authority to take it away.
• Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special
respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead
lives as normal as possible. Whatever its motives and means,
direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of hand-
icapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus
an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death
in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely
contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect
due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into
which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of
this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and ex-
cluded (CCC 2276–2277).
2. Another extreme is fearing death so much that people do anything

to prevent it, or want to live forever (transhumanists), or think any-
thing that hastens death is comparable to murder. Death is a lam-
entable though natural part of life that leads us to our final reward.
3. “Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, danger-

ous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome
can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment.
Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it
137
is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient
if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to
act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests
must always be respected” (CCC 2278).
• Disproportionate care (also called “extraordinary care”)
• It is not immoral to refuse this kind of medical treatment.
• What makes treatment disproportionate?
• “Disproportionate means are those that in the patient’s judg-
ment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an
excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the fami-
ly or the community” (Ethical and Religious Directives for Cath-
olic Health Care Services 57).
• Provides little to no benefit for the patient
• Has a significant physical, emotional, or financial toll
• Example: patient in an irreversible coma being kept
alive on a heart/lung machine
• Example: Elderly patient who experiences chronic in-
fection and fatigue from dialysis and still will not live
much longer even with treatment
• But in other cases, such treatment is not disproportionate
because of the benefits involved, even if the means are
extraordinary.
• Example: temporary use of a ventilator for an accident
victim
• Example: using surgery to unblock a newborn’s intes-
tine so he can digest food
4. Proportionate care (also called “ordinary care”)

• Basic care (food, water, comfort) should always be provided
even if it needs to be provided through medical tools like feed-
ing tubes. In rare cases, like when death is imminent they may
138
be forgone if they only cause the patient suffering and do not
contribute to keeping them alive (in the last stages of chronic,
terminal conditions many patients have lost appetites and eat-
ing can be physically harmful).
QUESTIONS:
a. A patient can refuse disproportionate or “extraordinary” treat-
ments.
b. Patients must always be provided proportionate or ordinary
care.
c. A patient must do whatever it takes to stay alive.
d. All of the above
2. Which of the following can contribute to making a treatment dis-

proportionate?
a. It provides little to no benefit for the patient.
b. Has a significant physical or emotional toll on the patient.
c. Has a significant financial burden on the patient’s family or
community.
d. All of the above
139
Lesson 55: Organ Donation and Mutilation
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the Church’s position on or-

gan donation and when medical procedures entail the sin of mutilation.
OUTLINE:
1. “Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons,
directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations per-
formed on innocent persons are against the moral law” (CCC 2297).
• This means the body must be respected and not abused. Things
like sex-reassignment surgery or extreme body modification
mutilate the temple of the body God gave us.
• However, the body may be injured in a way that does not com-
promise important functions for a good principle, like donating
a non-essential organ like a kidney or tissue like bone marrow.
2. “Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the

physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are pro-
portionate to the good sought for the recipient” (CCC 2296).
• Organs can also be donated after death provided that the donor
(or proxy) has consented and the person’s death is not brought
about in order to harvest organs.
3. “Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to

be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity” (CCC 2296).
• The person must be dead in order to donate an organ neces-
sary for sustaining life (e.g. heart), but people have different
views about what death is.
• Catholics say death is separation of the soul from the body, but
we can’t see the soul leave so this doesn’t give us a medical
criterion for death. The most common view is the neurological
criteria or “total irreversible brain death.”
140
• “The criterion adopted in more recent times for ascertaining
the fact of death, namely the complete and irreversible cessa-
tion of all brain activity, if rigorously applied, does not seem to
conflict with the essential elements of a sound anthropology”
(Address of the Holy Father John Paul II to the Eighteenth In-
ternational Congress of the Transplantation Society).
• Death can’t be merely upper-brain death or the cessation
of consciousness. Loss of function does not equal loss of hu-
manity. This view entails gross practices like the ability to bury
breathing bodies or people who might wake because they are
just in a persistent vegetative state.
QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following is not true of the Church’s teaching on organ
donation?
a. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act.
b. Organ transplants are moral if the physical and psychological
dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good
sought for the recipient.
c. A person should buried with all his organs so organ donation is
immoral.
d. In order to donate a vital organ a person must be dead.
e. All of the above
2. Which of the following is the medical view of death the Church gen-
erally recognizes?
a. The cessation of breathing
b. The permanent loss of consciousness
c. Total, irreversible brain death
d. The moment the soul leaves the body
141
Lesson 56: The Duty to Defend Society
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the Church’s teachings on just

war and capital punishment.
OUTLINE:
1. Principle of taking life to defend life
• “The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an ex-
ception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent
that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can
have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the
killing of the aggressor. . . The one is intended, the other is not”
(CCC 2263).
• When it comes to killing in self-defense, the intent is to stop
the fatal threat, the death of the person who is the threat is
foreseen but not intended. It would not be moral to use lethal
force when non-lethal force could just as easily be used in the
situation.
2. Conditions for a Just War

• “The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or com-
munity of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown
to be impractical or ineffective;
• “there must be serious prospects of success;
• “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders grav-
er than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means
of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition”
(CCC 2309).
• Although the Church has not specifically issued a teaching on
specific incidents like the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, it is not
142
permitted to directly target civilian populations, whether by nu-
clear or other means.
• Ask those who disagree with just war teaching if there is any-
thing that should not be done in war (e.g. directly torturing chil-
dren to instill terror in their parents, raping women as a weapon
of terror). This shows that there must be some constraints that
distinguish “just war” from “unjust war.”
3. Capital punishment
• According to Mark Brumley, the president of Ignatius Press and
the author of the booklet 20 Answers: Catholic Social Teaching,
“Catholic teaching has traditionally held that under certain cir-
cumstances the state may morally punish criminals with death,
but in recent times many Church leaders have come to reject its
use in favor of non-lethal alternatives . . . The Church Fathers
who addressed the issue generally concurred that the state may
justly employ the death penalty as did the medieval popes and
their successors until recent times.”
• While the Church does not teach the death penalty is intrinsically
evil, it does teach that it ought to be avoided. The 1994 Catechism
of the Catholic Church said:
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and
protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit
itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the
concrete conditions of the common good and more in confor-
mity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a
consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effec-
tively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed
an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking
away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases
in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity
“are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (CCC 2267).
143
This paragraph of the Catechism was later revised in 2018 un-
der Pope Francis and reflects a more negative view of the death
penalty that the Church began to adopt after the Second Vatican
Council. According to Brumley, “Many other contemporary Cath-
olic leaders, including Pope Francis, hold the death penalty to be
‘inadmissible’ today, and urge Catholics to work for its abolition
(CCC 2267).”
QUESTIONS:
1. It is not murder to kill someone in self-defense because:
a. The victim’s life is more valuable than the murderer’s
b. The killing is foreseen but not intended and it is a proportion-
ate response to a fatal threat
c. The victim has a right to life
d. All of the above
2. Which of the following is not a condition for a just war?
a. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown
to be impractical or ineffective.
b. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or commu-
nity of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.
c. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver
than the evil to be eliminated. There must be serious prospects
of success.
144
Lesson 57: Duty to the Environment
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the Church’s teachings on the

environment and the duty we have to be good stewards of God’s creation.
OUTLINE:
1. One extreme position: “There is no need to care for the earth.”
• We are called to be caretakers of creation.
• The seventh commandment “commands justice and charity in
the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor” (CCC
2401).
• Unjustly damaging the environment is a form of theft against
future generations and those who depend on those environ-
ments now.
2. Another extreme position: “The earth matters more than human

beings.”
• Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:26–27).
• Only human beings are made in God’s image; they stand in con-
trast to the rest of creation.
3. Catholics can reasonably disagree about the best ways to address

environmental issues and the Church does not propose a teaching
on scientific matters like the existence or causes behind climate
change. It does give us principles related to faith and morals that
we are called to apply in these situations.
145
4. The overpopulation myth
• “Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking
of how the world can be different, some can only propose a
reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face
forms of international pressure which make economic assis-
tance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”
(Laudato Si’ 50).
• Alarmists have always claimed that population would outpace
food production.
• “Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of
nature. The power of population is so superior to the power
of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature
death must in some shape or other visit the human race”
(Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population).
• “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, hun-
dreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any
crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date noth-
ing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death
rate” (Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb).
• Technology has allowed us to grow more food. More people
equals more innovation. There is more than enough food to
feed everyone on the planet. The real problem lies in people
and leaders that restrict the movement of food and resources
to those who need it.
QUESTION:
1. Which of the following positions is a Catholic permitted to hold
when it comes to the environment?
a. Humans have no duty to care for the earth.
b. Human beings are as equally important as every other living
thing so we should sacrifice human well-being to protect the
environment.
146
c. Contraception is justified if the world is overpopulated.
d. Catholics can reasonably disagree about the best ways to ad-
dress environmental issues.
e. All of the above
147
Lesson 58: The Right to Migrate

issue of immigration.
OUTLINE:
1. “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are
able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the
means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.
Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respect-
ed that places a guest under the protection of those who receive
him” (CCC 2241).
• Find common ground with those who say nations have no du-
ties toward immigrants. You can ask about victims of ethnic
cleansing who will die unless they are given asylum.
2. “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which
they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immi-
grate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard
to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immi-
grants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spir-
itual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws
and to assist in carrying civic burdens” (CCC 2241).
• This balances out the other extreme view that says there ought
to be no borders at all. Authorities have the right to restrict im-
migration in order to promote the common good, such as by
seeing if immigrants are criminals fleeing from another country.
3. Is deportation intrinsically immoral?

• “Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living con-
ditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitu-
tion, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful
148
working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for
profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these
things and others of their like are infamies indeed” (Gaudium
et Spes 27).
• Gaudium et Spes is talking about deportations in the middle of
the twentieth century that were part of ethnic cleansing cam-
paigns. If it was always wrong to deport someone than crimi-
nals could never be extradited to the country where they com-
mitted their crime.
QUESTION:
1. Which of the following positions is a Catholic not permitted to hold
on the issue of immigration?
a. Countries have no duty to ever accept migrants under any con-
ditions.
b. It is immoral for countries to have borders and ever deny poten-
tial immigrants access.
c. Immigrants have less dignity than people who already reside in
a country.
d. All of the above
149
Lesson 59: The Right to Own Private Property

issue of private property and socialism.
OUTLINE:
1. Socialism has to be defined. It’s not just care for poor but the abol-
ishment of private property in favor of communal ownership.
2. Socialism/Communism denies:
• the right to private property
• the right for parents to be the providers for their children
• the right to leave children an inheritance
3. “Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the

points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the
teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society it-
self is utterly foreign to Christian truth” (Quadragesimo Anno 117).
4. Socialism ultimately contradicts our God-given human nature:

• “Men are obliged, with respect to the producing of goods, to
surrender and subject themselves entirely to society.” Com-
munism’s goal of a “class-less society also contradicts hu-
man nature, or as Pope Leo XIII puts it, “There naturally exist
among mankind manifold differences of the most important
kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and un-
equal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition” (Re-
rum Novarum 17).
5. The first Christians did not reject private property.

• “There was not a needy person among them, for as many as
were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
150
proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and
distribution was made to each as any had need” (Acts 4:35).
• Christians practiced charity but didn’t mandate communal
ownership.
• “Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly
or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7).
• “As the Church grew, this radical form of material communion
could not in fact be preserved. But its essential core remained:
within the community of believers there can never be room for
a poverty that denies anyone what is needed for a dignified life”
(Deus Caritas Est 20).
6. The Right to Private Property

• Right to private property is based on the ability to carry out the
moral duty to rationally live out life in pursuit of the good, not
meal to meal like a mere animal.
• Private property is not absolute just like speech is not absolute
(falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater example).
• The universal destination of goods means no one person or
group owns the earth, we all do. But people and groups can
have rights over parts of it.
• “The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoy-
ment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the
owning of private property” (Rerum Novarum 8).
• “The main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be ut-
terly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem
meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of
mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the
commonweal” (Rerum Novarum 15).
7. Pope Pius XI said that “no one can be at the same time a good
Catholic and a true socialist.” He also said the free market “is not to
151
be condemned in itself” and that the state should make sure it ad-
heres to “norms of right order.” Pope St. John Paul II also affirmed
in Centesimus Annus that capitalism can be practiced morally while
saying that “the Marxist solution has failed.”
8. Pope John Paul II on capitalism

• “Is [capitalism] the model which ought to be proposed to the
countries of the Third World which are searching for the path
to true economic and civil progress? The answer is obviously
complex. If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which
recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the
market, private property, and the resulting responsibility for
the means of production, as well as free human creativity in
the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affir-
mative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate
to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or sim-
ply ‘free economy.’ But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in
which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed
within a strong juridical framework which places it at the ser-
vice of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a
particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical
and religious, then the reply is certainly negative” (Centesimus
Annus 42).
QUESTIONS:
1. The Church rejects socialism because it:
a. Denies the individual right to private property
b. Usurps the natural role of the family to provide for itself
c. Teaches a false view of human nature and human society
d. All of the above
152
2. Which of the following statements does the Church affirm when it
comes to capitalism?
a. The right to private property is absolute.
b. The state should not interfere with free markets.
c. Capitalism is not to be condemned in itself.
d. All of the above
153
Lesson 60: Religious Liberty
OVERVIEW: In this section we will examine the Church’s teachings on

religious liberty and the right of parents to educate their children.
OUTLINE:
1. Biblical foundation for Christian duty to God that supersedes our
duties to the state
• “When they had brought them, they set them before the coun-
cil. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly
charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled
Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man’s
blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must
obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:27–29).
2. Everything we have learned in this course must be lived out even

if we are pressured to reject our faith.
• “You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who en-
dures to the end will be saved . . . everyone who acknowledges
me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is
in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny
before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 10:22, 32–33).
3. However, we should still seek peace in our world and persuade

others to not just tolerate our beliefs, but to embrace them. We
should advocate for religious liberty which is something the
Church has always acknowledged. For example, St. Thomas Aqui-
nas said forced baptisms were invalid because faith must be ac-
cepted freely.
• “The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom
means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part
of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such
154
wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his
own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in as-
sociation with others, within due limits” (Dignitatis Humanae).
• Older condemnations of “religious liberty” in papal works were
about religious indifferentism or spreading the belief that the
Church’s teachings don’t matter in a pluralistic society. Vatican
II’s description of “religious liberty” is focused on “freedom
from coercion” and is harmonious with previous magisterial
teachings on the subject.
4. Parents have the primary responsibility to teach their children.

This right cannot be usurped by the state. They tried in 1922 in
Oregon. Tried to outlaw home and private schools. 1925 Supreme
Court in Pierce v Society of Sisters. Pope Pius XI quotes part of the
ruling in his encyclical on Catholic education Divini Illius Magistri.
• “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments
in this union repose excludes any general power of the state to
standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction
from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of
the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have
the right coupled with the high duty, to recognize, and prepare
him for additional duties” (Divini Illius Magistri 37).
5. “Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their

children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating
a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and dis-
interested service are the rule. The home is well suited for educa-
tion in the virtues . . . By knowing how to acknowledge their own
failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and
correct them” (CCC 2223).
• As parents and role models for children we are called to edu-
cate them in the moral teachings of the Church. God doesn’t call
the equipped; he equips the called.
155
QUESTIONS:
1. According to the Second Vatican council, religious liberty means:
a. No religion is better than any other religion
b. A person should be free to choose a church without anyone tell-
ing them he’s wrong
c. A person should not be forced to act in a manner contrary to his
own beliefs
d. All of the above
2. According to the Church, the primary teachers of children are:

a. Public school teachers
b. Priests
c. Parents
156
List of Recommended Reading
This is not an exhaustive list, and just because a book is on this list does
not mean I endorse everything in it. Instead, this list should serve as a
helpful guide for anyone who wants to learn how to defend the moral
teachings of our faith. I have ordered it based on topic and noted if a
book would best serve beginners (B), is of intermediate difficulty (I), or
is an advanced work (A).
Abortion
• 20 Answers: Abortion by Trent Horn (B)
• Persuasive Pro-life: How to Talk About Our Culture’s Toughest Issue by
Trent Horn (I)
• Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice by
Francis Beckwith (A)
• Abortion and Unborn Human Life by Patrick Lee (A)
• The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of
Justice by Christopher Kaczor (A)
Contraception
• Inseparable: Five Perspectives on Sex, Life, and Love in Defense of
Humanae Vitae.
• Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life by William E. May (I)
• Why Humane Vitae Was Right: A Reader, ed. Janet Smith (A)
End-of-Life Issues
• 20 Answers: End of Life Issues by Jason B. Negri (B)
• Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide, and the New Duty to Die by
Wesley Smith (I)
• Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life by William May (I)
157
Homosexuality
• 20 Answers: Homosexuality by Jim Blackburn (B)
• Homosexuality and the Catholic Church: Clear Answers to Difficult Ques-
tions by Fr. John Harvey (B)
• Living the Truth in Love: Pastoral Approaches to Same-Sex
Attraction, eds. Janet Smith and Fr. Paul Check (I)
• The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert
Gagnon (A)
Marriage
• 20 Answers: Marriage & Sex by Todd Aglialoro (B)
• 20 Answers: Divorce & Remarriage by Jim Blackburn (B)
• Annulments and the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough
Questions by Ed Peters (B)
• Getting the Marriage Conversation Right by William B. May (B)
• Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom by Ryan
Anderson (I)
• What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense by Sherif Gergis,
Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson (A)
Papal Writings
• Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI (I)
• Veritatis Splendor by Pope John Paul II (I)
• Familiaris Consortio by Pope John Paul II (I)
• Evangelium Vitae by Pope John Paul II (I)
• Deus Caritas Est by Pope Benedict XVI (I)
• Caritas in Veritate by Pope Benedict XVI (I)
158
Sexual Ethics
• Made this Way by Trent Horn and Leila Miller
• Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love by Edward Sri (B)
• Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation, & Defense by William
May (I)
• Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) (I)
• Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body by Pope
John Paul II (A)
• One Body: An Essay in Christian Sexual Ethics by Alexander Pruss (A)
159
About the Instructor
After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn earned master’s
degrees in theology, philosophy, and bioethics. He serves as a staff apol-
ogist for Catholic Answers, where he specializes in teaching Catholics
to graciously and persuasively engage those who disagree with them.
Trent is an adjunct professor of apologetics at Holy Apostles College, has
written for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, and is the author of
nine books, including:
• Answering Atheism
• Persuasive Pro-life
• Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Bible Difficulties
• Why We’re Catholic: Our Reasons for Faith, Hope, and Love
• The Case for Catholicism
• What the Saints Never Said
• Made This Way: How to Prepare Kids to Face Today’s Tough Moral Issues
(with Leila Miller)
• Counterfeit Christs
• Can a Catholic be a Socialist? (with Catherine R. Pakaluk)
Trent is a regular guest on the radio program Catholic Answers Live and
hosts his own podcast, Counsel of Trent. You can learn more about him at
trenthorn.com and trenthornpodcast.com.
160
Answer Key
Lesson 1: The Nature of Morality

1. What is morality? b. A series of prescriptions or rules governing
how they should act.
2. What is morality fundamentally about? d. All of the above
3. St. Paul says all people, no matter their historical circumstance,
can know moral truths through: b. Their conscience.
Lesson 2: Moral Skepticism

1. Moral skeptics claim moral truths: a. Do not exist, they are only a
matter of opinion.
2. Moral skepticism is false because: c. All of the above
Lesson 3: Moral Relativism

1. Moral relativism claims: b. Moral truths are subjective and true for
some people, but not others.
2. Moral relativism is false because: d. All of the above
Lesson 4: Utilitarianism
1. Utilitarianism is a moral system based on: c. Maximizing well-being
2. If a mob threatens to burn down a town unless an innocent man is
executed, a utilitarian would probably: a. Execute the man in order
to minimize pain and loss of well-being caused by the riot.
3. Utilitarianism is false because: d. All of the above
Lesson 5: Natural Law

1. Natural law is: b. How rational creatures participate in the eternal
law of God.
2. The most basic law that governs the universe is: d. Eternal Law
Lesson 6: The Morality of Human Acts

1. An intrinsic evil is justifiable: e. None of the above
2. In a moral act, the good toward which the will directs itself, or what
161
the person is “trying to do,” is called the: a. object
3. Which of the following is true of an act’s intention? d. All of the
above
Lesson 7: The Nature of Sin

1. Sin is: d. All of the above
2. A sin that damages our relationship with God but does not destroy
charity in our souls is called: a. venial
3. Which condition would make a sin not be mortal? c. Unintentional
ignorance.
Lesson 8: The Morality of the Passions

1. Which is not true of the passions? b. They are mildly evil in them-
selves.
2. The most basic passion of man is: e. None of the above
Lesson 9: Morality and Conscience

1. What is a conscience? a. A judgment of reason whereby the human
person recognizes the moral quality of certain acts.
2. Which of the following is not true about the conscience? c. It is in-
fallible.
3. Which of the following is true of the conscience? d. All of the above
Lesson 10: The Authority of Church Teachings

1. Truths the magisterium infallibly teaches to be divinely revealed
are properly called: b. Dogma
2. Which of the following moral teachings has the Church not taught
in an infallible way? a. It is permissible to use methotrexate to end
an ectopic pregnancy.
Lesson 11: Free Will

1. Which of these is not true of free will? a. It is the ability to do what-
ever we want.
2. A person who says free will doesn’t exist and moral responsibility
162
is an illusion would be called a: b. determinist
3. Which of these reasons supports the existence of moral responsi-
bility? d. All of the above
Lesson 12: Christian Anthropology

1. Which of the following is true of the human person? c. It is a unity
of soul and body.
2. Because human beings are male and female, we say their bodies
are: a. complementary
Lesson 13: Sex and Gender

1. A person’s subjective sense of their maleness or femaleness is
called their: b. gender
2. A transgender man is: a. A biological woman who claims to be a
man.
Lesson 14: Debunking Transgender Ideology

1. Which of the following provides a good counterexample to the
idea that a person’s personal identity can change their biological
makeup? d. All of the above.
2. One effective way to communicate your opposition to accepting
transgender ideology and language to someone who supports this
view is to: a. Express a desire to not want to lie about a person’s
fundamental identity.
Lesson 15: Pastoral Advice for Confronting Transgender Ideology

1. Which of the following should not be recommended as a pastoral
approach to those who identify as LGBT? d. All of the above
Lesson 16: Theology of the Body

1. The idea that the body expresses truths and falsehoods through
physical acts is called c. The language of the body.
2. Which of the following analogies most effectively shows that a per-
son can speak authoritatively on the morality of an act even if he
163
has not engaged in the act itself? a. An umpire can point out that a
player has broken the rules even if he has never played a game of
baseball himself.
Lesson 17: Biblical Sexual Ethics

1. Which of the following statements is not true? b. God tolerates the
intrinsic evil of sex because it leads to the good of procreation.
2. Which of the following sins did St. Paul say would cause someone
to not inherit the kingdom of God? d. All of the above
Lesson 18: The Teaching of the Magisterium on Sexual Ethics

1. Fill in the blank, “Marital love is ordered toward the goods of mar-
riage, which include _______________ and the _______________ of the
spouses.” d. None of the above (procreation; unity)
2. In-vitro fertilization is an example of: b. Babies without bonding.
Lesson 19: Scholastic Natural Law on Sexual Ethics

1. Scholastic natural law teaches that something is good if: b. It is in
conformity with its nature.
2. Which of the following would be an example of something that is
immoral because it is unnatural? e. None of the above
3. Which of the following is the best behavior to use in order to show
that engaging in sexual acts outside of marriage is disordered and
thus immoral? a. Eating food to acquire its taste before vomiting it
up again in order to avoid digesting it.
Lesson 20: New Natural Law on Sexual Ethics

1. Which of the following would be an example of a basic good that is
sought for its own sake? d. All of the above
2. A lover always seeks what with that which he loves? b. union
3. Which of the following are clues that sex is for expressing perma-
nent marital love? b. It forms a total bodily union and can result in
the permanent consequence of procreation.
164
1. The most important question we should ask of people who think
“same-sex marriage” should be legal is: b. What is marriage and
why do we need it?
2. The view that marriage is for uniting men and women in a one-
flesh bond is best described as: c. The conjugal view of marriage.

1. Which of the following is an essential element of marriage? d. All of
the above
2. Attending a “same-sex wedding” could result in the sin of: a. scandal
Lesson 23: Marriage and Divorce

1. No-fault divorce can be linked to: d. All of the above
2. Which of the following does the Church not teach when it comes to
divorce? c. It is never permissible to separate from your spouse.
Lesson 24: Divorce and Remarriage

1. Which of the following is not true about the children of divorce? b.
Children of divorce have no statistically different outcomes than
those of children whose parents remain married.
2. Fill in the blank: “Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by
civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse
is then in a situation of public and permanent _______________.” e.
None of the above (adultery)
Lesson 25: Annulments

1. In order for a marriage to be valid, it must be: d. All of the above
2. Which of the following situations would be an example of a wed-
ding not being celebrated according to a proper form? a. Getting
married in a courthouse by a justice of the peace.
3. Fill in the blank: “Annulments don’t _______________ marriages; they
reveal that some marriages never _______________ in the first place.”
b. end; existed
165
Lesson 26: Contraception and History
1. Which of the following is true about contraception? d. All of the above
2. What is the name of the encyclical that Pope Paul VI authored that
upheld the Church’s teaching on contraception in 1968? e. None of
the above (Humanae Vitae)
Lesson 27: The Pontifical Birth Control Commission

1. Which of the following is not true about the Pontifical Birth Control
Commission? b. Pope Paul VI only placed people on the commis-
sion that he always agreed with when it came to theology.
2. Fill in the blank: The majority report justified changing Church teach-
ing on contraception by saying what mattered was a couple’s overall
openness to life rather than the couple being open to life in ever
sexual act. This has since been called: a. The principle of totality.
Lesson 28: Philosophical Arguments Against Contraception

1. Fill in the blank: “The total reciprocal self-giving of husband and
wife is overlaid, through _______________, by an objectively contra-
dictory language.” e. None of the above (contraception)
2. Contraception is wrong because it prevents the sexual act from
becoming what? b. A one-flesh union
Lesson 29: Contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP)

1. Natural family planning is not intrinsically evil like acts of contra-
ception because: a. It does not deliberately sterilize the sexual act.
2. In the “wedding invitation analogy,” choosing to celebrate a wed-
ding on a day when particular guests are not likely to be able to at-
tend corresponds to: b. Sex on an infertile day in a woman’s cycle.
Lesson 30: Sterilization and Health Issues

1. Which of the following statements is not true? d. All of the above
2. Fill in the blank: Married couples can use medicines that cause in-
fertility (either temporarily or permanently) as a side effect as long
as there is a _______________ reason to do so, the infertility is fore-
166
seen but not _______________, and the actions do not create worse
evils. c. sufficient; intended
Lesson 31: Masturbation

1. In conversations about masturbation what is the best approach to
the issue? a. Calmly explain the meaning of sex and how it’s natu-
rally ordered to being a gift to another person.
2. Which of the following statements about masturbation is not true?
c. Masturbation is justified if can produce positive health conse-
quences like a reduction in cancer rates.
Lesson 32: Pornography

1. Pornography is: c. Anything that is used to inappropriately stimu-
late sexual desire/arousal.
2. Pornography is wrong because: d. All of the above
Lesson 33: Polygamy

1. Why don’t the Bible’s descriptions of polygamy prove polygamy is
morally acceptable? b. Because something’s being recorded in the
Bible doesn’t always mean God endorses it.
Lesson 34: Fornication/Cohabitation

1. The sin of cohabitation can include: d. All of the above
Lesson 35: Prostitution

1. Why did some theologians defend legalized prostitution even
while condemning it as immoral? e. None of the above (Because
they thought outlawing prostitution would create greater evils.)
2. What does the Church currently teach about prostitution? b. It is
an evil civil law should not tolerate.
Lesson 36: Homosexuality and Culture

1. A person who claims to be attracted to any gender would usually
be called: c. pansexual
167
2. A person whose biological sex is difficult to determine due to a
developmental or chromosomal anomaly would be called e. None
of the above. (intersex)
Lesson 37: Homosexuality and Catholicism

1. If someone says homosexuality is not wrong because people with
these attractions were “born this way,” what is the most effective
response? d. Compare the attraction to other common sinful at-
tractions to things like vengeful anger or sexual promiscuity.
2. Which of the following would constitute “unjust discrimination” to-
ward people with same-sex attractions? c. Refusing to treat them
in a hospital emergency room.
Lesson 38: Homosexuality and Natural Law

1. Saying homosexual behavior is unnatural means: c. It is not in ac-
cord with human nature.
Lesson 39: Homosexuality and the Old Testament

1. The Old Testament’s condemnation of homosexual behavior: d.
All of the above
2. The Hebrew word for abomination, or toevah: c. Can refer to a viola-
tion of either a purity law or moral law depending on the context.
Lesson 40: Homosexuality and the New Testament

1. Why is the argument that the New Testament only condemns male
abuse of boys as opposed to all homosexual relationships wrong?
d. All of the above
2. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, the Greek word Paul uses to refer to the
active partner in a homosexual relationship is: b. aresenokoitai
Lesson 41: Pragmatic Arguments for Abortion

1. In “trot out a toddler” taking the reason justifying abortion and
using it to justify killing of a two-year old is called: b. Apply
2. What is the most effective reply to the claim that abortion must re-
168
main legal so that it is safe and women won’t resort to dangerous
“back-alley” abortions? d. We shouldn’t use the law to make it safer
for bigger people to kill smaller people.
Lesson 42: The Humanity of the Unborn

1. How do we know the unborn are organisms and not mere body
parts? a. They have the potential to develop into a mature member
of a species.
2. How do we know the unborn are human? e. None of the above
(human DNA and human parents)
Lesson 43: The Personhood of the Unborn

1. The “L” in the SLED acronym refers to: b. Level of Development
2. Someone who says the unborn are not persons because they can’t
survive outside of the womb would be appealing to which part of
SLED? D. Degree of Dependency
3. Which of the following would be a counterexample to the claim
that a person must be able to think rationally? d. All of the above
Lesson 44: Bodily Autonomy Arguments for Abortion

1. Bodily autonomy arguments usually assume or even admit the un-
born are: c. Human beings or persons like us.
2. Which of the following are differences that show the right to refuse
to donate an organ to a sick person does not entail the right to
have an abortion? d. All of the above
Lesson 45: Pro-Choice Theological Arguments

1. Which of the following is not true about the Church’s teaching on
abortion? b. Theologians have always agreed on when ensoulment
occurs.
2. How should we answer the claim that “The unborn can’t be human
because large numbers of embryos and fetuses die before birth”?
d. All of the above
169
Lesson 46: Embryo Ethics
1. Among humans, the term “embryo” refers to: b. A human being
from conception until the seventh week of life.
2. Why doesn’t the twinning objection prove the embryo is not a hu-
man being? a. The fact that an organism can become more than
one organism doesn’t disprove the original organism’s existence.
Lesson 47: Stem Cell Research

1. Which of the following statements are true? e. None of the above
Lesson 48: Human Cloning

1. Creating a person that is a genetic copy of an existing individual for
the purpose of being born would be called: a. reproductive cloning
2. All types of cloning are wrong because: c. They treat children like a
commodity and create them outside of the marital act.
Lesson 49: Licit and Illicit Fertility Treatments

1. In order to determine if a fertility treatment is moral or immoral
the primary question we must ask is: a. Does the treatment re-
place the marital act?
2. Which of the following fertility treatment techniques does the
Church allow? e. None of the above
Lesson 50: In-Vitro Fertilization

1. What is the primary ethical problem with in-vitro fertilization that
always accompany the procedure? b. A child is created outside the
marital act and placed in an unjust situation.
2. What is the most effective response to the objection that IVF has
led to the conception of many people we already love and value?
a. Point out that a person’s value does not determine the morality,
good or bad, of how he was conceived.
Lesson 51: History of Euthanasia

1. Directly injecting an unconscious patient with morphine that caus-
170
es the patient to die because his life is considered “not worth liv-
ing” would be an example of: c. Involuntary, active euthanasia
2. Recent examples of euthanasia in the news have caused people
to embrace the false view that: a. Artificial nutrition and hydration
are medicines to be declined rather than basic care to always pro-
vide patients.
Lesson 52: History of Assisted Suicide

1. The Supreme Court has ruled: b. States can outlaw assisted suicide.
Lesson 53: Answering Assisted Suicide Arguments

1. Why should we believe people do not have a general “right to die”?
d. All of the above
2. What would be the most effective response to a critic who defends
the claim that assisted suicide should only be allowed to people who
are suffering and will die? b. This would entail letting anyone who
is suffering end his own life even if he is not terminally ill, which is
something most defenders of assisted suicide do not support.
Lesson 54: The Catholic Position on End-of-Life Issues

1. Which of the following statements is not true? c. A patient must do
whatever it takes to stay alive.
2. Which of the following can contribute to making a treatment dis-
proportionate? d. All of the above
Lesson 55: Organ Donation and Mutilation

1. Which of the following is not true of the Church’s teaching on organ
donation? c. A person should be buried with all his organs so organ
donation is immoral.
2. Which of the following is the medical view of death the Church
generally recognizes? c. Total, irreversible brain death.
Lesson 56: The Duty to Defend Society

1. It is not murder to kill someone in self-defense because: b. The kill-
171
ing is foreseen but not intended and it is a proportionate response
to a fatal threat
2. Which of the following is not a condition for a just war? d. None of
the above
Lesson 57: Duty to the Environment

1. Which of the following positions is a Catholic permitted to hold
when it comes to the environment? d. Catholics can reasonably
disagree about the best ways to address environmental issues.
Lesson 58: The Right to Migrate

1. Which of the following positions is a Catholic not permitted to hold
on the issue of immigration? d. All of the above
Lesson 59: The Right to Own Private Property

1. The Church rejects socialism because: d. All of the above.
2. Which of the following statements does the Church affirm when it
comes to capitalism? c. Capitalism is not to be condemned in itself.
Lesson 60: Religious Liberty

1. According to the Second Vatican council, religious liberty means: c.
A person should not be forced to act in a manner contrary to his
own beliefs.
2. According to the Church, the primary teachers of children are: c.
Parents
172

MoralApologetcs - 9 200709 085607

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MoralApologetcs - 9 200709 085607

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence for Catholic

with Trent Horn

All emphasis in Scripture citations added.

Published by Catholic Answers, Inc.

Printed in the United States of America

Cover design by Mr. Wolf at 99Designs

Lesson 1: The Nature of Morality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Lesson 2: Moral Skepticism. ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Lesson 3: Moral Relativism......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Lesson 5: Natural Law... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Lesson 6: The Morality of Human Acts. ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Lesson 7: The Nature of Sin........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Lesson 8: The Morality of the Passions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Lesson 9: Morality and Conscience.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Lesson 10: The Authority of Church Teachings. ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Lesson 11: Free Will...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Lesson 12: Christian Anthropology............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Lesson 13: Sex and Gender. ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Lesson 14: Debunking Transgender Ideology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Lesson 15: Pastoral Advice for Confronting Transgender Ideology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Lesson 16: Theology of the Body. ................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Lesson 17: Biblical Sexual Ethics. ................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Lesson 18: The Teaching of the Magisterium on Sexual Ethics.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Lesson 19: Scholastic Natural Law on Sexual Ethics.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Lesson 20: New Natural Law on Sexual Ethics. ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Lesson 21: Same-Sex Marriage: Part 1........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Lesson 22: Same-Sex Marriage: Part 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Lesson 23: Marriage and Divorce. ................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Lesson 25: Annulments.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Lesson 26: Contraception and History.. ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Lesson 27: The Pontifical Birth Control Commission.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Lesson 28: Philosophical Arguments Against Contraception.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Lesson 29: Contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Lesson 30: Sterilization and Health Issues. . .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Lesson 31: Masturbation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Lesson 32: Pornography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Lesson 33: Polygamy.... ............................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Lesson 34: Fornication/Cohabitation............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Lesson 35: Prostitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Lesson 36: Homosexuality and Culture. ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Lesson 37: Homosexuality and Catholicism. . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Lesson 39: Homosexuality and the Old Testament.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Lesson 40: Homosexuality and the New Testament. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Lesson 41: Pragmatic Arguments for Abortion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Lesson 42: The Humanity of the Unborn........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Lesson 43: The Personhood of the Unborn. ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Lesson 44: Bodily Autonomy Arguments for Abortion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Lesson 45: Pro-Choice Theological Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Lesson 46: Embryo Ethics.......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Lesson 47: Stem Cell Research. ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Lesson 48: Human Cloning......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Lesson 49: Licit and Illicit Fertility Treatments. ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Lesson 50: In-Vitro Fertilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Lesson 52: History of Assisted Suicide.......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Lesson 53: Answering Assisted Suicide Arguments. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Lesson 54: The Catholic Position on End-of-Life Issues...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Lesson 55: Organ Donation and Mutilation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Lesson 56: The Duty to Defend Society. ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Lesson 57: Duty to the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Lesson 58: The Right to Migrate. . ................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Lesson 59: The Right to Own Private Property. ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Lesson 60: Religious Liberty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

List of Recommended Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157