Chapter 6

Discernment: Putting Moral Knowledge

into Practice
Introduction
 Life is an invitation to work with God.
 The foundation and basic criteria of living well and attaining ultimate human meaning is “by
loving…some One, and that this requires interior freedom—freedom to choose, habitually, the
most loving thing.”
 Christian theology uses the method of discernment as a framework for helping
people sift through all the information, data, and feelings involved in choosing how to
live one’s life.

What is Discernment?
 a process of decision making
 a movement towards what is true, good, and beautiful
 a way of distinguishing of what the right thing to do is, given the circumstances

 As a process, discernment requires a sense of openness to God. It is being free to do what we

can and choosing to place that freedom in the service of God
 “Oh God, let me know myself and know you”-St. Augustine (state as an example from the
previous bullet)

 Discernment entails reflecting on certain questions such as:

o Which action or path leads me to greater authentic love and joy in God
and others?
o Which action or path helps build me and others up in God?
o What information do I need to make a good and informed choice?
o What are my feelings or inner movements telling me? Why am I being
moved towards one direction or another?
=All these questions and more are crucial to know what the best response is to one’s
discernment, and it is in answering these questions that the discerning person hopefully
gets a clearer picture as to where to go from there. (Can be included only in reporting)

A Person Based Approach

 It is important to note that discernment is a person-based approach.

 Moral deliberation and discernment is concerned with who we are and who we are becoming.
 Concerned with the human person—how he or she was becoming a better person and what
circumstances and intentions were involved.
 Concern on the person’s human dignity and respecting this, as well as how he or she can
flourish the way God intended for all creation to flourish.
  Moral theology and decision making was very much act-based prior to the Second Vatican
Council---the moral manuals prior to the twentieth century that could give the exact penance
needed for a particular action.
 The movement from an act-based approach to a person-based approach happened is a recent
development. With this shift, came a focus on the whole human person, rather than just
actions.
Ex. An Excerpt from a Moral Manual
An excerpt of the penances needed if one were guilty of gluttony and drunkenness:

He who suffers excessive distention of the stomach and the pain of satiety
[shall do penance] for one day
He who compels anyone, for the sake of good fellowship, to become drunk
shall do penance in the same manner as one who is drunk.

 The view of moral theology became more personalist and holistic, rather than physicalist and
compartmentalized.

(May or may not be included in the ppt, this is in case of questions to the bullet above)
Personalist
 acknowledges that “we cannot look
for the moral meaning of the human
person in a classicist, abstract, ,
ahistorical consideration of ‘human
nature’
 but rather we have to look at this or
that concrete human person, in his
or her matrix of relations, with his
or her talents, concrete
circumstances, personal history,
and so on
Physicalist
 looks at human nature and moral
action primarily through a lens which
portrays the moral world and human
nature as a ‘given essence’ that is
fundamentally non-changing, static,
with rather clearly drawn lines of what
constitutes right and wrong in a given
situation”

Principles that Guide Discernment

 natural law
 Magisterium guide moral decision making
 sensus fidei

While these three guide moral decision making, there are also principles that guide
discernment. These principles can be particularly useful when decision making becomes
difficult and set the stage for what Catholic moral theology considers as important criteria in
making decisions basing on the criteria of good and justice and not necessarily usefulness,
practicality, or efficiency. (Can be included only in reporting)
 1. Principle of Beneficence
 Moral decision making has always focused on bringing about the good.
 Thus, our actions ought to be directed towards benefiting and promoting the good of
creation.
 “Working towards the good means working towards the good for all, and not just the
good for the few.”
-Entails two things:
1. Sacrifice
-at times there may be a need to sacrifice, especially when goods conflict
-example: Parents at times sacrifice for their children by working abroad,
or working two jobs just to provide for their needs.
2. Knowledge of what is enough
- There is a need to be content and to be happy with what is enough.
-Example: Hoarding of resources, those who make these are working
towards their own good, but not necessarily the good of all.
- An individualistic understanding of the good is also a very limited
understanding of the good.

2. PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT

What if the person is choosing between two goods?
Moral Dilemma
 Which good do you prioritize?
 What if the decision to be made will have foreseen harmful effects on another person, animals, or
the environment?

The principle of double effect is a principle that sets out particular criteria to help people
make decision in such ethical dilemmas. The criteria are:
 The nature of the act itself is good or morally neutral;
 The decision maker does not intend the harmful effects; and
 The good effects outweigh the bad effects

Saint Thomas Aquinas

 Thomas Aquinas discusses this in the specific case of killing a man in self-defense.
 Aquinas argues that an act is not unlawful if the intention was for the good (i.e. the
intention was to save one’s life and not kill the assailant)
 And the act used only the force that was necessary to repel the assailant (i.e. the act
of self-defense was proportional to the violence).
 The bad effect should not and cannot be a means to the good, but rather only
be a side effect.

For example:
A doctor may have the case of a pregnant woman who needs to have a hysterectomy to take
out the cancerous cells in her body. However, doing this would kill the baby. In this case, the
principle of double effect would permit the hysterectomy, even though there is the foreseen
but totally unintended consequence of killing the baby. Take note also that killing the baby is
not part of the means to save the mother—it is the unfortunate side effect of the process.
NOTE:

 We cannot overly reduce this principle to the idea that we can do anything for so long
as there is a good end intended and that the harm are merely side effects.
 One still needs to ensure that the good outweighs the bad, and one should aim to
minimize the harmful effects as much as possible.
 This is difficult to measure, which is why, as mentioned earlier, a certain knowledge
of God and prudence is needed in order to make these difficult decisions well.
 Also, if harm is done to another creature, we should also consider other creatures’
well-being, which might mean sacrificing some benefits that human beings might get,
if it means that other creatures will be able to live.
 The point of this principle is to help people navigate ethical issues wherein goods are
conflicting, and it is impossible to bring about the good without causing some harm.
 This principle acknowledges that we do not live in a perfect world, and there will be
cases and situations wherein we may be forced to choose between goods, sacrificing
one over the other.
 This principle aims to help the person parse the circumstances of the situation and to
raise relevant questions in order to attain the answers needed to come to a decision.

The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

On August 6 and 9, 1945, the USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing countless
civilians but turning the tide and helping end the Second World War.

The immense destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki boggles the mind—and the heart. Time
and time again over the decades, popes and other Church leaders have decried the carnage
inflicted and the horror unleashed by the atomic bomb.
There is one thing that no pope or magisterial source has ever done;
- The Church has never declared that the decision to drop the two bombs was itself
unjust, immoral, or indefensible.

Part of the difficulty with the morality of the A-bombs is that their uniquely destructive
capacity tends to overshadow the fact that the same moral principles are brought to bear
regardless of whether it’s the A-bomb, or the conventional-weapon firebombing of Japan that
preceded Hiroshima.

- When trying to untangle the morality of a wartime decision to attack the enemy, the
principle of double effect comes into play.
- When an action being considered has both good and bad effects, it may be morally
permissible to choose the action under certain conditions. Why?

Because;

 First, it is utterly immoral to target innocent non-combatants.

 Obvious, right? Intentionally killing innocents is rightly called murder.

- Is there a legitimate wartime target that the action under consideration is

intended to neutralize? If so, there will be a “good effect” to the action.

- Now, what about any foreseen bad effects? If aerial bombing is planned on a
target, for example, what about the risk to innocent lives of those who are
civilians, non-combatants?

- We are confronted with a foreseen bad effect resulting from the choice to
bomb a legitimate wartime target. Innocent people could get killed, too. We
must make a final—and crucial—judgment. Is the good effect proportionate
to compensate for the bad effect?

Some people, such as the author of the above case study on the bombing, view this event as an
example of applying the principle of double effect; they cite see that the criteria were fulfilled
and do see it as a proportional action, as this bombing was decisive in ending the second
World War. Others, especially Catholic moral theologians, however, find this problematic, and
insist that this is not a proportional action and thus does not fulfill the criteria of the principle
of double effect.

3. PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE

 The principle of justice ensures that doing the good is not done at any cost nor
done solely for the good of one or the few or human beings only; rather, doing
the good is governed by the principle of justice.
 Justice is not neutral.
 This principle emphasizes that there is a need to care for those who may be
wronged or who are vulnerable. While forgiveness and mercy are important, justice
also ensures that this mercy is not abused.

Justice

 Deals with what is due to each individual or collectively to a group.

 A claim to a humane life, with access to basic necessities as well as all that is
needed to live comfortably.
 Anything beyond this is not a right, but rather a privilege that is not guaranteed.

Related to the principle of justice are other principles such as solidarity, subsidiarity, and the
common good. A cardinal virtue that we need to cultivate in ourselves in order to help us be
more consistently ethical.
 4. Principle of Autonomy and Responsibility

 Catholic moral theology’s emphasis on freedom and the primacy of conscience link
with an emphasis on the responsibility and relative autonomy of the human person.
 Catholic moral theology takes seriously that it is in the conscience that God meets
each individual person and that God also speaks to each person.

This also emphasizes that each person is ultimately responsible. He or she has ownership
and some stake over his or her decisions, and his or her is response-able or can respond to
the situation, even if the person is affected by and molded by certain situations and
circumstances beyond his or her control.

Ignorance should not be used as a convenient excuse.

5. A Consistent Ethic of Life

 The last principle is that of maintaining a consistent ethic of life.
 The theme and ethic of a consistent ethic of life was popularized by Cardinal
Joseph Bernardin, using the metaphor of the “seamless garment” to discuss how
interconnected life and health related issues are.
 An attitude that respects life should be upheld across seemingly disparate issues
such as abortion and war.

Cardinal Bernardin argues that such an attitude cannot be upheld in one issue yet disregarded in
another, and notes that:
“The issue of consistency is tested in a different way when we examine the relationship
between the “right to life” and “quality of life” issues. I must confess that I think the
relationship of these categories is inadequately understood in the Catholic community
itself. My point is that the Catholic position on abortion demands of us and of society that
we seek to influence an heroic social ethic.”

This ethic emphasizes two things:

- First, that these people still have value, and that it is often these people who are the
most vulnerable,
- And that the measure of any society is how it treats the most vulnerable of its
population.

The consistent ethic does not equate issues nor conflate them, understanding that each issue
and each case has its own set of circumstances and contexts behind the debates and
discussions. Rather, it understands their interrelatedness and that systems and structures that
affect the issues of right to life.

 A consistent ethic of life, then, would be equally vocal on protecting the unborn child, as
well as the child living in poverty.
 Right to life and quality to life thus go hand in hand in respecting life, and this translates
into particular stances on moral actions as well as into particular policies.
CONCLUSION
Discernment is not an easy task. This is why throughout the Church’s history, it has
sought to articulate ways to help people navigate complex ethical dilemmas. Even today,
theologians and the magisterium continue to reflect on helpful ways to respond to the
challenges of the daily life, especially when technology and environmental changes shift the
landscape and assumptions which people use to make decisions.

Though it is not easy, discernment is still crucial. Simply saying “whatever,”

throwing our hands up in defeat, and going with the flow or resorting to simply being
selfish, cynical, or uncaring will not do. It will only make things worse! Thus, for the
Christian, despair and cynicism are not an option.

Every day, we are called to make countless decisions. Some of them are easy, others
not so much. Some may seem trivial, while many others will have huge consequences on our
lives and others in the future. Even with the many constraints and complexities that decision
making often entails, we are called to make the most loving and merciful option.