UNIT IV

What are My Guideposts to Know Where

I am Going?

INTRODUCTION

To attain fullness in our moral life, moral law as the objective norm of morality should not be
considered as a threat or obstacle to freedom but as a guidepost directing and leading us go
where we are going. Moral maxims and the idea of conscience as the subjective norm of morality
are analyzed in this hopefully to shed light on how we can properly judge our acts as good or bad
vis-a-vis the objective norm of morality.

THE NOTION OF LAW

A person given a purpose by the Creator is obliged to make this purpose his/her subjective end.
In other word, he/she is obliged to strive hard to accomplish that end. And when the individual
looks towards that goal, the order he/she has to follow soon becomes visible. This order is known
as the moral order, which comes to us through the moral law.
When God chose the Israelites as His people, He gave them laws they should follow. When the
Israelites obeyed the laws of God which He gave through His servant Moses, they lived
abundantly and happily; but whenever they steered away from His percepts, their lives became
miserable. In the books of Exodus and Leviticus, we find many passages that speak of God's
laws such as those concerning society (Ex. 22:15-30) and religion(Ex. 23). Also in Exodus, we
find the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20).
But before discussing the concept of moral law, let us first scrutinize the essence and nature of
law in general.
 Law, as defined bt St. Thomas Aquinas, is an ordinance of reason for the common good
promulgated by the person who takes charge of the community. Ordinance of reason suggests
that the means of the law must be based on the insight of reason into value. A law must be
reasonable because it serves as a guide to promote what is right. Each law has a purpose; it is not
a caprice or a whim. The common good implies that the goal of the law must be for the good of
the community on which it is imposed. A law helps not only in improving the society but also in
assuring the betterment if individuals within the society. The phrase by the person who takes
charge of the community underscores the fact that ordinance carry the force of law only if they
are imposed by competent or legitimate authority. Lastly, a law must be promulgated or made
known to all through an official publication.

KINDS OF LAWS

Law as the objective norm of morality is categorized into 1) natural law; 2) divine law or eternal
law; 3) moral law as revealed law (comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or the law of the
Gospel); and 4) human law, under which civil law and church or ecclesiastical law fall.

Natural Law

The term "natural law" refers to moral insights people are capable of knowing by means of their
reason, and independently of the verbal revelation of God. The word "natural" here means1) not
supernatural, not communicated in a supernatural way, 2) not positive, not emanating from the
command of a legislative authority, as in positive human and divine law, and 3) found in and
derived from the nature of a person. These explanations show that the doctrine of natural law
deals with the questions of natural ethics as a while. Natural law, moral law of nature, natural
moral law, natural ethics, and natural morality are synonymous.

Concept of Natural Law

Natural moral law is the law of human conduct which arises from human nature as ordered to its
ultimate end, and which is recognized by the natural light of reason. Hence, the subjective
medium of cognition is reason alone. The objective ground in which the moral law is recognized
and from which it is derived is, on the one hand, mans natural (not supernatural) ultimate end.
On the other hand, it is human nature not elevated by grace. To distinguish from this, the
Christian moral law (the "law of Christ"), which has for its medium of cognition, reason aided
and supplemented by faith, is ordered to the supernatural ultimate end, and is based on human
nature as elevated by grace. It must, however, be noted that three is no contradiction between
nature and grace, or between the natural ultimate end and supernatural ultimate end. The
supernatural end lies in the direction as the natural, although it must necessarily lead beyond it.
Natural law is that law of human conduct which arises from the full reality of human nature as
ordered to its ultimate end, and which is recognized by means of reason independent of positive
Christian revelation. Natural law has three essential characteristics:

1. Natural law is universal (Universality). Its primary principles are self-evident such that it is for
all individuals with fully developed reason to have an invincible ignorance of them
2. Natural law is one and the same for all (Unity and Invariability). All classes of people posses
equal moral dignity as persons; hence, they posses equal basic rights.
3. Natural law is immutable (Immutability). This means that there cannot be any change in
whatever is fundamentally good or evil.

The concept of human nature refers to the full reality of ones being with all its generic and
individual traits, as well as to the nature af all those beings to which his/her activity is related. It
likewise comprises those modifications of nature which are affected by Christ's redemptive
work, not only in the baptized persons but also in all humanity including that share in grace
which all individuals possess.
The ultimate end is not merely the natural one. It is the concrete, final destiny of a person,
which is divine, and is one and the same for all individuals.
The subjective medium of cognition is reason unaided by positive Christian revelation.
However, this must not lead to the false conclusion that reason by this definition is completely
withdrawn from the influence of grace. All cognition of reason in concrete sense is everywhere,
influenced and guided by grace and the Holy Spirit, although in the case of non-Christians, in a
completely hidden way.
Divine Law or Eternal Law

God is the author of the laws governing the universe. He designed all the laws of the universe in
His own infinite mind.
The divine law which is eternal is deduced from the fact that the world is ruled by Divine
Providence. And the plan of Providence rests upon universal principles existing eternally in God
to direct all actions and movements to their proper end. This comprises the eternal law, so called
because it exists in the mind of God. This plan, therefore, is truly a law.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, eternal law is the plan flowing from God's wisdom which
directs all actions and movement. For St. Augustine, eternal law is the divine reason and /or the
will of God Himself commanding the preservation of the natural law and forbidding its
disturbance.
Each being tends towards a particular end that reveals the will of God which contains the divine
blueprints that bring order into the universe by directing all of creation, living or non-living, to
their respective end-goals.
All laws that govern the universe are independent of humanity.
They are unaffected by human thoughts for they are true, even if people do not study them, or
agree with them. They are not debatable issues. They are laws based on or learned from the state
of things in nature as well as in human nature. People discover the divine law in:

1. physically laws, which rule both non-rational and rational creatures, the law of gravity, the law
of relativity, and the law of aging;

2. biological laws, which govern the development of living things, the digestive system, and
predictable patterns of growth;

3. mathematical laws, which govern abstract quantity; and

4. natural law, which is the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature.

By learning these laws and following them, we gain freedom. But freedom is always tied up
with obedience to the law of God, and there is no such thing as "freedom from these laws."
Instead, there is only "freedom within these laws." Each new law learned increases our freedom.
We learned the laws of gravity, of air currents, and of the movement of bodies; hence, we were
able to fly in the sky by inventing the airplane. We learned what elements are necessary in our
diet; hence, we were able to conquer diseases when we discovered fhe laws of dietetics. There
are laws applying go a person's soul. Moral law us just as true. The same God who made the
laws of gravity made the law of justice and purity. Physical laws do not affect only those accept
them a newborn baby can die from lack of vitamins or from falling from a considerable height. It
is the same with the laws of morality. Because both are laws, we cannot break them. How can we
break the law of gravity? We can jump off a cliff; but by doing so, we do not break the law of
gravity. Instead, we illustrate it.
We cannot break the laws, but of we ignore them, they can break us. If we disobey the laws,
even in ignorance, our nature is damaged for they are the laws of reality.

Moral Law

Moral law governs man's/woman's behavior. It contains truths and ethical principles which guide
peoples conduct on matters of right and wrong. It tells one how to act in relation to God and
other individuals. It prescribes norms of conduct for one's good and happiness, and specifies
what a person ought ought not to do in order to lead one to the highest good and absolute end-
God.
All civil laws which are in accord with the natural moral law must be obeyed to ensure order
and justice in society. If a civil law violates a moral law (compulsory abortion), this civil law is
not morally binding. The citizens may disobey this civil law and, in fact, are even obliged by the
moral law to disobey it.
Karl Peschke defines moral law in its most universal meaning as a directive ordering a person's
activity toward the ultimate end. This definition includes obligatory demands as well as counsels,
recommendations, and permissions. It comprises common laws concerning all individuals or
groups of individuals, and personal commands addressed to an appointed person. It includes
permanent rulings ( the duty to honor contracts ) and temporary, singular orders, ( a prohibition
on public gatherings during an epidemic ).
Every genuine moral law must be good and holy. In this sense, it must guide human activity to
contribute to the realization of the final goal of human history and of creation, and to prevent it
from obstructing the attainment of this end. Although at first it might seem an exaggeration that
every moral directive must be a guideline towards the ultimate end, one must keep in mind that
even "the most ordinary everyday activities" are expected to contribute to "the realization in
history of the divine plan" (GS, 34). Therefore, the moral directives must be formulated in such a
way that even these ordinary activities fulfill the task of contributing to the realization of the
final goal.
Man's/Woman's Natural Inclination to Goodness

But what if man/woman is ignorant of these moral laws? Total ignorance is not possible, in God,
in creating human, built the laws of their being into them. The laws are to be found in the heart
of the human person through the natural light of reason which shows the individual the
difference between good and evil. Formal schooling in the moral law is not necessary. Every
human being is born with a natural inclination to do good and avoid evil, and with a capacity to
distinguish between right and wrong.
The inclination towards good and the capacity to know the truth should be developed and
reinforced according to each individual's potentials, talents, and circumtances. There is a need to
1) develop and enlighten the intellect (the capacity) to know universal truths; and 2) cultivate and
motivate the will (the inclination) to aim always for the highest good which is God.

Moral Law as Revealed Law

According to the Old Law, God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose the Israelites to be His people
and revealed His law to them in preparation for the coming of Christ. The law of Moses
expresses many truths that are naturally accessible to reason, and are stated and authenticated
within the covenant of salvation (CCC # 1961).
The Old law is the first stage of the revealed law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the
Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay down the foundations for the vocation
of one fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and
neighbor, and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience
to make God's call and ways known to all, and to protect them against evil: "God wrote on the
tablets the Law men did not read in their hearts" (CCC # 1962).
The New Law or the law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law natural
and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It
is also the work of the Holy Spirit through whom it becomes the interior law of charity: "I sill
establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. I wil put my laws into their minds, and I will
write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (CCC # 1965).
The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It
works through charity, uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done, and utilizes
the sacraments to give us the grace to do it (CCC # 1966).
 The law of the Gospel fulfills, refines, and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection. It
fulfills the promises of the Old Law through the beatitudes of the kingdom of heaven. It
reinforces the commandments of the Old Law by reforming the heart, which is the root of human
acts (CCC # 1984).

Law in Sacred Scriptures

. Law in the Old Testament

When the Old Testament speaks of the laws, precepts, and commandments of the Lord or when
the New Testament refers to the laws of the old covenant, what comes to mind is a collection of
laws called the Torah. It is contained in the Pentateuch, the first five books of tge Old Testament.
According to the Talmud, the Torah contains 613 precepts and prohibitions which are religious,
social, and moral in nature. Besides the norms of natural law, they also comprise the numerous
cultic prescriptions and regulations of civil law and have the character of positive laws.
Israel's law stands out with its rejection of any class distinction in the administration of justice:
everybody, whether king or subordinate, is subject to the same moral and legal order. Likewise,
its law is marked by a high regard for human life and the absence of gross brutality in
punishments. This is so because Israel's entire moral and legal order has its foundation in
Yahweh's will. God Himself is considered the author of Israel's law. He Himself has given it to
His people.
Franz Bockle (1980) argues that the original ethos of Israel is rooted in the tribe, the clan, and
the family. The ethical formulations legitimizing arrangement are instituted by Yahweh.
Nevertheless, it is a completely valid insight to say that human laws, like moral precepts, are also
willed by God and sanctioned by His authority. As long as these laws are authentic and just,
obedience to them is obedience to God.
The Torah is not merely a collection of legal statements but is complemented by moral
principles which educate in the spirit of justice and responsibility before God. Behind this
arrangements lies the awareness that legal norms alone can never sufficiently do justice to all the
needs of the community and much less to God's total claim upon humanity. Thus, the book of
Deuteronomy declares that the primary commandment is that of love for God this alone can lead
the way to a just observance of God's ordinances (Dt. 6:5). When the book of Leviticus lays
down the fundamental social law of the Yahwistic religion, it includes the all-embracing
commandment of fraternal love: "You shall love your neighbor, as yourself" (18).
. Law in the New Testament

Jesus was not preoccupied with legalistic pedantries concerning rituals, religious laws, and
traditions of the elders. His concern was a most radical obedience to God's unconditional claim
upon one's life and a total availability to the innermost stirrings of the Spirit. Jesus' instructions
and parables bring this message home in new forms and ways.
The New Law is primarily an internal law. The main stress is on one's internal responsibility
before God and the law of the Spirit. St. Paul finds a particularly striking difference and even a
contradiction between the Old Law and the New Law in that the Old Law is an external, written
code while the law of Christ is a law of the Spirit: "For the written code skills, but the Spirit
gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6). Therefore, Christians are to "serve not under the old written code but in
the new life of the Spirit" (Rom. 7:6). The New Testament is a covenant in the Holy Spirit who
has been poured forth into the hearts of men (Rom. 5:5), and who leads and teaches them from
within (Rom. 8:14). Therefore, it says in the Scriptures: "I will put my laws into their minds"
(Heb. 8:10):. From the living communion with Christ flows the "law of Christ" as an inward law.
It is through "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:2) that Christians not only
know but also fulfill "the just requirement of the law" (Rom. 8:4).
The New Testament repeatedly and most earnestly warns Christians to flee from sin and "the
works of the flesh" but instead "walk by the Spirit" and bear the fruits of virtue, goodness, and
holiness (Rom. 6:12-18; 8:12f; Gal. 5:16-25; Eph. 4:22-24; 1 Pt. 2:11f).

The Teachings of Christ

Christ Himself, in setting forth His teachings, appeals to the established order of creation as a
pointer to the law of God. One remarkable instance is His legislation on divorce. The law of
Moses, Christ says, permitted divorce. However, it was only "for your hardness of heart He
wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and
female.. and the two shall become one. What, therefore, God has joined together, let no man
asunder" (Mk. 10:5-9). This means that the very nature of the person, as created by God, points,
if properly understood; to ghe law of permanent monogamy. Although Moses found it necessary
to permit divorce because of the shortcomings of people, it is not in full accord with the mind of
God when He made them. Now that the kingdom of God has come, the original form of the
natural law must be restored.
Likewise, the commandment to love one's enemies is supported by an argument taken from the
order of crearion. People must love their enemies because the heavenly Father "makes His sun
rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Mt. 5:45).
 On several occasions, Christ presupposes the knowledge of good and evil as self-evident, like
when He says during the dispute on the clean and the unclean: "What comes out of a man is what
defiles a man"; and He then lists the evil deeds considered sinful by His listeners, independent of
His teachings (Mk. 7:20-23). Christ's sermon on the last judgment equally presupposes a
knowledge of good and evil in all human beings, by which they will be judged (Mt. 25:31-46; cf.
Lk. 12:57; Jn. 5:29). As a general measure for the morally good, Jesus points out the "golden
rule," which is a norm naturally known: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to
them" (Mt. 7:12).
The whole of the New Testament law is summarized in Mt. 22:34-40, wherein Jesus said:

"You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all
your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is similar to it. You shall
love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole law is based, and the
prophets as well".

The Beatitudes

The Beatitudes (or blessings) promised by the Lord to His faithful disciples in the Sermon on the
Mount are rooted in the new commandment that Jesus gave to humanity to love as He Loves.
According to Matthew's account of the Sermon on the Mount, the following are the Beatitudes
(Mt. 5:3-10):

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;
2. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted;
3. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth;
4. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied;
5. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;
6. Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God;
7. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God; and
8. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.
 Reflection on the Beatitudes helps us understand that they propose norms of Christian life
without are more specific than the commandment "to love as Jesus does" (the first principles of
Christian morality). Yet, thay are not so specific as definite norms of Christian life, norms
identifying the precise human choices and acts that one is called upon to do here and now in
carrying out his/her unique personal vocafion. They are rather modes of Christians response
internal Christian disposition or virtues linked traditionally (as in the thoughts of St. Augustine
and St. Thomas Aquinas) to the "gifts" of the Holy Spirit as enumerated in Is. 11:1: "And the
Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of
counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord." The Christian tradition, relying
on the Vulgate translation of Isaiah, added the "spirit of piety" as one of the "gifts" of the Holy
Spirit.
When the Beatitudes are considered within this framework, Germain Grisez (1983) believes
that the modes of Christian response can be expressed as follows:

1. To expect and accept all good, including the good fruits of one's work, as God's gift for the
"poor in spirit" understand that their achievements are only a share, given freely and generously
by God, in His fullness. The virtuous disposition us humality; the Christian vice is pride. The
corresponding gift of the Spirit is fear of the Lord.
2. To accept one's limited role in the Body of Christ and fulfill it for the "meek" understand that
submissiveness to God's will involves no loss or delay to their personal fulfillment. The virtuous
diposition is "Christian dedication," while lukewarmness and minimalism are opposed to it. The
corresponding gift of the Spirit is piety or godliness, an attitude of filial reverence and
dutifulness towards God.
3. To put aside or avoid everything which is not necessary or useful in the fulfillment of one's
personal vocation for those who "mourn" (not only contrite sinners but all those who turn from
transient goods to fulfillment in Jesus) understand that to be disposed to goodness itself frees one
from the pursuit of particular, finite goods for their own sake. The virtuous disposition is
detachment; worldlines and anxiety are opposed dispositions. The corresponding gift of the
Spirit is knowledge, by which one discerns what belongs to faith and judges everything by its
light.
4. To endure fearlessly whatever is necessary or useful for the fulfillment of one's personal
vocation for those who "hunger and thirst for righteousness" understand that they have nothing
whatsoever to fear. The virtuous disposition is the faithfulness and heroism characteristics of the
martyr, required of all Christians, while weakness of faith and faintheartedness in the face of
non-Christian standards are among the Christian vices. The corresponding gift of the Spirit is
fortitude.
5. To be merciful according to the universal and perfect measure of mercy which are to be
disinterested and selfless as God is. The virtuous disposition is mercy, compassion, and service
to others on the model of Jesus, while the opposed vice is a legalistic attitude towards others. The
gift of the Spirit is counsel.
6. To strive to conform one's whole self to living faith, and purge anything which does not meet
this standard for the "pure of heart" understand that in this life, charity requires continuous
coversion. The virtuous disposition is single-minded devotion to God, including a sense of sin
and continuing conversion, while the Christian vice is reflected in mediocrity and insincerity.
The corresponding gift of the Spirit is understanding.
7. To respond to evil with good, not with resistance, much less with destructive action- for
"peacemakers" understand that the effort to live according to divine love must be universally
conciliatory. The vituous disposition is the conciliatoriness which seeks the redemption of
enemies; one opposed disposition is the tendency to shun evil instead of carrying on a
redemptive ministry to those enslaved by it. The corresponding gift of Spirit is wisdom, the
power of putting things in order as peacemakers do.
8. To do no evil that good might come of it, but suffer evil together which Jesus in cooperation
with God's redemptive love for "those persecuted for righteousness sake" understand that one
must undergo evil in order to keep the evildor in touch with perfect goodness. The virtuous
disposition is self-oblation, while the Christian vice is the fragile rectitude of the person who
does not wish to sin but seeks fulfillment in this world. Since there are only seven gifts, St.
Augustine assigns none here; however, one might say there is still a corresponding gift, unique to
each Christian, which disposes a person to offer God the unique gift of one's self.

Human Law

The treatise of human law deals with the juridical order of society, be it of the state or of the
Church (or similar religious bodies), insofar as this order is determined by laws enacted for the
common good. It is not necessary that this law be a written code. It may consists of unwritten,
legal traditions and customs, especially in primitive societies. Nevertheless, the laws of
practically all civil communities today are written codes, as with the law of the Church.
Human law is a directive of obligatory, general, and stable character for the common good
promulgated by one who is in charge of a sovereign society. Precepts, statutes, and orders differ
from human laws insofar as the former are limited to smaller groups, often to individuals only, or
if imposed upon a public community, are merely temporary injunctions. Furthermore, private
authorities (parents. religious, superiors,) can also enjoin the people to obey these laws. Under
the moral aspect, however, there is hardly any difference between this group of ordinances and
human laws.
The characteristics or features which serve to further clarify the concept of human law are the
following:
1. Human law is enforceable. The reason is that coercion is necessary to compel lawless
members of society to obedience. Without the coercive power, law-abiding subjects would be
placed at a serious disadvantage, exposed to exploitation by the lawless, and ultimately impelled
to abandon the law themselves. For the sake of equitable administration of justice, the exercise of
coercive power is not a matter for the individual, but for the public authority alone, exceptions
apart.
2. Human law is concerned with external conduct only. Social order, which is the law's purpose,
is guaranteed when the external conduct is consideration for others, or fear of punishment. The
common good is certainly more perfectly realized when society is ruled more by love of justice
than by fear of the police. Since human authorities cannot judge the internal dispositions of the
subjects, external compliance with the law suffices to secure the social order and the common
good.
3. Human law is limited to particular groups of people. in contradistinction to natural law, which
is universal. Human laws oblige only those who are members of the community for which the
laws are enacted. They are binding only upon the subjects of a particular state or religious body
like the Church.
4. Human law is historically conditioned, much more so than natural law. As societies and their
civilizations change, human laws inevitably change with them. In most cases the positive law
enacted after the period of customary law was effected by politically dominant groups to a
greater or lesser extent in their own interest. The actual legal order is seldom, if ever, the
outcome of purely legal reasoning. It is likewise the expression of class relationships and
compromises between contrary interests. Therefore, it never embodies perfect justice.
Nevertheless, it has binding force for the sake of the common good, as long as it realizes a
minimum of justice and order. However, those in charge of the community have the obligation to
adapt the law anew more perfectly to the needs of the changing conditions and the demands of
greater justice.
5. Human law has presumptive obligatory force, but is open to exceptions and dispensations, in
contradistinction to natural law. For those security and realization of the common good, subjects
have no right to disobey the law even if they have doubts about its utility or justice. Presumption
favors the duty to obey the law. If a law is recognized as certainly unjust or detrimental, it does
not oblige, at least as a rule. Authorities are entitled to grant exceptions or dispensations from the
laws, by pardoning a delinquent. And if epikeia (an interpretation of the human law not
according to its letter but according to its spirit) is the right of individuals in cases of imperfect
formulations of natural law, it is such a right even more so for human laws.
Civil Law

Civil law is the particular application of natural law in given societies. The Christian response to
civil law is that we are bound by conscience to obey all valid civil laws. We see this in Jesus
command "to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." The moral obligation to obey civil
authority is in direct proportion to the seriousness of the law in terms of its effect on our well-
being as well as of others. For example, a law requiring all bicycles to have license plates has
little moral significance compared to a law prohibiting drug companies from selling dangerous
drugs, or a law banning the firing of guns in city streets.

Church Law

Church law is the particular application of divine law to the Christian community. For example,
the divine law to keep holy the Lord's Day is made specific in the Church law that we must
attend Sunday Mass. Nevertheless, Church laws can change as the Church faces new
circumstances to which Christians have to adapt. The moral obligation to observe Church laws
relative to the seriousness of the law insofar as it affects our relationship with God and others. As
with civil laws, Church laws throw light on the social dimension of our moral life as well as on
our need to respond to God and others in the concrete details of daily life.

Necessity of Human Law (According to the Church)

Although there is a natural moral law and a revealed divine law, human law is still necessary for
several reasons:

1. Revealed law does not provide exact rules for every moral problem;
2. Frequently, natural moral law is not so evident in its particular requirements;
3. Often, there are several possible ways to comply with an obligation, but for the sake of public
order, one must impose as binding for all, for example, traffic rules and the rules on public
worship; and
4. Human law with its penal regulation is an indispensable means of education for people,
particularly in times of frailty, and as a shield against human malice.
CONSCIENCE:SUBJECTIVE NORM OF MORALITY

We are always told to follow our conscience. But most of us do not really understand what
conscience is; hence, we get more confused with the decisions we make. Are those decisions
dictated by our conscience or simply by our instincts? How do we react to this advice? "Follow
your conscience or else you sin".
What really is conscience? Conscience is sometimes called the "subjective norm of morality."
This means that conscience has the final say in making moral decisions. A person's conscience
considers all available data when confronted with a decision. It helps a person make the final
judgment on how to act in a given situation. Along with law, which is the objective norm of
morality, conscience helps a person determine whether one is doing the right or the wrong thing.

The Concept of Conscience

Knowing what conscience is will make us respond better to others and to God. Conscience is
often described as an "inner voice" which tells us what is right and wrong.
Vatican II, in its "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" (#16), depicts
conscience as the principle or sense that summons us to love good and avoid evil. It is the most
secret core and sanctuary of an individual where we can be alone with God whose voice becomes
the master of our acts. Conscience reveals the law which is fulfilled by our love of God and our
neighbor.
Richard McBrien defines conscience not only as feeling or judgment but also as the radical
experience of ourselves as moral agents that Christian conscience is the representation of
ourselves as new creatures in Christ enlivened by the Holy Spirit. Because we lack complete
knowledge about ourselves, the decisions of conscience are necessarily incomplete and partial.
Likewise, these decisions are also fallible and subject to correction and change since people are
historically situated.
 Conscience must be properly formed because it is the final, subjective norm of moral action by
which individuals are guided to come up with decisions. It does not guarantee correctness of the
decisions or judgment; it only allows us to be true to ourselves. Furthermore, we have to
remember that God judges each of us based on what is in our hearts on the very motivation in
doing a certain act.

The Moral Conscience

Moral law as the objective norm of morality cannot achieve its purpose and guide human
activity toward God's plan unless the law is known by people and recognized in its obligatory
character. Conscience is the faculty which manifests this moral obligation in a concrete situation.
Vatican II declares that in the depths of our conscience, we detect a law which we do not impose
upon ourselves, but which holds us to obedience.
Always summoning is to love good and avoid evil, the voice of the conscience, when necessary,
speaks to our hearts more specifically: "Do this, shun that ." In our hearts, we detect a law
written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man/woman. We will be judged according to
how we have followed our conscience. Conscience is where we are alone with God whose voice
echoes in its depths(GS, 16).

Categories of Conscience

There are four categories of conscience:

1.True conscience - when it deduces correctly from the principle that the act is lawful, or it
conforms to what is objectively right.
2.False or erroneous conscience - when it decides from false principles considered as true that
something is inlawful. The conscience errs because of false principles or incorrect reasoning.
Erroneous conscience can be further classified as:
a. Scrupulous conscience - one that for little or no reason judges an act to be morally evil when
it is not, or exaggerates the gravity of sin, or sees sin where it does not exist.
b. Perplexed conscience - judges wrongly that sin is committed both in the performance or
omission of an act. One fears that sin is committed whether it was actually done or not.
 c. Lax conscience - judges on insufficient ground that there is no sin in the fact, or that the sin is
not as grave as it is in fact, or it is insensitive to a moral obligation in a particular area.
d. Pharisaical conscience - minimizes grave sins but maximizes small ones.
3.Certain conscience - when without any prudent fear or error, it decides that the act is either
lawful or unlawful; or if the person has no doubt about the correctness of his/her judgment. A
conscience can be certain but at the same time erroneous. A certain conscience is not necessarily
right; it excludes all fears of error about acting rightly.
4. Doubtful conscience - when it fails to pass a moral judgment in the character of the act due to
a fear or error; or if the person is unsure about the correctness of his/her judgment.

Conscience as Self-consciousness

Conscience can be seen as a self-consciousness in the fullest sense of the term. Through the
conscience, persons become aware of themselves as subjects relating to other subjects. They
praise God through commitment to achieving Gospel values, and respect the development and
needs of themselves and others. As one Christian said: "All must be present to me through a full
self-consciousness. When I am conscious of myself as involved in those personal relationships, it
becomes clearer to me what I am invited into and am obliged to do."
A person is given life by the Creator as a gift or talent to be developed. The individual is called
into a dialogue with a personal God who is the Father. Through faith, a person knows Jesus
Christ who invites him/her to be truly human as He was. Thus, there are many factors involved
in the "innermost center" of an individual called the self, where he/she senses good and evil.

Conscience and the Power of the Holy Spirit

It is when we consider the role of the Holy Spirit in conscience that we need no longer postulate
the "little voice theory." We have the God-given abilities to become informed, to reason, to love,
to decide, and to commit ourselves to creating goodness. The spirit respects these gifts too much
to render their exercise unnecessarily by planting commands in our minds as through we are
robots. Conscience is not merely there to force us to obey laws or apply them. It is basically an
aid in achieving the proper realization of ourselves in concrete situations. The Holy Spirit frees
us so that we can be interiorly present to ourselves. The Spirit works to release us from bondage.
Then, in freedom, we will know what to do "here and now" because we will know who we really
are and what we want to be. We will encounter the indwelling presence of God. There, we will
discover who we really are and who must we become. Inevitably, this will lead us to what we
must do.
We Christians receive the call of Christ. We know what this call is in the most concrete
situations. We are aware that we must follow a certain path in order to incarnate out faith, hope,
and love the ultimate moment of this conscience. We from and follow our conscience in an
autonomous manner and always with the help of grace and under the light of the Gospel.
Conscience is formed by us individuals; it does not fall from heaven.

Binding Force of Conscience

We fulfill ourselves by following our personal conscience. Without any doubt, the free
formation and following of our conscience constitute fundamental human rights. To harm these
rights injures us gravely, for it attacks the deepest level of the self. This has been affirmed in
Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom. The right to follow one's conscience can be
impeded through control, brainwashing, and the like, which constitute violation of what is in the
mind of the Church regarding human values and Christian morality: follow your conscience,
even if that conscience is invincibly erroneous. The ultimate basis for these rights is the dignity
of the human person. The Christian person, who in his/her "heart" is directly before God in
Christ, is accepted and considered responsible.
A true and certain conscience is the most binding kid of conscience. We have to follow this
kind of conscience. A doubtful, erroneous conscience should not be followed; we are bound to
clear any doubts in our conscience. If we act out of an erroneous conscience (scrupulous, lax,
perplexed, or pharisaical) and are still convinced that our action is right despite all the arguments
presented, that conscience is binding and we are obliged to follow it. However, we will still be
responsible for the consequences of our actions, whether they be for us to suffer or enjoy.
But do we have the unlimited right to follow our personal conscience in the performance of our
external acfions? For instance, can a person who professes to act in good faith of from religious
motives murder, steal, take his/her own life, or harm others? As Thomas Garret, S.J. points out in
his chapter "Ethics, Intellect, and Freedom of Conscience" in the book Problems and Perspective
in Ethics, the rights of an individual are generally not absolute. These rights only make up part of
the whole among so many rights in society. An appropriate example of this is the question posed
by the religious denomination called the Jehovah's Witnesses: "Can parents be obliged to allow
blood transfusion for their children even though this is contrary to our religious beliefs?"
American legal codes do not permit the following of this kind of personal conscience because it
violates the established rights of other people or causes grave social harm. Christian moral
principles also arrive at a similar conclusion. These principles include the following.

1. A person who follows an erroneous conscience without causing injury to others should not be
prevented from acting, unless the person objects unreasonably against his/her own welfare, like
in the prevention of suicide or of an injury to one's health. For example, should parents and
society not prevent children and adolescents from taking prohibited drugs? Based on Christian
standards, genuine human self-fulfillment never involves mutilation or suicide. The prevention
of these acts allows the person to gain an opportunity to grasp more accurately the direction of
his/her self-fulfillment.
2. An individual who follows his/her erroneous conscience and injures others should be
prevented from performing his/her external deeds. A person in error has no right to injure other
people. It is not a matter of one right of all persons to their own welfare, founded on one virtue
justice. Practically, there are some consequences here. The individual with an erroneous
conscience does not have the unlimited right to sell pornographic material, to steal for a
supposed worthy cause, or to perjure oneself in court. These actions have social ramifications
which civil authorities may lawfully impede to depend the common welfare of the citizenry.
3. A person may not morally coerce or persuade another to act against his/her conscience. If an
individual remains convinced of a certain course of action despite all arguments to the contrary,
he/she should follow his/her conviction and not be impeded. To induce a person to do otherwise,
especially by force, would be leading him/her to sin. Thus, the entire problem of conscientious
objection would enter into this particular realm.

Formation and Development of Conscience

There are certain principles that form or govern conscience:

1. A person is obliged to form a right with an unerring conscience.

2. Everyone is obliged to follow his/her conscience.
3. An individual is not permitted to follow erroneous conscience. Thus, the error must be
corrected before he/she acts upon it.
4. If a person with a perplexed conscience finds it impossible to ask an advice, he/she should
choose what seems to be the lesser evil. He/she should follow the reflex principles. Reflex
principles are rules of prudence which do not solve doubts concerning the existence of a law,
moral principle, or fact by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence. Instead, they only indicate where, in
cases of unreasonable doubts, the greater right is usually to be found and the lesser evil is to be
feared, and which side, therefore, is to be favored as long as the doubt persists.

The following are the reflex principles:

a. In doubts, the condition of the possessor is the better.
b. In doubts, favor the accused; or (which comes to the same): crime is not to be presumed, but
to be proved.
c. In doubt, presumption stands on the side of the superior.
d. In doubt, stand for the validity of the act e.g., the validity of the matrimonial bond [cf. CCC,
#1060] or the validity of an examination or an appointment fo an office; however, doubtful
contracts are usually not upheld by civil law).
e. In doubt, amplify the favorable and restrict the unfavorable.
f. In doubt, presumption stands for the usual and the ordinary (or follow the daily and ordinary
experience).
g. In doubt, favor the customary and hitherto approved.
h. A doubtful law does bot oblige (i.e., presumption stands for liberty).

5. Only the certain conscience is a correct guide to moral behavior.

The difference lies in the manner by which our conscience has been formed by our family, our
experiences, and, most importantly, by ourselves.
The "adult" form of conscience "interiorizes" the external voice of the objective norms directing
or constraining an individual. This "interiorization" arises from the conviction of the inner value
of the moral obligation which enables the human person to answer God's call and invitation
personally and with the dignity of a free being.
Everyone is obliged to use serious diligence in order to have a true conscience on every
occasion. Lack of the necessary knowledge from those who can, and neglect to have it without
due reason does not excuse a person in any way.
The proper cultivation of the integrity of conscience includes 1) the awareness of the spidit; 2) a
careful knowledge of the norms; and 3) removal of obstacles or sin. Vatican II's Dignitatis
Humance (#14) states: " In the formation of conscience, the faithful ought to attend carefully to
the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. The Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of
truth... it is her duty to give utterance to and to teach the truth which is God Himself.. [and] to
teach and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order..."
Finely and Pennock (1976) explain two main principles of conscience formation:

. Principle 1

Conscience is supreme. In moral decisions, we must follow our conscience, even if it is wrong.
Two points should be emphasized here:
1. Because a person is ultimately responsible for his/her actions, nobody else can be blamed for
them.
2. Saying that conscience is supreme does not mean that an individual is superior to God, the
Church, or other people. True, a person is responsible for one's actions, but these are not done in
isolation from others. For example, an individual has the duty to examine always the
consequences of his/her actions to see their effects on others, on the environment, and in the final
analysis, on his/her relationship go God. Being "responsible" simply means being able to
respond in an authentic way to God who calls us to Him through our everyday life. We can either
answer His call as His children, ignore His call, or answer "irresponsibly."

. Principle 2

Though a person mist always follow his/her conscience, he/she has the duty to develop
continuously an informed conscience. Fr. Gerard Sloyan, in his classic How Do I Know I am
Doing Right?, lists several checkpoints to help a person arrive at an informed conscience that
enables one to act correctly and morally.
Think of one important decision you have made recently, and see which of these you have
followed:

1. Have a pure intention. Sincerity is important. A person who wants to do something simply "to
get away with it" hardly has what one might consider a "pure intention." These questions will
help you determine a "pure selfish? Is the course of action taken for the sake of others? Will this
action benefit you or will it help you grow? Have you considered all the data, or are you just
acting on impulse?
2. Consult the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, of the Prophets, Moses, and St. Paul. If
you truly want to be a Christian, you must know what Jesus said and seriously reflect on its
meaning as best as you can. You should ask yourself: Am I aware of the "ethical teachings" of
Jesus? The Ten Commandments? The position of the Church?
3. Answer this question: How will this action measure up to the yardstick of love? For
Christians, every authentic response to God and neighbor is a response of love a love that is not
watered down, but a real self-sacrificing attempt to meet others and God. Is your concept of love
more than just a "feeling"? Do you realize that love consists of giving as well as receiving?
4. Consult the people of God where Christ and His Spirit reside. What are the teachings and
beliefs of the bishop, theologians, holy and learned individuals, and the fellowship of believers?
Do you even care what these teachings are? Do you consult them? Do you even bother to ask
other Christians for their opinion?
5. Follow the current debate on the great moral issues. For example, what are the pros and cons
regarding abortion, mercy killing, and premarital sex? What is the position of the Church on
these issues?
6. Pray for God's graceful guidance in all actions. Ask God's Spirit to bring a culture of love. If
you sincerely want to do the right thing, you can follow the above directives and ask for God's
help because He will not mislead you. Doing the right thing with God's help brings calmness and
peace.
7. Be sorrowful for your sins, confessing them fully and humbly, asking for God's help in the
process. There are times when you fail and forget who you are, that you are one of God's
children. Often, you want immediate gratification that you become too lazy to make the right
decision. But God understands all your weakness. He simply wants you to admit that you failed
to live as His child. Like the father in the "Parable of the Prodigal Son," God is always willing to
claim you back as His own and shower His abundant love on you again. All you need to do is
turn back to Him and ask for His help.

Freedom of Conscience

Humans beings have the right to freedom of conscience. Our dignity demands that we should act
according to a knowledge yet free choice. Vatican II declares that an individual "is not to be
forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor is he to be restrained from acting in
accordance with his conscience" (DH, 3). In our moral decisions, we should be fully free, not
driven by coercion bit motivated by a sense of duty. We should not be influenced by a mere
blind, instinctive warning, but by an authentic personal self-realization and self-donation of love
a response of love in answer to a call of love.
From this use of freedom, the moral principles of personal and social responsibility springs.
This implies that when we realize that the dictates of our conscience are in conflict with the
rights of others or with the common welfare, we will automatically suspect and conclude that our
conscience is erroneous and needs revisioning. When all is said and done, we must follow our
conscience.

SOME MORAL PRINCIPLES

The principle of Double Effect

One of the best known principles of ethics is the principle of double effect. It is most often used
in the analysis of the moral aspect of controversial human acts, and commonly called upon to
evaluate medico-moral problems. It is also known as the voluntary indirect principle.
To understand the nature of this ethical principle and the role it plays in the evaluation of moral
actions, it is important to consider the complexity of the human act. First, a person always acts
for a purpose. The mind and the will are involved in the performance of a truly human act. In the
analysis of the structure of the human act, a distinction has to be made between the purpose or
intention of the agent (finis operants), and the purpose of the action (finis operis). They may or
may not be the same. It may also happen that other that what the person intends to achieve, there
are other consequences that may come from his/her action.
Actually, as experience shows, it is most often the case that an action results in more
consequences or effects than what is originally intended or expected. These consequences are,
therefore, unintended or voluntary. At times, however, we are aware that those consequences
will ensue, even if we do not include them in our deliberate planning; in this case, they are called
unintended but foreseen consequences. There are times, however, when we never know what
particular effect will be caused by our action; this is referred to as unintended and foreseen
consequences. Whether foreseen or unforeseen, these consequences are called indirectly
voluntary. In this sense, even if they are not willed that is, they do not fall under the object and
consideration of our will they are, nevertheless, the offshoot of a directly willed action.
A few examples can clarify these distinctions. One switches on the light, and in so doing, sets
the house on fire because of faulty wiring or a short circuit. "I never thought this will happen,"
we usually say. The consequence setting the house on fire has never been foreseen or much less
intended. A case of foreseen but unintended consequence involves a person who smokes because
of the pleasure he/she derives from it and because he/she claims that smoking relaxes his/her
nerves. Yet, he/she knows that smoking is hazardous to health. He/She actually experiences the
negative effects of smoking after a number of years when he/she has difficulty in breathing.
The question now from a moral point of view is: "What is one's moral responsibility for the
unintended consequences of his/her action?" It will be quite easy to understand that there is
actually no moral responsibility for the unforeseen and unintended consequences, for neither the
will nor the mind is involved or committed in ant way. Yet, the question is not so clear regarding
the unintended but foreseen consequences. When a person knows, at least, that certain
consequences will come from one's action, to what extent is one morally responsible for these
consequences? And more than that, can a person morally justify an action in which the main and
direct consequence is something good but at the same time results in some unintended evil
consequences? It should be noted that it is not a question of justifying the evil consequences.
Even if these are unintended, the fact that they are evil means that they can never be justified.
The question then pertains to the otherwise good action and whether it can still be morally
justified by reason with the evil consequences that ensue.

The Four Conditions of the Principle of Double Effect

To the question of whether such an action can be morally justified or not, we often answer: "It
depends." On what? Traditionally, moral philosophy has always required the presence of four
conditions for a valid application of the principle of double effect. These conditions are as
follow:

1. The action itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. An action which is morally evil
is always wrong. A person mist never intend to do something which in itself is evil because it is a
negative principle of natural law. Even if and individual intends to accomplish something good,
he/she cannot morally justify the use of evil means. Simply put, the principle asserts that a good
end does not justify evil means.
2. The good effect must precede the evil effect or at least be simultaneous with it. It should be
noted that this second condition is concerned primarily with the precedence of causality, not with
the time sequence of the good and the bad effects. The reason for this condition is that under no
reason is one justified to do evil in order to attain good, for in acting that way, one will be willing
evil in itself. Thus, an action whose primary effect is evil cannot be morally justified, even if
through that evil, a secondary effect, which is good, follows. That will be the case, for example,
for craniotomy, where the head of the fetus is crushed because the pregnancy is threatening the
life of the mother. But it will be an entirely different case if the immediate and primary effect of
the action is good, though the secondary effect that follows is evil. Such will be the case of
hysterectomy, the removal of the cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman, in which the condition
or situation mandates immediate operation, even if the fetus is not yet viable. The good effect
(attending to the condition of the woman) is in no way caused by the evil effect (the death of the
fetus). Nevertheless, it should be noted that in order to justify such an action, other conditions
will be required such as that of proportionally, which is discussed in #4. It is stressed, at this
juncture, that the good effect may not be produced by the evil effect. It may also be the case that
both effects are produced simultaneously and independently of each other, in which situation the
action may be morally justified if other conditions are present.
3. The intention of the agent should be directed towards the good effect, never to the evil effect.
The intention of the agent (finis operantis) specifying the morality of the action is mentioned
when speaking of the sources of morality. Both the mind and the will commit themselves
towards the intended purpose, the one thing that prompts the performance of the action. If what
is intended is something evil, then the action is morally specified as an evil action. Thus, an evil
effect can never be intended, even indirectly. The most that is morally allowed for such an effect
is regretfully permitted as an unavoidable circumstances. The example of hysterectomy,
mentioned above, illustrate this point. As much as the pregnant woman likes to have a baby,
regretfully, the operation will end the life of the fetus. This again will be morally justified if the
fourth and last condition, which is equally important, is present.
4. Proportionality: The good effect must be more important than or at least equal to the bad
effect. One must remember that all moral actions are directed towards certain moral goods or
values, towards effects or objects that are considered valuable to a person. The individual is
enriched with acquisition of that good or value. There is however, a certain hierarchy of values.
Certain things are more valuable than others, and some may even be considered as "dis-values,"
especially when a person is involved in a certain action or situation where there is conflict of
values. In the example cited above, both the life of the mother and that of the fetus are two very
important values. If a person is forced to choose to protect one of the values and discard the
other, this will be morally allowable if and when there is a proportionality or balance between
the values involved. It will be utterly immoral to sacrifice the life of a person to protect the
material comfort of another person. However difficult and agonizing the case may be, there are
times when an individual has to choose one value and discard another. To assure the validity of
this condition, which is most important for the understanding and proper application of the
principle of double effect, the person is expected to have developed and accepted a hierarchy of
values in his/her moral and personal life that is based on human and Christian principles. For if
this fails, the reference to the principle of double effect to solve difficult moral situations,
especially in the practice of medicine, will be just an easy way to justify most arbitrary decisions.

The Principle of Totality

Another principle most often used to understand and analyze the ethical dimensions of many
medico-moral cases, especially in the field of surgery, is the principle of totality. Like the
principle of double effect, the principle of totality has enjoyed a long tradition in the corpus of
literature on ethics. For our purpose, we shall present the doctrinal content and the role this
principle plays when applied to medico-moral cases, and set aside some of the aspects that have
been the subject of controversy among moral philosophers and theologians. Likewise, the
technique on how this principle is applied to concrete cases, like surgical operations and
mutilation will be dealt with more extensively in the actual case discussion
The concept of accountable stewardship that a person enjoys over his/her self, body, and life
will help us understand the nature and role of the principle of totality. Simply stated, the
principle of totality rests on the proposition that the whole is more important than its parts. A
human being is a substantial whole composed of many integral elements. While some of these
elements are more important than the others, all of them each one according to its specific nature
contribute their share to the perfection and harmonious functioning of the organism. Thus, it is
the person's responsibility to take care of and protect his/her life and integrity as a gift he/she has
received from God. This integral unity the harmonious functioning of the organism as a whole
becomes a basic foundation and an indispensable requirement for an individual to further
develop and grow whether it be physiologically, psychologically, emotionally, morally, or
spiritually.
There are times, however, when the actual condition of one part of an organism constitutes a
hindrance to the well-being and balance functioning of the organism, and even threatens its very
existence. It is within this context that reference is made to the principle of totality to shed light
on the proper course of action to take and to justify it from a moral point view.
In this sense, the whole traditional Christian moral theology justifies the sacrifice of one part or
organ of a person if it threatens the integrity of the human organism or presents a serious
obstacle to its proper functioning. Then, it will be morally justified to mutilate or to dispose of
the impaired part.
Pope Pius IX expressed this doctrine very eloquently in his encyclical on Christian marriage.
He said that Christian doctrine establishes and the light of human reason makes it most clear that
private individuals have no power over the members of their bodies than those which pertain to
their way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except where no other provision can
be made for the good of the whole body.
Pope Pius XII echoed the same doctrine. He maintained that even though limited, the
individual's power over his/her body parts and organs is direct because they are constituent parts
of his/her physical being. It is, therefore, clear that since their differentiation into a perfect unity
has no other purpose than the good of the entire physical organism, each of the organs or parts
can be sacrificed if it places the whole body in a danger that cannot otherwise be averted
(Address to the Roman Guild of St. Luke, Nov. 12, 1944). Similarly, in an address to the First
Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System (Sept. 14, 1952). Pope Pius XII said that
the master and beneficiary of this organism, which possesses a subsisting unity, has the right to
dispose directly and immediately of its integral parts, members, and organs, in keeping with their
natural finality. The individual can also permit his/her body parts to be paralyzed, destroyed,
mutilated, or separated as often and to the extent that the good of the whole demands it.
However, two points have presented some difficulties in the understanding of the principle of
totality and which have been the subject of discussion among Catholic theologians:
1. It has been debated whether the whole of the human organism is to be interpreted in terms of a
person's physical integrity, or whether it can be extended to include his psychological, emotional,
and moral wholeness or well-being. The traditional line of thinking has defended the position
that the aspect of wholeness of the human organism, in the understanding of the principle of
totality, refers exclusively to the physical integrity of the organism. Meanwhile, a small but
significant number of Catholic theologians have contended that the aspect of wholeness can and
should be extended to include an individual's psychological, emotional, and moral aspects in as
much as they, too, contribute and form part of one's total integrity. It will be impossible to settle
this controversial aspect within the scope of these considerations. Suffice it to say that this
divergence of opinions exists.
2. Another aspect which has been the subject of controversies and discussion is whether the
principle of totality can be validly used to justify certain situations in which a person in perfect
state of health can donate an organ for the benefit of one who needs it. Obviously, the cases
referred to are those involving organ transplantation in which the health of the donor is not
seriously affected. Another case involves the area of human experimentation, where a healthy
person submits himself/herself to experimental procedures that entails some minimal risk, but
not to the point of seriously affecting his/her health.

With these instances in mind, Pope Pius XII, in his address to the Eightieth Congress of the
World Medicine, settled the question by saying that this basic prohibition has no bearing on the
personal motive of an individual who willfully undergoes self-sacrifice in order to help an
invalid, nor does it have any bearing on one's desire to collaborate in the interests of scientific
studies which seek to aid and serve humanity. If such is the case, the answer will automatically
be affirmative.
In any profession, but particularly in medicine and nursing, there are always people who are
prepared to commit themselves wholeheartedly to others and to the common good. However, we
are not concerned, at this point, with questions of motivation and devotion. The immediate
question is basically that of disposing a non personal good without having the right to do so. The
individual is only the custodian, not the independent possessor and owner, of his/her body and
life, as well as all that the Creator has given for him/her to make use of according to the ends of
his/her nature.
However, this is not to say that all cases of organ transplantation or instances of human
experimentation are immoral. Some of these instances can be morally justified, not by reference
to or application of the principle of totality but through other ethical principles such as charity,
brotherly concern, and proportionality.

The Principle of Epikeia

 Epikeia (also apikeia or epiky) is an interpretation of the human law not according to its letter
but according to its spirit for border cases which have not sufficiently been taken into
consideration by positive law. St. Thomas regards epikeia as a virtue, the daughter of prudence
and equity. Bernard Haring (1985) justly points out that "epiky readily inclines one to accept the
burden and strain beyond the letter of the law if its intent and purpose and the common good
demand it, as to hold oneself free from the onus, when one must assume in all fairness that the
lawgiver does not will to impose such a burden in altogether singular circumstances or at least
not in the specific manner prescribed by the letter of law".
Epikeia is a restrictive interpretation of the law by private authority excusing one from the
observance of the law in some particularly difficult cases in accordance with the genuine
meaning of legislation.
The inner justification for epikeia are the following: 1) the legislator cannot foresee all the
circumstance which may arise for individuals and, even if the legislator does, often fails to cover
them all with the wording of a general law; and 2) laws are often not fast enough to follow
developments of life and the changes in society. Being tailored for past conditions, laws do not
always give full justice to the needs of the present. Hence, positive laws necessarily remain
imperfect and deficient. Therefore, human legislation itself has the jural duty, to admit the right
of its subjects to resort to the law of epikeia in order to compensate for the unavoidable
deficiencies of the law.
Evidently, epikeia is an exceptional thing. It may only be employed with prudent discretion.
Prudent discretion, in contrast to the abuses of so-called "progressive" or "contemporary"
thinking, is necessary for making right moral decisions. Progressive or contemporary thinkers
believe that things can be done even without considering any legislation or its spirit. To obey the
law is too difficult for them. They believe that "to be progressive" means to employ and use their
freedom even outside the law, or without law at all. They are the "liberals" who claim that they
can give their own self-interpretation of a law without analyzing the very meaning of the law.
Their "contemporary thinking" stems from the abusive use of "self-interpretation" and "humane
attitude" which they extend too far.
When making use of prudent discretion, the following conditions and cautions should be
observed:

1. Epikeia, as discussed in this context, only applies to positive laws. And to the extent that
legislation renders natural laws, epikeia cannot be applied. Thus, it is not permissible to use fraud
and weave lies just to secure a piece of public land for a charitable purpose or for a church
construction. The use of epikeia in matters of natural law has been discussed earlier and is
subject to much greater restrictions.
2. The hardships and disadvantages resulting from the fulfillment of the law must be
unproportionately great and must outweigh the benefits to be hoped for after compliance with it.
These only expose the demand, contained in the very definition of epikeia, that it must remain in
harmony with the genuine meaning of legislation. Epikeia must be justified by the superior needs
of the common good and, ultimately, by the demands of the ultimate end of humanity. One has to
weigh against each other, on the one side, the importance of a law for the common weal and the
negative consequences resulting from its disregard and, on the other side, the hardships and
detriments accruing from its fulfillment.
3. Consultation with others is very much urged, especially for instances with more important
exceptions. Individuals can easily deceive themselves as to the validity of their reasons.
Therefore, they will do better if they avail themselves of the more detached advice of others.
This is probably also the reason for the succeeding condition, commonly found in handbooks.
4. Resource to a superior is required in doubtful cases, unless one is terribly difficult to approach.
However, in instances where the use of epikeia is certainly justified, resources to a superior is in
principle not necessary. If the law does not bind because of inner reasons, additional dispensation
from a superior is not required. But not seldom an obligation might exist to inform the superior
about what one is going to do.
5. Epikeia cannot be applied to laws that avoid acts (invalidating laws) or to laws that render
persons incapable of undertaking certain legal actions (incapacitating laws). The common
welfare requires that certainty be had about the validity of such acts. Thus, for example, civil law
usually declares a last will and testament invalid if it is written without a date, or youths under
the age of 18 are declared incapable of obtaining a driver's license. Joseph Fuchs (1970) admits a
rare possibility of epikeia with regard to incapacitating laws in very extreme cases, and gives the
example of matrimonial impediments.

Epikeia is usually thought of as a right applying only to the individual and private sphere. Yet,
the right of epekeia exists no less in the realm of public law. In a state of emergency, for
instance, the government of a democratic community is entitled to measures exceeding the
powers provided for in the constitution, if so necessitated, for safeguarding essential ends of the
community. Nevertheless, the government remains bound to give an account of its actions to the
legislative authority as soon as possible.

SOME MORAL MAXIMS

● "Right reason is indeed a true law, in accord with nature, diffused among all men,
unchangeable, eternal. By its commands it calls men to their duty, by its prohibitions it deters
them from vice. There shall no longer be one law in Rome and another in Athens, nor shall it
prescribe one thing today and another one tomorrow, but one and the same law, eternal and
immutable, shall be prescribed for all nations and at all times, and the God who shall prescribe,
introduce, and promulgate this law shall be the one common Lord and Supreme ruler of all, and
whosoever will refuse obedience to Him shall be filled with confusion, as this very act will be a
virtual denial of his human nature; and should he escape a present punishment, he shall endure
heavy chastisement hereafter." ―Cicero

● "There are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil to which the Creator Himself in all His
dispensations, conforms; and which He has enabled human nature to discover, so far as they are
necessary for the conduct of human actions."―Blackstone

● "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bonds which have connected them to another and to assume among the powers of the
earth the separate and equal station to which nature and Nature's God entitles
them..."―Declaration of Independence

● "Let it not be forgotten, let it be emphasized, repeated, emblazoned in the halls of every
legislative body, that morality is a fundamental principle in legislation; but for this principle, this
law of nature, this law of God, this law of man... popular government would fail. Morality cannot
be disregarded by the legislature, it must be regarded, or the action of the body is void. Moral
law was not created by a legislative body. It was never enacted. It was never created by the
constitution of the state or of the nation. Neither the constitution itself nor the legislature can
disregard it and the action be valid."―Ritter

One who acts through an agent is himself/herself responsible. A male student asks his male
classmate to lend him pornographic reading materials. The classmate, realizing that this is
wrong, asks another male classmate to bring the requested reading materials so that he will not
be held responsible for the wrong act. Actually, the student is held responsible for arranging the
occasion of sin through another person
No one is obliged to betray himself/herself. If a person commits a moral infraction, he/she is
obliged to seek God's forgiveness and to repair whatever harm he/she has caused to the extent
that could be reasonably expected. For example, if a Catholic steals a considerable amount of
money, he/she must confess the sin and make restitution for what has been taken. He/She is not
obliged, howeved, to identify himself/herself as the thief or to turn himself/herself in to the
police.

In doubt, one may do what is generally done. A female college freshman enrolls in a school with
a reputation for upholding strict moral standards. She knows many students who study there, and
admires them for their sense of morality. After two weeks of classes, she finds a wallet full of
money and important documents inside the chapel. Entertaining the idea of "finder's keeper," she
hesitates; besides, it is already late in the afternoon and nobody is inside the chapel. She looks
for a discipline officer to whom she can entrust the money, but there is none. She goes to the
Student Affairs Office (SAO) but it is already closed. She decides to give the wallet to the guard
for safekeeping, and leaves her name as its finder. Early the next day, she turns over the money
to the SAO, the entity usually in charge of lost-and-found items.
An object cries out for its owner. Although possession is a presumption of ownership, this
presumption will always yield to contrary facts. If, for example, a valuable thing is found, proper
steps must be taken to find the true owner. If an object has been stolen from A, sold by B to C,
and later given by C to D, ordinarily D must return the object to A, its true owner.
Some people think that if they have stolen some money, restitution will be accomplished if an
equivalent amount is given to charity. "I will put it in the collection basket on Sunday," they'll
say. But this will not do. The money "cries out for its owner." One can understand this easily by
imagining that he/she is the owner. Restitution by donation to the common good or to charity is
only in order when it cannot be made to the proper person. Moral advice is needed in many cases
of theft.
No one can give what he/she does not have. This principle may be applied in various
circumstances. For instance: A male student has stolen some money from his classmate and does
not have the cash at present to be able to pay back. He wonders whether he should go to
confession since he cannot make restitution. Indeed, he may go to confession if he cannot pay the
money back at that very moment, but he need not trouble himself, since no one can give what
one does not have. But he must promise to pay the money back when it becomes possible.
The end does not justify the means. One common fallacy of the present-day moral thinking is that
if we have a good purpose in mind, whatever step we take to accomplish that purpose is justified.
The family that does not want to reveal the terminal illness of a patient, fearing that the truth will
upset him/her, is wrong. The family's good intention has been accomplished through immoral
means. In any case, an immoral act does not become moral because it is done for a good purpose.
To rob the rich in order to give money to the poor is wrong. A couple engaging in premarital sex
because they are in love with each other (with or without the intention of getting married soon) is
wrong. It is also wrong for a doctor to administer a lethal dose of drug to a patient to end the
latter's suffering, and ease the financial burden of his/her family.
No one is a judge in his/her own case. Our decision or judgment relative to ourselves is often
warped by non-essential details. Moreover, we are normally biased in our own favor. On the
other hand, a scrupulous person may harshly judge himself/herself. Seeking moral and spiritual
advice from the proper person is often very much in order.
Accessories belong to the principle object. Ordinarily, a minor accessory added to an object in
such a way that it cannot be separated from that object really becomes one with the principal
object, and its ownership is determined thereby. Suppose two students are roommates. One has a
painting, and the other agrees to have it framed at her expense. When they have to go on their
separate ways, the second student says that since she had the painting framed, she should take it
with her. The first student says that the painting itself is here even though it has been improved at
some cost. Actually, the first student who owns the "original painting" has the right to the
painting, even in its more expensive present state. She merely has to reimburse her roommate for
the expense incurred in having the painting framed.
If one is willing to cooperate in an act, no injustice is done. For instance: John shares a secret to
James on the condition that James should not reveal it to someone else as this will surely cause
embarrassment to John. However, the time comes when John agrees that James share the secret
to Anthony. Thus, James, in sharing the secret to Anthony, is not doing any injustice to John
because John cooperates in the act. Another example: A physician, wanting to test the effects of
a new medication, promises to give all services, treatments, and medication for free provided that
the patient agrees voluntarily to the test case. However, the medication fails to cure the patient. If
he complains to the doctor for subjecting him to the test, this will not be a legitimate complaint
because there is no injustice done. The same is true for a student who fails in a certain subject
and asks for a remedial course. She agrees with the condition of the teacher that if she fails the
remediation, the teacher will not give her a passing grade. If she still fails in the test and
complains, this will not be a legitimate complaint since taking the remedial test does not
eliminate the possibility that she will still fail. Moreover, there is no injustice done.

Laws imposing an obligation may be given as narrow an interpretation as possible. Relative to

the interpretation of laws, on the one hand, a law giving a privilege may be interpreted in the
broadest way possible, and, on the other hand, a law restricting our liberty may be given the
narrowest interpretation. For instance, if the index of forbidden books says that any book by a
certain author is banned, we need not extend this to magazine articles by the same author.
Excommunication is attached to the crime of abortion, thus, a woman who attempts an which is
unsuccessful is not excommunication, although, of course, she has committed a very serious sin.

SUMMARY

Moral laws as the objective norms of morality (together with some moral guides and maxims)
and the conscience as the subjective norm of morality are the guideposts that will lead us to
where we are going. As Christians, we need them in our journey towards a righteous and moral
life. To be truly Christians, we have to follow the commandment of love- " to love God and our
neighbor as ourselves" (Mk. 12:30-31). The subjective conscience needs to be informed and
formed so that each person will be able to act and judge according to the dictates of his/her true
and certain conscience.

ANSWER THE EVALUATION WHICH WILL BE POSTED BY THE TEACHER.