Unit II

Where Am 1?

INTRODUCTION

It is important to realize the moral value of our human acts since Christian morality is
concerned not with acts of man but with human acts, that is, actions proper to the human person.
The concept of fundamental option is also taken into consideration in this unit. The sources of
the morality of human acts, which help us judge whether an act is good or bad, are also
discussed. Lastly, the modifiers of the human acts, which may render the acts as imputable to the
agent or not, are likewise tackled.

REALIZATTON OF THE MORAL VALUE OF HUMAN ACTS

The formal object of Christian morality is the moral value of the human act in relation to a
person's supernatural end, that is, his/her ultimate union with God in heaven. Only the human act
is the subject of moral value since the exercise of the human act does not depend on the
involuntary conditions and reactions of man/woman but on one's knowledge, free will, and
voluntariness. The human act is "the person in act, although it never exhausts the capacities of
the self in a given instance.

Sources Defining the Morality of Human Acts

The norms which determine or measure the morality of a human act are objectively the moral
law and subjectively man's/woman's conscience. Human acts are morally good if they are in
agreement with these norms and morally evil if they are in disagreement with them. To be
answered is the question about the various elements in the human act which have to be measured
against the moral norm and which determine its morality. These elements are called the sources
of the morality of the human act, because the human act derives its morality from their
agreement or disagreement with the moral norm.
Traditionally, moral theology lists three sources (determinants) of the morality of human acts:
object, circumstances, and intention. A human act is good if these three elements are in harmony
with the moral norm. On the other hand, a human act is morally evil if only one of these
elements offends the norm of morality.

Object/Act Itself
 The object of the human act is that effect which an action primarily and directly causes (finis
operis). It is always and necessarily the result of the act, independent of any circumstances, or of
the intention of the agent. Certain actions such as theft, abortion, contract of sale, adultery, lying,
cheating, almsgiving, healing, worship, etc. have their respective objects. Thus, the object of a
theft is always the appropriation of another person's goods against his/her will, whether it is
taken from a rich or a poor individual, whether its purpose is personal enrichment or alleviation
of extreme need. The object of an abortion is always the forcible removal of the non-viable
human being from a woman's womb, whether it is done to avoid public shame or for medical
reasons. The object of the contract of sale is not only the physical transfer of goods from one
place to another but also the exchange of property rights attached to the goods. The object of an
act of adultery is not only the physiological happening of intercourse but so the assumption of
marriage rights by partners who are not married to each other and the encroachment on the rights
of a third person.
The object is generally regarded as the primary source for the judgment on the morality of an
act. The most important aspect of an action seems to be the immediate effect which the action
inevitably brings about in the objective order, independent of he intention of the agent and other
circumstances.
Catholic moral handbooks universally hold that the object of a human act can be morally
good, evil, or indifferent. Indifferent from the viewpoint of the object are walking and playing an
instrument, for example. But this does not mean that the entire action is morally indifferent for
its morality further depends on the circumstances and particularly on the intention of the agent.
The circumstances and the intention also further modify the morality of an action with a morally
good object, even to the extent of making the action in its totality evil. Therefore, where the
object of the human act is morally evil, as in a case of rape or murder, no purpose and intention
of the agent-be it ever so good-can permit this act.
Pope John Paul II is explicitly concerned with the specification of human acts and the criteria
for assessing their moral goodness or badness. The Holy Father emphasizes that "the morality of
the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the object rationally chosen by the
deliberate will" (VS, 78). The "object" of the human act is the subject matter with which it is
concerned, it is an intelligible proposal that one can adopt by choice and execute externally. For
example, the "object of an act of adultery is having intercourse with someone who is not one's
spouse, or with the spouse of another. This is what adultery is
Circumstance
Circumstances are conditions outside the act (not part of the act) that influence or affect the act
by increasing or lessening its voluntariness or freedom, and, thus, affecting the morality of the
act. These circumstances are: the Person (it answers the question, Who?), the Place (Where?), the
Time (When?), the Manner (How?), the Condition of the Agent (Why?), the Thing Itself
(What?), the Means (By What Means?). Let us discuss each of the circumstances.
1. The Circumstance of Person refers to the doer (agent) of the act and to the receiver or the
person to whom the act is done. There are two principles under this circumstance.
 a. A good act can become better, or a bad act can become worse by the reason of the doer or
the person doing the act. For example, an act of giving aid to orphans is good, but if it is done by
a Metro Aide (who is poor himself herself), the act becomes better or more meritorious than if it
is done by a big-time businessman who earns millions of pesos a week. Similarly, abortion is
bad, but it becomes worse when the one who undergoes it is a nun or a member of a religious
order who accidentally gets pregnant, than an ordinary woman,.
b. A good act can become better, or a bad act can become worse by the reason of the person to
whom the act is done. Stealing is bad, but it is worse if one steals from a beggar than if he/she
steals from a rich person. Murder is bad, but it is worse if one kills the Pope or the president of
the country (by virtue of the positions they are holding) than if one murders an ordinary person
or a criminal.
2. The Circumstance of Place refers to the particular space or locality where the act is done or
performed. Creating scandal is bad. but it is worse when it is done inside the church than if it is
done outside the church.
3. The Circumstance of Time refers to the exact or definite moment at hour when the act is
performed Just like the case of the other circumstances, a good act becomes better, or a bad act
becomes worse by reason of the time when the act is performed. Stealing is bad, but it is worse if
one steals during a curfew. Fasting in order to mortify oneself is good in itself, but it is better if
one fasts during the designated time or day (eg. Ash Wednesday or Good Friday).
4. The Circumstance of Manner refers to the way the agent manages to do his her act. 1t answers
the question, How did the agent do the act For example, a young man manages to have a sexual
relationship with a young woman who is not his wife by making her believe in his false promise
of marriage.
5. The Condition of the Agent answers the questions, "In what condition was the agent when
he/she performed the act? and Was the agent ignorant or influenced by fear, habits, emotions,
etc.? Failure to attend Mass' on a Sunday is bad in itself, but if a per5on is invincibly ignorant
that it is Sunday and fails to attend Mass, there is no sin committed.
6. The Circumstance of the Thing Itself denotes the special quality of the object, eg. the money
stolen is one million pesos, the object stolen is a famous religious icon, or a relic (like the crown
of the Sto. Niño), or the object desecrated is the statue of Rizal.
7.The Means answers the questions, "By what means?" and "By whose help?" For example, a
person robs a bank with the help of the bank's security personnel (an inside-job robbery).

Intention
After the object of the act and the circumstances, the end or intention of the agent is the last
aspect to be measured by the norms of morality. The intention of the agent refers to the goal
which the agent aims to achieve through his/her act. It is also the reason or the purpose why the
agent does the act. It is the movement of the will toward he end. The agent's goal. purpose, or
end-whether good or bad-has a tremendous influence or effect on the morality of the act. There
are some principles to consider regarding the intention of the agent.
1. An act which is good in itself and is done for a good end becomes doubly good.
This principle means that an agent who performs a good act for a good purpose receives
merits for the good act and another set of merits for his/her good purpose or intention. For
instance, a rich person gives donations to the poor and the needy members of the community.
His/Her intention is simply to relieve (at least temporarily) these less fortunate people of their
misery, inconvenience, and other consequences of poverty, This rich person's act (giving
donations) is already good in itself, so he/she receives merits for this act. Likewise, his/her
intention or purpose for giving such donations (to give relief) is good. Thus, he/she receives
another set of merits for this good end.
2. An act which is bad in itself and is done with a bad end becomes doubly bad.
This principle implies that an agent who performs a bad act because he/she wants to
achieve a bad end, or has a bad intention, is liable or responsible on two counts. He/She is
liable for the bad act, and is also responsible for the bad intention of doing the act. For
example, a man rapes a girl for revenge. In this case, the act (raping) is bad in itself. The
purpose or intention of the agent is to exact vengeance, which is also bad. Therefore, the man
is responsible for the act of raping and for his bad intention.
3. An act which is good in itself and is done with a bad intention becomes bad.
This principle demonstrates the strong influence of the end of the agent upon the morality
of an act. The act is already good in itself, but due to the bad purpose or intention of the act,
it becomes bad. For example: A manager of a business firm increases by 100% the monthly
salary of his secretary. Thus, from P7,000, the secretary's monthly salary goes up to P14,000,
excluding other benefits. The manager does this so that his secretary cannot turn him down
when he asks her to spend a night with him.
The manager's act of increasing the secretary's salary is undoubtedly and unquestionably
good. But his purpose or intention for doing such a good act is bad. Hence, the act also
becomes bad. The manager is not to be blamed for the bad intention alone but also for the act
which is used as a means to attain a bad end. Other examples of this principle follow
a. Earning money is good, but if the intention is to use the money to commit adultery or
fornication, the act becomes bad
b. Occupying a high government position is good, but if the intention is to enrich oneself
unlawfully while in office, the holding of the position becomes bad;
c. Getting high grades is good, but if the intention is to be "popular," the act becomes bad.

4. An act which is bad in itself and is done with a good end does not become good in other
words, no good end can change a bad act into something good for the simple reason that
 the end cannot justify the means. Here is a case to illustrate this principle: A father steals
money because he wants to gift his son with a wristwatch for the latter's birthday. We
understand the good intention of the father to please his son. However, the means
employed by the father to attain his goal is bad. Moral science cannot condone such act.
In other words, the father's act (stealing) used as a means toward an end is bad and
unacceptable. However, while a good end cannot change a bad act into something good,
it can free the agent from his/ her responsibility or at least lessen or decrease the agent's
culpability. Two examples can demonstrate these points:
a. A young woman is chased by a serial rapist. The young woman is concerned at
the dead end of the street. Her only way to escape from the hands of the serial
rapist is to kill him. So, the young woman kills the serial rapist by shooting him
with her gun which she carries in her bag. It is very clear that at first, the young
woman does not have any intention to kill the serial rapist. This is manifested by
the young woman in her act of running away from the serial rapist. If ever the
young woman has killed her attacker, it is because she has no other means of
escaping from him since she is already cornered at the dead end of the street.
Although the young woman's act (killing or homicide) is in itself bad, she is free
from any responsibility due to the fact that her purpose in killing the attacker is to
protect her own life to which she has the right.
b. . A cashier of a certain department store steals money rom the cash register to
enable her to take her ailing mother to the hospital.. The act of the cashier is bad,
but her intention or purpose is good. While the cashier is still responsible for her
act, the responsibility is lessened because of her good intention.

5. An indifferent act which is done for a good end becomes good.

This principle agrees with the previous statement that an indifferent act becomes good
or bad according to the end of the agent and the circumstance. There are acts whose very
nature neither agree nor disagree with human reason. These acts become good or bad
according to the goal or purpose in performing them. For example, the act of writing is
indifferent. If one writes to explain an issue or doctrine so that many will be informed
and enlightened on the matter, his/her purpose of writing is good. Hence, the indifferent
act of writing becomes also good.
6. An indifferent act which is done for a bad end becomes bad. Talking is neither good nor
bad. But if one talks to destroy the good name or reputation of another, the act of talking
becomes bad.
From the three sources defining the morality of human acts, namely, object,
circumstances, and intention, five principles for judging the morality of human acts can be
derived:
 a. An act is morally good if the act itself, the purpose, and the circumstance are
substantially good.
b. If an act itself is intrinsically evil, the act is not morally allowable regardless of the
intention or circumstance.
c.. If an act itself is morally good or at least indifferent, its morality will be judged by the
purpose or circumstance.
d. Circumstance may create, mitigate, or aggravate sin.
e. If all three determinants of the morality of human acts (the act itself, purpose, and
circumstance) are good, the act is good. If anyone element is evil, the act is evil.

Modifiers of Human Acts

There are certain factors which may affect any of the three constituents of voluntary human
acts. These factors which may diminish one's culpability are accurately called modifiers of
human acts, also known as obstacles affecting the voluntariness of human acts. Traditionally
there are five modifiers of human acts, namely, 1) ignorance, 2) feat, 3) concupiscence or
passion, 4) violence, and 5) habit.

Ignorance
In general, ignorance is merely the lack or absence of knowledge of a person capable of
knowing a certain thing or things. Below are the different types of ignorance:
1. Invincible ignorance (unconquerable) is the type of ignorance which cannot be cleared up (or
dispelled), or knowledge that is lacking and cannot be acquired. The inability to dispel the
ignorance or acquire the knowledge that is lacking may arise from various causes.
a. It may be impossible for the individual to remove his/her ignorance because he/she has no
way of suspecting that he/she is ignorant. For example, a driver who does not know the speed
limit along the highway will rev up or accelerate at a speed above the limit, invincibly ignorant
of his/her violation.
b. Although one may realize that knowledge at a certain point should be acquired, it is
morally impossible for him/her to obtain the knowledge (lack of means of dispelling the
ignorance). For example, Dr. Makabuhay is seriously ill and knows that he should take some
medicine or apply different methods of treatment. He does all he can to learn what he should do,
but with no success. His ignorance about the proper remedies is invincible.
A Negrito who has been living all his life in the mountains, and who happens to come to
Manila for the first time, and violates traffic laws, could not be held responsible for violating the
law.
No objectively wrong act is culpable if it is performed in invincible ignorance inasmuch as
the element of knowledge is lacking and such lack of knowledge is not due to the fault of the
agent.
2. Vincible ignorance is the type of ignorance which can and should be dispelled. It implies
culpable negligence. The subject or agent could know and ought to know. Vincible
ignorance can be cleared up if one is diligent enough. For instance, a Manila resident who
violates traffic laws due to his/her ignorance of such laws would still be responsible for
his/her act because his/her ignorance is vincible. There are three kinds of vincible ignorance:
a) simple, b) crass, and c) affected.
a. Simple vincible ignorance exists when one uses some, but not enough, diligence in
an effort to remove ignorance. For example, one doubts whether his/her definition of
a certain term is right or wrong. He/She asks a classmate but his/her classmate is also
in doubt about it, He/She can get rid of his/ her doubt if he/she goes to the library and
check the meaning in the dictionary, but he/she does not take the trouble of going to
the library. If one performs an objectively wrong action whose wrongness one is
unaware of because of simple ignorance, the action is culpable. However, the
culpability is lessened by the presence of that ignorance.
b. Crass or supine ignorance is a kind of ignorance which, though not directly willed,
could and should be cleared up, but left wholly undisturbed. It is caused by mere lack
of effort. For example, Dr. Masipag discovers in his patient certain symptoms which
he does not recognize, Because of laziness though he can easily consult his medical
b0oks and fellow physicians-Dr. Masipag makes no attempt to ascertain the nature of
the disease indicated by those symptoms. He is guilty of crass or supine ignorance
regarding the nature of the disease and the means to cure it. Crass or supine
ignorance lessens the imputability of an act. Still, it makes one gravely culpable if it
concerns a matter of grave importance.
c. Affected vincible ignorance is that kind of ignorance which is deliberately fostered in
order to avoid any obligation that knowledge might bring to light. It is not only the
lack of knowledge but the deliberate unwillingness of the person to dispel his
ignorance. For example, a Catholic wonders whether today is a day of abstinence or
not. So that he/she may not know for sure if it is a day of abstinence and be obliged
to abstain from meat, he/she deliberately repositions his/her Catholic calendar so that
it faces the wall. Another example, a student is doubtful whether their class in
Religious Education will have a long quiz today or not. In order that he/she may not
know the schedule, he/she hides his/her notebook in Religious Education and his/her
diary where his/her daily school activities are listed. This is done so that he/she can
use the excuse that he/she does not know that there is a quiz. Affected ignorance in
regard to a matter of serious importance is gravely culpable.
3. Ignorance of the law is lack of knowledge that a particular law exists.
4. Ignorance fact is lack of realization that one is violating a law.
There are two general moral principles concerning ignorance. First, invincible ignorance
eliminates responsibility or culpability. Second, vincible ignorance does not eliminate moral
responsibility but lessens it.
When we speak of ignorance, we usually mean vincible ignorance. That is why we say
“ignorance of the law excuses no one"-every citizen of age must and should know the law.
 The reason behind these two principles is that when one is invincibly ignorant, the act
he/she does would then be without knowledge; and without knowledge, there can be no
voluntariness, hence, no responsibility. No one can consent to violate a law which he/she does
not know.
In the case of vincible ignorance, however, there is still culpability with regard to
ignorance which is due to one's negligence or omission. Consequently, there is still
accountability on the part of the doer for his/her action. His/Her act of violating a law is still
voluntary at least in cause, i.e., indirectly voluntary.
Fear
Fear is a mental agitation of disturbance brought about by the apprehension of some present
or imminent danger. This danger may be bodily injury, loss of reputation or riches, harm to a
friend, etc. The danger may be real or imaginary; for as long as something is apprehended as a
danger, it can cause fear. Below are the two types of fear:
1. Grave fear is the type which is aroused by the presence of a danger
a. that is regarded by most people as serious, e.g., fear of death or loss of a leg, or
b. that is judged to be serious by the one concerned. For example, a young girl dreads
the thought of receiving a scolding in public, although other girls make little of such
reprimand.
2. Slight fear is the type which is aroused by
a. danger that is not serious, e.g., fear of losing one's coin purse, or
b. a grave danger that is not very probable, e.g., fear of death when riding on a plane
on a slightly misty day.
One acts because of fear if it is the fear that induces him/her to act so. An example is a little
boy ransacking the refrigerator. Hearing his mother coming, he runs off, afraid to be caught.
Another example: Thomas is held up by a robber. The fear of getting killed if he resists makes
Thomas to surrender his wallet.
Actions that are performed because of fear, however great the fear may be, are voluntary (at
least conditionally) and, so, are imputable.
One acts with fear if fear merely accompanies one's act but does not cause it. For example, a
burglar, while robbing a house, experiences the fear of being caught. Actions that are performed
with fear are simply voluntary because the agent chooses to do the act with or without fear.
Concupiscence or Passion
Concupiscence or passion is a movement of the sensitive (irrational) appetite which is
produced by good or evil as apprehended by the mind. Concupiscence does not mean the
inclination to evil nor it is limited to sexual desire. Passions are strong tendencies towards the
possession of something good or towards the avoidance of something evil. Movements of the
passions are usually called feelings or emotions, especially if not vehement. Love, hatred, joy,
grief, desire, aversion, hope, courage, fear, and anger fall under this heading.
In themselves, passions are indifferent; they are not in themselves evil. According St.
Thomas Aquinas, passions, inasmuch as they are the movements of the irrational appetite, have
no moral good or evil in themselves. But if they are subject to the command of reason and will,
then moral good and evil are in them. God has endowed the human person with these appetites
which pervade his/her whole sensitive life. They are instruments and means for self-preservation
of the individual and the human race. Every person needs them for self-defense, growth, and
improvement. The saints and Christ Himself expressed their passions. "My soul longs, yea, faints
for the courts of the Lord; my heart and flesh sing for joy" (Ps. 84:2), prays the psalmist, And in
burning Christ turns against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes, whom He calls anger,
blind guides, whitewashed sepulchers, and brood of vipers (Mt. 23: 13-36).
Passions may be considered good when ordered by the rational will to help man/woman in
the practice of virtue or in the attainment of that which is morally good. For instance, sorrow
over the death of a friend is good because it shows sympathy for the bereaved family. The fear of
getting drunk when going to a beer house together with some friends is good because it may
prevent drunkenness and its adverse consequences.
When their force is not controlled by reason, passions become destructive and evil. They are
considered bad when used by the rational will to accomplish morally evil actions, for example,
making love to a girl without the intention of marrying her, or using one's courage to rob a bank.
Man/ woman has the urgent duty to control and check his/her sensitive appetites since the
possibility to succumb to them is not remote. Karl Peschke remarks "that the whole process of
moral education, both in the early and in the later years, is to a large extent a process of gaining
command over all the movements of the passions. Thus, man/woman has to eventually become
master of himself/herself."
There are two types of concupiscence: 1) the antecedent concupiscence and 2 the
concupiscence.
1. Antecedent concupiscence is the type which arises spontaneously before the previous
judgment of reason and before the will controls the psychological situation. It precedes the act of
the will and is not willfully stimulated by the will. Sudden feelings of joy, hatred, pity, grief,
anger, etc. as reactions to news and objects presented to the senses are examples of this type of
passion.
Antecedent passions may completely destroy freedom and, consequently, moral
responsibility, when they suddenly arise and compel us to act before any control of the will is
possible. For example, a teenage boy who is in danger of being drowned suddenly becomes
panic-stricken and forcibly seizes a companion who also drowns. Or a woman loves a man so
much, such that in a moment of savage rage, the woman, who is so jealous, kills him.
Antecedent passions do not always destroy freedom because passions seldom escape the
control of reason. In this case, however, antecedent passions lessen the freedom and, hence, the
responsibility of the agent because antecedent passions tend to blind the judgment of the intellect
and block the freedom of the will.
2. Consequent concupiscence is the type which is deliberately aroused by the will to ensure a
more prompt and willing operation. For instance, by continuously imagining and brooding over
an insult received from an enemy, a person may build himself/herself up to such a state of frenzy
that he/she finally attacks and kills his/her enemy.
Consequent passions, however great, do not lessen the voluntariness but may increase it
because these passions are deliberately excited and they are voluntary in themselves.
Violence
Violence is an external force applied by someone on another in order to compel him/her to
perform an action against his/her will. There are two general types of violence, namely, perfect
and imperfect violence. Perfect violence is one in which complete resistance is given. Under
perfect violence, every possible means of physical resistance is utilized as in the case of a
woman being raped by three men. She resists strongly but her resistance is of no use. Morally
perfect violence is one in which all powers of resistance that should be used are employed.
Imperfect violence occurs when some resistance is shown but not as much as should be.
There are three principles that may be applied in determining the effect of violence on the
voluntariness of the act and the imputability of the agent.
1. If one resists the violence as much as possible, such as in the case of perfect violence, the
evil act to which one is forced is in no wise culpable.
For example, a man forces a young girl to have sex with him. The girl fights back.
Nevertheless, since the man is stronger than the girl, he succeeds in doing his evil
intention. In this case, the young girl is not responsible for the act.
2. If one does not resist the violence as fully as possible, such as in the case of imperfect
violence, the culpability of the evil act is lessened but not taken away.
For example, a girl is carried off bodily by two young male acquaintances. The girl
resists somewhat but it was not enough. She could have freed herself from her captors by
screaming or shouting for help. The girl, by not offering stronger resistance, which she
knows would be effective, is judged to consent to the evil into which she is taken. Her
guilt, however, is not as great as it would be if no violence was present.
3. If one sees that any resistance would be wholly ineffective, there is no obligation to
resist. The reason is that one is not obliged to do what is useless. However, though a
show of resistance would in some cases be futile with regard to effecting a release from
violence, it might serve a very useful purpose. Such resistance might disclose one's lack
of consent to the act to which one is being forced, or might aid one in preventing internal
consent to the external act.
For instance, a bank cashier and his two bodyguards are held up by ten heavily armed
men. The bank cashier and his bodyguards know that no amount of resistance would be
effective to stop the hold-up men. Here, there is no obligation to resist although resistance
may be useful to show the cashier’s lack of consent to the act of the hold-up men.
Habits
Habits are inclination to perform some particular action acquired by repetition, and
characterized by a decreased power of resistance and an increased facility of performance. They
are "stable quality to a faculty positively inclining a person to act in a certain way. They are
sometimes called "second nature," which means something deeply embedded in an individual,
but ingrained by being acquired rather than being inborn. In short, habits are repeated actions
performed by an agent.
Habits may be good or evil as to whether they influence one to do good or evil. If a habit
disposes to evil, it is a vice; if to good, it is a virtue. Two general principles may be stated
concerning the effects of habits on the imputability of evil actions:
1. Evil habits do not lessen the imputability of evil actions performed by force of habit if the
habit has been recognized as evil and is freely permitted to continue.
2. Evil habits lessen the imputability of evil actions performed by force of habit if one is
sincerely trying to correct the habit.

SUMMARY
Truly, a person is seen as morally responsible for his/her actions if and only when He/she uses
his/her fundamental freedom as a person. But his/her actions cannot simply be judged as good or
bad unless the three sources of defining the morality of the human acts, namely, the object of the
act or the act itself, the circumstance, and the intention are clearly considered and investigated.
However, one has still to consider and look at some modifiers of the human acts that may
either increase, lessen, or completely lose the culpability of the human agent over individual
actions performed by him/ her, which include ignorance, fear, concupiscence or passion,
violence, and habits. With these things in mind, the person can now answer the question," Where
am I?
 Unit III

Where am I Going?

INTRODUCTION

In Unit I, we discussed our nature as humans who are good and free. We explored our nature and
dignity as persons and Christians "created in the image and likeness of God" andd "redeemed on
Christ" In Unit II, we deliberated on the concept of freedom as a power to act or not to act and to
perform deliberate actions for growth and maturity in truth and goodness (cf.CCC, #1731). In
this unit, we will examine the nature of sin and the need for conversation and reconciliation with
ourselves, with one another, and with God.
 Activity

A. Individual Work

Before we venture into the nature and reality of sin and its relationship to Christian living, let us
do the following exercise. It is designed to make you think about some basic attitudes toward sin
and morality. Please check the statements you agree with. State briefly your opinion or view on
the ideas expressed.

_/__1. Sin has to do with breaking the rules and regulations of the Church.

__/__2. What's wrong is what I think is wrong.

__/__3. Some actions are wrong even if I don't think they are wrong. They may be wrong in
themselves and for others but not necessarily for me

__/__4. Today, the problem is that evil and sin are condoned or tolerated by many people in
society. The world abounds with violence, pornography, war, corruption, and lies.

____5. What I don't like is someone telling me it's wrong to smoke marijuana while he/she
himself/herself drinks alcohol. This is phoniness to me, and phoniness is the worst sin of all.

__X__6. I don't like going to church. It bores me. I would rather take a walk in the woods and
worship God in my own way.

__/__7. I perceive sin primarily in terms of relationship. Every time I do something to harm my
relationship with God or a neighbor, I commit a sin. This includes attitudes I have towards them.
__/__8. Morality and sin are quite confusing to me. When I was in grade school, things were
much more "cut-and-dried." Mental sickness and circumstances were not used as excuses as they
are largely regarded so today.

After you have responded to the above statements, discuss with a partner your attitudes toward
sin and morality. Then, write briefly your basic attitude toward sin.

NATURE OF SIN

To us Christians, life is a manner of taking a course of action, or living following the examples
and teachings of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. We have made a fundamental option for Christ.
Hence, what truly identifies us as Christians is our following of Christ.
Following Christ, however, does not mean that we simply fulfill Christ's norms, the Sermon on
the Mount, the beatitudes, and the command to love. Neither should it be only on the level of
fidelity to Christ's doctrines, the gospel. To us Christians to follow Christ means adhere to His
Person as " the Way, the Truth and the Life" (Jn. 14:6). Norms and doctrines cannot be separated
fron His Person, His being and doing.
Christians view morality as the fulfillment of God's plan for man: perfection. This call of the
people of God to holiness and perfection is a characteristics doctrine of both the Old and the
New Testaments "Be holy, for I am holy" (Lv. 11:45; 19:2) is the Levitic injunction in the Old
Testament. In the New Testament, this precept has its parallel in the mandate of Christ: "Be
perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt. 5:48).
In the biblical understanding, perfection consists of the wholehearted service to God (Jos. 22:5;
Ex. 20:6; Dt. 6:1-3), in selfless dedicated love for neighbor (Mt. 22:37-40), in close discipleship
to Jesus Christ (Mt. 19:16-22). This common call to perfection and holiness, however,
presupposes the acceptance of the reality of a sin and an ongoing conversion, growth in grace
and virtues, and life in the Spirit.
 Some people nowadays no longer want to talk about sin. There are three reasons offered. The
first reason suggests that the word "sin" is too personal. Sin implies the description of a
relationship with a personal being we call God. Perhaps, some people believe in the existence of
evil or personal fault bit without reference to the traditional concept of a living God. Having no
faith in a personal, loving God means not believing in sin. A second reason why sin may not be
popular today is the nitpicking juridical or legalistic distinction present about it in the past. Fine
arguments about "material" and "formal" sin, mortal and venial sin, and exhaustive listings of
categories of sin tend to bore the ordinary Christian who seek to live a vital, though sometimes
stumbling and failing, relationship to a living God.
The final possible explanation for contemporary dislike of sin is the belief that humans are
fundamentally incapable of failure. This utopian view of the human person sees him/her
progressing to a more glorious future than his/her past and that his/her nature is certainly
improving all the time. To say that man/woman lives in a sinful condition does not sir well with
this view of the human person.

Definition of Sin

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience. It is a failure in genuine love for
God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of the
human person and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance; a deed, or a
desire contrary to the eternal law" (CCC, #1849).
Sin is an offense against God: " Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is
evil in your sight" (Ps. 41:4). Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away
from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become
"like gods," (Gen. 3:5) knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even
to contempt of God. " In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience
of Jesus, which achieves our salvation (cf. Jn. 14:30)
Basically, sin is saying "no" to God, to love, to personal growth, and to others. There are many
gradations of sin depending on a number of factors. But sin is always some evil which is
intentionally committed by a person. It always brings man/woman to a situation on which he/she
needs conversion and forgiveness.
At the heart of every sin, there is a free human decision. Sin is more than evil: it is evil
intentionally committed by man/woman. In every sin, the individual choices evil. By this choice,
the human person alienates himself/herself from God who is the source of all goodness. Thus, sin
can be called a rejection of God and His plans of goodness for man/woman and the world.
Concept of Sin and Sacred Scriptures (Revelation)

A closer study of the Bible reveals a gradual transition ot the understanding of sin from a
legalistic to more personal notion.

Old Testament

Sin i. the Old Testament is often loomed upon as a transgression of God's law and will. It is
disobedience against the Decalogue of the Lord (Dt. 28:15-68). On other occasions, sin is
regarded as hatred towards God. The sinner is "one who hates Yahweh" (Ex. 20:5; Dr. 5:9 Ps.
139:21). Sin is considered as forgetfulness of the God of the alliance (Nm. 1-3; Ex. 16:5a), as a
turning away from Him, and as ingradtitude (Is.1:2-4)
The sin of Adam and Eve is not only the "original"but also the typical infidelity of human kind.
It happens not just to the first man/woman but to "everyman/everywoman." It is pursuit of an
inordinate aspiration toward falls moral autonomy. Wanting "to be like God. or knowing good
and evil" (Gen. 3:5) does not mean merely wishing to distingiush good and evil. Rather, it is a
proud claim to determine for oneself what is good and what is evil, without reference to the
divine will. This is an inadmissible self-assertion of the human person against the Creator, a
rebellion against God's right to be the sovereign master. Man/Woman defies God by abandoning
his/her status as creator, by refusing to depend upon Him who gave him/her existence.
Genesis describes sin as the breaking of personal relationship with God. Sin severs the
relationship not only of dependence but also friendship. The break in this personal relationship
with God introduces a disharmony in human relationships. The attempt at self-fulfillment
alienates Adam and Eve from each other. They yearn for each other while at the same time
seeking to dominate each other. Whereas, before the fall, Adam saw Eve as a supreme gift from
God, now, he despises her as "that woman whom you gave." Having failed to supersade God,
Adam and Eve experience weakness and insecurity. They are shamed by their exposure to each
other as betrayers of God, and, thus, potential betrayers of each other.
Man and woman as represented by Adam and Eve have been called to share in God's
dominion over creation. But their expulsion from the garden is a consequence of sin which
symbolize their loss of dominion over the forces of bature, and heralds their subjection to the
ravages of the material world.
The story of Cain shows that separation from other human beings. Cain is the fugitive who flees
from God, from his fellow human beings, and ultimately from himself. To be a sinner is truly to
be a "vagabond" as Nod, the place where Cain fled to, signifies (Gen. 4:16).
 In the account of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9), the sin of arrogance results in a catastrophe.
The collective attempt to usurp the sovereignty of God leads to confusion and alienation.
Sin is the rupture of the covenant bond, the violation of the spousal relationship (Hos. 2; Jer.
3:1-5; 19-25; 4:1-4; Ez. 16:23-26). It is the rejection of a vocation, a rebellion against the Lord
who chose Israel as a son (cf. Is. 1:2-4). Sin is a negative response to the call of God.
While the alliance constitutes Israel as a unified people before God, sin "disassembles" the
people of God. To "know" God is really to love one's neighbor, and to take up the cause of the
poor and the underprivileged. Sin disrupts the unity of the people. The prophets are extremely
blunt in denouncing the cruelty of war leaders, the luxury of the privileged classes, lying, and
treachery.
Sin brings with it the "wrath" of God (cf. Ps. 74:1), which means that because of the alienation
from God, sin produces loneliness and insecurity. Thus, sin and unhappiness go togehtdr. Sin is
revealed through divine punishmen, whether collective or individual (cf. 1 Kgs. 21:24). But
punishment is meant to lead to conversion, which brings happiness.
One sin begets another. It is like a rust that eats into a person's soul and rains engraved in the
sinner's heart. Sin, therefore, infects the heart of the human person. It creates a spiritual attitude
which, in the course of generations, becomes connatural to man/woman (cf. Jer. 17:1; 13:23). It
is at times described as "hardening of the heart," a dulling of the moral sense, so that there is less
and less reluctance to sin.
Sin ultimately leads to "death," both spiritual and physical. Death was not part of the original
plan of God for man/woman: "For God created man and woman for incorruption, and made them
in the image of His own eternity; but htrough the devil's envy, death entered the world" (Wis.
2:23-24). By refusing to surrender to the Author of life in the very act of affirming Himself to be
the ultimate source of good and evil, human were cutting themselves off from the very source of
life. In this way, death entered into the world.
The Old Testament constitutes a massive denunciation of sin, which is seen as an offense
against God. The doctrine of sin is not complete here, however. The New Testament alone, by
placing before us God incarnate and crucified, will fully reveal the final logic of grace offered
and sin committed. But the Old Testament, with some gropings and hesitations, has already
placed before us the essential: on the supernatural levd, sin is man's/woman's refusal of God; on
the level of conscience, it is the perversion of man/woman. When person refuses God, it is
his/her own truth he/she refuses as well.
The Catechism for Filipino Catholics has this to say regarding sin (cf. #766):
The Old Testament presents three basic notions for what we call sin.
1. "Missing the mark" focuses on the offense inflicted on another by failing to meet one's
covenant obligations. Sinve the first law of yhe Covenant is worship of Yahweh, idolatry is its
clearest expression. "The worship if infamous idols is the reason and source and extremity of all
evil" (cf. Wis. 14:27).
 2. Depravity and perversity refer to the defect of character or disorder that weighs the sinner
down. "For my iniquities... are like a heavy birden, beyond my strength" (Ps. 38:5).
3. Rebellion and transgression picture sin as a conscious choice which destroys positive
relationships. "See what rebellious Israel has done! She has... played the harlot" (Jer. 3:6).

More importantly, the Old Testament manifests certain shifts of emphasis on its conception of
sin. There are three conceptions of sin. First is thecmore primitive, less morally developed idea
of sin which pictures it as a defilement or "stain," the sense of being unclean before the face of
God, the All-Holy (cf. Lv. 15:31). Second is the more ethical view of sin presented in the Old
Testament, in the stories of prophets, and "covenant" narratives. Sin is seen more as a crime, an
internal willfu violation of Yahweh's covenant relationship (0cf. Is. 59:2-8). Viewing sin as
crime emphasizes its juridical aspect, with its concern for determining the nature of the crime,
the culpabality of the sinner, abd the appropriate punishment. Third, sin is a personal rejection of
a love relationship. It draws on the Bible's covenantal language of personal vocation,
discepleship, and conversion to reduce the fire and brimstone emphasis of the more juridical
"crime" image. Sin is basically a free, responsible malice of the sinner and the harm inflicted on
other persons. Sin is seen as truly interpersonal: the personal malice of the sinner offending the
persons of God and neighbor. By committing a sin, sinners alienate themselves from their
neighbors, all creation, God, and their own true selves.

New Testament

Sin is considered as ungrateful desertion of the Lord (Lk. 15:11-32). It is the antithesis of
charity, and offense against love (Lk. 7:47). In his Epistles, St. Paul adds some new aspect to the
biblical concept of sin. He sees in man's wickedness a denial of the glorification due to God and
the presumptive attempt to be one's own Lord (Room. 1:18-32). The sinner lives in enmity
against God; therefore, sinners are excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9; GL. 5:21).
Sin is a desecration of a person's own body because his/her body which is the temple of the Holy
Spirit is destroyed by immorality (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19).
Jesus calls us beyond the letter of the law to its spirit, that is, to its profound intention. Hence,
sin is whatever goes against the call of God. True justice is in the inner person, so is sin:
"Whatever comes out of a person is what defiles him/her. For from within, out of the heart of a
person, come evil thoughts..."(Mk. 7:20-23).
Lack of belief is the most radical sin: "Every sin will be forgiven, but the blasphemy against the
Spirit will not be forgiven" (Mt. 12:31; cf. Mk. 3:28-30). The "capital" sin is the refusal to
recognize the power of God in Christ and to confess Him as the Messiah (cf. Jn 8:24).
 In St. Paul, two lines of thought run together. On the one hand, the conviction that human are
masters of their decisions and, therefore, are responsible for them; and, on the other hand, the
fact that the sinful deeds of the individuals share a mysterious solidarity in the sinful situation of
humankind. While sin tries to Lord over human like a despot and penetrates right into the, they
are still free. Humans can resist and overcome sin by the dwelling Spirit of Christ taking
possession of them.
Sin introduces a division within the self: "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil which I
do not want is what I do" (Rom. 7:19). Sin hurts the whole body of believers just as a wound in
one part of the physical body hurts the whole body: "If one member suffers, all suffer together"
(1 Cor. 12:26).
Sin is lawlessness and unrighteousness. It is loving darkness rather than the light. The sinner
hates the light "lest his deeds should be exposed" (Jn. 3:20).
Love of self is a natural thing. But to sin is to love oneself inordinately, ie not being open to
God and to one's fellowmen. In the full light of Christian revelation, we know that God comes to
us as the source and goal of our freedom. Sin, then, involves not merely closing oneself against
one's true destiny but rejecting the gracious offer of God. We refuse our true fulfillment in God
and try to find it in our poor ego, when all the time, God is calling us to intimacy with Himself.
Thus, sin can always be reduced to either one of two factors: 1) pride, ie., refusing to be subject
to God and not desiring to receive one's perfection from Him; or 2) sensuality, ie, not trying to
permeate one's body by the spirit. This latter could be reduced to the former.

Social Aspect of Sin

Against the popular belief that sin is purely an individual affair, Christianity strongly affirms that
sin can never be considered as such since it always involves social dimensions, as the Holy Bible
affirms (cf. 1 Jn. 4:12-20). A person's sin affects his/her fellow human beings more or less
directly by causing harm to them, which is a deprivation of graces or friendship with God. Every
sin constitutes an impairment of the realization of the common ultimate task ( 1 Cor. 12:26-27;
GS, 13).
"Social sin" stresses complicity in evil by showing how members of the same group are mutually
involves. It can refer to I) sins power to affect others by reason of human solidarity; sins that
directly attack human rights and basic freedoms, human dignity, justice, and the common good)
sins affecting relationships between or among human communities such as class struggle, or
obstinate confrontations between blocs of nations; and) situations of sin, or sinful structures that
are the consequences of sinful choices and acts (e.g. racial discrimination), and economic
systems of exploitation (cf. RP, 16).
 The second Plenary Council of the Philippines urges us to "reject and move against sinful social
structures, and setcup in their stead those that allow and promote the flowering of fuller life"
(#288).
Although it is true that sin is a personal act, we still have the responsibility for the sins
committed by others when we cooperate in them by) participating directly and voluntarily in
them;) ordering, advising, praising, or approving them ) not disclosing or not hindering them
when we have an obligation to do so; and) protecting evildoers.
Thus, sins make humans accomplices of one another and cause consupiscence, violence, and
injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary
to the divine goodness. " Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They
lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin"
When we commit "private sins," we are in a way staining or defiling the society/community
which is meant to be clean. By commiting "personal sins," we dirty the society which should be
clean.

The Proliferation of Sin

Sin creates a proclivity to commit sin. It engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This
results in perverse inclinations which cloud the conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of
good and evil. Thus , sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the
moral sense at its root.
Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or can also be linked to capital sins
which Christians experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the
Great. They are called "capital sins" because thay engender other sins and other vices. Capital
sins included pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.
There are various kinds of sins. The Holy Scriptures provide several lists of them. St. Paul
warned the Galatians of the works of the flesh that contradict the fruit of the spirit: "Now the
works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity,
strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the
like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the
Kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21; cf. Rom. 1:28-32).

Church's Teaching on Sin

Sin has different dimensions. It can be described as a spiral a sickness, or an addicfikn. As a
spiral, sin enslaves us in a contagious, pathological habit of vice that acts like a virus, infecting
social attitudes and structures such as family, social groups, and the like. Sin can also be
described as a sickness. St. Luke links healing to the forgiveness of sin (Lk. 5:18-26). Sin is also
an addiction, a process over which we become powerless as it becomes progressively more
compulsive and obsessive. Sin as addiction leads to a pattern of ever deeper deception of self and
others, ending in the inevitable disintegration of all our major personal and social relationships.
Examples of sin as addiction ere consumerism and militarism.
Therefore, we need to consider these dimensions of sin in order for us to have:
. a more realistic appraisal of the sinner's actual operative freedom.
. a positive orientatiom toward the process of healing and forgiveness; and
. a stress on the overriding importance of the social and structural dimensions of sin

Distinction of Sin

By practical judgment, we realize that not all sins are of the same gravity and a person acts on
this basis. Although the Bible speaks of sin explicitly in many ways, it does not explicitly
mention a distinction (except in 1 Jn. 5:16ff) between mortal and venial sins, as St. Thomas, St.
Augustine, the Council of Trent, and the traditional Catholic theology talked about it. This
distinction, however, poses a problem. Every sin is a refusal a God's will and hence, breaking
away from God (Jas. 2:10ff).How then can there be a second category besides mortal sin which
does not constitute a breach with God? Most theologians approach the problem by distinguishing
the basic difference between mortal and venial sins , vdnial sin does not constitute direct,
complete refusal to God's will while mortal sin does, but is only a negligent, deficient
compliance with the same.
Mortal sin may be described as the outcome of a deliberate reversal, of our option to be for God
and for others, It is the full commitment to an option which contradicts God's will and a person's
authentic goal, realization of one's natural goal (halpiness) and supernatural goal (communion
with God). It presupposes, therefore, a clear knowledge of the serious disorder of the sinful
decision and full consent of the free will. One commits a mortal sin when: ) there is a full
knowledge or awareness of the wrong choice: the gravity or seriousness of the object of the act is
a significant matter; and there is full and deliberate consent of the free will that presupposes the
actual doing of this wrong option.
Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, which correspond to the answer of Jesus
to the rich young man: "do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false
witness, do not defraud, and honor your father and your mother" (Mk. 10:19). The gravity of sin
is more or less great: murder is graver than theft.
One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than
violence against a stranger.
Mortal sin presupposes full knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to
God's law. It also implies a complete consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.
Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary
character of a sin.
Mortal sin destroy's charity in our heart through a grave violation of God's law. It gurns away
from God who is the ultimate end and the supreme beatitude by preffering an inferior god over
Him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds charity.
Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us which is charity , necessitates a new
initiative of God's mercy and conversation of heart which is normally accomplished within the
setting/spirit of the sacrament of reconciliation.
Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But
no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of moral law, which are written in the
conscience of every person. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the
voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorder, but
sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, remains the gravest.
The criteria for judging the gravity of sin fall under two general categories: 1) internal criteria
the criteria taken from the nature and effects of a wrong option, if it constitute a grave injury to
the realization of God's eternal goals; and 2) external criteria ,the criteria taken from the authority
of the Holy Bible (e.g. Gen. 4:10; 18:20ff; 19:3), the official doctrine of the Councils and the
Popes (e.g 16 Documents of Vatican II), and the common teachings of the Church Fathers and
theologians (e.g, St. Thomas and St. Augustine).
Venial sin is described as a morally wrong option aggravated by lack of clear insight or
insufficient awareness of the consequence involved in a "sinful" act, or by the imperfect consent
of the will. In other words, one commits a venial sin when he/she is merely negligent in the
fulfillment of God's will, such as when he /she violates God's law in "unimportant" matter, or if
he/she violates God's law for "important" matters but with imperfect consent of the will. One
commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he/she fails to observe the moral law in a grave
matter but without full knowledge and consent.
Venial sin weakens charity. It manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the
soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good. It merits
temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit
mortal sin. However, venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of
God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace, it is humanly reparable: "
Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and,
consequently, eternal happiness."
 Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit "can never have forgiveness but is guilty of an
eternal sin" (Mk 3:29). There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately
refuses to accept His mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his/her sins and tha salvation
offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Conversion and Reconciliation

The teachings of Jesus start from an urgent call to conversion (Mk. 1:15). This metanoia (change
of heart) implies total reconciliation, both personal and communitarian.
Made in the image of God and invited to communion with the Triune God as well as to mutual
fellowship and harmony with the whole of creation, humanity, through sin, broke away from
this communion and harmony. Having been driven away from the source of their existence,
human beings have been alienated from one another and from the cosmos. This tragic situation is
graphically described by St. Paul in his letter to the Romans: "For although they knew God, they
did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and
their senseles minds were darkened" (Rom. 1:21). However, God "did not abandon mankind to
the power of death but helped all to seek and find Him.
Through an initiative of divine condescension, the Father has reconciled all the peoples who
were, as St. Paul says, "separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel,
strangers of the covenant of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph. 2:12).
St. Paul goes on to say that "now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought
near in the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down
the dividing wall of hosility (Eph. 2:11-15).
Through the decisive Christ-event, our human nature has been restored and annobled. By
assuming our flesh, the Son of God has sanctified it. In Christ, the common Fatherhood of God
and brotherhood of all human beings have been restored. By Christ's death, corruption and death
have been conquered. By his resurrection, our humanity has basically been glorified. St. Paul luts
it expressively: "He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everythimg He might
be preeminent. For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to
reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by yhe blood of his
cross" (Col. 1:18-20). St. Paul marvels at the divine purpose which God set forth in Christ "as a
plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven, a things on earth" (Eph.
1:10).
Thus, the love of God for sinful humanity is manifested in Christ Jesus sho is "the primary
sacrament" of our encounter with God. The Father reestablishes communion of love with
humans through His Son: "In this love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent His
only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved
God but that He loved us and snet His son to be the expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so
loved us, we also ought to love one another" (1 Jn. 4:9-11).

Conversion: An Ongoing Process of Transformation

Sin, as discussed earlier, is a contradiction of one's true calling, an alienation and separation from
the community of God and His people, and an endangering of one's salvation. It leaves a "sinner"
in a state of misery which is most clearly manifested in the dire suffering and passion of Jesus
Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). But God did not abandon humanity in this state (Jn. 3:16); instead, He
offers us a joyous invitation for reconciliation through conversion (Mk. 1:15). This call to
conversion which stands clearly both in the Old Testament (1 Sm. 15:22ff; Is.1:11-17; 30:15; Jer.
3:22ff) and in the New Testament (Mk. 1:15; Mt. 22:11-13; Rv. 2:14-16; 2:20-23; 3:1-3;19ff)-
extends to everyone.
Conversion invites all, especially those who live far from God and are caught in the alienation
of mortal sinIt also calls those who are basically on the "right" path, but still have to correct
numerous shortcomings and imperfections (Rom. 6:12; 1 Cor. 5:7ff; Eph. 2:4, 22-24; Col. 1:21ff;
2:20; 3:1-10).
Although conversion cannot be realized without sacrifice and laborious effort, its purpose or
goal, nevertheless, remains the salvation of humanity. Hence, it presupposes the following
conditions:

1. humble admission of sin and guilt (Lk. 15:21; Mt. 23:12; Sr. Augustine's Epistola 118,22);
2. readiness for the efforts of more renewal Mt. 10:38);
3. openness for the gift of grace (Ps. 25:7ff; Denzinger 373-375, 1551-1553); and
4. the sacramental enactment and realization of conversion.

We make ourselves the person's we are by the choices we freely make. With every sinful
choice, we make ourselves sinners guilty in the sight of the Lord. This perduring of sin within
the sinner is what is meant by the "state" of sin or condition of sinfulness. Jesus summons us to
recognize our sinfulness and to have a change of heart (metanoia or conversion), which consists
of a new self- determining choice whereby, in response to and with the help of God's unfailing
and healing grace, we assume the identity of repentant sinners, of persons who have been
reconciled to God. Sin persists in the being of a person who sins. A morally evil commitment can
lead to many morally wicked acts, insofar as through the free choice to sin, one has disposed
oneself to act sinfully. In other words, sin is not simply deviation in isolated pieces of external
behavior; rather, it is evil in the existential domain and extends to all that exist by or are affected
by sinful choices.
Moreover, while sin springs from the abuse of one's gift of freedom,"deep within its human
reality," Pope John Paul II has reminded us that "there are factors at work which place it beyond
the merely human in the border area where one's conscience, will, and sensitivity are in contact
with the dark forces which according to St. Paul, are active in the world almost to point of ruling
it. It is for this reason that only God the one from whom we turn away in choosing to sin and the
One whose loving law we freely choose to cast aside can rescue us from this dreaded evil. And,
in His mercy, God has choosen to do do by sending us His only begotten Son, who, by His fully
accepting our humanity and by His redeptive death-resurrection, has conquered sin and its power
over us.

Repentance in the Old Testament

Repentance in the Old Testament implies a change of heart, thus, conversion. This is expressed
in Is. 1:16-17, and in Am. 5:14. The nature and manner of this conversion depend on the
religious ideal envisaged, and the manner in, and the measure to which one is removed from that
idea.

Repentance in the New Testament

The coming of God's kingdom calls for a change of heart (metenoia) which affects moral attitude
and behavior. It implies one's turning away from the wrong path and striking out towards the
opposite direcfion. Convedsion, therefore, not only implies turning totally away from one's sins
in attitude as well as in action but also the resolute turning towards God (repentance) and atoning
for one's sins (reparation).
Although the call to conversion in the Old Testament is generally addressed to the people of
Israel as a whole, each individual Israelite is clearly asked to respond psrsonally. This is
manifested by the very terms used. For instance, in Ezekiel, we have: "A new heart I will give
you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and
give you a heart of flesh" (36:26). In spite of the communitarian dimension of the New
Testament's message, sin and reconciliation are primarily personal: "What comes out of a person
is what defiles him/her. For from within, out of the heart of the person, come evil thoughts..."
(Mk. 7:20-21). The coming of the Kingdom is a call to metanoia (cf. Mk. 1:15) or a critical
change in the depth of one's heart, and a faithful commitment to Christ, through whom the Good
News comes.
Indeed, one of the most specific elements of the Christian message is, in the words of Pope
John Paul II, "the truth about the human person, truth that is revealed to us, in its full extent and
depth, in Christ." From this point of view, it is necessary to restore the sense of personal sin
which is being obscured by contemporary unchristian values as well as by a one-sided emphasis
on the social dimension of religion and life. However, care should be taken so as not to revive
the morbid sense of guilt and scrupulosity from which many Christians suffered in the past.
It should again be noted that the initiative for repentance and conversion of heart comes from
God: "God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom.
5:8). It is not the works of penance that affect the inner change of heart but God's gracious gift.
Human effort is only the sign of one's willingness to abandon inordinate attachments and turn
one's heart wholly to God.

Human Reconciliation is Reconciliation with God

Reconciliation is an expression of the new situation that has been brought about by the death
and resurrection of Christ. It is to end a relationship of enmity and begin a relationship of peace
amd goodwill. As stated in Romans 4:3-8, justification comes about when God does not impute
iniquities to the person but reckons him/her righteous by faith. According to God's plan, Christ
assumes the guilt of our sins so that "we might become the righteous of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). St.
Paul declares that "you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, He has
now reconciled in His body of flesh by His death, in order to present you holy and blameless and
irreproachable before Him" (Col. 1:21-22).
In his letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul conceives the work of redemption as breaking down the
wall of hostility between humanity and God, between Jew and Gentile:

"But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near in the blood of
Christ. For He is our peace who has made us both one and has broken down the dividing wall of
hostility by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and ordinances that He might
create in Himself one new man in place of the two. So making peace might reconcile us both to
God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end" (Eph. 2:13-16).
 The need for human reconciliation is parabolic of our need for reconciliation with God. Since
we are created in the image of God, sin and reconciliation have an essentially interlinked
horizontal and vertical dimensions.

The Role of the Church in Reconciliation

The fruit of reconciliation brought about by the death and resurrection of Christ is "a new
creation" (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). While the paschal mystery has a definitive character, how it
concretely works in our world is an ongoing process. This is now achieved principally in and
through the Church, the Spirit-filled community of redemption, gathered by Christ from all
peoples to be formed mystically into His Body.
The Church is not a sect or religious group over against others. According to Vatican II, the
Church "is a kind of sacrament or sign of intimate union with God, and of the unity of all
mankind. She is also an instrument for the achievement of such union and unity."
St. Paul defines apostolic activity as the ministry of reconciliation, which he expresses by
different vivid terms: "All this is is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and
gave us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to
Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of
reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us" (2 Cor.
5:18-20).

Mercy and Sin

The Gospel is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God's mercy to sinners. The angel announces to
Joseph: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:21).
The same is true of the Eucharist, the sacrament of redemption: "This is my blood of the
covenant, which is pourced out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt. 26:28).
St. Augustine emphasizes that "God created us without us: but He did not will to save us
without us" (CCC, #1847). To receive God's mercy, we must admit our faults: "If we say we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful
and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn. 1:8-9).
As St. Paul affirms: "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Rom. 5:20). But to do
its work, grace must uncover sin so as to convert our hearts and bestow on us "righteousness to
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5:21). Like a physician who examines the
wound before treating it, God, by His Word and by His Spirit, casts a living light. on sin:
"Conversion requires convincing of sin; it includes the interior judgment of conscience, and this,
being a proof of the action of the Spirit of truth in one's inmost being, becomes at the same time
the start of a new grant of grace and love: "Receive the Holy Spirit." Thus, in this "convincing
truth concerning sin," we discover a double gift: the gift of the truth of conscience and the gift of
the certainty of redemption. The Spirit of truth is the consoler.

Grace and Sin

As sin destroys man's relationship with God, grace rebuilds that relationship through Jesus
Christ.St. Paul says that where sin abounds,grace abounds all the more(Rom.5:20).The word
grace is used in many different ways.In its most basic sense of the word,it refers to the favor of
God bestows upon us,the gift of divine life itself, the help which God gives us to live holy lives,
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, sacramental grace of union by which the Word is united with
Christ's human nature, God's forgiveness and the grace of salvation.
In the Old Testament, the noun hen designates a quality which arouses favor as "to find favor in
the eyes of God or other persons.The verb hanan "to show favor" designates an attitude which as
proper toward the needy, the poor, the widow,the orphan,and so forth.God shows favor by a)
giving prosperity(Gen.33:11),and b) giving children (Gen.33:5).
In the New Testament,the Greek noun charis is to be distinguished from the noun charisma.The
former is the corresponding noun for grace which occurs frequently,one the other hand, refers to
the different types of spiritual gifts.Grace is also the principle of Christian life,action,and
mission.
God's grace is given in Jesus.The life of Jesus is nobler than what man could have been,and
Christian life is nobler than human life would have been without original sin.The most important
truth about original sin is that we are redeemed from it.Jesus redeems us from all defilement,
from the chains of death, from slavery, from alienation from God. He restores us to grace, gives
us the power to grow in holiness, restores our innocence, brings us joy, weds heaven on earth,
and reconciles humankind to God. Somehow all of the evils which our Lord Jesus overcome
sprang from original sin; all redemption from these evils comes from the Father through our
Lord Jesus Christ.
And so man's sin is called a "happy fault" and a "necessary sin," not as if in itself a fault were
good or a sin inevitable, but because in man, humankind misspoke itself in the dialogue between
his freedom and God's freedom, and in so doing evoked from him the splendid response of so
great a redeemer: the Word made flesh in glory.
Temptation-Sin-Punishment

. Temptation

Temptation is an invitation to sin. It is any situation or occasion that leads and invites one to sin.
Temptation poses as something good, a need, to appear as desirable. It may be anything bad
disguised/masked as good to appear attractive.
There are three levels of temptation. 1) Invitation. The direct invitation to sin just as the
serpent tempted Adam in the story of the Fall of Man (Gen. 2:1-24): "Eat the fruit of knowledge,
it looks good and delicious." For example, a student tempts his/her classmate not to attend the
class ("pare, huwag na tayo pumasok sa klase"). 2.) Enticement. When the invitation is not
enough, the tempter ups the ante and offers something in exchange to make the offer more
tempting/enticing. The serpent said: "Eat the fruit, it looks good and delicious ; you will not die,
instead you will gain knowledge of right and wrong.." The student-tempter continues in enticing
his/her classmate ("pare, huwag na tayo pumasok sa klase, REED lang naman yan eh, bilyar
tayo..."). 3.Seduction. When the offer of the tempter does not prove to be tempting enough, the
tempter ups the ante mote, making the offer so irresistable to the point of making the one being
tempted to seem like a fool if he/she resists. The serpent seduced Adam by offering more: "Eat
the fruit, it looks good and delicious; you will not die, instead you will gain knowledge of right
and wrong; you eill be lime god. The tempter-student seduces the classmate with something
more ( "pare huwag na tayo pumasok sa klase, REED lang naman yan eh, bilyar tayo, sagot ko
lahat: pamasahe, miryenda, yung laro natin, may ipakilala pa akong mga chicks.)
The danger to fall into the four traps of temptation is a great challenge for us to avoid.
1.) Attendance. Temptations appeal to the senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch). They
always look, smell, taste, sound, and feel good, like the temptation to eat and drink liquor
without limit, thus leading to gluttony and drunkenness. Temptations provide experiences of
pleasure, power, and security. 2) Attraction. Because temptations always look, smell, taste,
sound, and feel good, they are very attractive. For example, in the temptation to engage in an
illicit relationship, the person we are involved with looks so attractive and "beautiful". Once we
are attracted ( magnetized, hypnotized )we come back over and over again to the experiences that
usually provide pleasure, power, and security.
3. Attachment. Because we return (over and over again) to the experience that provides
pleasure, power, and security, we become attached to it.
The experience becomes habitual. Without noticing it, we go back to the experience not just
because we gaim pleasure, power, and security but also because we slowly give or attach (false)
meaning to it. 4) Addiction. Because we already draw (false) meaning from the experience that
provides us with pleasure, power, and security, we already addicted before we notice it.
Addiction happens when we attach ourselves and draw meaning from something other than our
(real) selves, something lower than ourselves, in fact in religious parlance, this is called
"idolatry". Another example is when a problematic person resorts to using drugs repeatedly to
give (at least temporary) solution to his/her problem. This person, therefore, becomes addicted.

. Sin

However, when we dont give in to temptation, we do not commit sin. Therefore, we need to be
very careful because the devil will attack our weakness until we commit sin. In the areas of sin,
there are three lower centers of consciousness.
1) Pleasure center. It is more of the desire for comfort and convenience, avoidance of pain, and
the desire to have everything "easy". When Jesus was hungry after 40 days of fasting (Mt. 4:1-
11), He was tempted by the devil with food, the basic need for survival instincts. "If you are the
Son of God, command these stones to turn into bread"(Mt. 4:3). It is one of the pleasures of life
that we would be tempted by the devil for they give us comfort/convenience, luxuries that make
life pleasurable. 2) Power center. It is the desire to possess and exercise authority/power over
others. As Jesus prepared for His mission/public ministry, He was tempted by the devil with
another basic need to feel important. " I can give you all the power of the nations and
wealth..."(Mt. 4:10). It is the desire for power over others that would push us to use our talents,
skills, looks, titles, achievements, wealth, possessions, enjoyment of luxuries, that makes us
crave for more power.
3) Security center. It is the desire to feel invulnerable and secure, the desire to acquire wealth.
Jesus identity as Son of God was being tested/questioned. Jesus was tempted further with a basic
need to feel secure. "Throw yourself down from here.. the angels wil save you.." (Mt. 4:6). It is
the desire for security, authority, positions, titles, wealth, luxuries that makes us feel we acquire
more security in life. Our basic desire for pleasure (fame), authority (power), and security
(fortune) are our basic areas of sin. These are the same areas of our temptations.

. Punishment

The concept of punishment has always been attached to the concepts of temptations and sin; the
three always go together. If temptation is the gateway to sin, the judgment and punishment of
God always follow. However, a not-so- healthy result of such is the idea of a judgment and
punishing God, far from the idea of a loving and compassionate Father (Abba) that Jesus
introduced God to be. Perhaps it is better if we instead see the results of sin as the consequences
of our actions rather than as punishment from God. The biblical dictum "..you reap what you
sow.." is applicable here. The moral dictum is that every action or decision possesses a
corresponding consequences. And consequences are the logical results of every decision or
action, good or bad. Naturally here, the consequence of our sins (bad decision/acfion) is
punishment by our own making.

Sin-Conversion-Reconciliation

Sin makes us addicted to it and enslaves us to become more compulsive and obsessive. It
develops selfishness and our hardened hearts trust in its wrong promises. Therefore, we need to
respond to Jesus call for conversion (Mk. 1:15) This conversion or change of heart (metanoia)
implies total reconciliation, both personal and communitarian.
Sin, as discussed earlier, alienates and separates us from the community of God and His people.
But God dies not give up on us. He offers us a joyous invitation for reconciliation through
conversion. Conversion invites all to God's righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). Conversion likewise
encourages us to correct our shortcomings and imperfections. We need to reconcile with our
fellowmen and with God who faithfully awaits us to "become holy, irreproachable, and
blameless in His sight" ( Col. 1:21-22 ).

Compassion-Mercy-Forgiveness

The Sacred Scriptures speak of the compassion and mercy of God. "The favors of the Lord are
not exhausted, His compassions are not spent; they are renewed each morning, so great is His
faithfulness" (Lam.3:22-23). During His ministry, Jesus showed compassion in many instances:
on the crowd for people were like sheep without shepherd ( Mt. 9:36); when He disembarked and
saw the vast throng, His heart was moved with compassion and He cured their sick (Mt 14:14).
And while on the cross Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing"
(Lk. 23:34).
The Gospel is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God's mercy and forgiveness to sinners. Jesus is
our Savior from our sins (Mt. 1:21) and His blood of the new covenant is poured out for many
for the forgiveness of sins (Mt. 26:28). Lime Christ, we need to confess our sins, forgive our
enemies, and God, in His compassion and mercy, and because He is faithful and just, will forgive
our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 Jn. 1:8-9).
SUMMARY

We humans are sometimes uncertaim of what to do in life. Our improper use of freedom makes
us do things contrary to our nature as free and responsible beings, and leads us to commit sin
which takes us away from our Creator.
The discussion of the definition and concept of sin reveals its effects not only on the person
who commits it but also on the society to which one belongs. The Church teaches us that sin is a
kind of virus that infects attitudes, family structures, individuals, and other social groups. Only
the forgiveness and mercy of Christ can cure this creeping sickness that slowlt ears up order in
society. We all need to be converted to have a heart like that of Christ, ever meek, gentle, and
forgiving. The grace of God will always help us to be reconciled to Him. The sacrament of
reconciliation will lead us back to Him if we are sincere and humble of heart.

EVALUATION

Guide Questions

1. How does sin disrupt our relationship with God and with one another?

2. How can we, as Christians, stop the proliferation of sin in our society?

3. Does mortal sin really lead us away from God? How?

4. Why do we still need the mercy of God in our present "redeemed" nature?
 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.

ACTIVITY

A. Individual Work

This activity shows the importance of observing laws in your day-to-day living and in your
relationship or encounter with other people. Share your answers to the following questions with a
classmate.

1. Is it true that sin has to do with the breaking of rules and regulations formulated and imposed
by the Church? Why?

2. Why is it important to have laws? Can you live without them?

3. Enumerate some house rules and school policies and regulations. What is your attitude
towards these laws?

4. Can you break laws, rules, and regulations without any harmful consequences? Why?

5. As a Christian, what laws of God do you obey or try to live by? Have you been successful in
doing so? Why?

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 accomplished 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 fronm 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.

Activity

In our attempt to answer the question "What is conscience?", several situations are given below
which call for a "conscience response." Read each situation carefully and try to resolve the
problem presented.
Hopefully, this activity will guide you in making the right decisions whenever you find yourself
in similar situations. This will also help you become more prudent next time, and to make things
happen smoothly and accordingly.

Situation A

You go to a school whose academic standard are high, and which requires excellent grades
from students. This situation is further complicated by your demanding parents who expect you
to do well. You have pretty good grades during your first three years in college. You are now in
your senior year, and in one of you major subjects, your professor has been quite unfair. She has
planned a difficult test for you and your classmates. You know from past experience that half of
the students in class cheat during exams, thus ruining any chance for a curve. You have studied
quite hard, but you know that unless you cheat, many others will get higher grades than you.
What would you do?
List four reasons why you should cheat and four reasons why you should not. Then, decide
whether you will cheat or not.

Situation B

A good friend offers you prohibited drugs for you "to get high." Initially, you hesitate and
refuse. He tries to convince you by saying that his experience which drugs is quite fun. Besides,
he says, you cannot really hurt anyone but yourself. He adds that it is your business and nobody
else's if you take drugs or not. The law and your parents should not prevent you from fully
enjoying yourself. Would you accept the offer and experiment with drugs?
Give four reasons for taking the drugs and four reasons for not taking them. Then, decide
whether you will take the drugs or not.

Situation C

Your post-high school career has taken you into the Marines. Your country is at war with a
nation that is heading toward communism. You respect the law and deeply believe in the values
of your own country. One day, your group is ordered to attack and totally destroy a small barrio.
The barrio is suspected of hiding a band of terrorists, but is also known to be populated by old
people and small children. Should you attack?
Give four reasons why you should attack and four reasons why you should not attack. Then,
decide whether you will attack or not.
Form into four or five groups and discuss the following questions:

1. Is cheating right? Does the argument "because everyone else is doing it" make it right? Is it
right to say that it's better to cheat than to repeat? Can you think of some consequences for
society if morality is based on this argument?
2. Will your decision on whether or not to take the drugs be different if the drugs referred to are
marijuana or shabu? Do parents and society have the right to limit "fun"?
3. Are you always obliged to follow authority? Where do you the line between disobedience to
the law and to your conscience?
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.

EVALUATION
Please answer the questions in ACTIVITY 2 which will be posted by the teacher.