WELCOME TO OUR

GOOGLE
CLASSROOM
CHRISTIAN (CATHOLIC)
MORALITY
GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES
I. Meaning of “Morality”

a. Franz Bockle (German Theologian):

- is part of theology that searches for the norms of free human
conduct in the light of (divine) revelation.

b. Antonin Sertillanges (French Theologian and Philosopher):

- a science of what man ought to be by reason of what he is.
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS OF MORALITY
(based from the given definitions)

1. Man – is the subject and object of morality

2. Human Action – the object of moral judgement

3. Norms – the standards for moral judgement

4. Divine Revelation – the ultimate basis of all three elements

Traditional Perspective:
- morality is just all about sets of rules that we have to follow in
order for man to be righteous in the eyes of others.

Contemporary Perspective:
- morality is not primarily about duties and obligations, but
about relationship and growth (Sean Fagan: Does Morality Change?)
II. Foundation of Morality:
A. Old Testament Background:

1. Basic Basis of the Old Testament Morality:

a. The Covenant with Yahweh (and Israel)
a.1. God’s Initiative:
- dialogue character
- providential role

a.2. Israel’s Response:

- faithful obedience
- holy fear of the Lord
- love of God
b. The Sense of Community of the Israelites:
- with their common origin, experiences, and history
and culture, it was expected of them to have a
strong social responsibility and great concern
for their fellowmen and community.
2. Distinctive Character and Limitations of OT Morality:

a. Distinctive Characteristic:
a.1. Monotheism – absolute faith in Yahweh.

b. Limitations:
b.1. Eudaemonistic trait
b.2. Limited expression of fraternal love
b.3. Very legalistic approach to the Law
B. New Testament Background:

1. Jesus Christ:
- ultimate basis of Christian morality
- established a “new covenant”
- his words and deeds during his public ministry

2. The Two Great Commandments of Love:

- to love God (primary)
- to love neighbors (secondary)
III. Understanding WHO and WHAT MAN is:
A. Concepts of “Body”:

1. “Body” in the Old Testament:

a. Hebrew mentality:
a.1. Basar – creatureliness
a.2. Nefesh/Nephesh - whole being
b. Greek mentality:
The Greek understanding of body follows
the Principle of:
b.1. Individuation
b.2. Differentiation
Dualism – body/soul
2. “Body in the New Testament”:

a. St. Paul:
- his background of being Jew by blood;
Greek by education, and Roman by
citizenship.

- The body is related to the whole person in

his relationships and responsibilities with
God and man.
B. Different Philosophical Views On “Man”:

1. Oriental – man has to live in gentle submissiveness to

cosmic powers flowing in the universe.
2. Hedonism – man has to take and experience anything
that gives pleasure to him.
3. Communism- man has worth only to the degree that
he keeps the interests of the state.
4. Atheism Existentialism – man is radically alone and
separated from all others.
5. Nihilism – man and his life have no ultimate meaning.
6. Christian – Christian teachings tell us the inherent value
and dignity of man.
IV. SOME BASIS OF (OUR) CHRISTIAN RESPONSE:

A. Viewing Man in the context of Natural Law:

1. Man’s Participation in the Eternal Law.

- Eternal Law is also called as Divine Law.
- It refers to the ultimate plan of God in so far it
directs all activities of man towards his ultimate
end – unification with God.
- Man can participate in the Eternal Law in two (2)
general ways: Order of Reason (by Cicero); and in
Order of Nature (by Ulpian).
St. Thomas Aquinas said that man can commit sin in the Order
of Nature in two (2) ways:

a. Sin according to nature:

- adultery
- fornication

b. Sin against nature:

- masturbation
- same sex
2. Some Basic Characteristics of Man:

a. Rational – capacity to think; discover laws

b. Free – ability to choose by the use of reason
c. Love – capacity to desire what is good
d. Body-person – man is part of the material creation
e. Unique, though social- man is distinct yet related to
others.
f. Historical – man has the continuity of the past.
B. Old Testament Revelation
- it points out to the Faith in the Salvation History

1. Some Descriptions of Man based in the OT:

a. Image of God (Gen 1:27)

b. Fundamentally Good (Gen 1:31)
c. God’s Partner (Gen 1:28)

C. New Testament Revelation:

- this is anchored on the Incarnation of Jesus Christ
- Christian living challenges man to follow His
commandments and live them in his daily life.
V. FREEDOM: VOLUNTARINESS AND
ACCOUNTABILITY

After we have discussed the objective basis of living a daily

Christian life, let us now consider the “subjective” aspect of
Christian living. By subjective here, we mean the response of
man to God and fellowmen based on his decisions and
actions in concrete situations.

It is in this context that we can see the operation of man’s

freedom in his decisions and actions which consequently
imply also his responsibility and accountability of the
decisions that he makes and the actions he performs.
A. What is a “Voluntary Act’?

- it is an action done by a person who is totally aware of

his/her action.
- the action he/she performs is properly deliberated.
B. Human Act vs. Act of Man

Human Act: Act of Man:

- full knowledge - no/partial knowledge

- full consent - no/partial consent

- full freedom - no/partial freedom

C. Some Types of Voluntariness:

1. Perfect – it is present in an action done with full

knowledge.
2. Imperfect – it is observable in an action done with no
or partial knowledge and/or consent.
3. Direct Voluntary Act (Voluntary in se)
- it is an act which is directly intended and
accomplished.
4. Indirect Voluntary Act (Voluntary in cause)
- it is an act which in unintended by generally
foreseen.
D. Some Principles applied in “Human Act”

1. Principle of Double Effect:

- This principle tells us that with a proportionate
reason, we may permit evil to occur, but should
never directly intend to do evil even for a good
reason.

- Four (4) basic conditions:

. The act is morally good in itself
. Bad effect is only permitted, not willed
. The intention of the agent must be good
. The good effect must not be outweighed by
the bad effect.
2. One Unit Theory:

- There are numerical acts that we may perform or commit; however,

even the seemingly good actions can be considered as one pack of
sinful action if/when they are used to achieved a desired negative
end.

- For example: (series of actions)

visits a girlfriend
invites for a date
go to SM
strolling inside the store
watch a movie
take a snacks
check in to a motel
have sex
VI. MAN’S MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF HIS ACTIONS

A. Modifiers of an Act:
1. Ignorance- the lack of absence of knowledge.
a. vincible – can be overcome by amount of diligence
b. invincible – can not be overcome by amount of diligence,
at least at the moment.
2. Passion – refers to an intense feeling or emotion.
a. antecedent – unanticipated burst of emotion.
b. consequent – performed after having thought of.
3. Fear – an apprehension of an impending evil to happen.
a. metus – intellectual fear
b. timor – emotional fear
4. Habit – a constant way of doing things.
a. deliberate – it is acquired intentionally
b. non-deliberate – it is acquired unintentionally.

5. Force – a physical violence that compels one to do

something against his or her will.
-Note: There is not classification of force, but there
are criteria that we can say force is present in
an act namely:
a. active element – physical violence, not just a fear
of it.
b. passive element – internal resistance, not
necessarily external resistance.
B. Conscience and Man’s Act.
1. Conscience defined:
- it is a practical judgement of reason upon an individual act as good and
to be done; or bad and to be avoided.

2. Types of Conscience:
For easy understanding and recall, let us present them by pair.
a. antecedent – guides future action
consequent – judges past action
b. certain – judges without fear of error.
doubtful – judges with fear of error, and at times does not judge at all.
c. strict – rigid in making judgement
lax – judges thing/s less serious than they are.
d. correct – judges good as good; evil as evil
erroneous – judges good as evil; evil as good.
e. perplexed – when a person cannot make up his mind
scrupulous – when a person is constantly worried over a decision made
3. Binding Force of Conscience:

From all the types of conscience, these are the

following that man needs to follow when they
permit or restrict man to do something:

a. Certain Conscience
- it is because one does not have fear of
error.
b. Correct Conscience
- it is because one judges correctly
c. Invincible Erroneous Conscience
- it is because, the person is not aware that he
is doing wrong; or he is doing things in good
faith.
4. What to do if a person has:

a. Vincibly Erroneous Conscience?

a.1. if you suspect that you could do wrong,
do not act or postpone judgement.
a.2. before you act, remove the doubt.
a.3. postpone the act until doubt is removed.

b. Perplexed Conscience?
b.1. postpone the act in so far as possible
b.2. if it can’t be postponed, choose the lesser evil
b.3. if both appear to be the same, “either of the
two wil do”.
c. Doubtful Conscience?
c.1. suspend the act or judgement
c.2. in doubt, one has to refer to the existence
of law and/or existence of fact.
c.3. in doubt, be speculative or practical.
5. The Principle of Re-doubt:

a. Postpone the act or judgement.

b. If doubt is not resolved, apply the Direct Principles:

b.1. reflect the matter in the light a General Principle
b.2. consult an expert/s on the subject matter
b.3. research the subject with the use of related literatures
 c. If the doubt is still not resolved, apply the Indirect
Principles:
c.1. In doubt, the possession of the possessor is the
better.
c.2. In doubt, favor the one who has the presumption
on his favor.
c.3. In doubt, presumption favors the superior.
c.4. In doubt, stand for the validity of the act.
c.5. In doubt, amplify the favorable; restrict the
unfavorable.
c.6. In doubt, judgement shall be made on the basis
of what usually happens.
c.7. A doubtful law does not bind.
c.8. Crime is not to be presumed, but to be proven.

Note: If the doubt is overcome by the use of these principles, it is still the responsibility of the
agent to go back to all his actions because he might have done something wrong in the
process of resolving his doubt.
6. The Freedom of Conscience:

a. A person is bound to follow the dictate of his

conscience.
b. No one has to be hindered to act according to the
dictate of his/her conscience.
c. No one has to be forced to act in a matter that is
contrary to the dictate of his/her conscience.
C. THE DETERMINANTS OF MORALITY:
1. ACTION:
- The one performed by the agent (whether it is
a categorical or transcendental act)

2. INTENTION:
- The motive or purpose of the act.

3. CIRCUMSTANCE:
- The conditions modifying or surrounding the
act.
 BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL
FOUNDATION OF MORALITY

I. Norms of Christian Morality:

a. Objective Norms:
a.1. Jesus Christ
a.2. The Church
b. Subjective Norm:
b.1. Conscience
II. A Biblical-Theological Understanding of “Sin”:

A. General Understanding of Sin:

- First thing to note, that a discussion on sin is only valid
or significant in relation to the existence of God.
- It is understood as the breaking of man’s relationship
with God.
- However, theologians will tell us that man may not be
able to break immediately his relationship with God with
a single act or by the sinful actions he performed.
B. Biblical Backgrounds:

1. Old Testament Background:

- Talking about sin, in this context shall bring us back to
the issues of the COVENANT and SENSE OF COMMUNITY.
Take note that these are the basis of morality in the OT.

- The significance of the Greek word “HATTA” (which

literally means “to be deceived of fall short of a goal”).

- Even during this time, sin was already understood as a

“personal offense against God”.
2. New Testament Background:

- The idea of sin as a personal offense against God was

being sustained even during this time.

- The more used Greek term applied to sin was HAMARTIA

or HAMARTEMA (which literally means “missing the
mark”).

- Hamartia, therefore, signifies deviation from God or not

following the commandments of God.