THEOLOGY
MODULE 4: Eight Dimension of the Human
Person according to Gaudium et Spes
INTRODUCTION
We often hear these
words: “Madaling maging tao subalit
mahirap magpakatao.” It is a short
statement with profound meaning. It
insinuates that a [mere] human
resemblance is insufficient. Because to be
truly human necessitates
“pagpapakatao” – acting with dignity
befitting to a human being. Hindi tayo “tao
lang!” Tao na may “angking
kagandahan!” (We are not “only human!”
We are “beautiful human beings!”).
Therefore, there is a need to search for the
beautiful in a human person to be totoong
tao (authentically human).
CONTENT
The striving for true and authentic
humanity necessitates describing morality.
Because given our freedom as human
beings it is quite possible for us to live out our
humanity in a false or inauthentic way.
Genovesi (2003) defined morality as
the practice of morally good and
appropriate actions; the daily activity that
embodies our efforts to live as full and
authentic human beings. While ethics is the
reflective investigation into what is morally
proper thing to do; how we ought to act in
a given situation or what is the right thing to
do under the present circumstances.
Therefore, technically speaking, morality
refers to the practice of morally good while
ethics refers to the study of morality.
In Filipino, the literal translation of
morality is moralidad which is far from our
cultural experience and has no impact for
us Filipinos. Fr. Carlos Ronquillo, one of the
Filipino experts in moral Theology, proposes
“pagpapakatao” to refer to morality
because this term is close to the experience
of the Filipino. Hence, the fostering of
authentic humanity (pagpapakatao) and
the effort to be moral (magpakatao) will be
more understable. But why is it important for
us to know who a human person is?
The source of morality is the human
person (CFC no. 682). He is the object and
the subject of morality. God enters the talk
of morality only when the person believes in
God. “For Christians, moral living is simply
following Christ” (CFC no. 674). It is a call to
become loving persons, in the fullness of life-
with others-in the-community before God,
in imitation of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the human person is called to:
1. be authentically human; and
2. reach his final destiny – God!
According to Teilhard de Chardin,
the human being is the only animal who
knows that s/he knows. Therefore, human
beings have the capacity to know and
study who the human person is. Humans
can know who the authentic human person
is in the light of faith and reason.
The Scripture reveals that the Human Person
is the Image of God:
Then God said, “Let us make
humankind in our image, according
to our likeness…So God created
humankind in his own image, in the
image of God he created them;
male and female he created
 them…God saw everything that he why sin as stated by Cacho and De
had made, and indeed, it was very Mesa (2012) is pandaraya because it is
beautiful.” - Gen. 1:26-27, 31 deliberate (something that we do
consciously and intently) and
According to Cacho and De Mesa therefore an abuse of freedom.
(2012), “To be made as God’s image in a
world that did not think much about their
worth was a double declaration. It was an
endorsement of the inherent goodness of
humans and, at the same time; it offered
the challenge to be human by exercising
responsibility” (p.123).

Human Person Adequately Considered

(HPAC) 2. Conscience (GS16) (makataong-loob)
• Precondition: A Morally good In a simple way conscience is
disposition - one is truly seeking for the defined as a voice within us telling us to
good do what is good and avoid doing wrong
• Discernment of a Morally Good Act because it makes us feel guilty
consists in considering eight according to Ian Knox (2003) though we
dimensions of the human person in all know it is not that all simple. It is the
any moral issue one faces conscience that judges the morality of
• Synthesized by Belgian theologian the act considering the object (nature of
Louis Janssen from the Vatican II the act), the Intention and the
document Gaudium et Spes (Joys circumstances according to
and Hopes): Pastoral Constitution of CFC. Furthermore, it is the conscience
the Church in the Modern World that guides our freedom in making good
moral decisions.
Gula (1998) added that moral
DIMENSIONS OF THE HUMAN PERSON
conscience is the key to responsible
1. Possesses (GS17) (kusang-loob)
freedom of desiring to do what what we
Authentic Freedom is not just doing do because we value what we are
and saying what I want, but doing what seeking (p. 126).
is good. Understanding freedom as
These (Freedom & Conscience)
doing what I want violates freedom as
are to be used in a responsible manner
relational. This is its very nature because
(matuwid na pamamaraan) (GS 31).
we always exercise our freedom in
relation with others (shared freedom).
Basic Freedom according to Gula
(1998) is directed towards a loving
relationship with God which is our basic
decision to live our lives responding to
God in and through all our choices
(fundamental option). But what we
choose is what we become (freedom of
choice). This now shows that authentic
freedom is making a choice among our
3. Corporeal Being (sumasa-katawan)
fundamental options that leads to our
true self-becoming (being an image of “[One] is not allowed to despise his
God). bodily life. Rather, he [she] is obliged to
regard his [her] body as good and
Sin on the other hand is an abuse of
honorable since God has created it…”
freedom because we invade the
(GS 14). Self-care/self-esteem is a virtue.
freedom of others. This explains
 to revise them to adapt to changing
contexts (GS 26, 29, 30).

4. Material Being (Sumasakalikasan)

We are “beings-in-the world”; an
integral part of the environment. This
7. Historical Being (Sumasa-kasaysayan)
implies that we need to consider the
effect of action on the environment. Personal History/Story - It is important
Through science and technology, we to know our developmental stage.
are co-creators of God in renewing the
world (GS 53-62). Cultural History - we are part of a
nation with a story and a
culture. Culture is dynamic (GS 55). “In
every group or nation there are an ever-
increasing number of men and women
who are conscious that they themselves
are the artisans and authors of the
culture of their community.”
Development of Beliefs in one’s
Religion (i.e. Church teaching for many
centuries – procreation is sole purpose of
sexual intercourse; this was modified
in Gaudium et Spes when the relational
meaning of sexuality was recognized
(i.e. sexual intercourse is also expression
of love).
5. Relational - I-Thou (nakikipag-kapwa)
• Significant relationships are important
in our growth as moral subjects.
• Martin Buber - Only in relation to a
“thou” can one become an “I”.
• Who are the significant others in your
life? How will they be affected by
your actions?

6. Relational – Social Being (sumasa-

lipunan)

Social structures and institutions – 8. Fundamentally Equal but Unique

created for the common good (buting- (pantay-pantay subalit may
tanan) pagkakatangi)
Implications: According to GS 29, fundamental
• Individualist ethic is not enough (GS equality is grounded in our sharing of the
30) same human nature: we have a
• Need to stress respect for these common body with common needs;
institutions (GS 26) therefore, moral demands
• But social structures and institutions are universalizeable (e.g. Universal
are also limited and imperfect; need
 Declaration of Human Rights by the
United Nations). Uniqueness of each
one’s situation (e.g. cybersex of OFW
separated from spouse).
Human Person Adequately Considered = 8
Dimensions of a Human Person
• HPAC is not an individualist ethic;
person is not the same as the
individual [person here is “in
relation”]; discernment is done by
an individual/community
relation to other communities and
the church.
• These dimensions should always
be considered in making a moral
decision.
honor and respect it (no. 14); (4) material
being (sumasakalikasan) which means that
we are an integral part of the environment
(nos. 53-62); (5) being Relational – I-
thou (nakikipagkapwa) which means that
relationships are important in our moral
growth; (6) being Relational – Social
being (sumasalipunan) which means that
we have to take into consideration the
common good (nos. 26 & 30); (7) Historical
being (sumasakasaysayan) which implies
that it is important to know our
developmental stage and understand our
culture (no. 55): and (8) fundamentally
equal but unique (pantay-pantay subalit
may pagkakatangi) as stated in Gaudium
et Spes no. 29. These
innate kagandahang loób when
understood adequately lead us to
a pangangatawan (discipleship) of God’s
gracious goodness (kagandahang loób ).
In addition, when we are confronted by
moral dilemmas, they help us come up with
moral decisions.
in

SYNTHESIS
The Human Person is by nature
good (maganda ang pagka-tao). Hence,
s/he is called to become a moral
person (makatao). Particularly, Christians
are called to a fullness of life-with-others-in-
the community before God, in imitation of
Jesus Christ. To attain this, s/he has to go
back to his original blessedness --- being
created in God’s own image and likeness
(Gen 1:27). The human person, being
created in God’s image and likeness takes
into consideration the Human Person
Adequately Considered (HPAC).
The 8 dimensions of the human
person, as synthesized by Louise Janssen
from the Vatican II document Gudium et
Spes, comprises the ff: (1) possesses
freedom (kusang-loob) & (2)
conscience (makataong-loob) which one
must use in a responsible manner (no. 16-
17); (3) Corporeal
being (sumasakatawan) which means that
we have to take good care of our body,
 THEOLOGY
MODULE 5: Moral Decision Making
INTRODUCTION
Every day we make decisions – from
the moment we wake up until going to bed:
(1) get up or stay in bed? (2) to brush or not
to brush teeth?; (3) take a shower or not?;
(4) go to class or not? And so on. Sometimes
making choices is difficult and
complicated. For example, in drinking
alone – to drink or not? If yes – coffee, tea,
softdrinks or water? If water – what brand?!
If in these ordinary things making
decisions is a little difficult, what more if the
thing at stake is something valuable like
relationship matters? Then, making decision
becomes ardous. As they say “Isipin mo
muna ng sampung beses bago ka
gumawa ng isang desisyon.” This means
that we need to think carefully about it first.
But why?! Why do I need to think
deliberately about the choices I make?
CONTENT
“In the depths of his conscience, man
detects a law which he does not impose
upon himself, but which holds him to
obedience. Always summoning him to love
good and avoid evil, the voice of
conscience can when necessary, speak to
his heart more specifically: do this, shun
that. For man has in his heart a law written
by God. To obey it is the very dignity of
man; according to it, he will be judged.” –
Gaudium et Spes no.16
The statement above declared that
the human person has an innate capacity
to know what is good and bad. So, we
become anxious when we do something
wrong and try our best to correct what we
know is wrong. Hence, when we are faced
with conflicting situations we feel morally
obliged to come up with moral decisions.
Moral decision-making refers to the
process of evaluating and choosing from
alternatives in a manner consistent with
ethical principles. The process of making
decisions requires not a mere reading of the
Sacred Scripture but commitment,
consciousness, and competency. Ethical
decisions and effective decisions constitute
a good moral decision.
We grow into our full selves as people
only in relating to others because we are a
person-in community. Hence, we need to
be loving and responsible in our
relationships; being loving and responsible
in our relationships requires being mindful of
our actions. Unlike animals we do not simply
act out of our instinct. We are endowed
with ratio, and we are aware of ourselves
and outgoing actions. We should think,
discern, and decide before we act so that
we can be fully responsible for our actions.
We go through a process of making moral
decisions so as to be responsible for our
actions. We may not always come up with
the best moral decision. But when we are
responsible for our decision, we are open to
change and personal growth.
METHODS FOR MORAL DECISION MAKING
1. The Deontological Method
In this method, law, duty and obligation
are the points of reference in deciding what
to do. This answers the questions: (1) what
is my duty? and (2) What ought I to do? It
holds that certain actions are intrinsically
moral evil in themselves and can never be
justified. This method holds too that we
make decisions by determining what duty
or positive law applies to the situation or by
referring to whatever the authority (secular,
ecclesial, divine) demands of the person.
However, this method does not
adequately account for the temporality
and contextuality of moral living. In other
words, this method is not flexible in dealing
with conflict moral situations.
2. Teleological Method
This method answers the question: what
is my goal? Their points of reference in
making moral decisions are
the consequences. In making moral
decisions, this method first determines
the possible alternatives for action and the
consequences which each produce. Then,
the alternatives are weighed against each
other to determine which produces the
greatest possible value in its
consequences. It takes seriously the future
implications of an action and regards them
as part of the action’s moral meaning. On
the other hand, this method substitutes a
part of morality (consequences) for the
whole.
3. Relational-Responsibility Method
This method answers the question: what
is happening? This method decides what to
do by determining what action is most
harmonious to the meaning of the whole
relational context. It sees moral life
as primarily comprised of relationships held
together by on-going interaction with God,
neighbor, world and self instead of seeing
each as standing alone and being subject
to a pre-arranged system of laws or plan in
search of a goal. This method tries
to include all the factors in the
relevant situation within a proper
relationship. It realizes that all human
behavior must be judged in the context of
actual relationships. However, this method’s
lines of moral analysis are not always that
clear and so it relies on a refined moral
sensitivity more than the other methods
do. Moral decisions in this method come
with some degree of uncertainty and
tentativeness.
Since each of these methods
emphasizes something integral to moral
experience, we would expect to find
something of each always taken into
consideration. Gustafson (1971) shown that
an adequate method of helping us love
well and do what one ought to do should
take into consideration the agent, the
beliefs, the situation and the appropriate
norms.
• The Agent is where the practical
moral question begins and ends: “I of
what ought I to do?”
Is what I want to do find alignment to the
teachings of Jesus? If yes, no matter how
difficult it maybe I ought to pursue it. But if it
is not aligned to the teachings of Christ,
then, I need to drop it. This simply means
that not everything we want, and we can,
we must do. We need to consider and
observe the spirit of the faith we professed.
As we often say, “Hindi lahat ng gusto at
kaya mong gawin dapat mong gawin. Pero
dapat mong magustuhan lahat ng dapat
mong gawin.” (Not everything you want,
and you can do should be done. But you
ought to love what you ought to do).
• Beliefs or stable convictions shape
the agent’s self-understanding and
the ability to consider what is possible
to do.
This suggests proper education of
conscience. We are responsible for forming
and educating a moral conscience. We
need to grow mature in our faith for it is not
enough to be baptized in a certain Christian
religious denomination.
• Analyzing the situation by exploring
as thoroughly as possible the reality
revealing questions, like the ones we
asked in forming conscience for
decision making.
This calls for a continuous examination of
one’s conscience vis a vis a specific case at
stake brought about by the changing time.
The spirit of the moral norm should be
maintained while using possible varied
humane strategies.
• Appropriate norms or the various
sources of moral wisdom should be
consulted as criteria of judgment.
For example, before the pandemic visiting
the elderly, particularly the sick relative, is a
moral act since it fosters love and solidarity
(damayan). However, during the
pandemic staying at home and not visiting
the elderly has become the new form of
love and solidarity (damayan).
DISCERNMENT
It refers to the quality of perception
and the capacity to discriminate degrees
of importance among various features
before making a judgment. It is a matter of
the heart. It helps us see things in their
relation to God and to integrate all things
into our love of God. Discernment is
possible if we take into consideration faith,
the will of God, Jesus and the human
person. The process includes prayer,
gathering of information and seeking
confirmation.
It may not be certain, but it helps in
directing our lives through moral choices in
complex circumstances, it does stimulate
our desire to find God in all things and to be
mindful of being subject to the presence
and governing action of God. It is the
culmination of the moral life lived
according to reason informed by faith.
The S.T.O.P. Sign Method for Making Moral
Decisions
1. Search out the facts: What? Why? Who?
When? Where? To make Moral decisions
you need to make INFORMED decisions!
Remember these principles: (a) A good
intention does not justify evil means to
attain it; (2) If any part of the act is wrong
(action, motive, circumstances), DONT
DO IT!
2. Think about the alternatives and the
Consequences.
3. Others: Consult and Consider others by
(a) Talking to them about your dilemma;
(b) How your actions will affect them
4. Pray: (a) Talk- let God know what’s in
your mind; (b) Listen- pay attention and
God will answer in some way; and (c) Be
ready.
SYNTHESIS
As stated by Paul VI “The human race
is involved in a new stage of history.
Profound and rapid changes are spreading
by degrees around the whole world.
Triggered by the intelligence and creative
energies of man, these changes recoil upon
him, upon his decisions and desires, both
individual and collective, and upon his
manner of thinking and acting with respect
to things and to people” (no. 4). These
changes do not only affect the things
happening in society but also affect the
relationships of humanity with one
another. He further claimed that because
of these changes’ humanity is enjoying the
abundance of wealth, power and comfort;
nevertheless, many of the people are still
suffering from poverty, starvation, illiteracy,
abuse and what not.
In this case, man has to take
responsibility in making things right
regarding the negative effects of the
changes he has caused. Hence, the
Church still believes that man will do the
right thing with the guidance of Christ
through his spirit making humanity worthy of
salvation. That humanity can still make the
world a better place despite the changes
he caused in it because there are many
realities which do not change and which
have their ultimate foundation in Christ, who
is the same yesterday and today, yes and
forever (Paul VI, no. 4).