GS 100 CHRISTIAN ETHICS

1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Need to Study Christian Ethics
The question we begin to ask ourselves is: do we really need Christian Ethics today
in our society? Is Christian Ethics important as a course in our academic
endeavour? Is it necessary in our profession?
We can try to get some hints to these and similar questions by quoting the Forward
by James Cardinal Hickey, Archbishop of Washington, to the book: An
Introduction to Moral Theology by William E. May, a renowned Christian Ethicist,
who noted that “We live in an age that seems to have lost its moral mooring. Too
many people are genuinely confused about what is right and what is wrong; some
doubt that an authentic standard for judging human behaviour exists” (May, 1994,
13).
What preoccupied the mind of the Cardinal, then, can be said to be true of
our society today. The same can be said of our African societies as they go down
the slope of moral degeneration.
Looking at the situation in African societies, we can say with certainty that we
need Christian Ethics in order to affirm that there is an authentic standard of
judging human behavior.

1.1.1. Signs of Moral Degradation

The general concern that Africa’s contemporary societies are in moral crisis,
derives from a number of things, namely:
First, it is evident from the experiences of turmoil and a state of moral
degeneration on the entire continent. Let us look critically on what Africa has been
going through in all areas of social life: social, political, economic, cultural,
religious and ecological. The truth is that moral mooring has been compromised in
1
all these spheres of life. People endowed with various responsibilities no longer
care about the guiding ethical principles that should govern their being and doing.
Hence, ethical principles have been compromised.
Second, the absence of role models to the young generation. This can be
argued from the point of view that most adults seem to share no cultural virtues
which in turn could be imparted to the young generations.
Third, the education systems hardly pay attention to the integral formation
of the young people. There is a lacuna insofar as moral formation is concerned,
since the academic excellence has been over emphasized at the expense of other
areas of formation that contribute to the integral human development of the youth.
Value education is not so much emphasized in our education systems.
Fourth, the real meaning of responsible freedom is lacking in our society in
all spheres. In the name of freedom all ethical principles are sacrificed as people
seek to exercise their personal freedom. All want to be set free to do what they
deem right or what they want to do, but not what they are required to do.
Fifth, the place of truth in contemporary society has been questioned as
people argue that there is no one who can talk of what is moral and what is
immoral, ethical and unethical, right and wrong, good and bad. Is there truth on
which the argument on good or bad can be based? The wave of relativism is
sweeping away the moral sense in many people as the truth is sacrificed on the
altar of personal opinion or view. The common expression of ‘according to me’ is
often heard insofar as moral discernment, decisions, choices and actions are
concerned. Then, many are confused as to what the truth is regarding moral
decisions, choices and actions.
Sixth, moral deterioration is evident in the areas of meaningful human life,
responsible human relationships, family values, social-economic accountability,
and purposeful governance. Looking at each one of these areas, there are
2
innumerable examples affirming that there is an ethical side to human sufferings in
different institutions rather than only the technical aspects. Many people are never
concerned with the ethical aspects of social problems, they only consider the
technical aspects and always fail to judge them from the moral point of view.

1.1.2. Means of Addressing Moral Degradation

 All the above moral crisis indicators can be traced in the one truth, the
human person is not well understood and, hence, placed in the rightful place
in society and its activities.
 The personalistic approach to reality should be given enough attention for
it always underscore the centrality of the human person as the primary
locus of every human endeavour.
 Failure to seek to understand the human person in relation to his/her origin,
purpose and destiny in life, is the central problem of moral crisis in any
given society.
 We need to study the human person in the light of Christian
anthropology, in order to underscore the importance of living and working
in a morally sound society.
 Having underlined that our societies are undergoing moral deterioration,
then, as we live and work in such a society that seems to have lost its moral
mooring, we feel or realize the need to reconstruct a moral society: a
society that is built on sound social-ethical norms.
 However, we know very well that a society is made of individuals, and,
therefore, a morally good society can only come about once there are
morally upright individuals.

3
  Then, the need to study Christian Ethics is indispensable: since the
concern of Christian Ethics is that individuals cultivate a moral sense that
will serve as a beacon calling them to be the human beings they are meant
to be, and act in a manner coherent with the being they are supposed to
be.
 We conclude by stating, that our moral life can be described as an
endeavour, cognitively, to come to know who we are and what we are to
do if we are to be fully the beings we are meant to be, and, cognitively, to
do what we ourselves come to know we are to do if we are to be fully the
beings we are meant to be.
 Christian Ethics comes to provide us with the guidelines towards this end.
1.2. What is Ethics?
1.2.1. General View on the Meaning of Ethics
 When people are asked to define the term ‘ethics’, there emerges a number
of definitions, which indicate that sometimes it is not easy to pin down the
definition.
 For example, some years ago, a sociologist by the name Raymond
Baumhart asked business people, “What does ethics mean to you?”
Among their replies were the following:
One said, “Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong.”
Another replied, “Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs.”
One more answered, “Being ethical is doing what the law requires.”
Another one responded, “Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our
society accepts.”

4
Then, one more replied, “I don't know what the word means.”
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-
ethics/ accessed on 19/08/2017
 These replies might be typical of our own in our different professions,
cultures, religions, etc. The meaning of "ethics" is, therefore, hard to pin
down, and the views many people have about ethics are shaky.
 Basing on Baumhart’s respondents, we evaluate the various definitions of
ethics in our time (Ibid.).
 First, when we listen to different people talking about what is ‘ethics’ and
what is ‘ethical’, like Baumhart’s first respondent, many people tend to
equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of
following one’s feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil
from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is
ethical (Ibid.).
 Second, we find people who equate ethics with religion. One should not
identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high
ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then, ethics
would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the
behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint/believer.
 Religion can and do set high ethical standards and can provide intense
motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to
religion nor is it the same as religion (Ibid.).
 Third, being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law
often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But
laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. For example, the
slavery laws, colonial rules and policies and the old apartheid laws of

5
 South Africa were grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from
what is ethical. Not all laws pass the ethical test (Ibid.).
 Finally, fourth, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society
accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact,
ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is
ethical. People can easily be socialized into social practices that are not
ethical. Hence, the society’s approval of certain practices is not a guarantee
that whatever is accepted by the society is ethical. An entire society can
become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally
corrupt society (Ibid.).
 Moreover, if being ethical were doing “whatever society accepts,” then, to
find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts.
To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to
take a survey of the society’s view on the same and, then, conform my
beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an
ethical issue by doing a survey.
 Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible
to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept
abortion, but many others do not. If being ethical were doing ‘whatever
society accepts’, one would have to find an agreement on issues, which does
not, in fact, exist. It is impossible for a society to agree on an ethical issue
100%, in order to assist one to take an ethical position (Ibid.).
1.2.2. What, then, is ethics?
Ethics is two things.

6
  First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that
prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights,
obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues (Ibid.).
 Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable
obligations to refrain from social evils such as murder, stealing, rape,
adultery, fornication, assault, slander, and fraud.
 Ethical standards also include those that enjoin moral and social virtues
such as honesty, compassion, love, justice and loyalty (Ibid.).
 And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the
right to life, the right to freedom from injury and the right to privacy. Such
standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by
consistent and well-founded reasons (Ibid.).
 Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical
standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, social norms, even
religious beliefs can deviate from what is ethical. So, it is necessary to
constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable
and well-founded (Ibid.).
 Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral
beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the
institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and
solidly-based (Ibid.).
Ethics in General
 Ethics is a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. Once it is
formulated into a definite manner it shapes the way people live, thus
becoming an ethics of culture.

7
  Ethics means, too, the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a
particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:
e.g., medical ethics; Christian ethics; legal ethics, business ethics, etc. This
gives people in that category of professionals a moral standard against
which they are all to evaluate their professional conduct.
 Ethics also refers to moral principles, as of an individual: His/her ethics
forbade betrayal of a confidence. We often hear people referring to their
manner of behavior as based on certain principles. For example, one who is
referred by his/her colleagues as a principled person because he/she
follows the principle of always honouring his/her promise. That is his/her
moral principle.
 Ethics is that branch of philosophy that deals with values relating to
human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain
actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such
actions.
 Ethics is a word derived from Greek word ‘ethos’ which literally means
‘conduct’, ‘character’ or a ‘characteristic manner of behavior’.
Here, an individual’s character is understood to be his/her set disposition
(natural inclination or directedness towards the doing or obtaining something) to
behave systematically in one way rather than in another.

1.2.3.1. Distinction between Moral Theology and Philosophical Ethics

Many writers regard ethics (Gr. ethike) as any scientific treatment of the moral
order and divide it into theological, or Christian, ethics (moral theology) and
philosophical ethics (moral philosophy). What is usually understood by ethics,
however, is philosophical ethics, or moral philosophy.

8
  In philosophy, it is the study and evaluation of human conduct in the
light of moral principles, derived from human reason. Moral principles
may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have
constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a
particular society requires of its members.
 As moral philosophy, it is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with
the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions
can be judged right or wrong.

Traditional Ethical Categories

The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles.
Ethics is traditionally subdivided into three categories: namely, normative ethics,
metaethics, and applied ethics.
Normative Ethics
 Normative ethics seeks to establish norms or standards of conduct; a
crucial question in this field is whether actions are to be judged right or
wrong based on their consequences or based on their conformity to some
moral rule, such as “Do not tell a lie.”
 Theories that adopt the former basis of judgment are called
consequentialist (consequentialism).
 Those who ascribe to this theory always look at the consequences of an act
and base their judgment of the morality of human act on the consequences.
 Those that adopt the latter, i.e., basing themselves on the conformity to
some moral rule are known as deontologists and the system is known as
deontological (deontological ethics). They always look at the moral law

9
 and assess the morality of human act on the basis as to whether it has
conformed to the given moral law.
Metaethics
 Metaethics is concerned with the nature of ethical judgments and theories.
 Much work in metaethics focuses on the logical and semantic aspects of
moral language. It is very much concerned with the logical flow of an
ethical argument.
 The terms used in the moral discussion are examined in order to establish
the right moral language that will transmit the ethical knowledge with
certainty, and, hence, without any moral ambiguity.
Applied Ethics
 Applied ethics, as the name implies, consists of the application of
normative ethical theories to practical moral problems (e.g., abortion,
euthanasia, capital punishment).
 Among the major fields of applied ethics are bioethics, business ethics,
legal ethics, and medical ethics. All these disciplines seek to give answers
to ethical problems in various fields of human life.
 There is, however, a discussion regarding the use of the terms ‘ethics’ and
‘morality’ in ethical discussions. The question is “Do the terms mean the
same and can they be used interchangeably?”

The Meaning of the Morality

 The term “Morality”, which is from the Latin moralitas, means manner,
character and proper behavior.

10
 In other words, it is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates
intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right)
and bad (or wrong).
 On interest also is the expression, a moral code which is a system of
morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion,
culture, professional, etc.).
 In a moral code we find a number of rules or laws or teachings that are
meant to be followed by the adherent of that ethical group or system.
 They are referred to as a moral which is any one practice or teaching within
a moral code.
 Immorality which is the opposite of morality is the active opposition to
morality.
 In relation to morality we have also amorality which is variously defined as
an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral
standards or principles.
 Having schemed through a number of meaning of morality and the various
related terms, we note that morality speaks of a system of behavior in
regards to standards of right or wrong behavior.
 The word carries the concepts of: (1) moral standards, with regard to
behavior; (2) moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and (3) a
moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong action.
 Common synonyms include ethics, principles, virtue, and goodness.
 Morality and ethics can be used interchangeably, since both refer to
human conduct. However, ethics tends to be used more as referring to an
ethical discipline that studies human behaviour, while morality is the

11
 quality given to human act, qualifying it as either good or bad, right or
wrong.
Morality and Society
 Morality has become a complicated issue in the multi-cultural world we
live in today.
 Let’s explore what morality is, how it affects our behavior, our conscience,
our society, and our ultimate destiny.
 Morality describes the principles that govern our behavior. Without
these principles in place, societies cannot survive for long.
 In today’s world, morality is frequently thought of as belonging to a
particular religious point of view, but by definition, we see that this is not
the case. Everyone adheres to a moral doctrine or code of some kind.
 Morality, as it relates to our behavior, is important on three levels.
Renowned thinker, scholar and author C.S. Lewis, gives these levels as: (1)
to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals;
(2) to help make us good people in order to have a good society; and
(3) to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us: God.
 Based on this, it’s clear that our beliefs are critical to our moral behavior
(human action) and, consequently, our moral behaviour is critical to life in
society.
 In conclusion, therefore, morality refers to Human Act/Conduct which,
distinguished from an ‘Act of man’, is voluntarily done out of knowledge
and freedom; as opposed to Acts of man, which are done without
knowledge and freedom.
 Ethics studies only those actions, which entail freedom and rationality.
The Meaning of Christian Ethics

12
 Generally, ‘ethics’ is a term used to mean moral philosophy-meaning,
morality or ethical teaching based on human reason. As earlier noted, the
word ‘ethics’ is derived from Greek “ethos” which means “custom” or
“practice”, or characteristic manner of acting.
 Ethics, as such, treats of the morality of human acts through the medium
of natural reason alone.
 In other words, the systematic effort to discover who we are and what we
are to do if we are to be fully the beings we are meant to be, when carried
out exclusively by the use of human intelligence, is the domain of moral
philosophy or ethics.
 But when this effort is systematically undertaken by those whose human
intelligence is informed by Christian faith, it is the work of Christian
ethics or moral theology or theological ethics.
 Christian ethics, therefore, studies in the light of Christian faith and
reason, the principles that the human person must follow in order to live a
meaningful life and gives guidance for human action towards the realization
of his/her ultimate goal.
 What we underline here is that, Christian ethics studies man’s action
especially under the supernatural light of revelation and the Teaching of
the Church.
 However, Christian ethics, cannot, of course, neglect reason and the
natural virtues. Christian ethics embraces and perfects natural ethics.
 So we can say that Christian ethics studies the guidelines a person must
follow to attain his/her final goal in the light of Christian faith and
reason. When we talk of guidelines we imply directly of the moral norms

13
 which ought to be followed to attain the final destiny according to the
divine plan.
 Christian ethics as it elaborates of such norms describes what could be called
an “ethics of doing”, on the one hand. This studies human action. What
one ought to do - action.
 On the other hand, another task of Christian ethics is the attention that
could be called the “ethics of being”—character. This means that besides
the right and good actions “ethics of doing”, Christian ethics is primarily
concerned with the type of person a human being and a Christian ought to
be “ethics of being”.
 Christian ethics, hence, is concerned with the two realm/dimensions of
moral goodness—viz., being & action—i.e., what one is and does.
 In other words, “moral goodness is a quality of the person, constituted not
by rule-keeping behaviour alone, but by cultivating certain virtues,
attitudes, and outlooks”. (R. Gula, Reason Informed by Faith, p.7) Hence, let
us bear in mind that morality has a great interest in the interiority of the
person or the person’s character.
 Christian ethics focuses on the formation of character, patterns of
actions, or the habits we acquire, the vision we have of life, the values and
convictions or beliefs we live by, the intentions we have, the dispositions
which ready us to act as well as the affections which move us to do what
we believe to be right (Gula, p.7).

Central Question
 In our course, the central question will always be: what sort of a person
should I become because I believe in Christ? In other words, what sorts of

14
 persons ought we to be, and what sorts of actions ought we to perform by
virtue of being believers in Christ?
 The Biblical metaphor of the good tree which bears good fruit expresses
the truth that good actions have their origin in a good person. Vice versa,
however, good actions will also have repercussions on a person’s being (Mt.
7: 17-18).
 The bonding principle cutting across the content is the conviction that the
human persons are endowed with the intellect and freedom; they are
capable of knowing the truth and distinguishing between right and
wrong, good and evil; and of determining their personal life by their free
choice.
 The content presented by Christian ethics is inspired by the Holy
Scriptures, Christian traditions, and the Church Social Teaching, and
related to what Christians believe about God, the human person, human
community and the entire creation.
Inspirational Teaching of Jesus Christ
 Above all, it draws its inspiration from the values taught by Jesus Christ
and the consequent commitment of faith in God and obedience to Him.
 Hence, Christian ethics is the systematic study of the way of life set forth
by Jesus Christ, applied to the daily demands and decisions of our
personal and social existence.
 The keynote in the life and teaching of Jesus with regard to man’s moral
duty is found in ‘obedient love’ (Jn. 14: 15; 23).
 The central message of Christian ethics can be summed up in three
gospel norms:
1. Law of becoming neighbour to all human beings (Lk. 10: 36);

15
2. Law of becoming artisans of the Kingdom/reign of God (Mt. 25: 31-46);
3. Law of maximization; not the minimum good. You must be perfect just as
your heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5: 48).

MODULE ONE

THE HUMAN PERSON

TOPIC I. AFRICAN UNDERTANDING OF THE HUMAN PERSON

a) African Worldview
 The Africans, like any other human society have ways of observing the
reality that is unique to them, i.e., their worldview; such that, as a people
they have a way of perceiving the world, understanding and interpreting
the things which happen to them and to other people.

 This worldview also pertains to their way of understanding life and the
world in which they live in; their unique belief about what is real and
what is not real. This basic assumption defines the way they perceive the
whole reality: woman/man, world and God.

 Over and above, their worldview is greatly influenced by their religion.

Religion that attempts to answer the deep desires in human heart and that
seeks to give the meaningfulness of life.

 The human person is, therefore, understood in accordance with this

worldview. Hence, the African is able to understand her/himself as a

16
 person in three relational dimensions: viz. with the other, with the world
around him/her and with God.

 From this we can affirm that to the African, the human person can rightly
be understood from the three perspectives; the anthropological horizons,
cosmological perspectives and theological- the knowledge of God.

b) The Concept of Woman/Man

 In treating the concept of woman/man, Nkafu notes that the concept
‘woman/man’ falls within the woman/man conceptual structure that is
ontological. And since everything ontological is universal, then, the
concept ‘woman/man’ which is present in written and spoken form in all
languages refers to all those individual similar to one another and
characteristic of the human race (Nkafu, African Vitology, 1999, 109).

 In addition to the definition of the human person, Nkafu notes that the
concept of woman/man in the African thought cannot be treated as an
abstract concept, for in African society everything is transmitted through
the daily experience of life. What counts in such a society is the search
and discovery of the ‘meaning of life’ and the emphasis is put on the
participation of each member of the community in the collective
experience of life (Ibid).

 Following this view of the human person, then a human person is a unique
individual who enjoys the fullness of life. The meaning of life according
to the African understanding is found in relationships. One who enjoys the
fullness of life has cordial relationship with the community, her/his fellow

17
 human beings, other created beings and God, who is the creator and the
source of life.

 This approach is justified by the truth that the question of woman/man is a

question on life. But this question on life is relational in the sense that in
Bantu thought, the expression “Muntu” finds its meaning in the idea and
reality of the Other (woman/man’s neighbour). So one can find the
meaning of her/his own life only when he has found the meaning of the life
of the Other, i.e., the place occupied by our neighbour in our life. Hence, in
the category of a relationship, woman/man finds the meaning of life (Ibid.).

 Further, the human person has a personal identity, self-awareness and

individuality. She/he is considered to be conscious of her/himself as a
unique being. This explains why the new born is given a name and
thereby the importance of individual responsibility. Her/his individuality
is not annihilated by the community. She/he is taken to be a responsible
being, accountable for every one of her/his decisions and actions.

 The individual, however, exists in-and-for the community and participates

in the mystery of life in relationship with others.

c) Relational Being
 According to the African understanding, the human person is a relational
being, with a very strong sense of community life, expressed by
participation in the life of the community into which the individual is
introduced through conception, birth, successive rites of initiation,
death and the life she/he continues to enjoy after death (ancestors).

18
 This explains the deep sense of the family and fraternal solidarity that is
characteristic of the traditional African societies.

 Therefore, the meaning of an individual’s life is found in-and-through

her/his relationship with others. She/he grows more fully as human
when she/he lives in solidarity with others. This social interaction is
important for the individual, for the entire community and the whole
humanity.

 Woman/man is the most social being ever known on earth, for she/he is able
to relate to others, with her/his own kind, with the surrounding world of
animate and inanimate beings, and with God, her/his Creator.

 The human person is, therefore, always a member of a society, without

which she/he loses his value.

 Due to multiplicity of others, of the individuals, the meaning of life is

hidden within the dialectic of the collective or the community. This
means that the meaning of an individual’s life is found in and through
her/his relationship with the Other or Others. An individual is able to
define who she/he is because she/he has knowledge about the other.

 The truth is that when an individual refers to her/himsself as “I” is

always because there is the “You”, i.e., the other. This means that each
“I”, is always mediated by “the other”, who is none other than “oneself”
(Ibid., pg. 111-112).

 So the African communitarian dimension defines man and gives

meaning to human existence. Nkafu once again notes that the “I” loses
itself in the “you” and the “you” in the “we”. This means further that the

19
 “Other” becomes personalized in the traditional institutions, which
constitute the collective dimension of man. It is possible to speak about
woman/man only in terms of her/his relationship to the clan, tribe or
family group, without which she/he will no longer be an authentic African
for she/he will have lost her/his deepest identity, her/his very being
(Ibid).

 To conclude on the relational nature of the human person, we note that

according to African understanding, each person is truly a self according
to how she/he is able to consider her/himself as the other of the Other
(Ibid., 112). I am because you are and you are because I am (Mbiti)

d) African Value System:

 The African morality stems from the above teaching that each one of us
contains exclusively the Other, in such a way that, if one wants to do good
to the Other, all that needs to be done is to consider the other as a “self”.
In this way nothing bad is ever committed towards the other.

 Therefore, the African value system stems from this truth about human
person. This can be seen in two aspects: namely, first, in the scale of values
regarding the human species, no one is better than the Other, and no one
is truly her/himself except when one is in full relationship with the
Others; and, second, every human act is directed towards the Other.

 The ethical teaching of this understanding is that there is no any other

moral law outside the coexistence among human beings, which can force
either one or the other to act for the common good.

20
 The ethical implication of the African understanding of the human person is
that everyone is aware of the Other’s value for which the human acts are
devoted. Thus all human acts are motivated out of love and solidarity
with the Others (Ibid., 112).

 The African moral norm that governs the life of the society is based on
coexistence in the community.

 Thus, love is the key norm of African morality, and the first
characteristic of coexistence among human beings. Without love, which
is always reciprocal, there are no points of contact, there is no community
and it is not possible to discover the meaning of life and develop a system of
value to guide the communitarian life.

 Hence, the deep sense of community life allows the values of respect for
life, family solidarity, fraternal solidarity, hospitality, justice, love, care
for nature and a sense of the sacred and religion, to flourish in the
traditional African societies.

 This African capacity to develop a system of values is justified by the

African understanding of the human person as a being of rational nature.
Among the Bantu ethnic group, the human person is understood as
“muntu” meaning, an individual endowed with intelligence and will, i.e.,
one endowed with the dignity and worth, existing in relation to the
community. The idea of “muntu” embraces a vision of the human person as
the creative source of all forms of knowledge and of all values.

 The African understanding of the human person is holistic, dynamic and

more realistic of the human nature.

21
e) Theocentric Perspective of Human Life:
 The meaning of life according to the African is not limited to only
woman/man’s relationship with her/his fellow human beings
(communitarian dimension), but is also seen in relation to the world and
God her/his Creator.

 For the African, God created everything. Hence, the Africans sustain that
woman/man was created by God in order to reach fulfillment in God and
to do this, she/he has to know all that God has made.

 The various myths found in every clan or tribe leads to affirm that God is
the author of creation, the world and of woman/man (Ibid., 115).

 The ontological character of the vital force or God Himself helps us to

believe that a complete union with him leads woman/man to happiness
and eternal life. The reason for living consists in establishing the proper
relationship with Him, who communicates Himself to women/men.

 If this is how things stand, then man is her/his true self when she/he is united
with her/his source, her/his ancestors and with God. Woman/man strives for
this union throughout her/his life. Every activity links her/him to her/his
Creator.

 African sees no dichotomy between religion and other human activities.

Hence, God is perceived as the original source of life, of every human
activity and of the basis of moral life. She/he shares this life-power with
all living beings and sustains it.

22
  An individual’s relationship with God is necessary for keeping unity,
peace, and life in the family, clan, tribe, community and in the whole
nation.

 Indeed, in the traditional African set up, religion did not exist as a separate
institution. Rather it was interlaced in all aspects and institutions of life:
individual, social, political and economic, i.e., there is no distinction
between the sacred and the profane in daily life.

Conclusion:

 This African understanding of the human person has social and moral
implications.

 It is an invitation to renew our commitment to promote the values that

cherish togetherness, respect for life, social solidarity and justice that
give rise to peaceful coexistence.

 We have to shun away from an individualistic life-style, appreciating and

promoting these social values as part of our unique contribution to the
patrimony of humanity.

TOPIC II: CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN PERSON

 Understanding the human person and her/his dignity has more than ever
become a subject of constant human and Christian reflection.

The Meaning of the Human Person

 The core of the Christian teaching is the woman/man’s condition as a

person. Etymologically, the term human is derived from a Latin term
humanus - humus - ‘earth.’ From this context, the term ‘human’ referred to
23
 people in the sense of ‘earthly beings’ in contrast with immortal Being,
God.

 Equal to the understanding of the word human, is the idea of a person. The
meaning of the term ‘person’ is derived from the Latin word Persona or
Prosopon in Greek. The term Persona meant a mask put on by an actor in
a religious drama. It gradually developed into the character played by an
actor, thus conveying real identity.

 The idea of ‘person’ goes back to the ideals of the Enlightenment period
and particularly to the older tradition of persona and is understood as a
unique personality who is also a member of a larger group.

 Person is distinct from the term individual who connotes separateness and
autonomy.

 The classical understanding of the term person has played great influence
on the Church’s perception on the human person.

 Boethius, a Roman senator, consul, Roman scholar, and

Christian philosopher of the early 6th century, defines the term person as,
“an individual substance of a rational nature.” So, from Boethius’
definition, we can infer that a person must be a rational being or rather a
rational substance who possesses self-consciousness and who is aware of
her/his consciousness.

 For instance, when René Descartes (1596—1650), a creative mathematician

and an important scientific thinker, and an original metaphysician, became
conscious of himself as a thinking being, he affirmed his existence by the
Cartesian “cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am).

24
  J. F. Donceel, a scholar of psychology, philosophy and theology, in his
philosophical anthropology, defines a person as an individual possessing a
spiritual nature. According to Donceel, this definition of a person contains
a genus (individual) and a specific difference that possesses a spiritual
nature.1

 From the contemporary perspective, when the term “person” is applied to

a human being, it carries with it different understandings.

 One, the term ‘person’ can be understood as pointing to something

that is unique and incommunicable in an individual.

 Two, the term “person” means that woman/man is a being with

rights and duties; one who is to be treated as an end and never as a
means.

 Three, it means, “the person is one who can meaningfully experience

and influence the environment-abilities that are consequent on
consciousness and moral sense.”2 A person has the ability to
distinguish between right and wrong.

 The three elements above are important for understanding the dignity of
the human person. A human person is therefore, distinct from being a
mere human being for she/he surpasses in value the entire material
universe and is never a means or object of use rather an entity that
deserves to love and be loved.3

1
J. F. Donceel, Philosophical Anthropology, Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and Mcmeel Inc., 1967, 446.
2
J. C. Dwyer,(1994). ”Person, Dignity of,” in J. A. Dwyer, ed., The New Dictionary of the Catholic Social
Thought, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press.
3
K. Wojtyla, H. Willetts, (trans.), Love and Responsibility, New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1981, 41.

25
  Henry J. Yannone observes, “The person is the only cause from which
moral acts proceed and centre of which they are attributed and
imputed.”4

Biblical Foundation:

The Bible, in Gen. 1: 26-27, provides a unique understanding of the human

person, which is the basis of Christian anthropology.

 Christian anthropology deals with who woman/man is and how she/he

relates to God, to others and to the entire creation.

 It helps man/woman to understand her/himself from God’s perspective:

discovering her/his origin, purpose (nature) and destiny.

 Christian anthropology has two basic points of reference:

 the mystery of creation in which woman/man is made “in the image

and likeness of God” (Gen 1: 26-27) and

 the mystery of Christ, who reveals woman/man fully to her/himself.

These are the two truths of creation and incarnation/redemption.

Major Lessons

There are major lessons from Christian understanding of the human person
that we need to consider: viz.

Origin:
4
H. J. Yannone, Dictionary of Moral Theology (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1963, 899.

26
  Woman/Man was created by God’s free and loving act. He created both
woman and man in His own image and likeness (Gen 1: 26-27).

 This biblical fact of woman/man’s creation in God’s image and likeness is

the foundation of the dignity of the human person and the derivative
rights.

 Therefore, being in the image of God the human individual possesses the
dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone ( CSDC 108).

 She/he is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving

her/himself and entering into communion with other persons (CSDC 108).

 Further, she/he is called by grace to a covenant with her/his Creator, to

offer God a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in
her/his steads (CSDC 108).

 The dignity of the human person is thus placed on woman/man’s

relationship to God.

Human Dignity as a Concept

 Human dignity is the first principle and content of the social teaching of
the Church (STC) and the foundational principle for social and moral
analysis.

 Etymologically, the term ‘dignity’ comes from the Latin noun decus,
meaning ornament, distinction, honour and glory.

 In general terms, dignity means, the standing of one entitled to respect, i.e.
her or his status, and it refers to that which in a being (in particular a

27
 personal being) induces or ought to induce such respect: its excellence or
incomparability of value.

 Human dignity points to the value or worth that is uniquely and

distinctively belong to human beings

 John C. Dwyer asserts that dignity of the human person speaks of the worth
or value of the existing human being. Dignity implies that a woman/man
has a value or a worth that no other being in the world has. Therefore, a
person’s dignity is inalienable/unchangeable/indisputable/absolute, in the
sense that it can never be lost.

 Alan D. Falconer defines human dignity as “the inherent/innate worth or

value of the human person from which no one or nothing may
detract/diminish/undermine.”

Biblical Foundations of Human Dignity

 Scriptures forms the main foundation of the dignity of the human person

 The Church sees in women and men, in every person, the living image of
God. This image finds, and must always find anew, an ever deeper and
fuller unfolding of itself in the mystery of Christ, the Perfect Image of
God, the One who reveals God to woman and man to her/himself (CSDC
105).

 These men and women have received an incomparable and inalienable

dignity from God himself.

Three kinds of human dignity according to Catholic Tradition

 According to the Catholic tradition, there are three kinds of dignity proper to
human persons.

28
  The first is intrinsic (inherent/core/basic/natural), inalienable
(unchangeable/absolute/undeniable), and an endowment or gift.
 The second is also intrinsic, but it is an achievement, not an
endowment – an achievement made possible, given the reality of
original sin and its effects, only by God’s unfailing grace;
 The third, again an intrinsic dignity, is also a gift, not an
achievement, but it is a gift far surpassing woman/man’s nature and
literally divinizing her/him – it is, moreover, given to him as a
treasure he must guard and nurture and which he can lose by
freely choosing to sin gravely.
 The first dignity proper to human beings is the dignity that is theirs simply
as living members of the human species, which God called into being
when, in the beginning, he “created man in his own image … male and
female he created them” (Gn 1:27).
 Every living human body, the one that comes to be whenever human life is
conceived, is a living word of God.
 Moreover, in creating man, male and female, God created a being
inwardly capable of receiving our Lord’s own divine life. God could not
become incarnate in a (pig or cow or an ape, monkey, chimpanzee)
because these creatures are not inwardly capable of being divinized.
 But, as we know from God’s revelation, he can become incarnate in his
human creature, and in fact he has freely chosen to become truly one of
us, for his Eternal and Uncreated Word, true God of true God, became and is
a human being, a man.
 Thus, every human being can rightly be called a “created word” of God,
the created word that his Uncreated Word became and is precisely to show

29
 us how deeply we are loved by the God who formed us in our mothers’
wombs (cf. Ps 139:11-18).
 Every human being, therefore, is intrinsically valuable, surpassing in
dignity the entire material universe, a being to be revered and respected
from the very beginning of its existence.
 This intrinsic, inalienable dignity proper to human beings is God’s gift, in
virtue of which every human being, of whatever age or sex or condition,
is a being of moral worth, an irreplaceable and non-substitutable person.
 When we come into existence, we are already, by reason of this intrinsic
dignity, persons; we do not ‘become’ persons after a period of
development.
 As God’s “created words,” as persons, we are endowed with the capacity
to discover the truth and the capacity to determine our own lives by
freely choosing to conform our lives and actions to the truth.
 A baby (born or preborn) does not, of course, have the developed capacity
for deliberating and choosing freely, but it has the natural capacity to do
so because it is human and personal in nature.
 Yet when we come into existence we are not yet fully the beings we are
meant to be. And this leads to consider the second sort of dignity proper
to human beings, a dignity that is also intrinsic but is an achievement, not
an endowment.
 The second kind of dignity is the dignity to which we are called as
intelligent and free persons capable of determining our own lives by our
own free choices. This is the dignity we are to give to ourselves (with the
help of God’s never-failing grace) by freely choosing to shape our choices
and actions in accord with the truth.

30
  In other words, we give to ourselves this dignity and inwardly participate
in it by making good moral choices, and such choices are in turn
dependent upon true moral judgments.
History attests that it is from the fabric of social relationships that there arise
some of the best possibilities for ennobling the human person, but it is also there
that lie in wait the most loathsome rejections of human dignity (CSDC 107).

Sanctity of Human Life:

 God alone is the Lord of life and death. Woman/man must respect life and
bodily integrity.

 Woman/man are in relationship with others above all as those to whom the
lives of others have been entrusted. The relationship with God requires that
the life of woman/man be considered sacred and inviolable (CSDC 112).

 The fifth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20: 13; Deut 5: 17), has
validity because God alone is Lord of life and death.

 The respect owed to the inviolability and integrity of physical life finds its
climax in the positive commandment: “You shall love your neighbour as
yourself” (Lev 19:18), by which Jesus enjoins the obligation to tend to the
needs of one’s neighbour (Mt 22: 37-40; Mk 12: 29-31; Lk 10: 27-28)
(CSDC 112).

 Each person has a moral duty to take care of her/his bodily health. In fact,
health is to be highly valued. It is morally unacceptable for one to expose
oneself or others to life threatening situations or other health hazards.

31
Relationship with God:

 The source of human life and dignity is also in the creative act of a free
loving God who invites the human beings into relationship with Himself.

 All human beings have been created by God in response to God’s love
and to share that love with other human beings.

 This is possible because the human person has the intellect, the capacity
for moral decision and has capacity for God (“homo est Dei capax”), i.e.,
she/he finds life and fulfillment only in relationship with God and others.

 Thus, through her/his intellect and free will is able to transcend the
created order and freely tending towards the total truth and the absolute
good: God.

 This relationship with God exists in itself, it is not something that comes
afterwards and is not added from outside. The whole of woman/man’s
life is a quest and search for God (CSDC 109).

 This relationship with God can be ignored or even be forgotten or

dismissed, but it can never be eliminated (CSDC 109).

 Indeed, among all the world’s visible creatures, only woman/man has a
“capacity for God” (“homo est Dei capax”). The human being is a
personal being created by God to be in relationship with God;
woman/man finds life and self-expression only in relationship, and tends
naturally to God (CSDC 109).

32
Unity of Body and Soul:

 Woman/man is a unity of body and soul. Woman/man was created by God

in unity of body and soul.

 The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of the human being,
whereby it exists as a whole—corpore et anima unus—as a person (CSDC
127).

 Through her/his corporeality woman/man unites in her/himself elements of

the material world. This dimension makes it possible for woman/man to
be part of the material world, but not as in a prison or exile (CSDC 128).

 Hence, it is not proper to despise bodily life; rather “woman/man…is

obliged to regard her/his body as good and honourable since God has
created it and will raise it up on the last day” (Ibid).

 Through her/his spirituality woman/man moves beyond the realm of mere

things and plunges into the innermost structure of reality. When she/he
enters into her/his own heart, that is, when she/he reflects on her/his destiny,
she/he discovers that she/he is superior to the material world because of
her/his unique dignity as one who converses with God, under whose gaze
she/he makes decisions about her/his life (Ibid).

 Therefore, woman/man has two different characteristics: she/he is a

material being, linked to this world by her/his body, and she/he is a
spiritual being, open to transcendence (CSDC 129).

 The Church affirms that the unity of soul and body is so profound that one
has to consider the soul to be the form of the body; i.e., it is because of its

33
 spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human
body; spirit and matter, in woman/man, are not two natures united but rather
their union forms a single nature (Ibid).

 Therefore, neither the spirituality that despises the reality of the body
nor the materialism that considers the spirit a mere manifestation of the
material do justice to the complete nature, to the totality or to the unity
of the human person (Ibid).

Equality of All:

 Man/woman has the same nature, dignity and equality before God.
Christian anthropology holds firmly that man and woman have the same
dignity and are of equal value.

 This is not only because they are both, in their differences, created in the
image and likeness of God, but even more profoundly because the
dynamic of reciprocity that gives life to the “we” in the human couple, is
an image of God (CSDC 111).

In a relationship of mutual communion, man and woman fulfill themselves in a

profound way, rediscovering themselves as persons through the sincere gift of
themselves (CSDC 111).

Social Dimension:

 The human person is essentially a social creature who needs both God and
other people.

 He/she has the capacity to relate with others as a social being.

 This further implies that the relationship between God and man is
reflected in the relational and social dimension of human nature.
34
  Woman/man, in fact, is not a solitary being, but “a social being, and unless
he relates herself/himself to others he can neither live or develop his
potential”

 In this regard the fact that God created human beings as man and woman
(Gen 1: 27) is significant: How very significant is the dissatisfaction which
marks man’s life in Eden as long as his sole point of reference is the
world of plants and animals (cf. Gen 2: 20).

 Only the appearance of the woman, a being which is flesh of his flesh and
bone of his bones (Gen 2: 23), and in whom the spirit of God the Creator
is also alive, can satisfy the need for interpersonal dialogue, so vital for
human existence.

 In one’s neighbour, whether man or woman, there is a reflection of God

himself, the definitive goal and fulfillment of every person (CSDC 110).

Stewardship:

 Woman/man’s “dominion” over the earth is one of “stewardship” not of

selfish exploitation inconsiderate of the value of creation, other people and
the future generation.

 This truth is based on the teaching that with this specific vocation to life,
woman and man find themselves also in the presence of all the other
creatures.

 They can and are obliged to put them at their own service and to enjoy
them, but their dominion over the world requires the exercise of
responsibility, it is not a freedom of arbitrary and selfish exploitation.

 All of creation in fact has value and is good (cf. Gen 1: 4, 10, 12, 18, 21,
25) in the sight of God, who is its author. Hence, woman/man must
discover and respect its value.

35
  This is a marvelous challenge to her/his intellect, which should lift him up
as on wings towards the contemplation of the truth of all God’s creatures,
that is, the contemplation of what God sees as good in them.

 The Book of Genesis teaches that human dominion over the world
consists in naming things (cf. Gen 2: 19-20). In giving things their names,
man must recognize them for what they are and establish with each of
them a relationship of responsibility (CSDC 113).

Spiritual Faculties:

 Created in the image and likeness of God, man/woman enjoys the gifts of
intellect and freedom. He/she can therefore act out of knowledge and free
will.

 In this way man is also in relationship with himself and is able to reflect on
himself. Sacred Scriptures speaks in this regard about the heart of man
(CSDC 114).

 The heart designates man’s inner spirituality, what distinguishes him from
every other creature (CSDC 114).

 The heart indicates the spiritual faculties which most properly belong to
man, which are his prerogatives insofar as he is created in the image of his
Creator: reason, the discernment of good and evil, free will (CSDC 114).

 Intellect and freedom enables man/woman to do good, seek the objective

truth and live according to God’s plan of creation.

 Freedom has social, economic, juridical and political dimensions, i.e., where
situations of injustice exist, man’s moral life is injured and his/her freedom

36
 jeopardized. Freedom is not a license to do whatever one pleases but a call to
do good and avoid what is evil.

The Tragedy of Sin:

 This marvellous vision of man’s creation by God is inseparable from the

tragic appearance of original sin (CSDC 115).

 At the root of personal and social divisions, which in differing degrees

offend the value and dignity of the human person, there is a wound which is
present in man’s inmost self (CSDC 116).

 The mystery of sin is real and it disfigures man/woman’s basic relationships:

to self, fellow men, the world and God.

 In other words, the consequences of sin, insofar as it is an act of separation

from God, are alienation, that is, the separation of man not only from God
but also from himself, from other men and from the world around him/her
(CSDC 116).

 This is well demonstrated in the Genesis account of the fall of the first
parents and the subsequent rapture of human relationships (cf. Gen 3; 4; 11).
Reflecting on the mystery of sin, we cannot fail to take into consideration
this tragic connection between and effect (CSDC 116).

 The mystery of sin is composed of twofold wound, which the sinner opens
in his/her own side and in the relationship with his/her neighbour. That is
why we can speak of personal and social sin. There are two dimensions in
every sin committed by man: personal and social (CSDC 117).

37
 Every sin is personal under a certain aspect; under another, every sin is
social, insofar as and because it also has social consequences.

 In its true sense, sin is always an act of the person, because it is the free act
of an individual person and not properly speaking of a group or community.
The character of social sin can unquestionably be ascribed to every sin,
taking into account the fact that “by virtue of human solidarity which is as
mysterious and intangible as it is real and concrete, each individual’s sin in
some way affects others” (CSDC 117).

 Let us, therefore, note “it is not, however, legitimate or acceptable to

understand social sin in a way that, more or less consciously, leads to a
weakening or the virtual cancellation of the personal component by
admitting only social guilt and responsibility. At the bottom of every
situation of sin there is always the individual who sins” (CSDC 117).

 Nevertheless, God’s gratuitous love can restore man’s broken relationships

through reconciliation, i.e., through his forgiveness, which in turn requires
reconciliation on the other two dimensions.

 Hence, looking at the human person from this perspective of his/her fallen
nature, we must not separate it from the consciousness of the universality of
salvation in Jesus Christ (CSDC 121).

 Christian realism sees the abysses of sin, but in the light of the hope, greater
than any evil, given by Jesus Christ’s act of redemption, in which sin and
death are destroyed (CSDC 121).

38
HUMAN BEING AND THE QUEST FOR HAPPINESS

Happiness is desired universally, as St. Augustine says “it is not I alone or even a
few others who wish to be happy, but absolutely everybody.”

Happiness is the pursuit of all human beings in their life.

It is an agreed fact that all the creatures want happiness and are afraid of pain and
grief (Dr. H.C. Bharill, http://www.jainworld.com).

The question, however, is 'what is real happiness?' What really is called happiness?
The desire for happiness has no meaning without understanding the real nature of
happiness (Ibid).

Generally, ordinary beings consider sensual pleasures as happiness and their

attempts are also directed towards these. According to them search for happiness
means search for pleasures of the senses. The question 'what is happiness' does not
arise in their hearts, because in their hearts they treat life full of sensory joys as a
happy life (Ibid).

Hence, there is by no means universal agreement as to what happiness consists in

when it comes to defining it. Happiness is a mental state of well-being
characterized by positive emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness).

At the popular level, the pursuit of happiness is identified with hedonism, i.e., this
holds that pleasure is the supreme good and pain the supreme evil.

This is termed as utilitarian (utilitarianism) happiness, which seeks only pleasure

as immediate gratification for the exclusive benefit of the individual apart from or
opposed to the objective demands of the true good.

39
The desire in man to find his/her fulfillment in life is the natural desire for
happiness.

The noble expression of this desire for happiness is joy, “happiness” in strict sense,
i.e., when a man on the level of his/her higher faculties, finds his/her peace and
satisfaction in the possession of a known and loved good.

Thus, man experiences joy when he/she finds him/herself in harmony with nature,
and especially in the encounter, sharing and communion with other people.

All the more does he/she know the spiritual joy or happiness when his/her spirit
enters into possession of God, known and loved as the Supreme and Immutable
Good.

Man/woman was created to be happy. Happiness is a natural urge and the driving
force behind man/woman’s activities. The desire for it is enshrined in man’s heart,
deep in his/her nature.

However, while all persons seek happiness, they differ in their conceptions of what
will lead to it.

A correct conception of happiness is closely related to moral life; and the purpose
of moral life is to love God, others and self by doing good and avoiding evil.

It has to do with man’s good, i.e., a good that is appropriate to that which is
specifically human in him/her.

Further, happiness is related to understanding the purpose of life, of the ultimate

end and the destiny of the human person. It is a process of discovering who one is
and who one ought to be, according to God’s unique plan and vocation for each
person.

40
True happiness is never achieved through the acquisition of material goods.

Only God satisfies man’s desire for happiness.

Thus, a clear distinction must be made between the “goods of being” which are
internal to the human person and the “goods of having” which are external to
man/woman and that there is a superiority of the “goods of being” over the “goods
of having”.

This distinction is important because, for most people happiness simply means:
satisfaction in life, success, good luck, good fortune and being rich.

The Catholic understanding of happiness is that it consists in being united with

God, the ultimate goal of human existence. Unity with God is achieved through
knowledge and contemplation of God, by acting in accord with the virtues, and by
conforming our will to the will of God. The complete happiness, is however, not
attainable in this life.

41
 MODULE TWO

FUNDAMENTAL MORAL PRINCIPLES

TOPIC I: INTRODUCTION TO FUNDAMENTAL MORAL PRINCIPLES

Definition of Terms: Moral: The word “moral” comes from the Latin word
“mos” which means “custom”, or “practice”, or characteristic manner of acting, a
more or less constant mode of behaviour in the deliberate actions of man.

Morality, then, deals with regularity. And there is no regularity in man’s actions
without a rule or norm: hence, moral treat of norms for man’s actions.

Principles: In Christian ethics we find different terms used to refer to what guides
good actions. We find terms like norms, ideals, laws, standards, principles and
rules. Principle or a norm is a standard of judgment.

Often we find the term moral norms used by many scholars.

A principle is an authoritative standard which serves as a pattern or model to which

things of a similar nature must conform. A principle should be universal,
unchangeable, accessible to all and applicable to all conditions.

Norms (principles) are guides to being and doing, particularly guides to types of
action that are right or wrong, obligatory or permitted.

In other words, moral principle is the standard of judging the nature of the human
act whether it is good or bad. It is also a standard measure of what a moral being
ought to be. What human beings ought to be is moral, and what they ought not to
be is immoral.

So there are norms that refer to character and other norms that focus on actions.
But both focus on the morality of the human person.
42
Moral principles then present themselves as criteria for distinguishing right from
wrong in particular situation.

But, viewed in another way, moral principle plays a much larger role than this in
the life of the individual and in the moral welfare of the community.

So the individual must find in his/her moral principles growth points and
incentives for moral development.

The moral principles implied here are not just those which serve to identify certain
actions as right or wrong, but those which give moral colour and direction to one’s
life.

Since moral principles focus on the person’s character—i.e., a person’s life, in

his/her moral ideals the person lays down once for all a moral policy according to
which or towards which he/she wills to direct his/her life.

They become his/her principles; they are the conscience he/she has formed for
him/herself.

These principles introduce order and pattern into his/her moral life and correct
arbitrariness and the tendency to bend with expediency or self-interest.

But they do more. They act as a beacon drawing him/her forward to become the
person he/she ought to be.

We conclude by saying moral principles concern the sorts of persons we ought to

be “being—character” and the sorts of actions we ought to perform “doing—
action”.

Both being and doing, or character and action, constitute interdependent concerns
and must be taken together in any complete ethics.

43
The sort of person one is depends to a great extent upon the sorts of decisions and
actions one has taken, and conversely, the sorts of decision and actions which one
has taken depend in part upon the sort of person one is.

Fundamental: These moral principles are fundamental because they are basic in
helping human beings to be morally good and are the basis of moral judgment of a
human act.

The fundamental moral principles are:

 Do good and avoid evil

 Obey your conscience
 Do to others what you want done to you
 Love God and neighbour

TOPIC II: FUNDAMENTAL MORAL PRINCIPLES

Moral principles are guidelines for action-criterions which bring moral values to
bear on a specific situation. The following are examples of moral principles

1. Do Good and Avoid Evil

This is the most universal and fundamental principle. The known good must be
done and evil must be avoided. The concept of goodness is the Character of
God. Moral goodness consists in the imitation of God’s attributes. See Mt 5: 48
“Be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The fact that we are all
children of a common Father/Mother, God, we ought to be like our Father/Mother.
It is in Christ that moral goodness is transformed in three virtues i.e., Faith,
Hope, and Charity. Hence, human goodness can be achieved through the gift
of grace. Being a Christian is an encounter with an event, a person who gives

44
life a new horizon, Christ. A person, Christ, who invites us to respond to his call
of love and discipleship.

Good is to be Done, Evil is to be Avoided:

Practical reasoning is thinking and judging about what is to be, not about what
already is. It does not simply report and explain: it entertains possibilities and
projects lines of action. In the first phase of practical thinking falls moral
thinking, since moral reflection is concerned with what is to be done and what is
not to be done.

This principle “do good and avoid evil” is the first principle of practical
reasoning. It calls the moral agent to act here and now by choosing the known
good and avoiding the known evil. Hence, this is a directive for action, not a
description of good and evil.

“Good” here means not only what is morally good, but whatever can be
understood as intelligibly worthwhile, while “bad” refers to whatever can be
understood as a privation of intelligible goods.

As it states “Good is to be done, Evil is to be avoided”, one then says it does not
tell us what is that good.

What is this Good and Evil? This principle is immediately known to be true once
one understands the meaning of “good” and “evil”.

“Good” here means not only what is morally good but also whatever can be
understood to be truly perfective of human persons, while “evil” or “bad” has
the meaning of whatever deprives human persons of their perfection or fullness
of being.

45
There are fundamental human goods that are to be “done, pursued, protected
and promoted”, namely,

i) Self-integration or “inner peace”, which consists in harmony among

one’s’ judgments, feelings and choices.

ii) “Peace of conscience and consistency between one’s self and its
expression” a good in which one participates by establishing harmony
among one’s judgments, choices, and actions (performance).

iii) “Peace with others, neighbourliness, friendship”, or harmony between

and among individuals and groups of persons.

iv) “Peace with God…or some more—than—human source of meaning and

value”, a good that can be called the good of religion.

v) Human life itself, including health and bodily integrity and the
handing on and educating of human life, a good that fulfills human
person as bodily beings.

vi) Knowledge of the truth and appreciation of beauty, goods that fulfill
human persons as intelligent beings.

vii) Playful activities and skillful performances, goods that fulfill human
persons as simultaneously bodily and intelligent beings and as makers
and sharers in culture.

As we conclude let us note that this first principle of practical reasoning, “Do good
and avoid evil” directs reasoning/thinking toward the fulfillment which is to be
realized in and through human action.

46
2. Obey Your Conscience

 Conflict is a moral endowment of all human beings, it is universal. The

Law is the objective norm of morality while conscience is the subjective
norm of morality.

 The term conscience is derived from a Latin term cum- together and
scientia/scire -to know.

 Definition: In our ordinary life experience we often find ourselves saying:

“This is good; this is not good or right.”
 There exists in each of us a sort of “moral sense” which leads us to discern
what is good and what is evil, just as there exists a sort of “aesthetic sense”
which leads us to discern what is beautiful and what is ugly.
 This inner voice we call “conscience”. Deep within his/her conscience man
discovers a law which he/she has not laid upon him/herself but which
he/she must obey.
 It’s a voice, ever calling him/her to love and to do what is good and to
avoid what is evil, sounds in his/her heart at the right moment. His/her
conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he/she is
alone with God whose voice echoes in his/her depth. It is the voice of God
in man’s heart (GS. No. 16).
 Conscience then is the judgment that one gives of oneself with regard to
one’s way of acting. Conscience is a judgment about right and wrong,
good and bad, perfect and imperfect.
 Conscience may be defined as an act of the intellect judging that an action
must be performed as obligatory or must be omitted as sinful, or may be
performed as lawful or is advisable as the better course of action.

47
  It is a man’s judgment on how he/she is to act here and now if he/she
wishes to please God. Conscience, then briefly, is a practical moral
judgment.
 Hence, conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person
recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he/she is going to
perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed.
 Conscience is a person’s moral faculty; it is the inner sanctuary where
one knows oneself in confrontation with God and with fellow human
beings. Conscience makes us aware with our true self.

 Conscience is an act of passing/making a personal judgment on the moral

quality of a proposed and particular action- a judgment of mind on a
particular moral issue that confronts it and must be resolved.

 The metaphors we use for conscience include, voice of God, inner voice, a
still small voice within one’s so called heart of hearts, etc. It is common for
people to say follow your conscience.

 While this is true, formation of correct conscience through Sacred

Scripture, Church Tradition, and the Magisterium is equally important. As
such, the Church as a responsibility in cultivating morals and forming
conscience, and the challenges it is facing.

They are two principles guiding conscience.

 Whenever conscience commands, it must be obeyed even if it is deformed.

 Never act with a doubtful conscience. It is when you are not sure of the
judgment that there is a possibility of making mistakes. Act with a certain
conscience.

48
Authority of Conscience: Conscience, like any intellectual ability, can err
because the human mind can be more or less mature, experienced, trained,
healthy, sophisticated, imaginative, prudent, integrated with passion, etc.

Conscience is only right conscience when it accurately mediates and applies

that natural law which participates in the divine law; it is erroneous when it does
not.

Hence, to maintain the dignity of conscience, it follows:

i) That we must do our best to cultivate a well-formed and well-informed

conscience in ourselves and those we influence;
ii) That we must take responsibility for our actions and thus always seek
seriously to discern what is the right choice to make;
iii) That we should seek to resolve doubt rather than act upon it; never act
with a doubtful conscience;
iv) That we must follow the last and best judgment of our conscience even
if , unbeknownst to us, it is objectively in error;
v) That we must do so in all humility, aware that our choice may be wrong
and so be ready, if we later realize it is, to repent and start afresh;
vi) That we should avoid coercing people’s conscience: people should if
possible be persuaded rather than forced to live well and so be given a
certain latitude (freedom-autonomy).
Kinds of Conscience: Considering the action, conscience may be antecedent,
concomitant or consequent.

i) Antecedent: The intellect judges the morality of the act before it is done.
This antecedent conscience commands, exhorts, permits or forbids.

49
 ii) Concomitant: The intellect judges the morality of the act while it is being
done. The concomitant conscience animates the good action and disturbs
the one who does the evil.
iii) Consequent: The intellect judges the morality of the act after it has been
done. This judgment will not change the morality of the act already done.
The consequent conscience approves, excuses, reproves or accuses.
N.B. All the above relies on the types of conscience insofar as the objective moral
order is concerned. There are different types of conscience in this regard, namely,

i) True (Right): True conscience is when one judges licit what is really
licit, or illicit what is really illicit.
ii) False (erroneous): False conscience is when one judges licit what really
is illicit, or illicit what really is licit. This false conscience can be
invincibly erroneous and vincibly erroneous.
Every person is bound to seek what is true in the sphere of morality according to
his/her own intellectual ability and he/she is judged according to that.

One cannot evade his/her personal responsibility nor can he/she transfer it to
another being. All one’s thoughts, words, deeds and omissions are his/her
decisions. One’s conscience is one’s ultimate guide.

Although conscience is not infallible, nevertheless it is always to be obeyed.

Conscience has its limitations. Therefore, one must look for assistance to an
authority distinct from itself.

One’s conscience may be impaired through one’s own fault. These are: viz., i)
habitual sin in the past; ii) neglect of prayer; c) unwillingness to examine one’s
own motivation; iv) refusal to seek the advice of others or to be guided by the

50
competent teaching authority. These are some of the factors that cloud the
conscience without freeing it from guilt.

Sometimes we can be affected in our judgment by other things, viz., i) self-interest;

ii) prejudice; iii) passion or by the difficulty of weighing correctly all the factors
involved. Such factors may weaken the will or cloud the intellect and at times they
may lessen or even take away completely the guilt of sin, while not, of course,
transforming an action which is in itself evil into a good one.

If our conscience is invincibly mistaken, we do not sin by following it, but an evil
action remains evil, even if we sincerely believe it to be good.

Vincible ignorance or conscience does not at all lessen the guilt, for it is out of
negligence. So one should purge his/her negligence and arrive at an inculpable
judgment of conscience.

To be without blame everyone has the obligation to take whatever steps are
necessary to assure that the dictates of his/her conscience present the morality of an
act as it really is objectively.

We must finally remember that we must do all we can to enlighten our conscience
and find out what the Church teaches. We must not forget that prayer is very
important for our moral progress.

iii) Perplex: Confronted with moral problems one may take different attitudes.
This is how perplexed conscience is experienced by an individual. That is, when
one is doubting what he/she should do and is not able to solve the doubt, his/her
conscience is said to be perplexed, e.g., a mother with a sick child and going for
the Sunday mass; a student going for a friend’s birthday party and going to class.

What should one do, in these or similar cases?

51
  If time allows he/she should ask counsel, or consult books etc;

 If time does not allow it, he/she should choose the lesser evil;

 If one is not able to decide which one is lesser evil, one could choose any of
the alternatives.

iv) Scrupulous: Scrupulous is from the term “scrupulum” which comes from
“scrupus” a small pebble.

The scrupulous person’s spiritual journey may be aptly compared to that of a

traveler who has a pebble in his/her shoe. This pebble makes every step painful and
hesitant.

A scrupulous conscience is that conscience which for slight motives or without any
motives at all, often fears to do an action thinking that it is a sin.

A scrupulous person is often tortured by doubts that he/she may be living in mortal
sin, or he/she may be constantly beset with an unfounded fear of having committed
sin.

Scrupulosity is a religious-moral-psychological state of anxiety, fear and

indecision. It consists of a more or less constant, unreasonable and morbid fear of
sin, error and guilt.

For such a person mortal/grave sin is everywhere. He/she can’t look at anything;
can’t read anything; can’t touch anything… Soon he/she won’t be able to manage
anything or think of anything. They might as well not be alive. Certain people have
reached this point, and it is an extremely painful suffering, beyond anything that
we can imagine.

52
A scrupulous conscience is no conscience at all. It is rather mere anxiety and fear.
A scruple is, above all, indecision of will.

iii) Lax: A lax conscience is that which, for slight motives and for motives which
favour one’s cupidity, judges as not grave or licit what is really grave or licit.

Those with a lax conscience are said to have smeared their conscience in such a
way that their conscience becomes blunt by the habit of sin.

They at times attach too much importance to some small, especially external
practices while at the same time they despise the great commandments of the Lord,
as the Pharisees did “woe to you Pharisees and Scribes….” (Mt. 23: 25).

Bad education, bad company, vehement and uncontrolled passions, sloth neglect of
prayer, lust, too much solicitude for temporal affairs, etc are the causes of the
formation of a lax conscience.

One who with knowledge and will acts with a lax conscience sin gravely in a grave
matter. This sin is at least indirectly voluntary.

3. Do to Others What You Want them to Do to You

 This is the Golden Rule. This Golden Rule in the Bible Mt. 7:12 says “Do
to others whatever you would like them to do to you.” This is the law of the
prophets.

 It commands us to do for other the good we wish for ourselves. Note its
positive expression. In the Old Testament the Golden Rule was expressed
negatively i.e., “Do not do to other what you would not want done to
you.”Tobith 4:15.

iii) Do to Others What you Want Done to You

53
This is the Golden Rule in Christian teaching (Mt. 7:12). It is called Golden Rule
because it cuts across all cultures and religions.

It is also called the rule of reciprocity. It is the principle of fairness. It is the

principle that is the injunction that we are to do no injury to no one.

This is the principle that reminds us that we ought not intentionally damage,
destroy, or impede basic human goods, etc.

It is a call for exchange of the gift of love among persons where we should not
treat human beings as means but end in themselves.

Being in the image of God the human person possesses the dignity of a person,
who is not just something, but someone. He/she is capable of self-knowledge, of
self-possession, and of freely giving him/herself and entering into communion with
other persons bringing about the existence of social solidarity (CSDC No. 109).

Social solidarity will eventually lead to the attainment of the common good, of
which the first good is the good of peace.

4. Love God and Neighbor as Yourself

 The example of the Good Samaritan in Lk 10: 23-3 shows the application
of the love of God and neighbor. “You shall love he Lord your God with
all your heart, being, strength, mind and love your neighbor as yourself.”

 A disciple should be like the Good Samaritan- able to act from kindness
and generosity towards others even if they are not of the same group, tribe
or political party. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

iv) Love of God and Neighbour

54
We find this principle well put in the Scriptures (Mt. 22: 37-40; Lk. 10: 25-37).

From the above bible passages, this is the moral principle from which the moral
precepts of the Decalogue are derived.

Love is a life-giving principle of the Gospel and has the power to animate all
Christian actions.

It is unconditional gift to us from God who is love itself and who invites us into
communion of love with others. It is both a gift and a task.

We love God because he created us; and he is the source and end of our being. God
is the Supreme Good and source of all goods.

He has created us in His own image and likeness (Gen 1: 27) and endowed us with
free will and intelligence which enables us to know, love and serve him.

In addition, to love him is to love and cherish all goods—basic human goods.

We love our neighbours because we acknowledge in them the dignity of the human
person created in the image and likeness of God.

One love one’s neighbour by willing that the good of human existence flourish in
him/her. We love God and others because he loved us first (Jn. 4: 11-12).

The commandment of reciprocal love represents the law of life for God’s people,
hence, it must inspire, purify, and elevate all human relationships in society: social,
economic, political, cultural and religious dimensions.

We can put into practice the love of neighbour by practicing the art of loving,
which has six components: viz.,

i) to love all;

55
 ii) to be first to love;

iii) to love the other as ourselves;

iv) to make ourselves one with others;

v) to love Jesus in the other; and

vi) to love until love conquers: mutual love.

Loving one’s neighbour as oneself excludes egoism and means accepting

fulfillment of others as part of one’s responsibility.

THE MORAL VALUE OF HUMAN ACT

Nature of Human Acts

 There are actions which are human acts and those which are not.

 Human acts are different from acts of woman/man. Human acts are those
acts that proceed from reason and free will. They are actions that proceed
from insight into the nature and purpose of one’s doing from consent of free
will.

 They are actions which proceed from insight and free will. These are acts
that woman/man is responsible for. They are freely willed acts.

 Acts of woman/man these are acts performed without intervention of

intellect and free will. They include biological and sensual processes,
nutrition, and breathing. They are the acts we share with other animals,
actions performed without the use of reason.

a. Intellectual Elements

56
Will can decide for something and seek it only if it is first known. Knowledge is
perception, comprehension. An action is human and therefore good /bad only
under those of its elements which are known.

b. Volitive Elements (Volition), volo= wish. Faculty of a human person

using one’s will.

Sources Defining Morality of a Human Act

 Christians/Catholics do not have unique or specific moral obligations

rather participate in the moral life that is the task and challenge of the entire
human community.

 Freedom makes man/woman a moral subject. When a person acts

deliberately she/he becomes the author of her/his acts. Hence, human acts
freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience can be morally
evaluated as either good or evil.

The Morality of Human Acts Depends on:

 the Object chosen. The object chosen is the good towards which the will
deliberately directs itself. Object is the object of human act that effect which
action primarily and directly causes. It is the result of the act independent of
the circumstance or of the intention of the agent. E.g. the object of abortion
is always a forcible removal of the non-viable human being from the
mother’s womb. Whether it is done to avoid public shame or for
therapeutic reasons. The object of a contract of sale is not just the physical
transfer of goods from one place to another but also exchange of property
right attached to the goods. The object of a human act can be morally good,
evil or indifferent. A final judgment of the morality of the act is possible

57
 only under the consideration of circumstances of the act and above all
the intension of the agent. The objective norm of morality expresses the
rational order of good and evil attested to by conscience.

 the Circumstances of the action are particulars of the concrete human acts
which are not necessarily connected with its object e.g. Almsgiving by a
poor person or a rich person in private or public. Thomas Aquinas referring
to Cicero points out seven (7) circumstances namely: Who, What, Where,
With what means, Why, How, and When. In the positive sense, a
circumstance can make better an act good in its object. E.g. if a poor man
gives alms, the act of charity is greater. Circumstance can also make less
evil an act evil in its object. Circumstances include the consequences and
are the secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increase or
diminish the moral goodness or evil of human acts. They can also increase
or diminish the agent’s responsibility e.g. acting out of fear of death.
Circumstances themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts
themselves. They can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself
evil.

 the End in view or the Intention is the reason for undertaking an action.
It is the effect which the agent subjectively aims at in his/her action. The
determination of the will to bring about a certain effect. The end is the very
effect which the will aims at. It is the basic/fundamental element in the
form of the act. The end is the intension resides in the subject. The end is
the first goal of intension and indicates the purpose pursued in the action.
The intension is the movement of the will towards the end. A good
intension does not make a behavior that is intrinsically disordered good
or just. “The end does not justify the means.” Even if the end is good, it

58
 does not justify the immoral means. Therefore, in judging the morality of a
human act we must consider the Object, the Circumstances and the
Intention. All these three make up the sources or constitutive elements of
the morality of human acts. Hence, it is an error to judge the morality of
human acts by considering only the intension that inspires them or the
circumstances which supply their context.

TOPIC III: SOURCES OF THE FUNDAMENTAL MORAL PRINCIPLES

The sources are the fountain from which springs the fundamental moral principles.
Faith and Reason represent the two cognitive paths of Christian ethics, hence, the
two sources of the fundamental moral principles.

Faith, which receives the divine word and puts it into practice, effectively interacts
with reason. The understanding of faith, especially faith leading to practical action,
is structured by reason and makes use of every contribution that reason has to
offer.

As we noted Christian ethics studies in the light of Christian faith and reason, the
principles that the human person must follow in order to live a meaningful life and
gives guidance for human action towards the realization of his/her ultimate goal.

Hence, “fides et ratio” (faith and reason) remain the two principle sources of the
fundamental moral principles. This can be summarized under Revelation and
Natural Law.

This can further be seen as:

i) Revelation, which include Sacred Scriptures and Church Tradition,

entrusted to the Magisterium of the Church:

59
 ii) Natural moral law; which include Natural/empirical sciences and
Human experience.
Revelation is the act of God through which He moves the person to proclaim the
divine truths about God, man and creation as given in the Scriptures handed on by
the Church tradition and taught by the Magisterium.

Sacred Scriptures: These are the biblical insights beginning with the book of
Genesis…the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles. Sacred Scriptures has
significant role in shaping human behavior. 2 Tim 3: 16-17 underscores this role,
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete,
equipped for every good work.”

Sacred Scriptures is the source of all saving truth and the rules of conduct. It is the
source of holiness and spiritual life.

Church tradition is handed on by word of mouth. These are the holy traditions of
the Church expounded by the early writers of the Church, i.e., the teachings of the
Fathers and Doctors, the decisions of Councils and Popes, the witness of the saints,
the writings of approved theologians and philosophers.

All societies are nurtured by their traditions from which they derive their original
purpose, their constitution and organization, their basic principles and their ideals,
their way of life, their rules and laws.

Natural moral law is discovered by human reason as is inscribed in the nature of

creation (animate and inanimate). The twofold points of natural law knowledge are
the physical world and the human person.

60
Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it thus “Created in God's image and called
to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming
to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense
of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and
convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These
"ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the
physical world, and the human person” (CCC No. 31, cf. also Nos 32, 33).

Human Experience is whereby an individual or society comes to learn and know

how to make a sharp distinction between what is good from what is bad.

This entails the experience of the Church and her members throughout her history
among peoples of all cultures and social, political and economic systems. Under
this we emphasize the contemporary experience of the people of God struggling to
live out their faith in justice and love, enlightened by natural law ethics.

This can again be based on their faith and reason. By faith they live their life
showing great supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei), that govern their
life on matters of faith and morals.

People unfailingly adhere to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right
judgment and applies it more fully in daily life.

Example of how we gather human experiences include suffering, joy, education,

the contributions of human and natural sciences.

Hence, through reason human experience is enriched by human and natural

sciences in discernment of good from evil.

The Natural Sciences/Empirical Sciences: In this we have the relevant findings of

non-Christian thinkers and writers on social, political and economic life of man.

61
This means as well that Christian Ethics draws on the lessons to be learned from
the experience of different non-Christian findings in various areas of human
life: e.g., in social, political and economic systems.

N.B. The Christian ethics uses these in order to show the harmony between
revealed truth and right reason which should govern human acts.

TOPIC IV: THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACT

Introduction: Whenever the subject on the morality of human act is addressed

what comes immediately is the place of human freedom. Hence, it is good to look
at the question of human freedom in order to understand well the standard on
which to discuss the morality of human act.

Human Freedom: In CCC No. 1730 “God created man a rational being,
conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own
actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so
that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and
blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master
over his acts.

Freedom and Responsibility: In order to understand the morality of human act

we should understand the existing relationship between freedom and
responsibility.

However, we look at the definition of freedom: “Freedom is the power, rooted in

reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform
deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's

62
own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness;
it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude” (CCC No. 1731).

There are two forms of freedom that can be distinguished in moral life: namely,

a) Basic freedom or freedom of self-determination;

b) Freedom of choice.
In basic freedom human beings decide about their beings as persons, i.e., about
the person they want to be or who they want to be in their life. For example, a
person exercises this freedom when he/she decides that he/she wants to be an
honest person in character.

In the freedom of choice they decide about their concrete actions, i.e., about what
they are doing to realize their being. For example, if one wants to be an honest
person in character then he/she exercise the freedom of choice by choosing to act
honestly all the time.

These two forms of freedom find their counterpart in the two forms of decisions:
viz.,

a) The existential decision, wherein a person decides on the fundamental

project of his/her life;
b) The particular (categorical) decision, which concerns concrete, particular
actions.

We note that “As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate
good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and
thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes
properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach” (CCC
No. 1732).

63
Again “The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true
freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and
do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin" (CCC No. 1733).

Freedom and Human Act: In relation to human acts, we underline that an

essential condition of moral action is freedom of will.

Without at least a minimum of freedom of decision, no moral act is possible. The

Catechism of the Catholic Church holds, “Freedom makes man responsible for his
acts to the extent that they are voluntary.” (CCC. No. 1734).

Limitation of Freedom: However, human freedom is a limited freedom, a

freedom–in-situation. We operate in a world which we did not create, a world with
its own possibilities and limitations. For example, we cannot flap our arms and fly!

Effective decisions can only be made within the confines of the possibilities
present in the real world of physics and chemistry, a world with its own history and
geography.

Freedom, therefore, is not the ability to bring about any kind of situation one
wishes. It is the ability to deal with the situation which actually exists.

It is the ability to act for reasons which we choose but do not invent out of nothing.
It is the ability to operate within the possibilities that actually exist.

We are not helpless before these limitations. We can grow in our-self-knowledge

and in understanding of our motives and needs; we can learn about new
possibilities and develop new skills.

64
Freedom and Self-Determination: In a moral sense, one is said to be truly free
when he/she is master of his/her actions. Only God, then, is free in the full sense of
the word. Creatures partake of the freedom of God.

They are said to be really free, not when they can do whatever they wish, but when
they, realizing their condition as creature, exercise dominion over themselves and
choose to obey God’s will.

For his/her self-determination the human person is responsible before God. Our
Lord told his disciples: “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples;
and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn. 8: 31-32).

What is to be free?

a) to be free means to use one’s freedom in truth;

b) the truth is that we are beings created by God;
c) the truth is that we must acknowledge God as our Creator in our
conduct;
d) it means that we must obey the laws given by God for our conduct.
This latter implies self-determination. Does it imply that if we determine by
ourselves our own conduct we will be independent of God? No, for it would be a
contradiction.

In fact, we determine by ourselves our own conduct when we decide what is good
and what is evil. We determine by ourselves our own conduct when we deny any
objective norm. We decide by ourselves our own conduct when we admit only
subjective norms of conduct.

65
Freedom, therefore, does not mean doing everything that one likes or wants. The
CCC puts it “The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do
everything” (CCC No. 1740).

“It is false to maintain that man, ‘the subject of this freedom’, is ‘an individual who
is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in
the enjoyment of earthly goods’” (CCC No. 1740).

The Vatican II notes that men of today appreciate freedom highly and rightly so.
“Yet they often cherish it improperly, as if it gave them leave to do everything they
like, even when it is evil” (G.S. 17).

They consider freedom threatened not only by physical or psychical coercion, but
also by the claims of moral norms and by the predisposition through habits good in
themselves through virtues.

This leads to an inclination to assert freedom in the “NO” to precepts and

authority.

In exaggeration of this attitude, anticonformism on principles is considered as a

special realization of freedom.

With this goes the tendency to view the binding orders of the community, the state
and the Church from the start as a menace to one’s own full freedom. Let us note
that freedom contains in itself the criterion of truth, the discipline of truth.

Freedom begins with the movement towards God in truth and love which is the
exercise of the right and duty of religious liberty. This movement towards God is
what makes possible any act of freedom.

66
We can further note that freedom is the ability to direct oneself abidingly towards
what is good. This means to realize what is truly good and to devote oneself to
God.

Freedom of Choice: Further freedom implies that we are capable of doing good
without constraint. This is the truly human way of proceeding in the choices-big
and small which life puts before us.

Hence, when one obeys God’s will, he is really exercising his freedom. One is
free because he/she possesses the faculty of determining him/herself with regard to
what is good and possesses the faculty of choice. In fact, to be free is to be able to
choose, and to want to choose.

To be really free is to live according to one’s conscience. Freedom is the

capacity to decide what is good by oneself and not through external constraint.

The Human Acts: In human being’s experience, we find quite a variety of actions.
These actions can be classified into two categories; viz., human acts and acts of
man.

Acts of man comprises of all biological processes such as breathing, digestion,

spontaneous swallowing, sensory impulses like feeling pain as well as spontaneous
psychic reactions that precedes the activity of intellect and free will, like the first
movement of anger and sympathy. These acts of man are indeliberate.

We are concerned with the other type of actions; viz., human acts, which come
from man’s gift of freedom. Freedom makes man a moral subject.

Man exercises his/her freedom responsibly through particular acts which express
his/her basic direction of life.

67
When one acts deliberately man is the master of his/her acts. Human acts, that is,
acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be
morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

They are regarded as human acts and different from acts of man, because they are
made of two important elements; i.e., previous knowledge of the intellect and free
will.

In every human act there are three things to be taken into consideration; viz.,
object, intention, and circumstances of an action.

These are regarded too as factors that determine the morality of human acts.
These factors are:

i) the object (what) chosen as the good towards which the will deliberately
direct itself;
ii) the intention (why) is the end in view for which the agent undertakes an
act. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose
pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will towards the
end; it is concerned with the goal of the activity.
A good intention does not make behaviour that is intrinsically disordered
such as lying and calumny, good or just. Hence, the moral principle: the
end does not justify the means.

iii) the circumstances (how, where, who) which are particulars of the
human act that affect the moral object. The circumstances, including the
consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act.
They contribute to increasing and diminishing the moral goodness or evil
of human acts. They can add or diminish the agent’s responsibility (such
as acting out of fear of death).
68
 They cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make
neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

Good Acts and Evil Acts: A morally good act requires the goodness of the object,
of the end, and of the circumstances together.

An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself; e.g., praying
and fasting “in order to be seen by men.”

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. Such acts as
fornication are always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder
of the will, that is, a moral evil.

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the
intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure,
duress, or emergency, etc) which supply their context.

There are acts, which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and

intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object, such as blasphemy,
perjury, murder and adultery.

Hence, one may not do evil so that good may result from it.

All in all, these human acts rely on the judgment of conscience; hence, what type
of conscience one has affects the morality of these acts.

TOPIC V: HUMAN VALUES

We begin by distinguishing human values from worldly values or disvalues as

enumerated by St. Paul in Col. 3: 5-15.

A value is an ideal which is treasured and held in high esteem. It is a good that is
pursued by a moral agent for self-perfection and self-realisation, through all the
69
concrete situations of his/her life and in intersubjective dialogue with his/her
fellow man and God.

Value is some reality that man spontaneously recognizes as possessing an intrinsic

worth. The person him/herself is the basic value, the centre of values. He/she is
also the bearer of values.

Values cut across all cultures and religions in all countries. Values are known by
various communities, but there is lacuna insofar as implementation is concerned.

Value calls for a norm in order to express it and protect it. The norm is in this case
a summon or an invitation to exercise liberty, arising from the value in the object,
an invitation to man to preserve and nurture value in freedom.

The relationship between values and principles is an undoubtedly one of

reciprocity in that moral values are an expression of appreciation to be attributed to
those specific aspects of moral good which these principles foster (CSDC, n. 197).

The values include: human life, peace, justice, love, honesty, charity, temperance,
truth, freedom, fortitude, humility, respect, chastity, kindness, understanding and
forgiveness.

The human person comes to the grasp moral value only gradually. Moral education
would have to take into account this gradually maturing process. It should
primarily aim at instilling genuine values in the minds and hearts of youth. Moral
guidance should be concerned with helping a person to realize the values implied
in a given situation.

All the values which contribute to community of love between persons need to be
protected and fostered.

70
So the institutions and environment within which persons must live and grow
should be the object of deep concern.

We should wish not only the growth of individuals, but also the development of
economic, cultural, social and political life in such a way that these institutions
provide an atmosphere in which personal liberty, justice, love and truth can
flourish. Only on this can peaceful coexistence be sustained.

This brings to our attention the National Value System in our New Constitution
2010. The national values and principles of governance include—patriotism,
national unity, sharing and devolution of power, the rule of law, democracy and
participation of the people; human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness,
equality, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the marginalised;
good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability; and sustainable
development.

This aims at calling the citizenly to internalize these values in order to change the
attitude in all sectors of service. Thus the moral/ethical behaviour based on these
values by any leader is not a choice but an imperative if this country will
eventually change.

It is unfortunate that many people who are incensed are those who are not role
models to the young people.

What is bedeviling our socioeconomic and political life in our African countries is
lack of substantial virtuous and moral behaviour of our leaders. A value free
leadership has ruined the society in all levels.

71
TOPIC VI: JESUS’ VISION OF LIFE

A number of bible passages give us Jesus’ teachings and vision on life: Mt. 5: 3-
12 (beatitudes); Mt. 25: 31-45 (last judgment); Lk. 10: 25-37 (Good Samaritan—
compassion – neighbour); Lk. 12: 41-48 (faithful servant); Mt. 5: 13-14 (salt and
light); Jn. 8: 12 (light of the world); Eph. 5: 8-9; 1Cor. 12: 12-27 (Analogy of the
body: unity); and Col. 3:12-14.

There are a number of issues affecting us today in our society that we need to
evaluate in the light of Jesus’ vision of life. For example, unemployment,
permissiveness, violence, discrimination, hunting down of witches (Kisii and
Malindi: old people), tribalism, culture of cheating (mobile phones), the search for
wealth at any cost thus making money the end of everything, prostitution,
corruption, indulgence into hedonistic lifestyle, taking alcohol and doing drugs,
peer influence (mob psychology), gangs (Mungiki, Sugusugu, Chinkororo, Gaza
Boys, etc.

From the above passages Jesus looks at life issues in a different way, and
responded in words and deeds accordingly. He underlined the importance of self-
giving, identification with the other, culture of giving; care, compassion, love
and no indifference.

Jesus viewed life as sacred by virtue of being created in the image and like of
God. This was manifested in His words and deeds, thus unveiling God’s loving
plan for humanity.

He protected and promoted the dignity of human life. He gave (sacrificed)

Himself for the redemption and liberation of man. He identified with the weak,
poor, sick, socially marginalized, etc.

72
Jesus taught on three dimensions of relationship: man with God, man with
fellow human beings and man with the rest of creation. This means Jesus wanted
the integral liberation and redemption of all, i.e., reconciliation of all in Him.

For Him authentic life is a call to Holiness (Mt. 5: 48). Holiness is not limited to
the sanctuary or to moments of private prayer, it is a call to direct our whole heart
and life toward God according to God’s plan for this world (O’Brien and Shannon,
2003, 655).

Jesus vision of life is that of integral redemption and liberation of humankind.

Humankind should be seen from both spiritual and temporal dimensions. This is
clearly spelt out in Jesus’ programme of His social ministry as spelt out in Lk. 4:
18-19. This means Jesus wants man to be free from all types of enslavement:
social, moral, economic, political, cultural or religious. We are called to participate
in Jesus’ mission guided by His vision of life.

Man is called to look with hope toward ultimate union with God.

Therefore the whole vision of Christ on man is that “the human person, in himself
and in his vocation, transcends the limits of the created universe, of society and
of history: his ultimate end is God Himself who has revealed Himself to men in
order to invite them and receive them into communion with Himself.”

73
 MODULE THREE

CONTEMPORARY ETHICAL CHALLENGES

TOPIC I: RESPONSIBLE HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS

i) Human Need: The human person is a social being by his/her very nature. This is
verified by the story of creation from the book of Gen.1: 27 and 2: 15-23, whereby
Adam in the midst of all creation could not find companionship until the creation
of Eve.

Relationship, therefore, is a normal and healthy human need. The need for human
relationship is experienced right from the beginning of human life; conception,
gestation period, birth, and early formative years in the family, adulthood,
marriage, death and life after.

The response to the need for human relationship is expressed in various ways,
some healthy and others unhealthy. In respect of the dignity of the human person,
healthy relationships should be nurtured and unhealthy ones discarded.

A healthy relationship is a relationship that is built on love for the other person in
accordance with the love that God has manifested to each person, regardless of
who the person is (in terms of gender, race, tribe, religious or political affiliation
and socio economic status.

This is in response to God’s command “Love one another. As I have loved you, so
you also love one another” (Jn. 13: 34).

The love in reference here is spelt out in 1Cor. 13: 1-13; thus, love is patient, kind,
not jealous, not pompous, not rude, does not seek its own interests, is not quick
tempered, does not rejoice over wrongdoing, rejoices with the truth, bears all
things, believes in all, hopes in all things, endures all things and never fails.
74
All what is contrary to these describes unhealthy relationships.

The goal of responsible relationships among people of opposite sex should be at

the service of building the personhood of those involved.

Today the issue of managing human relationships among people of opposite sex
has been quite emotive. We are living in a society that is too quick to look at
human relationships between persons of different gender negatively as though they
are only meant to satisfy only sexual pleasure and such relationships end up in
sexual objectification of the parties involved.

Therefore, this brings us to consider the place of human sexuality in relationships.

ii) Human Sexuality in Relationship: In this field, the Christian ethics is

strengthened by some unquestionable certainties regarding human sexuality
(Pontifical Council for the Family, 1995, n. 3).

Love is a gift of God, nourished by and expressed in the encounter of man and
woman. Love is thus a positive force directed towards their growth in maturity as
persons. In the plan of life which represents each person's vocation, love is also a
precious source for the self-giving which all men and women are called to make
for their own self-realization and happiness (Ibid).

In fact, man is called to love as an incarnate spirit, that is soul and body in the
unity of the person. Human love hence embraces the body, and the body also
expresses spiritual love (Ibid).

Therefore, sexuality is not something purely biological, rather it concerns the

intimate nucleus of the person. The use of sexuality as physical giving has its own
truth and reaches its full meaning when it expresses the personal giving of man and
woman even unto death, which is only true in marriage (Ibid).

75
As with the whole of the person's life, love is exposed to the frailty brought about
by original sin, a frailty experienced today in many socio-cultural contexts marked
by strong negative influences, at times deviant and traumatic (Ibid).

Nevertheless, the Lord's Redemption has made the positive practice of chastity into
something that is really possible and a motive for joy, both for those who have the
vocation to marriage (before, in the time of preparation, and afterwards, in the
course of married life) as well as for those who have the gift of a special calling to
the consecrated life) (Ibid).

The person is thus capable of a higher kind of love than concupiscence, which only
sees objects as a means to satisfy one's appetites; the person is capable rather of
friendship and self-giving, with the capacity to recognize and love persons for
themselves. Like the love of God, this is a love capable of generosity. One desires
the good of the other because he/she is recognized as worthy of being loved. This
is a love which generates communion between persons, because each considers the
good of the other as his/her own good. This is a self-giving made to one who loves
us, a self-giving whose inherent goodness is discovered and activated in the
communion of persons and where one learns the value of loving and of being loved
(Ibid, n. 9).

Man is called to love and to self-giving in the unity of body and spirit. Femininity
and masculinity are complementary gifts, through which human sexuality is an
integrating part of the concrete capacity for love which God has inscribed in man
and woman. "Sexuality is a fundamental component of personality, one of its
modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of
expressing and of living human love" (Ibid, n. 10).

76
Human sexuality is thus a good, part of that created gift which God saw as being
“very good”, when he created the human person in his image and likeness, and
“male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27) (Ibid,. no. 11).

Insofar as it is a way of relating and being open to others, sexuality has love as its
intrinsic end, more precisely, love as donation and acceptance, love as giving and
receiving. The relationship between a man and a woman is essentially a
relationship of love: “Sexuality, oriented, elevated and integrated by love acquires
truly human quality”. When such love exists in marriage, self-giving expresses,
through the body, the complementarity and totality of the gift. Married love thus
becomes a power which enriches persons and makes them grow and, at the same
time, it contributes to building up the civilization of love (Ibid).

But when the sense and meaning of gift is lacking in sexuality, a “civilization of
things and not of persons” takes over, “a civilization in which persons are used in
the same way as things are used. In the context of a civilization of use, woman can
become an object for man, children a hindrance to parents...” (Ibid, n. 11).

There is hardly any human endowment that cannot be misused. We know and we
are witnesses to the fact that man can be perverted in various fields: in the field of
power, in the relationship between the stronger and the weaker, between the rich
and the poor, and this as we know, can lead to evil consequences; it may disturb
the order of human society (Pazyamparallil, 1996, 1060).

Sex is no exception to it. We have seen how wrong perception of human sexuality
has ruined many people’s lives. The permissiveness characterizing the moral issues
regarding sex is worrying (Ibid).

But who can say that men and women who know no limits in the sphere of sex,
men/women who recognize no order in giving vent to sex appetite, are happier?
77
Obviously, indulgence in man/woman’s sexual possibilities is not the same as
happiness, nor is it the same as love (Ibid).

iii) Practical Lessons: We need to respond well and reasonably to the questions of
nonmarital sexuality, by underscoring some basic and critical characteristics of
human sexuality. In this way, we endeavour to place human sexuality in the right
place in human relationships among the youths, who are the target of contemporary
sexual permissiveness. A number of lessons are highlighted by Gerald D.
Coleman (1997, Human Sexuality: An all-embracing gift): viz.,

First: Human sexuality is a totalizing experience. Sexuality is not something that

has to do with sexual organs alone. Sexual experience is totalizing not just because
erotic emotion invades every part of a person’s physical and mental being.

Sex is also a total experience because we instinctively put our whole self into it. Of
course, one may be distracted while having sex, but it is a rather low-grade sexual
experience, and insulting and dehumanizing for the partner. For example, a
prostitute can deliberately disassociate sexual activity from her/his real self, but
she/he cannot do so repeatedly without psychological damage. To segregate
sexuality, to isolate it in a nether region of the self, is personally disastrous.

Second: Human sexuality has a certain surplus value: i.e., the meaning of sexuality
is not exhausted by its procreative power. Sexual relations serve many other
purposes, some good, some less so.

Sexuality can be a means of affirming the value of the other, or of self affirmation.
It can be used as a sign of casual caring or of total commitment.

78
It can be a way of manipulating, or of hurting, or exploiting, or shaming, like in the
case of rape. Or it can be a way of celebrating togetherness, a rejoicing in life, or in
comforting the despondent, lonely and discouraged spouse.

Sexual experience as a human event surely has many meanings beside purely
biological ones.

Third: Human sexuality is plastic: not in the sense of artificial, but in the sense of
moldable.

In lower animals and insects, sexual behaviour is genetically programmed. It is all

a procedure dictated by instinct.

Then, how sexuality fits into a given human life, is something determined by a
person’s choices. How physical affection is displayed varies with cultural
backgrounds and personal tastes.

Further, what meaning various types of sexual behaviour have in a certain person’s
life is as a result of how sex is, in fact, used.

As in so many other human areas, sexual mastery is a lifelong project. People only
gradually mold their sexual selves through a long process of experiment and
restraint, of physical evolution and emotional integration. That is why sexual
consciousness is so much a part of one’s unique selfhood.

Fourth: Human sexuality is other-directed. In human beings there is something

deliberate about the orientation of sexuality beyond the self to the other.
Furthermore, animal sexual activity does not ordinarily affirm the partner as a
unique self.

79
Almost always, egoistic sex is immediately perceived as dehumanizing, brutalizing
and subhuman.

There may be an inevitable, immature, self-centered stage in the development of

sexual expression; but this is a stage to grow beyond.

To regard others as instruments of one’s own pleasure, to see them as sex objects
(sexual objectification), is to reduce them to something less than human and even
to diminish an aspect of what it is to be human in one’s self.

Where a person is unable to go out of himself or herself to others, or where his/her

sexual self does not radiate in the world, or where genital sexual behaviour is not
fixed on another unique self, there a human personality is not fully implemented,
and there sexuality is not truly humanized.

Fifth: Human sexuality is self-giving: i.e., it is always in some basic way

procreative. Human sexuality is life-giving in a number of ways beyond the merely
biological: the gift of self in sexual love is one of the most dramatic ways we have
of saying to someone that they are truly loved and worthwhile.

When the unique beloved tells you that you too are that special other for him or
her, whether in word or gift or sexual gesture, the effect is far deeper than casual
compliments from others.

Such sex is then life-giving. It makes it possible to grow and unfold as a person.

Mature love instinctively goes beyond. Marital partners who surrender their unique
self to the unique other in sexual embrace are also strengthened to go out in loving
concern for the whole world.

80
Since they feel secure, fulfilled, realized in their mutual sexual relationship, the
larger world is neither threatening nor enticing.

In fact, no further sexual partners are necessary or even really possible. It is only
when there is no real interpersonal exchange of sexual behaviour that others
become more or less interchangeable, more or less desirable alternative sexual
objects.

For mature lovers the world beyond is opportunity for service and concern, for
expression of love in a less specific and genitally sexual sense.

Sixth: Human sexuality is a language. One has to first acquire a certain maturity
for both communicable language and authentic sex.

Thus, if sexual expression comes to mean for a certain person casual affection, or
impersonal fun, or manipulation, it cannot very easily come to mean a sign of final
commitment.

Like language too, sexuality is both a unique personal possession and a fully social
reality. Everyone has his/her own personal way of using language. In much the
same way each person’s sexual lifestyle is unique.

How erotic feelings and sexual behaviour are integrated into each person’s life and
into relationships with others is something he/she builds up over a long period of
time.

Sexuality is also a social possession as well. No one learns to talk all alone.
Language is something we develop in interchanges with everyone around us, as it
is something we can exercise only in a social context.

81
Similarly, we develop our personal sexual style through interaction with others,
and particularly with others of opposite sex.

People isolated from others or who do not relate much at all with others do not
develop a balanced sexual personality.

Genital sex can be an insignificant fun episode; it can be a way to get something
else like power or status. But once that sort of thing becomes established as one’s
personal meaning for genital sex, this natural sign is no longer available as a sign
of final commitment.

Just as it is wrong to poison the meaning of interpersonal verbal communication by

prevarication and deception, so it is at least equally wrong to muddy the
possibilities of sexual communication.

Summary: Let us orient our understanding of our sexuality towards three Christian
convictions: viz.,

i) Human sexuality, a core dimension of the human need to love and to

be loved, is a gift from God, which commands appreciation, wonder
and respect.
ii) Being sexual, like being intelligent or athletic or gifted in any other
way, is a two-edged experience. We can respectively direct this gift in
a manner reflective of our human dignity and God’s gracious design,
or we can misuse or even abuse ourselves and others by irresponsible
sexual actions.
iii) The incarnation and redemptive life, death and resurrection and
promised return of Jesus Christ make available the inspiration and
grace to respond more fully to God’s invitation to live a sexually
responsible life.
82
Conclusion: In all human relationships the good of the persons should be the main
objective.

Human relationship should develop the sense of self worth and dignity among
those relating, so as to live up to the values of self control of feelings and desires.

It should spur their success and bring out the best in them by empowering them to
make responsible life choices in their relationships based on respect and love for
each other.

When human relationships are founded on selfish motives, they can be hurtful and
destructive to both parties.

The consequences of such relationships go beyond the parties involved to their

immediate families and the wider society.

To keep a relationship positive and growthful, both parties need to understand,

develop and attain physical, emotional, spiritual, social, political and economic
maturity.

TOPIC II: CREATIVE USE OF LEISURE TIME

Time is a gift from God like other gifts we have and, thus, we are stewards of
God’s time.

Time, therefore, should not be used for the realization of selfish interests that do
not promote human dignity, personal and societal development.

Leisure time is founded in the original plan of God’s creation. In the creation
narrative: Gen. 2:1-4, God worked for six days to create the world and rested in the
seventh day.

83
This is a creation ordinance that prescribes periodic cessation from work as a
necessary part of life.

God intended a balance—a harmonious rhythm in which work and leisure are
equally important. The fourth commandment (Ex. 20: 9-11) has it that we should
take a rest from work.

Further, we find that it was a common practice that marked Jesus’ public ministry
to proclaim the Good News, to heal, to feed the crowds and at the end of the day he
would call his apostles to go in a secure place to rest, pray contemplate on the
day’s work and plan for the way forward (Lk. 4: 31-42). Jesus called his disciples
to rest (Mk. 6:30-32).

Leisure time is, hence, time off from the everyday routine of life; i.e. work and
obligation.

Leisure time should be used to build family and societal relationships. It is an

opportunity for communal prayer and worship, relaxed contemplation and
enjoyment of God’s creation and for the cultivation of the arts which help fill the
human longing for wholeness.

Leisure time should be used for development of one’s talents and potentialities.

There are activities that can be considered as amusement that occupy leisure time:
such as games and sports, spectacles and entertainments, hobbies and many other
leisure time activities.

Play has a legitimate place in the life of the human person, just as it is in animals.
Play serves as a relaxation from work, and indeed only if people have periods of
relaxation can they work effectively.

84
Christian ethics approves all the activities in leisure time that enhance the person
and all that surrounds his/her.

But amusements are not exempt from the ethical standards that apply in our more
serious activities.

Hence, cruel spectacles, dangerous sports, lewd (indecent/lustful) shows—in short,

any amusement that are detrimental to the well-being of the participants or
spectators, must be condemned by the Christian.

So the question to be asked is whether an amusement during leisure time excites

states of mind that are either sinful in themselves or predispose to sinful acts.

So leisure time is subject of Christian moral tests.

The abuse of leisure time occurs:

 When people make idol of it;

 When they fill it with immoral activities;
 When they transform it into selfish indulgences; and
 When they neglect duty.
Therefore, a Christian’s leisure is most completely moral:

 When it is thoughtfully chosen;

 When it meets Christian goals;
 When it fosters godly self-fulfillment in a person’s life.
In conclusion, we note that leisure time can be used creatively for the well-being of
the human person, but it can also be used for the destruction of the person if it is
not subjected to moral test.

85
TOPIC III: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MEDIA

Mass media are essential conditions for the functioning and maintenance of life in
the contemporary society.

It has the role of informing, interpreting and evaluating social life, reflecting
culture, entertainment for leisure time and publicizing services and goods.

Media should make people more spiritually mature, aware of the dignity of the
human person, responsible and open to others particularly the needy and the weak.

It should respect legitimate cultural differences, and promote the co-existence of

differences for a cohesive society.

The media enhances intercultural communication across distances thus creating an

enabling environment for unity among all human persons; education, culture and
religion are increasingly made accessible to all through the technological
advancement of our age.

We need to develop a critical assessment of the adverse effects of the media such
as tribal and racist language, creation of gender bias environment, permissive
approach in dealing with moral issues, coverages that provoke violent behaviour
and irresponsible relationships which distort God’s plan of the family and gives a
distorted image of leadership that embraces structural injustices: all these are
divisive tools of the society.

For example, violence in television programmes and movies viewed by children

and juveniles can be expected to be harmful for fundamental psychological reasons
rarely touched upon in the public debate.

86
Developing minds, particularly in children from the ages of 4-5 yrs and through
puberty, from lasting mental models that embody understanding of what the world
is about, how it works, and what is normal and permissible behavior. Early
understandings and expectations will often guide our behavior later in life in spite
of later having obtained what should count as better insights.

The media has created a permissive society insofar as human sexuality is

concerned. In fact, sacred nature of human sexuality is no longer hailed, instead
sex and its pleasure is glorified at the expense of the human person’s integral good.
The media comes in with the slogan that “sex sells”, and many adverts are spiced
with sex overtones. This has brought into existence the biggest social and moral
problem of unfaithfulness in marriage, promiscuity, pornography, child
molestation, pedophilia, human trafficking for sex, sex trade/slavery, etc.

The slanderous (defamatory), investigative, abrasive nature of the media attention

is more than unpleasant. Slander has the power to ruin reputations and lives
altogether. Politicians and pop singers alike are under a heated, ceaseless critique,
leading to tension between the media’s right to free speech and its tendency to act
as a vampire.

Today, celebrities (story of Diana) thrive on media attention, poised for photos
whenever they walk out of the house, even at their worst moments. We find that
the media tendency to write everything about many celebrities is in fact an affront
to the right of privacy, in the name of free speech. What does that say about the
future of the media? What does that say about the future human interest, the right
to truth, and balance between rights and duties in the media world?

87
Mass Media: Moral Duty of the Consumer: Special duties bind those readers,
viewers, or listeners who personally and freely choose to receive what these media
have to communicate.

For good choosing dictates that ample favour be shown to whatever fosters virtue,
knowledge, or art.

Hence, people should reject whatever could become a cause or an occasion of

spiritual harm to themselves, whatever could endanger others through bad
examples, and whatever would impede good selections and promote bad ones.

If those who use these media are to honour the moral law, they must not neglect to
inform themselves in good time of the judgements made in these affairs by
competent authority.

Those judgements they should respect according to the requirement of a good

conscience.

Moral Duty of the Public Authority: Ethics demands that public authority should
properly concern itself with the health of its citizens.

Hence, it has a duty of seeing to it in a just and vigilant manner that serious danger
to public morals and social progress do not result from a perverted use of these
instruments.

This goal should be achieved by enactment of laws and their energetic

enforcement.

NB: Let us note, the freedom of individuals and groups is not at all infringed upon
by such watchful care, especially if those who have taken on themselves the
responsibility of using these media have failed to observe sensible cautions.

88
Conclusion: All must remember that the end of communication is:

To serve life; To bestow dignity; To promote solidarity in living; To stimulate the

engagement of all in constructing a world worthy of humanity’s greatness and of
the infinite love of God.

TOPIC IV: RESPONDING TO EMERGING ISSUES IN AFRICAN

VALUES

In contemporary society, some of the emerging issues of African values are

i) Ignorance of the presence of African values;

ii) Erosion of the meaningfulness attached to the African values;
iii) Evaluation of African values by use of Western criteria.
There are many African values. To mention just but a few like, brotherhood,
otherness, hard work, hospitality, communitarian spirit, respect of parents (elders),
religiosity, etc.

With the influx of negative values as hedonistic lifestyle, pornography, condom

use, contraceptive culture, abortion, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc, African values
have been diluted. Consider, for example, alcohol: it was used for social solidarity
but with intrusion of foreign values, it became commercialized, and lost its value
as a uniting social gathering.

Hard work, characterized the African homestead and community. Majority of

Africans had work and no one complained of unemployment.

Today, excessive love of money and success is the order of the day. Is there
anything to pursue apart from money and success? Is selfishness genetically

89
programmed or is it learnt? The idea of money and individual success has greatly
undermined the spirit of community. Note, to be is to relate.

The gradual erosion of African values has led to the disintegration of the moral
fabric of the society, breakdown of the African family synergy, alienation of
individuals and societies from their roots giving rise to an individualistic society as
opposed to communal dimensions of life emphasized by African way of life.

Hence, responding to emerging issues on African values is of importance. To begin

with salvaging the African family synergy is the foundation for recovering and
perpetuating African values and the identity of the African people.

This should take place in an interactive manner that supports integration and
adoption of values from other cultures to enrich the African value systems rather
than destroying them.

The interaction between the African value system and other cultures should lead us
to work for integral development that appropriately meets our needs as the people
of Africa.

Let us note that Christianity does not teach African Values, but clarifies, purifies,
and confirms the moral values and virtues emphasized by the African people. This
is supported by the words of Fr. Cesard on values and morals: “Not only does he
(the Muhaya) know the natural law but he judges his moral actions in relation to
the Creator, the neighbor and himself. With regard to God, he believes that he is
obliged to praise Him, and to pronounce His name with respect, which he does
frequently. In relation to the state, he feels the need for that authority. The chief is
sacred because of his ancestry and the service that he gives. He is also obeyed. In
relationship to the family each member of family must do his duty if he is to be
respected. Respect and obedience to parents are much stressed. Moral values,
90
virtues and vices are well known. One has just to listen to their proverbs, saying
and fables which praise virtue and condemn vice.” (id. Anthropos XXII, (1927),
Quoted By M. Kilaini, The Catholic Evangelization of Kagera, 42).

91