Basic Principles of Catholic Moral Teaching
by Father Gerard Beigel, S.T.D.
In this year, Christians throughout the world are celebrating the Great Jubilee of the 2000th anniversary of the coming of Jesus Christ into the world. For all believers this is a golden opportunity to offer the world a new vision of how human beings ought to live. What does it mean to be a good person? What is the goal of human life? What is the difference between good and evil? These are questions that stir in every human heart, no matter how wounded or lost one may be. The world sorely needs to hear in a new and compelling way the Christian answer to these questions.
Christianity's significance for human morality is so vital, because the world today is experiencing a crisis of epic proportions in the area of truth and morality. The past thirty years have witnessed vast changes in the stability of family life, in the nature of sexual mores, and in new technologies that make it possible to manipulate all stages of human life. Moreover, a good portion of the daily news relentlessly focuses our attention upon truly awful events—random shootings, political scandals, terrorist attacks and wars. The entertainment industry openly promotes casual sex and violence in our movies and popular music. The cumulative effect of all these forces is to corrode people's sense of moral goodness and decency. This corrosion, in turn, leads many people to doubt whether there are any objective moral truths anymore. In this climate of relativism, many people have fallen into the pit of despair, loneliness, and disorientation. All of this raises the question of the nature of morality in a new and compelling way in our world.
The Church's moral teaching is derived from the gospel concerning Jesus Christ. The central truth of Christianity is that God has sent His own Son into the world. When a person accepts in faith that Jesus Christ is Son of God and Savior of the world, this act of faith actually unites the believer to the Son of God himself! Obviously, there must be tremendous moral consequences from this living union with Christ. At the Second Vatican Council, the bishops of the Church taught that Jesus Christ not only reveals the mystery of the Father and His love—Christ also "makes man fully manifest to himself and brings to light his exalted vocation" (Gaudium et Spes, no. 22). The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes this statement at the beginning of its third section on the moral teaching of the Church. Thus, the Catechism's presentation of Christian morality begins with the fact that Jesus reveals who man is, and a part of this revelation is to reveal what is man's true good. The Christian teaching on morality therefore must begin with a vision of the highest good to which the human person is called—eternal union with God in heaven. In the moral teaching of the Church this "exalted vocation" has traditionally been called "the beatific vision," or "the call to perfection."
The Christian teaching on morality must begin by stressing each person's call to holiness and perfection. The second major emphasis of Christian moral teaching is the command to avoid doing evil. The relationship between these two elements—the call to perfection and avoiding evil—can be presented briefly in a sketch. The first and most important dimension of the Christian's moral life is the upward call to perfection. In following our call to God, there is no limit on how holy or how perfected in love we can become. There is always more. God has made us "capable of the infinite." However, there is a lower limit to the kinds of actions that are appropriate for a human being. Everything we think, say or do is either helping us to direct our lives towards God or hindering that effort. An evil action is precisely something we do that cannot help order our lives to God. Evil deeds direct our lives away from God, away from beatitude and perfection. These truths about the call to perfection and the command to avoid evil are presented in the accompanying diagram. The Christian moral life is a call to live "above the line," by avoiding evil deeds and aiming our lives wholly toward perfection in God. This is the way of perfection and the call to holiness. The remainder of this essay will cover these two fundamental points of Christian moral teaching—the call to perfection, and the criteria for distinguishing good and evil choices. Throughout this essay we will apply these two points of the Church's moral teaching to some specific moral issues.
The Call to Perfection:
It may sound surprising, but one of the most common ways that people resist God's vision for their lives is by ignoring or forgetting that they are called to perfection. Part of the effect of original sin on all human beings is that we are content to accept a watered down version of the goodness that God wants for us. We want to be good, but perfection—well, that's only for saints! When I have given Bible studies on Jesus' teaching about the call to perfection, I almost always encounter very strong objections from people that we can't really be expected to be perfect.
There are two points that must be understood about Christian perfection. First, there is no denying that Jesus called his disciples to perfection. At the end of his interpretation of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus exhorted his disciples: "therefore, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). To the rich young man who asked him what he had to do to enter "eternal life," Jesus responded by calling him to the way of perfection. When the man turned away in sorrow, Jesus did not invite him to a lesser path, but instead turned to his disciples and said, "Amen, I tell you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 19:23). If we truly believe that Jesus came in order to open for us the path to eternal life with God, then it should be obvious that we are called to perfection. To be in communion with God requires perfection. Human beings were created for God—for perfection. This is the fundamental truth about our destiny that Jesus Christ has revealed in his teaching, and his suffering, death and resurrection.
The second point about Christian perfection is absolutely essential to grasp. We cannot achieve perfection on our own. Part of what we mean by this is that we are prone to sin and therefore our lives will never be absolutely perfect in this world. However, the fact that we cannot achieve perfection on our own does not mean that we can ignore Jesus' teaching about perfection. He has commanded us to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." But how is this possible, if, in fact, we all commit sin? It seems that Jesus' call leads us to an unbridgeable abyss. Even great saints, like Francis of Assisi, who received incredible graces from God, still committed some sins in their lives. If they could not be perfect with all the graces they received, what hope is there for the rest of us? All these questions seem to indicate that Jesus' call to perfection is actually impossible. However, the problem with these questions and objections is that they ignore the true nature of the grace that God offers us in Jesus Christ. The fundamental grace of being a Christian is that we are actually joined to Jesus Christ—we become one body with him. And since Jesus himself was perfect, completely without sin, through our union with him we are constantly being touched by the grace of perfection.
Our whole Christian life is literally founded upon the perfection of Christ, and on all sides we are surrounded and supported by his perfection. One very obvious example of how the grace of perfection operates in our lives is in the Eucharist. None of us on our own are capable of offering a perfect sacrifice to God. But Jesus has offered a perfect sacrifice to the Father, and in the Eucharist he gives himself and his perfect offering to us, so that we, by grace, can truly make a perfect offering to the Father. For this reason, immediately after the consecration, the words recited by the priest always refer to our perfect offering, which is made through our union with Christ. "Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice" (Eucharistic Prayer III).
Another fundamental way that the perfection in Jesus touches us is that his call to perfection can become a fire that burns in the depths of our hearts. For those who strive to live in the Lord and listen to his word, his call to perfection becomes like a ferment, a leaven, in the depths of the heart that impels them ceaselessly upward in the quest to become fully like their Lord. The lives of the Apostles and great saints illustrate this power of the grace of perfection working in them. One of the most eloquent testimonies of this grace is in Paul's letter to the Philippians.
So, in summary, we are called to perfection in Jesus Christ. Through our union with Christ we are constantly impregnated with the seed of perfection. When a believer receives and retains this grace in his heart, the striving for perfection becomes a part of who he is. We can also say that a Christian who is not actively seeking perfection has not fully opened his heart to the grace of Jesus Christ.
Turning from Evil:
Although the primary aim of our moral lives is to pursue perfection in Jesus Christ, this task must begin by turning away from sin. St. Augustine states that "the beginning of freedom is to be free from crimes…such as murder, adultery, fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege and so forth." In order to turn from such evils we need to know clearly what are the criteria that distinguish good and evil actions. What is the line that divides good and evil?
Following the traditional Catholic presentation of the morality of human acts (that goes back to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1200s), the Catechism lists the three "sources" for determining the morality of a human act. "The morality of human acts depends on: –the object chosen; –the end in view or the intention; –the circumstances of the action" (paragraph no. 1750). After reviewing the meaning of each of these three elements (nos. 1751–1754), the Catechism underscores that each of these three elements have to be good for the act as a whole to be good (1755). For example, if someone chooses an object that is evil—say, fornication—no matter how good an intention the person has, the evil object makes the whole act evil. Or someone could choose a good object—for example, almsgiving—but do it with an evil intention—to win praise from others. The evil intention corrupts the act and makes the act as a whole evil. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for such hypocrisy (see Matt 6). A bad circumstance can also make an otherwise good action evil—for example, a husband deciding to go fishing to build relationships with his buddies (good object and intention), but taking the trip on the weekend of his 25th wedding anniversary (bad circumstance). His wife probably wouldn't be too pleased with such an adventure.
1. The Object of Choice:
Let's examine the meaning of the three sources in greater depth, beginning with the object of choice. We can visualize the relationship between the object of choice, the intention of the person, and the circumstances like three concentric circles. The innermost circle, the "bulls-eye," is the object of choice. The first thing to examine when we try to determine the morality of a proposed action is what am I choosing to do? There are two important things here. First, by the object of choice we mean something that a person is freely choosing to do. To do something morally evil, a person has to choose the act—accidents do not count. If I am driving a car safely, and all of the sudden a child dashes in front of the car and I hit and kill the child, a terrible thing has certainly happened. But, I have not done something morally evil. I am not responsible for the death, since it was an accident. So, the object of choice shows us how central our freedom is in determining the morality of actions. Morality is primarily a question of how we are using our freedom—to pursue God through good choices and actions, or to turn from God through bad choices and actions.
The second thing to note about the object of choice is that it is some specific act that we are choosing. The object is "what" we choose. A married man who chooses to have sexual relations with a woman not his wife is choosing the object known as adultery. A woman who chooses to have her fallopian tubes tied in order to avoid pregnancy is choosing the object known as sterilization. A woman who decides to terminate a pregnancy is choosing abortion. Calling the moral object by its true name always eliminates a great deal of confusion. The problem is that people can choose actions like these for good intentions. A woman could choose abortion, because the pregnancy is truly threatening her life and her intention, or why she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, is to save her own life. This is certainly a good intention but it can't make a bad object, a bad choice, good. Our traditional moral maxims express this fact. "The end (the intention) never justifies the means (what is actually chosen)." Or, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
There are some actions, some objects, which it is never right to choose. These are known as intrinsically evil acts. Some examples are: fornication, adultery, sterilization, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, murder, and homosexual activity. Many people find it hard to understand how these acts could always be wrong. There are two problems here. First, we tend to measure our choices and deeds by our own state of mind and not by the standard of God's perfection. Contraception is a good example. It is hard for couples to imagine how something in which they express their most intimate love could be wrong. This is an understandable human perspective. The divine perspective calls us to the way of perfection, and here we see that marriage and intercourse involve a total gift of oneself to the spouse—"the two become one body." If the spouses withhold a part of who they are in intercourse, they are not giving perfect love to each other. If they say, "I'll give you everything except my fertility," their intercourse does not express the perfection to which God calls them in their married love. Where would we be if Jesus, instead of loving us perfectly on the cross, had loved us only partially and imperfectly?
The second problem people have in accepting that there are some acts that are always wrong to choose is that they fail to grasp what happens to us through our free choices. When I choose something, I am using my freedom to make the whole choice and action a part of who I am. When a man or woman gets married each becomes a new person through the choice—the man becomes a husband, the woman a wife. They each acquire a new identity through their free choice. The same thing happens with evil choices. A person who commits adultery becomes an adulterer. A person who murders someone becomes a murderer. The choice sticks to the person, becoming part of who he is. With evil choices, we become evil-doers, and in this state of being we cannot direct our lives to God. Only repentance can change our inner state brought about through evil choices and deeds.
The above factors should clarify why it is so important to know the object of choice when we attempt to determine the morality of a proposed action. The heart of the morality of an action is how we use our freedom through choice. The key question we must begin with is: "what am I choosing to do?"—not "what is my intention?"
2. The Intention (or Goal) of the Person:
The second "source" for determining the morality of an action is the intention of the person who is acting. By intention we mean "why" someone is choosing a certain action. Any given act could be motivated by a variety of intentions or goals. For example, consider choosing to play golf. Someone might do it for recreation, someone else to entertain business clients, someone else to excel professionally in the sport. When people choose and act, they are usually very aware of their intention—why they are doing the action. The problem is that we tend to magnify the importance of our intention, thinking that a good intention alone settles whether an action is moral or not.
Moralists in the past thirty years often discussed the following case, which illustrates the dilemma involving a good intention but a bad object of choice. A woman has been wrongly arrested and placed in a Soviet work camp, where she is no longer able to care for her invalid husband and six children. The head of the camp offers to help her escape if she will consent to having sex with him. The object of choice is clearly adultery—this is the immediate object of choice facing her. The intention (or the reason why) the woman would make this choice is a good one—to escape and be able to care again for her family. Can her good intention make the choice to have sex with the guard a morally good act? The answer is no. A good intention alone cannot make an act good, if the object of choice itself is evil. Again, "the end (or intention) does not justify the means."
The problem of a good intention and a bad object of choice is one of the most common patterns in contemporary moral dilemmas. People attempt to justify euthanasia for the good intention of wanting to ease someone's suffering—but the choice is to kill someone. People attempt to justify abortion for the good intention of preserving a woman's health, or having her avoid the trauma of carrying a fetus caused by rape—but again, the choice is to kill a person. People attempt to justify homosexual activity for the good intention of encouraging loving relationships among those who have same-sex attractions—but homosexual activity can never realize the "one body" union and fertility that is intrinsic to God's plan for sexual intercourse. In all of these cases a good intention alone cannot suffice for making the actions moral. If a good intention were the only criteria for the morality of an action, there would be no reason why something like bestiality would necessarily be immoral. While the intention of the person acting is very important to examine, we must never lose sight of the fact that morality has objective criteria that indeed transcend our subjective intentions.
3. The Circumstances of Human Acts:
The third and final "source" for determining the morality of human acts is the circumstances that surround the action. Circumstances do not involve so much what the person is choosing to do or why they are choosing, but rather involve such things as when the action is done, how it is done, or where it is done. We've already looked at the example of the husband deciding to take a fishing trip on the weekend of his 25th wedding anniversary. Circumstances can increase or diminish the goodness or badness of an action. If I steal a candy-bar from a store it is far less serious than if I steal a laptop computer. Here, the circumstance involved is the amount of the theft. If a person in confession tells a priest he has stolen money, generally the priest will ask "how much?" since this circumstance determines the gravity of the theft. Circumstances can also increase or diminish the person's responsibility for an action. A soldier who betrays his country's military secrets is certainly less culpable if the betrayal comes about through prolonged torture by his captors. The circumstances surrounding a human action are the third element in importance after the object of choice and the intention of the person acting. While it can happen that bad circumstances will change the moral quality of an action, generally the circumstances of an action resolves the secondary issues of the gravity of the act and/or the culpability of the person acting.
Do Not Be Conformed to the World!
"Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, so that you may judge what is God's will, what is good, pleasing and perfect" (Romans 12:2). These words of St. Paul take us right to the heart of the Church's vision of human morality. In Jesus Christ, it is possible for us to be transformed to the very depths of our being—to become "a new man" who puts off sin and lives for God. This transformation necessarily entails that we accept in the depths of our hearts that we are called to perfection. Moreover, it means that we reject the ways of the world that rationalize, excuse, or deny evil behavior. Jesus himself challenged us to "cut off our hand" if that would be our downfall. The Christian's call to perfection will never produce its glorious fruit for God and others if we are content to tolerate patterns of sin in our lives. When we do sin, the grace of repentance, confession and forgiveness restores us to God's grace. But how important it is that Christians strive always to live in the light. The Church's teaching about the three sources for determining the morality of human acts is a tool that enables the light of God to shine upon our deliberations, our choices and our actions. It is indeed challenging and humbling to scrutinize our choices and actions in this way. Nonetheless, this "difficult teaching" is an invaluable help to us as we strive to live in God's light and avoid being conformed to the world. Through this grace, our thoughts, words and deeds can be conformed to the divine ideal, thereby aiming our lives at God's perfection.
— Father Gerard Beigel is Professor of Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He writes regularly for The California Mission.