FUNDAMENTAL MORAL THEOLOGY

1. Can the moral standards of a pre-modern Bible be applied in our post-modern world?
How important is hermeneutics in such a process of appropriation? What are the three
main modern hermeneutic approaches in the reading of the bible? What do you consider
as the most appropriate for our contemporary world in our specific Philippine context?

(a) Can the moral standards of a pre-modern Bible be applied in our post-modern world?

For some time, this question has been a debatable argument: is the bible has something to
say to our life today – the post-modern world? The answer lies in how one understands and
values the role of the Sacred Scriptures in Morality and Ethics.
Quoting the second letter of Paul to Timothy suggests: “All scripture is inspired by God
and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so
that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”
(2 Tim 3:16-17) This text is one of the biblical foundations of Christian ethics. The Bible
then becomes essential in the pursuit of moral living.
Consequently, there are many significant moral teachings that we can find in the Bible in
both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, the very core of its moral teaching
can be found in the Pentateuch, starting from Genesis where we can find the articulation of
God’s design and purpose for the whole creation. It is through narratives of Moses in the
book of Exodus, that we can find the detailed moral prescription that is found in the
Decalogue (10 Commandments) — it is a COVENANTAL RELATIONSHIP between
YHWH (God) and his people (Israel) — “I will be your God and you will be my people.”
The people has to follow his precepts if they consider YHWH as their God.

Now as regards the Prophets, they too have two role to play. First is remembrance of the
past — to constantly remind the people of the “covenantal relationship” they have had with
God. Second is an anticipation of the future — they foretell of the Messianic salvific action
of God for His people. In summary, the Old Testament mentioned various things as regards
ethics, however, we should be mindful of the very core of its morality that is based on the
fundamental COVENANTAL RELATIONSHIP of LOVE between God and His people.
This kind of relationship makes God clarify to people what He wanted especially in terms of
His own purpose of humanity. Within the covenantal relationships, it rests on three
fundamental pillars: (1) the Law is the core (Torah), (2) the Prophets (Major and Minor) –
denounce, announce and give hope to people. Prophets are conscious of the vision of God for
society that is founded on justice and righteousness, (3) Wisdom Literature — these are
articulation of people’s reflections on their experiences on how they grapple with the values
that they are called to live out. Basically it lies on the idea: “if you do good, God will bless
you, otherwise you will punish” (Divine retribution).
When it comes to the New Testament, there a very close and profound connection
between the two as regards the covenantal relationship. However, Jesus introduce something
 new, a new covenant and a new commandment. In a way, Jesus brought up as something new
that serves as corrective to the Old Testament. Jesus is associated with the New Covenant,
that transcends the Old covenant. What is NEW is manifested in the shift of emphasis from
something external (the Laws written on the stones) to something internal (the Laws written
in your hearts); and something what is legal that is focus on justice it shifts to compassion,
mercy and love. This in seen in the accounts of the ministry of Jesus, as He provides
correction to the religion of Judaism on how they appropriated the Revelation that God gave
to them through Moses and through the Prophets. There was a mishandling of that tradition
in the ways and teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees because they became too legalistic,
and act oriented. In a way they miss out the real main point that the covenantal relationship
with YHWH has to be understood in the Covenantal Loving Relationship
Jesus said, I have not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but I have come to fulfill
and perfect it. Jesus fulfilled and perfect the law by discovering the real Spirit of the law and
not to focus on the letter of the law. The Spirit of law must be understood within the context
of LOVE RELATIONSHIP.

Jesus did not multiply the law but summarize the law and made it clear to people that the
Law of Moses is all about LOVE — loving God, others, and yourself. He also introduces the
ethics of INTERIORITY — Jesus emphasizes the importance of internal motivation versus
hypocrisy. Jesus also emphasizes the PERSON — the law is made for wo/man and not the other
way). Jesus also teaches about the morality of PERFECTION — it must go beyond the law of
the scribes and Pharisees thus;, Christian morality must not settle only on the minimum but aim
for the optimum. All of these are exemplified by the life and ministry of Jesus as it is reflected in
the Gospels.
Finally, the scriptures tell that LOVE must become the foundation of our lives as Christians.

(b) How important is hermeneutics in such a process of appropriation?

This makes hermeneutics important in this appropriation. Hermeneutics gives a new
meaning, through the use of a particular lens, in reading the bible. It bridges the gap of the
world of the past and the world of the today. Through it, scriptural roots are discovered—
integrated in moral reflection-- and its significance reappropriated to post-modern times.

(c) What are the three main modern hermeneutic approaches in the reading of the
bible?
The these are the three main modern hermeneutic approaches: (1) Historical critical
approach; (2) Fusion of horizon; and (3) Normative of the Future.
Historical critical approach: it is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of
ancient texts in order to understand “the world behind the text.” It seeks to discover production
of the text as we have it —the history of transmission (form, source, redaction).
Fusion of horizon: It seeks to understand “what is in-front of the text,” the role of
prejudice, tradition that comes along reading of the text.
 Normative of the Future, Escathological: horizon of the future, bible a symbolic medium by
which God continues to communicate with people today – scripture becomes a relevant living
tradition.

(d) What do you consider as the most appropriate for our contemporary world in our
specific Philippine context?
Reiumund Bieringer’s normativity of the future. Filipinos are forgetful/have short memories
of the past, hence we fall into the same mistake and progress is slow. But Filipinos are
always forward-looking or futuristic and tends to forge the call to action in the present
situation.

2. What are the Sources of Moral Theology? How do you distinguish Traditional Moral
Theology from Contemporary ones in relation to these sources?

(a) What are the Sources of Moral Theology?

There are two sources of moral theology: Traditional and Contemporary.

Traditional sources include:

*sacred texts, magisterium, and tradition.
*Sacred texts and magisterium are both dogmatic sources.

Contemporary sources:
*sacred texts (not as a static container, but a medium through which God communicates),
*tradition of the community (sensitive to sensus fidelium, historicity, interaction of
magisterial teaching, moral discernment/practices of episcopal conferences, and moral
discernment/practices of the community),
*human experience (focus on human person, grounded in experience and reality – HPAIC)
*normative sciences (new developments in S&T, knowledge, reflection/interdisciplinary
approach to reality…as science tells facticity: what it is, rather than morality: what it should
be)

(b) How do you distinguish traditional moral theology from contemporary ones in
relation to these sources?

Traditional:
*impression of one paradigm being the governing model.
*Scripture as proof text and as trimming of moral argument.
*Detailed exposition of some version of neo-scholastic theology and position of magisterium.
Contemporary:
*within the framework of See-Judge-Act
*impression of ecumenical dialogue and collaboration among the four sources and those who
do not share our faith tradition.
*principal axes: scripture and tradition
*rational claims: human experience
*hermeneutical dimension: held together and mediated by overall worldview of individual,
communal, collective – universal

3. How does one understand the call of renewal or change in Moral Theology during the
Second Vatican Council? What general distinction can you discern in the understanding
of renewal ‘ad intra’ and renewal ‘ad extra’? In what way/s do you understand the on-
going debate within the Church until recently vis-à-vis the understanding of this central
concept of renewal?

(a) How does one understand the call of renewal or change in Moral Theology during
the Second Vatican Council?
Call for renewal of moral theology during the Second Vatican Council stems from a history
of moral theology that was individualistic, act-centered, law oriented, and sin-conscious. The
manuals and method that influenced moral theology at that time influenced the moral
perspective and thinking of generations of priests and shaped the minds and heart of
generations of lay Catholics. This historical development can be understood by looking at
the different significant periods in history.
 Patristic Era [Practical Wisdom]: No Coherent system of moral theology.
 6th Century/Monastic [Penitentiary Guidelines]: Saw the spread of Christianity
Monastic Movement. This introduced change in the practice of reconciliation,
especially in Ireland with the Celtic monks. Moral life focused on avoiding sin
(Christian minimalism), identifying moral theology with sacrament of penance and
priests. Justice than mercy.
 11th -13th centuries [holistic theology - tart of rational synthesis]: ethical
discussion were incorporated into the overall synthesis of Christian theology,
forwarding holistic theology.
 14th-16th centuries [rational synthesis]: scholasticism time led to separate science of
moral theology. It focused on behavior, the practice, the concrete, the objective, the
necessary and required – separated from dogmatic theology and connected more with
cannon law.
 17th – 18th centuries [Casuistry & Manuals]: from the council of Trent and
reformation, debates among moralists led to development of moral systems, namely:
Jansenism, Laxism, Probabilism.
 Jansenism (Cornelius Jansen): deny free will, maintain that human nature is
incapable of good => resulted to rigorism.
 Laxism: relaxes the obligations of natural and positive law where there is any
degree of probability, however slight, in favour of a course of action.
  Probabilism: applies when the lawfulness of an act is uncertain, by allowing
an actor to follow an opinion favoring personal liberty if that opinion is
solidly probable, even though an opposing opinion, favoring law, is more
probable.
 EQUIPROBABILISM – system of principles designed to guide the
conscience of one in doubt. Resulted to manuals largely used in the
seminaries.

(b) What general distinction can you discern in the understanding of renewal ‘ad intra’
and renewal ‘ad extra’?

Ad intra (resourcenment) speaks of going back to the sources or original inspiration of the
text; rediscovering Christian identity, vocation and mission in the world. It seeks specificity
of character.  revert to scriptural studies, kerygmatic and moral teaching, conversion and
discipleship, link to Christian morality, spirituality and patristic roots.

Ad extra (aggiornamento) speaks of openness to the world and see the movement of the holy
spirit in history by reading the signs of the times. What goes on with the world in the
evolving historical consciousness that bears the seeds of the reign of God and to seek
common grounds (of humanity and commonality).  openness to the world as blocked by
anti-modernism

(c) In what way/s do you understand the on-going debate within the Church until
recently vis-à-vis the understanding of this central concept of renewal?

4. The human person and his/her dignity form part of a fundamental concept in Moral
Theology. How seriously, adequately and integrally should it be considered in our moral
discernment and evaluation?

o Moral Theology looks at the person as an image of God. As such, one has to be aware
of the conscious and social dimension of the person. The human person, then, is a story
that is part of a story within a community, which in turn is a community story within
the story of the bigger tradition – Christian-Biblical.
o As imago dei, the person holds the highest value on earth thus the person has to be
adequately considered. In this construct, God is still the ultimate center of value. It
presupposes that human dignity depends not on human achievement but on divine love
and purpose. As part of a story within a community, the persons gives life to the Triune
God thus enabling the graciousness of God to be experienced.
o With this premise, in our moral discernment and evaluation, ones fundamental option
must take the human person in a wholistic view. The Fundamental option takes a
commitment to a community, a person or profession – making our decisions sacraments
 of the person we are. This fundamental option, done with consciousness and free will,
entails considering the person as:
o A Relational Being: with oneself, with others, with God. As a relational
being the human person has a ‘social dimension’, therefore not an isolated
subject. [i.e., Filipino value of pakikipagkapwa for the well being of the
society or the common good]
o An Embodied Subject: with autonomy, self determination, freedom of
conscience, an end and not a means. As embodied subject, however, the
person is considered capable of bodily communication, limited and
constrained.
o An Historical Subject: who is a subject relentlessly temporal, developmental
(with own phase), and part of a context or contextual
o Fundamentally Equal: that takes a commonly shared humanity. [i.e., gender,
access to justice, opportunities in life, etc.]
o Uniquely Original: with a particular distinct condition, not a dispensable part
of a whole, and holds a personal responsibility.
o Looking further into historical conditions or social dimensions- seriously, adequately and
integrally - considering the person holistically must lead one to incorporate problems of
dehumanization, poverty, injustices and treatment as a non-person.

5. In the adequate consideration of the human person, it is important to take him/her from
within the context of his/her moral development as a person. Can you discuss two models
or frameworks of moral development that become helpful in the process of moral
evaluation?

Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Level 1: Preconventional

a. Stage 1: Punishment and obedience orientation

i. Judgment guided by unquestioning obedience and the prospect of
punishment (the consequence of the behavior)
b. Stage 2: Naively egoistic, instrumental orientation (Instrumental Relativists)
i. Things are right when they satisfy people’s needs.

Level 2: Conventional

c. Stage 3: Good interpersonal relationships or good boy/girl orientation

i. Moral behavior helps others and is socially approved.
d. There is consideration of socially shared norms of a good person, eg, a
good husband.
i. Considers persons in their goodness, badness and deservingness.
 ii. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings
such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others.
e. Stage 4: Law-and-order orientation
i. The individual takes the perspective of a generalized member of society.
ii. There is a balance between individual actions and societal standards.
Level 3: Post-Conventional

f. Stage 5: Social Contract / Legalistic Orientation

i. Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and
in terms of standards that have been critically examined and agreed on
by the whole society.”
g. Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation
i. Good is determined by the decisions of conscience in accord with self-
chosen ethical principles.
ii. Principal values include autonomy, universality, reciprocity, consistency

Galligan’s Stages of Moral Development (Ethics of Care)

Stage One – Being concerned only of the self as a way to ensure survival

Stage Two – Sense of responsibility for the other: “Good is equal to caring for others.”

Stage Three – Acceptance of the Principle of Care as a Universal Ethical Principle