Moral Theology – Page 4

The Law of Gradualness: 12 things to know and share

Most Catholics have never even heard of the “law of gradualness,” but it became big news this week at the Synod on the Family.

What is the law of gradualness, and what role does it play in Catholic thought?

Here are 12 things to know and share . . .

1) What is the law of gradualness?

It is a principle used in Catholic moral and pastoral theology, according to which people should be encouraged to grow closer to God and his plan for our lives in a step-by-step manner rather than expecting to jump from an initial conversion to perfection in a single step.

2) Is there a basis for this idea?

Yes. Human experience testifies that we are not made perfect upon our initial conversion. We must grow in various ways over time and we must continue to struggle against sin.

3) Does Scripture refer to this principle?

Yes, in a variety of passages. For example:

I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh [1 Cor. 3:1-3].
[We] take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete [2 Cor. 10:6].
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil [Heb. 5:12-14].

4) Has the idea of the law of gradualness been abused?

Yes. At the Synod of Bishops on the Family in 1980, some called for an application of the law of gradualness that would allow married couples which were contracepting to receive absolution and holy Communion on the condition that they have an intent to gradually stop using contraception.

5) Where was this declared an abuse?

St. John Paul II rejected it in the his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, saying:

[Married people] cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy.

And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with ‘gradualness of the law,’ as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations.

In God’s plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the extent that the human person is able to respond to God’s command with serene confidence in God’s grace and in his or her own will.

On the same lines, it is part of the Church’s pedagogy that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm [Familiaris Consortio 34].

6) Has the Church returned to this subject?

Yes. In 1997 the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a vademecum (i.e., handbook) for confessors in which it gave guidance to those hearing confessions about how to handle certain situations.

In particular, it warned confessors against the idea of thinking that repentance does not require a decisive break with sin, saying:

The pastoral “law of gradualness”, not to be confused with the “gradualness of the law” which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands [Vademecum for Confessors 3:9].

7) How is the concept being used at the present (2014) Synod of Bishops on the Family?

Today some seem to be proposing that those who have divorced and entered a subsequent, civil marriage (while the previous spouse is still alive and without an annulment and convalidation) should in some cases be allowed to receive absolution and holy Communion if they intend gradually to bring their situation in line with God’s law.

8) How do we know this?

On Monday, October 13, the Synod released a document called a Relatio post disceptationem (i.e., a report after discussion), which summarized the discussions held in the first week of the synod.

9) What did this document say regarding the law of gradualness?

It referred to the concept in several passages:

13. From the moment that the order of creation is determined by orientation towards Christ, it becomes necessary to distinguish without separating the various levels through which God communicates the grace of the covenant to humanity. Through the law of gradualness (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), typical of divine pedagogy, this means interpreting the nuptial covenant in terms of continuity and novelty, in the order of creation and in that of redemption.

14. Jesus Himself, referring to the primordial plan for the human couple, reaffirms the indissoluble union between man and woman, while understanding that “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning” (Mt 19,8). In this way, He shows how divine condescension always accompanies the path of humanity, directing it towards its new beginning, not without passing through the cross. . . .

17. In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that “although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).

47. As regards the possibility of partaking of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, some argued in favor of the present regulations because of their theological foundation, others were in favor of a greater opening on very precise conditions when dealing with situations that cannot be resolved without creating new injustices and suffering. For some, partaking of the sacraments might occur were it preceded by a penitential path – under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop –, and with a clear undertaking in favor of the children. This would not be a general possibility, but the fruit of a discernment applied on a case-by-case basis, according to a law of gradualness, that takes into consideration the distinction between state of sin, state of grace and the attenuating circumstances.

10) Is this same understanding of the law of gradualness present in Familiaris Consortio and the Vademecum for Confessors?

It does not appear so. At least from what has been said thus far, it appears more to reflect the “gradualness of law” that was warned against in those documents, according to which a decisive break with sin is not required before receiving absolution and holy Communion, and in which a different standard of what constitutes sin would be applied to some than is applied to others.

11) Does the Relatio change Church teaching regarding the law of gradualness?

No. The Relatio is a summary what various bishops proposed in discussions. It is not a document of the Magisterium.

The document accurately reports that one group of bishops proposed this—and that others opposed it—but it does nothing to change Church teaching.

12) What does this suggest for the future?

It suggests that this proposal will continue to be discussed. The first phase of that will occur this week, as the bishops discuss the Relatio in small groups.

They will then produce a new document at the end of the present Synod, which will be discussed in the forthcoming year.

The discussion will then be renewed at the forthcoming Synod of Bishops on the Family in 2015, and finally the pope will determine what is to be done with whatever recommendations are made to him.

There also may be involvement by other groups, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the International Theological Commission, the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and others.

There is a great deal more that can be said here, but this should serve as a basic introduction to the concept of the law of gradualness.

We will look at other aspects of the proposal in future posts.

What are celibacy, chastity, and continence? 9 things to know and share

There is a great deal of confusion about what celibacy, chastity, and continence are.

Each one of these concepts is subject to common misunderstandings, but the differences between them are easy to sort out.

A reader from the Asian country of Myanmar writes:

Please, may I ask your help to explain the similarities and differences between celibacy and chastity, especially in the context of consecrated life, among diocesan clergy, and in married life.

I’d be happy to help! I’ll also throw in the related concept of continence.

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

1) Formal vs. Informal Speech

People often think that celibacy means not having sex, or having a commitment to not have sex.

This understanding is so common that you will find dictionary definitions for celibacy like “abstention from sexual intercourse.”

People often have the same idea about chastity, and so you can find dictionary definitions for chastity like “the state of not having sex with anyone : the quality or state of being chaste.”

These are informal ways of speaking that use these words the way they are popularly understood.

In this piece, though, we are going to look at what these terms mean when they are being used in a formal, Catholic context.

2) What is continence?

Continence refers to what people think celibacy and chastity refer to—that is, not having sex.

The term also has other meanings, but in a formal, Catholic context, it means not using the sexual faculty.

That includes not just ordinary, regular sexual acts, but all sexual acts. If you are refraining from any and all sexual acts, you are being continent.

It comes from the Latin word continentia, which means “a holding back.” By the late 1300s, this had come to mean refraining from sex.

More recently (in the 20th century), it has come to refer from holding back other bodily functions as well.

3) What is celibacy?

Celibacy is the state of not being married.

People associate it with the priesthood because, in the Latin rite of the Church, the norm is for priests to be unmarried—to be celibate.

However, properly speaking, anyone who is unmarried can also be said to be celibate.

It comes from the Latin word caelibatus, which simply means “the state of being unmarried.”

4) What is chastity?

KEEP READING.

What did Jesus mean when he said not to judge others? (10 things to know and share)

What did Jesus mean when he said not to judge others? Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

Jesus famously said, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Today, some people use this to shut down conversations when the subject turns to sexual morality.

“Didn’t Jesus say not to judge others?” they ask. “Who are you to judge?”

Did Jesus mean his words to be used this way?

If not, what did he mean?

Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

1) Not a cover for immoral behavior in general

It’s clear that Jesus did not intend his words to be used as a cover for immoral behavior.

He did not mean them to be used as a conversation stopper to shut down attempts to admonish people engaged in immoral behavior.

In fact, Jesus himself did rather a lot of admonishing regarding proper moral conduct.

That is, in fact, the subject of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), in which the saying occurs.

2) Not even a cover for sexual misbehavior

Jesus had quite a bit to say about sexual immortality as well—noting, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount that even being mentally unfaithful was a sin:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart [Matt. 5:27-28].

3) Not a prohibition on admonishing others

Jesus did also not intend his words to be used to stop others from admonishing others when they are committing sinful behavior.

Jesus himself told his ministers:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you [Matt. 28:19-20].

That would include teaching his commands regarding sexual morality.

Also, admonishing sinners is a spiritual work of mercy that we are to engage in:

My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins [Jas. 5:19-20].

4) Not an endorsement of moral relativism

Taking Jesus’ teaching out of context, one might try to use it as a pretext for moral relativism—the idea that all moral judgments regarding the conduct of others are to be suspended and each person is to be allowed to define what is morally good for himself.

This is clearly ruled out by what we’ve already seen regarding Jesus’ own teaching on morality and on the need to proclaim them to others.

We do not define moral truth for ourselves. Moral relativism is a false position that is incompatible with the Christian faith.

It is also incompatible with itself. Like all forms of relativism, it is self-contradictory.

If it is wrong to make moral judgments regarding the behavior of others then it would be wrong to judge others for judging!

So what did Jesus mean?

KEEP READING.

Pope Francis and lying to save life

naziflag — In World War II, some people lied to protect Jewish individuals and save their lives. Was this right? Here's some information you might want to be aware of.

Back during World War II, some people lied to save Jewish lives.

More recently, Lila Rose has used undercover tactics to expose Planned Parenthood.

At issue is the question of whether it is every okay to lie, particularly when you’re trying to save lives.

We live in a violent world, and the issue keeps coming up in human history.

Here is some information you might want to be aware of involving Pope Francis.

On the One Hand

Before we get to the Pope Francis material, we should note that there is a strong view in the history of Catholic thought that says lying of any kind, for any reason, is always wrong.

This view has been endorsed by some of the biggest names in Catholic theology, including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

There have been other views proposed as well, though they have not been the majority view, and it does not appear that the Magisterium has infallibly settled the question.

Indeed, the original edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church contained a definition of lying that seemed to endorse a proposal made some decades ago that restricted what countes as a lie to telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive a person who had the right to know the truth.

If this was lying in the technical sense, then it would imply that some cases of lying in the broader, everyday sense (telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive, without specifying whether the deceived person has a right the truth) would not be morally wrong. Some such acts could, potentially, be justified if the person to whom the (broad-sense) lie was told had no right to the truth.

The fact that the original edition of the Catechism included this statement is a notable indicator that the matter has not been infallibly settled, and advocates of the lying-is-always-wrong view should bear in mind that the history of the question is not uniform and does not appear to be infallibly settled.

On the Other Hand

Although the original edition of the Catechism seemed to endorse the restricted view of what counted as lying, they changed it.

Now the relevant passage defines lying this way:

To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error [CCC 2483].

(Remember the “or act” part. It’s going to be important.)

When the Holy See released the changes to the original edition of the Catechism, they did so without commentary, and so Catholic moral theologians have tried to discern the significance of this change.

Was the Holy See endorsing the historical majority view? Or was it simply not wanting to endorse restricted view and defaulting to a more general formulation of the kind one would expect in a catechetical text, leaving the technical questions to the experts to hash out over time, under the guidance of the Magisterium?

Whichever was the case, the publication of this new wording would not constitute an infallible determination of the issue any more than the publication of the original wording of the Catechism did.

Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger was at pains to explain that the treatment of a subject in the Catechism does not change the weight the Magisterium assigns to a particular teaching.

Whatever weight it had before the publication of the Catechism, that it is the weight it had afterwards.

Part of the Problem

Part of the problem here is that we are torn between two powerful intuitions.

On the one hand, we have a powerful intuition–planted in human nature by God himself–that lying is wrong.

That’s a human universal. It appears in every culture. Indeed, cultures could not even form among people who didn’t have the level of mutual trust that the anti-lying ethic is meant to foster.

On the other hand, we also have an intuition that in some cases deceiving another person is not wrong, particularly when that person is an aggressor and the stakes are high.

Thus police officers adopt ruses when trying to catch criminals. Spies do it to serve their nations. Military forces do it to achieve victory on the battlefield.

How precisely these two intuitions–the need to tell the truth and the need to save lives–are to be squared is something too complex to go into here.

I will not be proposing any solutions to this question, and I await further guidance from the Magisterium.

However, I would like to call the reader’s attention to some material that has recently become available in English.

The Actions of Church Officials

KEEP READING.

Was It Okay for Jacob to Lie to His Father?

isaac_blessing_jacob_flinck — Jacob deceived his father to keep God's promises on track. Was this right?

The book of Genesis records an instance in which Jacob deceives his father, Isaac, by pretending to be his brother.

He does this so that he can inherit his father’s blessing.

All of this seems to happen in fulfillment of God’s plan for Israel.

Does that make it right?

Here’s the story . . .

Jacob and Esau

NOTE: This post is part of a series on the “dark passages” in the Bible. Click here to see all of the posts in the series.

Here is how the book of Genesis describes the birth and early life of Jacob and his twin brother, Esau:

Genesis 25

[22] The children struggled together within [Rebekah]; and she said, “If it is thus, why do I live?” So she went to inquire of the LORD.

[23] And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the elder shall serve the younger.”

[27] When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents.

[28] Isaac loved Esau, because he ate of his game; but Rebekah loved Jacob.

The Prophecy

Note the prophecy about the two children: “the elder [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob].”

This will ultimately be fulfilled by God using the line of Jacob to give rise to the people of Israel (in fact, “Israel” is an alternate name that Jacob will later acquire), but how will this take place?

At the moment, there seem to be two obstacles:

First, as the older child, Esau has the birthright.
Second, as Isaac favors Esau, he is likely to give him his dying, prophetic blessing.

The first obstacles is overcome when a famished Esau foolishly sells his birthright to Jacob (Gen 25:29-34).

That leaves us with the second problem . . .

Isaac Prepares to Bless Esau

KEEP READING.

VIDEO: Unborn babies struggle in womb!

jacobesau — Jacob and Esau struggled in the womb. Now new video shows what this looked like.

According to Genesis, Jacob and Esau struggled with each other while they were still in the womb.

Apparently, it was quite a struggle!

Many women pregnant with twins have experienced the same thing, but now we have motion video of unborn children doing just this.

Here’s the story . . . and the video.

Jacob and Esau

First, here’s the biblical story of Jacob and Esau:

Genesis 25

21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.

22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord.

23 The Lord said to her,

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”

24 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb (NIV).

Other translations render Rebekah’s question a bit differently, and in ways that bring out the intensity of the struggle:

But the children jostled each other in the womb so much that she exclaimed, “If it is like this, why go on living!” (NAB:RE).

The children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it is thus, why do I live?” (RSV).

Why Do They Do This?

The particularly intense struggle between Jacob and Esau may have had prophetic overtones, as Rebekah learned upon consulting the Lord, but this is not a phenomenon unique to them.

Lots of twins appear to struggle in the womb.

Why?

KEEP READING.

Are Christians Forbidden to Consume Blood?

Many people like their steak "rare and bloody." Is that a problem? Is it okay to consume animal blood?

A common objection to the Catholic faith is the idea that the Bible forbids the drinking of blood, yet Catholics claim to drink the blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

It’s true that the Old Testament forbids consuming blood, but what is the status of this requirement for Christians?

Soon we will look at drinking Christ’s blood specifically, but here let’s look at the Old Testament prohibition on consuming animal blood . . .

Animal Blood as Food

Neither Christianity nor Judaism are vegetarian religions. Both acknowledge the possibility of eating animals. Biblical Judaism even mandates it, with the requirement of consuming the Passover lamb.

But what parts of an animal are okay to eat?

Here in America, we are used to eating the flesh of various animals–the muscles or “meat.” But there are other parts, including the organs, the bones (which can be ground up as meal), and the blood.

Often, if you don’t grow up eating something, it will make you squeamish.

I’m pretty adventurous for an American. I enjoy a lot of international foods. I not only will eat sushi (raw fish) without batting an eye, I’ll even eat durian-flavored foods (note: the smell of durian is indescribable; the closest thing I can compare it to is burning rubber).

But as an American, I personally find the idea of consuming animal blood an incredibly squeamish idea.

I mean . . . YUCK!

Different Strokes for Different Folks

I have to acknowledge, though, that people in many other cultures–including Christian ones–feel differently.

Animal blood is consumed in various ways, either as an ingredient in foods or as a beverage.

This includes countries all over the world–in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

Even in England (America’s primary parent country!) blood is a principal ingredient in black pudding (a kind of sausage; ecky thump!).

Blood was certainly both an ingredient and a beverage in the ancient world.

So what does the Old Testament have to say about it?

KEEP READING.

Is It Okay to Force a Woman You’ve Captured to Marry You?

Sabine_Women_01 — Suppose you've captured a woman in wartime. Is it okay to force her to marry you?

Sometimes atheists claim that God endorses rape because Deuteronomy says it’s okay to force women you’ve captured in wartime to marry you.

Is that true?

Let’s look at the issue . . .

Captive Brides

(NOTE: This post is part of a series on the “dark passages” of the Bible. Click here to see all of the posts in the series.)

Several years ago I was in an art museum with the children of a family I’m friends with.

We were in the classical art section when, suddenly, the four-year old at my knee asked, “Where are those men taking those women?”

I bent down to look at the painting that was oddly hung at her eye-level (!) and realized it was a depiction of an event from early Roman history, the Abduction of the Sabine Women.

Not knowing how to break this down in a chaste way for a four-year old, I said: “Uhh . . . to have fun.”

“Okay,” she said.

Of course, there was more to it than that.

Specifically, the early Romans who participated in the abduction were engaging in a practice that was somewhat common in the ancient world, and even in some parts of the world today: obtaining a bride by capturing one.

Wikipedia has an article on this, in case you’re interested. (There are even captive grooms, though that is much less common, unless you count old-fashioned “shotgun weddings.”)

What are we to make of this in a Judeo-Christian context?

KEEP READING.

Was Peter the Greatest? What Is the Number of Jesus’ Name? Can We Trust the Gospel Writers? Are Scary Halloween Costumes Okay?

JimmyAkinWeb600-2 — A podcast is an Internet radio show that you can listen to online or download

Here’s a new episode of my podcast (Internet radio show) that you can listen to or download.

In it, I tackle four interesting issues . . .

Was St. Peter the greatest of Jesus’ original Twelve disciples?

St. Peter is certainly the most commonly mentioned of the original Twelve. He always stands at the head of the list whenever the names of the Twelve apostles are listed in the Bible. And he was clearly part of Jesus’ inner circle, even within the Twelve. He is, unquestionably, the most prominent of the Twelve.

But did Jesus give him a special role among the Twelve, a special position, or was he just more active than the others?

Jesus gives us an answer to this question, and in an unexpected place . . .

The Number of the Beast vs. the Number of Jesus

We’ve all heard that, in the book of Revelation, the number of the Beast is 666.

Whatever does this mean?

And if the Beast has a number, do others?

Does the name of Jesus have a number?

Does the name of God have a number? . . .

Did the Gospel Writers Feel Free to Make Stuff Up?

Some people hold the view that the writers of the four gospels felt free to basically make stuff up, to freely shape the narratives they were writing about Jesus’ life by either manufacturing stories about his deeds or making up teachings and putting them on his lips.

The idea is that they used the figure of Jesus as a vehicle for their own ideas, and they made up material to serve the perceived needs of their local Christian communities.

It’s easy to show that by the second century there were a lot of people identifying themselves as Christians who did exactly this. That’s why there were so many Gnostic gospels dating from the second to the fourth century.

But what about the first century, canonical gospels? . . .

Are Scary Halloween Costumes Okay?

Many people of conscience view Halloween with some suspicion, and the way it is often celebrated today, that’s understandable.

Some have chosen not to celebrate Halloween at all, and that’s a respectable choice.

Others have chosen to invert the popular celebration by dressing up–or having their children dress up–as entirely wholesome figures, like doctors, nurses, and firemen or even has historical figures, like saints.

But what about scary Halloween costumes? Are those okay? . . .

Just click the links at the bottom of this post to listen or download!

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, I’d invite you to join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.

He has a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Does God Approve of Rape? (Dark Passages)

ancient-jerusalem — What difference would it make whether a rape happened in a city or in the country?

A charge made by some atheists is that the Bible supports rape and that the God of the Bible is therefore a moral monster.

There are a number of passages they appeal to, attempting to document this claim, but do they really support the charge that is being made?

Let’s look at the matter . . .

What Does God Think of Rape?

(NOTE: This post is part of a series on the “dark passages” of the Bible. Click here to see all of the posts in the series.)

The claim that God has a favorable attitude toward rape is implausible on its face.

In all of the Bible passages that are cited to show this, the people involved are either married or unmarried. To rape a married woman would be forcible adultery, and to rape an unmarried woman would be forcible fornication.

As everyone knows, both adultery and fornication are strictly forbidden in the Bible. Doing either one forcibly would just make matters worse.

And, in fact, adultery carried the death penalty in the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 22

[22] “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel.”

We’ll deal with the subject of the Old Testament’s harsh legal penalties–including the death penalty–in another post, but for now let’s look at a couple of the passages that are being cited as evidence that “God approves of rape” . . .

KEEP READING.