Читать книгу For Christ's Sake - Bishop Geoffrey Robinson - Страница 8

CHAPTER TWO

MORAL IMMATURITY

According to Webster’s dictionary, morality is ‘the quality of an action as conforming to or deviating from the principles of right conduct.’ This is the most common meaning of the word ‘morality’ in the world today. In this understanding, morality is about performing right actions and avoiding wrong ones. This approach to morality has two serious drawbacks.

The first is that it lacks a context, for it does not address the purpose we hope to achieve by doing right actions, that is: why we should want to do good or be good.

The second difficulty is a corollary of the first, for the definition does not face the question of whether performing right actions, in and of itself alone, is an adequate means to achieve any purpose we might have, that is: whether doing right things, of itself alone, will make us good.

In its simplest terms, in any human enterprise, we first ask two questions: what goal do we wish to achieve and how shall we achieve that goal? The enterprise of living a moral life must address the same two questions.

THE PURPOSE OF MORALITY

In his novel, A Burnt-Out Case, Graham Greene depicts an unlovable character named Rycker.¹² Rycker had spent a number of years in the seminary studying to be a priest, but left before ordination and eventually drifted to live in a small village in the heart of Africa. In his own words: ‘At the seminary I always came out well in moral theology.’¹³ In the book he constantly annoys the priests at the nearby leper colony with the artificial moral dilemmas he invents and loves to discuss for hours. Despite this, he is not a particularly moral person.

Among the mistakes he makes are:

• his attitude is negative, so he concentrates on not doing wrong things rather than actually doing something that might help someone

• he concentrates on the details of his life, i.e. specific actions, but ignores the plot, i.e. the whole direction his life is taking

• his model of morality is basically legal, i.e. obeying moral laws rather than truly imitating Jesus Christ

• he is motivated by fear more than love

• because of the kind of morality he practises, a debilitating guilt is never far from him

• while avoiding specific actions that are clearly forbidden, he is unloving towards his wife and the African people who work for him

• if asked about goals and means, his honest reply would have to be: ‘The goal is that of getting into heaven; the means is that of not doing wrong things.’

The meaning given by Webster’s dictionary to the word ‘morality’ is a restrictive one. It is part of the reason why being called a ‘moral person’ can have overtones of being judgemental, unloving and holier-than-thou.

The meaning of the word ‘morality’ should go far beyond not doing wrong things, for it must essentially include the purpose of:

• seeking to rise above ourselves and our own self-interest and to act on behalf of others

• seeking to act in accordance with what is deepest within ourselves

• seeking to open ourselves to truth, reality and life

• seeking to become more authentically ourselves

• seeking to grow to become all we are capable of being

• seeking to base our lives on justice and love.

In this life we are called to become all we are capable of being, all God invites us to be. If we wish to do this, we must try to live at the higher end of the six levels of morality I spoke of in the last chapter: on the bases of respect and love.

THE RESPONSE OF LOVE

The story of Jesus tells us that God is constantly saying to each one of us, ‘I love you’, and the only adequate response on our part is, ‘I love you too’. From this response will flow many truths, many principles of right conduct and a genuine worship of God, but the response of love to the person comes first. Without the response of love to the person, the truths will become lifeless, the principles of right conduct will be burdensome tasks and the worship will be empty. With the response of love, the truths will come alive, the principles of right conduct will be the most natural things in the world and the worship will be life-giving. Right conduct divorced from the response of love will always be inadequate.

It follows from this that morality is essentially relational, for it is essentially about the kind of relationship we wish to have with God and, therefore, with other people. It is about the kind of god we worship: an angry god, a just god or a loving god. Despite all his studies, Rycker had failed to learn this simple truth and was caught in the worship of an angry god or—at best—a just god, but certainly not a loving god. He failed to see the fundamental truth that morality is about relationships more than individual actions. Christian morality cannot be simply about ‘not doing wrong things’. It must be about building our relationship with God.

It follows that it is vitally important that morality and spirituality not be separated, so the saint is the truly moral person and the truly moral person will be a saint. The natural sense we all have within us that we should live morally must be seen as an invitation to holiness. If morality and spirituality are separated, morality will inevitably wither and die.

COMMANDMENTS AND BEATITUDES

If a family comes to live next door to me and I do no harm to them, I can hope that they will not become my enemies. But if I want them to be much more than ‘not enemies’, if I want a relationship of love and friendship, I must go well beyond ‘doing no harm’. Our first moral duty is not to harm others and our second is to do what we can to help them. The first duty comes first, for it is foolishness to speak of helping people while we are actually harming them. The concern of the commandments is with this first duty and, because it comes first, we can never do away with it. Jesus never rejected the Ten Commandments: it is wrong to kill, harm life-giving relationships, steal legitimate possessions and damage a person’s good name, and he proclaimed these truths constantly.

The Commandments, however, largely express negative requirements for growth (‘You shall not…’). Even if we observe every negative commandment perfectly, this does not yet say very much about our spiritual state. It says what we have not done, but does not say that we have actually done anything positive to assist others. The negative commandments are a necessary foundation, for they ensure that we do not do positive harm to others, but they cannot in themselves build true moral and spiritual growth.

It was for this reason that Jesus, without doing away with the Ten Commandments, added to them the beatitudes.¹⁴ To ‘You shall not kill’ Jesus added, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’. Not to kill or harm is the essential foundation, but true spiritual growth is to be found in doing all we can to create peace. To ‘You shall not steal’ Jesus added, ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit’. Not stealing is the foundation, but true growth is to be found in the active seeking of spiritual values. There is a profound challenge to adopt a true Christian morality in the beatitude, ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for what is right, for they shall be filled’, that is, blessed are those who desire all that is right and just and good, and who desire it with the same degree of intensity as a person dying of hunger desires food or a person dying of thirst desires water.

The beatitudes are not commandments, and we do not sin if we do not live up to their highest ideals, but it would be a total misunderstanding if anyone were to conclude that they are not, therefore, part of Christian morality. They are ideals rather than laws, but they are what has been called ‘prescriptive ideals’; that is, we do fail if we totally ignore the ideals and make not the slightest attempt to strive towards them.

Any adequate understanding of Christian morality must include these ideas and purposes. If we take them away, morality will lack cogency in our lives and could become as empty and formalistic as it was in the life of Rycker.

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

As well as determining the goals we are seeking, we must also think about the means by which we will achieve those goals.

If rewards in an afterlife were our only purpose in performing right actions, it would be possible to believe that right actions might be adequate, in and of themselves alone, to achieve this goal. But if our purpose is to build a relationship with God and become all God wants us to be, then we must ask whether performing right actions is sufficient, in and of itself alone, to achieve this purpose.

Doing Right Things

Most certainly, doing right things and avoiding wrong ones is an essential part of growing to become all we are capable of being. We do not grow by doing things that harm other people or our own true good, even if we do them in good faith. E.g:

Imagine that, in the midst of a powerful history of communal or tribal hatreds, a certain person makes the decision that he should take part in the massacre of his perceived enemies and does so. In the words of the Second Vatican Council, I would be compelled to say that his very dignity lies in following his conscience, even when he is wrong. Despite this, I would have to add that his decision has hurt him. He has become a murderer, and for the rest of his life, whenever he looks in a mirror, that is what he will see. To make serious progress as a human being, he would need to recognise that his decision had been a morally wrong one, and he would need to do all he could to repair the damage he had caused.

Taking Responsibility for our Actions

Doing right things is, however, no more than a means to an end and it is not capable, in and of itself alone, of achieving the end. Morality is about growth as moral persons and for growth more is required than simply performing right actions, as the following examples will show.

As children grow, it is important that they learn right habits, but it is also important that they gradually learn to take responsibility for their own actions. If they learn wrong habits from their parents, or if they rebel against their parents and adopt wrong habits themselves, they will encounter problems. But if they do not learn to take responsibility for their own actions, obedience to parents will gradually become an obstacle rather than a help to their true growth as persons. A forty-year-old who cannot take responsibility, but must in all things still follow parents, is not an ideal for anyone. If this is true in all aspects of life, it is true also of moral life.

Years ago much marriage counselling was directive, that is, a couple presented their problem to the counsellor and the counsellor responded by indicating the best way to resolve the problem. All too often, however, the couple went away not fully convinced the solution would work—or even not wanting it to work—and tried the solution in a half-hearted way; when it consequently did not work, they blamed the counsellor. So counselling became non-directive, that is, the counsellor undertook the harder task of helping the couple to find their own solution to the problem, a solution they were both convinced of and committed to. Even if the solution the couple decided on was not the one the counsellor thought ideal, it was the best solution in the circumstances because the couple took responsibility for it.

Imagine that a person is faced with a moral choice, but it is a choice between two morally good things, with neither option involving a moral offence or harm to other persons. The person takes the matter seriously and goes through a very careful process of conscience, eventually choosing Option A. From heaven, five scholars and six saints have observed the process and agree that Option B would have been better. Granted that no moral offence or harm to others is involved, it may still be argued that the careful process of conscience and taking responsibility makes Option A better for this person, for it is the whole process, and in a particular way the taking of personal responsibility, that brings about the moral growth and goodness of the person.

There are persons who, because of fear or laziness, do not want to take personal responsibility for moral choices. They want either the Bible or Church authority or a charismatic leader or popular opinion or a peer group to take the responsibility for them, so that all that will be left to them is to follow this authority. This cannot be called ‘the very dignity’ of these persons, for they have not truly taken personal responsibility for their decisions and will not grow as they should. Mere obedience, to either religious authority or popular opinion, is not ‘the very dignity’ of a person.

Many moral decisions are easy, so it is easy to take responsibility for them. The more difficult the matter we are dealing with, the more difficult it will be to make the decision and take responsibility for it. But it is also true that, the more difficult the issue, the more we will grow through the process of taking true responsibility for our actions.

This need for personal responsibility is fully in agreement with Catholic teaching.

• ‘By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness.’¹⁵

• ‘Freedom makes us responsible for our acts to the extent that they are voluntary.’¹⁶

• ‘The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person.’¹⁷

• ‘Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed.’¹⁸

Thus it is important that we take personal responsibility for our decisions and it is also important that we get them right. We will not grow unless we take personal responsibility for our actions. But, even if we do take personal responsibility, we will still not grow if our decisions harm other people or our own true good; for growth, both of these elements are essential. Any adequate understanding of the meaning of the word ‘morality’ must, therefore, contain both elements.

MORAL CHOICES

Many times each day we make choices between right and wrong. Most of these choices are minor, though major choices sometimes present themselves. Through these choices we take responsibility for each of our actions. Then, through the sum total of all these choices, big and small, we gradually and imperceptibly begin to take personal responsibility for the moral direction of our entire lives and to determine our moral identity. Over a long period of time we gradually determine whether we are basically just or unjust persons, kind or unkind, truthful or untruthful, honest or dishonest, loving or selfish. We determine at which of the six levels of morality mentioned earlier we habitually act.

Virtues and Vices

Most of the actions we perform each day are the result of moral choices we made long ago and of the habits that were formed as a result of those choices, so that we do not need to think about the morality of the action each time we perform it. There are, of course, right habits and wrong habits. Rights habits are called virtues and wrong habits are called vices. A person possessing the virtue of justice will, from long practice, instinctively react justly in every new situation. A person possessing the vice of injustice will, from equally long practice, instinctively seek an advantage over others without caring whether they might be hurt. A truly moral person is one who has worked so hard and long at forming good habits (virtues) that things such as justice, love, compassion, truth, honesty and integrity are a natural part of that person’s instinctive reaction to any new situation that presents itself.

The hardest moral struggle occurs when we have deliberately chosen something wrong in the past and must now fight against the wrong habits that have been formed, e.g. if we have constantly told lies or spread gossip or been dishonest.

Experienced policemen would say that for almost all people a first murder is an overwhelming experience, but that if the same person goes on to commit further murders, even murder can become easy: that is, a habit or vice. In any particular field, whether it be murder or stealing or anything else, the first sin is the hardest one to commit; after that, the sin becomes easier to commit and the habit becomes more and more entrenched.

There are times when we must struggle against habits even when the habit has involved no deliberate wrongdoing on our part. This happens whenever in our upbringing our elders transmitted to us habits of thinking and acting that we later came to realise were morally wrong. Among these unjust attitudes that we may have innocently inherited are those of:

• men towards women

• white people towards people of a different colour

• Christians towards Jews and Muslims

• people born in a country towards immigrant peoples

• people of richer countries towards those of poorer countries

• people of today towards people of the past through a sense of pride and superiority, or towards people of the future through destruction of the environment.

At times we can be forced to reassess our most simple actions. For example, we long ago accepted that it is morally right to eat with a knife and fork and we have done this all our lives without a single further thought about its morality. But what about all the disposable utensils (and packaging) that are thrown away each day, including disposable knives and forks? Can the thought of all this waste of limited resources cause us to think again?

The Basic Choice (the ‘Fundamental Option’)

Through many choices between right and wrong we gradually and imperceptibly form our moral identity. In this process we can then find that in our inmost core we have made a choice, not just between right and wrong, but also between goodness and badness. Note:

For the sake of clarity I prefer to use the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’ of persons and the terms ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ of thoughts and actions. As I shall use the terms, persons are good or bad (that is, this is the choice they have made in their inmost core), while thoughts and actions are right or wrong (that is, their particular thoughts and actions can be right or wrong).

Much of Catholic morality comes originally from the Latin language and there the word malum means both ‘wrong’ and ‘bad’, while the word bonum means both ‘right’ and ‘good’.

Thus the distinction between good and bad on the one hand, and right and wrong on the other, has no real history behind it, and this should be kept in mind in reading any books on Catholic morality.

Furthermore, the word malum is all too frequently translated into English as ‘evil’ and this word is too easily applied to many actions. In most cases all the Latin text meant to say was that a certain action is wrong, and it is misleading to translate it as ‘bad’, let alone as ‘evil’. ‘Evil’ is a powerful English word and it should not be used lightly. In particular, the Latin phrase intrinsice malum should not be translated as ‘intrinsically evil’, but as ‘in itself wrong’.

The choice between goodness and badness is not simply one more choice, even if at a deeper level than the other choices. It is rather a self-awareness of who we have come to be. We ought to spend time making it conscious and explicit in our lives but, because it is a self-awareness rather than a simple choice, it will never be possible to analyse it completely.