Читать книгу An Introduction To Moral Theology, 2nd Edition - William May - Страница 10

CHAPTER ONE

Moral Theology: Its Nature, Purpose, and Biblical Foundation

The Moral Life — An Introductory Description

I believe that our moral life, if viewed from the perspective of a person seeking to be morally upright, can be described as an endeavor, 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, conatively, to do what we ourselves come to know we are to do if we are to become fully the beings we are meant to be.

Describing the moral life in this way rests, of course, on some presuppositions. It presupposes that we do not know, when we come into being, who we are and what we are to do if we are to be fully the beings we are meant to be, but that we have the capacity to find out. It further presupposes that we are not, when we come into existence, fully the beings we are meant to be, but that we are capable of becoming such. In addition, it presupposes that we have a destiny to which we are summoned in the depths of our being. And, finally, it presupposes that we are in charge of our own destiny, that we can, through our own free, self-determining choices, shape our own lives.

In both (1) our cognitive endeavor 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 (2) our conative effort to do what we come to know we ought to do if we are to be fully the beings we are meant to be, we can be both crippled or disabled and helped or enabled. Sin — original, personal, social — is, as we shall see, the great disabling factor in these endeavors. The God made known in Jesus Christ is, as we shall also see, the great enabling factor in these endeavors. And an enabling factor, too, is the Church, Jesus’ beloved spouse. All this is matter to be taken up in this book.

THE NATURE, PURPOSE, AND RENEWAL OF MORAL THEOLOGY

1. Who We Are and Who We Are Meant to Be in the Light of Faith

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 is, when carried out exclusively by the use of human intelligence, the domain of moral philosophy or ethics. When this effort is systematically undertaken by those whose human intelligence is informed by Christian faith, it is the work of moral theology. But before considering more precisely the nature of theology and in particular the nature of moral theology, I want to first briefly indicate how Christian faith helps us in our cognitive endeavor to discover who we are and what we are to do if we are to become fully the beings we are meant to be, i.e., the beings God himself wants us to be.

In the light of faith, we know who we are. We are the only creatures made “in the image of God” (Gn 1:27), the “only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake” (Gaudium et spes, no. 24). Through faith, we know that God created man “as an intelligent and free being” and that, over and above this, man “is called as a son to intimacy with God and to share in his happiness” (Gaudium et spes, no. 21). We know, in other words, that we are not only unique among earthly beings in our dignity as persons made in God’s image and likeness but also unique among earthly beings in being called to be God’s very own children. Indeed, as the Fathers of Vatican Council II have reminded us, “it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.… Christ the new Adam,” they continue, “in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling” (Gaudium et spes, no. 22).

In other words, through faith we know that we are not only persons made in God’s image and likeness but, by reason of our intimate union with Christ, God’s only-begotten Son made man, truly children of God, members of the divine family, called to life eternal with Father, Son, and Spirit. To put matters another way, through faith we know that, if we fully become the beings God wants us to be, we will be, as it were, other Christs, for the Risen Jesus is now the being we are meant to be. The Council Fathers expressed this idea in some memorable passages immediately following their affirmation that Christ “fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling.” I cite them here because I believe that they provide us with Christian faith’s answer to the questions “Who are we?” and “Who are we called to be?”

He [Christ], who is the “image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), is himself the perfect man who has restored in the children of Adam that likeness to God which had been disfigured ever since the first sin. Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised up in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man. He worked with human hands, he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.

As an innocent lamb, he merited life for us by his blood which he freely shed. In him God reconciled us to himself and to one another, freeing us from the bondage of the devil and of sin, so that each of us could say with the apostle: the Son of God “loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20). By suffering for us he not only gave us an example so that we might follow in his footsteps, but he also opened up a way. If we follow this path, life and death are made holy and acquire a new meaning.

Conformed to the image of the Son who is the firstborn of many brothers, the Christian man receives the “first fruits of the Spirit” (Rom 8:23) by which he is able to fulfill the new law of love. By this Spirit, who is the “pledge of our inheritance” (Eph 1:14), the whole man is inwardly renewed, right up to the “redemption of the body” (Rom 8:23).… The Christian is certainly bound both by need and by duty to struggle with evil through many afflictions and to suffer death; but, as one who has been made a partner in the paschal mystery, and as one who has been configured to the death of Christ, he will go forward, strengthened by hope, to the resurrection.

All this holds true not for Christians only but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery [Gaudium et spes, no. 22].

Thus, in light of the Christian faith we can say that we are beings who are not only made in the image and likeness of God, but that we are also called, in Christ, to be his very own children, members of the divine family. And in being called to be fully the beings we are meant to be, we are called to be other Christs, i.e., faithful children of the Father, whose only will is, like Jesus’, to do what is pleasing to the Father, and in this way share in the glory of the Risen Christ in a life of unending beauty in the communion of persons who are the Holy Trinity. And what must we do to be pleasing to the Father and to become fully what God wants us to be, i.e., other Christs? The short answer is that we must love as Christ has loved us and shape our choices and actions in accordance with his loving commands.

2. Theology and Moral Theology

I have just said that through faith we know who we are and who we are called to be if we are to become fully the beings we are meant to be, for through faith we know ourselves to be children of God, called to a life of eternal happiness in union with the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit revealed to us in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our faith, however, is not opposed to reason but is in harmony with it.¹ The desire of Christians to understand their faith has given birth to theology. Literally, theology means “talk about God,” and in the sense in which this word is used by Catholic Christians it means talk about God based on the truths of Catholic faith, whose sources are Scripture and Tradition and which is mediated to us through the teaching of the magisterium of the Church.

It is customary today to divide theology into distinct areas of study, e.g., dogmatic or systematic theology, moral theology, ascetical and mystical theology or spiritual theology. Dogmatic or systematic theology² is concerned with truths of “faith” in the sense of revealed truths about God himself and his work of creation and redemption, e.g., the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.; moral theology deals with human action; ascetical and mystical theology or spiritual theology focuses on our spiritual life, etc. Divisions of this kind, however, are legitimately made only for didactic or pedagogic purposes, and they cannot take away the radical unity of theology, nor can they be allowed to do so. The truths of salvation — which are ordinarily taken up in so-called “dogmatic” or “systematic” theology — are absolutely central to understanding the Christian moral life. Christian morality is an integral part of the doctrine of salvation and cannot be separated from the whole of divine revelation. Moreover, the Christian moral life, if lived fully, is a life of holiness or sanctity; hence, the notion that “spiritual” theology, or the theology of the spiritual life, is separate from moral theology is quite false.³

3. The Function and Purpose of Moral Theology

Moral theology is a systematic reflection on the Christian moral life. As Grisez says, it seeks “to make clear how faith should shape Christian life, both the lives of individuals and the life of the Church.”⁴ It seeks to help us come to know, through the exercise of reason enlightened by faith, what we are to do if we are to be faithful children of God and become fully the beings we are meant to be, i.e., other Christs, called to eternal life in and with him. It is thus concerned with human actions. It is so because, as we will see more clearly in the next chapter, we make ourselves to be the persons we are in and through the acts we freely choose to do. Indeed, as St. Gregory of Nyssa says in a memorable passage cited by Pope John Paul II in Veritatis splendor:

All things subject to change and to becoming never remain constant, but continually pass from one state to another, for better or worse.… Now, human life is always subject to change; it needs to be born ever anew.… But here birth does not come about by a foreign intervention, as is the case with bodily beings …; it is the result of free choice. Thus we are in a certain way our own parents, creating ourselves as we will, by our decisions.⁵

It thus follows that moral theology is occupied in great measure with human conduct and with the principles and norms or moral truths meant to help us make good moral choices about what we are to do if we are to become fully other Christs, the beings God wants us to be as members of the divine family, within the communion of persons centered on the Blessed Trinity. Moral theology, in other words, is greatly concerned with human acts, which are like “words”⁶ that we speak and in and through which we freely give to ourselves our identity.

To put it another way: We become fully the beings we are meant to be — i.e., other Christs — in and through the actions we freely choose to do. Thus, moral theology is preeminently concerned with helping us come to know, through the use of reason enlightened by faith, the truths that will enable us to make true moral judgments and good moral choices; it is likewise concerned with those factors that help (e.g., God’s divine grace, virtues) or hinder us (e.g., sin, vices) to do so.

From this we can see that the ultimate purpose of moral theology is to be of service to the Christian faithful in their struggle, with the help of God’s never-failing grace, to become holy, to become saints, to become fully the beings God wants them to be: his faithful children, fit to enter into a communion of persons with him.

I want now to consider briefly the renewal of moral theology called for by Vatican Council II forty years ago and by Pope John Paul II throughout his long pontificate.

4. The Renewal of Moral Theology

There is no need here to discuss in any detail the reasons why the Fathers of Vatican Council II, in their efforts to revitalize the Church, were very concerned with reinvigorating and “renewing” Catholic theology as a whole and, in particular, moral theology. Briefly put, one can justly say that at the time the Council took place many had lost sight of the unity of theology and in particular of the need to “return to its sources,” i.e., Sacred Scripture and Tradition. In addition, many had lost sight of the intimate bonds linking the different components of theology together, particularly the bonds uniting the truths of salvation to the moral life, and the unity of the moral and spiritual life.

The Council Fathers thus called for a revision of the studies undertaken by men preparing for the priesthood, the “ecclesiastical” disciplines of philosophy and theology. And it is important to realize that in calling for a renewal of the studies future priests should take in order to exercise properly their pastoral care of the faithful entrusted to them, the Council Fathers explicitly included the study of philosophy. They thus declared: “In the revision of ecclesiastical studies the main object to be kept in mind is a more effective coordination of philosophy and theology so that they supplement one another in revealing to the minds of the students with an ever-increasing clarity the Mystery of Christ, which affects the whole course of human history, exercises an unceasing influence on the Church, and operates mainly through the ministry of the priest” (Optatam totius, no. 14). Insisting on the fact that theology can be done well only if rooted in a sound philosophy, they continued by saying:

Philosophical subjects should be taught in such a way as to lead the students gradually to a solid and consistent knowledge of man, the world, and God.… The teaching method adopted should stimulate in the students a love of rigorous investigation, observation and demonstration of the truth, as well as an honest recognition of the limits of human knowledge.… The students themselves should be helped to perceive the connection between philosophical arguments and the mysteries of salvation which theology considers in the higher light of faith [ibid., no. 15].

I have emphasized the final sentence of this paragraph because it shows us that there is a bond between the philosophical study of human morality (ethics) and moral theology. In light of the truths of faith, we can, to be sure, show that certain philosophical moral theories are false insofar as they are incompatible with the faith, and we can also show the limitations of some philosophical ethical theories and positions. Nonetheless, sound philosophical analyses of human acts, of the sources of their morality, and the meaning of a virtuous life are an indispensable help to the development of moral theology. The law of love or of the gospel in no way annuls or sets aside the natural law; rather, it helps us to come to a better grasp of the truths of the natural law and at the same time “fulfills” or “perfects” it in a wondrous way (as will be seen later in this book).

John Paul II has developed this great teaching of Vatican Council II, particularly in his encyclical Fides et Ratio, where we read, for instance, the following at the conclusion of Chapter III, entitled “Credo ut Intelligam” (“I believe that I may understand”):

[The] truth, which God reveals to us in Jesus Christ, is not opposed to the truths philosophy perceives. On the contrary, the two modes of knowledge lead to truth in all its fullness. The unity of truth is a fundamental premise of human reasoning, as the principle of non-contradiction makes clear. Revelation renders this unity certain, showing that the God of creation is also the God of salvation history. It is the one and same God who establishes and guarantees the intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists confidently depend, and who reveals himself as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ … [no. 34].

John Paul II then devotes Chapter IV of Fides et Ratio, entitled “The Relationship Between Faith and Reason,” to the relationship between revealed truth and philosophical learning. At the end of this very important chapter, he says that when reason is deprived of what revelation has to offer, “reason has taken sidetracks which expose it to the danger of losing sight of its final goal [to help us come to know more fully the meaning of life].” But, he continues, “deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so runs the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition” (ibid., no. 48; emphasis added). He therefore makes an appeal “that faith and philosophy recover the profound unity which allows them to stand in harmony with their nature without compromising their mutual autonomy. The parrhesia [= freedom] of faith must be matched by the boldness of reason” (ibid.).

Vatican Council II, moreover, drew specific attention to the need to renew the study of moral theology. The Council Fathers declared:

Special care should be given to the perfecting of moral theology. Its scientific presentation should draw more fully on the teaching of holy Scripture and should throw light upon the exalted vocation of the faithful in Christ and their obligation to bring forth fruit in charity for the life of the world [Optatam totius, no. 16].

Although this is the only explicit reference to moral theology made in the sixteen documents of the Council, Matthew Gutowski, in a fine study entitled Vatican Council II and the Renewal of Moral Theology,⁷ points out:

From that which the Council Fathers say here in Optatam totius, a few items are evident about their directions for the renewal of moral theology. The use here of the phrase “the lofty vocation of the Christian faithful and their obligation to bring forth fruit in charity” parallels the Council’s pronouncement that all Christians are called to holiness, which is one of the principal teachings of Vatican II and is found particularly in Lumen gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (nos. 39-42). And the insistence that moral theology “draw more fully on the teaching of Holy Scripture,” for the purpose of emphasizing the vocation to holiness, reflects two other key facets of the Council’s teaching: first, the point that Lumen gentium recognizes that this call is central to the Scriptures (nos. 39-40) and, second, the proclamation that Sacred Scripture is to be the very heart and soul of theology, as stated earlier in Optatam totius (no. 16) and as found in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (no. 24). The Council Fathers make it clear that a Catholic moral theology true to its mission, by rooting itself in Scripture, should cast light on the vocation of all Christians to holiness, to sanctity; in other words, a genuine moral theology must be a genuine spiritual theology that is first nourished by Scripture [pp. 1-2].

In order to show more fully how Vatican II regarded moral theology, Gutowski then studied in depth (1) the Acta of the Council, where we find the reactions of various Council Fathers to the preparatory schema, De ordine morali, and likewise their criticisms of the way moral theology was in fact being presented; and (2) different conciliar documents, in particular Gaudium et spes, in which the Council Fathers addressed various moral issues. Gutowski then extrapolates from these sources the elements that the Council Fathers were eager to see included in a renewed moral theology as well as their content.

From his examination of the Acta, Gutowski was able to extrapolate five pedagogical and methodological elements that constitute what the Council Fathers considered to be integral to the renewal of moral theology:

These five elements are the following: (1) a pastoral and positive presentation; (2) a reliance upon divine revelation as the primary theological source; (3) a Christocentrism and an acknowledgment of the role of the Holy Spirit and grace in the moral life; (4) a personalistic approach; and (5) a highlighting of the vocation to charity by stressing the Lord’s commandment of love [p. 95].

Gutowski emphasizes, in expanding on the second element (a reliance upon divine revelation), that the Council Fathers, while insisting that Scripture is the source of moral theology’s vitality, made it clear that divine revelation includes more than reference to Scripture alone: “The written word of God is inseparably linked to Sacred Tradition; both together as the supreme rule of the Church’s faith are authentically interpreted by the Magisterium, whose definitive teachings are to be faithfully assented to” (p. 97). Moreover, as Gutowski notes, the Fathers also directed that in understanding divine revelation the teaching of the Church Fathers — and in particular, the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas — provides indispensable help and insight (p. 97).

In seeking to follow the directions of Vatican Council II and Pope John Paul II, therefore, I will try to show the sound philosophical foundations that help the Christian faithful come to a deeper and richer understanding of the truths of the moral life mediated through Christian faith and also to show how the truth about human existence definitively revealed in and through the saving mission of Christ and the new law of grace and love “perfect” and “fulfill” the “natural law” written on our hearts. As we have seen already, it is indeed Jesus, God’s eternal Word-made-man, become, like us, a “created word” of the Father, who reveals to us who we really are. And one way of coming to know Jesus is to meditate on the Scriptures — in particular, the New Testament, wherein the promises made through the prophets of the Old Testament come to fulfillment. I thus hope to root the moral theology presented in this book in the Scriptures — in particular, the New Testament. I seek to do this primarily in Chapter Six, below, which treats of Christian faith and the moral life — and in particular, with Jesus as the foundation of our moral life and with his Sermon on the Mount as the “magna carta” of the Christian moral life. It will, however, be useful to conclude this opening chapter by briefly considering how moral theology is rooted in Sacred Scripture.

MORAL THEOLOGY AND HOLY SCRIPTURE

The Church teaches that all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it provides us with the truths necessary for our salvation. “We must acknowledge,” Vatican Council II instructs us, “that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures. Thus ‘all Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’ (2 Tm 3:16-17, Gk text)” (Dei Verbum [Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation], no. 11; emphasis added). This means that it includes the moral truths necessary for our salvation. In particular, the gospels, although not intended to give us a “biography” of Jesus, present an accurate portrait of him and offer him as the model of the moral life required of his disciples. Thus, the Church insists on the historical accuracy of the gospel narratives, as this passage from Vatican Council II makes very clear:

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day he was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1-2). Indeed, after the ascension of the Lord the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the events of Christ’s risen life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explicating some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who themselves “from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (cf. Lk 1:2-4) [Dei Verbum, no. 19].

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1964 Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels is instructive here. In this document, the Commission affirmed: “From the results of the new investigations it is apparent that the doctrine and the life of Jesus were not simply reported for the sole purpose of being remembered, but were ‘preached’ so as to offer the Church a basis of faith and of morals” (emphasis added).⁸

Jesus definitively reveals to us God’s wise and loving plan for human existence and redeems us from sin, establishing with us a new and lasting covenant. But the way for Jesus had been prepared in and through God’s covenant with the people Israel. Thus, here I will review the nature of this covenant and its requirements in order to show how the moral life was understood in the Old Testament.⁹

In the ancient Near East, the spoken word was invested with great solemnity and could not be annulled or retracted.¹⁰ The covenant was a solemn ritual agreement guaranteed by the spoken word.¹¹ The covenanting parties bound themselves by a treaty or an alliance that included severe sanctions on the party who should violate its stipulations. Such covenants among men appear throughout much of the Old Testament, and the relationship among men thereby established was transferred by the Israelites to identify the relationship between Yahweh and the people Israel. There were covenants between Yahweh and Noah (Gn 6:18) and between Yahweh and Abraham (Gn 15:1ff); but the covenant between Yahweh and the people Israel was the covenant of Sinai (Ex 19:1ff),¹² and the laws that are placed in the book of Exodus after this event are called the covenant code (Ex 20-24).¹³ The major stipulations of the covenant are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17), which require the people’s exclusive loyalty to God and also regulate relationships among God’s people, who must preserve unity to remain in common allegiance to their covenant Lord. Chapter 24 of Exodus completes the account of the covenant. The agreement between Yahweh God and his people is read, the people accept it, the covenant is sealed with the blood of bulls, sprinkled upon both the people and the altar. This blood is life, the vital principle (see Gn 9:4), and thus it brings the covenant to life and puts it in force.¹⁴

Through the covenant, which he initiates, God calls Israel to partnership with him. He will be their God, their protector, and they will be his people. Their relationship, as prophets like Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel show us, is analogous to that of husband and wife in marriage: it is a love-based union and requires utmost fidelity. Israel’s entire existence is rooted in Yahweh’s choice to give himself to this people, the descendants of Abraham with whom he had made a personal covenant. By his sovereign power, Yahweh speaks, and Israel comes into being as his people.

Yahweh’ s act of love is that of a unique, wholly other sovereign, the only God there is, the one who is to be loved and worshipped above everything. The people to whom he has espoused himself, in receiving his offer of faithful love and friendship, respond in awe and gratitude for the unexpected generosity given them. This relationship naturally brings with it the expectations and requirements of the sovereign God who initiated it. As a covenant partner of Yahweh, Israel is a people defined by obedience. They must listen to God, hear his voice, and become a light to the nations, bearing witness in their lives to his merciful love and fidelity.¹⁵

The covenant requires obedience to the commandments given to the people by God through Moses on Sinai. The stipulations of the covenant, summarized in the Ten Commandments or “ten words” (cf. Ex 20:1), require the people to love Yahweh God above all and to have no strange gods before him, to honor their parents, to forbear killing the innocent and the just (Ex 20:13 in light of Ex 23:7), not to commit adultery or bear false witness or steal, etc. But the requirements of the covenant, epitomized in the Decalogue, affected the whole of Israel’s life. The God who had espoused himself to them wanted sacrifice, to be sure, but more than this he required them to care for the widowed and orphaned and to love the stranger in the land (cf. Dt 10:17-19). Indeed, as Walter Bruggemann so well says, “It is clear that in these most radical injunctions [to execute justice for the orphan and the widows, etc.], understood as Israel’s covenantal obligations, the wealth and social resources of Israel are understood not in privatistic or acquisitive ways, but as common resources that are to be managed and deployed for the enhancement of the community by the enhancement of its weakest and most disadvantaged members.”¹⁶

It is essential to keep in mind that although the covenant contains stipulations requiring a certain way of life, their fulfillment is not a condition for entering the covenant with God but rather a demand arising from the relationship with God freely accepted by the people. As Germain Grisez points out, “God provides a law so that his people can cooperate freely in their valued personal relationship with him. Law is not a burden but a blessing and a real necessity for developing an orderly life in common, especially for people recently freed from slavery and used to arbitrary treatment.”¹⁷ Continuing, Grisez makes a most important observation, central to understanding what the moral life, as understood in Scripture, is like. He writes:

The reason why the requirements of life within the covenant are not impositions is that they follow from what God’s people are. Humankind is made in God’s image and shares in responsibility for creation (see Gn 1.26-29). Even after sin, the children of Man share in God’s glory and enjoy an almost godlike status (see Ps 8.5-10). Under the covenant, the challenge of being like God persists and is heightened for his people: “You shall be holy; for I, the Lord your God am holy” (Lv 19.2). Created in God’s image and recalled from sin to his friendship, human persons are expected to be as pure and holy in their lives as God is in his. God’s people are expected to follow him.¹⁸

Yes, God’s people are to be “holy.” The God of Israel, utterly unlike the “no-gods” of their pagan neighbors, is a holy God, and he wills that his people be, like him, holy. John G. Gammie has provided a comprehensive presentation of the holiness theme in his book Holiness in Israel, a volume in the “Overtures to Biblical Theology” series.¹⁹ “Holiness in Israel,” Gammie says, “was not first and foremost something for human beings to achieve, but rather that characteristic of ineffability possessed only by God, the Lord of Hosts, the Holy One of Israel.” But this all-holy God summoned the people Israel to be holy, and this vocation was a call to aspire to the justice and compassion of Yahweh himself so that his glory could be made manifest. This noble mission given to the people obliged Israel to a “social conduct and individual morality befitting the majesty and dignity of the Most High.” The kind of purity or cleanness it required varied according to different authors. The prophets demanded cleanness of social justice; the priests, a cleanness of proper ritual and maintenance of separation; the sages, a cleanness of inner integrity and individual moral acts.²⁰

The major idea common to all the Old Testament sources — given God’s sovereign holiness and the vocation of his people to be holy so that his glory could be made manifest — is that holiness requires morally upright conduct: justice and mercy, concern for the poor and the weak, personal integrity and fidelity.

The covenant relationship between God and his people in the Old Testament deepens and transforms morality. Grisez well summarizes what this entails:

All human life is drawn into its context.… The [covenantal] relationship causes God’s people to share in his qualities, including those which are more than human. Moral insights are deepened, and the richness of human goods [which are indeed God’s gifts to his creature man] is unfolded. A fresh perspective is provided for criticizing all conventional morality.²¹

Nonetheless, the covenant between God and the Chosen People was but the preparation for the new and definitive covenant to be made between God and humankind in and through the redemptive work of his only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. God simply could not complete his redemptive work all at once, but through this covenant he prepared the way for the fulfillment of his promises in Jesus.²² The new covenant initiated by Jesus “fulfills” and “perfects” the old covenant. As St. Paul makes clear (cf. Rom 7), the old law could not justify sinful mankind. God indeed could save by his grace not only Abraham and the patriarchs but also the Israelites subject to the old law. Nonetheless, the old law did not empower those under it to live good and holy lives. As St. Paul so poignantly reminds us (see Rom 7), the law made the people aware of their moral responsibilities, but it did not give them the power to fulfill them. By contrast, the new covenant in Jesus, true God and true man, does empower the people of the new covenant not only to know but to do what God wants them to do if they are to be the beings they are meant to be, i.e., other Christs, co-redeemers with the Son of God made man. How the new covenant does this will be taken up in depth in Chapter Six of this work, where we will examine the way in which the new “law,” the new “covenant,” fulfills and perfects the old. But it is important here to reflect briefly on this central teaching of the Bible and its relevance to the moral life.

The New Testament shows us that Jesus of Nazareth, born of a woman and like us in all things save sin, is indeed the only-begotten Son of God made man, the eternally begotten “Word” of God become man, become flesh (sarx) (cf. Jn 1:14). In Jesus of Nazareth, God comes personally to visit his people, to become one with them by sharing their human nature, and to redeem them by his saving death and resurrection. Jesus invites us to become one with him, to share in his saving death and resurrection, and to become new creatures through the gift of his Spirit. The epistle to the Ephesians begins by summarizing God’s plan for our salvation:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace which he lavished upon us [Eph 1:3-8].

Indeed, through baptism we “put on” Christ and become new creatures, God’s very own children, members of the divine family, living Christ’s very own life — a truth developed marvelously and in different ways by various New Testament authors, e.g., by St. Paul, with his teaching on the Church as the “body” of Christ with its many members, and by St. John, with his teaching on the vine and the branches.

As God’s adopted children — and so we are by virtue of our union with his only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2), we are given a new commandment: to love even as Jesus loves us. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). And we can love in this way only if we keep Jesus’ commandments and seek, like him, to do only what is pleasing to the Father, who calls us to be holy.

In short, the moral life as understood by the people of the new and eternal covenant is a living imitation or following of Jesus Christ. He is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), and if we abide in his love he will abide in us. Our moral task is to complete the work God has begun in us by making us the very brothers and sisters of Christ. By reason of our baptism, we have, as St. Paul tells us, “put on” Christ, and our sublime mission and the meaning of our moral lives as Christians is to keep putting Christ on until we are fully one with him. In Chapter Six, we will develop these key themes of the New Testament understanding of our lives as moral beings. We need remember, too, that a life lived in union with Christ is possible because he is with us and for us. Thus, with St. Paul we can be “sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38-39).²³

Conclusion

This chapter has given a concise description/definition of moral theology; its nature, function, and purpose; the kind of renewal of moral theology called for by Vatican Council II and Pope John Paul II; and its relationship to Sacred Scripture. In concluding, it is important to keep in mind the words of Vatican Council II regarding the relationship between the sources of the truths of faith (Scripture and Tradition) and the magisterium. In its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) the Council declared:

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith [no. 10].

It can thus be said, with John Paul II, that the “proximate and obligatory norm in the teaching of the faith … belongs to the hierarchical magisterium” (Familiaris Consortio, no. 73).

Notes for Chapter One

1. This conviction, central to Catholic faith, was developed by the Fathers of the Church and beautifully summarized by St. Anselm of Canterbury in his famous declarations “I believe that I may understand” (Credo ut intelligam) and “I understand that I may believe” (Intelligo ut credam). It was a major theme of Vatican Council I and was addressed in depth by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (1998), in particular in Chapters II, III, and IV.

2. Germain Grisez quite properly, in my opinion, believes that systematic theology ought not be limited to dogmatic theology, insofar as moral theology is systematic, too. He prefers to use the term “contemplative” for “dogmatic.” The contemplative theologian seeks to work out a single, coherent view of all of reality in the light of faith. Moral theology, like contemplative theology, is a systematic reflection on the truths of faith, but as Grisez says, “it is less concerned to round out the Christian view of reality than to make clear how faith should shape Christian life, both the lives of individual Christians and the life of the Church” (The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 1, Christian Moral Principles [Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1983], pp. 5-6).

3. The unity of theology is of critical importance in order to properly understand what moral theology is all about. Many contemporary authors emphasize the unity of theology and the inseparability of contemplative or dogmatic theology from moral theology. On this, see Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, pp. 3-7; Ramón García de Háro, La Vita Cristiana (Milan: Edizioni Ares, 1995), pp. 16-22; Servais Pinckaers, O.P., The Sources of Christian Ethics, trans. Sister Mary Thomas Noble, O.P. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995), pp. 1-14; Romanus Cessario, O.P., An Introduction to Moral Theology (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), pp. 2-16 (Cessario presents in some detail the way St. Thomas Aquinas showed the unity of theology and moral theology’s integral role within it).

4. Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, p. 6.

5. St. Gregory of Nyssa, De Vita Moysis, II, 2-3; PG 44, 327-328; cited in Veritatis splendor, no. 71.

6. One of the most stimulating post-Vatican II accounts of moral theology speaks of human acts in this way — as “words” that we speak, and we ought to speak words worthy of those to whom God addressed his eternal Word, the Word who gives us life. See Herbert McCabe, O.P., What Is Ethics All About? (Cleveland/Washington: Corpus Books, 1969).

7. Matthew Gutowski, Vatican Council II and the Renewal of Moral Theology, unpublished S.T.L. thesis at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, Washington, DC, 1998.

8. The text of this important document is given in full in a translation provided by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., in his article “The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels,” Theological Studies 25 (1964), 386-408 (402-408 provide text of document).

9. A very helpful theological reflection on the centrality of the covenant in both the Old and New Testaments and on the way the new covenant in Jesus “fulfills” and “perfects” the old covenant is provided by Germain Grisez in his Christian Moral Principles, Chapter 21. I have found his presentation of great value and here liberally make use of it.

10. On the dynamic power of the spoken word in the ancient Semitic world, see the short but powerful article of John L. McKenzie, “Word,” in his Dictionary of the Bible (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 938-941.

11. On covenant, see Delbert R. Hillers, The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), pp. 28-70; G.E. Mendenhall, “Covenant,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962), 1.714-723.

12. Scholars point out that the treaty form of covenant is more perfectly illustrated by Deuteronomy, Chapters 5-28, but the account of the covenant in Exodus in many ways offers parallels with the forming of the new covenant at the Paschal meal of Christ with his disciples in the New Testament and thus serves better for the purposes of moral theology. On the treaty form of covenant, see Dennis J. McCarthy, S.J., Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), pp. 109-140.

13. For this, see McKenzie, article “Covenant,” in his Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 153-155.

14. See F. Laubach, “Blood,” and G.R. Beasley-Murray, “Sprinkle,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 1.220-225.

15. On this, see Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), pp. 414-440.

16. Ibid., p. 422.

17. Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, pp. 509-510. Grisez adds an interesting and important footnote at the end of passage cited, in which he says: “For a good treatment of this point and criticism of the excessive polemic of Luther against the law, see Karl Barth, Ethics, ed. Dietrich Braun, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (New York: Seabury Press, 1981), 89-93.”

18. Ibid., p. 510.

19. John G. Gammie, Holiness in Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989).

20. Ibid., pp. 195-198.

21. Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, p. 520; see p. 511.

22. On this, see Pierre Grelot, “Relations between the Old and New Testaments in Jesus Christ,” in Problems and Perspectives of Fundamental Theology, ed. René Latourelle and Gerald O’Collins, tr. Matthew O’Connell (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), pp. 186-199. For a fine treatment of the limitations of Old Testament morality, see Luke Johnston, “Old Testament Morality,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20 (1968), 19-25.

23. Among sources regarding the Pauline and Johannine way of envisioning the moral life, I believe the following relatively brief essays very helpful: Manuel Miguens, “On Being a Christian and the Moral Life,” in Principles of Catholic Moral Life, ed. William E. May (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1981), pp. 89-112; Francis Martin, “The Integrity of Christian Moral Identity: The First Letter of John and Veritatis Splendor,” Communio 31 (1994), 265-285; William F. Murphy, Jr., “The Pauline Understanding of Appropriated Revelation as a Principle of Christian Moral Action,” Studia Moralia 39 (2001), 371-409. On St. Paul’s teaching on the moral life, one of the finest studies, in my opinion, remains that of George T. Montague, S.M., Maturing in Christ: St. Paul’s Program for Christian Growth (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1965). Good general works concerned with the moral teaching of the New Testament are Rudolph Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament (New York: Seabury, 1973) and Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996).