2. Fundamental Option, Moral Acts & Veritatis Splendor By James T. Bretzke, S.J., S.T.D Boston College School of Theology & Ministry

3. Human Freedom Freedom is the indispensable criterion for morality (cf. Veritatis Splendor #34) Essential for human dignity (cf. VS #86) Two aspects of Freedom: –Freedom from (liberty) –Freedom for (authenticity) Finitude and human freedom

4. Core Freedom in VS #65 Core Freedom in VS #65 It has been rightly pointed out that freedom is not only the choice for one or another particular action; it is also, within that choice, a decision about oneself and a setting of one's own life for or against the Good, for or against the Truth, and ultimately for or against God. Emphasis has rightly been placed on the importance of certain choices which "shape" a person's entire moral life, and which serve as bounds within which other particular everyday choices can be situated and allowed to develop. This seems to be a very good summary of the actual notion of freedom used in Fundamental Option Theory

5. Moral Freedom in F.O. Theory Basic (core): ability to determine ourselves before what we hold to be Absolute (God or non-God) Moral (categorial): ability to recognize, choose, and instantiate individual moral values or disvalues (good and evil)

6. Pre-Vatican II Notion of Sin State of Grace and State of Sin were often presented as a sharply dichotomous position, like the “on” or “off” light switch One day you could be in the state of grace, then the next in mortal sin, then back in grace, and so on Belief that the act alone changed the balance…

7. Moral Acts and the State of Grace Good Acts & Bad Acts Heaven Hell

8. But what if the balance shifted? Be careful!!

9. Moral Acts and the State of Grace Good Acts & Bad Acts Heaven Hell

11. But Is This a Sound Vision? While this approach seemed to fit very well with both the notion of sin as a grievous act And with the notion that our good acts pleased God Is this approach actually in accord with the best possible understanding of how God is, and how God deals with us? …

12. God ALONE Knows Our State Jeremiah 17: 9-10: “The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse-- who can understand it? 10 I the LORD test the mind and search the heart, to give to all according to their ways, according to the fruit of their doings. ” 1 Cor 4: 3b-5: “I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. “

13. Misunderstanding of F.O. in VS According to these authors, the key role in the moral life is to be attributed to a "fundamental option", brought about by that fundamental freedom whereby the person makes an overall self-determination, not through a specific and conscious decision on the level of reflection, but in a "transcendental" and "athematic" way. Particular acts which flow from this option would constitute only partial and never definitive attempts to give it expression; they would only be its "signs" or symptoms. The immediate object of such acts would not be absolute Good (before which the freedom of the person would be expressed on a transcendental level), but particular (also termed "categorical" ) goods. In the opinion of some theologians, none of these goods, which by their nature are partial, could determine the freedom of man as a person in his totality, even though it is only by bringing them about or refusing to do so that man is able to express his own fundamental option. VS #65

14. Post-Vatican II Understanding of Sin & Grace Core Choice act strengthens Act Good Act reinforces deepens Contradicts

15. Analogy of the Marriages of Bob & Carol and Ted & Alice Bob & Carol marry Marriage relationship has more “downs” than “ups” Each becomes progressively more self-centered And hateful to the other Ted & Alice marry Marriage relationship has more “ups” than “downs” Love bond is strengthened and grows Each grows closer to the other

16. But comes an act of infidelity Bob is unfaithful to Carol This is a single, serious act A final straw Which symbolizes and effects the end of the relationship Ted is unfaithful to Alice This is a single, serious act But since their marriage is strong Though weakened the union survives

17. Insights of Vatican II Theology Helps us to see more clearly the Relation aspect of the States of Grace or Sin Takes more seriously the core nature of this relationship and how our individual acts can either strengthen or weaken this relationship Helps us differentiate sin along a spectrum of venial to serious to mortal

18. Moral Agency & Acts Review of the Catholic Moral Tradition Analysis of Veritatis Splendor Points of Ambiguity and/or Contention

19. Recall Our Basic Distinction Actus hominis…. –“Act of man” which does NOT involve freedom and intention –E.g., the brakes fail on my rental car and an accident ensues in which a bystander is seriously injured –Not a “moral act” since it lacks freedom and intention Actus humanus –“act of the human person” which is a moral act –Done in freedom –With an intention (or “end”) in mind –Guided by reason

20. Remember the “Fonts of Morality” Action in se (“objective” aspect of the act) Intention of the moral agent Circumstances in which the agent’s intention was made and in which the action was performed An “object” by moral definition is that which is freely chosen by the will (presumes intention and circumstances)

21. Goals of the Moral Act & Agent Finis Operis The “end” (goal) of the act in itself E.g., surgery to remove a tumor Has as its “end” the health of the patient Finis Operantis The “end” of the agent performing the act E.g., doctor who performs the surgery Wishes to remove the tumor And restore the patient to health

22. “Good” and “Right” If both the Finis operis and the Finis operantis are morally correct we have a morally right act which strengthens the moral goodness of the agent However, what happens when one Finis is correct and the other incorrect? E.g., “doing the right thing for the wrong reasons” (or vice versa)? Some illustrative examples…

23. A Historical Moral Debate Peter Lombard: The Finis operis provides the evaluation of the moral act, without reference to the Finis operantis of the agent Counter-position of Thomas Aquinas: Finis operis semper reducitur in finem operantis (The act’s moral end is always found ultimately in the agent’s intention in performing the act)

24. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

25. A Note on Thomas’ Position This position focuses moral meaning primarily and essentially in the moral agent We can still evaluate the “effects” of a moral action and call them “right” or beneficial But the judgment about moral goodness can be made only in reference to a human person as moral agent, Therefore, the Finis operantis is absolutely key

26. The Debate Continues While the position of Thomas Aquinas is generally accepted in “theory” There remain sharp ongoing debates as to the application of this theory in practice in certain complex situations Especially those which might seem to have more than one Finis operantis or Finis operis

27. Moral Acts in VS #71-72 Human acts [actus humanus] are moral acts because they express and determine the goodness or evil of the individual who performs them.120 They do not produce a change merely in the state of affairs outside of man but, to the extent that they are deliberate choices, they give moral definition to the very person who performs them, determining his profound spiritual traits. …120 Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man's true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the supreme good [summum bonum] in whom man finds his full and perfect happiness. … Activity is morally good when it attests to and expresses the voluntary ordering of the person to his ultimate end and the conformity of a concrete action with the human good as it is acknowledged in its truth by reason. If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself.

28. Decoding VS 71 on Moral Acts The relationship between man's freedom and God's law, which has its intimate and living centre in the moral conscience, is manifested and realized in human acts [actus humanus, NOT actus hominis! ]. It is precisely through his acts that man attains perfection as man, as one who is called to seek his Creator of his own accord and freely to arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.

29. Human Moral Acts, continued Human acts are moral acts because they express and determine the goodness or evil of the individual who performs them. 120 They do not produce a change merely in the state of affairs outside of man but, to the extent that they are deliberate choices [i.e., “intention” and freedom, which imply “circumstances” as the ground in which an intention is freely made and put into action], they give moral definition to the very person who performs them, determining his profound spiritual traits. VS #71 120

30. Morality of Acts in VS #72 The morality of acts is defined by the relationship of man's freedom with the authentic good. … Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man's true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person choices towards his ultimate end [i.e., “intention” and freedom, which imply “circumstances” as the ground in which an intention is freely made and put into action]

31. Acts & Conformity to the Good Only the act in conformity with the good can be a path that leads to life. [i.e., a “moral act”, an actus humanus which has as indispensable criteria 1) intention, 2) freedom, and 3) a concrete situation in which the particular act is grasped, intended, and put into action—or what is more commonly called “circumstances.” An act that lacks one or more of these three indispensable criteria might be an actus hominis but it cannot be an actus humanus {a moral act}]

32. VS #72, continued The rational ordering of the human act to the good in its truth and the voluntary pursuit of that good, known by reason, constitute morality. Hence human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject's intention is good [this is true because “intention” ALONE does not constitute an actus humanus]

33. Goodness & Rightness in VS #72 If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself. [Similarly, if the “object” would be “good” but the finis operantis were “bad” this also would make the act “morally evil” for the person who committed it, such as the giving of alms for vainglory {which is the common example used in the moral manuals to illustrate this point}.]

34. Or In Other Words… Consideration of the agent’s intention is indispensable to the evaluation of any moral act There are no “free-floating” moral acts whose moral evaluation can be made without reference to the agent, and therefore the agent’s intention and circumstances Cf. Thomas Aquinas: ST I-II q. 18 (On Human Acts)

35. Proportionalism: True or False? Evaluating Veritatis Splendor’s Definition of the Term

36. VS #75 View of “Proportionalism” This "teleologism", as a method for discovering the moral norm, can thus be called — according to terminology and approaches imported from different currents of thought — "consequentialism" or "proportionalism". The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the "greater good" or "lesser evil" actually possible in a particular situation. But is this assertion actually held in “proportionalism” ?

37. Proportionate Reason Is Neither Consequentialism Nor Utiliatarianism Consequentialism: Argues that morality (rightness or wrongness) is determined solely on a calculation of the “good” or “bad” effects of a given action Utilitarianism: Argues that morality is determined in a calculation of what produces the “greatest good” for the “greatest number” Proportionate Reason: Is a long-standing part of the Thomistic & Catholic Moral Tradition and is NOT Consequentialism NOR Utilitarianism

38. A Final Word… In fide, unitas: in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas –"In faith, unity; in doubt, liberty; in all things, charity." –Attributed to St. Augustine, this is an important principle of Christian discernment: unity in faith is important, but in cases of doubt a plurality of opinions and practices should be allowed, and the over-riding principle must always be charity towards each other.