Human beings are created free. How we choose to think about and treat one another reflects how we think and feel about ourselves, about the meaning and purpose of life and about God (Bell, 2007). The Christian vision of the human person promotes and protects the dignity of the human person; interpersonal relationships characterized by integrity and justice; and physical, emotional, relational and spiritual health and safety. It does so because these protections are necessary if we are to realise the fullness of our freedom. The sexual ethics that arises from the Catholic perspective helps us to discern what is good and bad, and what is morally right and wrong, in the wider culture, so that we freely choose to direct our moral responsibility to human flourishing.
The Christian tradition calls this process of learning how to be free the formation of conscience. 'Conscience is the interior space of our relationship with God, who speaks to our heart and helps us to discern, to understand the path we ought to take, and once the decision is made, to move forward, to remain faithful' (Pope Francis, 2013). Formation of conscience involves learning how to make free and responsible moral decisions based on compassion, sound knowledge and moral reasoning. Pope Francis, in Amoris Laetitia (2016) paragraphs 259-279 writes insightfully and comprehensively about the ethical formation of children.
Sin, as action, means willingly and freely choosing to do something that we know is bad or wrong. Paradoxically, sin commonly involves choosing to do something that we somehow think is good. In his letter to the Romans, St Paul wrote, 'For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate… . For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing' (Romans 7:15-19). Like St Paul, we too are basically good, created in the image of a loving God who wants us to live wholeheartedly and who invites us to freely return that love in the way we relate to God and others. With the capacities of reason, free choice and love, we are capable of freely returning God's love for us. Yet we are also flawed. We experience our own faults and weaknesses as well as the faults and weaknesses of others. We can find ourselves knowing what is good and right yet struggling to do what is good and right. When we know what is right and good and nonetheless choose to do something other than that, then we sin.
Another way to think about sin is to think about it in terms of our relationship with God. God wants us to flourish, to live whole-heartedly. God has created the world in a way that makes it possible for us to flourish provided we choose to do the morally right thing in line with the way God has intended. Consequently, when we choose to do the morally wrong thing, we are not simply choosing something which is less good for our own flourishing and the flourishing of others, but we are choosing something which is against the good that God wants for us and for everybody else. Consequently, we are choosing against God. As Ronald Rolheiser (1999, p. 202) notes, 'All sin is irreverence.'
With freedom comes responsibility. We are responsible for our moral behaviour because we are made in God's image as rational beings, capable of knowing what the morally right and good thing to do is and as free beings, capable of choosing to do the morally right and good thing. These two capacities, to know and to choose, together form what is called conscience. Loosely translated, conscience means 'with knowledge'. In other words, when we make moral choices, we make them based on what we know about the goals we want to achieve, the ways or means to achieve them, the circumstances in which we need to achieve them and the consequences of both the means we choose and the outcomes we achieve. When we have weighed all these things, we make a judgment based on our knowledge of what the morally right thing to do is. We are then obliged to follow our conscience and do the morally right thing, taking responsibility for our decision.
Sin is not simply about choosing to do something bad or evil. It is always about faulty judgments and subsequent flawed choices about what is good and right; sin is missing the mark. This can happen in two ways. Sometimes it is about choosing to achieve something what we think is good, though in reality when all is considered it is actually bad. Sometimes it is about choosing to achieve something that really is good, but doing so at the expense of things that are really greater goods and therefore should take precedence. For example, the murderer chooses to kill someone. But when he or she kills another person, that action is motivated by some mistaken understanding of a good thing that he or she hopes to achieve through the murder. Or maybe there is some really good thing that he or she hopes to achieve but at the expense of something that is a greater good in this case, the life of an innocent person. Consider the first case. A person might kill another human being in the belief that this achieves justice. But this is a mistaken understanding of justice. Or, as a second example of the first instance, perhaps the murderer is doing it because he or she actually desires to be 'evil', and believes it would be 'good' to be 'evil'. For the murderer, being 'evil' is a 'good' thing, though in reality this, of course, cannot be so. As an example of the second case, perhaps the murderer really does get some pleasure out of killing other people. Pleasure is really a good thing, but it is wrong to choose it over, in this case, the life of another person. Justice, pleasure, relief, and even 'evil' in this sense are all 'good' things in the mind of the murderer, because they are all things that are desired by the person acting, by the murderer in this case. But the murderer's actions remain objectively sinful, and remain morally wrong. They can never be morally right, regardless of the 'goods' that the murderer sees in them, be they real goods like pleasure, or imagined one's like 'being evil'. And this is so because the murderer cannot objectively defend the notion that any of those good or supposedly good things provide sufficient reason for wilfully killing another person. This is especially the case since the murderer's subjective perception of the good thing itself is mistaken or 'disordered' (such as wanting to be evil, or believing that killing someone achieves justice, or believing that one's own pleasure is a greater good than the life of another person). For more information on how the Catholic Church works out what is objectively morally good, see the section on Natural Law.
The severity of the sin, of the wrongdoing, is traditionally divided into two categories, venial sin and mortal sin. Mortal sin is the more serious of the two. Mortal sin is a conscious and freely chosen turning away from goodness, from the ultimate good and from God. It is a free rejection of our capacity to love and of our capacity to seek and find the truth. Mortal sin is a rejection of what we know to be the right thing to do in our conscience. In other words, it is a rejection of our very own dignity as beings created in the image of God. Such sins are called mortal because, in the language of the tradition, mortal sins lead to death and eternal damnation in Hell, unless the person sincerely seeks forgiveness. But one doesn't need to believe in Hell, or damnation, or eternal punishment to realise that the kinds of wrongdoings that are called mortal sin can have very serious and sometimes really deadly consequences for the flourishing of the whole community. For example, in the case of murder, in addition to the death of another person, there is significant trauma associated with suffering, anger, resentment, mistrust, fear, financial burdens and costs, disruption of work, destruction of families, and so on. There are specific conditions that must be met for a sin to be a mortal sin. First, it must be done with full knowledge; second, it must be freely chosen or willed, and third, it must concern grave or serious matter. Grave matter are those things that concern a fundamental good of the human person. Grave matter includes unjustifiably killing or physically harming a person, taking something that does not belong to you, having sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse, and withholding the truth from or deceiving people who have a right to certain information from you. In other words, a sin is only mortal in the strict sense when you freely choose to do it, knowing that it is the wrong thing to do. Of course, we are also very good at deceiving ourselves about what we really know, or finding ways to justify our behaviour to make it look like we didn't know or didn't choose. Being really honest with ourselves about these things is essential if we are going live whole-hearted, morally responsible lives. Whether a sin meets the strict definition of mortal sin or not intentions and actions must be wrong when they break down the kind of just and loving human community that God desires for us and that we really should desire for ourselves. Such actions break down the kind of community that we described in the previous section about Love, being free and being responsible means avoiding doing the wrong thing and trying sincerely to do the right thing for ourselves and for others.
There has been much theological debate about the nature and sources of what is referred to as 'original sin'. The ongoing discussion about original sin goes back to the time of St. Augustine though Augustine did not use that term. Original sin was understood in relationship to the universal saving work of Christ. The theological question was: If we are saved by Christ's death and resurrection for life with God, what are we saved from? Essentially, the answers to the 'from', prompted the theological construct of original sin. The idea is basically that the first human beings created by God, our original parents, were also the first sinners. Sin and death entered the world when they chose to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which they were told by God not to eat. As daughters and sons of the first human beings we are all inheritors of the capacity to do the wrong thing, even when we know it is wrong. We all experience life as struggle to survive against the odds (Genesis 3). However, this Biblical myth itself aims to explain something that we commonly experience. Something that, over the centuries, we have realized is far more complex than a simple choice to disobey God.
Fundamentally, the reality of sin's impact is very much part of the human condition. This is true of the individual, of society and of culture. This means that we can have distorted perceptions of what is true and misguided responses to what is good. In other words, when Paul, in Romans 7: 14-23, speaks of the 'inner struggle', he is speaking not just personally but about the condition of humankind as a whole. This struggle is between the spiritual self (pneuma) that seeks God, truth and goodness as opposed to the unspiritual self (sarkikos), which resists or opposes God, truth and goodness. Importantly, this conflict is not between spirit and body in the literal sense that we understand these terms today. Remember, we are a unity of mind, body and spirit. Rather, within the whole human person, there are tendencies or desires which sometimes feel like they have a power of their own. We experience such tendencies and desires as being at odds with other desires that we may have, desires about the kind of person we want to be, the kinds of things we want to do and the kinds of goals we want to strive for. In the context of relationships and sexuality education, such tendencies might include feelings of lust, a desire solely for sexual pleasure, the desire to possess or have control over other people, the desire to have other people desire you sexually in a way that gives you control over them, the desire to hurt those whom you think have done you an injustice, or just to hurt someone or yourself. Moreover, we often experience the world in such a way that our efforts to be and do good seem futile, as if we are left with no choice but to allow certain bad things to happen, or even to do bad things against our deepest intentions. Or, frequently, we find ourselves justifying the things we do, either by finding ways to say that actually they are okay (e.g., 'everyone's doing it', 'my friends will only respect me if I do it', 'they had it coming' or 'you have to live in the moment') or by making excuses for our inability to do otherwise (e.g., 'I was just following orders', 'I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing', or 'I am a very passionate person and so couldn't control myself in the heat of the moment'). From a Catholic perspective, the deep-seated nature of these experiences of ourselves and our society as sinful and the sense that we cannot overcome these bad things on our own, lie behind the belief that an intervention by God is ultimately necessary to save us from our own failings—from original sin and from our personal sinfulness. This intervention came in the form of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God helps those who turn to God for forgiveness, wisdom and strength. Through God's help, our weaknesses and failings can be brought to consciousness, healed and transformed.
We must be careful about balancing two things: first, the reality of the influence of evil and sin from sources beyond our control, and second, taking personal responsibility for what is within our control. Neil Ormerod (2007) offers a contemporary interpretation of original sin in terms of the experience of victimhood. In doing so, he highlights the question of responsibility and those factors that lessen or, even remove responsibility in certain human situations. The human reality is that we are influenced by genetic, social and cultural factors that are, to a lesser or greater extent beyond our control. In the light of such factors Ormerod makes the point, regarding original sin, that we are 'first and foremost sinned against'. From the time of our birth and into early childhood, this being 'first and foremost sinned against' entails a 'human brokenness, an interior shattering or distortion of consciousness that muddies our search for direction in the movement of life' that brings with it a 'weakened sense of our own worth which inclines us, with a statistical inevitability, to sin' (p. 79; citing Moore 1985, xiii).
However, does it end there? Are we caught in a deterministic-type cycle that offers no hope? We return to our Christian tradition. The saving and merciful action of Jesus is mediated through the Church. But it is also mediated, that is, it is present and active, in all those life-affirming, love-affirming, and justice-affirming aspects of human experience such as family, relationships and personal example. Our encounters with God, in the Church, in the depths of our being and in those positive human experiences, can heal moral blindness, prejudice, distorted desires, and self-centred passions while directing our longings for personal worth in ways that seek what is truly good and life-giving in God. Jesus, then, all things are made new, all things are restored and redeemed. Christians believe that baptism removes the stain of original sin, allowing us into the reign of God. In other words, we are no longer held responsible for things we did not choose to do. However, we are still held responsible for our sins, that is for those wrongs which we freely choose. The good news is that here too, forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation with God and others is possible.
Forgiveness, healing and reconciliation are important features of the Catholic perspective on sexual and relationship health. This is so for two simple reasons: First, God is love and we are created and called to be images of God; and second, we are all sinners, and that means we all almost inevitably find ourselves doing things that we know are not good for our own flourishing, or that we know hamper the flourishing of others. Our sinful actions damage the high quality of relationships characterised by love, justice, and chastity that God intended for human beings and indeed for human beings' relationship with God. Since God is love and God loves us so much that Jesus was prepared to die for us and for the truth that God wants us to live in a world of justice, peace and joy, God will forgive our sins. But, as free and rational beings, this forgiveness requires that we take responsibility for our sinful actions by sincerely acknowledging that what we did was morally wrong. Moreover, because we are free and created in the image of God who is just and merciful, we are also called to seek forgiveness from those we have harmed and in our turn forgive those who have harmed us. This is why, in the prayer that Jesus teaches his disciples, 'the Lord's Prayer' or the 'Our Father', we ask God to forgive our sins (debts or trespasses) as we forgive those who sin against us (Matthew 6: 9-13). As Pope Francis has said, Listen carefully to this: each of us is capable of doing the same thing that that man or that woman in prison did. All of us have the capacity to sin and to do the same, to make mistakes in life... Mercy overcomes every wall, every barrier... And it is mercy which changes the heart and the life, which can regenerate a person and allow him or her to integrate into society in a new way (Pope Francis, 2014). The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (1991) makes a similar point and contextualises it in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church: 'We are aware of our own frailty and sin as well as God's abiding presence and promise of forgiveness. As members of the Church, we draw strength, comfort, and renewed challenge from the Word of God, the Eucharist, and the healing and strengthening power of the sacrament of reconciliation.' Central to Jesus' message was that God unconditionally loved every human being and that this love is not conditional on 'being good'. This love cannot be earned, and no matter what human beings do, they cannot prevent God's love being available to them. Jesus taught that God would unconditionally forgive anyone who showed any sign of wanting to come to him and that real love always forgives... In many cases, the weakest and most vulnerable human beings are those who have difficulty in accepting themselves and their sexuality, and these are the people to whom the Church, if it is following Christ, should show the most love, commitment and understanding... None of us can or should condemn others (Vardy 1998, pp. 224-225). Though we might help others to see the truth of the moral wrongness of their actions, we cannot condemn them as human beings, who, like us, are seeking to live a meaningful life in a morally complex world. If we condemned people as human beings because of their sinful actions then forgiveness would be impossible. Forgiveness and healing are possible precisely because the Catholic tradition emphasizes an essential difference between the person, eternally loved by God, and the moral behaviour of that person. Our moral behaviour may change the way we relate to God, but it never changes how God loves us. As Vardy (1998, p. 225) points out, our task is to strive daily to align our moral behaviour with the belief that we, all human beings, and all of creation, are created and loved by God, who desires only our flourishing and happiness. Our task is to progress on our life's journey and, as we do so, to help our fellow travellers with care, compassion and understanding.
The Church has been called to form consciences not to replace them' (Pope Francis, 2016 Amoris Laetitia 37). The Catholic tradition teaches that a person is obliged to follow his or her conscience. This teaching takes into account the way in which the individual's desire for what is good, and his or her capacity to reason about what is good and right, and choose freely to do what is morally right, are related to the idea of objective moral truth. Though we frequently talk about conscience as if it were a thing, it is really an abstract construct that is used to talk about how we engage morally with the world. Conscience, literally translated from its Latin root, means with knowledge. At its simplest level then, to act in good conscience, or to follow one's conscience, is to act in way that is in accordance with the knowledge that one has about a particular situation.
From a Catholic perspective, only actions that are willed (i.e., consciously and freely chosen), the so-called actus humanus, are able to be evaluated in moral terms. That one freely chooses to act in a certain way is what makes an action a moral action. However, the quality and degree of knowledge on which the choice to act was based is important in the evaluation of the action as morally right or morally wrong and in evaluating the moral culpability (i.e., responsibility which may entail guilt or blame) of the person who chooses to act in a particular way. It is possible, therefore, to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. To examine one's conscience is to examine one's actions, together with the reasoning that prompted those actions and the personal judgments that one made.
In any given moral situation, there is always a morally right answer; there is always a choice that would be the morally right one. There is, in other words, an objective moral truth, the moral truth. But we have to understand all this very carefully, since it is quite possible that there may be two or more objectively good things that we can choose to do, and since we are free beings, making a choice for either would still be morally right. Given the complexity of most moral situations, the challenge is in knowing what that moral truth is. A large number of variables come into play. Among such variables are the kind of person you want to be, the various competing good things that need to be taken into account, the possible harms, the outcomes desired and the outcomes foreseen though not desired, and of course, the circumstances and the consequences that one cannot foresee. Human beings rely on their individual and collective experience (of which law, tradition and divine revelation forms a part) together with their feelings, and their reasoning ability, to work out what that moral truth is in any given situation. Conscience is the means through which we relate to objective moral truth. The exercise of conscience includes the capacity to perceive which values (goods) and harms (evils) are at stake, the process of reasoning about those values and the ways to achieve them together with judgment about which values and which way to achieve these values is is the morally right one. Conscience understood as the desire for good, the aggregated knowledge of experience and reason about what is good, and the judgments made about what is the good and right thing to do) is the individual's relationship to the objective moral truth. Assuming it was possible for you to have perfect knowledge of any given moral situation, then, provided you always chose to act in accordance with that knowledge, your conscience would be aligned with the truth and would always be perfectly good and perfectly right. To have perfect knowledge would be to know everything about all of the factors involved. Such perfect knowledge includes all the facts (scientific and otherwise) of the matter and all of the circumstances and foreseen and unforeseen consequences. Perfect knowledge also assume that one knew perfectly what all the values (goods) were at stake in a given situation and which were the most important values in that situation (e.g. freedom vs security). Having perfect knowledge would also include the most morally relevant parts of the action (who you want to be by doing this, what you do, and what it achieves), which behaviours are always morally bad because they attack the fundamental good of the human person, and the perfectly correct approach to moral reasoning about all of this. Clearly, such perfection can be attributed only to God. We know, from our own experience, that humans can never have perfect knowledge and hence cannot achieve perfect goodness. But, they can come close to it. That is because they are made in the image of God, and thus have been gifted with the capacities of reason and freedom, and are social beings who can learn from each other. When these capacities and our social awareness are correctly combined, we can acquire proper, if limited, knowledge. We can make moral decisions that we believe to be morally right based on that knowledge. In other words, in moral matters, we can only have 'moral' certainty in our judgments. This means we make the judgment about what we ought to do, or avoid doing, without any well-grounded fear that we are wrong or mistaken in that judgment. In this process, the virtue of prudence, namely, the habit of wise judgment is central. We need also to keep in mind that, through our sharing in the divine life, we are helped by the Holy Spirit in our decisions. The gift of wisdom assists us to see, judge and respond as God would. Thus we are called to collaborate with God in our moral life.
Since conscience is your own relationship to the objective moral truth, you are obliged to follow your conscience. In other words, what one determines to be good and right based on the use of one's reason is like a law that must be obeyed (Gaudium et spes, 16). It is the closest approximation one has to the truly good. It is the way that one participates in God's goodness. It is here that one is 'alone with God, whose voice echoes' in one's depths (GS 16). So, to not obey your conscience, to choose not to do what you know to be the morally right thing to do or to blindly obey others is to abdicate personal responsibility for moral decisions. to act in this way is a sin because it is tantamount to idolatry. If conscience is where we relate most closely at a personal level with the objective truth of God and perfect goodness, then to do other than what we believe to be right and true in our conscience is to do other that what we believe to be God's will, to do other than what we believe to be perfect goodness. That is the essence of what we mean when we talk about sin.
Since conscience is our relationship with the truly good, and so with God who is true goodness, each person should want to form a correct conscience. Of course, it remains possible for a person to act in good conscience, sincerely believing that what he or she is doing is morally right, when in fact the action is morally wrong. The Catholic perspective maintains that sincerity is really important since a truly sincere pursuit of the good and the right can always grow to fuller knowledge of the truth with consequent changes to moral decisions and behaviour. This is especially the case when one makes the wrong decision in good conscience believing it to be the right decision because one did not have the necessary knowledge to make the right decision and could not, given the circumstances, be expected to have the necessary knowledge. The term to describe this situation is 'invincible ignorance'. When full knowledge could not be expected, or was not possible, there is a mitigating effect on the moral culpability of the person who made the decision, because the action cannot be described as being truly voluntary. So, whilst what might have been done may still have been objectively morally bad, we would not say that the person intended it to be so, since he or she could not have been expected to have chosen otherwise based on the knowledge at his or her disposal. 'Vincible ignorance' on the other hand, is when someone who could legitimately be expected to know better nonetheless chooses to remain ignorant, or does not make a reasonable effort to determine what the morally right thing to do would be. For example, a seventeen-year-old is obliged to know, and indeed should want to know, about what is morally right when it comes to the practice of sex and the reasons why the Catholic perspective maintains that the only morally good place for sex is in marriage. Moreover a seventeen year old should also know the personal risks and the risk to others of having unprotected sex with multiple partners. Everyone should want to know how our values and seemingly innocent choices about matters such as what we purchase, what we eat, who we vote for contribute to suffering and injustice in the world. To choose not to know, or to ignore what one does know, are both morally irresponsible actions. That said, the complexity of many of these situations and of simply getting on with living life in today's world, mean that there are always limitations to what we can really know.
Freedom is something magnificent, yet it can also be dissipated and lost. Moral education has to do with cultivating freedom through ideas, incentives, practical applications, stimuli, rewards, examples, models, symbols, reflections, encouragement, dialogue and a constant rethinking of our way of doing things; all these can help develop those stable interior principles that lead us spontaneously to do good. Virtue is a conviction that has become a steadfast inner principle of operation. The virtuous life thus builds, strengthens and shapes freedom, lest we become slaves of dehumanizing and antisocial inclinations. For human dignity itself demands that each of us 'act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within'293 (Pope Francis, 2016 Amoris Laetitia ). In talking about moral decision making it is important to clarify what is meant by freedom. The Second Vatican Council reminds us that 'freedom is an exceptional sign of the image of God in humanity' (Gaudium et Spes, 17). Our freedom to make choices about moral issues is part of what makes us like God. Moreover, God wants us to make these choices, embrace our moral responsibility and grow and mature in moral wisdom. By acting in this way we are able to live whole-heartedly. In the light of the above it is helpful to note with O'Neil and Black (2003, p.58), that freedom can be understood in two senses: 'freedom from' and 'freedom for'. When we talk about freedom in the sense of 'freedom from', we are referring to freedom from limitations that prevent us from doing what we want. It is the limitless freedom that is often associated with individualistic cultures and the belief that individuals have a right to whatever they want. More positively, however, this 'freedom from' can be understood as freedom from those limitations that prevent us from fulfilling our vocation to live whole-heartedly. For example, if you lived in a society in which you were persecuted for your race or your sex or your religious beliefs, this would limit your freedom. But there is also a richer aspect of freedom in what is termed 'freedom for'. This is not simply about being free to choose to do whatever we like. Rather, it is about being able to make choices that might seem like limits on our freedom in order to direct our lives to what is truly good, towards a destiny centred on God. Think about how a person might choose not to eat ice-cream (and ice-cream is good because it tastes good and makes you feel happy in the short-term) because that person is trying to lose a few kilos so that she can be fitter and healthier. Or the person who pushes through the exhaustion of a physical exercise routine (the rest would be a good thing in the short term because it would provide immediate satisfaction) so that she will be able to perform better at her sport and be able to represent her country.
Now, when we talk about what is truly good and what 'freedom for' means in the Catholic sense, we are referring to the freedom to choose to direct one's actions towards the fostering of one's relationship with God and towards the flourishing of the community as a whole. This outwardly focused, altruistic understanding of freedom does not preclude one's own flourishing. Rather, it affirms that as beings made in the image of God, and hence as social and relational creatures, human beings flourish with others. Our flourishing is intimately tied up with the flourishing of others. When we use our freedom in this way, we respect not only the dignity of all human beings, but come closer to realizing the kind of just, peaceful and joyful community that God wants for humanity. What is truly good, in Catholic terms, is that which God wills. How do we know what God wills? Through revelation and through the use of our human reason to understand the order of the universe the way God has made it so that we can cooperate with God in making judgements and choices. Using these two sources of revelation and reason, we have already seen how we can affirm the good of every human being, their human dignity. We have seen how we can affirm the good of the body and the positive value of human sexuality expressed through procreation and conjugal love. We have seen how we can affirm the good of love, of intimacy, of being free of shame and of living whole-heartedly in a community of love, peace and justice with others. Thus, when it comes to moral reasoning about human sexuality and relationships, being able to answer basic questions about what is truly good means that our consciences are already well-informed about the starting point of our moral reflection. We come to understand such questions have answers both on the authority of God and the evidence of our own critical thought, reflection and feelings. What is said above constitutes the focus for what we should ultimately wish to achieve in all our moral decisions and use our freedom to work towards through our moral-decision making. What is discussed here provides a framework for helping us to think through what the right thing to do is in any given moral situation, especially in the context of human sexuality and relationships.
The Church believes there are objectively right and wrong answers to moral dilemmas. The process of moving from absolute values to general norms to specific case judgments requires the virtue of prudence, the ability to exercise sound judgment in practical matters, in order to arrive at moral certainty in one's judgments' (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1991).
In the Catholic tradition, some rules apply in every situation. Reflection on these in light of the steps of moral decision making highlighted above should make it clear why these apply: 'One may never do evil so that good may result from it; The Golden Rule (from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount): 'Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them' Charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbour and his conscience: 'Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience…you sin against Christ.' Therefore 'it is right not to…do anything that makes your brother stumble'' (Catholic Bishops of Ontario, 2011 p. 325).
In moral decision making, the Catholic perspective has traditionally relied on what is called Natural Law. The idea behind natural law is as follows. If God is rational and God created the universe, then God must have created a rational universe. A rational universe is one in which there is a logical (rational) order and everything has an end or purpose proper to it. Put another way, there is a particular reason for why each thing and being exists. This being the case, the best way for that thing to be used, or the best life for that being to live is the one for which it was created. For example, apples are good for the generation of new apple trees (via their seeds) and as food for animals. One could also say that they are beautiful. But apples aren't particularly good materials for building houses, and apples cannot be good elephants. Human beings are created in the image of God and so they too are rational beings. This capacity for rational thought means that human beings can work out the order of the universe and so can see, even without divine revelation, what the proper purposes or ends of different things and beings are. Most things tick over on their own, achieving the ends for which they were created and without much fuss. So, apples are eaten, their seeds grow into new trees and new apples are produced. Most things tick over on their own because most of the universe is created by God to function in a predictable way as described above. Human beings, however, are different, because they are free. We get to make choices about what we use things for, the ends or purposes to which we put things. In a similar way we get to make choices about what we strive for, the kind of people we want to be. It is because of this freedom that it makes any sense to talk about morality. The natural law corresponds to the rational order intended by God. We use our own rationality to discern this natural law, and then use our freedom to choose to direct our actions towards proper purposes, or ends, outcomes and goals in accordance with this natural law. If we use our rationality and our freedom in this way to discern the natural law then we are probably also acting in accordance with Divine Law. In other words, if we do what is the most rational thing in light of the different ends or purposes of things and beings, then we are most probably acting in accordance with God's will, a significant factor in our own purpose for existence. If we act in accordance with God's will, then we are realizing God's love in the world. In this way building the society of justice, peace and joy that God has promised us and participating in the flourishing that God wants for the whole of creation.
The Catholic perspective has inherited the idea of the natural law from the Greek philosophers. However, our contemporary knowledge about the natural world is significantly more sophisticated and scientifically grounded than either the Greek philosophers or even most of the 2000 years of Catholic intellectual history. Today we understand far more how apparently random or chance events have played a role in the creation of the universe, of Earth, of life, and the evolution of human beings. The natural law, however, is not to be confused with the 'law of nature'. The natural law does not claim that just because something exists in nature in a particular way then that is the way that something is meant to be. This is especially so when it comes to things that are influenced by human choices. Just because something is a particular way, doesn't mean that it should or ought to be that way. It was once thought that monarchies were divinely instituted ways of governing human societies and that being a king was a divine right. Most people did not question this 'order', because it seemed so 'natural'. We now know that there are many other, and often better, ways of governing people, ways that respect human dignity and contribute to human flourishing. Natural law plays a role in social progress because, through the use of our rationality and freedom, and love, we have seen that feudal societies seldom contributed to respect for the dignity of every human being and their flourishing. This is not to say that contemporary democracy fully achieves the social ideal either. But contemporary democracy represents progress towards the ideal because through the natural law, democracy has been able to cement, at least in law, the idea of natural and universal human rights that are due to all people by virtue of their being human. Another way of putting it is to say that the natural law is the good of the human person making moral demands on us. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in 'irregular' situations, as if they were stones to throw at people's lives. This would be- speak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church's teachings, 'sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families'…. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us re- member that 'a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties'. The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality (Pope Francis, 2016 Amoris Laetitia).
In what follows, we shall look at particular moral issues where the Catholic perspective has a specific stance that is derived from its application of the natural law (i.e., human reasoning about the proper purposes of things and beings) and revelation (i.e., what we know about what we ought to be aiming for, who we ought to want to become, and how we ought to get there based on the God's full revelation in Jesus Christ, and through the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church).
When we look at the Catholic perspective on particular moral issues related to sexual activity, it is easy and tempting to reduce the perspective to a list of rules: do not masturbate; do not have sex outside of marriage; do not use contraception of any form; use only natural family planning methods to regulate the birth of offspring. But such reductionism, whilst seemingly expedient, is really quite useless. Let's face it, for many people, 'rules are made to be broken'. But reducing moral issues related to sexuality to a list of rules is useless for another, far more important reason. It reduces morality to certain actions or the avoidance of certain actions and removes such actions from the deeper context of meaning for which these morals norms (rules) have been developed. It removes moral actions from the wealth of experience of generations of human beings and societies and from the reflection on human experience by some of the greatest minds to have lived. Also, it removes ways of acting from the context of their deeper spiritual and religious significance. As with the rules of the road that exist to keep us safe on the road and to ensure that we don't accidentally kill one another, the moral norms concerning sexual practice serve both to protect us and our societies from the undesirable consequences of irresponsible behaviour, and to help us to achieve the fullness of the good things for which we were created, that is to live wholeheartedly in a community of love and justice. In other words, there is little point in simply telling someone not to do something. We need to explain the reasoning behind the prohibition. We also must offer goals for what one should be doing. Put simply, masturbation, sex outside of marriage, and contraception are proscribed in the Catholic perspective because there are much better ways to live out our sexuality, ways that are better for us and for others. The prohibitions exist not because sex and sexuality are bad but rather precisely because sex and sexuality are good. The Catholic perspective wants human beings to experience the goodness of sex and sexuality in the best way. So, knowing what these better ways are and why we should aspire to them is essential to the formation of conscience. With this knowledge, we are better informed to make free choices about how we behave and the moral meanings of our behaviour. The theoretical background to these 'better ways' has been laid out in detail in previous sections, particularly the idea that human beings are made in the image of God, have inherent dignity and are sexual and relational beings called to form communities of love reflecting God's Trinitarian love in the world. Please refer to these previous sections for more information on the background to what follows.
The rhetorical questions below will help to reveal what is better. Focus for the moment on the actions themselves rather than the circumstances. What would you rather do: i. masturbate by yourself or make love to another person? ii. make love to another person using a condom or without one? iii. ingest chemicals to prevent unwanted pregnancies or do so without the need for such chemicals? iv. have to face the choice of having an abortion, or not have to face that choice at all? v. have to tell someone that you have a sexually transmitted disease, or not have such a disease at all? vi. be in a relationship characterized by fear and doubt, or one characterized by trust and mutual respect? If we are honest with ourselves, the second option in each of the above questions is the more desirable one. The Catholic perspective thinks so too, and suggests that the way to realise the relationship of mutual trust and respect in question (vi) is by avoiding masturbation and by making love without contraceptives in the context of permanent marital bond. The regulation of childbirth can be achieved by natural family planning.
Masturbation is defined as the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure (Laqueur, 2003; Coleman, SS, 1992). Science widely recognises that in childhood and adolescence physical curiosity, self-exploration, and self-stimulation are a natural part of growing up (Hartman, 2014; Landry et al in Fortenberry, 2014). Sometimes this exploration can reveal the goodness of sexual pleasure and lead to a search for its meaning and proper place in human relationships. The Catholic perspective is that sex and sexual pleasure are good, and are intended to be relational, an expression of love between two persons. Sexual affective maturity is achieved when love is directed towards another rather than self. From this viewpoint, masturbation is wrong because it reduces sex to solitary pleasure-seeking, to sex with oneself. Also, by its very nature sexual intercourse is meant to be not only love-giving but also life-giving. Masturbation thwarts that second purpose as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church advises that the evaluation of moral responsibility for the act of masturbation one must 'take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability' (CCC 2352). This should also guide pastoral action. From an educational and pastoral viewpoint, . . . it is valuable to consider that masturbation may be a symptom of underlying psychological and interpersonal difficulties that provoke a certain amount of tension that the person seeks to release through these actions. Pedagogical efforts and pastoral care should be focused on the development of the whole person, seeing these actions in context, seeking their underlying causes more than seeking to repress the actions in isolation. [It is advised that teachers] 'should undramatise masturbation and not reduce his or her esteem and benevolence' for the person (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1991 pp. 62,63; cf. Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, 1983 paras. 99-100)
Making decisions about when to have children and the number of children to have in marriage is seen as a sacred responsibility that God has entrusted to husband and wife. This is the foundation of what the Church calls 'Responsible Parenthood'—the call to discern God's will for one's marriage while respecting God's plan for life and love. The Catholic Church supports the methods of Natural Family Planning (NFP) because they respect God's intention for married love by remaining open to the procreative possibility of sexual intercourse, whilst at the same time using human knowledge of the fertile periods to regulate births.
Contraception is one of the most difficult issues to talk about in a society which has grown to regard contraception as 'normal'. There are various methods of contraception but the most popular is the contraceptive pill or more accurately contraceptive pills since there are a variety of types of contraceptive pills. It was the coming of the pill that led to a change in the approach of many to contraception. What follows applies to all means of contraception. It is important to understand what contraception is from the moral point of view. For an act or practice to be contraceptive, there must be a twofold choice. First of all, there is the choice to engage in sexual intercourse, an act that is known to be intimately related to the procreation of new human life. Second, there is the choice to impede procreation, whether in anticipation of the act of intercourse, during it, or 'while it is having its natural consequence' and to do so precisely because one does not want the act of sexual intercourse to lead to the procreation of new human life and one believes it to be the kind of act that will generate life. Contraception, in other words, entails (a) the choice to have intercourse and (b) the choice to get rid of whatever procreativity results in this act of intercourse. One can thus rightfully speak of contraceptive intercourse, and what makes the intercourse contraceptive is the choice to destroy its openness to the transmission of life or its procreative character. Contraception is thus an act that is directed against procreation and the procreative dimension or meaning of human sexuality. This aspect of one's sexuality is regarded as being, here and now, not a good but an evil, because its continued flourishing would, one believes, inhibit one's participation in the unitive good of human sexuality or some other appetible good (pleasure, for instance) (William E. May, Sex, Marriage and Chastity, p.114). The document that is most often referred to as setting out the Church's teaching on contraception is Humanae Vitae (HV), issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968. What many people do not realise is that this was a document primarily about marriage and that it simply reaffirmed what had long been the Church's teaching on contraception. Indeed, all the Christian Churches and many other religious leaders had taught the same until 1930, when the Church of England accepted contraception in limited circumstances. There are several elements to the Church's teaching on contraception. One natural law argument is based upon an understanding of basic human goods which are constitutive of the well-being of persons. Human life is one such basic human good including human life in its 'coming to be'. It is always wrong to choose against a basic human good. As Saint John Paul II points out in Veritatis Splendor, to respect the human person is to respect the fundamental human goods of the person. Contraception is a choice against the basic human good of life in its coming to be and hence it is immoral. This line of argument is 'nodded' at in para. 13 of HV when it refers to human beings not having absolute dominion over the generative faculties because of their intrinsic ordering towards the raising up of human life which by its very nature is sacred. Saint John Paul II emphasised a different aspect of the teaching. In his discourses which became known as 'the theology of the body' John Paul II reflected upon the creation of man and woman, created in the image of God. Man and woman together, not just in isolation, are the image and likeness of God. They are made for each other. They are complementary but they are invited to become one. This is written in the essential meaning of their bodies. This is not simple biology. Our bodies reveal this invitation to personal union. This is part of what John Paul II calls the 'nuptial meaning of the body'. This union can only come about through gift. We are called to realise ourselves by the gift of ourselves. This self-giving is realised in a very special way through marital love, where the spouses gift themselves totally to each other. Marital intercourse is the expression and celebration of this gift of self and of two becoming one. Moreover, John Paul II sees in this 'communion of persons' a reflection of the Trinity. The divine 'we' is the source of the 'we' which is the married couple. He goes so far as to refer to marriage as an icon of the Trinity. This has been a very significant development in the theology of marriage. Contraception introduces a radical contradiction into this self-giving of the spouses. John Paul II sees contraceptive intercourse as a lie. If we take his Trinitarian imagery seriously, marital intercourse is meant to reflect the life of the Trinity. Contraceptive intercourse, because it withholds the gift of self, fails to reflect Trinitarian life. An acknowledgement of this Trinitarian approach is found in Humanae Vitae, although without the explicit Trinitarian reference. In para. 8 we read: 'By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communion of their beings in view of mutual perfection . . .' In order to be able to give oneself one must possess oneself. One cannot give what one does not possess. The idea of self-possession is central to John Paul II's thinking. In his reflections he went back to what he called the 'Original State'. In that state the human person enjoyed self-possession in which human emotions and reason were integrated towards the good rather than fighting against each other. However, we do not live in the Original State. We live in a state affected by Original Sin. One of the effects of original sin was to disrupt our self-possession. Hence we need to re-establish self-possession. The Good News is that we do live in the time of the redemption and Jesus Christ has given us the power to recapture the self-possession lost. The development of virtue entails establishing control over our passions. Passions are not to be suppressed but rather directed towards what is genuinely good. Contraception entices people away from the establishment of self-mastery. It is the establishment of self-mastery which enhances marital love and one's self-gift, the opposite detracts from it.
It is true that sometimes married couples have a good reason to avoid pregnancy. But in that case they have the opportunity to express their love for each other by recognising their own fertile cycles. This is referred to as Natural Family Planning. There are various methods of natural family planning, but what they all have in common is the recognition of one's own fertility. If a couple wants to avoid pregnancy then they do not have intercourse when they know themselves to be fertile. This is a choice respectful of each other and the procreative good. On the other hand, having intercourse as a way of expressing self-giving love at a time when one is not fertile does not entail an action against possible procreation. It is a very different kind of choice to contraception. Natural family planning enhances the self-possession mentioned above and results in the enhancement of authentic freedom in a married couple's relationship.
The Church's teaching on contraception can be seen as part of its promotion of whole-hearted living and its opposition to forces that seek to diminish this value. It sees life itself... as one of the most fundamental gifts of God, and one therefore to which we should be most careful to retain a spirit of openness and thankfulness. Neither in its beginning nor its end is life to be too subject to human control, lest we, to our great loss, come to see it as a mere controlled human product, something which it is in our gift to give and take away when it suits our purposes. (Hence also the church's resistance to in vitro fertilization and euthanasia). In so far as the use of contraception diminishes the sense of life as gift and encourages us to see the world in terms of convenience and manageability, it is incompatible with Christianity (Moore, 2001 p.179).
Above we defined chastity as a 'virtue of self-possession. It is about integrating one's sexuality into one's whole life as a human person. Being chaste means not being controlled by biological urges. Rather these urges or 'passions' are integrated into one's self-understanding as a sexual being made in the image of God who engages with other sexual beings who are themselves made in the image of God. Being chaste means taking control of one's desires and energies and directing them to those goods that are most rewarding, most meaningful, and that most support one's own flourishing and the flourishing of others.' Consequently, the Catholic perspective also highlights a number of so-called 'sins against chastity'. In other words, these are actions and their associated intentions which involve choosing not to direct one's sexuality, including its emotional and physical components, to those goals or ends that are most good for human flourishing, both of oneself and of others. In addition to masturbation and fornication (sex before marriage), these include lust, prostitution, incest and rape. What follows quotes directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para. 2351–2356) and should be seen in light of the foregoing discussions on chastity and what is truly good. Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure. Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.
From a Catholic perspective, abortion, that is the intentional direct termination of pregnancy by killing the embryo or foetus, is always morally wrong. The Catholic perspective affirms: 'Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987. 5). This Catholic understanding goes beyond God's supposed rights to be the giver and taker of life. This understanding moves beyond opposition to abortion simply because one is Catholic. Rather Catholic understanding here is in a very profound way about our attitude to life and love and the way in which these attitudes shape us as persons, regardless of our religious belief. When we are asked, what kind of a person do you want to be, the answer for most of us is 'a loving person', and 'a just person'. Faced with an unplanned pregnancy from whatever situation, the question about what kind of a person one wants to be is crucial. Asking the question of oneself should help us to see that to be truly loving and just, one must support life and love, one must stand up for the dignity, the worth of all human beings. So, whenever and however a child is conceived, the man and woman involved are called upon to take responsibility as human beings for their actions and to stand up for life and love. That means respecting the new life that has resulted from their behaviour and finding the best solution for the new human person whom they are privileged to bring into the world. If we examine the realities of our contemporary society, the issue of abortion most frequently arises precisely in those contexts where the Catholic perspective on sexual morality has not been followed, such as in having sex outside of marriage or where a married fail to act in ways characterised by love, justice and in accord with Catholic understandings of love and intimacy. Indeed, it is precisely such irresponsible and unethical behaviour towards woman in the marriage context that fuelled the call for women to have control of their reproductive capacities, including the so-called right to have an abortion. But abortion here only addresses a symptom. The cause, namely unjust and unloving sexual relationships between men and women, even in marriage remains unaddressed. The Catholic perspective does not condone the objectification of women as 'baby-making machines' or as satisfiers of their husband's sexual urges, just as the Catholic perspective also does not condone the reduction of sexual activity to sexual pleasure. All relationships must be seen in light of God's will for life and love. That said, however, even in contexts of irresponsible behaviour (sex outside of marriage) or unjust and unloving behaviour (objectification of women, even in marriage), the Catholic perspective still prioritises the goodness of the life that results from these actions above the wrongness of the actions themselves. In other words, just because we might have done the wrong thing (or someone might have done the wrong thing to us), this does not entitle us to take the life of an innocent person.
In case of rape a Catholic perspective permits the use of means to prevent fertilisation where there is no danger of causing an abortion. The Catholic perspective, however, does not permit the abortion of an embryo already conceived. For this reason, it is very important that people seek help as soon as possible after the rape. The logic of the Catholic argument is as follows. Whilst contraception is not permitted in the case of a loving married couple because this would defeat the purpose of marriage, in the case of rape a very different relationship exists between the two parties. The woman who has been raped has not freely chosen to have sexual intercourse with her attacker and indeed has been violated against her will by an aggressor. A person is always allowed to defend themselves against such an attack. Preventing the possible fertilization of one of the woman's ova by the attacker's sperm is a legitimate part of this defence against the attacker. Therefore, medications which specifically work to prevent fertilization can be administered. What may not be administered are medications that have an abortive effect resulting in the destruction of an already fertilized egg, which is now an embryo. Once fertilization has taken place, the newly formed embryo is considered an innocent human life, a human being worthy of the same respect as all other human beings.
The Catholic perspective on relational and sexual health is situated within a larger framework of human flourishing. Because human beings are created male and female in the image of God, God wills the flourishing of all human beings. We know this not only through the Genesis narrative, but also through the accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus talks about the reign of God at a time when the weakest, the oppressed, the marginalized in society will finally be treated with the respect and just love that they deserve. In chapter 6 of Luke's Gospel, Jesus says: Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets. But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you. These are strong words if we take them seriously. What they are saying is that what God wants, what God desires for us, is a society of justice, peace and joy for everyone (Romans 14:17). God desires a society in which people truly flourish. But such flourishing can never occur in isolation. Human beings flourish precisely in and through their relationships with other people, with the world around them and above all with God. The flourishing of the individual, in other words, is always associated with the flourishing of the community. Where we seemingly flourish whilst others perish because of our actions, such flourishing is false. I cannot claim to be realizing the fullness of my human dignity if doing so requires me to trample on yours. It is on the basis of this understanding that the Catholic perspective develops the idea of the common good, particularly through Catholic Social Teaching. In 1965, in the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World—Gaudium et Spes the Second Vatican Council defined the common good as follows: Every day human interdependence grows more tightly drawn and spreads by degrees over the whole world. As a result, the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment, today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family. The common good is therefore crucially different from the greater good. It does not permit the destruction of some for the maximization of pleasure for others. Rather, it encourages us to see that our own flourishing requires certain basic conditions to be met. One of those basic conditions is a duty to make sure that basic conditions are also met for others. It is a fancy way of saying, 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
The basic conditions include the provision of basic goods necessary for human flourishing. These goods are both concrete and abstract. We have seen that as beings made in the image of God, we are created with a capacity for free choice. Indeed our lives are only morally meaningful to the extent that we engage this freedom of choice. Consequently, one of the basic goods that must be provided as part of the common good is our ability to use our freedom. We also have a reciprocal duty to make sure that the use of our freedom does not diminish the capacity of others to use their freedom. This idea of certain basic goods necessary for all human beings to flourish is given expression in the idea of human rights. The Catholic perspective, in its social teaching, lists several rights necessary for the common good. Consider the following extensive quote taken from Pope Saint John XXIII's 1963 Encyclical 'On Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity and Liberty'—Pacem in Terris: Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood. Moreover, man has a natural right to be respected. He has a right to his good name. He has a right to freedom in investigating the truth, and—within the limits of the moral order and the common good—to freedom of speech and publication, and to freedom to pursue whatever profession he may choose. He has the right, also, to be accurately informed about public events. He has the natural right to share in the benefits of culture, and hence to receive a good general education, and a technical or professional training consistent with the degree of educational development in his own country. Furthermore, a system must be devised for affording gifted members of society the opportunity of engaging in more advanced studies, with a view to their occupying, as far as possible, positions of responsibility in society in keeping with their natural talent and acquired skill. Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, 'this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name. 'Hence, too, Pope Leo XIII declared that 'true freedom, freedom worthy of the sons of God, is that freedom which most truly safeguards the dignity of the human person. It is stronger than any violence or injustice. Such is the freedom which has always been desired by the Church, and which she holds most dear. It is the sort of freedom which the Apostles resolutely claimed for themselves. The apologists defended it in their writings; thousands of martyrs consecrated it with their blood. 'Human beings have also the right to choose for themselves the kind of life which appeals to them: whether it is to found a family—in the founding of which both the man and the woman enjoy equal rights and duties—or to embrace the priesthood or the religious life. The family, founded upon marriage freely contracted, one and indissoluble, must be regarded as the natural, primary cell of human society. The interests of the family, therefore, must be taken very specially into consideration in social and economic affairs, as well as in the spheres of faith and morals. For all of these have to do with strengthening the family and assisting it in the fulfilment of its mission. Of course, the support and education of children is a right which belongs primarily to the parents. In the economic sphere, it is evident that a man has the inherent right not only to be given the opportunity to work, but also to be allowed the exercise of personal initiative in the work he does.The conditions in which a man works form a necessary corollary to these rights. They must not be such as to weaken his physical or moral fibre, or militate against the proper development of adolescents to manhood. Women must be accorded such conditions of work as are consistent with their needs and responsibilities as wives and mothers. A further consequence of man's personal dignity is his right to engage in economic activities suited to his degree of responsibility. The worker is likewise entitled to a wage that is determined in accordance with the precepts of justice. This needs stressing. The amount a worker receives must be sufficient, in proportion to available funds, to allow him and his family a standard of living consistent with human dignity. Pope Pius XII expressed it in these terms: 'Nature imposes work upon man as a duty, and man has the corresponding natural right to demand that the work he does shall provide him with the means of livelihood for himself and his children. Such is nature's categorical imperative for the preservation of man. 'As a further consequence of man's nature, he has the right to the private ownership of property, including that of productive goods. This, as We have said elsewhere, is a right which constitutes so efficacious a means of asserting one's personality and exercising responsibility in every field, and an element of solidity and security for family life, and of greater peace and prosperity in the State. Finally, it is opportune to point out that the right to own private property entails a social obligation as well. Men are by nature social, and consequently they have the right to meet together and to form associations with their fellows. They have the right to confer on such associations the type of organization which they consider best calculated to achieve their objectives. They have also the right to exercise their own initiative and act on their own responsibility within these associations for the attainment of the desired results. As We insisted in Our encyclical Mater et Magistra, the founding of a great many such intermediate groups or societies for the pursuit of aims which it is not within the competence of the individual to achieve efficiently, is a matter of great urgency. Such groups and societies must be considered absolutely essential for the safeguarding of man's personal freedom and dignity, while leaving intact a sense of responsibility. Again, every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own State. When there are just reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there. The fact that he is a citizen of a particular State does not deprive him of membership in the human family, nor of citizenship in that universal society, the common, world-wide fellowship of men. Finally, man's personal dignity involves his right to take an active part in public life, and to make his own contribution to the common welfare of his fellow citizens. As Pope Pius XII said, 'man as such, far from being an object or, as it were, an inert element in society, is rather its subject, its basis and its purpose; and so must he be esteemed.' As a human person he is entitled to the legal protection of his rights, and such protection must be effective, unbiased, and strictly just. To quote again Pope Pius XII: 'In consequence of that juridical order willed by God, man has his own inalienable right to juridical security. To him is assigned a certain, well-defined sphere of law, immune from arbitrary attack.'
All of these rights, and others listed elsewhere in Catholic social teaching are derived from the dignity of each human person and God's desire that they flourish. By protecting these rights we help people flourish. Where rights are not protected suffering is rife. The Second Vatican Council expresses this in paragraph 27 of its 1965 Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et spes: Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.
Consequently, even those rights that seem to allow for some sort of individualism or egoism are nonetheless to always be considered in light of the prior right of others to the basic good necessary for their flourishing. So we see, for example, Pope Blessed Paul VI's 1967 encyclical On the Development of Peoples—Populorum Progressio—affirming that the right to private property is not more important than the duty to ensure the basic conditions for the common good are met: Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth: 'God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should flow fairly to all.' All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.
This commitment to human dignity and the common good in Catholic Social teaching translates into the call for solidarity. Solidarity can be understood as a virtue, that is an habitual disposition, to stand with and for those who are marginalized and disadvantaged by systems and structures that we have put into place to facilitate our social interactions. Pope Francis put it this way in his Apostolic Exhortation 'On the Joy of the Gospel'—Evangellii Gaudium: Solidarity is a spontaneous reaction by those who recognize that the social function of property and the universal destination of goods are realities which come before private property. The private ownership of goods is justified by the need to protect and increase them, so that they can better serve the common good; for this reason, solidarity must be lived as the decision to restore to the poor what belongs to them. These convictions and habits of solidarity, when they are put into practice, open the way to other structural transformations and make them possible. Changing structures without generating new convictions and attitudes will only ensure that those same structures will become, sooner or later, corrupt, oppressive and ineffectual.
Finally, taking seriously human dignity and the common good means having to take seriously the well-being of other creatures and natural world. The world is created by God. God sees this world as good. God gives human beings dominion over this good world. A Catholic perspective forbids abuse of the world and of other creatures for our own ends. A Catholic perspective obliges us to care for the environment in which we live. All things, created by God, have an intrinsic value which commands our respect. Things are good in themselves not simply good in relation to our needs. Human beings consequently have a duty to respect and protect the natural world as part of God's creation, as part of the goodness that God willed for human beings and their flourishing. Pope Benedict XVI states in his 2007 Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, 'The world is not something indifferent, raw material to be utilized simply as we see fit. Rather, it is part of God's good plan, in which all of us are called to be sons and daughters in the one Son of God, Jesus Christ (cf. Eph 1:4-12).' And most recently, in his 2015 encyclical On Care for our Common Home, 'Laudato Si', Pope Francis speaks of an integral ecology that takes us to the heart of what is means to be human in the splendour of God's creation being called to care for all that exists. He begins his encyclical by quoting the 13th century Saint Francis of Assisi and then says: In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. 'Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs'. This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she 'groans in travail' (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters.
From a Catholic perspective human beings are free, meaning seeking and meaning making beings in relation to all that is. We are faced with a choice, then, about how we engage in those relationships in light of the kind of beings we want to be. What do we want our lives to mean? This meaning will be realized through the moral choices we make in and through our relationships with others, with the natural world, and with God. Whole-hearted living is possible. Human flourishing is possible. We cannot control everything. Working out the right thing to do in every situation can be tricky. But at its core of our moral decision-making is the question: What do you stand for? The Catholic perspective is one that stands for love, life and justice for all.