FUNDAMENTAL MORAL THEOLOGY THE HUMAN PERSON RICHARD GULA, S.S.

Introduction In moral theology the human person is considered as the most appropriate form of departure to elaborate on the meaning of morality in general and to provide the fundamental criteria necessary in dealing with particular moral questions. The renewal in moral theology ushered in by Vatican II takes seriously the human person since this posture recognizes the seriousness needed in considering the creator God who incarnated himself in the person of Jesus. This renewal in moral theology is characterized by fundamental shift in the use of language relative to the person. The human nature language is not much emphasized but rather the language of the human person. Because of this shift in the use of language there is deep change in the way the human person serves a criterion relative to the manner of determining the proper moral behavior. Before, the perspective and language of human nature stressed the natural tendencies of common bodily structures and function from which moral norms or criteria were derived. Actions are good or right because they are in accord with the natural end of the each faculty. Let us give an example to explain this further. The faculty of speech has a natural end. It is for communication and since we communicate we are bound to communicate the truth. To use the tongue otherwise is to go against the very nature why it was madeto tell the truth. Therefore it we tell lies we go against the very nature of the faculty of speech, that is, its natural end. The moral absolutes in Catholic sexual ethics are mostly based on this understanding. Just consider the natural end of the reproductive faculty, procreation, as the base on which many absolute norms are determined. Any act that goes against the very nature of the sexual organ is wrong: masturbation, homosexuality, contraception, bestiality, etc. Because the shift now focuses on the human person, moral conclusions are no longer based on the finality of the bodily structures and functions but on the totality of the human person. Whereas before, the finality of the bodily structures and functions could stand independently, now they are no longer alien or independent of the totality of the human person. In Gaudium et Spes no. 51 the personalistic criterion in morality is clearly articulated. Though this section of Gaudium et Spes deals with issues related to family life and marriage it is also applicable to the whole domain of human activity: Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual selfgiving and human procreation in the context of true love (G.S., 51).

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

What Vatican II is trying to emphasized here is that human activity cannot be judged if it does not refer to the person in his/her entirety. In other words, if the person is not adequately or integrally considered vis-a-vis a human activity then that activity will have no value at all in ethical judgment. An action is right or wrong if the person adequately considered becomes a criterion in the judgment of the action. 1. Man and Woman as Image of God Our understanding of the human person will never be complete if we do not bring the doctrine of man and woman created in the image of God. This fundamental category focuses on the theological grounding from where the sacredness of the human person and the respect to be given him or her are ensured. When we say that the human person is the norm of morality this does not mean God becomes inferior as the ultimate center of value. Man and woman are the image of God. From the first page of the Book of Genesis both man and woman appeared at the end of the work of creation, the apex of everything and possessing a dignity which surpasses all other things and animals. This superiority of man and woman is expressed in the formulation created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). We must remember that the image of God in the bible affirms with vigor the sacredness of the human persons dignity even before any human accomplishment. Theological Position To say that the human person is the image of God expresses a theological position. This means stating something about the relationship between God and human person and the implications of that relationship to him/her. God has so established his relationship with the human person that the latter cannot be understood apart from him. His divine love, his grace and will make possible that man and woman keep their divine image whether they are in sin or not. Dignity is irreversible as far as the human person is concerned. Anthropological Position Anthropologically, however, the meaning of image of God for the human person is sharing a common human condition whose common end is God. The image of God in man and woman does not mean that it is through their achievements that his/her dignity is achieved. Gods divine love makes this possible. In moral theology we have a whole gamut of arguments which invoke the image of God in many moral cases particularly in the field of bioethics. Implications of the Man/Woman as Image of God The implications in moral theology of the image of God category can be drawn from the root symbol of God as the one who is perfectly self-givingGod is love. The code to unlock the totality and freedom of God in self-giving is the mystery of the Trinity.

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

God the Father is eternally the giver and lover. The Son who is the beloved is the receiver and the Holy Spirit who is the gift or love is the one binding them together. The expression of Gods love outside the Trinity leads to nature reaching consciousness, that is, nature coming into being. This means that if God is the perfect relationship of the love and the beloved and the love which unites them, then to maintain that the human being is created in the image of God is to proclaim that he or she is capable also of self-giving. In other words, the human person as a product of divine self-gift must respond to God by giving himself or herself to others. The implication of this Trinitarian doctrine is in the understanding the communitarian nature that the human person possesses. No man or woman is an island; no one can exist by him/herself. The human person has to be in relationship, that is, he or she must co-exist with the community. Here we see the crucial role of the community in order to nourish Gods image in oneself. To give oneself to others as much as possible in imitation of the self-giving of God in the Trinity is the concrete living out of this image of God. The deeper ones participation is the community is the more he/she becomes a person. However, the failure of one to establish community will diminish the humanity of all. From the Trinitarian vision of the human person we can say that personalistic morality is a morality of giving and receiving love. We first receive love and in return we love in imitation of the love we have been given. Thus, the image of God in men and women are both a gift and a responsibility. This means that our moral life lived out of the image of God must not only proclaim joyfully this gift but it must also strive to use it and other gifts that come with it for others in the community. This theological perspective of the human person shows us that men and womens relationship with God can be best achieved through the maximum use of our gifts and the enhancement of our acceptance of the giftedness of others. The imperative of being an image of God is a summon to live out the fullness of our gifts by moving out of ourselves and entering the world of others in good relationships. Withdrawal means aborting our gifts and to mock God. It is a denial of the self-giving demanded by the image of God in us and it blocks the movement toward full communion with others and God. Matthew 25:14-30 shows the indictment of God of this kind of actuation. II. The Person Adequately Considered Richard Gula presents four constitutive dimensions needed to understand the person in his/her adequate consideration. I shall make the summary here.1 A. A Relational Being To be a human person is essentially and necessarily to be directed to others. Alterity is an integral characteristic of being human. My personal existence consists of me and the other in relationship. I in isolation is never in Gods intention in his creation of man and woman. The
R. M. Gula, S.S. Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 66-72.
1

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

implications of this otherness in moral discourse can never be discounted. For example in bioethics, life and death decision making depends most of the time on the capacity of the patient in still maintaining a meaningful relationship with others, that is, their capacity to receive love and reciprocate love. Cases of anencephalic children and those in chronic vegetative state are decided on the basis of this relational argument. In social ethics, moral choices and actions must be affirming of the value of community and must promote a life-giving and life sustaining coexistence. As social beings, human persons must live in social groups with appropriate structures that must sustain their dignity and their common good. This implies that morally we must show respect for laws and institutions which sustain well-being of life together and the common good. However, care must be exercised that sustaining communal structures be regularly assessed and changed for their efficacy in their tasks in co-existence. One must constantly ask whether his/her actions will undermine or strengthen further the basic structures which promote well being in the community. The otherness or relational dimension of being human finds its apex in ones relationship with God. Morally this means God becomes the source and fulfillment of all of the human persons relationships. Our faith teaches us that the fulfillment of our life is achieved in knowing, loving and serving God via our relationship with others. B. An Embodied Subject The subject category attributed to the human person means that he/she is the one in charge of his/her life. This means that a certain degree of autonomy and self-determination are inevitable in being authentically human. Morality in Catholic theology means acting according to ones conscience, in freedom and with sufficient knowledge. This subject category of the person implies that he/she must not be treated as an object nor as a means to an end. Exploitation of the human person is never allowed and as a subject he/she must be allowed to act on the basis of his/her conscience fully informed and free. The embodied adjective attached to the subject makes a statement about our bodily existence. This means that human body is not a simple accessory but rather as something integral in our becoming a person. What concerns the body has implications on the human person. We need our bodies our being and in our relationships; they affect our expressions of ourselves. Love needs to be expressed in bodily ways so as ones faith and other aspects of ones life. It was through bodily form that God made known his divine love for us. The moral implication of our bodily existence is that our bodily expression of love in relationships must be commensurate to the commitment that we have for the other person. Moreover, incumbent in our recognition of our bodily existence is the respect for its limits and potential. This means therefore the prohibition to a capricious intervention to the body and care for bodily health.

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

As bodily persons we are part of the world and this holds both great potential and limitation. Potentialwise, we can act as co-agents with God to make this world a better place to live. Science and technology must help to realize this. However, there is the danger that human beings might use technology and science to cause damage to corporeality and communality. Moral agents as part of the world are required to consider the negative effects in the positive discoveries of technology and to weigh their moral importance. C. Historical Subject Our bodily existence ties us to the here and now. Being human means being historical, that is, taking advantage of each opportunity of the present in the overall journey to full human development. Integrating our past into our present existence makes us move into our future not only with a sense of integrity but also with a coherent sense of direction. This process will free us from fixation or settling into a static condition. The moral implication of this category of historicity of the human person is that moral responsibility becomes proportionate to ones capacity in every stage of his/her development. Moral culpability is not a once and for all thing since moral behavior is related ones stage of development. Moreover, moral acts obtain their full meaning if they are considered as related to the total context that also includes the future effects or consequences. Since the human persons develop and change within their cultures, there is need to constantly assess and elaborate new values which can be transformed into norms. In this way, we are not only attuning ourselves to developments that happen around us but we also ensure that as these new values emerge, we constantly order laws, norms and principles so as to promote human dignity. As historical subjects we must be dynamic in our moral reflection so as to kept pace with the very dynamic life we want to orient. This entails that those new values that emerged are integrated into both in our individual and communal lives. D. Fundamental Equality but Uniquely Original One immediate consequence of human dignity is equality of all given that all have been created in the image of the One God; they have been endowed with the same rational soul and they possess the same nature and origin. Consequently, all men and women are the same in dignity. That all men and women are equal means that all are equally persons and consequently equal in dignity. Dignity is to be found in the condition of being human, and is specifically above other beings of nature. However, this distinction is equal in all people: it is in being a person and no person is more so than any other. Human persons are different too. They do things differently despite the fact they share common features of humanity. This phenomenon implies that we seriously consider each persons uniqueness and originality. However, while we are different and unique we are fundamentally

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

equal. This equality allows us to be interested in everything that is properly human and to understand that our moral obligations must be always considerate of our common humanity. A persons uniqueness and originality when inserted within the fundamental equality of a community has impact in moral life. Because of this uniqueness, we cannot expect the same way of responding to the same situation from two moral subjects. Our moral character sets the range of possibilities for our moral response to a given situation. Each of us will live out the norm and respond to issues according to our capacity and our subjective conditioning. In other words, our subjective moral responsibility is relative to the development of our personal moral capacity. This implies then that we can never be held responsible for doing what is beyond our capacity and power to do. We can only be held accountable for what is relative to our capacity and therefore our culpability is dependent on whether we fail to do what we are capable of doing. Because our actions remain subject to the justification of objective moral norms, the demands of the situation, and our capacity, we can expect differences between what a moral situation requires of us and what it requires of the others. E. Personalistic Criterion These dimensions of the human person, when taken together, will form the very foundation of personalistic morality. How does this morality function? Louis Janssens, a Belgian moral theologian, uses the elements of personalistic morality in order to formulate this moral criterion in evaluating the wrongness or the rightness of an action or conduct. For him, an action is morally right is right if it is beneficial to the person adequately considered in himself or herself (this means as an unique and embodied spirit) and in his or her relationships (this means relations to others, to social structures, to the material world and to God). This criterion is considered objective because it grounded on the constant dimension of being human. However, since it a criterion about the human person as a historical being, it has to be reviewed regularly as regards the possibilities we have in order to promote the human person so that we can know if they truly do so. It is not easy to apply this criterion. We need wisdom if we want to use this criterion responsibly. Wisdom is the special gift of a person who is morally good because that person has an affinity for what is right. Besides, his or her judgment springs from a morally good disposition. This means that he or she possesses an attitude that is ready to place his or her activity at the service of the human person adequately considered. F. Conclusion In understanding the person adequately, we have to appreciate the language of human person over the language of human nature in expressing the foundation of morality from an anthropological perspective. The advantage of human nature over human person is expressed in the fact that the former emphasizes what is common to all. However, its basic weakness is that it does not express adequately the fundamental originality of the person. The language of person on the other hand, is more satisfactory or sufficient since it captures the uniqueness of the person without abandoning those characteristics of the common human condition and the moral demands founded on them.

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

The view of the person as adequately considered poses a great challenge as far as Catholic moral theology is concerned. This challenge entails the need to integrate empirical evidence into moral assessments. What this basically refers to is this: moral theology from the personalistic perspective must take into account the experiences of people over time so as to determine what sorts of activities best serve the person adequately considered. Therefore, moral theology must both include the inductive and deductive methods in its attempt at seriously considering human experience. An inductive approach will result into reliable results; however, they are tentative conclusions that are open to revision or change. New historical experience and new evidence will come out in order to reinforce a position that is already held or call it into question and ask that it be reformulated or rescinded if necessary. III. The Psychic Structure of the Human Person In this section we shall be dealing with expressing the richness which constitutes the spiritual being. The consequences of this would have greater impact in moral theology. The scientists and philosophers are not in accord on how and where it is needed to specify the ontological break or essential distinction in the scale of the created beings. Classical philosophy distinguishes three orders of beings separated among themselves by a limit in essence: the inorganic matter; life and rationality. Some scientific and philosophical currents deny putting a frontier which separates matter and life or vegetative life and animal life. They affirm the successive complexity of elements. There are also those who sustain that within that complexity in the ascent to the vital levels the human person is included. To the human person they associate a more perfect level starting with matter or, for others, from animal life. Faith supposes that in a wo/man there is the need to situate a new radical newness that comes from his/her quality as a human person. This means that the spirit is a qualitatively new reality which excludes homologization with another being whatsoever. The spirit entails a radically new quality which has it origin not in the enrichment of life, even less with material wealth, but in terms of received knowledge from the divine ancestry. From the first page of the bible the human person situates him/herself in the line of God, made in his image and likeness. It is certain that theologians discuss in what consists exactly that reality which makes the human person the likeness of God. Whatever the interpretations givenknowledge, will, alterity, possibility of dialogue or openness, etc.all of them supposes in man that new reality which is called the soul. What is really the soul? Disregarding the semantic evolution of the term, it is fitting to call it with a generic namethe spirit. God is pure spirit (Jn. 4:24), therefore, the spiritual condition of the person takes place in his/her closeness to God in whose image his spiritual life participates. When we call it soul it is understood as an incarnated spirit. The soul is the spirit of the human person. Still more difficult is to define the spirit. Perhaps the best way to define it is in the negative, that is, what it is not, that is, in reference to the material beings. It is easier to define something in terms of discerning and describing its operations In this case the problem is resolved

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

by asking these questions: What are the operations proper to the spirit? What are the activities which characterize the life in the spirit? What are the operations properly spiritual? In this light, we are to situate ourselves in the very nature of being spiritual. We shall try to give here the four activities characteristic of the spirit: self-reflection, self-possession, selfcommunication and self-determination. A. The Functions of the Spirit 1. Self-reflection. Neither the material nor life will reflect on themselves. The material is a molecular totality which increases or decreases by addition or subtraction. The newness which identifies the living beings seems distinct in the sense that the external agents affect not in an exclusively mathematical manner but rather in terms of their impact to their internal constitution. The classical philosophy will talk of vegetative soul or sensing soul when they would refer to plants or to animals endowed with senses. Although that sensitivity is experienced, it is not reflected but rather unconscious. The animal senses but it does feel. The animals enjoy a certain sensible consciousness through the so called common sense but they are not capable of the reflecting on themselves. The sensitivity of the animal before an stimulus is translated into a sensation but it does not fall into a category that which matters. An animal lacks the faculty to reflect within itself so as to be conscious of its sensation. This lack of consciousness within oneself reveals the lack of any spiritual element. The spirit is the unique reality which has that quality to reflect on oneself and to fall into the account of or to submit to ones own identity and into that which is happening in ones being. The consciousness that is sensitive of its very self is the first degree in which the spiritual character of the human person is manifested. It is capable of taking sensations or feelings and to reflect on them, to suffer them consciously, to assume them or to reject them. Through ones consciousness, a man or woman can either multiply his/her joy or diminish his/her pain. All this happens on the plane of pure sensation, in the periphery of ones bodythe senses. This is what is called the sensitive consciousness. Although that capacity of reflecting in ones own spirit is reflected in the senses, it does not end there. The spirit can go beyond itself, a complete turn about, to a superior level, the intellectual. That moment of reflecting on oneself and of being captured in the exterior world is that which constitutes the rational knowledge. Knowledge in this regard is defined as the going out of the subject outside of itself and a return to him/herself, to ones very self. This doctrine has an immediate application in the moral activity. The human act supposes a knowledge. There is no true knowledge truly worthy of the human person, but only a consciousness of that which it knows, that is, if it is undertaken in an irreflexive manner. Therefore, any knowledge which does not reach the lucidity of the rational consciousness can not be esteemed as fully human and therefore do not constitute morality.

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

Rational knowledge is recognized as the definitive difference between a human person and an animal. We are not different from the animals had it not been for our capacity to understand. Where does our superiority come from? It comes from our image of God. That image, where does it come from? It comes from the mind, in the capacity to understand. We can obscure that image by sinning but we can never erase it (St. Augustine). St. Augustine insinuates in this text how man or woman can obscure ethical ideas in the moral life, thus posing many problems. Here, the saint proposes the importance of knowing what is morally good or evil. Ethical science affirms in plain language that formal moral good or evil does not exist if there is a lack of knowledge. One can question also the degree of knowledge that would constitute a grave evil. Here we can ponder on the case of children, of the violent, those who are in state of psychic problems, etc. These and other cases would have to evaluated by a priest in the confessional work. It also poses to us a less serious theme, the deformation of knowledge due to customs which corrupt people. St. Paul talks about the corruption of reason (2Tim. 3:8; 1Tim. 6:5). The human mind can be mad when confused by physical realities. The madness suffered can dislocate the personality or can create false images of real persons and events. Sometimes, reason can also be confused in the world of values. It is evident that when a person or a social group or specific culture makes false interpretation of values in the sense the truth is called error or the other way around, the good is called evil or vice-versa. This is what we call the corruption of reason. This can be the case in a culture which despises moral values and exalts clear and obvious counter values like divorce, abortion, terrorism, situations of flagrant social injustice, etc. This situation makes us recall the sentence of St. Paul: Because they exchange the truth about God for a lie...for this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions (Rom. 1:25-26). This situation imposes on us the need to discern the degree of culpability. Consequently, we have to give instruction to a person suffering from culpable or non-culpable obscurity in moral values. Self reflection does not end up in intellectual reflection which brings out a rational knowledge. There also exists a reflection on ones own actuation, the spirit, besides being capable of making theoretical judgment, also helps in making practical judgment. In this third level of reflection the moral conscience is situated. Conscience is nothing else but the reflection of the spirit through which it makes a judgment of the ethical value of ones own actions. 2. Self-possession For what person knows a mans thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? (1Cor. 2:11). The capacity of the spirit to reflect is such that it is found in-one-own-self. A person can arrive at such levels of reflection where he/she can penetrate the depth of his/her being. When this happens in-ones-very-own-self there will the identification of being and spirit (thinking).

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

10

This the case of the unique God in which his being and thinking are identified with each other: God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (Jn. 4:24). This in-one-own-self supposes the interior wealth of the person which opposes the frivolity or flightiness and a purely extroverted moral life without the depth that communicates possession of ones very own self. St. Thomas affirms of a soul which is present in its very own self. The levels of sameness reach certain individuals with capacity of concentration. They are those who possess a creative spirit like the artists and those who can dispose of a superior power of reflection, like the intellectuals. The highest degree possession of ones very own self is found among mystics since, besides possessing more perfect knowledge of their private lives they cultivate, they find God in the depths of their being. In the innermost being of the human person there is where the truth resides. In the deepest core of ones being, the human person through self-possession finds who truly he/she is. In other words there he/she reaches his/her I, his/her own self (selfhood). In this sense the persons being cannot be transferred; others cannot share his/her own being. Here one comprehends his/her self as a unique and non-transferable person. The classical philosophers will call it supositum in the person as spiritual being. It means self-individuation or in-divisiveness, one in his/her very own self and non- transferable to others. When a person shares his/her life to others like in marriage, he/she cannot lose that very self since that is what constitutes the I. This may not be compared to egoism rather this process communicates more inasmuch as it maintains and enriches that personal selfhood. The unique and full communication of the person is expressed in terms of transcendence which his/her very own privacy refers to. It is in that deepest and most intimate level that the foundation of theonomous morality resides. Such selfhood merits the most sincere and real respect. The due respect to that privacy or that selfhood when translated into moral levels is what we would call conscience, considered sacred and the sanctuary of the soul. Self possession is decisive in judging the moral act. The ethical personality passes through that self-possession of the intimacy in ones being. Whoever cannot have the capacity of finding ones very own self and cannot possess him/herself lacks a personality. A person is a man or woman, being a man or woman is common to all. Personality is not possessed by everybody. It is that which a person has as his/her own which is neither his/her character, nor the force of his/her temperament; it does not come from being but from the Ethos. Personality supposes that wealth of one own being, consciously possessed by virtue of the capacity to reflect deeply that which is at the core of ones selfhood. The man/woman of personality is someone who by reflection reaches criteria and is guided by subjective criteria. However, when those criteria are contrasted objectively, they give rise to deep convictions. Personality is reached when one can experience being-with-oneself. This is what Heidegger will call sameness or being-with-oneself.

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

11

Self-possession is not an end in itself. Its wealth and its authenticity lead the spirit in exercising the third qualityself-communication. 3. Self-communication The spirit tends to communication when through self reflection is has found its selfhood and when it possesses very own self. The dynamicity of the spirit does not enclose itself to itself but rather it communicates itself. This is where the constitutive dimension of alterity is established. The best example that comes close to us is to discover the unfathomable mystery of God as spiritual being. It is the Holy Trinity where the overflowing richness of God is communicated in the sameness of his nature in the Trinity of Persons. We know that starting from faith in the Trinity as self-communicating beingtherefore it is the Infinite Spirit and only spirit, human reason would not fix limitations to the intimate and total communication of God. It is faith that teaches that the self-communication of God is enclosed in the Trinity of Persons; but human intelligence would not find reasons to fix only in the Son and in the Spirit that communication that characterizes the spiritual being which is God. In a certain sensewith human limitationsthe same incarnated spirit can also be said of the human person. Ones being is not realized in solitary non-communication but only in the alterity of that communication. Here we find the ultimate reason of man/womans sociability which does not come to him/her from the outside, from the necessities to survive or from the necessary petitions that impose to the individual the social life. Sociability comes from ones own self, from the interiority of ones being. As what is often said, man is a dialogical being. This affirmation does not mean to make a dialectics between self-possession and selfcommunication. In the case where the option is posed between the individual and the society, the choice falls primarily on the importance of each individual and in his/her ethical responsibility before the consideration of the society and the offer or demands that this makes on the person in his/her moral values. That election is a consequence of Christian personalism in the face of whatever option of a socializing type. It is the logical consequence of the nature of the spirit: selfreflection (rationality) and self possession (knowledge and possession of ones own self) make possible and direct self-communication or may be the relation with others and not the contrary. 4. Self-determination This last operation signifies the culmination of the spiritual activity which supposes the three operations before; it gives them their true sense. It deals with the fact that the spirit inasmuch as it can determine itself specifies its condition of acting freely. Freedom is that capacity of selfdetermination which is the common patrimony only of the three spiritual beings which differ from the animals. In this is shown the perfection and the dignity of the intellectual or rational life. While the dead does not move, among all the living beings only the human person is the master of his/her acts and he/she moves freely to that which he/she wants.

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

12

The fourth element is defined by freedom which is the inevitable element of the moral act. The author of all times define moral act as a free act. 5. Summary The four functions and operations of the spirit are accepted commonly. They do not depend on philosophical schools of thought. The currents of Neo-Marxism which accept the spiritual category recognize with distinct terminology those operations although their interpretation is conditioned by diverse anthropological conceptions. For example, St. Thomas will talk of reditio completa and of autodeterminatio while Ortega and Gasset will talk of in ones own self and alterity. This is not contrary to our posture but a complement from the diverse philosophical currents. B. Consequences for the Moral Act The consequences of the nature and operations of the spirit re moral theology are the following: 1. The faculties of the soul can help in the illumination of the specificity of the human act. Self-reflection and self-determination facilitate the arrival to knowledge and freedom. This does not mean that the self-possession and self-communication are inferior. These two complement the works of the first two. 2. Those psychological dynamics are not alien to the body in the sense that all those functions are realized in the person. In this light it is important to take into account the value of the somatic reality. The biological and psychic structure is the object today of the science called Psychophysiology. The moralist must consider those factors and on occasion must call for the assistance of doctors and psychologists. It is important to pay attention to: hunger-thirst, tiredness-rest, pain-pleasure, etc. The affective-sentimental life is likewise important in moral theology. The three layers, corporal, vital, pathetic or affective are integrated in the superior level of intelligence and the will, thereby constituting the unity of the moral subject. 3. The spiritual character of the human soul manifests the great dignity of the human person, but this does not mean an undermining of the body. The human being is a person and not an angel. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand sometimes the apparent objection of those who claim that those who cannot exercise such operations of the spirit cannot be called persons like the kids and those mentally ill. Being a person is one thing and personal work is another thing. Here is where that deep reality between relationship of the somatic to the psychic gains importance. Besides, a corporal overturning can impede the exercise of the spiritual functions. The four actions proper to the spirit are from the incarnated spirit, however, known or hidden factors can give rise to somatic and psychic overturns. Here is where the exchange between psychology and medicine is important. Depression is not cured by reasoning of the psychologist alone but it demands the help of the doctors for medicine. The same can also be said for

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

13

hypochondriacs. This is psychic abnormality. A newly born child is a person, although it can not exercise yet its spiritual functions and it can not have dominion over its body yet. 4. Human dignity proceeds from the spiritual reality. It is the spiritual which makes what the person is. As such he or she may be a subject with rights and duties and can be committed and can be demanded for something. The peculiar manner of exercising the four operations can explain the difference between a man and a woman. The difference in sexes besides being somatic is also psychic. The masculine or feminine specificity originates in the radical unity of the human subject. The moralists cannot just overlook carelessly the different behaviors which are proper to a man or a woman. 5) The reality of the spirit and its operations help in evaluating the sense of history. There are two poles of reference vis--vis the person. One takes place in the historical which points out the changeable and the circumstantial. The other pole considers the propium that exists in all people and which is constant in all cultures. It favors the singularity of the human and it endeavors to devalue any historical circumstance. Those two postures do not enjoy the historical guarantee of the truth. It is evident that when nature-history relations are presented in a dialectical manner such posture is incorrect. But the problem continues despite answering these two questions: Can historical variable circumstances in history determine the structure of the human subject? Can the four spiritual operations be muted intrinsically? Reason demonstrates and experience testifies that those operations of the spirit can be affected by the changes coming from history but this does not concern its intimate structure. No historical consideration authorizes to deny in the human person that essential reality which transcends time. The four operations are constant, they persists through the different historical circumstances. Moreover, the human spirit can be opposed to historical circumstances, it is capable of accepting or rejecting them. Likewise, the human spirit can assume them. To conclude, the human person has a history, but as such he/she is not constituted by history. This is not an essentialist or naturalist consideration of the human person, but personalist. The person has a nature and a history but it is not an I floating in the oasis of history. The essentialist conception takes places in the case where the historical circumstances cannot be evaluated. To oppose anthropology as existential science and human nature as ontological knowledge denotes lack of rigor. Anthropology does not deny ontology but it supposes and demands it. 6) Every human being is a person by nature but he/she does have the obligation to reach maturity in what we call personality. The way to that development is the cultivation of the values proper to the spirit. St. Paul teaches this re liberty: Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2Cor. 3:17). We can assume this as condition for the other spiritual operations. The contrary is what St. Jude wrote: Worldly people, without spirit (Jd. 19). Consequently the success of personality which is an important

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

14

condition in moral theology supposes the harmonious development of those four operations proper to the spirit. Another conclusion may also be drawn. The ethical education necessarily passes through the development of those four characteristics. Only in the measure wherein man/woman attends to the demands of the spirit will he/she be able conform his/her life according to the postulates of morality. This is not only a problem of customs but also vis--vis the person, that is, that the individual may be able to assume attitudes and deepen those will facilitate the ethical act. 7) The nature of the spirit helps to explain the relationship among autonomy, heterenomy, and theonomy. Autonomy is that dynamism proper to the spirit of the human person. It must not be limited by any outside or foreign element. Nothing or nobody must oppose the person in reflecting on him/herself or finding his/herself. Likewise he/she must not be opposed in his/her self-communication and his/her exercise of freedom. Therefore there is no place for heteronomy alien to the very nature of the spirit. Every external occasion which obscures the dynamism proper to the spirit must be refuted. It is precisely in the depth of the human spirit where the openness to transcendence takes place. The image of God is captured by those who identify themselves with the spiritual functions. Hence, the admission of theonomy which refers to the Divine Spirit, God, to which the created spirit of the human person participates. 8) This same reason justifies the sense of duty. The philosophical explanations which endeavor to discover the root of the moral duty only in the elements outside the same person makes it difficult to avoid some types of heteronomy. In this case, we do not deal here with instances alien to the human person which impose a type of conduct. It is the same subjective structure, the natural and harmonious development of its operations that the imperative of the duty is presented. The duty is imposed to undertake an adequate conduct. Logically, that duty originates in the openness to transcendence which is connatural to man/woman. This simply means that the spirit founds the theonomy. C. Immediate Repercussions on Moral Theology This doctrine responds to the sensitivity of our culture concerning the unitary concept of man/woman and the criticism of some manuals which have reckoned the atomization of moral life. The cause, they claim, has been the dualist concept of the human person which undervalues the body in favor of the soul to which it is imprisoned. Hence, the depreciation of the value of the senses and the denigration of the passions. This accusation has been common in the sermonaries and even in some manuals in moral theology but it cannot be directed against the great teachings of Catholic morality. St. Thomas dedicates an elaborate treatise on the passions (I-II, qq. 22-48). He maintains that for the

Notes on The Human Person 1 (Unedited)

For Private Use Only

15

realization of the good, spiritual activity of freedom is not enough; there is also the need for the cooperation of the sensitive appetite. We must censure too the great moral Catholic teachers who may have fomented false asceticism, given that Christian spirituality has always valued the importance of the human body and the interrelationship of the body and the soul Thomas knows that a corporal overturn can cause a psychic infirmity. The spirit is in strict relationship with the senses. In any case, this argument cannot deny the limitations of the past in undervaluing the contributions that the new sciences provide the knowledge concerning man/woman and consequently on moral anthropology. When one talks about human acts these refer to the behavior of the whole subject. It is the person in his/her totality which realizes the moral activity. So that to separate being and acting is a metaphysical error which also affects ethics. In talking about human acts does not mean knowing what are the human faculties related to morality but rather studying the totality of the person in his/her commitment to the moral act. In this light, the interrelationship between the corporal senses and the more spiritual expressions must be consideredthis means the thought and the volition. In the same manner the intimate link existing among the layers which the classical philosophy calls vegetative, sensitive and rational would have to be evaluated. Both philosophy and empirical sciences show how the different layers not only communicate among the themselves but they also show how they mutually make each other possible. The inferior layer makes the superior layer possible. Therefore the function of knowing and the voluntary choice suppose and are in part conditioned by the vegetative and the sensorial life. It is not good to stop at the consequences of the spiritual activities in moral judgment since the actions of the person flow from the unitary consideration of that person. As a summary, the good and virtue are imputed on the total person and evil, sin and vice are the fruits of total action of the human person derived from the unity of body-soul, of nature and of grace. If these four realities, body, soul, nature and grace are analytically distinguished, they constitute the entire person, the uniqueness of a Christian. Therefore, Christian morality includes the equal perfection of the soul and the body which bring about the good and contribute to evil. The struggle against the passions excludes their destruction. This is realized through channeling them. On its part, the senses must not be an obstacle for the exercise of the good but a possibility that man/woman may avoid evil. Passions and senses bring about an unending series of problems that must be considered in making moral judgment on the activity of the human person. This is the ample field for medicine and psychology, the auxiliary sciences of moral theology. The cultural and social conditioning must also be taken into account. Hence the value of sociology. The hereditary factors also play a role in moral evaluation. Likewise the different cultures and the historical factors may obscure certain ethical values. These are wide areas which call for a separate study.