brief explanation of the meaning of moral
moral life as a path to personal fulfillment
moral life as a path to personal fulfillment
What is Christianity?
a saving encounter with God in Christ, who redeems us to lead a fully human and supernatural for which we were created.
Is Christianity a doctrine?
is much more than that, is a Person-Jesus Christ-who is God and salvation. This obviously involves a number of truths: who Jesus is, what he said, and so on., But it would be absurd to reduce the wonder Christian dogmas: they render the same content dogmas.
Is Christianity a moral?
is much more than that is a path to wholeness: "sed perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect "(Mt 5.48). Obviously this means that there are some other behaviors consistent and inconsistent with that way. But Christianity is not a "rule", a list of moral laws.
What is a Christian?
Jesus summed up his law in love. In this is everything. There are no more: everything else is a condition or consequence of this love.
What is love?
Man has been made in the image of God because God created it to lead to the fullness of life in God. And San Juan know that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4.8). So, they treated us to God and, in some way, we deify is love. Do
specific behaviors have any importance?
Yes, lots. Because through them we "do" for ourselves. Our "way of being"-that each one of us in fact, is the result of genetic inheritance, cultural factors and our own actions.
Our actions will "model": its main effect is given in ourselves.
Why? Due to our freedom.
When I decide to do an action and do, I will adhere to the "project" that this action entails. When you want something good or bad, I will freely identify with good or evil that action entails. And by identifying with the good or evil, is itself good or bad. That is why he steals, not only taking something apart, but becomes a thief himself. The same goes for a lie and all sins. And also for the good stuff.
Love is demanding
precisely because it is a question of love, Christianity is demanding: it could not be otherwise. Does not exist, or is possibly a higher moral ideal that the Christian. By definition
Love wants the best for the beloved, and this is gloriously demanding: only love is able to get the best out of ourselves. Why
what God may demand so high? Because
gives grace. In the Old Testament the law was only a guide pointing the way, but not give the strength to follow it. The great "novelty" of the New Testament is that the New Law of Love, communicates the grace that enables compliance.
An obvious and basic principle
The good is good, bad is bad.
is precisely what defines good and evil. It spreads the good, the bad, bad. Well as the rich people, poor impoverished and corrupt.
define what is good and what bad is not arbitrary, nor is relative: good and evil of man is as real as the man himself. How
Where does the distinction between good and evil?
is in reality itself: the good is good, the bad, bad. There are behaviors that enhance, other than corrupt. Events leading to the end, others depart.
and is on the rational nature of man. His work on practical understanding "coordinates" of good and evil (everything practical is considered good or bad according to some aspect).
What we call "natural law"?
moral law is the "guide" human life to its fullness. It's called "natural" because it is written on paper, but inscribed in the very being of the person: is the "ought" that corresponds to their nature (what man is).
metaphorical So say it is written in the heart of man to say that it can "read" within.
With this image we mean the ability of the human intellect to discover the good and evil (the moral dimension) of their behavior, actions, lifestyles, etc.
The man does not determine its content, but simply "see" with their intelligence, you can find out what is good and what bad.
That the "right reason" is the natural law view.
Does the reason so important?
Yes, because the alternative is chaos or reason. The Logos or irrationality.
God has not imposed an arbitrary law, has created the reality "directed" towards its fulfillment. Man must discover and "perform" their existence. Relativism waiver
drive human behavior rationally. And this necessarily has tragic consequences for the same man.
How can you find out?
Man is a being trend: it is done in such a way that tends to the purpose for which it was created-one that is fulfilled and, therefore, happiness.
Every faculty and power tends to his own good (in this While particular meaning and purpose are identified: the purpose for which it is addressed, it is as well for her.) In this they fail (obviously except in cases of illness). At this stage we are not talking about the overall good of the person, but a private good of a power.
In some cases, this particular right of a faculty or power given, can be a real bad for the person. The satisfaction of a particular trend can be healthy for the person or not. Meets ice cream taste. You can feed the man, full of joy, etc. But it might haunt, it dangerously fat, etc.
words, no particular trend in itself the criterion regulator to ensure what it will be enriching for the person, needs to be regulated by "outside" of itself.
This is because when a spiritual man, not merely material, its actions have a meaning: they are not mere physical actions, but an expression of his person. It is the task of reason to capture this meaning.
What, then, the moral regulator of human behavior?
Reason. The function of reason is known. Before man can know the assets of each trend and put them in perspective with the good of the whole person. In this way leads to the fullness where you will find the happiness. And this trend precisely because of the nature of man, we are talking about, and the stronger tendency of man is to behave reasonably. The reason does not "create" the moral, but discover what is good for man.
How can the right to direct human behavior?
is made for this. It has what we call the first practical principles. Are similar to the first speculative principles that underlie all theoretical reasoning.
The synderesis is the habit of first principles studies. The first is "Do good and avoid evil." We all have.
also part of good judgment, the purpose of virtue, expressed in its most general: prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.
the level of first principles, considering and reasoning, we turn to the level of moral science.
A third level is the practical, concrete actions, which are regulated by the virtue of prudence is who "choose" actions that can perform under here and now, in these circumstances.
What is consciousness?
is the view of the practical intellect that judges the morality of an act done, or I'm doing, that particular act is morally right or morally wrong.
This trial is not arbitrary, nor is a mere opinion (if something looks good or I would not be bad) is a rational view, the intelligence before God judged on the moral reality of action.
Intelligence is not capricious. And hitting is very interested in this trial. Because the moral life of the person depends on the conscience judge righteously. Obviously
judged as moral science: science without conscience there.
Hence the importance of creating awareness to judge correctly. This is not surprising, because all human capacities need training: the ability to speak, math, sport, art, etc., Untrained frustrated.
Consciousness does not determine the goodness or badness of an act, merely "declare" what you see in reality. In this view, intelligence as in any trial that could go wrong, and this would be inconvenient to the person, would lead him to believe that doing good does good, or vice versa.
This error could be guilty conscience (through neglect in the formation of conscience, judging by precipitation, etc.) Or blameless, as the person is guilty or not of the same.
error-and therefore blameless involuntary-awareness (in which case consciousness is called "invincible wrong") before God excuses sin.
But we must keep in mind that evil leads to the fullness, even that may be blameless. So guess we are very interested, have a conscience, that leads us along the path of true good.
What are the virtues?
habits Aristotle defined as elective, ie an improvement in operating power for the person who makes good choices in that area. So who is generous, has the "ability" to choose the actions they take a generous life.
often reduced virtue of its scale operations: an improvement of a power-result of the repetition of acts "that gives the facility to do well, as if a purely "mechanical" (a habituation).
But virtue is much more. Has three dimensions: cognitive, affective and other third operational.
The cognitive dimension works by naturality: who is generous, easily understood and known issues that relate to this virtue. This is the most important dimension. In addition it will be nice and easy to act on that knowledge.
So you see that to live a good life (ie "made") the virtues are essential.
There are four main virtues are called "cardinal" because all other dependent virtues or otherwise included in them.
justice: each one his own, what belongs and what, therefore, is entitled. The virtuoso is not just a "gauge" of interest, but has to live according to Rights: is straight, not interested or wants more than just for himself, he would offend anyone to think I want to keep more profit . Fraud is not attracted. It is just the heart. But a heart is somehow unfair corrupt.
Temperance: Drive to enjoy the delectable goods in their measure, to the extent necessary and desirable for the life of man. To prevent these goods do not become a problem, bad for oneself, not to enslave us. Given dominion, balance.
strength: it gives the ability to not give up either by the effort required and the difficulties that arise in their implementation. It is courage, patience in adversity, strength of will.
Prudence: The first and most important human virtues (1). Ability to discover and choose actions that make a good life: how to perform under particular in each case. Discern, decide and prevails.
Can or can not?
Acting right is not a question of whether " can or can not, but how do justice (or temperance, or fortitude) here and now in our lives (to make life fair, honest, etc..). Why not make sense to consider the moral life in the key of "permissions": what is allowed and what is prohibited. We are free and as such we can do many things. A time to act should ask a question: Is this good or bad? Do I want to do good (and so "me" good) or evil (and "me" bad), how to do good here and now? It is not asking permission to do something, but to decide on my life.
The moral law
A moral law is nothing other than a brief statement about the morality of certain actions, such as the expression "take something apart, against the reasonable will of the owner is unlawful."
The moral law is primarily a pedagogical function: to teach, in a concise and clear, what is good and what is bad.
Where does the moral law?
moral law is born of virtue. From these reason are compatible or incompatible behaviors with them, which made the human ideal or destroy it.
why laws often have a negative syntax?
Many of the laws express moral prohibitions: no killing, no stealing, etc.. This is because it is more accessible and defining concrete behaviors incompatible with virtue, than those prescribed positive virtue.
actions may determine that it is never licit to engage. Instead, it is not possible to identify positive actions constituted infringement of which is always a sin. Therefore the negative commandments oblige always, while in the case of positive could be that it is impossible to meet them, through no fault of their own. Ie the positive precepts can not always be met, there are good things in certain circumstances I can not do, even I can keep the right, "while there things I never do and nobody can force me to do them.
addition, the extent of positive precepts, far obligation is difficult to measure. Thus, for example, who can determine how much I have obligation to give alms? In contrast negatives refer to actions that I should not do, like taking the life of an innocent person.
Role of negative precepts
negative precepts seem negative but are actually very positive, and that protect key assets, which must be met: family, marriage, life, honor, justice in social life, truth , privacy, etc..
law could compare to a line minimum, below which it is impossible to love.
The aim of the moral life is not no sin, but to grow in virtue, doing good, living in love, to the best of ourselves. The moral horizon of a moral person whose goal was to avoid sin would be very poor.
Freedom and Freedom law gives us the opportunity to be architects of our personal fulfillment. We are free because we are determined to act in a fixed manner. Herein lies the greatness of man: to accede freely to God's plan.
I do "good" for identification with the good: freely adhere to good and it makes me good.
We are free to choose good, to the path that makes us, makes us better. The roads of good are greatly expanded so that the requirement to do good to perform, does not restrict my freedom, but it is a condition of perfection. True freedom of choice is not between good and evil, but from a huge variety of goods.
The choice of evil is a personal failure, sin is like a spiritual and existential catastrophe beyond what you can feel at one point: sin is very damaging to the person.
no sense to consider freedom as a state of uncertainty with regard to good and evil, as two paths equally eligible. I am free to choose good, to love. Freedom is not an end in itself. We are free, yes, but the key question would be: free for what? To carry out a full and fulfilling life. It would be sheer madness to use freedom to destroy.
In this sense the law is a guide to freedom: in general teaches you where the good and evil, and so makes it easy to distinguish. This is what the compass to the mariner. Not determine the way-the options are almost infinite-personal accomplishment, simply tells the blind alleys: the actions that lead nowhere and that are harmful.
"The most important thing is to fulfill the law?
No, the most important thing is to love. The law does not sanctify the love itself.
An example clarifies a lot of question: Who is the best husband? Who was faithful to his wife for fear of going to hell, it was love for his wife, or one who was unfaithful? Not a question of "if you can or can not" imagine "a husband asking his wife to allow him to be unfaithful?
The law enforcement is the first step, it is not possible to love if not followed the law. Jesus says: "If ye love me, will be fulfilling my commandments" (Jn 14,15).
The issue is enforcing the law sanctifies love.
love is more than not
sin also love goes far beyond the obligatory. And in Christianity that we are "rules" is to love. And love is terribly positive. It is a journey of personal growth. Amar
no "straightjacket" to the person, engage life, reduce freedom. Instead it opens many possible avenues.
How can we know the fundamental precepts of natural law?
These precepts-in itself accessible to human reason, God wanted to reveal to all men had access to them, completely, without error and with certainty. God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai when established his covenant with the People of Israel. Are the Ten Commandments
morally obligated "other laws?
addition to the natural law, there are laws "sanctioned" by God and laws enacted by man. They are called positive laws.
A law, in general, is a rational management aimed at the common good.
civil society needs an authority in your life and order. That authority, in the legitimate exercise of power, sanctions laws. If these laws are fair-which is presumed to bind in conscience-citizens: There is a moral duty to obey.
the Church to facilitate living the Christian life also sanctions laws (in this case ecclesiastical laws), which bind in conscience. Such is the case of the commandments of the Church and other laws (such as the Eucharistic fast, the governing sacraments, etc.).. Also these ecclesiastical laws bind in conscience.
What is sin?
A willful disobedience to God's law. Its main evil is that the rejection of his law, is rebellion against God Himself.
From the human point of view, is contrary to reason (remember that right reason is the "measure" of good and evil, all sin is unreasonable).
And personally, contrary to the good of mankind. By going after an apparent good is waived the true good. It is a great delusion, a trap. Sin is a failure in the way of personal fulfillment.
How serious is sin?
being an offense against God, the gravity of sin depends on subjective questions (how to bother me or how bad I feel after committing the crime), but of which constitutes an offense against God and sinning goods contrary .
According to the consequences that sin brings into the soul of who commits it is important to distinguish between mortal and venial sin, according to deprive us or not of the divine life (sanctifying grace).
venial sin is a misdemeanor, not a separation God's radical. Despite being minor, we should not despise them, and that cool the charity and, if they are not combat-are like an inclined plane that leads to mortal sin.
Mortal sin is a serious offense that radically departs from God, by sanctifying grace lost. With it you lose the merits achieved in life so far. Once committed, the soul is in a situation of deprivation guilty of grace, which is called "state of mortal sin." While in this state can not lawfully receive sacraments (committing a sacrilege if I did), performing good deeds without merit (because the merit principle is grace) stand to lose eternal life (if he died without repentance).
To be able to recognize if one is in a state of grace is very important to distinguish the venial and mortal sins.
How to measure the varying severity of sin?
The gravity of sin depends on your "stuff", ie their moral species (theft, slander, lies, etc.).
There are matters in which any violation of the moral law is a serious sin. In these cases there is no possibility of talking about little faults. This applies, for example, of blasphemy: any insult to God is a serious fault. Idolatry: worship of any creature, is missing serious. Of these materials is said that "no paucity of material support." Other themes support
paucity of material, ie, sin will be mild if the subject is small, and will be severe if the matter is serious. This is different from lying about a phone call to a brother to lie in court, stealing 2 pesos will be a venial sin, but if you steal the value of a weekly wage, will be deadly.
If I do not hurt anyone, what's wrong?
is not true that the only "test" of good and evil is justice. An action that do not harm anyone, can do me much harm to myself, and that can not be good. Remember the obvious: it makes good and bad is bad.
The aim of the moral law is not to avoid the damage of another, but to lead the person to their fullest. So the question we should ask before you act is as follows: Does it enriches me as a person? How
recovers grace?
The means established by God to obtain grace is baptism. And to recover the lost grace by mortal sin after Baptism, the sacrament of confession.
Sin, conscience and prudence
Sin is a result of free choice, contrary to moral law. It is not due to an error of conscience: the conscience judges "this action is bad ", but my freedom want to do it.
But sin is always wrong advice (who "choose" the action that should be done.) The person decides that this action should do, even knowing that it is a sin.
"force" the conscience to judge as good an evil act with the intention of staying calm is very bad business. Because consciousness is something "sacred", the meeting place of the soul with God. Corrupt the conscience is really bad. It's much better to do wrong, knowing it worked out badly, that convinced themselves that this is not bad.
a saving encounter with God in Christ, who redeems us to lead a fully human and supernatural for which we were created.
Is Christianity a doctrine?
is much more than that, is a Person-Jesus Christ-who is God and salvation. This obviously involves a number of truths: who Jesus is, what he said, and so on., But it would be absurd to reduce the wonder Christian dogmas: they render the same content dogmas.
Is Christianity a moral?
is much more than that is a path to wholeness: "sed perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect "(Mt 5.48). Obviously this means that there are some other behaviors consistent and inconsistent with that way. But Christianity is not a "rule", a list of moral laws.
What is a Christian?
Jesus summed up his law in love. In this is everything. There are no more: everything else is a condition or consequence of this love.
What is love?
Man has been made in the image of God because God created it to lead to the fullness of life in God. And San Juan know that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4.8). So, they treated us to God and, in some way, we deify is love. Do
specific behaviors have any importance?
Yes, lots. Because through them we "do" for ourselves. Our "way of being"-that each one of us in fact, is the result of genetic inheritance, cultural factors and our own actions.
Our actions will "model": its main effect is given in ourselves.
Why? Due to our freedom.
When I decide to do an action and do, I will adhere to the "project" that this action entails. When you want something good or bad, I will freely identify with good or evil that action entails. And by identifying with the good or evil, is itself good or bad. That is why he steals, not only taking something apart, but becomes a thief himself. The same goes for a lie and all sins. And also for the good stuff.
Love is demanding
precisely because it is a question of love, Christianity is demanding: it could not be otherwise. Does not exist, or is possibly a higher moral ideal that the Christian. By definition
Love wants the best for the beloved, and this is gloriously demanding: only love is able to get the best out of ourselves. Why
what God may demand so high? Because
gives grace. In the Old Testament the law was only a guide pointing the way, but not give the strength to follow it. The great "novelty" of the New Testament is that the New Law of Love, communicates the grace that enables compliance.
An obvious and basic principle
The good is good, bad is bad.
is precisely what defines good and evil. It spreads the good, the bad, bad. Well as the rich people, poor impoverished and corrupt.
define what is good and what bad is not arbitrary, nor is relative: good and evil of man is as real as the man himself. How
Where does the distinction between good and evil?
is in reality itself: the good is good, the bad, bad. There are behaviors that enhance, other than corrupt. Events leading to the end, others depart.
and is on the rational nature of man. His work on practical understanding "coordinates" of good and evil (everything practical is considered good or bad according to some aspect).
What we call "natural law"?
moral law is the "guide" human life to its fullness. It's called "natural" because it is written on paper, but inscribed in the very being of the person: is the "ought" that corresponds to their nature (what man is).
metaphorical So say it is written in the heart of man to say that it can "read" within.
With this image we mean the ability of the human intellect to discover the good and evil (the moral dimension) of their behavior, actions, lifestyles, etc.
The man does not determine its content, but simply "see" with their intelligence, you can find out what is good and what bad.
That the "right reason" is the natural law view.
Does the reason so important?
Yes, because the alternative is chaos or reason. The Logos or irrationality.
God has not imposed an arbitrary law, has created the reality "directed" towards its fulfillment. Man must discover and "perform" their existence. Relativism waiver
drive human behavior rationally. And this necessarily has tragic consequences for the same man.
How can you find out?
Man is a being trend: it is done in such a way that tends to the purpose for which it was created-one that is fulfilled and, therefore, happiness.
Every faculty and power tends to his own good (in this While particular meaning and purpose are identified: the purpose for which it is addressed, it is as well for her.) In this they fail (obviously except in cases of illness). At this stage we are not talking about the overall good of the person, but a private good of a power.
In some cases, this particular right of a faculty or power given, can be a real bad for the person. The satisfaction of a particular trend can be healthy for the person or not. Meets ice cream taste. You can feed the man, full of joy, etc. But it might haunt, it dangerously fat, etc.
words, no particular trend in itself the criterion regulator to ensure what it will be enriching for the person, needs to be regulated by "outside" of itself.
This is because when a spiritual man, not merely material, its actions have a meaning: they are not mere physical actions, but an expression of his person. It is the task of reason to capture this meaning.
What, then, the moral regulator of human behavior?
Reason. The function of reason is known. Before man can know the assets of each trend and put them in perspective with the good of the whole person. In this way leads to the fullness where you will find the happiness. And this trend precisely because of the nature of man, we are talking about, and the stronger tendency of man is to behave reasonably. The reason does not "create" the moral, but discover what is good for man.
How can the right to direct human behavior?
is made for this. It has what we call the first practical principles. Are similar to the first speculative principles that underlie all theoretical reasoning.
The synderesis is the habit of first principles studies. The first is "Do good and avoid evil." We all have.
also part of good judgment, the purpose of virtue, expressed in its most general: prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.
the level of first principles, considering and reasoning, we turn to the level of moral science.
A third level is the practical, concrete actions, which are regulated by the virtue of prudence is who "choose" actions that can perform under here and now, in these circumstances.
What is consciousness?
is the view of the practical intellect that judges the morality of an act done, or I'm doing, that particular act is morally right or morally wrong.
This trial is not arbitrary, nor is a mere opinion (if something looks good or I would not be bad) is a rational view, the intelligence before God judged on the moral reality of action.
Intelligence is not capricious. And hitting is very interested in this trial. Because the moral life of the person depends on the conscience judge righteously. Obviously
judged as moral science: science without conscience there.
Hence the importance of creating awareness to judge correctly. This is not surprising, because all human capacities need training: the ability to speak, math, sport, art, etc., Untrained frustrated.
Consciousness does not determine the goodness or badness of an act, merely "declare" what you see in reality. In this view, intelligence as in any trial that could go wrong, and this would be inconvenient to the person, would lead him to believe that doing good does good, or vice versa.
This error could be guilty conscience (through neglect in the formation of conscience, judging by precipitation, etc.) Or blameless, as the person is guilty or not of the same.
error-and therefore blameless involuntary-awareness (in which case consciousness is called "invincible wrong") before God excuses sin.
But we must keep in mind that evil leads to the fullness, even that may be blameless. So guess we are very interested, have a conscience, that leads us along the path of true good.
What are the virtues?
habits Aristotle defined as elective, ie an improvement in operating power for the person who makes good choices in that area. So who is generous, has the "ability" to choose the actions they take a generous life.
often reduced virtue of its scale operations: an improvement of a power-result of the repetition of acts "that gives the facility to do well, as if a purely "mechanical" (a habituation).
But virtue is much more. Has three dimensions: cognitive, affective and other third operational.
The cognitive dimension works by naturality: who is generous, easily understood and known issues that relate to this virtue. This is the most important dimension. In addition it will be nice and easy to act on that knowledge.
So you see that to live a good life (ie "made") the virtues are essential.
There are four main virtues are called "cardinal" because all other dependent virtues or otherwise included in them.
justice: each one his own, what belongs and what, therefore, is entitled. The virtuoso is not just a "gauge" of interest, but has to live according to Rights: is straight, not interested or wants more than just for himself, he would offend anyone to think I want to keep more profit . Fraud is not attracted. It is just the heart. But a heart is somehow unfair corrupt.
Temperance: Drive to enjoy the delectable goods in their measure, to the extent necessary and desirable for the life of man. To prevent these goods do not become a problem, bad for oneself, not to enslave us. Given dominion, balance.
strength: it gives the ability to not give up either by the effort required and the difficulties that arise in their implementation. It is courage, patience in adversity, strength of will.
Prudence: The first and most important human virtues (1). Ability to discover and choose actions that make a good life: how to perform under particular in each case. Discern, decide and prevails.
Can or can not?
Acting right is not a question of whether " can or can not, but how do justice (or temperance, or fortitude) here and now in our lives (to make life fair, honest, etc..). Why not make sense to consider the moral life in the key of "permissions": what is allowed and what is prohibited. We are free and as such we can do many things. A time to act should ask a question: Is this good or bad? Do I want to do good (and so "me" good) or evil (and "me" bad), how to do good here and now? It is not asking permission to do something, but to decide on my life.
The moral law
A moral law is nothing other than a brief statement about the morality of certain actions, such as the expression "take something apart, against the reasonable will of the owner is unlawful."
The moral law is primarily a pedagogical function: to teach, in a concise and clear, what is good and what is bad.
Where does the moral law?
moral law is born of virtue. From these reason are compatible or incompatible behaviors with them, which made the human ideal or destroy it.
why laws often have a negative syntax?
Many of the laws express moral prohibitions: no killing, no stealing, etc.. This is because it is more accessible and defining concrete behaviors incompatible with virtue, than those prescribed positive virtue.
actions may determine that it is never licit to engage. Instead, it is not possible to identify positive actions constituted infringement of which is always a sin. Therefore the negative commandments oblige always, while in the case of positive could be that it is impossible to meet them, through no fault of their own. Ie the positive precepts can not always be met, there are good things in certain circumstances I can not do, even I can keep the right, "while there things I never do and nobody can force me to do them.
addition, the extent of positive precepts, far obligation is difficult to measure. Thus, for example, who can determine how much I have obligation to give alms? In contrast negatives refer to actions that I should not do, like taking the life of an innocent person.
Role of negative precepts
negative precepts seem negative but are actually very positive, and that protect key assets, which must be met: family, marriage, life, honor, justice in social life, truth , privacy, etc..
law could compare to a line minimum, below which it is impossible to love.
The aim of the moral life is not no sin, but to grow in virtue, doing good, living in love, to the best of ourselves. The moral horizon of a moral person whose goal was to avoid sin would be very poor.
Freedom and Freedom law gives us the opportunity to be architects of our personal fulfillment. We are free because we are determined to act in a fixed manner. Herein lies the greatness of man: to accede freely to God's plan.
I do "good" for identification with the good: freely adhere to good and it makes me good.
We are free to choose good, to the path that makes us, makes us better. The roads of good are greatly expanded so that the requirement to do good to perform, does not restrict my freedom, but it is a condition of perfection. True freedom of choice is not between good and evil, but from a huge variety of goods.
The choice of evil is a personal failure, sin is like a spiritual and existential catastrophe beyond what you can feel at one point: sin is very damaging to the person.
no sense to consider freedom as a state of uncertainty with regard to good and evil, as two paths equally eligible. I am free to choose good, to love. Freedom is not an end in itself. We are free, yes, but the key question would be: free for what? To carry out a full and fulfilling life. It would be sheer madness to use freedom to destroy.
In this sense the law is a guide to freedom: in general teaches you where the good and evil, and so makes it easy to distinguish. This is what the compass to the mariner. Not determine the way-the options are almost infinite-personal accomplishment, simply tells the blind alleys: the actions that lead nowhere and that are harmful.
"The most important thing is to fulfill the law?
No, the most important thing is to love. The law does not sanctify the love itself.
An example clarifies a lot of question: Who is the best husband? Who was faithful to his wife for fear of going to hell, it was love for his wife, or one who was unfaithful? Not a question of "if you can or can not" imagine "a husband asking his wife to allow him to be unfaithful?
The law enforcement is the first step, it is not possible to love if not followed the law. Jesus says: "If ye love me, will be fulfilling my commandments" (Jn 14,15).
The issue is enforcing the law sanctifies love.
love is more than not
sin also love goes far beyond the obligatory. And in Christianity that we are "rules" is to love. And love is terribly positive. It is a journey of personal growth. Amar
no "straightjacket" to the person, engage life, reduce freedom. Instead it opens many possible avenues.
How can we know the fundamental precepts of natural law?
These precepts-in itself accessible to human reason, God wanted to reveal to all men had access to them, completely, without error and with certainty. God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai when established his covenant with the People of Israel. Are the Ten Commandments
morally obligated "other laws?
addition to the natural law, there are laws "sanctioned" by God and laws enacted by man. They are called positive laws.
A law, in general, is a rational management aimed at the common good.
civil society needs an authority in your life and order. That authority, in the legitimate exercise of power, sanctions laws. If these laws are fair-which is presumed to bind in conscience-citizens: There is a moral duty to obey.
the Church to facilitate living the Christian life also sanctions laws (in this case ecclesiastical laws), which bind in conscience. Such is the case of the commandments of the Church and other laws (such as the Eucharistic fast, the governing sacraments, etc.).. Also these ecclesiastical laws bind in conscience.
What is sin?
A willful disobedience to God's law. Its main evil is that the rejection of his law, is rebellion against God Himself.
From the human point of view, is contrary to reason (remember that right reason is the "measure" of good and evil, all sin is unreasonable).
And personally, contrary to the good of mankind. By going after an apparent good is waived the true good. It is a great delusion, a trap. Sin is a failure in the way of personal fulfillment.
How serious is sin?
being an offense against God, the gravity of sin depends on subjective questions (how to bother me or how bad I feel after committing the crime), but of which constitutes an offense against God and sinning goods contrary .
According to the consequences that sin brings into the soul of who commits it is important to distinguish between mortal and venial sin, according to deprive us or not of the divine life (sanctifying grace).
venial sin is a misdemeanor, not a separation God's radical. Despite being minor, we should not despise them, and that cool the charity and, if they are not combat-are like an inclined plane that leads to mortal sin.
Mortal sin is a serious offense that radically departs from God, by sanctifying grace lost. With it you lose the merits achieved in life so far. Once committed, the soul is in a situation of deprivation guilty of grace, which is called "state of mortal sin." While in this state can not lawfully receive sacraments (committing a sacrilege if I did), performing good deeds without merit (because the merit principle is grace) stand to lose eternal life (if he died without repentance).
To be able to recognize if one is in a state of grace is very important to distinguish the venial and mortal sins.
How to measure the varying severity of sin?
The gravity of sin depends on your "stuff", ie their moral species (theft, slander, lies, etc.).
There are matters in which any violation of the moral law is a serious sin. In these cases there is no possibility of talking about little faults. This applies, for example, of blasphemy: any insult to God is a serious fault. Idolatry: worship of any creature, is missing serious. Of these materials is said that "no paucity of material support." Other themes support
paucity of material, ie, sin will be mild if the subject is small, and will be severe if the matter is serious. This is different from lying about a phone call to a brother to lie in court, stealing 2 pesos will be a venial sin, but if you steal the value of a weekly wage, will be deadly.
If I do not hurt anyone, what's wrong?
is not true that the only "test" of good and evil is justice. An action that do not harm anyone, can do me much harm to myself, and that can not be good. Remember the obvious: it makes good and bad is bad.
The aim of the moral law is not to avoid the damage of another, but to lead the person to their fullest. So the question we should ask before you act is as follows: Does it enriches me as a person? How
recovers grace?
The means established by God to obtain grace is baptism. And to recover the lost grace by mortal sin after Baptism, the sacrament of confession.
Sin, conscience and prudence
Sin is a result of free choice, contrary to moral law. It is not due to an error of conscience: the conscience judges "this action is bad ", but my freedom want to do it.
But sin is always wrong advice (who "choose" the action that should be done.) The person decides that this action should do, even knowing that it is a sin.
"force" the conscience to judge as good an evil act with the intention of staying calm is very bad business. Because consciousness is something "sacred", the meeting place of the soul with God. Corrupt the conscience is really bad. It's much better to do wrong, knowing it worked out badly, that convinced themselves that this is not bad.
P. Eduardo Maria Volpacchio
10/02/2007
(1) Obviously the theological virtues are important because they allow access to God are faith, hope and charity. And among them, the more perfect charity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment