Indian Philosophy Final Exam notes

1. Bring out the difference between “Vedism” and “Hinduism”
1. Vedism was the religion of the Indo-European people who entered India at about 1500 BC, formerly of the Iran area. It is called “Vedism” from the collection of sacred texts known as the Vedas. The Vedas are the oldest stratum of religious activity in India having written materials. Vedism was the starting point of Hinduism.
2. Vedism was a polytheistic, sacrificial religion. Hinduism is henotheistic, for, at different time periods, one god is held supreme, yet other gods are still considered.
3. Late Vedic thought, which leads to Hinduism, became more philosophical and speculative – search for harmony between macrocosm and microcosm. Brahman (universal soul) and atman (the innermost being of things, the essence of which is bliss), merging; atman (the self) and brahman (ultimate reality) becomes the basis for Hindu metaphysics.
4. 600 BC, karma and release from the samsaric circle through meditation than sacrifice meant the end of Vedism and the appearance of Hinduism.
2. What is the central teaching of the Upanishads? Explain its importance.
1. Upanishads also called the “wisdom section” because it dealt with philosophy and mysticism, and the emphasis was on knowledge alone. Knowledge the ultimate reality in all phenomena. There is a desire for mystical knowledge ensuring freedom from “re-death.”
2. Death was not the end: samsaric circle of life and death
3. Central teaching: Brahman is atman. Brahman, the greatest, also bursts forth into the manifested world, is viewed as nothing but atman (innermost self of man, but also the innermost self of all beings)
4. Originally, atman = breath; but then it becomes that which pervades, that which gives, that which eats, and that which constantly accompanies

                                                               i.      Koshas (sheets covering the innermost being)

1.        Bodily self

2.        Vital self

3.        Thinking self

4.        Innermost self (bliss) – ananda

5. Also (see below); the first three being states of the self, contrasted with the fourth, which is transcendent (turiya)

                                                               i.      Waking (jagrat)

                                                              ii.      Dreaming (svapna)

                                                            iii.      Dreamless sleep (susupti)

6. Spiritualization of Brahman and the universalization of atman
7. “neti-neti,” not this or that, [negative] others uphold positively the all pervasiveness of Brahman
8. Brahman: infinite, truth, knowledge, but also as consciousness, existence, bliss
2. Mention some of the “Great Sayings” and explain their significance.
1. “I am Brahman.” The significance of this would be that of that of the Upanishad teaching of Brahman being atman. It is not the person saying this who is Brahman, yet Brahman can be experienced in the innermost person of the individual. Brahman, the greatest, resides in the individual, and thus the individual is part of, and harmonious with, the universe.
2. “That thou art.”
3. These short aphoristic statements summarize the teachings of the Vedas, and are easily recalled even by the lay people. By summarizing vedic teachings, the aphoristic statements make vedic teachings more accessible to the people, and thus less intimidating and complicated. Thus, vedic teachings become more personal.
3. Explain the meaning of karma in the context of liberation and the paths leading to it.
1. Karma literally means “action,” and this action brings about either good or bad followings. One’s life goes on as this, and one is reborn based on the fruits of one’s actions. One is reborn and blessed well if one did good in one’s previous life. The same applies to bad following and bad action.
2. Karma does not concern liberation, but rather the cycle of rebirth which still involves another cycle of a life pervaded by karma. Karma is part of the samsaric cycle of life and death. For the liberation of this, one can go to the Bhagavadgita and reiterate action without desire.
3. Action without desire can be achieved devotion to God and discipline of action.
4. Karma is an animating principle, not a reward.
4. Bring out the important distinction between Shruti and Smirti.
1. Shruti – “What is heard.” This contains the four Vedas. The Sama Veda (psalms), Atharva Veda, Rig Veda (verses), Yajur Veda (prose formulas), as well as the Upanishads, or the “wisdom section.”
2. Vedas, along with Upanishads, are “apauruseya,” or that it is not composed by anyone. Thus, it cannot be contradicted by empirical evidence. The lack of an author makes for the eternality of the Vedas. Sayana (commentator): created by Brahma.
3. Smirti – “What is recollected.” This contains the traditional texts after the Upanishads, and concerns human memory. The Sutras and Shastras are part of Smirti. And Sutras, Vedangas, as well as Shastras, that aid in the implementation of rituals, especially in the performance and liturgy.
4. Dharma sutra: manuals on dharma, duties at various stages of life
5. How do the Vedas differ from the Upanishads?
1. The Vedas dealt more with rituals, for ritual sacrifices in return for material boons, and these ritual sacrifices were allegedly effective with songs and performances. In the Vedas, quality of life depended on the ritual, or that the thought which prevailed was more routinely, or mechanistic.
2. The Upanishads, also called the “wisdom section,” is the last component of the Vedas, composed of mystically oriented and originally esoteric texts. Such texts spelt the beginnings of philosophy and mysticism in Indian thought.
3. In the Upanishads, a knowledge concerning reality was more important than the mechanism of rituals because, at the time the Upanishads were composed Brahmanism made for the over-complexification of rituals, which sparked an intellectual movement.
4. In the Vedas, the focus was on the rituals. In the Upanishads, knowledge alone.
6. Bring out the link between sacrifice and rta.
1. Rta = cosmological rhythm, rhythm of nature, too, as seen in the repeating of the four seasons, since time, in Indian thought, is considered cyclical, and marked by yugas. Now, whenever there is a disturbance of the cycle, sacrifice is needed to influence the devas, or the cosmic engineers, so that they could put rhythm back on track.
7. How do Indian Philosophers distinguish the orthodox systems from the unorthodox?
1. The orthodox systems are distinguished from deriving their systems from the authority of the Vedas.
2. Unorthodox systems do not accept the authority of the Vedas. Usually, there exists a sort of negation, as what is common in the movements of and in Buddhism. There is a rejection of duty, or dharma, and also a rejection of a need to worship a supreme Being. Also, as seen in Buddhism, there is a denial of doctrine of Brahman is atman, for in the unorthodox system of Buddhism, there is no concept of the self, and that even Nirvana can be ephemeral.
8. Bring out the importance of the Epics.
1. The Epics, like the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and the Bhagavadgita, all show the teachings concerning many aspects of community as well as dharma. These epics took shape out of the stories, mythology, and philosophies at that time. The symbolical and metaphorical literary style allows for the easy understanding of the meanings implied in the images, like power through a god having four arms, or fertility through a goddess having four breasts. Through the stories, people gain models worth following and modelling from. In the Epics, the existence of a storyline allows for the insertion of religious statements, especially concerning dharma, ethics, etc.
2. In the Mahabharata, the triumph of good over evil is emphasized, and the story itself is implicated deeply in the religious aspect.
3. In the Ramayana, Rama’s reign becomes the prototype of a harmonious and just kingdom, to which all kings sould aspire to. Rama and Sita set the ideal for conjugal love; Rama to his father as filial love; Rama and Laksmana as fraternal love; everything in the mind designed for harmony.
4. In the Bhagavadgita, devotion is given emphasis as well as discipline of action.
9. What do the dharm sutras and the shastras deal with?
1. Dharma sutra are manuals on dharma, duties at various stages of life. Addresses people at various stages of life. Manu-smriti: various topics such as cosmogony, definition of dharma, sacraments, initiation, marriage, purification, etc.
2. Juridical law embedded in religious law and practice: manifested in the caste system. Dharma Shastras: become the basis for Hindu law: Dharma Shastras of Manu, Smriti
3. Some sutras, too, deal with the performance of a ritual, of the correct performances, proper hymns, proper time period for the celebration of a ritual. Some sutras also include manuals on life.
10. Explain the central teaching of the Bhagavadgita.
1. The central teaching deals with action with desire. Dharma without self-interest, yet without the denial of the relevance of the discipline of knowledge
2. Way of release is through devotion to God (bhakt-yoga)
3. Three different ways of releasing the self from transmigration:

                                                               i.      Discipline of action: not the acts that bind, but the intentions; thus, dharma without any self-interest

                                                              ii.      Does not deny the relevance of the discipline of knowledge: one seeks release in an ascetic course of withdrawal and concentration

                                                            iii.      Discipline via devotion to God (bhakti-yoga); in response to this devotion, God will extend his grace, enabling them to overcome the bonds of this world.

12. What do the Puranas deal with?
1. Puranas are voluminous texts that treat in encyclopedic manner the myths, legends, genealogies.
2. Scripture of the common people, to women and even to the lowest class. Separation in terms of acknowledging certain gods popularly. Some important gods in the Vedas gain minor roles in Puranic literature.
3. Sectarianism eventually creeps into Puranic mythology
4. Cosmogony: Narayana (identified with Vishnu) floated on the snake Ananta (“endless”) on the primeval waters. From this navel grew a lotus, and there Brahma was seen reciting the four Vedas with his four mouths: “egg of Brahma,” containing all the worlds. End of the world: not ultimate, merely cyclical; periodic destruction; tandava dance of Shiva, doomsday, but only temporary (pralaya), after which creation begins in the same fashion. Manu: primordial ancestor of humankind.
5. Cosmology: Heaven, earth, netherworld; heaven having seven layers, the tip of which is Brahma-loka, or the world of Brahma. On earth, there are seven circular continents, the central one surrounded by the salty ocean and each of the other concentric continents by oceans of other liquids; center of central mainland is India.
13. Bring out the significance of Purva-Mimamsa epistemology.
1. According to Jaimini, Vedic injunctions not only describe, but also recommend actions as a means to a goal. Vedic injunctions make for the attainment of heaven.
2. Only statements in scripture are sources of all valid knowledge of dharma (not from God, since these are natural); eternal, however
3. Jaimini’s central concern is dharma:

                                                               i.      dharma as a desired object, whose durability is testified only by the injunctive statements of the scriptures;

                                                              ii.      dharma not as an existent reality, but a future course of action which cannot be known by sense-experience;

                                                            iii.      only injunctive statements can state what ought to be done

4. Mimamsa rejects the belief that these utterances are of God. Words themselves are authoritative
5. Shabara: epistemological themes of the sutras; intrinsic validity of experience; error due to the presence of defects in the ways of knowing; soul as separate entity that enjoys the results of one’s actions in this or in the next life
6. Vedanta-sutras: approves words and meaning relation is eternal. But the dispenser of fruits is Ishvara. Jaimini stresses on ritualism (dharma). Badarayana stresses philosophical portions (Upanishads) (focus on Brahman, or absolute reality). Badarayana’s sutras laid the basis for the development of Vedanta philosophy; approves eternal relation of the words and their significations; however, the dispenser of fruits is Ishvara. Relation of Vedanta to the Mimamsa is difficult to ascertain. Karma against path of knowledge. To the Vedanta-sutras, only Brahman is external.
13. Comment on Samkhya metaphysics.
1. theistic, as regards the unmanifested as the purusa (the self). Samkhya-sutras are theistic, yet the karikas are atheistic.
2. Karikas: many selves (each being of the nature of pure consciousness). Self: neither original matter (prakrti) or an evolute. Matter has three gunas, but the self is not of the gunas. Matter, unlike the self, is creative. Existence of self through ordered arrangement in nature meant for another, this other being a conscious spirit. All selves are passive witnesses, essentially alone; neutral, non-agentic.
3. Satkaryavada: effect is implicitly pre-existent in the cause prior to production
4. Phenomenal nature is regarded as an evolution out of a primitive state of matter, known through satkaryavada
5. Original prakrti is the primary matrix out of which all differentiations arise, within which all was contained in an indistinguishable manner.
6. Prakrti: original matter is

                                                               i.      uncaused,

                                                              ii.      eternal,

                                                            iii.      all-pervading,

                                                            iv.      one,

                                                             v.      independent,

                                                            vi.      self-complete,

                                                          vii.      no distinguisable parts

7. Matter has three gunas: (either being caused or uncaused)

                                                               i.      Non-discriminating

                                                              ii.      Object

                                                            iii.      General, non-conscious, creative

8. Evolution:

                                                               i.      Buddhi: intelligence

                                                              ii.      Ahamkara: ego-sense

                                                            iii.      Manas: mind

                                                            iv.      Five tanmatras

1.        The sense data

2.        Color

3.        Sound

4.        Smell

5.        Touch

6.        Taste

                                                             v.      Five organs of touch (five gross elements, including ether)

9. Nature is said to consist of three gunas, originally in equilibrium, in states of mutual preponderance:

                                                               i.      Light: harmony, reveals others

                                                              ii.      Activity: dynamic

                                                            iii.      Inertia: heaviness

10. Man’s varying psyhological responses are thus hypostatized and made into components properties or elements of nature (disproved by Shankara).
14. How does the Yoga-sutra understand God, self, and body?
1. Yoga-sutras define God: distinct self (purusa), untouched by suffering, actions and their effects, etc
2. God’s existence through the degrees of knowledge found in finite beings, ascending, ending in omniscience, characterized by God; source of all secular and scriptural traditions. Self: distinct from the mind
3. Mental state not self-intimating; it is known in introspection
4. Unchangeable self
5. Self knows = self is reflected in the mental state
6. Aim of yoga: arrest mental modifications so that the self remains in its true, undefiled essence, not subject to suffering
7. Attitude to the body: ambivalence; body treated as filthy, unclean
8. Bodily perfection: “Beauty, grace strength, adamantine hardness”
9. in final stage, mental modifications cease to be and self is left in its pure, undefiled state of utter isolation, freedom, or absolute independence

                                                               i.      Restraint

                                                              ii.      Observance

                                                            iii.      Posture

                                                            iv.      Regulation of breath

                                                             v.      Abstraction of senses

                                                            vi.      Concentration

                                                          vii.      Meditation

                                                         viii.      Trance   

1.        Superconsious/ conscious

16. Spell out the Nyaya-Vaishesika epistemology.

a.        Both Nyaya-Vaishesika schools are realistic with regard to things, properties, relations, and universals. Pluralistic (selves) and theistic. External relations possible (inherence is only partly internal). Existence as the most comprehensive universal. Knowledge as the quality of the self, with correspondence (theory) with nature. pragmatism-cum-coherence regarding truth’s validation.

b.       Six modes of contacts by Uddyotakara of senses with their objects. Inferences into those whose major premise is universally present, those in which one has to depend only upon the rule: “Whenever there is absence of the major, there is absence of the middle” and those in which both the positive and the negative rules are at one’s disposal. Argued that the meaning of a word is apprehended only by hearing the last letter of the word together with the recollection of the preceding ones.

c.        Mishra: perception into two kinds:

o        the indeterminate, nonlinguistic, and nonjudgemental

o        determinate and judgemental

d.       Mishra: in defining the invariable connection between the middle and the major premises, he introduced of a vitiating condition and stressed that the required sort of connection, if an inference is to be valid, should be unconditional. He also proposed a modified version of the theory of the extrinsic validity of knowledge by holding that inferences as well as knowledges that are the last verifiers are self-validating.

e.        Prashastapada: independent. All that is is knowable and also nameable.

f.         Knowledge: a distinguishing but not essential property of a self which arises when appropriate conditions are present. Consciousness as a manifestation of object, but is not itself self-manifesting – known by an act of inner perception. Knowledge is memory; knowledge other than memory is either true or false; untrue knowledge is either doubt or error. Error: uncompromising realism by holding that the object of error is still real, but is only not here and now. True knowledge apprehends its object as it is.

g.       True knowledge – perception, inference, verbal testimony or comparison.              

o        Perception: knowledge arising from the contact of senses with their objects, and viewed either indeterminate and nonlinguistic or as determinate and judgemental.

o        Perception: either as ordinary (through the six modes of sense-object contact or extraordinary (perceiving through another sense – synesthesia, or when, upon recognizing universals in a particular, one perceives all instances of the universal as its instances.

h.       Four conditions to a meaningful sentence:

o        A word should generate an intention or expectancy for the words to follow

o        Mutual fitness (appropriateness in the sequence)

o        Proximity in space and time

o        Proper intention of the speaker must be ascertained, otherwise there would be equivocation.

i.         Analyzing knowledge, judgemental knowledge can be analyzed into three kinds of epistemological entities in their correlations: “qualifiers,” “qualificandum,” or that which can be qualified, and “relatedness”

o        “This is a blue pot,” “The knowledge that has a qualificandumness in what is denoted by ‘this’ is conditioned by a qualifierness in blue and also conditioned by another qualifierness in ‘potness.’”

j.         Inference:”posterior” knowledge of an object with the help of knowledge of its mark. Navya-Nyaya: inference as knowledge caused by the knowledge that the minor term “possesses” the middle term, which is recognized as “pervaded by” the major term.

17. Critically examine Shankara’s theory of unqualified non-dualism.

a.        Shankara extolled metaphysical knowledge as the sole means of liberation and regarded even the concept of God as false.

b.       Atmadvaita: the thesis that the one, universal, eternal, and self-illuminating self whose essence is pure consciousness without a subject and without an object from a transcendent point of view alone is real. The phenomenal world and finite individuals, though empirically real, are, from the higher point of view, merely false appearances. Reason can only be used to justify truths revealed in the scriptures.

c.        Metaphysics is based on a criterion of reality, which may be briefly formulated as follows: the real is that whose negation is not possible. The only thing that satisfies this criterion is consciousness, because denial of consciousness presupposes the consciousness that denies. It is conceivable that any object is not existent, but the absence of consciousness is not conceivable. Negation may be either mutual negation (of difference) or absence. The latter is either absence of a thing prior to its origination or after its destruction or absence of a thing in a place other than where it is present. If the negation of consciousness is not conceivable, then none of these various kinds of negations can be predicated of consciousness. If difference cannot be predicated of consciousness, then consciousness is the only reality and anything different from it would be unreal. If the other three kinds of absence are not predicable of it, then consciousness should be beginningless, without end, and ubiquitous.

d.       Consciousness is self-intimating; all objects depend upon consciousness for their manifestation. Difference may be either among members of the same class or of one individual from another of a different class or among parts of one entity. None of these is true of consciousness. In other words, there are not many consciousnesses; the plurality of many centers of consciousness should be viewed as an appearance.

e.        There is no reality other than consciousness—no real matter, such a thing would only be an unreal other. consciousness does not have any internal parts; there are not many conscious states. The distinction between consciousness between blue and yellow is not a distinction within consciousness but one superimposed on it by a distinction among its objects, blue and yellow.pluralism is refuted. Reality is one, infinite, eternal, and self-shining spirit; it is without any determination, for all determination is negation.

18. Explain the concept of bhedabheda.

1. The philosophies of trascendence and immanence assert both identity and difference between the world and finite individuals, on the one hand, and Brahman, on the other. The world and finite individuals are real and yet both different and not different from Brahman.
2. Though Brahman as cause is different from Brahman as effect, the two are identical inasmuch as the effect dissolves the cause, as waves return into the sea.
3. Bhaskara: Brahman as both the material and the efficient cause of the world. The doctrine of maya was totally rejected. Brahman undergoes the modifications by his own power. As the waves are both different from and identical with the sea, so are the world and the finite individuals in relation to Brahman. The finite selves are parts of Brahman, as sparks of fire are parts of fire. But the finite soul exists, since beginningless time, under the influence of ignorance. It is atomic in extension and yet animates the whole body.
4. Corresponding to the material world and finite selves, Bhaskara, in his theory of knowledge, ascribed to God two powers of self-modification. Knowledge: self-consciousness that is ever present and objective knowledge that passively arises out of appropriate causal conditions but is not an activity. Mind is a sense organ.
5. Knowledge is intrinsically true, though falsity is extrinsic to it.
6. Bhaskara: ethics: religious duties as binding at all stages of life. Performance of duties together with knowledge of Brahman leads to liberation. Bhakti is not mere feeling or devotion, also meditation directed towards the transcendent Brahman who is not exhausted in his manifestations.
7. Bhaskara denied the possibility of liberation in bodily existence.

19. How does Ramanuja differ from Madhva in his theory of reality?

1. Ramanuja: rejected Shankara’s conception of reality. Brahman is a being with infinitely perfect excellent virtues, a being whose perfection cannot be exceeded. The world and finite individuals are eral, and together they constitute the body of Brahman. The category of body and soul is central to his way of thinking. Body that which can be controlled and moved for the purpose of the spirit.
2. The material world and the conscious spirits, though substantive realities, are yet inseparable from Brahman and thus qualify him in the same sense as body qualifies soul. (Qua-lifies). Brahman is spiritual-material-qualified.
3. Such a beginningless, positive ignorance could not have any locus or any object, and if it does conceal the self-shining Brahman, then there would be no way of escaping from its clutches. Ramanuja: uncompromising realism. Whatever is known is real, and only the real can be known. Even the object of error is real—error is really incomplete knowledge—and correction of error really is completion of incomplete knowledge.
4. Madhva: uncompromsing dualism, traced back thought from Upanishads. Pluralist: glorified difference. Five types of difference central to Madhva’s system:
1. Difference between:

                                                               i.      God and matter

                                                              ii.      Soul and God

                                                            iii.      Soul and soul

                                                            iv.      Soul and matter

                                                             v.      Matter and matter

5. Brahman is the fullness of qualities, and by his own intrinsic nature, Brahman produces the world. The individual, otherwise free, is dependent only upon God. The Advaita concepts of falsity and indescribability of the world were severely criticized and rejected.
6. God: cannot be proven, but learnt from scriptures. Devotion is the only way of release, but ultimately it is the grace of God that saves.

20. Bring out the place of bhakti in the philosophy of Caitanya.

1. Rejected the intermediate Brahman. Brahman, has three transcendent powers: the trascendent power that is threefold (bliss, being, consciousness) and two immanent powers (creating souls and material world).
2. Bliss the very substance of Brahman
3. Caitanya: unique emotional fervor
4. Jiva: God’s essential power: peripheral power that creates souls, and the external power (“maya”) that creates cosmic forms. The relation between God and his powers is neither identity nor difference, no-identity-with-difference. This relation, unthinkable and suprarational, is central to Caitanya’s philosophy.
5. Jiva: the relation between any whole and its parts is unthinkable. Bhakti is the means to emancipation. Bhakti is conceived as a reciprocal relation between man and God, and manifestation of God’s power in man.

Theology 131 Final Oral Exam Theses, with notes

1.     Theology 131, entitled “Marriage, Family Life and Human Sexuality in A Catholic Perspective,” follows the 121 course, “An Introduction to Doing Catholic Theology,” where one learns skills for theologizing, Christology and Faith.  It grounds the 141 course, “Theology of Catholic Social Vision” and the 151 course, “Catholic Commitment of Today’s Filipino:  A Synthesis.”  These courses aim to foster the total formation of Ateneo students via an explicit, systematic and critical study of our Catholic Faith. 

1. In Theology 121, one begins to theologize; one begins to know the person of Christ through gospels and scripture. It is more centered on the central historical medium of our faith. In Theology 141, one talks about society, as well as in Theology 151 (since 141 and 151 are complementary) talking about Catholic commitment, and the synthesis on the topics brought up during previous classes on Theology. Theology 131 moves from the central historical medium of Christ to the material by which Christ concerned himself, from knowing the person of Christ, to knowing the issues by which Christ also tackled.
2. Marriage, family life, and human sexuality are also pillars when discussing social issues, since the three are taken in the context of a community. The three issues are within the region wherein there exists the person practicing and also the community of believers. The discourse concerning these “gray areas” is pivotal, because, in Theology 141 and 151, emphasis is on the going-out to the world and affecting the world from a Catholic perspective. Here, the discussion concerning THE faith and MY faith are ushered in. MY faith refers to the person practicing the faith, yet such a faith is not private, since it is in the context of a believing community. Both MY faith and THE faith are important, because, for one, the objectivity of content of THE faith aid the person, the subject, in practicing THE faith.
3. THE faith is important because, as one, the community creates a discourse, studies the faith, and this allows for a flourishing of knowledge and the strengthening of understanding. “Faith seeking understanding” both heralds itself in MY faith as well as in THE faith. In this importance of MY faith and THE faith does Theology 131 lie in, for the topics of Marriage, Family Life, and Human Sexuality both focus on the person and the community. This is not to say that in 141 and 151 that an unequal importance is being exacted. Rather, in the progression from the person of Christ, from the person, an outward going-to-the-world is seen, and Theology 131 acts like a bridge from inwardness and praxis. Theology 121 focuses on the person of Christ, Theology 131 focuses on the believer, yet with the preview of the community which the believer will interact with, and Theology 141 focuses on the community, on society.
4. The courses are systematic and critical, and aim at knowing a multi-faceted truth. Such a goal may be achieved through nuancing.

2.     Christians are called “to love and follow Christ.”  (Practical Catechesis #301). This vocation to love (Familiaris Consortio #11) is both a universal and specific vocation (L. O’Connell), a universal call to holiness (Mk. 6) requiring an active and self-determined response.  The Blessed Virgin Mary (the forever yes girl who gave her eternal Fiat to God) and the saints remain our supermodels of faith and witnesses of holiness (Lumen Gentium).

1. Christians are called “to love and follow Christ.” This is the call to sonship, as O’Connell states in his article. And this call to sonship is both a universal and specific vocation because all are called to follow Christ, (all are called towards sonship), yet there are those who respond specifically, especially through the sacrament of Holy Orders. We break the problems posed by O’Connell (objectification, pre-determination, and selection), since vocation is a life-time response made in Baptism (not pre-determined, but we are all pre-destined to God). The call is universal, yet given the historical situation of man, the response is specific. In fact, one can choose not to follow the call to sonship, yet one becomes less of oneself, for, in the Catholic faith, Jesus Christ is the central historical medium and we herald from him the way of our lives.
2. This call to sonship is a universal call to holiness in that we come closer to God, and, given our imperfection, our brokenness, God completes us, and makes us whole. The call to sonship does not focus much on salvation, but perfection, oneness with God. And we become whole with God through following Christ, loving. Holiness, not happiness, is the achieved end of man, for holiness entails completion due to oneness with God.
3. This vocation requires an active and self-determined response as vocation is a life-time response. Vocation is a life-time response because the call to sonship entails surrendering (or saying “yes”) to God, returning to God, and such a call can only be addressed if the response were of a life-time’s period, for God does not stop calling us back to him. The response is active (as praxis, that which he can emulate from Christ’s work), and also creative (creative in that the response is unique as every person is, and historical, for the response to God’s call also is begotten from the status quo), and must be self-determined (because there needs to be initiative, there must be imbibed in one the desire to be whole with God through “putting on Christ.”
4. The Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints are models of faith because they have totally heeded to the call of God to be with him, and through such they have become whole with God. It is through their answering and “saying ‘yes’” unconditionally to God that they have come to be with God. Their response to vocation has led them to God, and one can infer that, knowing that vocation also is determined by one’s level of personal response, one must aim to respond to God’s call totally and unconditionally. This we can great from our models of faith.

3.     The key to moral life is the human person, considered in the light of both faith and reason. (CFC#682)  Theological anthropology reveals our identity based on both natural law (CFC#’s 687-691) and faith (CFC#685).  We are an interplay of choices, identity, fundamental stance, and time (T. O’Connell)

1. Morality, being a way of life, must be concretized, and can only be concretized by the human person, and this is considered in the context of both faith (from a Catholic perspective) as well as from reason (referring to human experience). For the human person, morality is a way of life, or simply “following Christ,” growing in Christ’s love and holiness. And this takes time, for shaping a moral life is difficult, and thus the need for God’s grace (through the Holy Spirit) must be given.
2. Focusing on the human person, in the need to know the agent to the moral life, the human person, we go to theological anthropology. Here, we find out that, anthropologically, human experience can be explained through natural law as well as from the empirical sciences. Intrinsically, metaphysically, we find out that

                                                               i.      man is open and relational (in need of others);

                                                              ii.      man is a conscious, rational being (can be aware, can know);

                                                            iii.      man has consciousness (yet becomes more humble with more knowledge);

                                                            iv.      man’s highest need would be self-actualization (or a furthering of potential)

                                                             v.      man is an embodied spirit (both important; soul animates body)

                                                            vi.      man moves, thinks, has will, has a reason to act

1.        spirit has a function of thinking and willing

2.        man created to love and be loved

                                                          vii.      man is a historical reality – environment-influenced historical situation

1.        learns from the mistakes of the past; process beings; human becomings

2.        bound in time – finitude, and the acceptance of finitude

                                                         viii.      man is unique, yet equal in dignity (must be balanced)

1.        fulfilled through originality, yet in consideration of others

                                                             ix.      man is a mystery – we know most, yet there is always more to know

3. Via scripture, we see that man is created in the image and likeness of God, and that we have spiritual qualities (forgiveness, passion, etc.), and that our identity is set upon the way, or ushered into the process of actualization, through baptism, as we become co-heirs in the kingdom of God. Such is our destiny, which also marks our identity.
4. O’Connell states that we are interplay of choices, identity, fundamental stance, and time, and that the human person can be known through such factors. Here, it can be said that human beings are both accountable and responsible for their actions, and that we are more than our actions although we cannot ourselves from our actions. This is so because there is no act outside the human person, no act separate from the human person. We are morally responsible because we are of choice. O’Connell likens the human person to the onion, which has many layers, and each layer cannot stand in itself.
5. Fundamental stance can be seen as a direction in a person’s life, and the fundamental option are pivotal instances which shape the person in developing his/her fundamental stance. The identity of a person can be what O’Connell calls non-reflex knowledge or knowledge of the self. What also makes for the identity of a person is transcendental freedom or freedom that involves choosing life over death. In actions, one can look at reflex knowledge, or knowledge that does not involve the person purely as person. Along with this is categorical freedom, or the freedom of choices not involving those in transcendental freedom. With time does fundamental stance deepen, and can only be completed in death. Fundamental stance is renewed by fundamental option.
6. We are persons in Christ. Christ dignified our body by becoming human. We are equal in dignity, as each person has inalienable rights.

4.     The human person is free due to his human nature.  He is morally obliged by Christ to follow the law.  Freedom coupled with moral obligation leads us to become more human and authentically ourselves. (CFC# 720, 694-697)

1. The human person has free will, and due to this the human person is free. This free will is not given, nor is it a human construct. Rather, it is intrinsic to man. Yet this free will must not be abused, since, as Christians, we are obliged by Christ to follow the law. Through the call to sonship, with Christ as the model for such, we take the example of Christ.
2. Moral choices are choices which are absolute, universal, objective, while non-moral choices lean more to preference. And we look to natural law and faith in determining objective wrong from right.
3. Authentic (freedom coupled with moral obligation) is a shared capacity which leads us to become more authentically human, and this can be seen through the exercise of responsibility, in a communal context.
4. Two levels of freedom can be seen which helps in the exercising authentic human freedom:

                                                               i.      Categorical freedom, wherein everyone is free and capable of choice

                                                              ii.      Fundamental freedom, wherein there is a need for becoming (self-actualization) through choice

5. Freedom must be seen in the context of communities, and is part of man’s identity. The freedom is seen within a historical context, wherein the freedom of choice can be considered as categorical freedom, and the freedom of self as transcendental freedom.
6. Why choose? It is inescapable. We live in time. Not choosing is choosing evil.
7. Authentic human freedom: being moral as consciously choosing the good; a shared capacity with others, for the good
8. Christ as source of freedom: through Christ, we choose the good and be good. Christ frees us from what stops us being fully free, and frees us for growing into loving persons in a community.
9. Laws: norms/rules to preserve freedom. Commitment: quality decision for the other. Responsibility: ability to respond by doing good.

5.     “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.”  (GS # 16) As man searches for the truth, the Magisterium illumines and guides the proper formation of the Christian conscience.

1. Conscience is an inner law (for the good) which is lain by God in man. For, if the law in conscience where to be man-made, then there would be sufficient reason for its breaking. Conscience is a calling to love, which is identified with God’s voice. Since conscience is a calling, it also elicits a response, for conscience is an inner voice telling us to do good and avoid evil. Conscience is the subjective norm of morality, which means that conscience resides in the person, yet must be informed by magisterial teaching.
2. Conscience pushes human beings to greater freedom, both objectively (the objectivity of the morality of an act being strictly objective) and also subjectively (for it is the human person who is the doer of the act). Since conscience pushes us to greater freedom, yet requires knowing and forming, it can be considered both a gift and a task. This is the dynamism of conscience. Pushing towards greater freedom, man can be become perfectly man, and such can be achieved through following one’s conscience as well as being informed.
3. Man must carefully form his conscience, since conscience can be informed by the media and the magisterium. One must also do the task of knowing. Being informed with the Magisterium is important because in the Magisterium is the collective wisdom of the Church, and also the teaching authority. The expertise and experience concerning faith matters resides in the Magisterium.
4. Thus, it is important to know Church stand and also why. One must be “enlightened and informed” in that one is informed in the magisterial teachings as well as actively search on one’s own. The magisterium has a positive and important role since we are limited; the church has the credentials in moral authority (given surviving for so long); and relying on magisterial teachings lessens blind followings.

6.     Contemporary moral theology carefully studies the morality of an act based on the three-source theory:  object of the act, intention and circumstances.  (CFC#711) While a few Catholic moral theologians recommend the use of proportionalism, the Magisterium espouses the morality of principles.  It stresses on truth, the centrality of moral absolutes as a requirement of love, and the protection of basic human goods from acts which are intrinsically evil. (Lawler et.al.)

1. The three-source theory: object of action, intention, and circumstance help in determining the morality of an act. All three must be considered together to make an adequate moral judgment. If focus is on the act alone, one forgets the person who engages in the act as well as the context. If focus is merely on intention, what is neglected is the objective nature of moral act. If focus on circumstances, one forgets the objective nature of act and forget all moral norms. All three dimensions must at least be neutral for an act to be considered morally right.
2. Proportionalism does not recognize moral absolutes and intrinsically evil acts, for proportionalism adheres to the utility found in consequentialism (the greatest happiness for the greatest number). Proportionalism focuses on the greater good against the lesser presence of evil, and this compromises the toleration of evil in our world that we seek to rid evil of. Proportionalism calls for the extensive evaluation of the consequences of an act, yet it is not possible to completely do such due to the complexity of moral action. Proportionalism compromises with the evil found in actions, and is done so as a rational justification, which means that the thought of the toleration of evil lies more in the realm of rational justification rather than on sacred scripture as well as in church tradition.
3. The Magisterium focuses on categorical principles, or principles that do not adhere to utility. It stresses on truth and the centrality of moral absolutes. What this means is that, in determining the morality of an act, what should be looked up are the categorical principles that go beyond utility. And since these principles go beyond utility, beyond the subjectivity of proportionalism, these principles are universally applicable and thus are objective. Since these moral absolutes are objective and universally applicable, these moral absolutes cannot be manipulated and are stable. There is no good reason for violating these principles, given their objectivity, though there are exceptions. And these moral absolutes are requirements of love, or that these universally applicable principles aid in one’s living in love of neighbor and reverence for what is good.
4. The morality of principles also includes the protection of basic human goods from intrinsically evil acts because the morality of principles protects the human person through the protection of his goods, of what is most valuable in a person as person. By protecting the goods of a person, moral absolutes protect the fulfillment of human persons, making them more human. The basic principle can be seen in the law of love (loving God above all things, loving one’s neighbor as one would oneself), which protects the human person from intrinsically evil acts (or evil acts in general, for evil acts never have proportionate reason for its doing. There are acts whose natures are intrinsically evil (regardless of analysis, intention, etc., which levies us, reminds us, since these acts go beyond our human nature as images of God.

7.     The contemporary view of sin (from T. O’Connell and CFC #773) deepens our understanding of sin’s evil mystery.  While sin continues to hurt, damage and destroy our relationships, the Sacrament of Reconciliation renews our hope for salvation amidst the sin-grace tension at work in us and in the world.  The season of Lent is a great opportunity for Reconciliation, as well as deeper moments of prayer, fasting and penance.

1. The contemporary view of sin takes sin as a function of the understanding of the self as a human person, and this understanding of the self can be viewed through discussing sin as a fact, act, and state. The mystery of sin is in the reality that we know most of sin (as we have done our share of sinning) yet there is more to know (as we cannot set fully a parameter unto sin).

                                                               i.      For sin as a fact, one observes the tragedy of the world and finds it to some extent sinful due to the grave happenings. There is suffering, sadness, and the like. Yet we accept such responsibility of changing this world. Looking at sin as a fact, although the origin of sin is beyond humanity, the guilt is put upon our shoulders. Yet we accept this guilt and strive for betterment. Though sin is not our fault, we are pushed into this situation, and thus must work towards goodness.

                                                              ii.      For sin as an act, one focuses on the deeds of human beings. We have all done our sharing of sinning, as we have, at times, refused God’s call to sonship, through following Christ, through ignoring our conscience. Our toleration and seldom submission to sin have had an adverse effect on the world, however trivial our actions may be.

                                                            iii.      For sin as a state, one can make sin one’s direction in life, one’s fundamental stance, as it were. Yet this leads to one’s total loss of freedom. One can choose sin over sanctity. Via scripture, for one’s information, the state of sin can be considered that “hardness” of heart, or stubbornness, created through selfish acts, leading to sin and a fractured perspective of the world.

                                                            iv.      Sin beyond breaking the law through actions, for sin does not reside in any particular act, but in the meaning of the action and the effect on the relationship with God and other persons. It is an exercise of freedom against one’s relation with God, a refusal of God’s love.

                                                             v.      CFC #773: Sin is seen as a spiral (from sinful acts to the sinful world, the never-ending cycle), a sickness that makes us weak, affects all of the person and eats away at the person, infecting other people, and a compulsive and obsessive addiction (difficult to stop, and can be unconsciously done when already habituated in it)

1.        venial sin – hurts relationship with God since it does not involve fundamental freedom yet; no conscious decision to go against God’s plan

2.        grave sin – damages the relationship with God, yet not engaged in evil in a definitive way

3.        mortal sin – destroys relationship with God, since one’s basic orientation is evil, conscious, consistent, constant refusal to do good; kills fundamental freedom.

                                                            vi.      Degrees of sinfulness consider:

1.        Nature – objectively wrong (yet now circumstances differ)

2.        Intention – awareness of the act (yet now moral culpability considered (evaluative knowledge on the part of the doer: how aware is the subject?)

3.        Circumstance – full conscious decision (yet now circumstances, situations considered)

b.       Reconciliation brings healing when we have sinned against God. It is a celebration of love and forgiveness. We humble ourselves and are sorry for our sins and commit to not do that again. And even when we fail, God remains faithful to forgive us again and again. Since we are process beings, we need to be renewed in reconciliation again and again, until we have shunned that particular sin. Bishop Tagle: forgiveness means that my love for you is greater than the pain/hurt you have caused me.  Nothing romantic about it, but all noble and pure, and Christ-like. Forgiveness unites.

c.        The season of Lent is a great opportunity for Reconciliation, as well as deeper moments of prayer, fasting and penance. The priest says: “Turn away from sin and receive the gospel” when applying ashes means absolving sin and uniting with God again through the gospel. Ashes are a sign of repentance. Prayer for sins allows for dialogue with God, as penance (through fasting, abstinence, etc.) make for greater concentration for prayer, as well as for disciplining the self from excesses, from the excesses of sin.

8.        A Christian view of human sexuality reveals it as a fundamental dimension of our person (NCDP # 287), that is both a blessing and a challenge.  Sexuality is for love, which implies commitment and the exercise of wisdom as seen in the example of the Blessed Trinity, as opposed to the popular misconceptions about it. (M. Scott Peck) Aquinas’ 3 tiered-paradigm (eros, philia and agape) deepens our understanding of love’s nuances.

a.        Sexuality as a fundamental dimension of our person means that sexuality signifies an essential dimension of the whole person, by which he/she enters into relationships with others. Interaction is inescapable, and sexuality allows the human person to reach out to other persons, especially those of the opposite sex. Sexuality is our relational power through which we can show understanding, openness, warmth, and compassion to others. Sexuality is for love, either married or celibate. Sexuality is a basic and essential good in the nature of human life because humans are sexual/sexed beings, and that men and women complement each other at all levels of personality and need each other. Sexuality is a powerful source urging us to go out of ourselves towards people of opposite sex and relate to others personally and not just physically/genitally. Love is more than sexuality but all love is sexual in a broad sense that it’s sexual persons who love. Thus, sexuality is gift and task, blessing and challenge. Sexuality is a challenge because it needs informing, control, as well as proper guidance (since sexuality is not static as a process). Chastity is important to sexuality because chastity allows for the appreciation and integration of one’s and others’ sexuality in all aspects. The challenge of sexuality comes from becoming the men and women that we are becoming, and not discipline.

b.       Sexuality is for love means that what is foremost in sexuality should be the love for neighbor, and all love is somehow sexual in that only sexual persons love. Contrary to popular belief, sexuality is not just romantic love and being couples. We are called to make use of this God-given gift of sexuality in relating to others, both men and women. Thus, procreation is not the foremost aspect of sexuality. It is an integral part, yet not an essential one. It is our relational power to show understanding, and the like, to those of the other sex, as well as the same sex. Thus, sexual intercourse is not sexuality.

c.        According the M. Scott Peck, falling-in-love is not love, since, usually, falling-in-love is more emotional and temporary, as love endures and is not continuously emotional. Falling-in-love is not a conscious choice due to its being instinctual. Another misconception about love is dependency. Love is not parasitism. Here, love becomes a necessity, and not a free exercise of will. Self-sacrifice is not love, too, because love must be made for its own sake, having no ulterior motive. Lastly, love is not a feeling, since love feels and integrates the unlovable, exercises commitment and wisdom, and is a conscious decision.

d.       M. Scott Peck presents eros, philia, and agape in order for us to understand love more fully.

                                                               i.      Eros: a taking kind of love which one one-sided, similar to infatuation love. It involves a one-sided kind of wanting. Eros is an instinctive, one-way kind of love, and does not give. It involves the natural desires, including the urge to procreate. Included also is the basic directedness, or that love is focused toward the person seeking.

                                                              ii.      Philia: a requited love, and is bi-lateral and interdependent. Love is exchanged and mutual. Each party wants goodness for the other as much as the self. Philia is called love of friendship – has mutuality and benevolence (disposition to do good and be kind and generous) w/c is absent in eros. Philia is more rational and voluntary. Philia is very the basis of society; interdependent equals pursuing similar good. Philia leads to fairness, justice; laws, agreements and covenants come in based on philia. 1^st friendship b/w man and woman; sexual mutuality properly in philia even if started w/ eros (Adam’s wow –eros, attraction). It is within the family that philial love is expressed, witnessed, and learned. Philia can be referred to as affectionate love.

                                                            iii.      Agape: a giving kind of love; unilaterally self-less and totally generous when none can be given. This is the love that God gives, and human beings can only love in such a way with grace. Call to agape requires philia. Practice of agape compensates for lack of philia due to excesses in eros. Agape is a spiritual and altruistic giving w/o taking.  It is proper to God and a privilege of humanity.

9.        More than a human institution as historically presented (Schillebeeckx), marriage is a sacrament – dynamic and process-oriented, drawing from rich Scriptural images.  God’s plan for marriage (CCC #1603) calls the married couple to share in Christ’s Paschal mystery (Mackin), as bread broken and wine poured (D’Souza). The couple draws strength from the cross of Christ, as well as by living out the sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist, both patterns of the cross – the supreme symbol of love.

a.        Marriage is indeed more than a human institution as historically presented by Schillebeeckx, since marriage must be looked at beyond marriage as merely the sustenance of production in businesses, or having more hands in agricultural settings. Marriage as a human institution can be seen through seeing marriage as:

                                                               i.      Contract (agreement to it)

                                                              ii.      Spiritual association (marriage subject to beliefs, routines of the communities involved)

                                                            iii.      Social estate (marriage subject to the laws of the local community)

                                                            iv.      Natural institution (marriage subject to the laws of reason, nature, union etc.)

b.       Marriage can also be seen as a permanent union (unconditional commitment marked by life-time union); exclusive union; formal contract; and a natural union (union surpasses all other unions). Marriage is about fidelity to the person one loves.

c.        CCC#1603:  “Marriage is not just a purely h institution, despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures and spiritual attitudes.  These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics.  Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures.  The well-being of the individual person and of both humans and the Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.”

d.       In the sacramental marriage, human reality is transformed into a sacrament. Marriage has its authorship in God.  The Church calls marriage: covenant; sacred agreement; communion of life and love with special laws from God Himself; not just social institution or man-made structure, but one blessed by God Himself; not just a state of affair, but holy since blessed by God. Jesus himself even raised marriage to a sacrament through blessing the wedding of Canaan. In the marriage of two Christians: God does something, is central; love is held sacred; Christ is present.

e.        God’s plan for marriage calls the married couple to share in Christ’s Paschal  mystery. All Christian spouses can make their marriage into a sacrament (with help from the Holy Spirit). Paschal mystery, as defined as God’s effort to draw men and women back to Himself through Jesus’ humanity, is carried on through marriage as a sacrament (the Church being the foundational sacrament) through Christ (primordial sacrament; through the physical manifestation of God, or through the revelation of God, Christ).

f.         D’Souza: The seven sacraments are ritual sacraments which make present, and not merely commemorate the Paschal mystery. The seven sacraments are not merely the visible signs, but present the work and service found in that sacrament (in marriage, it is the couple itself. The couple draws strength from the cross of Christ, as well as by living out the sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist, both patterns of the cross – the supreme symbol of love. Sacrament is a sign, ritual manifesting a meaning, act out an intention to produce effect by the very acting out. It’s the cultural meaning, human intention, God’s intention that makes a ritual a sacrament. Christ must really be present in the couple, being an integral part of their lives, in order for a marriage to be a sacrament, carefully and stably guided through Christ.

                                                               i.      D’Souza: “Wine of love will ripen over years.” Reproduces the love of Christ for the Church. Couple will pour out blood for each other. Strength to say it and live it out daily comes from cross of Christ and by living Sac of M and Eucharist, both being patterns of the cross, the supreme symbol of love. Such is so given the five features of God’s plan in marriage (to be one, in God’s image, to leave and cleave), and because (Sexuality is for giving life, for relationships, and for our fulfillment in God’s image)             

10.     Based on the theology of marriage, Church law articulates the essential properties of marriage:  unity and indissolubility. It tackles impediments leading to the declaration of nullity, dissolution of the bond and special kinds of marriages.

a.        Unity and indissolubility are essential properties of marriage because, for one, it allows for stability. Marriage is defined as a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life and which, by its very nature, is ordered to the well being of the spouses and to the procreation and the upbringing of children.

                                                               i.      Declaration of nullity – “Annulment.” There was an external celebration of marriage, yet the validity of the marriage is being questioned. The substance of marriage was not really there.

1.        consent given was not legally capable (due to an impediment)

2.        defective consent or completely lacking

3.        illegitimately manifested consent

                                                              ii.      Divorce or dissolution of the bond – there is a valid marriage. Church gives three mechanisms to dissolve an existing marriage bond:

1.        Pauline privilege

2.        Privilege of the faith

3.        dissolution of a non-consummated marriage.

                                                            iii.      Invalid and non-existent marriages – there is an appearance of marriage. Inexistent means there was no public celebration. Cohabitation is an inexistent marriage. Invalid marriages are legally recognized, while inexistent marriages are not. Invalid marriages are if it is contracted by a person who is not legally capable of giving consent due to the presence of an impediment.

                                                            iv.      Impediments rising from personal capacity to give consent

1.        Age

2.        Impotence

3.        Previous bond

4.        Sacrament of orders

5.        Public perpetual vow of chastity

6.        Disparity of cult

                                                             v.      Impediments arising from specific criminal acts related to marriage: abduction and crime

1.        Abduction – woman is abducted and detained against her will

2.        Conjungicide – brings about the death of the spouse

                                                            vi.      Impediments from relationship

1.        Consanguinity – (fourth degree collateral; third and fourth dispensation)

2.        Affinity – relatives of the spouse who dies. Affinity in the consanguinity of the spouse. Can marry the sister of wife.

3.        Public propriety

4.        Legal relationship

b.       Contesting validity: defective consent: elements (intellectual or cognitive, volitive and the freedom; psychosomatic)

                                                               i.      Validity based on knowledge: (invalidating identity (invalidating unless directly intended), deception). There must be sufficient knowledge and must be posited freely and directed towards a proper object

1.        Simulation

2.        Under duress (pressure, parental, etc.)

                                                              ii.      Psychosomatic elements :

1.        Lack of due reason (no full use of rational faculties)

2.        Lack of due discretion (inability to critically analyze)

3.        Lack of due competence (psychic difficulty)

c.        Defect of form:

                                                               i.      Inter-religion marriage

                                                              ii.      Lack of witnesses

d.       Dissolution of the bond:

                                                               i.      Of natural marriage, through the Pauline privilege (one converts to Christianity, and the other refuses to accept, follow, etc.)

                                                              ii.      Of sacramental marriage which is not consummated. Super rato.

e.        Special kinds of marriages

                                                               i.      Mixed marriages

                                                              ii.      Disparity of cult

11.     Christian sexual morality is based on human nature, where sex is both sacred and sacramental. (Kreeft) Violations of our nature are seen in sexual lies (like adultery, pre-marital sex/fornication) and altered symbols of sex (like masturbation, pornography, homosexual activity, artificial birth control, and radical/gender feminism). These contradict the two-fold purpose of sex according to God’s design.

a.        Kreeft: misconceptions of sex being evil and taboo; sex should occupy most of our concerns. But sex should be unitive and procreative. Sex is for life and love, and both are important equally. The quest of intercourse is unity, and not pleasure (though pleasure cannot be separated from the act). Spousal bonding,    being mates for life (procreation not ending with conception) aid human beings in ushering new life in the sacrament of sex. Kippley: God created sex for marriage and He made the basic rules for both. Sex is meant to be within marriage. When you mess with this plan, you will get burned.

b.       Sexual sin: today, no one sees sex as sacred anymore. Sex is sacred and sacramental, as both point to the reality of God (creator, parent, etc.). Sex is sacred because procreation is sacred. God Himself creates life. Marital union, intimacy, and erotic pleasure are sacred. They mirror the self-giving and the self-forgetfulness of the Trinity. Sexual sin is a blasphemy.

c.        Sexual lies: when the word does not correspond to what is true, it is a lie. Sexual lies include adultery, intercourse without love, fornication. Having a firm foundation (“sexual cement”) is important to the flourishing of the conjugal relationship.

d.       Altered symbols of sex:

                                                               i.      Masturbation

                                                              ii.      Pornography: objectifies both the person(s) and the sex act. Gives a morally disordered character; removes the intimacy of the couple in the act since it shows the act to third parties. Objectification of the couple in intercourse.

                                                            iii.      Homosexual activity: no true intercourse; no procreative aspect. No known cause. Difference between orientation and sexual activity. Homosexual orientations are disorderly insofar as it hints at homosexual acts. Homogenital relations do not go beyond themselves, as compared to heterogenital relations. Immaturity. Homosexual acts intrinsically disordered b/c lack essential and indispensable finality.  But should say, inclination to homosexuality even if not sin, is objectively disordered in itself.  IF don’t, end up either tolerating homosexual activity or ending up in despair. Disorder in that it does not seek perfection; has no good purpose. No procreation. Relation between man and God is based on the analogy of man and woman. Homosexuality isn’t only a deliberately chosen and consciously justified lifestyle, but actually a sin against the Spirit w/c denies order of nature and attempts to make its own w/o reference to God.

                                                            iv.      Artificial birth control, contraception:  love is life-giving. It has fruit. Contraception enjoys the pleasure, yet refuses the fruit. Abortifacients found in contraceptives. Condoms: does not necessarily prevent AIDS. False sense of security in condom usage (barrier method). Contraception mentality tempts abortion when unwanted life is conceived. Contraception contradicts the whole truth of sexual acts as proper expression of conjugal love. Abortion destroys the life of a human being.

                                                             v.      Feminism (radical feminism/gender feminism): undermines man, supporting the independence of women from men, which distorts the natural structure of families. Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the Sixties. This is a revolutionary, not a reformist, movement, and it is meeting with considerable success.  Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature. Equates the class struggle found in communism as the gender struggle of women against men. Many feminists quote Marx.

                                                            vi.      Babies for sale: sperm donation (requiring masturbation). Procreation does not occur in the context of the unitive relationship. No parents, no relationship. No expression of parents’ love.

12.     The Church recognizes God as the author of life. Since life is a natural gift from God, we are called to uphold all forms of life, from womb to tomb. Any act that destroys life is a serious moral evil. Current life issues include in-vitro fertilization, abortion, the overpopulation myth and reproductive health.

a.        Abortion: termination of pregnancy resulting in the loss of life of a fetus that has developed to be a person. "Human  life  is  sacred  because  from  its  beginning  it  involves  'the  creative action  of  God',  and  it  remains  forever  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, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to  destroy  directly  an  innocent  human  being.” reasons no matter how serious and tragic, can’t ever justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. scientific research provides indication of personal presence at moment of human life.  But even the mere probability of human person would suffice to justify an absolutely CLEAR PROHIBITION of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo.  "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception.” Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. PAS, PASS.

b.       In-vitro fertilization: fertilization in a Petri dish. This seems to be at the service of life, yet it actually opens the door to new threats of life. It separates procreation from the fully human context of the conjugal act. Spare embryos destroyed or disposed in the process. Moral condemnation of procedures that exploit living embryos.

c.        Overpopulation myth: more political in origin. Mother Teresa says flowers. Some myths include:

                                                               i.      Overcrowded world and population growth is adding overwhelming numbers of humans to a small planet. Condensed areas only. (1%-3%)

                                                              ii.      Overpopulation is causing global warming:

                                                            iii.      Air pollution is the result of overpopulation, and acid rain, a byproduct of air pollution, is destroying lakes, rivers, and forests: water and air pollution highest in low or negative population growth areas.

                                                            iv.      Plant and animal depletion due to overpopulation: more species than initially estimated.

                                                             v.      Overpopulation is threatening world food supply: on the contrary, world food supplies exceed all areas in terms of requirements.

                                                            vi.      Overpopulation is the chief cause of poverty: it is the result of bad economic policy. Economic policies must be well made and be used to solve economic problems. This must not be blamed on overpopulation.

                                                          vii.      Men and women throughout the world are begging for the means to control their fertility: not so. In some countries, birth is encouraged.

                                                         viii.      Overpopulation causes war and revolution: bad governments and not many people (Africa as most evenly spread population per land area, yet with bad governments.)

d.       If one neglects human capital, then the country would be in danger. There is a decline of birth rates in the world today.

e.        Reproductive health: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations  practiced:  some  individuals are held to be deserving of defense and others are denied that dignity?" When  this  happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a  genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State  itself has already begun.

                                                               i.      To claim the abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to  attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). Reproductive health includes abortion. Eventually leads through abortion through use of conditioning terms. There will be a need for abortion in a contraceptive lifestyle.

                                                              ii.      Sex education will not solve the problem.