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.