Secular Catholics object to Church teaching saying that the Church has failed to “keep up with the times,” especially on moral and political issues. This misconception is rooted in secular thinking and built upon a false paradigm. Secular Catholics look at the world through some non-Catholic cultural or political lens, causing them to want to change much of Church teaching. At the very least, the Secular Catholic has failed to embrace the fullness of Catholic teaching; worst case scenario, he has committed the sin of “the apostasy of perfidy” (that is, the wholesale abandoning of the faith).
The general case has already been made that IF we are made for God and IF God provided the Church to get us to Him, then we should believe all (and not just some) of what the Catholic Church teaches. We are often asked to defend—indeed, even by many Catholics—why the Church continues to teach a certain position on everything from birth control to same-sex marriage, whereas culture has clearly evolved on such issues. What reason, however, is there to believe that this “evolution” of viewpoints is real progress? Many don’t even ask this question of themselves. Instead, they hold the implicit presumption that whatever is new, must be good. This assumption flies in the face of what most Christians, and, indeed, most people, have believed about life since time immemorial: that things need to be tested in order to prove their value and worth. And that includes ideas and attitudes toward morality.
The Nature of Morality
Morality is not like the advancement of technology or science. They are completely separate kinds of knowledge. Science and technology deal with what is, and what we can do, based on the physical laws of nature. Morality deals with the question of what we should do based on the deeper meaning of who we are as human beings, and our relation to the world around us. Morality is a matter of making judgments upon human behavior, and is a field of study within philosophy and theology; whereas science and technology are matters of empirical research and the practical achievements of humanity.
Morality, then, makes judgments upon the advancements of science and technology, and in two areas: 1) how we arrived at these advances, and 2) how we make use of these advances. For example, babies are sometimes aborted in order to provide “material” for medical advances. Sound morality has something to say about that. Some technological developments or discoveries, in physics for example, are used for the slaughter of countless people. Morality has something to say about that too.
Just because an idea is new does not mean that it must, therefore, be better. So, what could be the relevant difference to help us decide? How exactly are we to determine truly right from wrong behavior? Is Divine Revelation—“what God tells us”—the only way to know right and wrong? Let us make some observations to help us answer these questions.
Morality: Some Distinctions
Let’s establish some fundamentals concerning how the Catholic Church approaches the moral life.
- Contrary to moral relativism, which says “whatever I believe is right, is right for me,” the Catholic Church’s moral teaching is never arbitrary;
- Instead, morality is ultimately grounded in God;
- And after its source in God, morality is (proximately) grounded in human nature.
To the first point, the Catholic Church’s moral teachings are not arbitrary. She bases her moral teachings on the solid ground of both God’s revelation and on human nature. Thus, to understand Catholic moral teaching is to understand the blueprint for human flourishing. God made us; so we should live according to His commands, and according to the very patterns that He has established in our nature. Morality, then, is not arbitrary, and therefore is not something that oppresses us. Morality is rational, and is therefore able to liberate us.
The second point is related. To make sense of good and evil—and especially of notions such as perfect goodness, perfect justice, perfect mercy, and perfect love—there must be some transcendent standard that we are assuming. As C.S. Lewis once remarked, you cannot make sense of a crooked line without first understanding the concept of a straight line.[1] But, we find no instances of perfect goodness in the material world, only deficiency.
God, then, provides a sound foundation for objective moral values and obligations. God is the fullness of being as such — with no limits, lacks, boundaries, privations, or defects. God just is that perfectly good standard by which all moral assessments are ultimately performed. No God = no morality. This is true whether the person believes in God or not.
In other words, whatever else we want to say of morality, we cannot make sense of morality without God. Moral perfection has to be located somewhere for us to be able to access it. And it is “located” in the nature of God, from whom we all come. With respect to the moral law, then (God’s commandments and the moral teachings of His Church), we must say that God’s commands reflect God’s nature, which is perfect goodness itself. That means that whatever God says is good, isn’t good because God says so, but because God is so. Therefore, whatever God wills is for our good—that which promotes our flourishing and helps us to attain our proper end—because God, being perfectly good, wills and can will nothing less.
Now on to the third point. While morality is ultimately determined by God, it can be discerned by reflecting upon human nature. This approach is known as “traditional natural law.”[2] Here is a condensed account of it: we say something is good when it exemplifies (or gets close to exemplifying) an ideal instance of the kind of thing it is. For example, we say that a dog with only three legs is not “whole.” We may still love such dogs and care for them, but we can see that something which should be there (a fourth leg), is not there. A due good is missing, a “privation.” Such privation is the hallmark of badness.
So far, this example is about non-moral matters. Morality enters the discussion with rational animals, that is, human beings — with intellect and will. Intellect and will allow humans to choose freely to pursue what is good or evil. What, then, determines what is truly good for us? The short answer is: human nature (although our nature is more complicated than other animals). Reflecting upon that nature can help us to discover what is good and bad for us, and therefore what is right or wrong for us to do.
Let’s give an example of such reflection. Human nature includes the power of reason. And the fulfilment of reason is truth (truth perfects reason; truth is the goal of reason). If these premises are true, then it follows that it is good for humans to use reason to know truth and avoid error.[3]
But, a big part of coming to know the truth must be to come to know the source of all truth, namely God. This means that part of our perfection as humans is inherently bound up in our coming to know God. To will against God in any way, then, is an immoral act, because it is pointing a person away from their proper end. Therefore, atheism is actually immoral, as it is contrary to human nature.
Let’s give another example. If reason has a proper end, then so do the other faculties (powers) of the human person.[4] As in our earlier example, eyesight is for seeing, and so it would be immoral for a person to gouge out his or her eyes intentionally. Another example is the sexual faculty, which has the proper end of reproduction. Lastly, there is also the digestive faculty which is for nutrition. To frustrate willfully the natural end (perfection) of any of these faculties is disordered and an inherently immoral act.
Think about it: if you see someone perform an act of self-mutilation, you’d hopefully shout, “You shouldn’t do that, it’s bad for you!” For the sexual faculty, mistaking pleasure as the end of sex debases the reverence that is inherent within the sexual act.[5] Like mutilating a body part, debasing the act of sex is bad for us. This fact is at least partly why homosexual acts are gravely immoral.[6] They are inherently sterile, not life-giving, and therefore lack the very thing that binds hardship, responsibility, and maturity to sexual pleasure; and therefore promote selfish pleasure-seeking. Lastly, for the digestive faculty, over-eating and burdening our digestive system is gluttony. Bypassing or aborting the digestive system is bulimia. Gluttony is not about nutrition, but transgresses the bounds of nutrition, leading to health problems and obesity. Bulimia separates nutrition from the pleasure of eating.
When we recognize abuses, as in these examples, it is our intuition of the natural law. In such moments, we don’t use semi-technical jargon, we just act on common sense: “that’s wrong!” or “that’s gross!” Scripture recognizes this intuition when it teaches that the natural law is written on our hearts.[7] What the Church teaches on morality is grounded both on philosophical reflection of this kind, and on God’s revelation. The ethical project can begin with reason, but must let God’s revelation complete it.
Example Dialogue
Secular Catholics usually need to be educated on proper moral reasoning. Now that we’ve explored traditional natural law theory, let’s see how we might engage a “Secular Catholic” in a real-life conversation.
[Evangelist stands near a street corner with rosaries in hand. He smiles and says hello to passerby.]
Evangelist: Would you like a rosary?
Passerby: Oh sure, why not. You can never have too many of these [chuckles]!
E: You’re a Catholic?
P: I am, yeah, the thing is I think the Catholic Church is holding onto a lot of baggage; they’re just making more problems for themselves.
E: Can you give me an example?
P: Sure, take gay people: how can they ever feel welcome in the Church? [Shakes head] The Church really needs to get with the times, as society has evolved.
E: Well, there are many who feel that way. What I find so attractive about the Catholic Church is the consistency of its moral teachings. Let me ask you, what do you think makes an action moral or immoral?
P: If someone consents to an activity, and if it’s not harming anyone, then I don’t see a problem.
E: Ok, what about if someone wanted to kill themselves? Would that be ok?
P: I personally would never kill myself, but, if that’s what a person really wants, then why should anybody stop them?
E: Yes, I understand that. After all, a person’s freedom to make decisions is tied into what makes us human. But how could we value a “personal” decision that leads to somebody’s death?
P: OK, but suicide is an extreme example.
E: True, but it is, unfortunately, not all that uncommon. In this example, I’ve tried to show that just because we can make a decision, just the ability to choose something doesn’t make it right or good. So there has to be another way to figure out how something is right or wrong.
P: Maybe, but what does any of this have to do with the Church’s obsession with peoples’ sex lives?
E: Well, if we are going to talk about what is right or wrong, it will come down to a couple of areas: namely the human person, and the way that the Church understands that.
P: Ok, go on.
E: It is the Church’s job to get people to heaven. No one, however, goes to heaven without loving God. Part of what it means to love God is to accept that we have been created in His image and likeness. In practical terms, truth means we are created in a certain way and we have to act accordingly. The Church provides the means to do this, primarily through receiving the sacraments, but also guiding people in the moral life, to live a good life.
P: Ok, I think I know where you are going with this, but how does what I do in private matter?
E: Well, morality is not simply a question of ‘what should I do?’ It is also about ‘how should I live?’ That question includes things like character, social interactions, how we treat ourselves, etc.
P: But how can what goes on in one’s bedroom, for instance, affect society at large?
E: It doesn’t necessarily, but we can’t say that morality doesn’t apply to something done in private either.
P: What do you mean?
E: Morality does not cease to exist at your bedroom door. It applies to actions that you do both in public as well as in private.
P: You can’t be serious?!
E: I am! After all: “it’s not what a man does publicly that reveals his character. Rather, it is what he does when he is alone.”
P: Yes, I’ve heard that saying before but I don’t think it applies in this context.
E: But it does apply here. If things like morality and character don’t apply to something done “in private,” then that saying makes no sense. Private actions reveal inner character, and the inner characters of people affect their public actions and eventually reverberate out into the larger society.
P: Ok, I see your point there, but what about the fact that many gay people don’t feel welcome at church?
E: Well, what do you mean unwelcome? Were they insulted by someone at the door or do they feel unwelcome because their lifestyle is not accepted by the Church?
P: I think it is most likely the second reason.
E: I agree. Some people don’t feel welcome knowing that their behavior is at odds with Church teaching.
P: Ok, but that’s my point. That teaching needs to change!
E: What if the teaching is true and good? Let’s use another example. Think of bulimia. People shouldn’t eat and then make themselves throw up, right? And when you hear of that, we naturally think, “That seems wrong. People shouldn’t do that!” Why do we think that? Well, human actions have a proper end, and the proper end of eating is not the pleasure of the food, but the nutrition it gives us.
P: What does this have to do with sex, though?
E: Sex also has a proper end that’s part of nature: procreation. Within that act, there is a union formed between a man and a woman, which is essential to the proper rearing of children. Same-sex behavior can never result in procreation. It is therefore sinful. The Church, then, could never endorse it.
P: Isn’t that a little harsh?[8] I mean, is it really any of our business to meddle in people’s sex lives?
E: I think that the question really comes down to whether or not we think moral rules on sexual matters exist. If they do, then we should care for other people’s moral and spiritual health.
P: But, again, what people decide to do is not necessarily any of my business.
E: Well, let me ask you, if you took away a drunken friend’s car keys and called them a cab, is that good or bad?
P: Well, that’s good.
E: So, you’re telling me that denying a drunk person their ability to drive themselves home is good?
P: Well, yeah, I mean, I wouldn’t want them to get hurt!
E: That [pauses for a second] is exactly my point. We believe that when someone uses God’s great gift of sexuality in the wrong way, they hurt themselves and their relationship with God.
P: [Thinks for a moment] OK, I can’t say I’m entirely sold, but I see what you’re saying. [sighs] You’ve given me something to think about. Anyway, I gotta get going.
E: Thank you for the conversation! Before you go, can I give you this pamphlet/booklet? You might find it helpful and interesting.
P: Thanks, that’d be fine. What do you have? [E hands P information]
Concluding Thoughts
In the end, the Church does not simply teach us what the moral life is, but, like a mother, nurtures and feeds us so that we have the strength to live it. While we can understand moral behavior through Catholic teaching, we can only live morally by allowing God to perfect us through the prayer and Sacraments of the Church.
[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001), 31. A PDF of the book is available online.
[2] See Edward Feser, Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide (Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications, 2009).
[3] Reason is particularly characteristic of human beings and the contemplation of truth is one of the (if not the) highest ends of human activity. An “end” is a “perfection” and is often a dynamic activity. For example: fire heating. A good fire is one that heats. An “end,” in this sense, is not the extinguishing of the fire. Rather, the “end” is the fact of the fire’s heating. By heating, the fire is fulfilling its purpose. By reasoning well, man fulfills his purpose. To argue that there are no ends in nature, especially to reason, is self-defeating. Any argument that one could give against reason being directed toward (and perfected by) truth assumes the very thing being argued against. If reason is not perfected by truth, then a person has no grounds to say whether a person is reasoning well or reasoning poorly! It’s only by knowing that reason inherently aims at truth that we can make such an assessment.
[4] Humans have an array of faculties, the flourishing of which promotes the flourishing of the human person (as a human person). On the flip side, the frustration of these faculties diminishes the flourishing of the human person. It prevents in some way (either small or large) the human person from attaining his or her final perfection.
[5] Sexual ethics is just one of many of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, but since that teaching is against many contemporary presumptions about sex, it tends to procure a lot of attention. The Church considers, however, the whole of the human person, not just the procreative, and every person has their own set of temptations.
[6] Catholics do not believe that people with same-sex attraction are immoral. Rather, the behavior is immoral.
[7] Cf. Romans 1: 19-32; 2:14-15.
[8] The evangelist should be aware that at this point of the conversation, he or she could be accused of being “homophobic.” While “homophobia” is a difficult topic to discuss, the evangelist should make sure that the term is properly defined from the outset and that he or she is clear to state that they do not “hate,” much less fear, people with same-sex attraction. The evangelist should also be especially sensitive to any person who appears to be very emotionally invested in his or her stance on homosexuality. For more information, be sure to look at St. Paul Street Evangelization’s tracts on homosexuality by Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers and by Dr. Janet Smith.