Introduction

Definition

What is Christian ethics and what is its task?

Christian ethics is a scientific teaching whose task is the development of the moral principles of the Gospel, which the Christian ought to have as the canon of his moral life.

For such a task, what is it fitting that it be called?

Because of this work of ethics, it is fitting that it be called the science of Christian character, since through the development of the moral principles of the Gospel it seeks the harmony of character with those principles.

How else can it be called?

It can also be called the science of the highest good, because in the harmony of character with the moral principles of the Gospel is found the highest good, this innate longing of the human being.

What does Christian ethics do as the moral canon of the Christian life?

a) It shows all Christians what is in agreement and what is in disagreement with the evangelical principles; b) what perfects and gives life to the spiritual human being, and what corrupts and kills the human being made in the image of God; c) it provides stability in the good through habit and makes those who keep the moral canon unshakable workers of the moral virtues; and d) it perfects them and shows them worthy of eternal blessedness, of eternal life, and fulfills the longing for the highest good.

The Necessity and Relation of Ethics to Dogmatics

What is the necessity of ethics, and what is its relation to dogmatics?

The formation of moral teaching as a distinct discipline is as necessary as the discipline of dogmatics, the discipline of Catechesis, and of Sacred Scripture. Since dogmatics examines the dogmatic principles of the Gospel in their relation to God and investigates God as the first cause of all things, as Creator, sustainer, and provider of creation, and investigates and develops the dogmatic principles of the Gospel so that the faithful may know what they ought to believe, so also Christian ethics, examining the moral principles of the Gospel and the human being as a rational and self-determining being capable of being perfected, teaches what the human being ought to do in order to become perfect and a partaker of divine blessedness and goodness. Dogmatics has the relation of God toward the human being, while ethics has the relation of the human being toward God. “We love him because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19).

Ethics is faith developed in the Christian into a living power. Dogmatics presents what God has done, does, and will do for the fulfillment of his good will. Ethics, on the other hand, presents what the human being does and ought to do freely on account of these things for the realization of the kingdom of God and the attainment of the highest good.

The Task of Ethics

Having such a task, Christian ethics sets out to teach the Gospel principles, developing them according to

the spirit of the Holy Scriptures and sacred tradition, to discover the connection of the moral law to the spiritual law, that is, to the law of the human intellect, according to what the apostle Paul said: “But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my intellect and making me captive to the law of sin which is in my members.” (Romans 7:23), which he also calls the written law written in our hearts (Romans 2:14), and to demonstrate the affinity and harmony between the moral law and the spiritual law, and that the spiritual powers of man are receptive to moral teaching, and the power of man’s moral freedom, through which he is able to choose the good, to exercise himself in the practice of the good, and through moral perfection to become holy and a likeness of the God who created him.

The Relation of Christian Ethics to Philosophical Ethics

Christian ethics agrees with philosophical ethics regarding the origin of moral laws, insofar as Christian ethics teaches that the moral law is written in the hearts of men, and likewise true philosophical ethics agrees with Christian ethics in viewing the natural legislation innate in the human spirit as divine legislation, because philosophical ethics, accepting the human spirit as a creation of the absolute spirit, consequently regards the absolute spirit, God, as the cause of the moral law in man. Both philosophical ethics and Christian ethics seek the same goal: the moral formation of the human being.

But philosophical ethics is a science of the moral life of the human being as it is defined by the natural relation of the human being to God in creation, whereas Christian ethics is a science teaching about the moral life of the human being as it is defined by the relation established in redemption. So the first, philosophical ethics, as it forms the natural human being, can serve as a preliminary discipline and preparatory introduction to the second. Philosophical ethics, springing from right reason alone and knowing nothing of sin and grace, gives various moral canons and demands a moral life without at the same time pointing out the means by which it can be achieved. But Christian ethics, grounded in the revealed word of God and knowing the sinfulness of the human being, teaches at the same time how the moral life is achieved. The first presents the moral as a product of the natural human being’s power, while the second, acknowledging the natural power of the human being, presents the moral as properly an energy of divine grace. “Without me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from you, the Father of lights” (James 1:17). “For it is God who is at work in us both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). The human being achieves ethics through himself and is strong in all things through Jesus Christ himself. The first ascends from the particular to the general, and gathering together various kinds of morality and virtue, it strives to ascend to the ideal and absolute, which has never existed for it and consequently which it only imagines and fabricates.

The latter, having before it the ideal and absolute model in the historical person of Jesus Christ, seeks to apply this model to each individual case. Thus the first works empirically and analytically, while the second works systematically and synthetically. For these reasons, Christian ethics, as it surpasses philosophical ethics in its sources, content, means, and method, is the only true, secure, and life-giving ethics.

The Superiority and Demonstration of the Power of Christian Ethics from Its Transformative Power.

Christian ethics far surpasses philosophical ethics, because while philosophical ethics seeks to establish its moral principles on the reasonings of human intellect, which does not provide complete certainty nor inspire absolute confidence in itself, Christian ethics provides both certainty through reason and certainty through works, and draws to itself the absolute confidence of the faithful, because it both persuades their intellect, speaking eloquently about what it discusses, and fully assures their heart, and refashions, renews, perfects the whole human being, and reveals him as the image of God.

When was the power and superiority of Christian ethics demonstrated?

The power and superiority of the ethics of the Gospel was demonstrated from the very beginning, because as soon as Christianity received the nations that were held captive by many and various passions and taught them Christian ethics, immediately the moral life of these nations was transformed, and those who were formerly passionate and morally corrupted, and those who had nothing sound, and even those who were completely depraved, were morally reborn, refashioned, and through the ethics of the Gospel were perfected and revealed as the image and likeness.[1]

What entire ages were unable to accomplish, Christian ethics achieved in a short time with the utmost perfection.

All that has been accomplished from the manifestation of Christ until today—all that the entire Christian world and humanity take pride in: the great moral achievements, equality, freedom, brotherhood, the lofty concepts concerning the human being, moral constitutions, philanthropic institutions, the moral bond that unites all humanity through love—these are beautiful fruits and noble products of the principles of Christian ethics.

Evidence of Superiority from the Satisfaction of the Intellect and the Heart.

Christian ethics provides not only correct and sufficient principles for a right moral life, but also speaks with conviction and certainty concerning the three most important questions that occupy the human intellect: concerning God, concerning the human being, concerning salvation. And this is the great merit of Christian ethics: because it is concerning these things that the human being chiefly desires to be informed, so that he may build the edifice on a firm foundation of his moral life. For no one can build his own moral life firmly on uncertain and shaky foundations, nor is anyone convinced by contemplation alone, but he also seeks confirmation from practice, from what has actually happened, so that he may be persuaded and assured, as it were through direct perception, of the validity of the principles being advocated. For practice is truly the witness to the validity of theories.

The Necessity of Revelation.

This demand of the human spirit explains to us the reason for the barrenness of philosophical ethics. The inability and incapacity of human reason to moralize humanity and to satisfy the longings of the human heart and the demands of the human spirit, attested by experience, explains the reason for the necessity of divine revelation. For humanity desired to be assured, desired to hear the voice of revelation, so that it might be persuaded, so that it might be confirmed and lay an unshakable foundation for the moral edifice.

Humanity desired to receive divine help for the regulation and direction of its moral powers toward the good. Humanity was aware that it needed some supernatural strengthening through divine grace in order to regulate its moral life and be guided toward the moral good. Humanity was aware that it had sinned against God, that sin, acting upon the natural and moral powers of man, drove him toward evil—from which comes his inclination toward evil, which Scripture also testifies, saying: “The mind of man is inclined toward evil from his youth,” and that man was unable by himself to return to the good. Humanity was aware that it had need of divine strengthening. This is what the wise Socrates, the teacher of ethics, also said when he declared: “you would continue sleeping unless God sent someone to care for you” (Apology of Socrates I), because although he taught about ethics as no one else before him, nevertheless his teaching on ethics bore no fruit. because his words lacked divine authority, and they were seeking precisely that authority. These words of the wise Socrates are, I believe, the expression of the wise moral philosopher concerning the power of philosophical ethics taught by itself without the divine light, without divine authority, without the voice of revelation.

On the Inadequacy of Philosophical Ethics.

Philosophical ethics could not bear the expected fruits, because not only did it lack the necessary persuasiveness to convince the human spirit concerning the truths taught about the most important questions—about God, about man, and about salvation—but it was also unable to strengthen man in the arena of struggle, in which he was obliged to contend with zeal and self-denial, so that he might be perfected in ethics and receive the prize of glory. because philosophical ethics was deprived of divine authority and divine power. But doubt shook their convictions and weakened the athletes, while the struggle demands victorious moral strength flowing from the full assurance of the moral law sealed by divine authority.

Ethics without religion cannot bear moral fruit.

From this comparison of philosophical ethics with Christian ethics it is proven that ethics without religious moral authority is a tree with luxuriant foliage but without fruit. Therefore, in order for ethics to bear fruit, it is an inescapable necessity that it bear religious authority and possess divine power. Ethics and religion are two concepts indissolubly bound together, inseparable from one another, and whoever separates ethics from religion and seeks moral formation seeks the impossible, because moral principles flowing from theories are powerless to shape the moral human being, since they lack fire and moral power to strengthen the human being so that he may be able to fight against the demands of the material human being, against whom the spiritual human being must struggle and show the spirit ruling over matter.

Ethics Must Be Grounded in Religion

It is well known that Aristotle separated ethics from religion, but the later Stoa (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius) attempted to warm ethics again through religion, because they saw that its separation from religion led to complete moral dissolution. The separation of ethics from religion is contrary to the very nature of the matter and the nature of man, as daily experience and history testify. For religion is the power that shapes and regulates character, and morality necessarily seeks a religious foundation. The one who despises religion is also immoral, because he lacks a religious foundation. History testifies that as long as religion had deep roots among a nation, ethics also flourished there, but as soon as religious convictions were shaken, moral decline immediately followed. The quality of ethics depends on the quality of religion. Just as a plant cannot remain vigorous without the warmth of the sun and the earth, so too morality cannot exist without the light and power of religion. Just as the existence of ethics without religion is impossible, so too is the existence of religion without morality impossible. Religious observance without morality is a false, dead, and motionless mysticism. But morality without religion is freedom without foundation, full of contradictions, unable to explain devotion to duty and endurance in afflictions and self-denial and self-sacrifice for the sake of virtue, leading theoretically to arrogance and blasphemous deification of man, and practically to the repudiation of every legal and moral obligation that hinders concessions to self-love and pleasure.

That morality bears a religious character.

Since ethics is grounded in the acceptance that the good is the purpose of man’s existence, because God created him out of His own goodness, and acceptance presupposes faith, it follows that ethics bears a religious character, because whoever accepts the good beyond sense perception as the purpose of man’s existence believes in the moral ordering of man, in divine providence and governance. For this reason it is impossible for ethics to exist without religion. For this reason ethics rises or falls in proportion to the height and truth of man’s religious consciousness (the tree is known by its fruit). So ethics must flow from religion.

Ethics must be grounded in the religion of revelation.

But is every religion capable of achieving the great purpose that ethics seeks? Truly, every religious ethics influences the character of the human being by regulating, according to the religious principles from which each proceeds, the life and way of life of human beings and by making possible the harmonious coexistence of those who share the same religion and nationality; but such ethics lack moral formative and perfecting power. Such ethics is unable to form the human being. The only thing it can accomplish is to restrain the unbridled impulses and desires of the adherents of its religious principles for the coexistence of the like-minded in social harmony. But the moral life does not have as its only goal the peaceful coexistence of the like-minded, but the formation and perfection of humanity as a whole and the peaceful coexistence not only of the like-minded but also of those who differ in belief, and simply put, of all humanity. For the goal of the moral life is not the social coexistence of human beings, but their perfection. Social coexistence is rather imposed as a means toward their perfection.

(1) §. §. Morality and goodness are interdependent concepts. Since ethics is based on the acceptance of the good purpose of the Creator, and since this acceptance presupposes faith, it follows that ethics is based on faith, that is, on right belief.[2]

The Goal of Christian Ethics.

ethics sets as its goal to bring the kingdom of God on earth, making the inhabitants of the earth citizens of heaven. This work is impossible for an ethics to accomplish unless its moral principles are divine, established by God himself. Hence the imperfections of the moral laws and the unformed heart of the followers of various religions and moral principles, and the weakness of their moral teaching. Zoroaster, Confucius, and the various religious founders of other religions did not at all succeed in forming the hearts of their own followers, because formation is accomplished only by the creative power. He who formed the heart of man—he alone is able to form and re-form it. God alone, the Creator of the heart, is able to re-form it. He alone is able to speak to it, and for it to hear his voice, to understand his words, and to submit to his laws. From this it follows that ethics must be clothed, as with a royal purple robe, in divine authority. Its laws must flow from God himself. Since the morality of the Gospel must consist of divine commandments, possess divine grace, and be attested by its results, the morality of the Gospel is therefore the only one capable of forming and reforming man into the image and likeness of God through perfection.

That the moral life is the fitting life for human beings.

How many proofs can we bring by which we can demonstrate that the moral life is the fitting life?

Many. But especially the following eight.

A. Because it is desirable. The moral life is the fitting life for human beings, because it is desirable, because the life that a human being longs for and desires from the beginning to live is the fitting life. A human being desires the moral life, because it is in harmony with the divine law and with the law of his intellect written in his heart, whose fulfillment the soul seeks. According to these things, the moral life is a life connatural to the human being. Hence both the harmony of the human being’s moral life with the divine law and the submission of the human will to the divine will.

B. Because it is rational. The moral life is the fitting life for the human being, because it is a rational life, and the rational life is fitting for the human being because of the word that exists within him. Therefore the human being, as rational because of the Spirit dwelling in him, ought to be moral; the one who lives morally lives according to reason, because reason directs the impulses of the passions, the appetites and desires according to the dictates of reason, which shows what ought to be done and practiced and what ought not to be done and should be avoided.

III. Because it is pleasing. The moral life is the proper life for the human being, because it is by nature a pleasing and agreeable life for him, because it provides him with true happiness; because the moral human being is truly happy and blessed.

IV. Because it is a spiritual life. The moral life is the fitting life, because the human being feels an ineffable inclination toward the spiritual life, and a longing for the beautiful, the good, the true, the righteous. In the practice of ethics, though the human being toils and struggles, he feels greater satisfaction than in a dissolute life.

V. Because the human being distinguishes the quality of actions. The moral life is the fitting life for the human being, because he distinguishes his actions into lawful and unlawful, This discernment established from the very beginning the foundations of law; no people ever existed, however deluded it may have been, that did not make a distinction among its actions; A person often mistakenly evaluates his own actions, but the mistake does not eliminate the distinction between good and bad actions. The distinction demonstrates the difference in the character of actions, and the difference in the character of actions indicates a moral distinction among actions, some of which are good and approved, while others are disapproved and bad, and the moral distinction indicates the moral character.

Because it arouses pleasing feelings. The moral life is the proper life for the human being, because it develops in the heart a feeling of joy. The inner joy manifested in the doing of good, and the natural aversion to evil and the accompanying sorrow after its commission, are evidence of the formation of the human being into a moral being. The supposition that the human being can be a being not subject to moral law is unacceptable, because it is proven absurd and false. because his rational powers—the intellect, judgment, and conscience—reject such a hypothesis; because what the intellect as free and independent judges, approves or disapproves, accepts and rejects in actions, the conscience praises or accuses the one who acted, either rewarding him with a pleasant feeling or punishing the doer for the action done contrary to its inward will.

Because It Makes the Human Being Social

The moral life is the proper life for the human being, because this alone makes social life possible, because it makes the human being social and perfect; because through social life the human being advances, develops, and is perfected; without ethics, without moral law, social life would be impossible; without social life, perfection would be impossible; without perfection, the appearance of the human being on earth would be purposeless; and without purpose, rationality would be an absurd superfluity; but purposefulness in all things testifies to the necessity of some purpose for which rationality was given and for which perfection is required, which is achieved in social life founded upon the moral life of the moral law; therefore rationality requires morality, which is why the human being as a rational being is a moral being; and the moral life is the life proper to the human being.

Because the Human Being Has a Well-Disposed Impulse toward Discovery and toward Moral Perfection

The moral life is the life proper to the human being, because the human being hastens to be raised up into the moral life. The human being’s inclination toward more complete perfection demonstrates the innate impulse toward moral perfection. Since this inclination of the soul is unceasing and becomes stronger with development, it follows that the soul seeks to be raised up to the highest knowledge, absolute truth, and absolute goodness. The search for absolute goodness, absolute truth, and the highest knowledge is an expression of the human being’s innate inclination toward the moral life and an indication of his moral freedom. because first, the human being seeks a more spiritual world beyond sense perception, not being satisfied with the world of sense perception, which he regards as insufficient to fill the emptiness of his heart. And second, he strives to show himself independent of the energies of his sensory nature and to manifest, as far as possible, his spiritual energy in a purer form, and to be raised to a more spiritual level by applying spiritual ideas in his life. This inclination proceeds from the consciousness of one’s own moral character. The soul is conscious that it was fashioned in order to become a partaker of the divine goodness and blessedness. Yet the soul feels that it is unable to attain what it seeks while it is turned and fixed toward the sensory and limited world, because goodness and blessedness are found in the absolute good. But absolute truth and absolute good cannot be found in this sensory world, because the truth grasped by the intellect, being relative, is not, as such, the universal truth. Likewise, the good in this sensory world is also imperfect. Since the soul yearns for the perfect good, and the imperfect is unable to satisfy the soul, the soul hastens, as far as possible, to be torn away from the sensible realm, so that it may become above sense, be raised to the world above sense—the spiritual world—and attain the supreme good, perfect truth, the absolute beautiful, and its own perfect blessedness.

The soul’s ascent from the sensible realm to what is above sense takes place through consciousness, and consciousness of the absolute is accompanied by imagination, discursive thought, intellect, aesthetic sense, feeling, and will. Through imagination the soul represents the idea of the absolute, clothing it in the form of a shape; through the intellect, which makes the absolute good comprehensible as far as possible, the soul clarifies the idea of the absolute and conceives it as the absolute true; through feeling the soul is disposed favorably toward it; through aesthetic sense the soul perceives it as the absolute beautiful; and finally through the will the soul yearns for it as the absolute and perfect good and wills and strives to be conformed to it. The human being, therefore, as a rational being, as a being possessing spiritual independence and freedom, as a being yearning for a realm above sense and for a good above sense, toward which it strives to be raised through its spiritual powers as it develops and is perfected spiritually, is a being moral by nature. Since the world above sense, the good above sense, absolute truth, and supreme knowledge, which the human being longs for and seeks, are found in the infinitely perfect Being, the supreme good, it follows that the human being, seeking supreme truth and the supreme good, longs for and seeks God, with whom the human being seeks to be united by being perfected morally. The human being is therefore a being moral by nature.

That the Human Being, Being Moral, Is Morally Free

The human being, as one able to draw himself out of the sensible realm and enter into the world beyond sense, as one able to be led back to the primordial cause of creation, as one aspiring to the highest good and the highest truth, is a morally free being, because one who is not free would be unable to leave the sensible realm, being bound by the bondage of slavery—that is, by sensible nature. The human being, therefore, is a morally free being, because he is a being moral by nature. The absence of moral freedom in a being moral by nature is a denial of the morality of the moral being and consequently an absurd contradiction, since it expresses contrary concepts; for ‘moral and not free’—that is, ‘the human being is moral by nature’ and ‘the human being is morally enslaved’—are two concepts that cancel each other out, because ‘morally enslaved’ negates ‘moral by nature,’ since it removes the power to become moral, for without moral freedom one would be unable to become a moral being. The moral freedom of the human being is attested by the moral power of the human being, because the human being is able to resist the stirrings of the sensible impulse and to postpone its desires for the sake of the spiritual impulse, or even not to follow them. Moreover, he has the power to examine the objects of the impulse and to judge their worth; and he has the power to regulate his will and his actions according to the moral law. The moral power of the human being, therefore, is a testimony to his moral freedom.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Christian ethics, viewing the human being as a rational, moral, morally free, and religious being, teaches him the moral principles of the Gospel and seeks their application to his spiritual and entire moral life. Because of this moral-religious character of the human being, ethics as a scientific teaching proceeds to its most important work by means of a scientific method, so that it may more effectively influence his moral character. Since moral truths, in order to be acceptable to the rational human being, require the authority of logical demonstration—because only through this is complete assurance and certainty achieved for their acceptance—for these reasons ethics, before proceeding to the development of moral principles and treating of virtues and duties, begins with the investigation of general moral principles. For these reasons Christian ethics is divided into two parts: the first, the general part, in which it treats of God and the human being, that is, of the general moral principles concerning the highest good and evil and concerning law and related questions; and the second, the specific part, in which it treats of the moral virtues and duties of the human being in general.