Bernard Lonergan's famous book on human understanding, Insight, was one book I had to pore through and struggle with in my studies. Lonergan was one of those writers who wrote about the philosophy of process. Process philosophy tells us how things change and progress over the years but at the same time retain a nature that is the same! In this particular study, he was talking about human beings. Other philosophers of process looked at this problem from a more physical perspective. How physical things can change but remain the same! One recalls Alfred North Whitehead, Samuel Alexander and Henri Bergson. To this list of eminent thinkers, I can add that of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who struggled with concepts of evolution and its interaction with the spiritual world to varying successful degrees but with definitely more success than he has been credited with by the world or the Church.
In a book I wrote which touched on the subject, I pointed out that as things change, and they do, new entities come into being while older ones are lost, but there has to be a 'glue' that keeps these experiences together otherwise they fall apart. Whitehead stated that for him what defined the world is an ontology of processes where actual entities exist as the only fundamental elements of reality. With one exception, all actual entities for Whitehead are temporal and are occasions of experience (which are not to be confused with consciousness). An entity that people commonly think of as a simple concrete object, or that Aristotle would think of as a substance, is, in this ontology, considered a temporally serial composite of indefinitely many overlapping occasions of experience. A human being is thus composed of indefinitely many occasions of experience. It is the overlap which makes it a whole entity. In the physical human being, for example, we may think of this overlap as the repetitive DNA present in every cell. This represents the 'glue' that keeps us physically singular.
I do not wish to use Whitehead to illustrate religious or moral truths as there are some differences. The fact is that things change and evolve and, as they change, they lose some of their former self and regain new material. Many people are used to static concepts of things others especially those who have studied genetics and the life sciences know that veracity lies elsewhere. The world around us is a constantly changing entity. What we may consider a particular truth in one moment may be partially correct. As a fuller revelation or discovery exists, one may realize that there is more than meets the eye. Thomas Aquinas thought that human life in the womb began at a late state of development. About 30 days to 90 days for a man or a women developing with a different developmental period for the sexes. He put his knowledge in what he knew of the time from Aristotle. Today we know better thanks to genetics and embryology! So the truth is put on hold to include the new knowledge! From this truth, we also establish a new moral experience. Aquinas held that human life should be respected when it existed. This is the fundamental point of the truth we need to maintain, the occasion that binds other occasions together. Science shows us otherwise, so keeping the fundamental occasion of respect for human life, we extend this truth to our present knowledge! I have already stated that revelation shows us what is fundamental for our salvation. This does not mean that new aspects of the truth might not appear as time passes and which requires us to extend orthodoxy to this new information. In Christianity, we think of God as unchanging! We even sing "Oh thou that changest not, abide with me"! There are hidden aspects of God however, that he chooses to reveal to us with time, or that we discover through life experiences, aspects that we might not have noted either from ignorance or from neglect. When Christ stated for us all to be perfect, I always understood this perfection to be a moral perfection! A closer reading of the texts however seem to indicate that he was primarily referring to mercy not morals!
In the recent fallout from the voiced disagreements to solutions for Catholic communion proposed by Amoris Laetitia, everybody conveniently forgets that this exhortation has been penned after two Bishops' synods and now an Apostolic Exhortation by the properly elected Pope, therefore a properly constituted authority. What Pope Francis together with the Bishops is proposing is in fact the orthodox! What others are proposing different from the Pope, is in fact the unorthodox! In the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the chapter on morals, there has always been a clear distinction between what is termed as the moral object and that termed as the moral act! The moral object is something that in itself is good or bad. For example to kill another human being is always bad! The moral act looks at the moral object which remains unchanged in the light of subjective intentions and circumstances to determine responsibility and then guilt in every human act. We all know that the final two aspects can change from person to person so that things done emanate from a reduced or greater responsibility and merit less or more guilt. Could it be that this guilt is reduced to zero in some circumstances due to reduced responsibility for what is done in the act. If there is a war and a soldier on the other side tries to kill me, am I not justified in killing him? Here the moral object is the same but intentions and circumstances compel me to stop him even by killing him!
Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia simply applies this orthodox praxis to divorced and remarried persons or persons living together. It never states that divorce is a good thing and is faithful to the moral object of fidelity in marriage as expressed by Christ. However in circumstances where there is diminished responsibility for what was done, could it be that guilt is reduced sufficiently to merit allowing some people to receive communion after careful conscientious reflection on the individual merits of the case and after seeking advice from people qualified and willing to give it! Who is going to be the judge of another person's conscience after a discerning examination of this type of process? This does not mean that everybody can do what they like, or even after effective guidance, that the guilt is sufficiently diminished to warrant allowing communion! It is just that we need to stop putting everyone in the same boat and leave moral reflection to those who are involved and those best to give them the best moral advice.
On a different note on personal insight, I cannot help notice how employees and civil servants of elected public officials are allowed by their political bosses to not appear before investigative hearings of a properly constituted authority! Insight tells me that those who choose this route have things to hide independent of the nature of the case and have chosen the unethical way out not to say the immoral way! It also throws light on the ethical fibre of the political bosses of these erstwhile civil servants. It is on this ethical fibre that our trust finally lies!
[email protected]