The Catholic Bishops’ synod on the family in October presents the Catholic Church with an opportunity to reappraise the interpretation of its own moral teachings in the post-conciliar period. I sincerely doubt that there will be any shift of teaching on the moral object itself. That is very much a product of revelation and/or natural law itself with the two not being at all in opposition but rather reinforcing each other. Much of what will be changed will focus on giving more weight to the interpretation of the extent of the effect of circumstances and intentions, on the aspect of actual guilt of the individual in circumstances one finds oneself in.
Morally, I am very Fuchsian in outlook. I think that Josef Fuchs, in his later years, significantly contributed to the proper understanding of applied ethics without ever rejecting moral objectivism. He never objected to there being moral absolutes in theory, but underlined that in practice and in daily living, individuals often ended up having to weigh one moral value against another or against several others. It is the individual concerned who at the end of the day is best placed to evaluate all the circumstances of a particular case and to consider his or her proper intentions.
Mark Graham, in his excellent exposition of Fuch’s theories, rightly points out that although Fuchs himself was correct in his moral analysis, there was a problem with the fact that if everybody were allowed to weigh and choose the values one ascertains in certain situations, we could end up with a situation that can tend to be quite subjective. In secular bioethics, basic principles may be weighed one against the other and according to circumstances, and some principles in certain situations may be found to be more important than others. On other occasions, the situation may be reversed and what was previously considered more important be considered less important. Hence the consideration of ordinary and extraordinary treatments for example!
This cannot be applied in Christian moral theory due to its rather subjective overtones. However, a way could be found where an established hierarchy of values can be used to help the moral actor decide on the way forward. These values, unlike basic goods which may not be directly contravened, could in themselves indicate what is more or less important when considering clashing or competing values.
I was therefore pleasantly surprised last May when our bishops, in a message prepared for guiding voters in the European Parliament elections, issued a number of fundamental principles which more or less seemed to be ordered hierarchically. The first is the right to human life, the second the strengthening of marriage and the natural family, the third the right to dignified work, the fourth included both solidarity and subsidiarity, the fifth dealt with foreign immigrants humanely and finally, the sixth, respect for the environment. This hierarchy of values seems to resemble in reverse order Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, with the most basic of needs given priority where concomitant rights are concerned. In Maslow’s pyramid of needs, the most basic need is physiological, and consequently deprivation of physiological rights should be at the forefront in a value order.
There are still problems involved where two values which belong to the same hierarchical order may clash. In this case, one should look at the specific circumstances and intentions (will) in deciding issues. I write this article fully aware of the changing and evolving circumstances of society and the social order. I firmly believe that people will end up in situations and having to choose a number of very complex issues; having an operative hierarchy would help them choose properly. They will often be the best people in a position to analyse certain situations. We must help them do so.
Keeping these things in mind, I must add one rejoinder. This being that if the sacraments are a visible manifestation of God’s grace as we firmly believe, we should not stand between people facing difficult social and moral decisions and the healing presence of Christ, a presence essential for bringing about the internal dispositions and decision making necessary to make fundamental options as Christians in a post-modern world! Christ had no problem speaking to and consequently converting the Syro-Phoenician woman!
[email protected]
is is ?u e ?Z,(?/, as happens even in sports, gets embroiled in politics. The idea of greater representation of Asian and African teams is one that is strongly supported by FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who has ambitions to be re-elected to the post next year and whose power base lies precisely with the confederations of these continents.
Not to be outdone, UEFA president Michel Platini, who is not only said to be eyeing the FIFA top post but is also definitely fit for the job, has proposed a 40-team World Cup. More places for Europeans, Asians and Africans, and the cynics are sure to point out more votes for Platini. There is much to be said about proposed new formulas for the tournament, for and against. But hopefully, it will not be solely political considerations which will determine the outcome.
On the field and beyond it
A book was published right before the beginning of the tournament, The 10 football matches that changed the world”. From the “Miracle of Berne”, when the West German team unexpectedly won the World Cup and lifted the country’s spirits after defeat in World War II, to the 1969 match which sparked no less than a war between Honduras and El Salvador, the book reminds us that “the beautiful game” will always have consequences that go far beyond the field on which it is played.
But of course, tonight everyone will just focus on the hope of a good match that proves worthy of other memorable finals. Fingers crossed and, of course, may the better team win.