If ever there were three virtues that are needed in moral philosophy today, I guess that the three bearing the title to this article would be them. The first virtue, Equity, has its roots not only in Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy but also Christian philosophy particularly underlined by the scholastic philosopher Thomas Aquinas.
Equity partially pertains to the virtue of justice because it seeks not so much to look at the letter of the law but to seek the principles of justice that were in the mind of the lawmaker when the particular law was promulgated. It is not always possible to attach present circumstantial evidence to the letter of a particular law. Rather it becomes expedient to determine what the lawgiver had in mind when drawing up those particular laws and consequently sometimes the practical elements of natural justice need to be applied in particular cases.
The Greek philosophers referred to equity using the term ‘epikeia’. Thomas Aquinas himself states that “Epikeia" does not set aside that which is just in itself, but that which is just as established by law. Nor is it opposed to severity, which follows the letter of the law, when it ought to be followed. To follow the letter of the lawwhen it ought not to be followed is sinful. Hence, Aquinas states that it is written in the Codex of Laws and Constitutions that “Without doubt he who transgresses the law by adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the intention of the lawgiver.” Ivo of Chartres extols the virtue of equity in the application of canon law citing Christ’s order of love and the salvation of mankind as the basis for seeing situations that come up for adjudication before church tribunals. “We urge the prudent reader, when judging the merits of contrary texts, to keep before his eyes the end of the law, which is the salvation of souls, and the fact that some things are said in a spirit of moderation and mercy.”
Prudence or practical wisdom is the key cardinal virtue. It is the use of human rationality in the application of discerning the moral value of everyday events. Without it no other virtue can exist as the application of all other virtues is dependent on this single rational virtue and they could easily be turned to vices. It is the main precept which is determinant in deciding natural law. All equity in fact has to be applied using strong doses of prudence otherwise there is a miscarriage of justice. Aquinas says that “Prudence is the right reason in matters of action (recta ratio agibilium). Prudence applies universal knowledge to a particular case. It implies rightly ordered affection. Prudence is a special virtue, rather than merely a general feature of every virtue. It is distinguished from other virtues on account of its special object (obiectum, i.e., that which it is concerned with) as follows: It differs from wisdom (sapientia), scientific knowledge (scientia), and understanding (intellectus), because these are about necessary truths, whereas prudence (and art) is about contingent truths. It differs from art, because art is about making or producing things (factibilia), whereas prudence is about acting (agibilia). It differs from the moral virtues (i.e., temperance, fortitude, and justice, as well as their subordinate virtues), because these are in the affective power of the soul, but prudence is in the cognitive power of the soul.”
Mercy or misericordia is essentially a divine virtue based on the theological virtue of love. It is a virtue that many of us in the Christian world seem to have recently expediently forgotten over the span of time as we strive to judge others harshly for the wrongs that we have perceived them to have done without of course considering our own failings first. In the beginning of every chapter of the Koran, one finds a profound understanding of our fundamental human weakness as expressed where God is referred to as “Allah the most compassionate and merciful”. In Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, Portia has a profound understanding of mercy as having a quality which is “not strained but drops as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath”. St. Ambrose’s understanding of our fallen nature goes so far as to state that when God created man it was because he wanted someone to forgive. In forgiving others we allow them to redeem themselves from the wrongs they have done or the ills they have found wittingly themselves in.
Next October, the Bishops of the Catholic Church will gather in a synod to address the family and all the problems which emanate from there at present. One of the issues to be considered is whether to allow divorced and remarried Catholics the possibility of receiving the Eucharistic. Let me make my position clear from the outset. Marriage was instituted by God to be of a permanent nature. This was verbally and unmistakably confirmed by Christ. If at any time in its span, a particular marriage is seen to be valid, then that marriage is indissoluble. Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in this case should not receive Communion although they should be supported and made to feel comfortable and welcome in their particular diocese. Only a validly constituted Church marriage tribunal (external forum) can judge that the conditions for a valid marriage were missing and that a particular marriage is to be annulled, that is, it is as if it had never taken place. The problem is that sometimes, due to a legal system, tribunals put human lives on hold for years while a half hearted investigation takes place, or there is an overemphasis on legalism, or it may not be possible for the truth to be ever verified. Many petitioners asked for bread and were handed a stone, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Some people are too fragile emotionally to go through an annulment process. The petitioner may have had grounds for annulment, but did not want to hurt the other party or the children by exposing their hidden secrets or opening old wounds. In these cases, those who sincerely believe that their first canonical marriage was never valid and have no sense of sin regarding their second civil marriage are in good faith. If for any reason the annulment process fails to remedy the situation, it would be in order for these people to follow their conscience and entrust the matter to God’s mercy.
While the principle of indissolubility is never in doubt, the binding nature of a particular marriage may be in doubt and one can then refer to one’s proximate norm of morality known as the informed conscience (internal forum), which you are always obliged to follow the dictates. If a person in a second marriage believes that his or her first marriage was never a true marriage, then, in this case, one is morally able to follow their conscience and receive Communion if they feel they should! However, it is always best to go for help and find a priest you can trust to listen to your story in the privacy of the confessional, in the sacrament of Reconciliation. The priest can help you form a good conscience according to the special circumstances of your case. This penitential service transfers the case from the external forum to the internal forum and may therefore allow one to follow his or her conscience. In this case, one must have the courage to act on what one knows to be true in one’s heart of hearts where the validity of the second marriage is placed before the mercy of God himself.
This informal process has been going on worldwide for many years now. What we require of our bishops in the October synod is that it is formally recognized, as is the process in these cases for the penitential sacrament of Reconciliation, after which, under proper guidance, the persons involved can if prudent, receive Holy Communion. We must not make the sacrament of the Eucharist available trivially and indiscriminately to one and all; but neither should we deny it to those who approach the altar sincerely and in good faith.
[email protected]