Chapter 6

Discernment: Putting Moral Knowledge into Practice

Introduction

Based on the earlier chapters on Scripture and Tradition, the Catholic faith commitment has implications in how people live
their lives. Putting these principles from Scripture and Tradition into practice entails discernment; this chapter delves into this
process and the various principles that have been articulated throughout Catholic Tradition and ethics as a way to guide
decision- making.

Learning Objectives

16. Define what discernment means in Christian Tradition

Exposition

Life is an invitation to work with God, and the foundation and basic criteria of living well and attaining ultimate human
meaning is “by loving…some One, and that this requires interior freedom—freedom to choose, habitually, the most loving
thing.”86 In order to habitually choose to do the most loving thing, Christian theology uses the method of discernment as a
framework for helping people sift through all the information, data, and feelings involved in choosing how to live one’s life.

Discernment

We have described discernment as a process of decision making. It is a movement towards what is true, good, and beautiful, and
a way of distinguishing of what the right thing to do is, given the circumstances. As a process, discernment requires a sense of
openness to God; it is being free to do what we can and choosing to place that freedom in the service of God. It also entails a
certain knowledge of God. Augustine prayed “O God, let me know myself; let me know you” as part of his own discernment and
discovery of who he was and where he was being led.

Discernment as a process entails reflecting on certain questions. It is not a step-by-step process that one can just
follow and immediately get the right results. Rather, the discerning person asks questions such as:

 Which action or path leads me to greater authentic love and joy in God and others?
 Which action or path helps build me and others up in God?
 What information do I need to make a good and informed choice?
 What are my feelings or inner movements telling me? Why am I being moved towards one direction or
another?

All these questions and more are crucial to know what the best response is to one’s discernment, and it is in answering these
questions that the discerning person hopefully gets a clearer picture as to where to go from there.

A Person Based Approach

It is important to note that discernment is a person-based approach. While moral theology is often thought of as an
act-based approach and discernment is also about discerning concrete actions, it nevertheless is not solely focused on which
action you should do. “Moral action always has a double thrust. The first and more obvious thrust concerns the issue at hand.
The second and more profound thrust concerns the shaping of our moral character.”87 Moral deliberation and discernment is
thus concerned with who we are and who we are becoming. We will discuss this further in the last chapter of the book—
discernment as a way of cultivating our virtues in order for us to flourish as part of creation.

The movement from an act-based approach to a person-based approach happened is a recent development. Moral
 theology and decision making was very much act based prior to the Second Vatican Council; the moral manuals prior to the
twentieth century could give the exact penance needed for a particular action. “From the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries,
the morally upright stance was fairly minimal: avoid sin. Later, with twentieth century revisionists, the stance was to become
through charity a disciple of Christ.”88

With this shift came a focus on the whole human person, rather than just actions. The view of moral theology became more
personalist and holistic, rather than physicalist and compartmentalized.89 Thus, instead of simply asking about the action and
serving appropriate Penances, moral theology became more concerned with the human person—how he or she was becoming a
better person and what circumstances and intentions were involved. The concern was now on the person’s human dignity and
respecting this, as well as how he or she can flourish the way God intended for all creation to flourish.

However, a person based approach to morality and discernment meant a more complicated process of discerning. There were no
clear cut answers that could be looked up in a manual anymore; rather, each person now had to think and reflect deeply on the
particular situation in order to try to find the best thing to do, given the criteria and goal of flourishing of all creation.

Because of this difficulty, several broad principles have been proposed as a way of guiding discernment. We will look at just
some of the principles that have been used to make decision in Catholic moral theology.

<Box: An Excerpt from a Moral Manual>

I. Of Gluttony
a. Those who are drunk with wine or beer, contrary to the Savior’s prohibition (as it is said, “Take heed that your hearts be
not overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness or with the cares of this life lest perchance that day come upon all that dwell
upon the face of the whole earth,”) and [that] of the Apostle (“Be not drunk with wine wherein is luxury”)—if they have taken
the vow sanctity they shall expiate the fault for forty days with bread and water; laymen, however, for seven days.
b. He who compels anyone, for the sake of good fellowship, to become drunk shall do penance in the same manner as one
who is drunk.
c. If he does this on account of hatred, he shall be judged as a homicide.
d. He who is not able to sing psalms being benumbed in his organs of speech, shall perform a special fast
e. He who suffers excessive distention of the stomach and the pain of satiety [shall do penance] for one day
f. If he suffers to the point of vomiting, though he is not in a state of infirmity, for seven days
g. If, however, he vomits the host, for forty days
h. If he ejects it into the fire, he shall sing one hundred psalms
i. If dogs lap up this vomit, he who has vomited shall do penance for one hundred days>

Principles that Guide Discernment

While natural law, the magisterium, and the sensus fidei all help guide moral decision making, certain principles,
though left unsaid, guide discernment as well. These principles can be particularly useful when decision making becomes
difficult and set the stage for what Catholic moral theology considers as important criteria in making decisions; note that the
criteria will not be usefulness, practicality, or efficiency necessarily, but rather the good and justice.

Principle of Beneficence

Moral decision making—in any area or discipline—has always focused on bringing about the good. Thus, our actions
ought to be directed towards benefiting and promoting the good of creation. As we have seen in the previous chapter, mercy is
how we characterize Christian morality, and so our actions ought to embody this mercy, kindness, and compassion. This also
implies that, at the very least, we work towards nonmaleficence (i.e. we do no harm to other fellow creatures), especially when
the evil is preventable.

What complicates this principle is the conflicting definitions of “good” that people have, as well as situations where
goods conflict. The Christian idea of the good is that of flourishing for all creation, where human beings, other animals, and
the environment can all thrive in a mutually benefiting relationship in union with God. However, many decisions are carried
out that benefit only a limited number of people, to the detriment of others, often the most vulnerable people as well as the rest
 of creation. Working towards the good means working towards the good for all, and not just the good for the few.

Working for the good of all can, at times, entail two things: sacrifice and the knowledge of what is enough. First, at
times there may be a need to sacrifice, especially when goods conflict. Parents at times sacrifice for their children by working
abroad, or working two jobs, for example. Second, there is a need to be content and to be happy with what is enough. An
example of this is in terms of the physical resources of the earth—there is enough for everyone to have a decent and comfortable
life, and yet many make decisions to hoard the resources or only give away a small amount, rather than equally share these
resources with all. Those who make these decisions are working towards their own good, but not necessarily the good of all;
such an individualistic understanding of the good is also a very limited understanding of the good.

Principle of Double Effect

What if the person is choosing between two goods? This now becomes a moral dilemma: which good do you prioritize? Also,
what if the decision to be made will have foreseen harmful effects on another person, animals, or the environment?

The principle of double effect is a principle that sets out particular criteria to help people make decision in such ethical dilemmas.
The criteria

• The nature of the act itself is good or morally neutral;

Thomas Aquinas discusses this in the specific case of killing a man in self-defense.91 Aquinas argues that an act is not unlawful
if the intention was for the good (i.e. the intention was to save one’s life and not kill the assailant) and the act used only the force
that was necessary to repel the assailant (i.e. the act of self-defense was proportional to the violence). Later understandings of this
principle will also emphasize that the bad effect should not and cannot be a means to the good, but rather only be a side effect.

For example, a doctor may have the case of a pregnant woman who needs to have a hysterectomy to take out the cancerous cells
in her body. However, doing this would kill the baby. In this case, the principle of double effect would permit the hysterectomy,
even though there is the foreseen but totally unintended consequence of killing the baby. Take note also that killing the baby is
not part of the means to save the mother—it is the unfortunate side effect of the process.

A word of caution: we cannot overly reduce this principle to the idea that we can do anything for so long as there is a good end
intended and that the harm are merely side effects. Though it is difficult to measure, one still needs to ensure that the good
outweighs the bad, and one should aim to minimize the harmful effects as much as possible. This is difficult to measure, which is
why, as mentioned earlier, a certain knowledge of God and prudence is needed in order to make these difficult decisions well.
Also, if harm is done to another creature, further decisions should be made to correct the harmful effects made, if possible. So for
example, if we human beings use up the earth’s natural resources, to the detriment of other animals’ habitats and food, we should
seek to ensure that we do not take up all the resources. We should also consider other creatures’ well-being, which might mean
sacrificing some benefits that human beings might get, if it means that other creatures will be able to live.

The point of this principle is to help people navigate ethical issues wherein goods are conflicting, and it is impossible to bring
about the good without causing some harm. This principle acknowledges that we do not live in a perfect world, and there will be
cases and situations wherein we may be forced to choose between goods, sacrificing one over the other. Though this principle is
present in Catholic moral theology, it has been critiqued as unhelpful, especially when the nature of the act is not good or morally
neutral. Nevertheless, this principle aims to help the person parse the circumstances of the situation and to raise relevant questions
in order to attain the answers needed to come to a decision.

<Box: The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki>

“The immense destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki boggles the mind—and the heart. Time and time again over the decades,
popes and other Church leaders have decried the carnage inflicted and the horror unleashed by the atomic bomb. Yet, as far as I
can tell, there is one thing that no pope or magisterial source has ever done. The Church has never declared that the decision to
drop the two bombs was itself unjust, immoral, or indefensible.
Part of the difficulty with the morality of the A-bombs is that their uniquely destructive capacity tends to overshadow the fact that
the same moral principles are brought to bear regardless of whether it’s the A-bomb, or the conventional-weapon firebombing of
Japan that preceded Hiroshima, or any other consideration of combatants and noncombatants in any other time or place in history.
When trying to untangle the morality of a wartime decision to attack the enemy, the principle of double effect comes into play.
When an action being considered has both good and bad effects, it may be morally permissible to choose the action under certain
conditions.

First, it is utterly immoral to target innocent non-combatants. Obvious, right? Intentionally killing innocents is rightly called
murder. So, the just-war question then becomes: is there a legitimate wartime target that the action under consideration is intended
to neutralize? If so, there will be a “good effect” to the action. Such a planned attack would be in itself a morally legitimate act of
self-defense against the aggressor, according to the moral “object” of the act.
Now, what about any foreseen bad effects? If aerial bombing is planned on a target, for example, what about the risk to innocent
lives of those who are civilians, non-combatants? Suddenly we are confronted with a foreseen bad effect resulting from the choice
to bomb a legitimate wartime target. Innocent people could get killed, too. We must make a final—and crucial—judgment. Is the
good effect proportionate to compensate for the bad effect?
Such a decision-making process is required at every point in a just war—and if an attack on the enemy would yield a
disproportionate relationship between the bad effect and the good effect, the attack ought not take place. So, with the principle of
double effect in mind, let’s go ahead and consider the US decision to drop the atomic bomb not once, but twice, on Japan.

First question: who or what was the target? In both cases, the bombs were targeting legitimate military targets—facilities key to
the ongoing industry of wartime Japan. So there seems to be no justification for claiming that innocents themselves were targeted
indiscriminately.
Rather, the real question at hand is: knowing the massive destructive capability of the atomic bomb, couldn’t those targets be
neutralized by less destructive means? Wasn’t it obvious to the United States leaders that the legitimate military targets would
not be the only areas destroyed by such a blast?

US leaders aimed the A-bombs not only at legitimately targeted facilities, but they also knew full well that their force would be
unleashed against those the Japanese government itself claimed were combatants in the total war against the United States.
The nuclear age dawned, gravely and with unspeakable carnage, upon the broken and barren horizon of Japan’s devotion to total
war.”

Some people, such as the author of the above case study on the bombing, view this event as an example of applying the principle
of double effect; they cite see that the criteria were fulfilled and do see it as a proportional action, as this bombing was decisive
in ending the second World War. Others, especially Catholic moral theologians, however, find this problematic, and insist that
this is not a proportional action and thus does not fulfill the criteria of the principle of double effect.>

Principle of Justice

While doing the good is of utmost important, how we do the good is just as important. The principle of justice ensures that doing
the good is not done at any cost nor done solely for the good of one or the few or human beings only; rather, doing the good is
governed by the principle of justice. Justice and beneficence go hand in hand. There is a sense of fairness and impartiality involved;
however, justice is not neutral. This principle emphasizes that there is a need to care for those who may be wronged or who are
vulnerable. While forgiveness and mercy are important, justice also ensures that this mercy is not abused.

Justice, broadly speaking, deals with what is due to each individual or collectively to a group. There is a claim that each person
has, due to his or her having human dignity and being a creature of God. Such claims include a claim to a humane life, with access
to basic necessities as well as all that is needed to live comfortably. Anything beyond this is not a right, but rather a privilege that
is not guaranteed.

Related to the principle of justice are other principles such as solidarity, subsidiarity, and the common good, which will be more
formally taken up in Catholic social thought. Suffice to say that justice is foundational to other principles, while also being a
cardinal virtue that we need to cultivate in ourselves in order to help us be more consistently ethical.
Principle of Autonomy and Responsibility

Catholic moral theology’s emphasis on freedom and the primacy of conscience link with an emphasis on the responsibility and
relative autonomy of the human person. While Catholic moral theology can offer principles, advice, precedents, and cases,
ultimately the Catholic Church respects the person’s moral autonomy and conscience in making decisions. Catholic moral
theology takes seriously that it is in the conscience that God meets each individual person and that God also speaks to each person.

This also emphasizes that each person is ultimately responsible. He or she has ownership and some stake over his or her decisions,
and his or her is response-able or can respond to the situation, even if the person is affected by and molded by certain situations
and circumstances beyond his or her control. He or she has the responsibility of gathering as much as relevant information as
possible, listening to Tradition and similar cases. While the person is not expected to know everything, it is expected that he or
she do this process to the best of his or her abilities

in order to make a genuinely informed and discerned choice. Ignorance should not be used as a convenient excuse

This can become a thorny issue, especially in medical ethics when the person cannot make a decision (e.g. he or she is unconscious
or dead). We will deal with that explicitly in the chapter on bioethics.

A Consistent Ethic of Life

The last principle is that of maintaining a consistent ethic of life. The theme and ethic of a consistent ethic of life was popularized
by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, using the metaphor of the “seamless garment” to discuss how interconnected life and health related
issues are. In a series of addresses, Cardinal Bernardin fleshes out the concept of the consistent ethic of life, highlighting that an
attitude that respects life should be upheld across seemingly disparate issues such as abortion and war. Cardinal Bernardin argues
that such an attitude cannot be upheld in one issue yet disregarded in another, and notes that:

The issue of consistency is tested in a different way when we examine the relationship between the “right to life” and “quality of
life” issues. I must confess that I think the relationship of these categories is inadequately understood in the Catholic community
itself. My point is that the Catholic position on abortion demands of us and of society that we seek to influence an heroic social
ethic.93

This ethic emphasizes two things: first, that these people still have value, and that it is often these people who are the most
vulnerable, and that the measure of any society is how it treats the most vulnerable of its population. As seen in the parable of the
Good Samaritan, “we are called upon to become neighbors to those who are helpless, going beyond conventional conceptions of
duty to provide life-sustaining aid to those whom we might not have regarded as worthy of our compassion.” 94

While it acknowledges a common foundational principle, the consistent ethic does not equate issues nor conflate them,
understanding that each issue and each case has its own set of circumstances and contexts behind the debates and discussions.
Rather, it understands their interrelatedness and that systems and structures that affect the issues of right to life are also related to,
if not the same ones as those that affect issues of quality of life. A consistent ethic of life, then, would be equally vocal on
protecting the unborn child, as well as the child living in poverty.

Such an ethic challenges “those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us” to “be equally visible in support of the
quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and
the unemployed worker.”95 This paper would also add to that list the rest of creation—animals and plants among them—as part
of this population who need care and concern as well, as the relationality of people not just to other people, but also to the rest of
the created world is an important aspect of what flourishing means. Right to life and quality to life thus go hand in hand in
respecting life, and this translates into particular stances on moral actions as well as into particular policies.

Conclusion

We have seen several principles that serve as the foundation for Christian discernment.
Such principles offer a broad guide as to how to make decision in particular situations, especially when they involve many
conflicting goods or when the decision involves two actions that could inflict evil.
Discernment is not an easy task. This is why throughout the Church’s history, it has sought to articulate ways to help people
navigate complex ethical dilemmas. Even today, theologians and the magisterium continue to reflect on helpful ways to respond
to the challenges of the daily life, especially when technology and environmental changes shift the landscape and assumptions
which people use to make decisions.

Though it is not easy, discernment is still crucial. Simply saying “whatever,” throwing our hands up in defeat, and going with the
flow or resorting to simply being selfish, cynical, or uncaring will not do. It will only make things worse! Thus, for the Christian,
despair and cynicism are not an option.

Every day, we are called to make countless decisions. Some of them are easy, others not so much. Some may seem trivial, while
many others will have huge consequences on our lives and others in the future. Even with the many constraints and complexities
that decision making often entails, we are called to make the most loving and merciful option.