MT - 1 Basic Biblical Moral Law

1 Moral Law

Law in general may be described as a directive for activity or constant way of acting or reacting in view of an end. Law is therefore is a guideline, bringing about regularity in actions and reactions for attaining one or another objective or goal, mainly physical, biological and biochemical laws operate within us and around us to make life regular, smooth and dependable. This makes us think about man himself; that he also is bound by laws, which make life in human community smooth and dependable. Because laws usually interfere with man’s freedom, it seems to have spontaneous dislike on laws imposed on him. But critical thinking shows the need and significance of laws.

Law in general may be divided as follows:

Determined
Law <
Non-determined Conditional
Categorical

Determined laws are those which are fulfilled automatically by nature (without the intervention of any human agency). E.g.: Laws of nature (physical, biological and chemical).
Non-determined laws are those which requires human cooperation for there fulfillment. Among them, the conditional laws are those which man is not bound t o obey; he is free to obey them or not. E.g. Laws in special sciences (if you want to be a scientist only, you need to follow those laws), Law of aesthetics.

Categorical, are non-determined unconditional ones, which man is bound to obey (i.e. no choice for man) E.g. Love another, not to kill. Moral laws belong to non-determined categorical laws.

Moral laws as we saw above belong to the category of non-determined categorical laws in the general picture of laws. Moral Law being the focus of our attention we need to clarify the term further. The traditional definition is “A directive of Obligatory, Stable and General Characteristic, ordaining (guiding) man’s activities towards his ultimate end”. The three attributes given, such moral law as a class apart.

Obligatory means that it brings unconditional obligation. Nobody has the personal freedom to go against the moral law. This distinguishes a moral law from a simple counsel or a piece of advice, which a person is not bound to obey.

Stable means that moral law has a permanency and stability; it is not temporary and transient. It has stability because it is closely related to personal nature of man, which doesn’t change at random, by this we don’t mean that there can’t be progress and in that way changes in the moral law. This happens mainly because of our better self understanding about the demands of our personal nature, its social implications and relevant changes in the environment.

General means that moral law is meant for all, it binds all those who have same personal human nature. The purpose of moral law is to guide man and all his activities towards his ultimate goal and destiny. Man pursues various ends in his diverse activities and he follows the corresponding laws for the attainment of those ends.

We may also note a couple of definition for moral law, which substantially mean the same thing.

Moral Law is a norm for human behavior for what man ought to be, in the light of what man is. Everyone is called to grow, develop and attain his destiny in fidelity to what he is, not in opposition to it; other words man should grow and flourish in humanity, consisting of his inner constitution and essential relationships, especially with fellow human being, God and the environment. In this context, the basic reference for moral law is said to be ‘the integral good of the human person and the community of persons’

Moral law is a norm of activity for man as man. This reminds us not to reduce man to any of his constitutive elements and adopt a partial view as the basis of moral norm. Any such attempt will produce only a truncated – one sided morality. That is why II Vatican Council reminds us that moral law should focus on fostering the well being of all man as individuals and as members of the community. – GS 35

“is demands ought”

Sometimes some philosophers question the principle that ought is based on is, while is is a fact, ought is only a contingence situation not at all guaranteed by is. Therefore there is some unwarranted leap from is to ought. Our answer is that is doesn’t command ought, but only demands, and it is up to the rational and free agent to understand the demands and requirements for the well being and flourishing of man and act accordingly, remembering that his existence is co-existence, i.e. simply part and parcel of a community of persons.


1.1 General Division of Moral Law

Now we look at the important divisions of moral law.

Moral Laws

Divine
 Natural
 Positive ( Revealed)
Human
 Religious
 Civil
Divine laws are those, whose immediate law-giver (legislature) is God. While human laws have human authority as their immediate legislature.

Natural laws are those which are promulgated in and through the personal nature of man. Natural laws are related to human nature in 2 ways. 1st with regard to their knowledge. I.e. they are discovered with the aid of human reason. An adult human being with normal growth is supposed to be capable of understanding the basic demands of natural law. Natural Law is related to personal nature of man, also ontological for its justification. What is after all the foundation for the various natural law demands, it s again the personal nature of man, integrally considered, which the demands of natural law are supposed to protect and promote. Killing, cheating breaking one’s word etc inflict harm and damage on the well being of the human person and that of the community. The demands of the natural law are not formally codified anywhere, but we can decipher them by the proper use of reason, and the moral tradition makes it easy for us to recognize them. In fact there is material identity between the major demands of the natural law and the demands of the Decalogue. Though formally they are distinct. In moral theology our primary focus is on the revealed morality. Though the basic demands of the natural law are always presumed, because they are fundamental to any human reality.

The human moral law is divided into Religious and Civil, one regulating the religious or spiritual realm and the other civil or secular realm. As far as we are concerned, Church laws, especially canon law belongs to religious laws. Civil laws comprise the laws made and promulgated by state.
Human laws are required because, divine laws are often too general and therefore they have to be enunciated more concretely for the sake of practice and this calls for human laws made by competent authorities. Beside man being what he is - namely selfish and limited etc, there is always a tendency to go against law. Here laws are needed to ensure at least a minimum of obedience to the laws, required for the smooth running of the community. The laws made by human authorities should be valid, just and binding. Validity requires that the laws are made by legitimate authority. Legitimate authorities are recognized from the constitution status, legitimate custom of the society to whom laws are made. Laws made by others are invalid.
Justice requires three conditions:
1. Human law shall not go against the demands of the divine law.
2. Human law command only what is physically and morally possible. Physical impossibility means the laws’ demanding is beyond the physical capability of the people in general. Moral impossibility means the action needed by law requires heroism, very high mental power from the subject. People can’t be expected to posses such heroism therefore such laws are unjust.
3. The law should be for the sake of common good. This is in fact the justification of the law. Therefore a law should directly or indirectly promote the common good; otherwise that law can be considered obsolete.

To be binding, a law has to be promulgated; it has to be brought to the knowledge of the subject. It is enough that the authorities put the law in the usual course or the channel for it and the rest is up to the subject; they should be tried to be informed of any new laws that may have been promulgated. Taking all these into consideration human law is considered as the ordinance of reason, promulgated by legitimate authority for the sake of common good. A law satisfying the above conditions is considered to be a legitimate law and it imposes obligation on the subjects, whether it is from Divine authority or human authorities. And in the latter case whether religious or civil. St. Paul reminds us of our obligation to abide by legitimate law, not only to avoid punishment but also for the sake of one’s conscience. (Rom 13, 5).

Merely Penal law

In the moral tradition there has been the concept of merely penal law. It refers to certain laws made by human authorities, which are considered not to impose obligation in conscience, but make the person liable for punishment, if he violates the law and gets caught by the authority. Grave moral laws do not come under this category, but mostly disciplinary laws are meant for common good. E.g. Fulfilling residence formalities, respecting public property like forest and gradually even paying taxes come to this category. Under this concept people could ignore this law without any trouble of conscience. Justification was that laws are meant to promote common good and it can be done by effectively enforcing the law; obligation in conscience was not necessary. In the past people used to evade taxes, duties, and customs and so on under this conception. However today we feel that it is not fair and just. It sprang from our week social sense and commitment. Besides it implies an inconsistency. A person doesn’t become liable to punishment unless he violates an obligation. Normally human authority does not make law, which could be violated at will. Hence the concept is partially abandoned today.

Moral Law can be further divided
• Personal
• Territorial

Personal laws are those which directly bind persons, and so are the most of the moral laws. Territorial laws are those which directly affects a territory and through which the persons residing there. Personal laws always bind a person, while territorial laws only in that region, where a particular law is enforced. If we go out of that region, we become free from the obligation of such laws. It may be noted that territorial laws are mostly disciplinary laws.

Moral laws can again dived into
• Licit
• Valid
Most of the laws deal with licit or illicit of actions namely whether they are allowed or not. However, there are also laws which deal with the validity or invalidity of the actions, namely the act is valid or not. Invalid acts have no juridical standing or validity. E.g. A Catholic boy weds orthodox girl without due permission – is not licit but it is valid, means, they should not have done that, but still they have become husband and wife. However a Catholic boy and a Hindu girl without dispensation marry, it is not only illicit but also invalid. I.e. they should not have done that, besides, they still remain before the law as before, a young man and a young women, but not husband and wife, because the so called marriage was not valid.


2. BASIC BIBLICAL MORAL LAW

Here we are looking at the basic biblical orientation or perspective of morality, rather than a law. Though naturally we will discus the law of love, which is more an attitude and action style than a single command. Starting fundamental moral theology with biblical perspective should help us to preserve this outlook al through moral theological studies. In order to understand the spirit of biblical morality we shall have a glance of context at which moral laws were reveled to the people of Israel in the OT. It was done, in the very special context of covenant.

Covenant and contract, though rather of the same meaning have nuances. Contract deals with material things while covenant more commonly has personal relationships as its object. As we read in the OT, people united by a covenant, come to be considered as brothers or close relations (1 Sam 18, 3; 2 Sam 1, 26) Once such relationship is established, one also had the obligation of being faithful to that, so personal relationship and fidelity are the important characteristics of a covenant.

God made several covenants in the OT. For e.g. With Noah (Gen 6, 18) with Abraham (Gen 15, 18), however the most important covenant in OT is the Sinaitic covenant which God made with the Israel as a nation, narrated in the book of Exodus 19 to 24 chapters. The deliverance from Egypt together with the covenant at the Sinai was the most important socio-religious expression of Israel as a nation. Through the exodus experience they learn the power of their God as well as His love for them. This experience was further heightened by entering into a covenant with Yahweh. In the prelude to the covenant (Exodus 19, 4-9) we see that Yahweh calls Mosses up to the mountain and sends a promise of blessing to Israel through him. Yahweh said ‘you have seen I have done to Egypt….you shall be my own people, a kingdom of people and a holy nation, if you listen to my words and keep the covenant’. According to this Israel would become God’s own people, as no other people were his. They would become mediators, bringing his knowledge to other people, and them to him. As a consequent, they would become a holy nation, i.e., fully dedicated to Yahweh; they were to receive the blessing if they were ready to listen to him and to keep the covenant. It may be noted that the covenant was not one sidely imposed on them, but given or made with their voluntary acceptance. The whole people gathered and responded to Mosses that they were ready to do whatever Yahweh wanted and enter into a covenant with Him. Accordingly as per Yahweh’s instructions the people were purified and made ready for the theophany (God’s appearance) which take place on 3rd day. And it is then that the Decalogue, the moral commandments, which formed the core of the covenant code, was given to Israelites through Mosses. Thus we see that morality is given to Israelites right at the heart of entering into the covenant with Yahweh. There upon Mosses builds an alter, kills the sacrificial animal and sprinkles half of the blood on the alter, representing God, and the other half on the people, saying ‘this is the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh ahs made with us today and thus seals the covenant. Consequently, biblical morality and Christian morality already from the OT is known as Covenant Morality. Because it was given in the context of the covenant, as part of the covenant and shares in the spirit of the covenant, which is essentially one of the personal relationship and fidelity. To take away biblical morality from its covenant context is to tear it of from its true spirit. We can summarize this schematically as follows:

Old Testament New Testament
Liberation from Egypt Redemption
Covenant Covenant sealed with Christ
Israel – God’s People Man becomes God’s Child
Mediator – Mosses Mediator – Jesus Christ
Torah (Pattern) Jesus Christ, Person (Pattern)


As the scheme shows, the OT events are fulfilled in NT in and through Jesus. In OT Torah was their pattern of morality while in NT, Jesus Himself, he is the pattern of new morality. While in OT it was a written code, in the NT it is the living person of Jesus Christ. His teachings, preaching and activities are included in that. In short Jesus gives us the best model of moral response in the NT. Our further task is to know something about the moral vision and teaching of Jesus. In Mt 5, 17 Jesus Says ‘I have not come to destroy the law and prophets but to fulfill’. By this Jesus must have been dispelling certain confusion in the mind of the people about himself. Who really seemed to them as man of God, but violated or questioned Jewish laws and tradition. Here he says that his actions do not mean opposition to the laws but raising the laws with perfection by giving it deeper interpretation and understanding. He is also declaring his moral vision of raising the Mosaic Law to its fulfillment, while Mosses was the law giver in OT, Jesus in NT. He was quiet conscious of his authority to do this, which people themselves acknowledge (MK 1, 22). And he himself says that he is the lord of the Sabbath which no ordinary Jew could have said. (Mk 2, 28). In next words, Jesus asks not to pick and choose but to be faithful to all the laws, which are given by God whether small or big and all will be fulfilled by Him. Mt 5, 20. Jesus asks us to go beyond pharisaic morality; in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. Here the question arises about the character of pharisaic morality. Quite notably legalism, externalism, minimalism and self-righteousness.

Legalism is a moral attitude and a style of life which obeys the law for itself. Law becomes and end. The purpose of law is ignored, which is the good of the persons and the community of persons. Legalism, it is said, is a moral system suffocated by the weight of its own law. E.g., Mt 12, 9-4; Mt 23, 4; Jn 9, 13, these and similar instances and the Pharisees reaction clearly reveal their legalism. As against that Jesus calls for personalism. E.g., Mt 2, 27 “Sabbath is for man…” Related feature of pharisaic morality is externalism or formally, literarily fulfilling the demands of the law without the corresponding inner spirit. Here morality often consists in rituals and rubrics (Mt 23, 25; Mt 23, 27, 2 Cor 2, 17). Jesus wants instead a morality of interiority, a morality of the heart. Moral response springing from the depth of the person so that inside and outside are consistent. Mk 7, 18; 7, 6.

Minimalism
People are satisfied by minimum requirements of law not showing any generosity in moral law (MT23, 23; 23, 4). Jesus wants on the contrary maximalism or generosity, morality which we find in Mt 5, 38.

Self-righteousness
Namely the belief that one can attain his own justification by his effort. Jesus warns the Pharisees against that and calls for a morality of faith and dependence on God. It is not self dependence but God dependence. A good example is the parable of Pharisee and the Publican who goes to the temple and prays Lk 18, 9. Pharisee had faithfully fulfilled all his obligations – fasting, charity, and so on, while the Publican was far away from all that. Pharisee had only a record of achievements while the Publican had only a list of failures, but latter went home justified, because he war aware of his sinfulness, prayed for God’s mercy and it flowed in to him and justified. The Pharisee was full of himself, did not feel the need of God’s mercy. It did not descend on to him to justify him. NT morality works, by the power of grace of God to which man has to cooperate. But human effort is not the major part. I short the Pharisee legalism; formalism, minimalism and self righteousness have to be transcended by personalism, interiority, generosity and reliance on God.

In Mt 5, 21-48 we see Jesus’ message fulfilling the old morality. This section is called the charter or Magna Carta of NT morality, gives us in a nutshell the spirit, attitude and the life style of the NT morality. We are familiar with Jesus’ contrast with Mosses, the law giver of the NT perfecting what was given by Mosses, the law giver of OT. You have heard, it said “You shall not commit murder…but I tell you…..don’t call your brother a fool…..you will be punished with hell fir”….and so on. All subsequent things, we are supposed to do, so that we may be perfect as the heavenly father is perfect, who has loved us unconditionally and totally.

Taking simple situations from life, Jesus illustrates what our basic attitude and style of action should be. First of all He reminds us, that not doing the forbidden external act (murder, adultery) is not just enough, one should root out the very basic which could lead to such actions, like irritating thought against neighbours, lust in the heart towards a women so on. Here Jesus is deeply interiorizing morality. He further takes instances of assault, litigation, forced labor, arms giving etc. In all such instances one is asked to do the double or much more than what is required, often labeled as the morality of the 2nd mile, the morality of other cheek etc. Here Jesus is maximizing morality. The demands are deepened, broadened and thereby radicalized. Often it is said that this moral demand is expressed in hyperboles, so exaggerated that it need not be taken seriously. The answer is, hyperboles are used to drive the message home, to strongly and attractively present the message, not to invalidate the message. Remember that Jesus started by saying that he was going to fulfill the OT morality. Some people may say that, this is simple idealism and an interim ethics. This is not merely an ideal, but an earnest invitation to live, which Jesus has lived. The early Christian community expected and early Parousia. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus fulfill the morality, because of such expectations of people. In fact expectations emerged later, but fulfillment of morality was part of Jesus mission. Of course one need not take demands literally, but one should act in the spirit exemplified in the instances given. For e.g. when assaulted one need not necessarily turn the other check, but respond without any irritation, anger, revenge, enmity and so on, but with at most altruism, love and care.

We should also note that all the instances given here are occasions of interpersonal interactions, and therefore we see that morality is anchored in one stand towards his brethren, namely a stand of complete forgiveness and unreserved understanding and love; Morality is after all personal. Let us also remember that this morality is not purely a human / natural morality, but a morality of kingdom of God, a morality of children of God. As we know ‘action flows from being’ and we are raised to the status of the children of God by the grace of Christ and therefore called to live as it befits God’s children, the God who has loved us infinitely and unconditionally. Evidently, this morality involves constant vigilance and strives with the help of God’s grace. Failures and falls may happen, but it doesn’t invalidate the message of Jesus. It is we, who should become conscious of our weakness, relay on God and try to go ahead again. So much so that Christian morality becomes a continuous strive for rising up to the life style of the Children of God.

Besides the section we have seen above, which emphasize love and concern for others as the ground of morality, there are other teachings of Christ, which clearly emphasize the primacy of love in Christian morality. There are a number of texts in NT, though we just take only a few. For e.g. Mt 22, 34-39; Mk 12, 28-31; Lk 10, 25 -27; Jn 13, 34 – 35; Rom 13, 8. The Synoptic texts have more or less the same background, i.e. a Pharisee asks ‘Which is the greatest commandment’. Jesus answers that the most important command is the love of God and love another. In John Jesus says ‘I give you a new commandment … love one another as I have loved you’, which of course is a great challenge to love one other in a self sacrificing manner. St. Paul asks people to fulfill all their debts. Jesus says ‘One debt or due which can’t be absolved, namely the obligation of Love, which is something we owe each other. Coming to the synoptic Gospels, we see that the command of love includes three objects. Love of God, neighbour and oneself. How ever we don’t preach about self love as a moral obligation, because people naturally take care of it by having sufficient concern about them. However remember that, self love is something very significant from psychological and moral point of view. Only he, who loves himself, in a healthy manner, is only able to love others, otherwise it will be overt attempt to get the attentional love of others. Besides as created in the image and likeness of God, and Children of God, each one is expected to love himself, self acceptance and self esteem, which physiologists speak about, is nothing different from genuine love. However we must distinguish between self love and selfish love which stands for the self-centered love. Where there is little concern for others. Then practically, love of God and love of neighbour becomes important to moral concern, because they are the two constitutive elements of the most important commands.

Let us try to understand what ‘love of God’ is. And it is said ‘love’ is a loaded word. Love is interpreted from various perspectives by various disciplines. Here we try to understand it from theological perspective. Love in general supposes two aspects. Normally (1) Close relationship and intimacy (2) Benevolence (Readiness to do good for the beloved). Let us see how these aspects valid in human love are applicable to love of God. It is quiet reasonable to say that he who loves God has a close personal relationship with Him. But how this relationship is is expressed and fostered, of course man can think and reflect about God in very personal terms. Perhaps he can feel the love of God. However, most meaningful way one can relate to God is through his will, which is the most noble and decisive faculty in man, through which options are made and decisions reached. Therefore love of God essentially consists in confirming one’s will to that of God. Or in other words, union with the will of God or the readiness to do God’s will. Roman Philosopher Cicero said long ago that similarity of likes and dislikes is the best criterion of love and friends have same likes and dislikes.

If we go through Bible, we can find good support for this. For e.g. John 14, 15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. John 15, 10 “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.” 1 John 5, 3 “For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome”. 2 John 1, 6 “And this is love that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning-- you must walk in it”. A commandment of God is the formulation and expression of God’s will and plan for us. Therefore keeping the commandments means, doing the will of God. Matthew 6, 33 “But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well”, where it is said that we should above all seek, the kingdom of God and its justice, a primary obligation, doesn’t contradict what we have said above, precisely because, kingdom of God is not a geographical reality but a condition or state of affair, where the will of God is fulfilled. Matthew says the same fulfillment of God’s will or love of God.

The other aspect of love is, readiness to do good for God and actually doing it. How can we do good for God? And what good? Of course we can’t do anything intrinsically good to God, because He is all perfect. But we can add to the external good of God, which consists in promoting the glory of God. The basic requirement for which is again, the realization of will and plan of God. Therefore under both aspects we come to the same reality and requirement as constitutive of love of God.

Love of God as a relationship between God and man includes also other aspects or experiences which are part of Father –Son relationship, which are usually expressed through one or another form of prayer, like praise, thanks giving, petition for grace, asking forgiveness. Therefore Prayer in its various forms is definitely are expressions of love of God. In the Gospel we see many occasions, where Jesus himself prays and asks us to pray, showing that prayer from our part is itself the part of will and plan of God. In Lk 11, 1… Jesus teaching to pray. Lk 11, 5-8 encouraging insistent prayer. Lk 11, 9-13 ‘ask you shall receive’. Lk 18, 1-8’Pray continuously’. Mt 26, 41 ‘Pray not to fall into temptations’. Mt 6, 9-13, ‘Lords Prayer’. The key request of which are praising Lord, fulfillment of God’s will and the coming of His kingdom. Jesus prayer in Gethsemane (Mt 26, 39) shows how prayer, in spite of all attend, pains, difficulties, challenges is to be centered on to the fulfillment of God’s will. Therefore the ability of a prayer, to bring one, closer to God’s will is the true criterion of the quality of prayer, and it is not easy for us to ascertain that.

Spiritual Fathers say that Prayer helps one; to identify God’s will to one. And the task of the life is to fulfill that will. Thus prayer and life are the two sides of the same coin.

Spiritual authors distinguish three aspects of love of God
• Appreciative Love
• Benevolent Love
• Mystical Love
Appreciative Love consists in esteeming and appreciating God for His goodness, which is more an intellect activity.
Benevolent Love consists in fulfilling God’s will
Mystical Love, total surrender to and union with God.
Of course Mystical love is the culminate form, but benevolent love seem to be central one, without that appreciative love will be hollow and mystical love will be meaningless and even impossible.

Love of Neighbour

Let us try to understand love of neighbour, which is moral theologically more important. Love of neighbour can’t be defined as union with will of neighbour because being human and finite; we can go wrong in our desires and wants. It is best defined as readiness to God’s will in relation to my neighbour. Readiness to what God wants for others. We can also say to do what contribute to the genuine good of the other. Though the Gospel asks us to love our neighbour, it doesn’t give us very practical general guidelines through the golden rule, the model of self love, and the model of Jesus’ love. These are practical, that we can’t fall ignorant about the demands of neighbour. Lk 6, 31; Mt 7, 12 gives us the Golden Rule ‘Do to others as you would have them do to you’. This is found in scriptures and writings of several religions.

We all have legitimate expectations of one another. Especially in situations of need. It is an expectation based human solidarity and brotherhood. And the golden rule asks us to rise up to the demands and nothing more. The second as we saw, in the synoptic love-text ‘one’s love for himself’ should become the measure of love towards his brother. In fact, all normal people do their best for their own good, therefore this as such to behave towards others with same concern and ferocity, and finally Jn 15, 12-13 Jesus asks us to love each other as he has loved us. In a self sacrificing manner, thus three grades of love starting with golden rule in culmination in Jesus’ love. A Christian is supposed to grow always towards this culminating model of love.
Let us look at some of the characteristics of love to understand it better:
Love of neighbour shall be:
Benevolent, beneficent, unconditional, universal and integral.

Benevolent Love

First of all love consists in the positive and constructive concern for others, as one’s brother or sister. Benevolence literally means wishing or desiring good. It means the love begins in one’s heart, not in pockets or in purses. It is deeper than love beginning at home. Without positive constructive concern for others, the so called ‘helps’ will not be actual charity. As we have said earlier love implies a positive personal relationship and concern. In 1 Cori 13, 4 St. Paul illustrates this idea encouraging good attitudes and discouraging negative attitudes. There we see love illustrated without relation to material help.

Beneficent Love

Though good attitude is important it has to be translated into life in genuine love. It is said that, help paved with good intentions. In order to be constructive love has to be put into action. As we know, love without action is dead. In the Gospels we read the parable of two sons Mt 21, 28-32 shows the importance of action over momentary readiness and promise. Mk 7, 37 tells us that Jesus did everything well. Acts 10, 38 Jesus went about doing good. It is evident from Gospel that Jesus practiced what he preached.


Unconditional Love

It refers to motive of love rather than any content. Genuine love should be free from the part of one who loves. In genuine love there can be conditions which are aimed at the good of the person loved and thus become, so to say, part of love itself. Unconditional love requires love another, because he is a human person with his personal dignity and rights. A human person is created in the image and likeness of God. He is a child of God. He is loved by God, and whom God wants us to love.

There are different aspects of one and same theological motive for loving the other. It is said ‘love is a present than a gift’ because it is freely given, but the recipient deserves it. And every human person is such a potential recipient. Hence it is said there is one condition in unconditional love, that the other be a person. If we add any more condition for loving another we are disfiguring the face of the image of God for our selfishness which we are not allowed to do. The distinction between like and love is important here. Anything, personal or non personal can be the object of like. It is emotional reaction towards a quality in the other, than a voluntary act of self giving, while in the love one places oneself voluntarily at the service of the other. Consequently there is more room for emotionality and emotional satisfaction in like than in love, where emotion is not essential. Though it may be part of total love relationship between two persons. Further it is clear that like is self-seeking relationship and called need-love. While love self-giving relationship and called gift-love, though we use love also with regard to non person. Truly it may be used only for loving persons because, love is a free personal act, towards another subject who needs to be a person, in order to meaningfully receive and respond to the personal act. Matthew says “Love is an act of the will, not a reaction of the heart’, which sums up what we have said above. This should not be misunderstood. It asks us not to sentimentalize love and place it in emotional satisfaction, elation of feeling or superficial relationship, and same time love should not be made impersonal, or, commodity of love, as if we can love a person by doing simply something for his well being. There is this danger when love is institutionalized, where institution is supposed to serve others, but actually the well being of the institution turns out to be the primary concern. When we love a person, we love the concrete person in his uniqueness, with his particular assets and liabilities. Several of which may be attractive, provided you don’t forget to love him as a person. In short we love a person with all his particularities, but not because of them.

Universal Love
It means our love should be extended to all persons, every enemies (Mt 5, 44), which flows from its unconditionality. Can we love all, a question asked in this context, and the answer requires a distinction. As a positive and constructive attitude, all can be the objects of one’s love. This only needs a big heart. However in actuality, when attitude is turned into action we can’t possibly love all, precisely because our resources are limited. And here, our love should be shared according to objective need. The needier should receive our first service and so on. This doesn’t impede to fulfill the obligations flowing from natural relationships like parents to children, siblings among them selves, spouses towards each other. OT also speaks about universal love towards neighbour (Levi 19, 18-34) First consider the people of one’s own race as neighbours and secondly consider foreigners living among them as neighbour. So this doesn’t have a universality envisaged in NT.

Integral Love
Which means two things, love should focus on the good of the whole person who is complex and has various needs to be fulfilled for his wellbeing. In the tradition there was lower emphasis on the spiritual needs, considering other ones as secondary, which doesn’t seems to be in order. Love the whole person, focusing on what is needed here and now. Another implication is that one’s act of love shall not go against the demands of other moral commandment. This can happen if one is not sufficiently enlightened or critical. Such people allow themselves to be exploited in the name of love, which fails to be true love. One requires wise judgment or prudence to avoid exploitation.


CS Lewis – Human Love classification – Four Loves

1. Affection -> Mother to child / from top to bottom
2. Friendship -> Between equals / mutual persons love
3. Eros -> Sexual love merges with other.
4. Charity / Agape -> giving oneself to other.
Love understood as above, has 3 characteristics

1. It is the fulfillment of all laws, namely all moral obligations. Mt 22, 40; Rom 13, 9-10; Gal 5, 14 tell us the same. Moral theology says that love is the form of all virtues, understood as follows; various moral laws require us to stand and work for the good of the other in one way or another like respecting his life, freedom, property and so on. But love demands from us always constructive concern for the other, which can be applied, whenever and wherever we come into relationship with others. Therefore love is contained the fulfillment of laws. Put in another way, it is the attitude of love that makes various moral actions virtues. For e.g. if somebody fulfills and obligation in justice without any touch of love, never with resentment and ill will, technically obligation is fulfilled but it doesn’t become virtue, precisely because it is deprived of the form which turn actions into virtue. We also know that love demands the maximum, while other laws require minimum. Therefore we say that these minimal obligations are conditioned in the maximum. That is why St. Paul says ‘love does no wrong’. And St. Augustine says ‘Love and do whatever you like’. Consequently we may also say that the various moral commandments are specification of love, because one can’t fully love another without expecting these various moral laws.
2. There is an intrinsic bond between love of God and love of neighbour. Love of God is the foundation of love of neighbour and love of neighbour is the expression and evidence of love of God. The various theological motives given earlier for love of neighbour also show their mutual relationship. Also refer 1 Jn 4, 10..,’ if God loved us so…we ought to love each other’. Mt 5, 23 –bringing gift to alter, so one is not worthy to offer sacrifice, the highest expressions of love of God, unless his relationship with neighbour is in order. 1 Jn 4, 19-20 anyone who says ‘I love God’ Lk 10, 30 Parable of good Samaritan, also reminds us that one need not rush to temple for divine service, ignoring his brother lying deserted on the way and needing his help. In Christianity we see a God who dies for man, not a God who wants man to die for Him’. If so, loving that God consists very much in loving the man for whom he died. In this way Christian morality springs from one’s relationship and commitment to God; then religion and morality are closely interrelated.
3. Law of the Kingdom – Divine Son-ship: The love which Gospel demands from us implies a life style befitting the children of God, those elevated to the divine status. It is not purely a natural or humanistic morality. It also needs God’s grace for actually practicing. 1 Jn 1, 12 ‘to those who believe, he gave the power to be the children of God’. Rom 7, 6 we are not under the old code, but in the new life of spirit. Rom 8, 5-11 it is the spirit that guides and enables us to call Abba and live as the Children of God. Mk 10, 27 ‘What is impossible for man is possible for God’.
In this context, we may define a Christian as ‘One who is called to love God, by loving his neighbour, here and now’. So the basic task of a Christian is love God. But means of realizing that is through love of neighbour, and that too not escaping in to a dream world but in one’s concrete life situation. Those immediately around us and needing our love and service are the first ones who should experience the fruits of our love. Decree on human formation (Optatam Totius, OT – 16) speaks about the task of the Christian community, namely to bring forth the fruits of love for the life of the world. Life sprouts and thrives only on the fertile ground of love, which is known to us from life experience. This world which is the creation of God, especially the human society should grow and flourish and it is the task of the Christian community to supply the love required for them. Of course it is the task of all communities, but the council reminds the Christian community its special obligation. Finally we listen to St. Paul (Gal 5, 6) who tells that circumcision or non circumcision is not the problem, what is required is faith operative in love; a faith that translates itself into life through love.