Man has free will that distinguishes him from creation and allows him to reason between good and evil. True freedom comes from following moral laws, which sets us free from slavery to sin. While living virtuously requires struggle, strength comes from prayer, Scripture, and sacraments like Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Moral acts proceed from deliberate choices between good and evil, expressing one's character. Responsibility for acts depends on knowledge, with invincible ignorance lessening culpability.

1. CHAPTER 2
FREEDOM AND CONSCIENCE

2. FREE WILLY!!
Man’s free will distinguishes him from the rest of creation;
-our capacity to reason, understand and discern good
from evil, and freely act on these things.
The concept of free will is easily misunderstood:
 The freedom to do whatever one wants,
whenever one wants == FALSE.
When we take objective truths and consider them subjective, we
are in danger of justifying evil behavior.
Relativism: There are no such thing as moral decisions,
just options of personal preference.

3. THE FREEDOM TO DO WHAT ONE OUGHT
 Good moral acts lead us to a truer sense of freedom.
 Bad moral acts make us slaves to sin.
Staying within the moral law may seem restrictive at first, but this
really sets the stage for a greater sense of freedom.
Analogies: English language; getting license; playing piano.

4. #WHATSAYJESUS
“If you continue in my word,
you are truly my disciples,
and you will know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.”
“…everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.”
John 8

5. FREEDOM IN THE MORAL LIFE
Being a faithful disciple of Christ:
-Does not make us less free; rather,
-It gives us greater freedom as it liberates us from the sinfulness that
seeks to enslaves us;
-Thereby allowing us to fulfill the purpose for which we were created;
-And to achieve true happiness.

6. THE THROW DOWN -- GOOD VS EVIL
The struggle of good and evil has been the great drama of history.
We recognize it in nearly all great literature, all profound
philosophical thought, and by the development of laws.
Socrates called the science of good and evil the most important of
all forms of knowledge because it places us on the road to true
happiness. His student, Plato, called moral knowledge “the rule of
human life.”
These guys believed that living virtuously was the whole point of
education – the perfection of man.
Living the moral life has also always been a struggle
even for the most devout Christian.

7. THE THROW DOWN -- GOOD VS EVIL
Many of the greatest saints write about dealing with strong
temptations to sin.
“Lord, make me chaste…but not yet.”
So what do we do to fight the good fight?
Ephesians 6:14-19
Strength comes in prayer, Scripture, and the Sacraments.
What Sacraments are particularly helpful?
Reconciliation and the Eucharist.

8. THE MORAL LIFE…WHY BOTHER?
Motivations for following the moral law:
The perfect motivator:
Love of God and neighbor
The imperfect motivator:
Fear of God and punishment
While love is a more perfect motivator then fear, both are incentives
grounded in a belief in the moral truths revealed by Christ and
taught by the Church.
God prefers obedience out of love, but accepts obedience motivated
by fear of consequences too.
Usually it’s some combination of the two.

9. BOTHERING CONTINUED
Christians believe that they are adopted sons or daughters of God
who have been redeemed out of love by what Jesus accomplished
on the cross.
They have decided to live forGod and believe that God has set down
a moral law – what ought to be done or avoided.
A non-believer also recognizes a moral code that exist as rational
moral principles which apply to everyone.
The Natural Law is written on the human heart—part of our
nature.
Malum in se – evil in itself.
Christian morality entails the whole person as intelligent, free, and
thus, responsible for their actions in an authentic human existence.

10. THE MORAL ACT
Not all actions are moral acts. Moral acts are those actions that
result from deliberate, free choice between good and evil, or varying
degrees of goodness.
Examples of non-moral acts: breathing, walking, yawning: simply
physical actions that are not the result of deliberate choice.
A moral act must be (1) premeditated and freely chosen.
It also (2) must involve moral content. Some choices are morally
indifferent. Moral acts proceed from decisions between good and
evil or different degrees of goodness.

11. THE MORAL ACT
Moral actions are (3) personal – they say something about the
person:
Deliberation involves the intellect;
And free choice involves the will.
The intellect and will are the two primary faculties of man’s soul;
and the soul is reflected in the body.
Since man is comprised of body and soul, moral actions express and
determine the goodness or evil of the individual that performs them.
Our morality determines our character!

12. THE MORAL ACT
“For better or worse, moral acts contribute toward forming our
character and our virtue…
Moral acts express and influence our dispositions and our free will
because our actions, dispositions, and will are interrelated.
Every moral act we commit leaves us either better off or worse,
more virtuous or less virtuous, closer to God or further away from
God.
It never leaves us exactly the same.”
pg 43

13. Person
Choice
Intellect (Conscience)
FreeWill (Chooses virtue/vice)
Moral Act
Character

14. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
Knowledge and responsibility are
directly related.
Knowledge of act : Responsibility
Knowledge of act : Responsibility
The more/less knowledge one possesses, the more/less morally
responsible one is.

15. GOT GUILT?
 Number from 1) to 4) – who is most guilty? And why?
 1) being the least guilty, 4) being the most
A) A lawyer who commits perjury
B) A lone witness to an auto accident who injures a victim
by accidentally giving improper first aid
C) A two-year-old who takes his brother’s toys
D) A medical resident who gives a wrong prescription after
working thirty-six hours straight.

16. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
Well formed Christians have the greatest responsibility because they
have the most knowledge of right and wrong; good and evil.
This doesn’t only apply for culpability of sin --
Greater knowledge also increases the virtue of a good action.
Makes sense right? More responsibility usually gets more $$$ in the
working world.
What about a lack of knowledge?
With ignorance we have to make our
first distinction.

17. IGNORANCE
There are three forms of ignorance:
Invincible Ignorance: When we do not know
something that was impossible for us to know.
Vincible Ignorance: When we do not know
something that we ought to know.
Concomitant Ignorance: When we do not know
something but we would have done it anyway
had we known.

18. INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
The person makes a decision to act out of ignorance but in good
conscience -- having taken every precaution to inform himself.
If fully informed, the person would have not performed the act.
Responsibility is diminished or minimized by lack of knowledge.
Invincible ignorance = Not culpable (or at least minimally culpable)

19. INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
St.Thomas Aquinas’ example:
A hunter in the woods thinks he is shooting a deer and has taken
every precaution to make sure he is making the right decision
to shoot. But he shoots and kills a man which he would have
not done had he known it was a man and not a deer. The
hunter is responsible for the death of another but his
responsibility is minimized because he could not have
known it was a man beforehand.

20. VINCIBLE IGNORANCE
The person makes a decision to act out of ignorance without
attempting to find out what the result might be.
Not in good conscience -- not having taken every precaution to be
fully informed.
Responsibility is retained because the person could have overcome
their ignorance.
Vincible Ignorance = Fully culpable for act

21. VINCIBLE IGNORANCE
St.Thomas Aquinas’ example:
In this case the hunter does not bother trying to find out if the
object is a deer or a man and he shoots anyway. In killing
the man, the hunter’s responsibility is increased because
he could have put in the effort to find out if it was in fact a
deer he was shooting or not. His will was not fully informed,
but he did not allow this to alter his decision, therefore, he is
more responsible for the killing.

22. CONCOMITANT IGNORANCE
(not in book)
The person performs an act out of ignorance but they would not have
changed their decision had they been more informed to what they
were doing.
Responsibility is retained because the person would have chosen the
act fully informed.
Concomitant Ignorance = Fully culpable

23. CONCOMITANT IGNORANCE
St.Thomas Aquinas’ example:
The hunter thinks he is shooting a deer, but shoots and kills his
enemy. In this case, the hunter killed out of ignorance but
would have still chosen to kill his enemy if he had been
informed that it was his enemy.

24. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
So we see that the only acceptable form of ignorance is invincible
ignorance
--one who seeks the truth and follows that truth
as best he understands it –
It is only invincible ignorance that acts in good conscience, fully
informed to the extent that is possible.

25. What do we have the obligation to do if we suspect an action might be
wrong, but we’re not 100% sure?
We have the obligation to resolve all doubt by gathering the
correct information. We cannot just act and then claim ignorance.

26. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
“Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or
even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit,
inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”
CCC 1735
see chart

27. FACTORS THAT LIMIT RESPONSIBILITY
Factor Definition Example
Ignorance Not knowing something. A person who has never
heard the Gospel
Inadvertence Not noticing something. Speeding because of not
seeing a speed limit sign that
lowered the speed limit.
Duress Being put under force. Being forced to drive a get-
away car at gunpoint.
Fear Being afraid of something. Lying about cheating for fear
of getting expelled.
Habit Acting in an almost involuntary
way because of having done the
same thing repeatedly.
A new lie told by a
pathological liar.
Inordinate attachment Desire for something that goes
beyond reason.
An alcoholic who continues
drinking even though he
wants to stop.