Morality: Consensus Ethics

The root source of a modern Christian morality, says Roman Catholic Bishop Francis Simons of Indore, India, is not so much the Bible or natural law as the consensus of what constitutes “the good or welfare of man, in society and individually.” In the current issue of the U.S. theological quarterly Cross Currents, Dutch-born Bishop Simons uses his consensus theory to propose a radical revision of ethics that would make certain violations of generally accepted moral principles reasonable exceptions to the rule rather than sinful inconsistencies.

Simons rejects Bible-based morality on the grounds that Jesus himself imposed no detailed code of behavior, but rather gave a general injunction that man should live according to the highest standards and seek perfection through love. He likewise feels that the conventional Catholic approach to natural law is too abstract and impersonal. The traditional natural-law moralist would call lying a sin because it perverts the purpose of speech, which is communication. Simons’ general-welfare theory suggests a more plausible reason, similar to the thinking of Protestants who reject natural law: that “mankind would be gravely harmed if telling lies were generally committed.”

Constants & Change. “When the general convictions of mankind and the insights of its wisest men agree,” Simons argues, “we can be reasonably sure that they embody a substantially correct view of the contents of natural moral law.” Some moral law is virtually self-evident and thus constant through history—for example, respect for life and property. But there has also been change and development in man’s understanding of morality. The modern consensus establishes as sinful certain behavior patterns, such as slavery and polygamy, that previous ages accepted as moral. Now, Simons believes, a consensus is developing outside the church that permits abortions when a mother’s life is in danger, birth control and even sterilization for parents whose family welfare would be threatened by another child, and suicide “where it is foreseen that otherwise great harm will be caused.”

Masturbation is another act that Simons thinks should be deplored in general but condoned under particular circumstances. He points out that the vast majority of youths in Western societies go through long periods of protracted sexual tension. With the welfare of man as his criterion, Simons suggests that it is psychologically better for them to release this tension by masturbation than to prolong it at the risk of developing a morbid preoccupation with sex. The Catholic church’s inflexibility in condemning remarriage after divorce is also not in accord with the modern view of human welfare. All efforts should be made to discourage and prevent divorce, Simons says, but he also believes that it would be better to permit remarriage in the case of deserted spouses who cannot live a life of continence.

A Means of Damnation. The welfare of man also requires that the church update some of its own disciplinary commands, such as church every Sunday. In most countries today only a small minority observes the rule. “If one concludes,” says Bishop Simons, “that all those who knowingly refuse to observe the law commit a grave sin, the church seems to become, for the majority of her members, a means of damnation rather than of salvation.”

Simons, a member of the missionary Society of the Divine Word, got his doctorate of theology in Rome, went to India in 1937, was consecrated a bishop in 1952. He admits that his conclusions sound startling, especially coming from a Catholic bishop, but answers potential criticism with the argument: “They are offered as a more faithful rendering of basic Catholic doctrines, which teach that God made everything on earth for the sake of man, that he imposed laws only for man’s good, and that love is the fulfillment of the law.”