Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have heard that the West is to legalistic in it's approach to Moral Theology. I have, in my apologetic group led by a Roman Moral Theologian, gone over to a certain depth the basics of Moral Theology, at least from the Roman approach. This approach being to look at the act itself to determine whether an act is morally good, morally neutral or morally. You determine this by looking at 1) the Object (or Remote Intention), 2) the Intention (or Ultimate Intention) and 3) the Circumstances (the classic 5 W's - Who What When Where Why and How). All three must be good or neutral for an act to not be evil, in other woods for a good or at least morally neutral act. After that, if an act is morally evil, then you look at 1) whether or not a person has/had full knowledge that the act was evil and 2) having full knowledge of the evilness of an act they still commit it. You look at these to determine if a morally evil act is Venial or Mortal.

So that is what I understand of some of the basics of the Roman approach to Moral theology. So, how do Eastern Christians go about Moral Theology and how is it different from this?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

There is a very nice, short monograph for catechists, Shown to Be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Moral Thought, which should be available either in the parish icon corner, or through Byzantine Seminary Press. I would be surprised if there was not a copy floating around at HT, but in any case, I think I have a few floating around (I used to in my Eastern Christian ECF classes, as opposed to the horrid 1970s-era workbooks we had), which I can give to you.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Stuart,

That would be truly wonderful. I am trying to deprogram my mind as a Roman and relearn how to think as a Melkite. I think I have read posts on other threads that mention how many people of Eastern rites and Churches are still Roman/Latin in how they think and understand the Sacraments, theology and spirituality. Before I read any of those posts though, I had been concerned of being a religious oreo if I change my Church from Rome to Melkite. In other words of being ritually Melkite but still having the mind, thinking and understand of Rome. If I change my Church, I do not wish to still be Roman in my mind and understand, but wish to be thoroughly Melkite and Byzantine.

LOL, actually, yesterday, I was at a council meeting for my apologetic group and we prayed the "Glory be" and I was about to spurt out the Melkite version which has a different second half. I just now was trying to remember the Roman second half and it took me a while to remember. Maybe I'm making progress. LOL

BTW, are you going to be at DL at HT tonight?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

I think I may. Depends on when I finish work, as I am going out of town next week and need to complete several projects before then.

I have never once heard moral theology discussed as a distinct area of thought.

I'm not partial to dividing up theology into separate specialties as though it was any other academic discipline, but then, I am averse to considering theology an academic discipline in the first place. That said, there certainly is a field call "moral theology", and it is what it sounds like: the implications of theology on moral thought and activities.