Chapter I

INTRODUCTION
This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater
love than this, to lay down ones life for ones friends. You are my friends if you
do what I command you. I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not
know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have told you
everything I have heard from my Father. It was not you who chose me, but I who
chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that
whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. This I command you:
love one another.
Jn 15: 12 17
In the context of the Bible, God created everything because of His love. He put love in
everything that He created. The human beings are the most special creature of God. He gave
them freedom and free will. However, the first humans disobeyed God by being tempted by the
serpent. They ate the fruit forbidden by God. Because of this, the human race experience being
far from God. Since then, humans experienced disintegration from God. This disintegration
resulted to the breakdown of the metapersonal relationship of man to God. The original
metapersonal relationship of man and God has been destroyed because of the fall of Adam and
Eve. Another effect of this disintegration is the break down of the interpersonal relation of man
with other man. An instance of this is Cains killing of his brother Abel. Lastly, this disintegration
resulted to the break down of mans relation with himself including his nature and sexuality. Man
has conflict within himself. This makes him confused on what he establishes in himself with
regard to his nature and his sexuality. Nevertheless, because of Gods unconditional and
everlasting love, He sent Jesus Christ to redeem us from our iniquities. By His death and
resurrection, we receive a new life fulfilled with Gods mercy and love. Jesus restored us to life
because of His love for all the humanity.
Human sexuality is related to how man relates with others and with himself. The urge to
conduct sexual intercourse with other human is a life time urge. In whatever way a human relates
with others and with himself manifest his sexuality. Karol Wojtyla says that if we look at sex
exclusively from the outside we can "define it as a specific synthesis of attributes which manifest
themselves clearly in the psychological and physiological structure of man"

Love, however, is

"given its definitive shape by acts of will at the level of the person." The sexual urge in man
1 Karol Wojtyla, trans. H. T. Willets, Love and Responsibility (New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, Inc., 1995), 48.

2 Ibid., 49.

"functions differently from the urge in animals, where it is the source of instinctive actions governed
by nature alone. In man it is naturally subordinate to the will, and ipso facto subject to the specific
dynamics of that freedom which the will possesses"3
In the contemporary times, the common conception of the word love has been going away
from its original meaning. There are even some abuses with the use of love. Love has to have
something in return. Love has to be reciprocated. The love of money, power and authority lead
people to do everything just to remain on the top of many. In the context of human sexuality,
some people promote same sex marriage. They fight for the right to love intimately with the
same sex under the ceremony of marriage. In some parts of the world, it is very alarming that
same sex marriage is already allowed and legalized. Another is the promotion of bestiality
wherein some human want to have sex with animals. These people think that they see an
intimate kind of love with an animal. These are some of the abuses of love. Different people
have different interpretation about love thats why the real essence of love cannot be understood
anymore.
This paper would try to expose the real meaning of love rooted from its radical and
original context. Through the enlightenment of Karol Wojtyla, this would seek to understand the
real essence of love. Human sexuality would be extricated with relation to love. The role of love
in human sexuality would be emphasized and widely discussed in order to have a deeper
comprehension with the word love. The main project of this paper is for the readers to be more
open minded in applying love human sexuality having the closest understanding of love.
Specifically, this paper aims to find a resource that could guide us and enlighten us in
rediscovering the unity of love and human sexuality.
A. Statement of the Problem
New things are said to be exciting to see and to experience. Whenever there is a new
shirt or any possession, people are excited to own, as well as whenever there is a new mode or
style, a lot of people try their best to avail that certain style or mode. This is the reason why
many people interpret love in the context of human sexuality in a different way.
The concept of love is somehow having a lot of interpretation coming from different
individuals. Because of these, there are confusions with the real essence and meaning of love.

3 Ibid., 50.
2

What then is the meaning of love? Is there concrete practice or interpretation of love? When can
humans consider his love to be in right disposition?
This study would explain Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality in a
hermeneutical way. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:
Main Problem:
What is the notion of love and human sexuality in Karol Wojtyla?
Sub Problems
1. How is Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality related to vocation?
2. How is Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality be for peace and against
violence?
3. How is Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality related to communal
solidarity?
B. Significance of the Study
This study would be significant to the writer for this research would be a great help for
the moral support to the Catholic Churchs advocacy of promulgating the real essence and
meaning of love. This study would also make the researcher be a productive member of the
Church.
This research would also be useful for the congregation of the Missionaries of Our Lady
of La Salette for this research would be used to make each member understand the importance
of supporting the Church in promulgating the real essence and meaning of love. This study
would increase the knowledge and awareness of each member of the congregation with regard
to the real essence and meaning of love.
It would also be beneficial to the Catholic Church because with the help of this research,
there would be a great support in promulgating the real essence and meaning of love.
This would also favor the readers and co-seminarians for they will be enlightened about
the current situation that they have to do something and for them to continue this research by
having a deeper study. This study would encourage them to not be ignorant with the current
misinterpretation of the use of love and human sexuality.

Finally, this would contribute to the academe for this research may be used as reference
and guide of the future students who will research on the same topic. This study would be used
as reference material of the seminarians to come.
C. Scope and Limitations
The researcher accepts the fact that this study would be limited to a certain scope. It will
only focus on Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality. It will cover the explanation
of Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality as a vocation, for peace and against
violence and for communal solidarity. The factors to be considered in Karol Wojtylas mind
would be presented in order to have a deeper understanding and comprehension. After the
explanation, the critique on some issues with regard to the misinterpretations of love in the
contemporary world will follow. It will try to make the readers understand the reasons why the
Catholic Church promotes the real essence and meaning of love to be practiced and understood
by everyone.
D. Methods
In this study, the researcher will gather all the data needed through library and internet
research. The main idea of Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality will be
presented based on the gathered information from the library and from the internet.
Hermeneutically, Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality will be interpreted by the
researcher.
In Chapter I, the researcher will present the introduction, the statement of the problem,
the significance of the study, the scope and limitation, the methods, review of related literature
and studies, the definition of terms and the biographical sketch of Karol Wojtyla. It will introduce
the main concept of this paper, the problem that this paper would like to solve and the related
studies and literature that will support this study. This chapter will also provide the basic
information with regard to how significant this study is and how far this study will reach with its
own limitations. Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality will be introduced for a
better understanding with regard to his philosophical discourse.
In Chapter II, the researcher will discuss Karol Wojtylas concept of love as an attraction,
as a desire and as a goodwill. It is in this context that Karol Wojtyla s concept of human
sexuality is discussed. As a vocation, love will be clarified in order to have a better
4

understanding with the use and practice of love. The researcher will try to explain in the best
and simplest way these concepts of Karol Wojtyla. That is, or relationship.
In Chapter III, the researcher will discuss Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human
sexuality as a tool or instrument for peace and against violence. Its definition will further be
explained in the simplest manner. Karol Wojtylas advocacy for peace and his actions against
violence will be elaborated. The reason behind his philosophy that made influence to the world
will be presented as well.
In Chapter IV, the researcher will expose Karol Wojtylas concept of love and human
sexuality as a communal solidarity. His ideas concerning the philosophy of relation with others
as a sign of love will be expounded. Solidarity within the community plays an important role in
the totality of humanity. This will be the main point of discussion in this chapter.
In Chapter VI, the researcher will have conclusion by presenting the summary. There will
be a critical analysis with the entire presentation of concepts. Karol Wojtylas concept of love
and human sexuality will be hermeneutically analyzed. The researcher will interpret Karol
Wojtylas concept of love and human sexuality. At the end of this chapter, the researcher will
recommend to the students of philosophy especially to the advocates of morality the importance
of having the correct notion of love as presented by Karol Wojtyla in order for them to have a
guide in their daily lives. .
E. Review of Related Literature and Studies
A. Books:
Kennedy, Eugene. What a Modern Catholic Believes about Sex and
Marriage. Chicago: The Thomas More Press, 1971.
There is a growing sense of realism in the Christian community that tells us that former,
exclusively legal definitions of marriage are not sufficient to express what marriage as a human
relationship between man and woman should be. It is hard to believe that eminent moral
theologians could less than ten years have put so much emphasis on the legal bond that they
could write:
A marriage which produces no children is still a marriage. A marriage which is
never sexually consummated is a real marriage. Even a marriage in which there
is no mutual help, no life in common, in which concupiscence is not remedied but
reigns, where there is hatred instead of love and complete separation both bodily
5

and spiritually, remains a true marriage in the sense that the essence of marriage
is still there; that is the partners are still married and in virtue of the essential
marriage bond they are still bound to one another as husband and wife.
Marriages are not so often imposed. Man is free to seek out a relationship that will have
genuine personal meaning for him. In the present era of freedom, there are certain excesses
and a recurrence of many experimental styles of married-like relationships. Most of which have
appeared in one form or another during the course of history. The fact is that most matured and
healthy people still want something more than a commune or friendly-arrangement marriage.
They want a stabilized continuing union that is properly legalized.
The criterion for a real marriage can only be whether it is a source of life for the man and
woman joined in it. If the couple enlarge each others life and are able to give new life
responsibly together, then marriage truly exists. It is life-giving marriage that is essential for the
growth and development of morally matured persons.
Many moralists and canon lawyers are trying to approach marriage from the viewpoint of
growth rather than the viewpoint of pure legalism. Many will make a good argument for legal
forms for the general good of the society. However, if they want to understand what good people
who try to live by the spirit understand as marriage, they have to look to whether it gives life or
not, whether in other words, the profound elements of love, trust and responsibility are present
in a dynamic way.
One of the most important factors revealing the ladder of growth is that the productive
couples have come from homes in which happy marriages exists. That is one of the ways that
truly married people give life. Their children are able to move into successful and happy
marriages more readily than those who have known unhappy marriages in their own homes.
Children from unhappy marriages have assimilated some of the lessons of loving and have an
understanding of the kinds of things that go into keeping a marriage alive. First and foremost of
these characteristics is the willingness to keep working and struggling at a love relationship.
This vital aspect of marriage is frequently overlooked in anticipating marriage. As a result, the
first disagreements and troubles are quite surprising and upsetting. At times, people think there
is something wrong with their marriage because they have to make such a constant effort to be
sensitive to each other all along the way. Actually, there is something dead in the marriage
where there are no sparks flying from the inevitable abrasions of persons in close contact with
each other. Sometimes there is no struggle because the demands are so low and there is
nothing much going on in any area including the sexual.

Couples should realize that their sexual relationship is subject to the laws of growth just
like everything else in their life together. Many people have extremely high expectations about
the sexual experience of marriage and are terribly let down when they dont exactly light up the
heavens right away. A good sexual relationship does not just happen. The couple has to work at
this too trying to be as sensitive and responsive to each other as possible. The burden of
making sexuality a significant expression of love and source of communication does not all on
just one partner although false ideas lead some men to feel that successful sex is all up to them.
In fact, a growing and healthy sex life depends on the cooperation of the man and woman. It is a
fundamental meeting ground and a profound opportunity for communication, a time when man
and woman bring as much of themselves to each other as they can. Nevertheless, sex may only
acquire this meaning for a man and woman slowly and they should not be surprised nor turn
immediately to all kinds of artificial aids and other approaches. Neither should they get
discouraged thinking that the situation can never improve. It improves if they keep working at it
and I they keep growing together.
This book helps us to understand a happy marriage inside the Catholic Church. This
supports this study to explain in detail the marriage between man and woman.
Bayer, Edward, John Leies and Donald McCarthy. Critical Sexual Issues.
Massachusetts: The Pope John XXIII Center, 1994.
Human persons do not love in purely spiritual way as angels do. They love as bodily
creatures who are physically present to one another. Furthermore, the human sexual identity as
male or female provides the capacity for sexual intercourse as the supreme expression of bodily
human love.
Christianity teaches about sexual love because human sexuality is present in all human
expressions of love. Catholic Christianity recognizes one particular form of love and that is
marriage. Marriage is a sacrament and a sacred relationship in which the spouses are united
with Christ when united in lasting mutual sexual love. However, both the Christian call to love
and human sexuality itself embraces all persons, married or unmarried.
The account of human creation found in Gen. 1-2:4, focuses on human creation in the
image of God with the divine blessing, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.
God not only created the first human persons, He also fashioned them into their complementary
sexual identities as male and female and possible the relationship of sexual unity which can
generate new human persons.

Hence, the Old Testament portrays both the goodness of sexuality and marriage and the
ways in which sin leads to selfish abuse of the gift of sexuality. Throughout the books of the Old
Testament, procreation, the fruitfulness of human sexual love, appears as a blessing while
barrenness or sterility is a curse. The people of Israel rejoiced in parenthood. They gladly
fulfilled Gods promise to Abraham when He said that Abrahams descendants will be as many
as the stars in heaven.
The Bible portrays instances of profoundly romantic love in the Song of Songs and in
the story of Jacob who served his future father-in law for seven years instead of praying a
dowry for Rebecca. A newly married husband in Israel was exempt from military service and any
public duty for one year to bring joy to the wife he has married.
The Old Testament portrayal of human sexuality begins in the innocence of the Garden
of Eden and then depicts a long history of sexual attitudes and behavior manifesting the tension
and temptation arising from sin and selfishness. The fact that marriage is intended by God to be
a sacred relationship based on steadfast and undying love emerges gradually but dramatically
from Old Testament prophets especially Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel. They used the
image of human marriage as a sign or symbol of Gods covenant of faithful love for His people.
In the Old Testament period, sexual attitudes and behavior were guided by the Law
given to Moses. However, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ becomes the supreme teacher of
morality and the source of salvation. St. Peter referred to both Jews and Gentiles at the Council
of Jerusalem when he said that their belief was rather that they were saved by the favor of the
Lord Jesus. Hence, the New Testament emphasizes the interior holiness proclaimed and
provided by Jesus.
St. Paul taught Christian doctrine of love as Christs gift of interior holiness. He wrote to
the Romans that the love of God has been poured out in their hearts through the Holy Spirit who
has been given to them. He insisted on the interior presence of the Spirit as essential to
holiness. This vision of Christian holiness becomes the central concern in sexual morality
throughout the New Testament. St. Paul summarized it after vigorously opposing prostitution in
the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
In summary, the Old Testament covenant of salvation was replaced in the New
Testament by the new covenant of Jesus Christ. Jesus proclaimed unselfish love as the
centerpiece of human life. This kind of love comes from the abiding interior presence of the
Spirit. Those who accept this gift are called to manifest it by sexual behavior which respects the
authentic role of sexuality in human relationships.

The New Testament opposition to selfish sexual behavior and to sexual relations outside
the marital relationship leads implicitly to a fuller recognition of womens dignity despite the
influence of cultural discrimination. In fact, Jesus was protecting women from exploitation when
He took a stronger stand against divorce than Moses. The doctrine in which Jesus proclaimed
that a man committed adultery when he divorced his wife in favor of another woman obviously
presumed a lifelong fidelity of the husband to one wife in contrast to the practices of some Old
Testament figures.
However, a clarification of the role of sexuality in human life can be found underlying the
New Testament option to remain unmarried. Human sexuality is present in all human
expressions of love. New Testament personalism emphasizes that each human person must
make a personal choice between the unique vocation of marital love and alternate vocations
which manifest human love in a non-genital way.
This book explains the catholic perspective with regard to love and human sexuality. This
will support this study to have a better understanding about the Catholic teaching about love
and human sexuality. This book will be a great help in the progress of this study.
Murstein, Bernard. Love, Sex and Marriage. New York: Springer Publishing
Company, 1974.
Throughout the United States, communities with a great diversity in membership and in
codes of behavior have sprung up. There are, for example, evolutionary communities and
religious communities which work within the framework of society or withdraw from it but do not
actively attack it. Not so with the utopian community despite of their variability in life style, its
members espouse a common philosophy, deriving from the hippie influence. The first is
universal love. Love, a most precious commodity, is to be shared with all rather than restricted
to the family. Children are loved regardless of their biological parents and the communal raising
of children is encouraged. The second is unique value of the individual. Leaders or those who
establish dominant-submissive relationship are avoided. Group decisions are not made by the
majority but by consensus, since each individuals opinion is highly treasured. And the third is
sexual equality. All vestiges of sexual exploitation are denied. Women have sexual equality in
the community.
In the consideration of marriage, there are restrictions to heterosexual contracts. In other
eras, marriage between homosexuals would have led to burning at the stake or to mutilation,
but a more humanitarian attitude has been developing. Increasing numbers of homosexuals are
emerging from the closet. Gay organizations are fighting discrimination on the part of
9

straights, gay dances are held on many university campuses, and gay marriages are
performed in churches, though they are not legal.
Homosexuality predisposes against stable relationships for both men and women in yet
another important way. Why does a person become a homosexual? There is suggestive
evidence that hormonal factors may be involved in the etiology of homosexuality, but the
majority of the researches concur that the psychosexual role is largely a learned phenomenon.
When an individual elects a non-societally approved choice, it often implies some unusual
childhood difficulties or developments. Some people choose for homosexuality because of
inadequacy in achieving satisfactory interpersonal relationships with either sex. A relationship
with the opposite sex might develop into one with marital expectations. Many homosexual men,
fearing or unable to handle intimacy, escape into promiscuous homosexuality. Impersonal sex in
the tea-room or mens room with a stranger provides sexual gratification without the need for
involvement. One writer reports cases of random encounters between two men: one inserts his
penis in the mouth of the other and after ejaculation they take their leave, without any verbal
exchange.
Promiscuous homosexuality is less prevalent among women. Many female homosexual
relationships do not entail direct sexual simulation to orgasm. The relationships are apt to
develop on the basis of culturally homogamous education, economic status and age. Often, it is
only after a solid friendship that the couple slowly evolves toward a sexual relationship. Since it
is only after it reaches a sexual level that the friendship is classified, either by the participants or
by society, as homosexuals, it follows that women often engage in relatively long-term liaisons
or marriages with other woman. In fact, one woman writer argues that because of the imbalance
of power between the sexes to the advantage of men the conditions for women learning to
love fully and without fear are at present met only in a homosexual setting. Although her
conclusion is debatable, the observation that women have more enduring homosexual
relationships than men is scarcely questionable.
Marriage among the ancient Chinese, Japanese, Greeks and Romans served to further
the interest of extended family rather than the participants. However, in time, the extended
family was undercut by industrialization and urbanization. Geographic mobility separated the
nuclear family from the kin network. Services formerly provided by the extended family.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that changes in family orientation are
inevitably a simple function of the industrial structure. Ideology changes over time, not only as a
result of industrialization but also because of interpersonal communication and altered values.

10

Individuals are not mere modules in the industrial complex but are themselves capable of
changing society and industry to fit their needs.
In sum, interpersonally inadequate males may have sufficient sexual drive to seek
sexual release, but the excessive guilt, inadequacy and social antagonism they confront prevent
them from developing enduring quasi-marital relationships, women, enjoying more societal
leeway and being better able to delay sexual gratification until a close interpersonal relationship
has been established, are better equipped to maintain quasi-marriages. Although it is
conceivable that homosexual marriage will be legalized, subtle and not so subtle pressures will
limit the number of declared homosexual marriages to a very small proportion of the population.
This book explains love, sex and marriage. Murstein would give emphasis to the sexual
orientation of human. He highlighted in his book homosexuality. According to him,
homosexuality might be from the hormones and also learned. Moreover, he looks into the
aspect of not giving attention from parents. Homosexuality might come from a childs desire to
be given attention. This would help this research in a way that this would help us to understand
in a sense the origin of homosexuality.
Primoratz, Igor. Ethics and Sex. USA: Routledge, 1999.
The two relationships such as heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not the
same. Accordingly, discrimination against homosexual marriage law is not arbitrary and
invidious but rather reasonable and justified. When pressed to explain just why homosexuals
should not be able to marry one another, they tend to come up with the meaning o the word
marriage, the history of the institution of marriage, the state interest in procreation, the welfare
of children and the threat that homosexual marriage would pose to heterosexual marriage. Let
us look into each argument.
Marriage means a certain kind of relationship between man and woman. Homosexual
marriage is impossible by definition. In order to assess this argument, we must first ask just
what kind of definition is being assumed, a definition reporting the way the word is used in
ordinary language or a technical legal one? If it is the former, it must be conceded that
dictionaries do tend to define marriage in heterosexual terms. Since marriage is a legal
institution, the definition of its primary sense in ordinary language is informed by the legal
definition of marriage. Now, legal definitions too are couched in heterosexual terms but that
could be changed. Indeed, the point at issue is whether it should be. If it is, ordinary usage will
follow suit without much delay. So will dictionaries: they will no longer define marriage as a
11

certain kind of relationship between two persons of different sexes, but as a certain kind of
relationship between two persons, period.
Throughout the history, marriage has always been a heterosexual institution.
Homosexual marriage is unheard of. Therefore, marriage should remain heterosexual. This
argument is flawed for two reasons. One is logical. Even if the historical claim were true, it could
not generate the normative conclusion. The fact that a certain arrangement has always been of
a certain kind is no conclusive argument for the claim that it must remain that way. It is easy to
see why. As Bentham puts it in his Handbook of Political Fallacies, if the lack of precedent
presents a conclusive objection against the particular measure in question, so it would against
any other measure that ever was proposed. This includes every measure that has ever been
adopted and so every institution which exists at the present time. Moreover, it is not true that
homosexual marriage has no historical precedent. Actually, history of both Western and nonWestern societies provides examples of same-sex quasi-marital unions and same-sex marriage
proper.
The state has a legitimate interest in procreation. Therefore it legitimately may, and
indeed should recognize and support the type of union that makes for procreation and withhold
recognition and support from the type of union that is non-procreative. We are told just how the
exclusion of homosexuals from the institution of marriage promotes procreation. Does it
somehow motivate heterosexual spouses to procreate more than they otherwise would? Would
legal recognition of homosexual marriage get them to procreate less than they do now? On the
other hand, many homosexual couples do raise children either children from previous marriage
or children they have by artificial insemination or surrogacy. Allowing homosexual marriage
would enable them to bring up children in more favorable conditions and stimulate other
homosexual couples to raise children. To be sure, there are bisexuals too. The current law of
marriage may lead some of them to contract heterosexual marriage and have children within it.
But can this trifling contribution to procreation carry the social, moral and legal weight of the
refusal of the right to marry homosexuals?
Allowing homosexual marriage would be bad for children. Children raised in such
marriages would have just one, rather than two role models to look up to and learn from. This
argument assumes that each family must provide two role models, male and female, if children
are to develop as they should and to be properly socialized.
Legalizing homosexual marriage would pose a threat to heterosexual marriage. John M.
Innis argues that homosexual orientation, being non-procreative, is in itself hostile to and a
standing denial of the self-understanding of those who hold that sex and marriage are properly
12

bound up with procreation. Any public recognition of homosexuality and legal recognition of
homosexual marriage in particular would itself be hostile to and amount to a standing denial of
this self-understanding. It would be an active threat to the stability of existing and future
marriages based on this self-understanding.
However, it is difficult to see how homosexual sex could be hostile to heterosexual sex
understood in terms of the procreation view and how it could represent its standing denial.
Those engaging in homosexual sex need not and normally do not have any critical or
disparaging thoughts of heterosexual sex in general and heterosexual sex bound up with
procreation in particular, let alone feels and expresses any hostility to it. Their belief that their
type of sex is valuable and legitimate implies nothing about the disvalue of heterosexual
preocreative sex. It implies only what we must surely be granted that the latter is not the sole
valuable and legitimate type of sex.
This book will support this study on the critique with regard to same sex marriage.
Primoratz would explain that same sex marriage is impossible since the definition of marriage is
the union between two individuals with the opposite sex.
De Rougemont, Denis. Love in the Western World. USA: Fawcett
Publications, Inc., 1995.
The romantics are right and so are the realist and so are the scholars who declare in the
name of their vocation that one must choose between writing books and producing children. Aut
liberi aut libri, as Nietzsche put it. And Kirkegaard is right over them all, because first, he
extolled passion as being the highest value in the aesthetic stage of life than rose above
passion by extolling marriage as the highest obstruction in the religious state since marriage
fetters us to the time where faith requires eternity. What objections can be brought against this
man that he himself has not already more accurately stated? Kierkegaard is able to praise both
the Philistine and the romantic and to put them both so thoroughly in the right as to make them
ashamed of ever having doubted themselves but in the end, he not only crushes the Philistine
who is content to marry a brewers widow or the young lunatic who is in love with a kings
daughter but also the pious man who has imagined that religion ought to be happy union that is
a marriage with his own virtue. For the sinners love of God is essentially unhappy and this
Christian passion is the only truth, a truth from which every one of our human duties does but
turn us aside. Kierkegaard first denounces the protestant ministers who objected to celibacy
then Luther and Calvin who were both married then the Fathers who praised marriage and
finally, Saint Paul who suffered marriage. Unbelievers are referred to the arguments of the
13

romantics which are valid against their secular moralizing and believers to the arguments of
Saint Paul which are valid against their humanism.
Once we ask ourselves what is involved in choosing a man or a woman for the rest of
ones life, we see that to choose is to wager. Both in the lower and the middle classes the
wiseacres urge young men to think it over before taking the decisive step. They thus foster the
delusion that the choice of a wife or husband may be governed by a certain number of
accurately weighable pros and cons. This is a crude delusion on the part of common sense.
One may try as hard as he like to put all the probabilities at the outset in ones own favor but he
will never be able to foresee how he is going to develop, still less how the wife or husband one
chooses is going to and still, less again how the two of them together are going to. The factors
involved are too diverse. Suppose you could weigh them as they are now and you were so
deeply versed in the conduct of human affairs as to know the values of every one of them and
their order, you would still be unable to foresee how a union entered upon with all the facts duly
weighed was going to shape. Nature is said to have required several hundreds of thousands of
years for the selection of those species which now seem to us adapted to their surroundings.
Yet we have the presumption to suppose that all of a sudden in the course of a single life, we
may solve the problem of the adaptation to one another of two highly organized physical and
moral beings. For this is what all unsatisfactorily married persons suppose whenever they grow
convinced that a second or third trial is going to yield a closer approximation to happiness,
notwithstanding that everything goes to show that even a hundred thousand trials would not
provide the first inchoate and altogether empirical data upon which to build a science of happy
marriage. It needs to be recognized frankly that the problem with which we are confronted by
the practical necessity of marriage becomes the more hopelessly insoluble the more we strive to
solve it in a rational way.
After all, the logical fallacy is negligible. What matters is the moral fallacy which the
logical implies. When a young engaged couple is encouraged to calculate the probabilities in
favor of their happiness, they are being distracted from the truly moral problem. The attempt to
minimize or to conceal the fact that when considered objectively, a choice of this kind is a wager
fosters the belief that everything depends on a decision. And yet, in as much as no set of rules
can be anything but imperfect and provisional, if we are to be guided by rules, we also need
some kind of guarantee. But the only possible guarantee would be one supplied by the strength
of the decision whereby we commit ourselves during the rest of our lives for better or for worse.
And it is precisely to the extent that we persuade ourselves that the matter is above all one of

14

calculation and of weighing up that the decision in itself is made to seem secondary or
unnecessary.
Alone a decision of this kind, irrational but sentimental, sober but in no way cynical, can
serve as the basis for a real fidelity. It is not implied in this book that a fidelity that will prove a
recipe for happiness but a feasible fidelity, because it is not being wrecked at birth by some
necessarily inaccurate calculation.
This book would help us understand the meaning of love in the western part of the world.
De Rougemont explains that love for the people of the West is romantic and for the opposite
sexes. Choosing a husband or a wife for them is a wager. This is what all unsatisfactorily
married persons suppose whenever they grow convinced that a second or third trial is going to
yield a closer approximation to happiness, notwithstanding that everything goes to show that
even a hundred thousand trials would not provide the first inchoate and altogether empirical
data upon which to build a science of happy marriage.
Stewart, Robert. Philosophical Perspectives on Sex and Love. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
Kant thought that humans are subject to an overriding and necessary moral law, a
supreme directive, what he called categorical imperative. It is this law which tells us what we
ought to do and wherein our duty lies. There are various ways in which Kant formulated his
maxim. At one point, he suggested that the key lies in the need to be able to universalize our
actions and never do anything which you would not want to say that anybody and everybody
should be able to do in a similar situation. Wanton cruelty is therefore wrong because one would
not want to give people license to do it oneself. Another formulation of the categorical imperative
is that one should always treat people as ends and not as means. In other words, one ought not
only simply use people for ones own benefit or for the benefit of others. People must be treated
as subjective worthy beings in their own right.
Contrasting with Kantian ethics is that of the utilitarians, the most prominent of whom
were Jeremy Bentham and the two Mills, James and John Stuart. For them, they to ethical
theory is happiness. The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility or the greatest
happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness
and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. There is a lot more to the theory
than this, particularly revolving around what one might mean by happiness and pleasure. To the
more intellectually robust Bentham, quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as
poetry. To the more sensitive, John Stuart Mill, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
15

satisfied. But the more important point is that to evaluate a moral action, one simply judges its
consequences in terms of happiness or pleasure and unhappiness. And one action is better
than another and consequently that which one ought to do or approve, if it leads to greater
happiness and to less unhappiness than the other.
Homosexual orientation is something thrust upon a person. He has no choice of freedom
in the matter. Consequently, in this respect, he is not a moral agent. Homosexual behavior,
however, is a question of choice. Here one has the power to make decisions and to act
rationally. Here, therefore, it is appropriate to make value judgments.
It is not true that homosexuality is unnatural if by unnatural one means not performed by
animals or even not commonly performed by animals. we know that species after species, right
through the animal kingdom, students of animal behavior report unambiguous evidence of
homosexual attachments and behaviors in insects, fish, birds and lower and higher mammals as
studied by Weinrich in 1982. Of course, you can always maintain that animal homosexual
behavior is not really homosexual behavior. But granting that talk of animal homosexuality is not
a conceptual confusion. There are the kinds of behaviors and bonds occurring in nature that
fully fit the description. There is an evidence of anal penetration of one male by another and
emission of semen according to the study of Denniston in 1980. Whatever the moral
implications of homosexuality and naturalness may be, it is false that homosexuality is immoral
because it does not exist among animals. It has taken people a long time to realize how
universal animal homosexual behavior really is, or perhaps we should say that it has a long time
for those knowledgeable about animal homosexuality to pass on their knowledge to those
interested in the possibility of animal homosexuality such as philosophers and theologians.
However, it does exist nevertheless and we cannot pretend otherwise.
Another point is that, if by unnatural, people mean going against our biology, then if there
is any truth at all in the sociobiological hypotheses, much human homosexuality has a solid
biological basis. It is something maintained by natural selection. To say, for example, the
vaginas were designed for penises and that anuses were not so designed is simply not relevant.
If, as a consequence of putting his penis in another mans anus, or allowing his own anus to be
so used, a man better replicates his genes that if he were to devote his attention to seeking out
vaginas, then biologically speaking, this is perfectly proper or natural. Admittedly, anuses are
also for defecating but then, penises are also for urinating.
In addition, against the thesis that homosexuality is biologically unnatural is that humans
are not mere animals. these remains true even after Darwin. Humans have a social and cultural
realm to a degree virtually inconceivable by comparison to animals according to the study of
16

Boyd and Richerson in 1985. Therefore, there is no reason why things as important to our social
and general life as our sexual emotions and attachments should be judged by animal standards.
In the study of Barash in 1977, the male walrus is not condemned for being polygamous but
neither, it is suggested that therefore, humans have the universal right to be polygamous.
Lastly, even if it turns out that some kinds of sexual behavior have nothing to do with
straight biology, even if it turns out that homosexual is doing him/herself a biological disservice
and perhaps even his/ her race or species a similar disservice, this does not as such imply that
anything sexual, including homosexual, is immoral. It might be argued that any behavior which
is so disruptive of society itself fails to reproduce is immoral. But this is a contingent claim and
one must justify it according to the study of Gray in 1978. One has to show first that any such
behavior is in fact so disruptive of society and secondly, either that societys reproduction is a
morally good thing or that the disruption in itself causes so much trouble as to be a bad thing.
This book discuses the philosophical perspective on sex and love. Stewart would say
that sex is the fruit and climax of love. For him homosexuality is not immoral since it does not
exist with animals. He argued that any behavior which is so disruptive of society itself fails to
reproduce is immoral. However, marriage between the same sexes makes homosexuals
immoral. This would help this study to understand homosexuality deeper.
Fortune, Marie. Love Does no Harm: Sexual Ethics for the Rest of Us. New
York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1995.
Heterosexuality in all its manifestations takes place within a patriarchal context where,
by virtue of gender, there is a difference in power between men and women. Thus heterosexual
relationships present particular dilemmas for men and for women of conscience. How is it
possible to be in a heterosexual relationship with integrity in a culture in which men are
expected to be dominant and women are expected to be submissive, in which the control of
women by men is the foundation for heterosexuality? Men are commonly portrayed in media as
brutal, controlling and arrogant and women as either helpless victims or as manipulative,
deceptive, promiscuous begins who, because of their behavior, deserve what men do to them
which is making the circle complete.
Sexology, the supposed scientific study of sexuality, has been a major contributor for
decades to the normalization of the dominant or submissive norm for heterosexuality. In an ideal
marriage, the virtual bible of sexology from 1930-1965, the Dutch sexologist Van de Velde wrote
the following:

17

What both man and women, driven by obscure primitive urges, wish to feel in the
sexual act, is the essential force of maleness, which expresses itself in a sort of
violent and absolute possession of the woman. And so both of them can and do
exult in a certain degree of male aggression and dominance whether actual or
apparent which proclaims this essential force.
The same message was updated in 1969 in the book, The Intimate Enemy How to
fight Fair in Love and Marriage, which was still in print in 1994. The following is stated in this
book:
Woman, especially during the uncertainties of seduction and early courtship, will
accommodate to the male level of aggression assigned to them. They usually
keep secret their own desire for more or less tenderness. As partners learn how
to fuse sex and aggression, their sex satisfaction gradually increases and their
need to injure others verbally or physically decreases.
The heterosexual pattern of relating is usually established early in relationships in what
researchers call heterosexual courtship violence. This term names the dominant/submissive
dynamic which is encouraged in the early stages of heterosexual relationships where the
violence may be subtle or overt but the goal is control of the woman. These patterns are
particularly clear in adolescent experiences which provide the early training for adult
relationships. Larkin and Popalenis research on adolescent dating says:
The pre-adolescent girl escapes much demeaning behavior because she spends
most of her time with other females. However, as she enters adolescence, the
young female is more vulnerable to be abused by males for three reasons. First
because women are taught that their value is determined by their ability to attract
men, most heterosexual young women will perceive themselves as Lacking at
the very core when not in a relationship with a man and also they may opt to
spend more time in mixed-sex setting. Second, boys as they grow older
recognize their privileged position and realize that this position can only be
maintained by force. Third, young womens sexual development becomes visible
and young men begin to see them primarily as sexual beings.
Acts of intimidation include threats and surveillance used to warn young women of the
violent consequences when they challenged their assigned position. For example, one young
man poured his beer on a young woman at his table. She responded by threatening to pour her
drink on him. He warned that if she will do that, he will rape the woman. Jealousy motivates
surveillance of young women. One young woman described a situation in which she would
baby-sit for a friend, a woman she really liked and respected.
Many men accept the prerogatives and privileges which come to them in patriarchy by
virtue of their gender. Many heterosexual men expect women to meet their needs emotionally,
sexually and physically. In order to ensure that their intimate partner carries out these functions,
18

men are allowed to employ a variety of methods to control her behavior. These methods range
from subtle coercion to the threat of or use of physical violence.
It is a paradox that during the so-called sexual revolution of the last twenty five years,
women won the right to say yes to sexual activity and have all but lost the right to say no. the
disclosure and wide public discussion of the frequency of date rape among undergraduates has
resulted in some colleges and universities initiating prevention efforts. These efforts attempts to
help students think and communicate with each other about some very important matters.
Conversation has certainly ensued.
This book explains that in the common mentality of people, man is dominant over
women. Even in marriage, the husband seems to be the superior in the family than women.
Fortune would argue that there must be equality among husbands and wives since love does no
harm. This will help this study to understand the common mentality of person about marriage.
Fortune would propose equality since in loving, there should be no harm.
William, Ferm Deane. Responsible Sexuality. New York: The Seabury Press,
2003. 123 147.
Responsible sexuality puts the emphasis on the quality of the human relationship and
not on the sex act itself. It insists that what is worth preserving in the older patterns of sexual
behavior must be defended on pragmatic rather than authoritarian grounds. It does not simply
cast aside all teachings of authoritarian morality, but preserves those teachings which are
consistent with the best in human encounters. Responsible sexuality agrees with hedonistic
morality in taking into account the reality of the present situation and the satisfaction of sexual
urges, but responsible sexuality also insists that these considerations must be placed in the
larger context of past teachings and future consequences. Man does not live only in and for the
present. Responsible sexuality affirms three principles.
First, the focus for proper sexual behavior is love. There is no word in any language
more difficult to define than love. It can mean lust, philia, eros and agape. Our meaning of love
includes all these concepts but puts them in the framework of agape. Love is primarily a verb
and not a noun. It is a process of total involvement with another individual, with his uniqueness
as well as his common humanity. Man fulfills himself in his meeting with others. Martin Buber
says that all real living is meeting. Love is not a single emotion but a totality of encounter with
another person. Sex is not an isolated phenomenon which can be dissected as a separate
function or entity. Sex has meaning only in the context of human relationships. It has
implications for both the personal and social dimensions of the individual, for his marriage and
19

his family. Although this may seem obvious, it is a point too often neglected. Too many books on
sex deal with specifics of intercourse and not with the wholeness of human life.
Responsible sexuality recognizes to use Martin Bubers terms that each person is a
Thou rather than an It. For Buber, mans relationship to the world and to the other people is two
fold which are I Thou and I It. Each of these relationships involves a different kind of
knowledge and in each, our response is different. In the I It relationship, we look upon the
other person as a thing or an It to be manipulated for our own ends. The other person becomes
an object which we consume for our own selfish interests, in the I Thou relationship, the other
person is a person like ourselves, with his own interests and integrity. We cannot manipulate the
other. For the moment that we do, the Thou becomes an It.
Responsible sexuality maintains that sex can best be appreciated and fulfilled within the
context of a love relationship. There is no such thing as the victor and the vanquished in this
kind of partnership. The one person cannot con the other person into sex and thereby treat her
as an object of his own desire. Both parties must be willing to engage honesty and freely in this
culminating act of love for this is the deepest expression and fulfillment of a personal encounter.
Love includes tenderness, compassion, fidelity and trust. To be sure, the principle of love is not
a blueprint which can make explicit what ones proper action should be in every situation.
Second, responsible sexuality stresses the importance of time and consequences. One
does not normally fall in love overnight or even over a period of few weeks. Love requires time
to deepen and enrich and to be properly appreciated, the sex act should come as the fulfillment
of this deepening experience in the same way that the marriage vow is the culmination of a
period of courtship and growing together. There are men who operate on the assumption that a
few dates with a girl is an automatic wholesale invitation to intercourse. This is a degrading
abuse of a friendship and is virtually a guarantee for future infidelity. The factor of time is of
immense importance in the maturation process.
Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude
-

1 Corinthians 13: 4 5

Third, there is the importance of fidelity, stability and trust. This is the real value of the
institution of marriage and the marriage vow that there is a covenant which exists between a
man and a woman who promise to love and cherish each other in a partnership of permanence.
This is probably the most important promise that two persons will ever make together. The
promise is of primary importance and the sex act is one significant dimension of this deeper
covenant. Marriage is not just jumping in and out of bed. Marriage is trust and tenderness. The

20

chances are that a permanent relationship with both its sickness and its health is the strongest
guarantee for a wholesome sex life.
Sex should be judged in terms of relationships and not of genital acts. In this sense
promiscuity takes on a different meaning. Promiscuity was defined in terms of sex act outside
marriage. Now, it should be defined in terms of the equality of the encounter both within and
without marriage. Promiscuity involves taking advantage of another person. With the gradual
emancipation of women today, there is far less promiscuity than in the past, when women often
had to use their bodies as means of gaining acceptance. Women today demand integrity and
respect in their new role.
This book would explain how to be responsible in our own sexuality. For William, we
must relate with others based on our sexuality. A man must relate as a man and a woman as a
woman. For him, responsible sexuality entails accountability of ones relationship with others.
This will help this study to be proud of ones own sexuality and practice it responsibly.
De Lamater, John. Understanding Human Sexuality. Madison: University of
Wisconsin, 2001.
Sternberg argues that each of the three components of love such as intimacy, passion
and decision or commitment must be translated into action. The intimacy component is
expressed in actions such as communicating personal feelings and information, offering support
and expressing empathy to others.
There is a stereotype that women are more turned on by romance while men are more
aroused by raw sex. The tapes varied according to which of these kinds of content they
contained. The plots of the tapes varied according to whether the man or the woman initiated
the activity and whether the description centered on the womans physical and psychological
responses or on the mans.
Explicit heterosexual sex is most arousing, both for women and for men. The great
majority of both males and females responded more strongly to the erotic romance tapes.
Women rated the erotic tapes as more arousing than men. Neither men nor women responded
either physiologically or in self reports to the romantic tapes or to the control tapes.
Both males and females found the female-initiated, female-centered tape to be most
arousing. Perhaps, the female-initiated plot is most arousing because of its somewhat forbidden
or taboo nature.
Women were sometimes not aware of their own physiological arousal. Generally, there is
a high correlation between self-rating of arousal and objective physiological measures of
21

arousal, both for men and for women. When men are physically aroused, they never made an
error in reporting this in their self-rating. It is pretty hard to miss an erection. However, when the
women are physically aroused, about half of them did not report arousal in their self-rating.
In sum, Heimans study indicates that males and females are quite similar in their
responses to erotic materials but that women can sometimes be unaware of their own physical
arousal. Heiman found a low correlational between womens self reports of arousal and
physiological measures of their arousal.
One of the clearest reflections of the differences in restrictions on male and female
sexuality is the double standard. The double standard says that the same sexual behavior is
evaluated differently, depending on whether a male or a female engages in it. The sexual double
standard gives men more sexual freedom than women. An example is premarital sex.
Traditionally, premarital intercourse has been more acceptable for males than for females.
Indeed, premarital sexual activity might be a status symbol for a male but a sign of cheapness
for a female.
Intimacy is the emotional component of love. It includes our feelings of closeness or
bondedness to the other person. The feeling of intimacy usually involves a sense of mutual
understanding with the loved one.
Intimacy is present in many relationships besides romantic ones. Intimacy here is
definitely not a euphemism for sex. The kind of emotional closeness involved in intimacy may be
found between best friends and between parents and children, just as it is between lovers.
Passion is the motivational component of love. It includes physical attraction and the
drive for sexual expression. Physiological arousal is an important part of passion. Passion is the
component that differentiates romantic love from other kinds of love such as the love of best
friends or the love between parents and children. Passion is generally the component of love
that is faster to arouse but the course of a long-term relationship. It is also the component that
fades most quickly.
Intimacy and passion are often closely intertwined. In some cases, passion comes first
when a couple experiences an initial and powerful physical attraction to each other. Emotional
intimacy may follow then. In other cases, people know each other only casually but as emotional
intimacy develops, passion follows. Of course, there are also cases where intimacy and passion
are completely separated. For example, in cases od casual sex, passion is present but intimacy
is not.
Decision or commitment is the cognitive component. This component actually has two
aspects. The short term aspect is the decision that one loves the other person. The long term
22

aspect is the commitment to maintain that relationship. Commitment is what makes

relationships lasts. Passion comes and goes. All relationships have their better times and their
worse times, their ups and their downs. When the words of the traditional marriage service ask
whether you promise to love your spouse for better or for worse, the answer I do is the promise
or commitment.
This book helps us to understand human sexuality. De Lamater would explain that
human sexuality is having the hormones of both male and female. According to him, males have
some hormones of female and females have some hormones of male. This will help this study
to know and understand better human sexuality.
B. Journal Articles:
Asci, Donald. Introduction to The Conjugal Act as a Personal Act: Human
Sexuality and the Catholic Church The Journal to American Philosophy.
Vol. 5, No. 22, 2007, 207 223.
A simple survey of the contemporary cultural landscape reveals a great interest in the
sexual relationship between man and woman with many books, articles, and programs
dedicated to this subject. However, the energy spent seeking new ways to "improve" modern
man's sexual experience betrays an almost equally great dissatisfaction. Though modern man's
discontentment with sexuality undoubtedly derives from multiple factors, one cannot avoid
suspecting that the contemporary approach to sexuality produces so little satisfaction because it
sees sexuality in the most superficial of terms. Anytime we judge something profound by
superficial standards we fail to grasp not only its significance but also its value for our lives.
In contrast to the popular view of human sexuality, the Catholic Church promotes an
understanding that not only includes unique considerations on the ethical level but that also
appreciates the most profound aspects of sexuality without neglecting any genuinely human
aspect of the sexual relationship. The Catholic concept of sexuality and sexual intercourse
articulates the ethical norms by which these profound realities are preserved and promoted.
Consequently, the teachings of the Church open the path to a joy and fulfillment that only the
deepest aspects of sexuality can supply. Beyond the moral norms of the Church's sexual ethics
lies a theology of sexuality that recalls what is at stake in the realm of sexual activity. Thus, the
Church not only affirms marriage as the only morally acceptable context for sexual intercourse
but also develops a specific concept of the conjugal act, recalling all that sexual intercourse can
and should be for husband and wife.
23

An examination and summary of the Church's position proves challenging precisely

because it has been unfolding over a great number of years and in vastly diverse circumstances
or contexts. Because the Church's position develops in this manner, certain elements in it
receive greater or lesser emphasis according to the purpose and context of a particular
teaching. However, though this manner of unfolding begins as a challenge, it ultimately
becomes an advantage precisely because it allows each core element of the Church's position
to receive an adequate prominence or emphasis. In other words, each core element receives
adequate treatment because it eventually comes to the center of discussion by virtue of the vast
circumstances in which the Church's position has been reiterated or deepened. For that reason,
emphasis on one core element in one context should not be taken as a denial or dislodging of a
core element that has been affirmed in a different context. In order to navigate the situation we
cannot reduce the Catholic position to any one particular teaching, otherwise core elements of
the position that are emphasized elsewhere will be lost. The Church diligently avoids a reductive
approach in her theology of marriage and her theology of the conjugal act by preserving a multifaceted unity across many years and differing circumstances.
As a consequence of the Church's multi-faceted approach to the conjugal life of husband
and wife, her theology of marriage considers this sacred relationship from three principal
perspectives: marriage as a natural institution, marriage as an intimate friendship, and marriage
as a sacrament. As a natural institution, marriage possesses a specific content in terms of its
structure, purposes, blessings, and laws. The institution of marriage finds its origin in God, in the
very creation of man as male and female, ordering masculinity and femininity to marriage. The
institution of marriage bestows certain rights on husband and wife while also imposing
obligations on them toward each other and toward God the Creator. The conjugal friendship
"gives life" to the institution of marriage, confirming it as a loving personal communion. As an
intimate friendship that embraces the good of the whole person, marriage demands the
personal energy and emotion of the spouses as well as their firm commitment and selfless
sacrifice. For its part, the institution of marriage protects and promotes spousal love, directing
husband and wife to the goods upon which their personal communion is based. The
sacramental dimension of marriage enables the relationship of husband and wife to share in
and signify the mystery of God's love for humanity and Christ's love for the Church. Thus,
marriage acquires a sacred role or purpose in the world insofar as the relationship of husband
and wife should announce and manifest God's covenantal love. Moreover, because spouses
fulfill this sacred role only when the essence of marriage as an institution and a loving

24

communion remains intact, husband and wife discover in the sacramental dimension of
marriage a serious motivation for conforming their daily life to God's plan for the conjugal life.
The Church's theology of the conjugal act emerges from this multi-faceted theology of
marriage and relates intimately to each dimension of marriage as an institution, an intimate
friendship, and a sacrament. These various dimensions of marriage harmoniously converge in
the conjugal act, just as they do in the whole of conjugal life. Therefore, the conjugal act cannot
be reduced to an obligation of the institution or to an expression of love. Instead, the conjugal
act embraces each of these dimensions as the consummation of marital consent and the
embodiment of conjugal love, sharing the sacramental signification of the conjugal covenant. It
does so through a specific use of human freedom that relies upon the potential of human
sexuality.
Aguas, Jove Jim. Ethical and Moral Philosophy of Karol Wojtyla. Journal
to American Philosophy. Vol. 7, No. 1., 2013, 158 165.
Man has free will. Through his free will, he determines his own actions. He is free to
determine the course and the objective of his own actions and life. But free will comes with it
responsibility. Since man is a free agent, he is responsible for his actions.
However, his responsibility as free agent does not end with his own actions, he must
also take responsibility for their consequences and for the quality of the choice that he makes.
Every day, one is faced with situations where he has to make a choice, and it is ones moral
obligation to make the right choice, to follow the good option from the variety of options at hand.
Whatever one chooses and in whatever manner he chooses, he is responsible for that choice
and for its consequences. The extent of ones knowledge and freedom determine the extent of
ones responsibility. Hence, when there is greater freedom and knowledge, there is greater
responsibility.
Freedom and responsibility are the concerns not only of philosophers; they are
everybodys concerns. Because of human freedom and responsibility, people are always
concerned with what is right and what is wrong. People contemplate on the right thing to do, and
what is the bad thing to avoid. The purpose of all these considerations is the desire to live a
well-lived life. Human beings do not just want to live their lives but they want to live life well.
The rightness or wrongness, or the goodness or badness of an action, is the focal point
of morality. Morality sets standards by which man can measure or judge whether an action is
good or bad. However, there are those who view morality as a repressive institution, a set of
rules which society and religion, parents and the like impose on man to prevent one from living
25

his life the way one wanted it to be lived. To some extent, there is a grain of truth to this, but,
that is insignificant as far as the real intention of morality is concerned. The fact that morality
imposes certain restrictions does not make it repressive. Morality imposes on man certain
rules or standards through which one determines what is right and what is wrong so that he can
eventually shape his moral judgment and conduct. But the moral wisdom by which one judges
an action, is not imposed on him by others, but by himself, in so far as he is committed to attain
a kind of life that is well-lived. Morality, as a normative philosophy, offers a set of rules or
standard according to which one has to conform his actions. These rules that one ought to
follow. But then, as free agent man is free to follow rules or not, but one must not forget that as
a free agent, he is responsible for his actions.
The term ethics is commonly used interchangeably with morals, hence, to be ethical
is equated with being moral. Although there is an affinity between ethics and morals, it is more
accurate to use the term morals to the act or conduct itself. The term ethics applies to the study
of the morality of the act or conduct or the norms or codes that govern such conduct or act. The
common denominator between the two concepts is the morality of the human act or conduct.
The human act has a moral value, the value of being good or bad, right or wrong, and ethics
studies the norms or standards or codes that would define or determine the morality of human
act or conduct.
Ethics, which is also called moral philosophy, is motivated by the fact that people strive
to be responsible agents of actions. Being responsible agents of actions starts with knowing
which actions are good and which actions are bad. It is the role of moral philosophy or ethics to
search for something that would guide man in determining what is good and right or bad and
wrong. Ethics or moral philosophy as the study or science of the morality of human acts, deals
with the issue whether an action is good or bad and the reasons why a particular action is good
or bad. Hence, it is the concern of moral philosophy not only to say that abortion is evil, but also
to give the reasons why it is evil. Ethics as a philosophy is the attempt to achieve a systematic
understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of man - how man ought to live and
why. Ethicists or moral philosophers are not only concerned with the morality of human actions,
they are also concerned with the reason why an action is moral or immoral. They offer a wide
variety of norms or standards by which one can judge whether a particular
action is good or evil.
If one is to make moral judgments, he must back them up with valid reasons. Although
some people rely on feelings and emotions as basis on moral judgment, such is not acceptable,
because emotions or feelings are usually biased, irrational or are just products of ones
26

prejudice, and social and cultural conditioning. It one wants to discover the truth, he must try to
let his feelings and emotions be guided by reason. It is this search for moral wisdom that has led
moral philosophers to investigate and study different topics and issues on morality.
Ethical theories are the set of principles or rules that serve as the basis in determining
the morality of human actions or conduct. Men use or rely on them in making moral judgment;
they also provide the reasons why a particular action or behavior is good or bad; acceptable on
unacceptable. Ethical theories abound, many of them claim to be the better theories than
others, if the not the most appropriate. Other theories are normative, proposing certain
standards or norms of ethics, while others are descriptive, offering an account of ethical
experience.
McLean, George. The Idea of Solidarity: Philosophical and Social
Contexts. Polish Philosophical Studies. Vol. 42, No. 4, 2011, 179 192.
Writing about Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru repeatedly indicates that the message taught by
the spiritual leader was not addressed to any particular country or society. Each truth contained
in Gandhis teachings can be universally applied to any country and the entire humanity. In his
view, Gandhi not only has credit for Indias liberation, but also is responsible for having taught
people how to stamp out fear and hate from their lives. In his actions, Gandhi not only
emphasized the need of unity, equality and fraternity, but also argued that the oppressed must
rise up, and that all people have an inalienable right to dignified and honest work. He claimed
the supremacy of spiritual values and, of particular importance, practiced what he preached,
claiming that philosophy divorced from life is like a dead body without life.
In analyzing Gandhis biography, as well as extensive literature devoted to Gandhis life
and teachings, one unanimously held opinion emerges that Gandhi was one of very few people
who succeeded in spurring hundreds of thousands of people and in shaking them out of their
everyday passivity and indifference. What Gandhi did was to transform the general unconcern
for social, public and state-related matters into political activity focused on actions taken for the
common benefit. Attaining the common good thus became a central goal, and human solidarity
a necessary precondition.
For Gandhi, actions carried out for the common good stem from the pursuit of justice
and truth in everyday life, they are an ultimate consequence of justice. On the other hand,
actions taken to attain the common good, which is possible thanks to universal human solidarity,
appear as a consequence of social injustice which has always inspired civil disobedience,

27

opposition or outright resistance. Looking for sources of human solidarity in Gandhis works, one
invariably encounters the principle of ahimsa, i.e. the doctrine of non-violence.
The principle of ahimsa adopted by Gandhi is seen as one of the basic moral virtues not
only in Hinduism, but also Buddhism and Jainism. Gandhi placed ahimsa in opposition to himsa,
defining the latter as evil, injury, harm and social violence. Gandhis ahimsa, derived from the
Hindu tradition and encompassed the entire world of nature, animals and humans. Its deepest
sense was expressed in the statement that no living creature should ever be killed, injured,
tortured or oppressed. In consequence, people should always show loving kindness towards the
whole natural world, particularly one`s fellow people. Gandhi stressed that ahimsa was very
close in meaning to the Christian concept of caritas.
He also pointed out that there was affinity between ahimsa as and charity and love for
one`s fellowman. The postulate of universal loving kindness taught by Gandhi was to be
revealed in acts of human solidarity and assistance offered to those in need. It is interesting to
note that the obligation to help applied not only to ones family and friends, but also foes. In line
with the ahimsa principle, Gandhi wanted to defend his country against the adverse effects of
bondage and, at the same time, to protect from suffering those with whom he fought. Guided by
ahimsa, Gandhi recognized that no one has the right to remain socially uncommitted in the face
of evil. Everyone has an obligation to solidarity oppose vice, at the same time remaining kind
towards their opponents and not resorting to violence. Ahimsa, coupled with human solidarity
which ahimsa inspired, employed in the social commitment against evil, carried an opportunity
to achieve harmony and lasting peace in the society, state and all around the world.
Ahimsa was a principle stemming directly from Hindu philosophy and tradition. Gandhi
complemented ahimsa with the principle of satyagraha, i.e. insistence and adherence to truth.
The two essential principles of Hindu tradition and philosophy became major driving forces of
social activity. To Gandhi, satyagraha undoubtedly incorporated certain metaphysical features,
though many definitions of the concept stressed exclusively its social and political dimension,
namely that the notion basically means the incorporation of truth and ahimsa in political life.
On account of the principle of satyagraha, Gandhi in his autobiography emphasized the
solidarity-based motives of his actions in the obligation to help people who are threatened. The
aim of those solidarity-based endeavors was to ensure harmonious coexistence and peace
within the society and around the world. In Gandhis view, if harmonious social coexistence is to
be established, ones own actions may not be dependent on the behavior of others. Violence
should not be reciprocated with violence. Hatred can only be defeated by love. Violence can
only be conquered with kindliness. Nehru took up the thought, arguing that the ultimate aim of
28

ahimsa and satyagraha is to elevate humanity to such a level of mutual existence that would be
ruled by goodness and would accommodate no hate, cruelty and selfishness. Violence is
destructive both for those who oppress and those who are oppressed, while renouncement of
violence lifts both sides.
F. Definition of Terms
1. Communal Solidarity
It is a union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between
members of a group or between classes, peoples, etc. It is a community of feelings,
purposes, etc. It is a community of responsibilities and interests.4
2. Human Sexuality
In contrast to the popular view of human sexuality, the Catholic Church promotes an
understanding that not only includes unique considerations on the ethical level but that also
appreciates the most profound aspects of sexuality without neglecting any genuinely human
aspect of the sexual relationship. The Catholic concept of sexuality and sexual intercourse
articulates the ethical norms by which these profound realities are preserved and promoted.
Consequently, the teachings of the Church open the path to a joy and fulfillment that only the
deepest aspects of sexuality can supply. Beyond the moral norms of the Church's sexual
ethics lies a theology of sexuality that recalls what is at stake in the realm of sexual activity.
Thus, the Church not only affirms marriage as the only morally acceptable context for sexual
intercourse but also develops a specific concept of the conjugal act, recalling all that sexual
intercourse can and should be for husband and wife.5

4https://www.google.com.ph/search?
sclient=psyab&biw=1366&bih=623&noj=1&q=philosophical+definition+of+communal+solidarity&
oq=philosophical+definition+of+communal+solidarity&gs_l(accessed date: July 9, 2015).

5http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/dasci_humansexuality_july07.asp/
(accessed date: July 9, 2015)

29

3. Love
a. Attraction
Wojtylas main point regarding love as attraction is that attraction is of the essence of love
and in some sense is indeed love, although love is not merely attraction. For him attraction
goes very closely together with awareness of values. When there is attraction between two
people it is because both find in the other values they consider as good for themselves. This
awareness of values causes emotional-affective reactions which contribute to the
development of an attraction, in which one person is perceived by another as a good.6
b. Desire
Wojtyla goes a step further and analyzes love as desire. He stresses that there is a profound
difference between love as desire and desire itself, especially sensual desire. The
difference consists in the fact that desire presupposes awareness of some lack, an
unpleasant sensation which can be eliminated by means of a particular good. The danger
of reducing love as desire to mere desire is that the other person just becomes a means for
the satisfaction of desire.7
c. Goodwill
Goodwill is quite free of self-interest, the traces of which are conspicuous in love as desire.
Goodwill is the same as selflessness in love: not I long for you as a good but I long for your
good, I long for that which is good for you. The person of goodwill longs for this with no
selfish ulterior motive, no personal consideration. Love as goodwill is therefore love in a
more unconditional sense than love-desire. It is the purest from of love. Goodwill brings us
as close to the pure essence of love as it is possible to get. Such love does more than any

6 Karol Wojtyla, trans. H. T. Willets, Love and Responsibility (New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, Inc.), 51.

7 Ibid., 52

30

other to perfect the person who experiences it, brings both the subject and the object of that
love the greatest fulfillment.8

4. Peace
Peace, like many theoretical terms, is difficult to define. Like happiness, harmony, justice,
and freedom, peace is something we often recognize by its absence. Consequently, Johan
Galtung, a founder of peace studies and peace research, has proposed the important
distinction between positive and negative peace. Positive peace denotes the
simultaneous presence of many desirable states of mind and society, such as harmony,
justice, equity, and so on. Negative peace has historically denoted the absence of war
and other forms of large-scale violent human conflict.9
5. Vocation
It is a strong feeling of suitability for a particular career or occupation. It is a persons
employment or main occupation, especially regarded as particularly worthy and requiring
great dedication. It is a trade or profession.10
The word vocation has its origins from the Latin word vocare meaning to call. For
Christians, this calling is from God. They are called to fulfill a specific role by becoming a
disciple of Jesus through his Church, either by being lay or ordained. They follow and apply
his calling to their everyday lives.11
8 Ibid., 53

9 http://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/55624_Chapter_1.pdf(accessed
date: July 9, 2015).

10 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/vocation(accessed
date: July 9, 2015).

11http://www.markedbyteachers.com/gcse/religious-studies-philosophy-and-ethics/ meaning-ofvocation.html(accessed date: July 9, 2015).

31

6. Violence
It is an extremely forceful actions that are intended to hurt people or are likely to cause
damage. It is the use of physical force, especially physical force utilized with malice and/or
the attempt to harm someone. Some courts have ruled that in labor disputes, violence
includes picketing with false information on the placards, in an attempt to harm a business.
Interpersonal violence is defined as "the intentional use of physical force or power,
threatened or actual, against another person or against a group or community that results in
or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or
deprivation.12
G. Biographical Sketch of Karol Wojtyla
Karol Wojtyla was born May 18, 1920, in Wadowice, Poland, the second child of Karol
Wojtyla Sr., an army sergeant, and Emilia (Kaczorowska) Wojtyla. His mother died when he was
nine. After his mother died, Wojtyla became closer to his father, whom he credits as the source
of his religious faith. His only sibling, a much older brother, Edmund (a physician), died four
years later; and Karol Sr. died in 1942. These sorrows of early family life, along with the hard
times that Poland experienced both prior to World War II (193945; a war fought in Europe,
Asia, and elsewhere with Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, the United States in 1941, and
their allies on one side; Germany, Italy, and Japan on the other side) and throughout it, were
bound to give an intelligent young man reason for serious thinking. As a young man, Karol was
athletic. He enjoyed playing soccer as a goalie and took daredevil swims in a flooded Swaka
River. He also was an excellent student and he served as president of his school sodality. Karol
developed a love of theater and for a time it was his ambition to study literature and become a
professional actor. During the Nazi occupation Karol clandestinely pursued both his studies and
his acting while working as a stonecutter to support himself and to hold the work permit he

12 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/violence(accessed date: July 9,

2015).

32

needed to avoid deportation or imprisonment.

13

Nonetheless, he has been remembered by his

peers as a positive-thinking young man who was involved in sports such as soccer and skiing.
In 1939 under Nazi (Adolf Hitler's [18891945] political party, which was in power in Germany
from 1933 until 1945) occupation, he enrolled at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, and shortly
thereafter he began secret studies for the priesthood. Publicly, however, he worked as a laborer
in a quarry and a chemical factory.
Karol Wojtyla was active in the UNIA, a Christian democratic underground organization.
B'nai B'rith and other authorities have testified that he helped Jews find refuge from the Nazis.
While convalescing from an accident, Karol considered a religious vocation and by 1942 he was
studying for the priesthood. Karol Wojtyla was ordained a priest on November 1, 1946. After
World War II, Wojtyla did pastoral work with Polish refugees in France and then did graduate
studies at the Angelicum University in Rome. When he returned from these studies to his native
Poland, Wojtyla was assigned to parish work and soon became well known for his successes in
youth ministry. He was then assigned to teach ethics (the study of right and wrong) at the
Catholic University of Lublin, and in 1958 he was officially named auxiliary bishop (member of
the clergy who assists the bishop) of Krakow. In 1962, upon the death of Archbishop Baziak,
Wojtyla became the vicar capitular, or administrative head, and in 1964 he became archbishop
of Krakow. Paul VI made him a cardinal on May 29, 1967, in good part because of the fine
impression he had made during the Second Vatican Council (196265).14
In 1958 Father Wojtyla was named auxiliary bishop of Krakow and four years later he
assumed leadership of the diocese with the title of vicar capitular. He was a visible leader, often
taking a public stand against communism and government officials. In Poland Bishop Wojtyla
was a rallying point for anti-Communist religious people. The bishop tended to show himself to
be flexible, and his constant patriotism kept him from supporting any movements against the
government that would cause the people or.the land more harm than good. The Communist
government came to look upon him as an enemy. First as bishop and then as archbishop and
cardinal, Wojtyla fought for the Church's right to full religious practice and expression of opinion.

13 http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/unpope-bio.html/(accessed date: July 9, 2015).

14 Antoni Gronowicz, God's Broker (New York: Richardson & Snyder, 1984), 245-246.

33

During the Second Vatican Council Wojtyla had contributed to the Catholic Church's
increased appreciation of religious freedom, and he impressed many of the Church's leaders as
a strong leader with firsthand experience of the possible effects of Communist rule.15
In 1967 Pope Paul VI elevated him to cardinal. By this time several of his poems and
writings had been published including "Easter Vigils and Other Poems".On October 16, 1978.
When Pope Paul VI died in August 1978, and then scarcely a month later his successor, Pope
John Paul I, died unexpectedly, the stage was set for a more dramatic occurrence. On October
16, 1978, on their eighth ballot, the cardinals assembled in Rome for the papal election chose
Wojtyla as the first non-Italian pope in 455 years and the first Slavic pope ever. He became the
new pope, who chose the name John Paul II in honor of his immediate predecessors (John
XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul I), quickly became a powerful figure. At the age of 58, he was
elected to succeed Pope John Paul I.16
He was the first Polish pope and also the first non-Italian pope since Pope Adrian VI in
1522. The new pope continued his travels and in 1981 he visited the United States. That same
year Pope John Paul II suffered severe wounds when he was shot as he entered St. Peter's
Square to address a general audience. The pope spent two and half months hospitalized but he
fully recovered from his wounds. Two days after Christmas in 1983, Pope John Paul went to the
prison and met with his would-be assassin. John Paul has kept their conversation confidential.
Pope John Paul II began a papal life of activity. In January 1979 he made his first trip abroad to
Latin America. For nine days in June of 1979 he walked in the midst of Eastern Europe. At the
end of September 1979 the pope flew first to Ireland and then to the United States, bringing his
message of justice, peace, and the righteousness of traditional Catholic morality.17
Pope John Paul II's first encyclical (a letter that is written by the pope and addressed to
the bishops of the church), Redemptor Hominis (Redeemer of Man), came in March of 1979,
only five months after his election. It was a piece that clearly expressed the pope's belief that
the redemption (act of being saved) offered in Christ is the center of human history. The second
15 Catherine Legrand, John Paul II: Chronicle of a Remarkable Life (New York: Dorling Kindersley,
2000), 98-100.

16 George Weigel, Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II (New York: Cliff Street
Books, 1999), 47.

17 Andre Frossard, Be Not Afraid (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1984), 112-113.

34

encyclical, Dives in Misericordia (Rich in Mercy), appeared in December of 1980. Its theme was
the mercy of God and the need for human beings to treat one another mercifully, going beyond
strict justice to the love and compassion that human suffering ought to create. 18 After these early
trips Pope John Paul II became the most travelled pope in history. The personal danger of these
trips became apparent to the world on May 13, 1981, when the pope was shot in Rome by a
Muslim fanatic presumed to be employed by the Bulgarian Communist government. Not long
after his return to health he began planning for future trips, telling his aides that his life belonged
to God and the people.
The pope has enjoyed hiking, skiing, backpacking, and kayaking. Young people have an
even more special place in his heart. In 1985 he called young people to join him for the first
World Youth Day celebration in Rome. Since that time he has continued to speak with young
people, encouraging them to live the gospels and reach out in a spirit of evangelization to their
peers.19
The third encyclical, Laborem Exercens (Performing Work), appeared in September of
1981. This encyclical made it clear that the pope, for all his anti-Communism, is no friend of
traditional capitalism. Moreover, the pope echoed the traditional Christian teaching that the
goods of the earth come from the Creator God and are for all the Earth's people. The pope's
1988 encyclical, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, on social justice is thought to be one of his most
substantial documents. It threaded a middle ground betweencapitalist and socialist positions,
arguing for both proper economic development and placing the needs of the poor over the
wants of the wealthy.20
In 1992 the pope approved a new catechism. This was a detailed statement of belief
meant to unite the Catholic Church. In October, John Paul published a large encyclical on moral
issues somewhat inspired by the pedophilia (the sexual attraction of adults to children) crisis in
the United States: Veritatis Splendor (The Resplendence of Truth), the burden of which was that
the Christian moral life demanded heroism; certain traditional teachings never change; some

18 Antoni Gronowicz, God's Broker (New York: Richardson & Snyder, 1984), 36.

19 http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/unpope-bio.html/(accessed date: July 9, 2015).

20 Mary Durkin, Feast of Love (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1983), 276-277.

35

acts (genocide, abuse of the innocent) are evil; and recent technical developments in moral
theology casting doubt on such traditional positions are unacceptable.21
John Paul departed from his customary encyclical, or papal letter, in 1994 to publish a
book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, which became an international bestseller. John Paul II
reached out to the masses, the publicresponded, and Time magazine named him "Man of the
Year." The book received wide critical acclaim for addressing today's major theological concerns
and further established John Paul as a great intellect and teacher of our time.22
John Paul issued a strong message in his 1995 encyclical, entitled Evangelism
Vitaeor (Gospel of Life). He confronted the issues of abortion, assisted suicide, and the death
penalty, making a plea to Roman Catholics to "resist crimes which no human law can claim to
legitimize." A second encyclical, entitled Ut Unum Sintor(That They May Be One), was released
in 1995. In this letter, for the first time in Church history, he acknowledged and apologized for
past sins and errors committed in the name of the Church. Admitting that painful things have
been done that harmed Christian unity, he accepted responsibility and asked for forgiveness in
the hope that Christians could have "patient dialogue."23
Church business claimed John Paul's attention in 1996. Several major changes were
instituted at his urging; for instance, he ruled that the next pope will be elected by an absolute
majority (more than 50 percent).
In March 1998 John Paul issued "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah," or
Holocausta papal apology for the Catholic Church's failure to act against Nazi atrocities
during World War II. He also continued his travels despite the increased effects of Parkinson's
disease. He was the first modern pope to enter a synagogue or to visit an Islamic country.
On March 12, 2000, John Paul asked for forgiveness for many of his church's past sins,
including its treatment of Jews, heretics (those who deny fundamental beliefs of the church),

21 Catherine Legrand, John Paul II: Chronicle of a Remarkable Life (New York: Dorling Kindersley,
2000), 197.

22 http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ho-Jo/John-Paul-II.html(accessed date: August

6, 2015)

23 George Weigel, Witness to Hope (New York: Cliff Street Books, 1999), 107.

36

women, and native peoples. This was believed to be the first time in the history of the Catholic
Church that one of its leaders sought such a sweeping pardon.24
Pope John Paul II died April 2 after a long struggle with illness, ending a historic papacy
of more than 26 years. The Vatican announced the pope's death at 9:54 p.m. Rome time, two
days after the pontiff suffered septic shock and heart failure brought on by a urinary tract
infection. The pope died at 9:37 p.m., the Vatican said.
Conscious and alert the day before his death, he was able to concelebrate Mass in his
papal apartment, the Vatican said. The pope began slipping in and out of consciousness the
morning of April 2, and died that night, it said.
On the evening of March 31, the pope received the "holy viaticum," a reference to the
Eucharist given when a person is approaching death, the Vatican said. It was the pope himself
who decided to be treated at the Vatican instead of being taken to the hospital, said Vatican
spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls. Cardinal Mario Francesco Pompedda, who visited the dying
pope, described the scene in the pope's bedroom: Assisted by several doctors and his personal
staff, the pontiff lay serenely on a bed in the middle of his room, comforted by cushions,
occasionally opening his eyes in greeting to the handful of visitors allowed inside.25
His last, poignant public appearance at his apartment window March 30, the pope
greeted pilgrims in St. Peter's Square and tried in vain to speak to them. After four minutes, he
was wheeled from view, and the curtains of his apartment window were drawn for the last time.
For more than a decade, the pope suffered from a neurological disorder believed to be
Parkinson's disease. As the pope's health failed in recent months, many of his close aides said
his physical decline, never hidden from public view, offered a remarkable Christian witness of
suffering.
The pope's death ends a history-making pontificate of more than 26 years, one that
dramatically changed the church and left its mark on the world. Many observers consider Pope
John Paul an unparalleled protagonist in the political and spiritual events that shaped the
modern age, from the end of the Cold War to the start of the third millennium. For the church,
the pope's death set in motion a period of official mourning and reflection that will culminate in
the election of his successor.
24 Antoni Gronowicz, God's Broker (New York: Richardson & Snyder, 1984), 66.

25 Cindy Wooden The Death of Pope John Paul II (USA: Catholic News Service,
2005), 11 12.

37

A youthful 58 when elected in 1978, the pope experienced health problems early. He
was shot and almost killed in 1981 and spent several months in the hospital being treated for
abdominal wounds and a blood infection. In later years, he suffered a dislocated shoulder, a
broken thigh bone, arthritis of the knee and an appendectomy. He stopped walking in public in
2003 and stopped celebrating public liturgies in 2004.26

26 Ibid., 4.
38