FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS

FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS

According to Richard A. McCormic, fundamental option refers to a dimension of freedom in human action. This dimension is not the freedom of choice to do a particular thing or not; it is rather the free determination of oneself with regard to the totality of existence. It is a fundamental choice between love and selfishness, between self and God, who is our destiny.

For Josef Fuchs, the fundamental option consists in the transcendental expression of a basic stance or fundamental orientation, made in core or basic freedom of the individual, acting in conscience, for the Absolute. If this Absolute is God then the Fundamental Option is made for God, and the person would be said to be in a state of grace. If the Absolute chosen by the individual was not God, but some “fake” god, then the person would not be in a basic relation of grace to God.

Mark O’keefe, on the other hand, defines fundamental option as the fundamental disposition of the self to God at the deepest core of the human being. He sees it as personal and irreducible, yet, the transcendental “yes” of the person to God exist in the context of the “yes” of the entire body of Christ, extended in time and space, and united to the “yes” of the head of the body –Christ himself.

Thus, Generally speaking, the fundamental option theory, as a theory of morals, claims that each person gradually develops in a basic orientation of his or her life, either for or against God in his moral journey. This fundamental direction is said to be for God if one’s life is fundamentally devoted to the love and service of others, and against God if one’s life is essentially devoted to self-love and self-service.

The idea of fundamental option is not new. It was reflected in St. Augustine’s teaching that the human race is ultimately composed of two cities: the City of God, whose members love God even to the contempt of self, and the earthly city in which members consumed by self-love even to the contempt of God.

Fundamental Option and Human Freedom

The basis of the theory of fundamental option seems to be deeply rooted in the understanding of the human person as a being that is free. John Paul II also explains that Jesus’ call to “come, follow me” marks the greatest possible exaltation of human freedom, simultaneously it witnesses to the truth and to the obligation of acts of faith and of decisions which can be described as involving a fundamental option such that, the more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that there is no freedom except in the service of what is good and just.

Aquinas’ Notion of the Human Person Endowed With Free-Will and Self-Movement

Thomas Aquinas’s understanding of the human person has its bearing in the Aristotelian view of who a human being is. Thomas agrees with Aristotle that human beings are rational animals. By this he means that human beings functions and expresses themselves through the use of reason. However, to be further understood in the context of our status as human beings, Aquinas states that, man is created in the image of God. He believes that this being the case, we flourish most when our likeness is closest to that image, when we most resemble God. It is important to recognize that, the image implies in this sense “an intelligent being, endowed with free-will and self-movement”. What it means to be created in God’s image, according to Aquinas, is firstly, that human beings possesses intellect, will, and the resulting ability to act on his or her own power. Consequently, man is the master of his actions, through his reason and will. Therefore all human actions must be for an end. The point of the moral life for Aquinas is, correspondingly not just a life of flourishing rationality, but more specifically, a life of intimate union and continual contact with man’s end which is God.

Discussing the freedom of human choices and actions, Aquinas gives the majority of his attention to the notion of free decision (liberumarbitrium). This is at the forefront of his discussions on human freedom. Thus, human beings are said to have free decision as a result of being able to take up one thing while refusing another. And so, it must be through choice that one makes free decisions. Aquinas states two things which come together in a choice: one on the part of the cognitive power, the other on the part of the appetitive power. Joseph Fuchs would later expound the Thomistic claim that the human person is ordered to God, as the ultimate end to be the foundation of the fundamental option theory wherein man is to choose that end in order to find fulfillment.

Karl Rahner’s Transcendental Freedom and the Fundamental Option

For Karl Rahner, freedom is the core of fundamental option; this is so because he sees the human person as being endowed with the capacity and capability to exercise and exhibit freedom of choice. He identified two levels of this freedom. The first is the categorical freedom. At this level, the subject is faced with the task of consciously choosing between individual objects. The second is called transcendental freedom. This is the fundamental ability of the human person’s self-disposition either towards or away from God. In his thinking, the categorical freedom flows from the transcendental freedom. This categorical freedom leads to categorical choices of discrete objects. It must be noted here that, although the categorical choice influences the transcendental freedom of choice, it cannot be simply equated with these choices, since the transcendental choice is higher and superior to the categorical choices. The transcendental freedom is very dynamic, since it has to do with one’s deepest self-disposition, which seeks an even deeper integration of the person’s choices. Rahner is of the view that sin resides at the level of the transcendental freedom. Thus, when we speak of someone committing a mortal sin, we are simply saying that the person has made a fundamental disposition away from God.

For Rahner, the exercise of the transcendental freedom seeks the integration of the human person around his or her fundamental option. As such, the negative fundamental option naturally tends towards the integration of further sinful choices into the sinner’s disposition away from God, hence justifying the claim that sin breeds sin. The interesting thing in Rahner’s position is his claims that the human person cannot dispose his or her self completely and finally in this life, since God’s grace is always effective in the sinner’s life. The positive fundamental option seeks the integration of all one’s choices and desires into self-disposing towards God as the source and authentic human desire.

Fundamental Option in the Light of Veritatis Splendor

Pope John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, condemned the attempt by some fundamental option’s theorists to separate actions from orientations, along with the whole issue of mortal sin. He explains that fundamental option, to the extent that it is distinct from a generic intention, and hence one not yet determined in such a way that freedom is obligated, is always brought into play through conscious and free decisions… To separate the fundamental option from concrete kinds of behavior means to contradict the substantial integrity or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul. St. John Paul explains that by choosing against God, man sins, but man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made a free and self-commitment to God. But with every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God, who is the law-giver, thus, becoming guilty with regards to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); such that even if he perseveres in faith, he loses sanctifying grace, charity and eternal happiness. John Paul II emphasizes that their “fundamental option” view undermines the traditional Catholic understanding of mortal  and venial sins, their distinction, and effects: For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered.... The person turns away from God and loses charity.