The paper is an attempt to justify the post\ilate to formulate the theology of the family. Theology, apart from philosophical sources, learns from the truths of revelation on the human person, and the person's vocation to create communion. In particular, the theology of the family has to be based on more explicit information on the communion character of the human person. This can be found in the doctrine of the 2nd Vatican Council on the person's vocation to make an offering of oneself and on every person's vocation to participate in the threefold mission of Christ as a priest, prophet and king.

Die in vielen Bereichen kritische Situation des Menschen im 20. Jahrhundert zwingt nicht nur zur Erörterung des gegenwärtigen Zustandes und zum Nachdenken über die Gefahren, sondern regt auch dazu an, sich intensive Gedanken zum Thema Zukunft zu machen. Das entspricht der Natur des Menschen, der sich je immer "nach vorn" bewegt, unaufhörlich "in Bewegung" ist /homo viator/, die vorgefundene Realität überschreitet und Projekte eines neuen, besseren Lebens schafft.Die Autorin ordnet die historischen und zeitgenössischen menschlichen Bezüge des Menschen auf die Zukunft und unterscheidet dabei vier prinzipielle Haltungen, die sie kritisch vorstellt. Debei handelt es sich um:1° die utopische Haltung. Der Mensch träumt von einer besseren Zukunft und schafft Utopien. Sie sind ein standiger Bestandteil unserer Kultur von Platons "Staat" bis hin zu Huxleys "Schöne Neue Welt". Die Utopien nehmen unterschiedliche Formen an; sie können gefährlich werden, wenn sie das Programm realen, organisier ten Handelns bilden.2° die futurologische Haltung. Der Menseh prognostiziert die Zukunft, was ebenfalls in unterschiedlicher Form zum Ausdruck kommt: literarisch /Science Fiction/, spontan /Voraussagen, Prophezeiungen/ Oder wissenschaftlich /Futurologie/.3° Der Menseh hofft auf eine Zukunft, wie sie ihm von den Philosophen gezeigt wird. Die Zukunft ist zum Gegenstand philosophischer Überlegungen geworden, insbesondere seit der Zeit Kants und Hegels, in der Gegenwart z.B. durch E. Bloch /Philosophie der Hoffnung/. Die Autorin stelłt die kantisebe Philosophie des moralischen und legalistischen Fortschritts, die evolutionistische Konzeption der Entwicklung von Teilhard de Chardin sowie den mystisch-eschatologischen Marxismus von Ernst Bloch vor.Im Schlussteil des Artikels wurde die christliche Heltung gegenüber der Zukunft und das christliche Verständnis der Hoffnung dargelegt, die letztlich Glaube an Christus und Zusammenarbeit mit ihm bei der Veränderung des Menschen, der nach dem "Bild Gottes” geschaffen ist und unendliche Perspektiven der Vervollkosmmung besitst /"Seid vollkommen..."/, sowie bei der Veränderung der Welt durch Einbringen des Rechts der Liebe in diese bedeutet.

The paper describes the syntactic status of the basic term in the Christian religion's language - the term GOD. At the cross-section of two divisions yielding aggregate and singular terms, and general and individual terms. The output is the following: a/ general - aggregate, b/ general singular - descriptions, c/ individual personal names.It is an obvious fact that in polytheistic religions the word "god" has the character of general, aggregate tens. In the languages of monotheistic religions /Christian religions/ the word "God” has the function of a personal name or an abridgement of the description. As the former, the word can be used only by those who has some direct acquaintance with God. For all others it is an abridgement of the description. When the word "God" is used as the subject of the sentence it functions as a personal name or as an abridgement of description. When used in the place of the object it functions as an abridgement of description.

In the present paper the author discusses the methodological nature of the crisis in modern moral theology, basing on E. Chiavacci's and J. M. Aubert's views on the subject. On J. M. Aubert's example it is demonstrated that these two theologians make a typical mistake of psycho-socio-biologism, namely, that they make a fact a normative i.e. they make "is" a "should" /or "can"/. It is a logical implication of the mistake to claim that man, bv the strength of /the fact of/ his own conviction /opinion/ of himself, constitutes what he, in his essence /nature/, is. This thesis, in psycho-socio-biologian only implicite/ implied, and unconsciously assumed by psycho-social-biologIsts, is propounded explicite by the two theologians. The thesis, however, remains at odds with both the facts lying at the foundations of real philosophical anthropology, namely - with the fortuitousness of human existence and the transcendental character of human cognition's reality in relation to the act of cognition, as well as with the Christian Revelation, the discrepancy beginning already with the first article of The Credo. The fact, that a theologian holds this thesis, despite the arguments mentioned above, proves that he does not see the contradiction because he either does not see the facts mentioned, or because he ignores them. In order that the morally disqualifying objection of ignoring the facts could be excluded in advance, there re sains nothing to do but to explain the fact that the thesis is sustained by the two theologians' peculiar insensibility to the basic facts concerning human cognition and existence. This diagnosis, when cogent, uncovers the fundamental anomaly in the sphere or methodological knowledge of Chiavacci and Aubert and justifies the word "crisis" in the title. It remains as another problem to decide to what extent the discovery of some crisis in the case of Chiavacci and Aubert, and even some others, allows one to speak of a crisis in theology tout court.

The paper aims at presenting a characteristic of religious experiences in Karol Wojtyła's poetry. The characteristic reveals three contexts /sources, inspirations/ of religious experiences:1. reflections on the Word of the Lord /a theological-biblical context/,2. the experience of the fortuitousness of oners existence /an anthropological context/,3. conscious moral-religious excercise aimed at developing one9s spiritual life /mystical context/.

People strive for endaemony in various ways because it is just in various ways that they conceive the same for all endaemony. They see in it some "life-account" in its optiumum state, or a train of some best satisfying sensations and events. Their ways chosen are both comfortable and bumpy. They build cards-houses of egocentrism along their routs. Undoubtedly, one way that does not lead to nowhere should be stressed here, or rather one should speak of Someone who throughout the ages has made it clear for mankind that He is people's common Route. Nevertheless, human intellect has its own aspirations, and while satisfying these, it aims /also in the field of the knowledge of man/ at a fuller Synthesis which, in turn, and by the nature of things, must be preceded by more and more precise and selective differentiation between things which in our every-day language and thinking are treated "en bloc". These endeavours seem to be particularly necessary when the matter in question is what actually is moral in the broadly understood "morality”; what, in fact, makes conscience conscience; which ultimate criterion constitutes a basis of making authentic moral valuations from which point an ethical reflection mada with full responsibility for its consequences should start; what, something that is suitable to do, should suit to; and, finally from which sources praiseworthy deeds draw, their praise.The paper constitutes a recapitulation, and at some points, also a reinterpretational touch-up of radically peraonalistic answers to the questions above.

The paper deals with the concept of conjugal fildelity in the writings of Karol Wojtyła and John Paul II, The problem is discussed in two planes: anthropological-ethic and theological. The basis of the problem is constituted by the concept of person on the one hand and the concept of the person's making himself an offering for another person on the other. In its own meaning the concept of person includes the formulation of man as a subject and is able to decide his fate through his deeds and the formulation of man as someone to whom, oecause of his dignity, every other person's affirmation /love/ is owed. Within this framework, which constitutes the ethiebasis of all other mutual interpersonal relations conjugal fidelity is treated as a specific form of obligation between a person and another. This obligation results from the act of offering which is irrevocable and from the special character of the offering's "object": the uniqueness of the person who is offered and received in the offering. This analysis reveals that lifelong conjugal fidelity becomes the condition sine qua non that the identity of the matrimonial union can be preserved. At the same time it reveals that this kind of fidelity is also the condition sine qua non of preserving the moral identity of the married couple who have decided to make an offering of themselves as personal subjects. These considerations., are accompanied by theological reflections of biblical and ecclesiological character.