Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia
Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia
46 DENNIS J. BILLY theological correspondence. They presume, in other words, that the two disciplines relate to each other at any one time within the general parameters of a single theological model. 2 This “presumption of singularity” is a valid methodological choice, but has positive and negative aspects to it. If it is a useful hermeneutical tool for clarifying the contours of the relationship of certain prefixed definitions of the disciplines (a positive), one has to wonder if it accurately describes the malleable, constantly shifting nature of a relationship in which the disciplines themselves are experiencing ground-shifting changes (a negative). To counteract this last tendency, this essay uses the “presumption of multivalence” as its official point of departure. To do so, it will examine five possible models of interaction between the two disciplines: (1) the hierarchical, (2) the integrative, (3) the collaborative, (4) the contextual, and (5) the absorption(al). It will proceed model by model, offering a summary of the relationship each envisions and a list of its various strengths and weaknesses. It will then present some observations on the complex matrix of relationships involved in the comparative study of spirituality and moral theology and draw appropriate conclusions about the relevance of its methodological approach for future research in the field. The Hierarchical Model Summary. The best place to begin is with the classical division of the theological disciplines and subdisciplines of the 2 For the use of models in theology, see ROBERT M. SCARLEMANN, “Theological Models and Their Construction,” Journal of Religion 53(1973): 65-82. For the use of models in spirituality, see STEFANO DE FIORES and TULLO GOFFI, eds. Nuovo dizionario di spiritualità (Rome: Edizioni Paoline, 1979), s.v. “Modelli spirituali,” by S. Spinsanti. See also L. BORRIELLO, E. CARUANA, M.R. DEL GENIO, N. SUFFI, eds. Dizionario di mistica (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998), s.v. “Modelli spirituali,” by L. Crippa. For the strengths and weaknesses of models in theological methodology, see, AVERY DULLES, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 46-52.
MODELS AND MULTIVALENCE 47 post-Tridentine era. According to this rendering of the relationship, moral theology is concerned with the analysis and application of the divine precepts, while spiritual theology focuses on the life of perfection. Spiritual theology, in turn, is further divided into ascetical theology, which studies the process of detachment people must go through in order to deepen their relationship with God, and mystical theology, which examines the process leading them to an ever-deepening union with God. All of these disciplines look to dogmatic theology to provide them with the foundational truths of the Catholic faith. Their specific concerns, however, have to do with the implications of these truths in the life of the believer, who journeys to God along the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways. As such, they are eminently practical in scope and are concerned with the person’s sanctification. What is more, they relate to each other in a clearly worked-out hierarchical fashion. Ascetical theology presupposes moral theology; mystical theology, in turn, presupposes ascetical. The image they convey is that of a threetiered pyramid. Moral theology is at the base and outlines the details of a believer’s responsibility to God and neighbor in light of the commandments. Ascetical theology occupies the middle position and leads the believer through a process of purgation to the point where he or she comes to a deeper awareness of the illuminating presence of God’s Spirit. Mystical theology rests at the summit and brings the believer from the point of illumination to varying degrees of union with God. When seen in this light, moral, ascetical, and mystical theology, while independent disciplines in their own right with their own proper principles and objects of study, are also intimately related. Mystical theology cannot exist without ascetical theology, nor can ascetical exist without moral. None of them can exist, moreover, without the insights into the foundational truths of the faith given them by dogmatic theology. Strengths. This model has many obvious strengths. It draws clear distinctions among the various disciplines yet allows them to interact within the general heuristic framework of the purgative, illuminitive, and unitive journey. When properly understood, the hierarchical structure of that journey is fundamentally participatory in nature and allows for a two-way exchange at each disciplinary interface. The moral life, in other
- Page 1: Studia Moralia Biannual Review publ
- Page 5 and 6: 5 StMor 38 (2000) 5-43 RYSZARD HAJD
- Page 7 and 8: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 7 1. Di
- Page 9 and 10: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 9 Suche
- Page 11 and 12: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 11 eine
- Page 13 and 14: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 13 durc
- Page 15 and 16: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 15 der
- Page 17 and 18: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 17 Pön
- Page 19 and 20: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 19 Pön
- Page 21 and 22: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 21 2.4.
- Page 23 and 24: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 23 brau
- Page 25 and 26: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 25 dies
- Page 27 and 28: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 27 Dem
- Page 29 and 30: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 29 Beic
- Page 31 and 32: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 31 Schr
- Page 33 and 34: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 33 sich
- Page 35 and 36: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 35 Amt
- Page 37 and 38: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 37 kann
- Page 39 and 40: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 39 4.3.
- Page 41 and 42: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 41 4.5.
- Page 43: THERAPEUTISCHE BEICHTPRAXIS 43 Pío
- Page 48 and 49: 48 DENNIS J. BILLY words, is the co
- Page 50 and 51: 50 DENNIS J. BILLY were the focal p
- Page 52 and 53: 52 DENNIS J. BILLY the genuine insi
- Page 54 and 55: 54 DENNIS J. BILLY and moral theolo
- Page 56 and 57: 56 DENNIS J. BILLY thing, it preser
- Page 58 and 59: 58 DENNIS J. BILLY categories which
- Page 60 and 61: 60 DENNIS J. BILLY one another, the
- Page 62 and 63: 62 DENNIS J. BILLY the similarities
- Page 64 and 65: 64 DENNIS J. BILLY The variety of w
- Page 66 and 67: 66 DENNIS J. BILLY integrador, el c
- Page 68 and 69: 68 MARCIANO VIDAL núcleo de la rev
- Page 70 and 71: 70 MARCIANO VIDAL nal a la vez, del
- Page 72 and 73: 72 MARCIANO VIDAL 16) 15 . A esta r
- Page 74 and 75: 74 MARCIANO VIDAL básica de la exp
- Page 76 and 77: 76 MARCIANO VIDAL paradigma para co
- Page 78 and 79: 78 MARCIANO VIDAL IV. PENSAMIENTO A
- Page 80 and 81: 80 MARCIANO VIDAL d. La Moral como
- Page 82 and 83: 82 MARCIANO VIDAL más justos seamo
- Page 84 and 85: 84 MARCIANO VIDAL recuerdo de la me
- Page 86 and 87: 86 MARCIANO VIDAL Agustín dedica o
- Page 88 and 89: 88 MARCIANO VIDAL La comprensión d
- Page 90 and 91: 90 MARCIANO VIDAL Buenaventura inte
- Page 92 and 93: 92 MARCIANO VIDAL como clave explic
- Page 94 and 95: 94 MARCIANO VIDAL 5. LA MORAL CRIST
46 DENNIS J. BILLY<br />
theological correspondence. They presume, in other words, that<br />
the two disciplines relate to each other at any one time within<br />
the general parameters of a single theological model. 2 This<br />
“presumption of singularity” is a valid methodological choice,<br />
but has positive and negative aspects to it. If it is a useful<br />
hermeneutical tool for clarifying the contours of the relationship<br />
of certain prefixed definitions of the disciplines (a positive), one<br />
has to wonder if it accurately describes the malleable, constantly<br />
shifting nature of a relationship in which the disciplines<br />
themselves are experiencing ground-shifting changes (a<br />
negative).<br />
To counteract this last tendency, this essay uses the<br />
“presumption of multivalence” as its official point of departure.<br />
To do so, it will examine five possible models of interaction<br />
between the two disciplines: (1) the hierarchical, (2) the<br />
integrative, (3) the collaborative, (4) the contextual, and (5) the<br />
absorption(al). It will proceed model by model, offering a<br />
summary of the relationship each envisions and a list of its<br />
various strengths and weaknesses. It will then present some<br />
observations on the complex matrix of relationships involved in<br />
the comparative study of spirituality and moral theology and<br />
draw appropriate conclusions about the relevance of its<br />
methodological approach for future research in the field.<br />
The Hierarchical Model<br />
Summary. The best place to begin is with the classical<br />
division of the theological disciplines and subdisciplines of the<br />
2<br />
For the use of models in theology, see ROBERT M. SCARLEMANN,<br />
“Theological Models and Their Construction,” Journal of Religion 53(1973):<br />
65-82. For the use of models in spirituality, see STEFANO DE FIORES and TULLO<br />
GOFFI, eds. Nuovo dizionario di spiritualità (Rome: Edizioni Paoline, 1979),<br />
s.v. “Modelli spirituali,” by S. Spinsanti. See also L. BORRIELLO, E. CARUANA,<br />
M.R. DEL GENIO, N. SUFFI, eds. Dizionario di mistica (Vatican City: Libreria<br />
Editrice Vaticana, 1998), s.v. “Modelli spirituali,” by L. Crippa. For the<br />
strengths and weaknesses of models in theological methodology, see, AVERY<br />
DULLES, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (New York: Crossroad,<br />
1995), 46-52.
Change language