Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia

56 DENNIS J. BILLY
thing, it preserves the integrity of each discipline, while
recognizing that they can be used with great benefit to elucidate
other fields. It encourages a “soft” interface between the two
disciplines, one which steers clear of a profound methodological
interaction, but which nevertheless succeeds in connecting the
two disciplines at appropriate points of interest. What is more,
the parameters of the context/content relationship are flexible
enough to allow varying proportions of one discipline to shed
light on particular points of interest from another. In this way,
the model has great potential for allowing the particular content
under consideration to shed light on greater and greater
amounts of material from the other discipline it uses for its
context. A relationship of reciprocity can thus evolve, whereby
context sheds light on content – and vice versa. Such a
relationship of reciprocity is different from that of the
collaborative model, but can easily be used in conjunction with
it. This insight discloses one of the greatest strengths of the
contextual model: its capacity to adapt to changing contexts and
to be used in different circumstances in conjunction with a
variety of other models. Such flexibility can make this model an
important presence in the continuing discussion on the
relationship between spirituality and moral theology.
Weaknesses. This model also has a number of weaknesses.
For one thing, the context provided for the material under
consideration can often appear as a mere accessory which can
easily be detached from the main arguments and discarded (or,
at best, not taken seriously). In such cases, the contextualizing
material can appear as a mere cosmetic accretion and be looked
upon in a demeaning, even derogatory sense. From there, subtle
projections can be transferred onto the discipline as a whole and
the entire process can actually work against a deeper
understanding of the relationship between spirituality and
moral theology. For this reason, great caution must be made not
to draw too facile (and superficial) parallels between the content
and the contextualizing disciplines. Otherwise, the final product
may very well work against the stated (or implicit) goals of the
project. If that is not enough, the model’s “soft” interfacing of the
disciplines focuses on loose (as opposed to strong) connections
between the disciplines. That is to say that it uses context rather
than concrete arguments to shed light on the relationship