Vol. XXXVIII / 1 - Studia Moralia

58 DENNIS J. BILLY
categories which today are impractical or overly confining.
Strengths. This model has many strengths. For one thing, it
seeks to forge a new context in which the traditional differences
are overcome by rethinking the parameters of likeness and
differences between the two disciplines. What is more, the soft,
malleable boundaries proposed by the model and the various
degrees of absorption it permits provides theologians with a
flexible matrix within which they can understand how the two
disciplines interact over time. That is to say, it allows them to
view the relationship between the two disciplines along a wide
spectrum of possible interfaces, ranging anywhere from total
absorption of one by the other, to a state in which the process
has barely begun, or anywhere in-between. As indicated earlier,
the model incorporates a historical awareness in its
consideration of the interaction between the two disciplines and
carries that awareness with it as it tries to formulate the context
within which a new integration of the disciplines can evolve. If
that is not enough, it can be used in conjunction with other
models to highlight the multivalent nature of the relationship
between the two disciplines and to complement those models
which emphasize differences rather than the common ground
shared by them. In doing so, it can help provide a dynamic
context and starting point for a gradual reintegration of other
the theological disciplines.
Weaknesses. This model also has a number of weaknesses.
Creating malleable boundaries between the disciplines so that
one can be absorbed by another or turned into a subdiscipline
can divert attention away from areas already treated by the
traditional nomenclature and still in need of constant attention.
Allowing for a shifting rate of absorption, moreover, can result
in a proliferation of interactions between the two disciplines
with little or no organizing principle among them to serve as a
unifying force. What is more, the process of absorption may
ultimately do nothing more than create a tertium quid (i.e., a
third discipline), whose larger scope and purpose make it
difficult to handle the more highly focused and concentrated
issues that more specialized fields were designed for. If that is
not enough, focusing on a changing interface of absorption
could water down some of the valid claims of autonomy and
actually hinder the kind of dialogue which is necessary for a