Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

StMor 40 (2002) 171-204
TODD A. SALZMAN
THE BASIC GOODS THEORY AND REVISIONISM:
A METHODOLOGICAL COMPARISON
ON THE USE OF TRADITION AS A SOURCE
OF MORAL KNOWLEDGE
Catholic ethical method continues to be a central topic of
debate in fundamental moral theology in the post-Veritatis splendor
era. This article is the third in a series of three articles comparing
the two predominant ethical methods in Catholic moral
theology: Revisionism and the Basic Goods Theory (BGT). 1
Here, I will focus on tradition as a source of moral knowledge.
There are two relevant senses in which tradition is used in this
paper. Tradition with a capitol “T” depicts the infrastructure and
process or system for handing over lived faith and tradition with
a small “t” is the content of that lived faith that is handed over. 2
1 See my “The Basic Goods Theory and Revisionism: A Methodological
Comparison on the Use of Reason and Experience as Sources of Moral
Knowledge,” Heythrop Journal 42 (2001) 423-50; and “The Basic Goods Theory
and Revisionism: A Methodological Comparison on the Use of Scripture
as a Source of Moral Knowledge,” Louvain Studies 26 (2001) 117-46.
2 See P.C. RODGER and L. VISCHER, eds., The Fourth World Conference on
Faith and Order: Montreal, 1963, Faith and Order Papers, No. 42 (London:
SCM, 1964) nn. 38-63, 50-57 (cited in CHARLES E. CURRAN, The Catholic Moral
Tradition Today: A Synthesis [Washington, DC: Georgtown University Press,
1999] 59), 66-106. It should be noted that the distinction made in this document
differs fundamentally from that posited within Catholic theological
discourse. In that discourse, Tradition refers not simply to the process and
structure but also to the content, whereas traditions refer to particular determinations
of the tradition, which may be permanent in certain contexts,
but are not necessarily enduringly normative. (See YVES CONGAR, Tradition
and Traditions, MICHAEL NASEBY and THOMAS RAINBOROUGH [trans.] [New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1967]). Even within this discourse, however, there
is fluidity in interpreting these two terms. For instance, while the INTERNA-
TIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION published a document entitled “The Interpretation
of Dogmas,” and uses the terms Tradition and tradition throughout