Avant-propos - Studia Moralia
Avant-propos - Studia Moralia Avant-propos - Studia Moralia
174 TODD A. SALZMAN cerned through the people of God in its entirety – the magisterium, theologians, and the faithful alike. There is a “trialogue,” if you will, among the three groups guided by the Holy Spirit with Scripture and human experience at the very center of this conversation. It is this ongoing conversation that moves the pilgrim Church through history towards a fuller recognition, knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of God’s self-communication to humanity. While the magisterium still maintains authority in this model, and there is a presumption of truth regarding its teaching, this authority is qualified by its role as learner-teacher. The faithful and theologians facilitate, contribute to, and sometimes may even challenge noninfallible magisterial teachings in this learning-teaching process. The BGT espouses a hierarchical ecclesiology. GRISEZ and SHAW note, “God prescribes that there be a visible human community which is ‘the Church’ and that it be organized hierarchically rather than democratically or in some other way.” 8 Within such a model, hierarchical authority, and obedience and conformity to that authority, are key. While the BGT recognizes the importance of the contributions of both theologians and the faithful in this model, how does it explain their respective roles in relation to the magisterium? It is the task of theologians to aid the magisterium by eliciting “the testimony of witnesses of faith on matters about which the magisterium must judge” and to propose “the material or conceptual content for possible judgments by which the faith will be freshly articulated and developed, or challenges to it answered.” In addition, “the faithful at large can propose material from their experience.” 9 What happens if the experiences of the faithful conflict with the authoritative judgments of the magisterium? “A sound method in moral theology will not allow the moral experiences and judgments of some of es: The Ecclesiology of Communion, R.C. DE PEAUX (trans.) (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992). 8 GRISEZ and SHAW, Fulfillment in Christ: A Summary of Christian Moral Principles (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991) 130. 9 GRISEZ, “How to Deal with Theological Dissent,” in CURRAN and MC- CORMICK, eds., Readings in Moral Theology No. 6: Dissent in the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1988) 442-72, at 460-61.
THE BASIC GOODS THEORY AND REVISIONISM 175 the contemporary faithful to override the constant and very firm moral teaching of the Church.” 10 In this case, it is the role of the theologian to consult moral principles and the fundamental truths of faith “to find resources for explaining modern experience and criticizing dissenting opinions.” 11 What if theologians find grounds for legitimate dissent from noninfallible magisterial teachings based on the experiences of the faithful and/or their own research and scholarship? While rational argumentation can sometimes be convincing, it is susceptible to distorting the truth, according to the BGT. “No moral theory can settle any issue with complete certainty by experience and purely rational analysis.” 12 The only possibility for legitimate dissent from noninfallible moral norms is if a stronger authority is drawn from faith itself. Since it is the ultimate authority of the magisterium to interpret articles of faith, the hierarchical epistemological circle is complete. That is, the magisterium issues teachings on faith and morals, and theologians defend those teachings. If theologians are to have a legitimate basis to question noninfallible teachings, they must invoke a higher source drawn from faith itself “such as Scripture, a defined doctrine, or a teaching proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium.” 13 The magisterium is responsible for interpreting and defining sources of faith. Given the constraints for legitimate dissent from noninfallible magisterial teaching, such dissent is very limited in this ecclesiological model. Contrarily, revisionism espouses a people of God or communion ecclesiological model. This model is based on Trinitarian theology in that, just as the Trinity is a relational entity, no 10 GRISEZ, Christian Moral Principles 10. We must note that the phrase “constant and very firm” implies infallible statements. If a moral teaching is infallibly taught, it is understood that neither theologians nor the experiences of the faithful could challenge such a teaching. A moral teaching’s infallibility, however, is precisely what is being debated between the two theories. 11 Ibid. 10-11. 12 Ibid. 853. 13 Ibid. 854 (while this assertion is made in the context of the faithful’s response to noninfallible teachings, the point is reiterated in the context of Grisez’s discussion of radical theological dissent (871).
- Page 124 and 125: 124 JOHN BERKMAN lowing DV would ha
- Page 126 and 127: 126 JOHN BERKMAN In line with the d
- Page 128 and 129: 128 JOHN BERKMAN to becoming pregna
- Page 130 and 131: 130 JOHN BERKMAN birth. On this vie
- Page 132 and 133: 132 JOHN BERKMAN Thus, according to
- Page 134 and 135: 134 JOHN BERKMAN the claim here inv
- Page 136 and 137: 136 JOHN BERKMAN conditional abando
- Page 138 and 139: 138 JOHN BERKMAN infants and childr
- Page 140 and 141: 140 JOHN BERKMAN [N.B. This documen
- Page 143 and 144: StMor 40 (2002) 143-169 EDMUND KOWA
- Page 145 and 146: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 145
- Page 147 and 148: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 147
- Page 149 and 150: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 149
- Page 151 and 152: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 151
- Page 153 and 154: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 153
- Page 155 and 156: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 155
- Page 157 and 158: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 157
- Page 159 and 160: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 159
- Page 161 and 162: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 161
- Page 163 and 164: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 163
- Page 165 and 166: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 165
- Page 167 and 168: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 167
- Page 169: L’UOMO PASTORE DELL’ESSERE 169
- Page 172 and 173: 172 TODD A. SALZMAN A fundamental d
- Page 176 and 177: 176 TODD A. SALZMAN member superior
- Page 178 and 179: 178 TODD A. SALZMAN As I understand
- Page 180 and 181: 180 TODD A. SALZMAN GRISEZ’S “h
- Page 182 and 183: 182 TODD A. SALZMAN is a magisteria
- Page 184 and 185: 184 TODD A. SALZMAN cannot err in m
- Page 186 and 187: 186 TODD A. SALZMAN sinful human be
- Page 188 and 189: 188 TODD A. SALZMAN mological crite
- Page 190 and 191: 190 TODD A. SALZMAN among both bish
- Page 192 and 193: 192 TODD A. SALZMAN terium. Rather,
- Page 194 and 195: 194 TODD A. SALZMAN goodness alone.
- Page 196 and 197: 196 TODD A. SALZMAN principles. Man
- Page 198 and 199: 198 TODD A. SALZMAN The relationshi
- Page 200 and 201: 200 TODD A. SALZMAN Therefore, any
- Page 202 and 203: 202 TODD A. SALZMAN means in assert
- Page 204 and 205: 204 TODD A. SALZMAN —————
- Page 206 and 207: 206 JOSEPH CHAPEL salvation. 4 Such
- Page 208 and 209: 208 JOSEPH CHAPEL examined the comp
- Page 210 and 211: 210 JOSEPH CHAPEL Thou 10 : one com
- Page 212 and 213: 212 JOSEPH CHAPEL (1882-1931) to de
- Page 214 and 215: 214 JOSEPH CHAPEL Man’s own exist
- Page 216 and 217: 216 JOSEPH CHAPEL it was God himsel
- Page 218 and 219: 218 JOSEPH CHAPEL sciousness, as a
- Page 220 and 221: 220 JOSEPH CHAPEL the intimate bond
- Page 222 and 223: 222 JOSEPH CHAPEL thou, to stay clo
THE BASIC GOODS THEORY AND REVISIONISM 175<br />
the contemporary faithful to override the constant and very firm<br />
moral teaching of the Church.” 10 In this case, it is the role of the<br />
theologian to consult moral principles and the fundamental<br />
truths of faith “to find resources for explaining modern experience<br />
and criticizing dissenting opinions.” 11 What if theologians<br />
find grounds for legitimate dissent from noninfallible magisterial<br />
teachings based on the experiences of the faithful and/or their<br />
own research and scholarship? While rational argumentation<br />
can sometimes be convincing, it is susceptible to distorting the<br />
truth, according to the BGT. “No moral theory can settle any issue<br />
with complete certainty by experience and purely rational<br />
analysis.” 12 The only possibility for legitimate dissent from noninfallible<br />
moral norms is if a stronger authority is drawn from<br />
faith itself. Since it is the ultimate authority of the magisterium<br />
to interpret articles of faith, the hierarchical epistemological circle<br />
is complete. That is, the magisterium issues teachings on<br />
faith and morals, and theologians defend those teachings. If theologians<br />
are to have a legitimate basis to question noninfallible<br />
teachings, they must invoke a higher source drawn from faith itself<br />
“such as Scripture, a defined doctrine, or a teaching <strong>propos</strong>ed<br />
infallibly by the ordinary magisterium.” 13 The magisterium<br />
is responsible for interpreting and defining sources of faith.<br />
Given the constraints for legitimate dissent from noninfallible<br />
magisterial teaching, such dissent is very limited in this ecclesiological<br />
model.<br />
Contrarily, revisionism espouses a people of God or communion<br />
ecclesiological model. This model is based on Trinitarian<br />
theology in that, just as the Trinity is a relational entity, no<br />
10<br />
GRISEZ, Christian Moral Principles 10. We must note that the phrase<br />
“constant and very firm” implies infallible statements. If a moral teaching<br />
is infallibly taught, it is understood that neither theologians nor the experiences<br />
of the faithful could challenge such a teaching. A moral teaching’s<br />
infallibility, however, is precisely what is being debated between the two<br />
theories.<br />
11 Ibid. 10-11.<br />
12 Ibid. 853.<br />
13 Ibid. 854 (while this assertion is made in the context of the faithful’s<br />
response to noninfallible teachings, the point is reiterated in the context of<br />
Grisez’s discussion of radical theological dissent (871).
Change language