Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

178 TODD A. SALZMAN
As I understand the debate over the hierarchy and its teaching
authority, the important question is not if the bishops and
pope have this teaching authority, but how the teaching authority
is to be exercised. That is the very point of debate on the historical
investigation of ecclesiological models. Whereas the BGT
has a very limited role for the faithful and theologians in their
hierarchical model, revisionism’s people of God model allows
for much greater input from both groups in developing, formulating,
and reformulating noninfallible teachings. This model is
particularly relevant for the contemporary Church, given that
many of the faithful are educated and have a very active ministry
within Church institutions (e.g., universities and parishes). Furthermore,
with the radical decline of vocations to the priesthood
and religious life in the contemporary church, the Church herself
is moving more towards a “Church of the Laity” whereby the
laity have a much greater role to play in every aspect of Church
life. For revisionism, the re-positioning of authority based on a
revised, yet traditional, ecclesiology reflects not only a Trinitarian
theology and the documents of Vatican II but also Catholic
social teaching and the principle of subsidiarity or participation
that applies to social and ecclesial structures. 20 The implications
of these sources for the authority of the magisterium and its relationship
to theologians and the faithful supports a communion
ecclesiological model which is more reflective of the “signs of
the times” than is the antiquated exclusively hierarchical model.
In light of these two different ecclesiological models, we can
now address three central issues concerning the teaching authority
of the magisterium on morality and its role and function within
ethical theory that divide the BGT and revisionism. The first issue
is the proper relationship between theologians and the magisterium
when the magisterium exercises its teaching function.
20 PIUS XI, Quadragesimo anno par. 79. See JOSEPH A. KOMONCHAK, “Subsidiarity
in the Church: The State of the Question,” The Jurist 48 (1988) 298-
349; and JOHN R. QUINN, “The Exercise of the Primacy and the Costly Call to
Unity,” in PHYLLIS ZAGANO and TERRENCE W. TILLEY, eds., The Exercise of the
Primacy: Continuing the Dialogue (New York: Crossroad Publishing Co.,
1998) 1-28, at 21-24.