Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

190 TODD A. SALZMAN
among both bishops and theologians 65 that challenges their conclusions
is not an authentic lack of consensus that should also
help in analyzing its authority? GRISEZ maintains that, given the
state of theology today where “some contemporary theologians
deny infallibility altogether, and quite a few deny that it can extend
to specific moral norms,” as well as the fact that “neither
uninterrupted Christian tradition nor repeated and forceful papal
reaffirmations of a traditional teaching impress those who
deny it…the absence of theological consensus about the status
of moral teachings no longer has the significance it would have
had in 1863.” 66 In addition, radical dissenting theologians have
influenced bishops as well, 67 thereby lessening even the bishops’
credibility in contributing to “authentic consensus.” 68 GRISEZ attributes
this state of the theological discipline, as well as what he
regards a crisis in the Church, to a radical dissent that gained a
foothold at Vatican II and has spread like a cancer within the
Church. In order to correct these ills and establish “authentic
consensus” among Catholic theologians, the BGT would establish
a right relationship between the magisterium and theologians.
This right relationship consists of the juridical model presented
above.
What are we to say concerning this exchange between
GRISEZ and SULLIVAN on “universal consensus” between theologians
(and bishops) as a consideration for determining whether
or not a doctrine has been infallibly taught by the ordinary universal
magisterium? First, GRISEZ’S statement that, methodologically,
consensus or the lack thereof is an “unreliable sign of
where the truth might lie” is true, but requires qualification.
Lack of consensus is unreliable in that it may not indicate pre-
65 GRISEZ explicitly admits this lack of consensus on the issue of artificial
birth control: “For, in view of the silence up to now of virtually all the
bishops on the teaching’s infallibility, as well as the absence of the consensus
among theologians who have dealt with the issue, most of the faithful who
lack theological training will be unable to see that this teaching has been
proposed infallibly” (ibid. 732).
66 Ibid. 738.
67 GRISEZ, “How to Deal with Theological Dissent” 454 and 464.
68 GRISEZ, “The Ordinary Magisterium’s Infallibility” 732.