Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

THE BASIC GOODS THEORY AND REVISIONISM 191
cisely where the truth might lie, but it can certainly indicate
where the truth does not lie. Perhaps it is an indication that we
need to search out truth elsewhere in light of the sources of
moral knowledge in the historical, cultural context in which we
live. Second, to my knowledge, and as SULLIVAN’S own response
to GRISEZ makes clear, no one uses the argument of consensus,
in se, “as a response to a reasoned theological argument.” That
is, no theologian would, or has, responded to GRISEZ’S argument
that, in spite of your reasoned argument for artificial birth control
as an infallible norm, the lack of consensus of theologians
on the status of this teaching invalidates your argument. The
lack of consensus is not merely a numbers game; it is reflective
of the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments proposed behind
consensus or lack thereof. Therefore, revisionism would
agree with GRISEZ that consensus, in itself, proves nothing.
Third, and more to the point, SULLIVAN’S and GRISEZ’S exchange
on the role and function of theological consensus as a
consideration for determining whether or not the ordinary universal
magisterium has issued an infallible statement seems to
be given too much importance in their exchanges. It seems that
this would be a crucial consideration to the question of infallible
pronouncements by the ordinary universal magisterium only
if universal consensus were a necessary condition for an infallible
teaching, or somehow constitutive of it. While such theological
consensus is certainly not essential for this determination,
however, the connection between a lack of theological consensus
and a teaching can be enlightening on two accounts.
First, the arguments proposed by theologians that challenge a
particular magisterial teaching may, through an ongoing dialogue
between theologians and the magisterium, indicate that
the teaching needs to be explored, refined, clarified, or in extreme
cases, abandoned. Second, the role and function of theological
consensus in one’s ethical method indicates how one perceives
the relationship between theologians and the magisterium
and indicates, more basically, the ecclesiology of a particular
ethical method. As indicated above, the arguments and reflections
proposed by many revisionist theologians based on the
four sources of moral knowledge, which is at the heart of the
lack of theological consensus on the teaching on artificial birth
control, have not been adequately responded to by the magis-