Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

192 TODD A. SALZMAN
terium. Rather, the response has been an authoritative reaffirmation
of a traditional teaching. It is clear that what is at the
heart of the debate over theological consensus and infallible
teachings by the ordinary universal magisterium is as much (if
not more) about authority, its exercise, role, and function in the
current magisterium, as about the theological arguments for or
against a particular ethical issue.
GRISEZ’S identification of the lack of consensus amongst
bishops with the influence of radically dissenting theologians
that rules out authentic consensus, and his interpretation that
radical dissent reflects a cancer in the church, represents a serious
statement on how the Holy Spirit works within the Church.
One could reasonably assert that GRISEZ’S position on authentic
and alleged consensus is intimately tied to a very narrow, papal
ecclesiology. That is, it is not the college of bishops who are
God’s voice on earth, but only those bishops who conform to papal
statements unconditionally. Such an ecclesiology virtually
rules out authentic pluralism within the Church. Not only do
GRISEZ and SULLIVAN differ on the criteria for establishing “universal
consensus,” but the BGT and revisionism also disagree
fundamentally on the proper object of the ordinary universal
magisterium’s infallible teachings.
Tradition and Ethical Method: the secondary object of
infallibility?
Both the BGT and revisionism agree that if a natural law
norm is also contained in divine revelation, then that norm falls
under the auspices of the primary object of infallibility. They further
agree that any infallible teaching of the magisterium belonging
to the primary object of infallibility requires an assent of
“divine and Catholic faith.” A point of contention concerns those
norms that belong to the secondary object of infallibility, i.e.,
truths not contained in divine revelation, but which are required
for revelation’s explanation and defense. The BGT maintains
that the ordinary magisterium has taught infallibly such specific
natural law norms; revisionism denies this claim. In this section,
I will present two fundamental differences between the theories
that draw from tradition yet support contradictory posi-