Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

194 TODD A. SALZMAN
goodness alone. It is used with rightness only in an analogous
sense. That is, “‘moral’ in its proper and formal sense refers only
to persons and their free attitudes and decisions, but, because
personal moral goodness contains concern for the well-being of
the human world as its moral task, it urges ‘right’ activity within
this world; and only because of this relationship between personal
goodness and material rightness, this rightness is also
called moral rightness.” 71 Truths of salvation pertain to moral
goodness whereas material norms indicate right or wrong behavior.
According to FUCHS and other revisionist theologians, 72
only the former can be considered as the proper object of the
secondary object of infallibility and are within the infallible
competence of the magisterium to teach.
To defend this assertion FUCHS has recourse to Scripture, tradition,
and magisterial documents. The upshot of his argument
is three-fold. First, these sources reveal that, whereas the magisterium
can teach infallibly on questions of natural law that are
revealed, it has not taught infallibly on non-revealed questions
of natural law (e.g., contraception). Second, there is agreement
among theologians that the competence of the magisterium to
guide the Church community is promised by the Holy Spirit.
There is disagreement, however, on the nature of this competence
and how it applies to questions of right/wrongness and
material norms. MCCORMICK, for example, notes “one can be
competent without being infallibly competent.” In comparison
to pre-Vatican II magisterial teachings, MCCORMICK demonstrates
that the documents of Vatican II and many subsequent
magisterial teachings have clearly limited the nature of the
magisterium’s competence to judge in the area of
rightness/wrongness. 73 Finally, FUCHS and other revisionists
71 Ibid. 52. See also, JAMES F. KEENAN, S.J., who has written extensively
on the goodness/rightness distinction in moral theology: Goodness and
Rightness in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae (Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, 1992); “Distinguishing Charity as Goodness
and Prudence as Rightness: A Key to Thomas’s Secunda Pars,” Thomist 56
(1992) 389-411; and “What is Good and What is Right? A New Distinction
in Moral Theology,” Church 5 (1989) 22-28.
72 SULLIVAN, “Secondary Object”, n. 60; MCCORMICK, Critical Calling 98-99.
73 See MCCORMICK, Critical Calling 96-100, 147-62.