Avant-propos - Studia Moralia
Avant-propos - Studia Moralia Avant-propos - Studia Moralia
250 MARTIN MCKEEVER distinction, the encyclical is at pains to point out that this does not mean that there is a fundamental conflict or competition between the two. On the contrary, a harmonious relationship between faith and reason is presented in the form of a circularity within which reason can investigate, by means of its own resources and methods, the truth of Revelation affirmed by faith: In the light of these considerations, the relationship between theology and philosophy is best construed as a circle. Theology’s source and starting-point must always be the word of God revealed in history, while its final goal will be an understanding of that word which increases with each passing generation. Yet, since God’s word is Truth (cf. Jn 17:17), the human search for truth – philosophy, pursued in keeping with its own rules – can only help to understand God’s word better. [...] This circular relationship with the word of God leaves philosophy enriched, because reason discovers new and unsuspected horizons. (73) The underlying principle here is that the truth is one (§§ 34, 53, 71), both in the sense that what is true must be true everywhere and necessarily, but also in the sense that the ultimate truths of faith cannot contradict the truths of reason (§§ 27, 34, 51) and that human beings need some unitary, definitive explanation as the foundation of their thought and action (§ 27). Within this fundamental unity, complementary functions can be discerned. Reason is necessary both in order to receive the revealed message, auditus fidei, and in order to articulate the experience of faith, intellectus fidei (§ 65). When this later takes the form of a systematic and organic presentation, it needs philosophy in order to ensure its own internal intelligibility and coherence. In this sense we can speak of the need for philosophical mediation (§ 69) of the faith. At the same time faith helps reason not to become too narrow or too presumptuous, it both expands the horizons of enquiry and tempers the pride of the intellect. This complementarity of faith and reason has major implications for the understanding of morality presented in the encyclical. The point of departure of any such reflection is the acceptance, in faith, of the Revelation in Christ of God as the
CAN ANYTHING GOOD COME OUT OF POSTMODERNISM?... 251 Supreme Good (§ 57). The goodness of God is therefore both the ultimate horizon in which the goodness of human actions is to be discerned and the goal to which they aspire. Right reason guides the human being in the choice of particular actions which will lead to a life in conformity with the truth of Revelation. Within this schema the false autonomy of reason which leads to rationalism and possibly totalitarianism is replaced by the free choice of the human being to obey, in trust, the one authority of the truth (§ 79). Over against this account of how things should be the encyclical presents a description of the “nefarious separation” by which reason has assumed an illegitimate and destructive autonomy (§ 80). Cut off from the guidance and inspiration of the truths of faith, reason slips into various forms of aberration, most notably that of nihilism (§§ 90,98). This is construed as the denial that any universal truth can be known or that any opinion is of more value than another. Such a nihilistic stance within philosophy is thus an example of the kind of “presuppositions and conclusions” which are incompatible with christian faith (§ 50). The encyclical specifically rejects a concept of truth as consensus and the utilitarian and pragmatic modes of ethical thinking which follow from this: In brief, there are signs of a widespread distrust of universal and absolute statements, especially among those who think that truth is born of consensus and not of a consonance between intellect and objective reality. (§ 56) The ultimate expression of the harmony between faith and reason finds expression in such a science as moral theology. In view of the particular challenges presented by postmodern culture, the primary call has to be the production of a “metaphysic of the good” based on a recognition of the truth of Revelation and the truth of reason (§§ 67, 68, 98). Only such a vision of the good will be able to withstand the pressures of subjectivist, utilitarian and pragmatist ethics. Thus far our attempt to articulate the moral import of the teaching of Fides et ratio.
- Page 200 and 201: 200 TODD A. SALZMAN Therefore, any
- Page 202 and 203: 202 TODD A. SALZMAN means in assert
- Page 204 and 205: 204 TODD A. SALZMAN —————
- Page 206 and 207: 206 JOSEPH CHAPEL salvation. 4 Such
- Page 208 and 209: 208 JOSEPH CHAPEL examined the comp
- Page 210 and 211: 210 JOSEPH CHAPEL Thou 10 : one com
- Page 212 and 213: 212 JOSEPH CHAPEL (1882-1931) to de
- Page 214 and 215: 214 JOSEPH CHAPEL Man’s own exist
- Page 216 and 217: 216 JOSEPH CHAPEL it was God himsel
- Page 218 and 219: 218 JOSEPH CHAPEL sciousness, as a
- Page 220 and 221: 220 JOSEPH CHAPEL the intimate bond
- Page 222 and 223: 222 JOSEPH CHAPEL thou, to stay clo
- Page 224 and 225: 224 JOSEPH CHAPEL Where the Fall is
- Page 226 and 227: 226 JOSEPH CHAPEL general, and to E
- Page 228 and 229: 228 JOSEPH CHAPEL relations. Here,
- Page 230 and 231: 230 JOSEPH CHAPEL ers in which, “
- Page 232 and 233: 232 JOSEPH CHAPEL true man.” 67 A
- Page 234 and 235: 234 JOSEPH CHAPEL heart of sin. Ebn
- Page 236 and 237: 236 JOSEPH CHAPEL El autor es sacer
- Page 238 and 239: 238 MARTIN MCKEEVER cyclical has to
- Page 240 and 241: 240 MARTIN MCKEEVER a. The modernis
- Page 242 and 243: 242 MARTIN MCKEEVER (34); the destr
- Page 244 and 245: 244 MARTIN MCKEEVER not wish to joi
- Page 246 and 247: 246 MARTIN MCKEEVER deavour. It is
- Page 248 and 249: 248 MARTIN MCKEEVER ernist illusion
- Page 252 and 253: 252 MARTIN MCKEEVER It is beyond th
- Page 254 and 255: 254 MARTIN MCKEEVER es his vision i
- Page 256 and 257: 256 MARTIN MCKEEVER serious thing,
- Page 258: 258 MARTIN MCKEEVER ernism is an en
250 MARTIN MCKEEVER<br />
distinction, the encyclical is at pains to point out that this does<br />
not mean that there is a fundamental conflict or competition between<br />
the two.<br />
On the contrary, a harmonious relationship between faith<br />
and reason is presented in the form of a circularity within which<br />
reason can investigate, by means of its own resources and methods,<br />
the truth of Revelation affirmed by faith:<br />
In the light of these considerations, the relationship between<br />
theology and philosophy is best construed as a circle. Theology’s<br />
source and starting-point must always be the word of God revealed<br />
in history, while its final goal will be an understanding of that word<br />
which increases with each passing generation. Yet, since God’s<br />
word is Truth (cf. Jn 17:17), the human search for truth – philosophy,<br />
pursued in keeping with its own rules – can only help to understand<br />
God’s word better. [...] This circular relationship with the<br />
word of God leaves philosophy enriched, because reason discovers<br />
new and unsuspected horizons. (73)<br />
The underlying principle here is that the truth is one (§§ 34,<br />
53, 71), both in the sense that what is true must be true everywhere<br />
and necessarily, but also in the sense that the ultimate<br />
truths of faith cannot contradict the truths of reason (§§ 27, 34,<br />
51) and that human beings need some unitary, definitive explanation<br />
as the foundation of their thought and action (§ 27).<br />
Within this fundamental unity, complementary functions<br />
can be discerned. Reason is necessary both in order to receive<br />
the revealed message, auditus fidei, and in order to articulate the<br />
experience of faith, intellectus fidei (§ 65). When this later takes<br />
the form of a systematic and organic presentation, it needs philosophy<br />
in order to ensure its own internal intelligibility and coherence.<br />
In this sense we can speak of the need for philosophical<br />
mediation (§ 69) of the faith. At the same time faith helps<br />
reason not to become too narrow or too presumptuous, it both<br />
expands the horizons of enquiry and tempers the pride of the intellect.<br />
This complementarity of faith and reason has major implications<br />
for the understanding of morality presented in the encyclical.<br />
The point of departure of any such reflection is the acceptance,<br />
in faith, of the Revelation in Christ of God as the