Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia
Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia
16 JOSEPH A. SELLINGverse, in the inclinations of the human subject and in the reason-guidedwill” (99).After Johnstone presents his interpretation of Aquinas’moral vision, he offers a sketch of the history of the “separationof subject and object” and follows this with his critique of thetheories that he suggests embrace this separation. At variousplaces throughout the article one also finds a presentation ofJohnstone’s own idea about how moral theology could still(again) function with the so-called “unified vision” of the premodernage. This theory is largely based upon what he understandsas gift-giving (99, 100, 104, 113, 119 and 124-25).Interpreting AquinasIt goes without saying that Aquinas is probably the mostcommented upon theologian of the medieval period. This aloneshould alert us to the fact that the object of interpretation, be itthe Summa Theologiae (ST), the entire opus, or Aquinas himself,is anything but crystal clear. One can forgive any or all ofthe commentaries written up to Leo XIII’s revival of Aquinas atthe end of the nineteenth century for having an a-historicalview of Thomas, but (especially later) twentieth centuryThomistic studies cannot be taken seriously when they exhibitlittle or no conscious awareness of hermeneutics.Johnstone does refer to Aquinas’ vision as being “pre-modern”(98, 103) but apart from the implication that this visionwas not corrupted by the so-called modern “turn to the subject”(101) he offers no reflection upon the difficulties of interpretinga thirteenth century theologian. What Johnstone does present isa simplified notion about an “all-embracing framework” and “aunified vision of the moral world”. But what did this world looklike?Compared to our modern, “liberal” notions of human dignityand rights, democratic government, social participation andwelfare, to mention only a couple of the positive features, the“world” within which Aquinas lived was pre-scientific, authoritarian,intolerant, and generally illiterate and ignorant. In the
THE SUBJECT-OBJECT RELATION IN CONTEMPORARY MORAL THEOLOGY 17thirteenth century one had to contend with feudal social structures,absolutist secular and ecclesial rule, crusades against thepagans that included virtual genocide, the inquisition, the burningof heretics and the condemnation of the slightest hint ofany critical thought. Is this the “unified vision” to which onemight consider a return?On a less negative note, one can, and should, observe thatthe world that Aquinas addressed through his work was basicallyhomogeneous. There were no significant distinctionsbetween nature and culture, so that when he spoke about whatwe would call norms and expectations he did not have to takeinto account either cultural mores or historical evolution.These are modern concepts that would have been incomprehensibleduring the high scholastic period. Aquinas simplycould not make such distinctions.One can also seriously question Johnstone’s gratuitousattempt to portray Aquinas as a moral theologian in the sensethat we understand that label today. The compartmentalizationof theology into its various disciplines, systematic or dogmatictheology, moral theology, and so forth, was a product of the seventeenthcentury counter-reformation. It was an attempt toovercome the incompetence of the majority of the clergy by initiatingstandardized forms of seminary education. “Moral theology”represented a systematic – pastoral – approach to helpingpersons identify and remain faithful to a way of living thatwas compatible with the gospel. This is not what Aquinas wasattempting do to.The ST represents Aquinas’ attempt to provide an introductionto the whole of theology. 2 It is the second part of the work2“Because the doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient,but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: As unto littleones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat — 1 Cor. 3:1-2), we purposein this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, insuch a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners.” This text is takenfrom the Prologue of the Summa Theologiae, Ed. by Kevin Knight, from theSecond and Revised Edition, 1920, by the Fathers of the English Dominican
- Page 1 and 2: StudiaMoraliaBiannual Reviewpublish
- Page 3 and 4: 4Reviews / RecensionesBONANDI, ALBE
- Page 5 and 6: 6 SUMMARIES / RESUMENESteologia mor
- Page 7 and 8: 8 SUMMARIES / RESUMENES‘Globaliza
- Page 9 and 10: 10 SUMMARIES / RESUMENESche del sis
- Page 11 and 12: Alla luce della riscoperta concilia
- Page 13: StMor 44 (2006) 15-40JOSEPH A. SELL
- Page 17 and 18: THE SUBJECT-OBJECT RELATION IN CONT
- Page 19 and 20: THE SUBJECT-OBJECT RELATION IN CONT
- Page 21 and 22: THE SUBJECT-OBJECT RELATION IN CONT
- Page 23: THE SUBJECT-OBJECT RELATION IN CONT
- Page 26 and 27: 28 JOSEPH A. SELLINGWith respect to
- Page 28 and 29: 30 JOSEPH A. SELLINGbetween proport
- Page 30 and 31: 32 JOSEPH A. SELLINGposes of both p
- Page 32 and 33: 34 JOSEPH A. SELLINGWhat most peopl
- Page 34 and 35: 36 JOSEPH A. SELLINGgive a gift tha
- Page 36 and 37: 38 JOSEPH A. SELLINGent aspects of
- Page 38 and 39: 40 JOSEPH A. SELLINGanother aspect
- Page 40 and 41: 42 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEmake it possib
- Page 42 and 43: 44 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEunified theolo
- Page 44 and 45: 46 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEvirtue calls f
- Page 46 and 47: 48 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEthat we cannot
- Page 48 and 49: 50 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEby which he me
- Page 50 and 51: 52 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEgestion that w
- Page 52 and 53: 54 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEare intelligib
- Page 54 and 55: 56 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEdeath, in rela
- Page 56 and 57: 58 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEterms of an ob
- Page 58 and 59: 60 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONEacter of the n
- Page 60 and 61: StMor 44 (2006) 63-92GIOVANNI DEL M
- Page 62 and 63: IMPLICANZE CANONISTICHE DELL’AIDS
THE SUBJECT-OBJECT RELATION IN CONTEMPORARY MORAL THEOLOGY 17thirteenth century one had to contend with feudal social structures,absolutist secular and ecclesial rule, crusades against thepagans that included virtual genocide, the inquisition, the burningof heretics and the condemnation of the slightest hint ofany critical thought. Is this the “unified vision” to which onemight consider a return?On a less negative note, one can, and should, observe thatthe world that Aquinas addressed through his work was basicallyhomogeneous. There were no significant distinctionsbetween nature and culture, so that when he spoke about whatwe would call norms and expectations he did not have to takeinto account either cultural mores or historical evolution.These are modern concepts that would have been incomprehensibleduring the high scholastic period. Aquinas simplycould not make such distinctions.One can also seriously question Johnstone’s gratuitousattempt to portray Aquinas as a moral theologian in the sensethat we understand that label today. The compartmentalizationof theology into its various disciplines, systematic or dogmatictheology, moral theology, and so forth, was a product of the seventeenthcentury counter-reformation. It was an attempt toovercome the incompetence of the majority of the clergy by initiatingstandardized forms of seminary education. “Moral theology”represented a systematic – pastoral – approach to helpingpersons identify and remain faithful to a way of living thatwas compatible with the gospel. This is not what Aquinas wasattempting do to.The ST represents Aquinas’ attempt to provide an introductionto the whole of theology. 2 It is the second part of the work2“Because the doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient,but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: As unto littleones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat — 1 Cor. 3:1-2), we purposein this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, insuch a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners.” This text is takenfrom the Prologue of the Summa Theologiae, Ed. by Kevin Knight, from theSecond and Revised Edition, 1920, by the Fathers of the English Dominican
Change language