Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia

THE 50 TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE LAW OF CHRIST 237As a point of reference for an evaluation of Häring’s contributionto renewal, Gallagher chooses two authors, GustaveThils and Jacques Leclercq, who had published works on theneed for renewal in moral theology before DGC. Viewed againstthe backdrop of such authors, Häring’s contribution can beseen to consist in the development and communication of existingideas rather than in sheer originality. It is nonethelessthanks to him that ideas such as freedom, conscience andresponsibility, within a christocentric framework, have come tobe taken for granted in subsequent moral theological reflection(38).Eberhard SchockenhoffSchockenhoff offers a reading of DGC with a view toexplaining why Häring may be considered a pioneer of a ‘conciliar’moral theology. His presentation divides into four parts:the immediate historical background to Häring’s moral theology,the underlying ideas and principles of DGC, the outer structure ofHäring’s ‘fundamental ethic’ and some specific themes.Having noted Häring’s position within the tradition of theRedemptorists, by way of setting the historical background,Schockenhoff takes up the list of authors treated by Häring inthe ‘propedeutical’ chapter of DGC: Johann Michael Sailer, JohnBaptist Hirscher, Franz Xavier Linsenmann, Josef Mausbach,Otto Schilling, Fritz Tillman and Theodor Steinbüchel. Sailerreceives more extended comment (44) than the others,Schockenhoff seeing him as a forerunner of Häring with regardto the dimensions and dynamic character of the envisagedrenewal. Hirscher and Linsenman are presented as influencingHäring in the key biblical idea of the Kingdom and the paulineidea of freedom, as well as in the relationship with modern culture.The more immediate influence of a theological nature isfrom Mausbach, Schilling and Tillman. Steinbüchel is attributedwith the important influence of mediating contemporaryphilosophical trends. According to Schockenhoff, this review ofmajor influences allows Häring both to acknowledge his mainsources and, where necessary, to indicate the divergent lines ofhis own thought (46).Having completed this review of Häring’s sources as pre-