Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia

248 MARTIN MCKEEVERpose change. (More work would seem to be necessary on therelative weight to be given to the sources Häring himselfacknowledges in DGC and other possible influences). Whilerecognising the merits of ‘setting the scene’ historically in thisway, it should be borne in mind that the scene in question isquite limited. Reading the various historical reflections, mymain hesitations regard a reading of Häring’s moral theology asa reaction to casuistry and other forms of theology current atthe time, without adequate attention to the relationshipbetween his moral theology and what was going on in moraltheology in the centuries before casuistry. This point will bedeveloped below under the theme of tradition.4. Another major strength of this volume is that it attemptsto narrate the history of Häring’s contribution to moral theologynot simply in terms of his theological sources but also interms of the cultural influences of the time. On the one hand,this involves a sincere admiration of a man who, having grownup in a rather self-contained theological system, is open torapid and extensive cultural change and able to see the implicationsof this for his own discipline. On the other hand, however,a number of the contributors are keenly aware of the limitationsthis cultural context imposes on Häring’s judgement. Thisis a crucial consideration when we come to the question as tothe implications of Häring’s contribution for the future. Whilecertainly called to emulate his openness to contemporary culture,what has been happening in the intervening period shouldalso warn theologians against a too facile optimism regardingthe relationship between culture and faith/moral life.5. Moving on now to the content of renewal, one openquestion seems to me to deserve special mention. The contributorspoint out that Häring became a major voice in proposing anew emphasis on moral theology as a theological science andtherefore a new accent on Scripture and the person of Christ.That this constitutes ‘renewal’ relative to the predominance ofthe legalistic and casuistic approaches of pre-conciliar theologyis hardly to be doubted. But surely ‘renewal’ must also beassessed relative to its results. It is one thing to say that Häringputs these matters on the theological agenda and quite anotherto suggest that, through his influence, they have been happily