Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia

276 REVIEWS / RECENSIONESmental moral theology of this decade must clearly acknowledge thatthe context in which this was attempted meant that there was littleprogress on the reformulation of its theoretical foundations. Thisshould not let us be overly harsh on the authors of this initial phase.Bonandi’s exposition is irenic: he concentrates on the arguments ofthe various authors and scrupulously avoids the ideological categorizationof certain theologians that is too often allowed to pass asscientific work.With the 1980’s Bonandi identifies a second phase. He againtakes twelve authors whose influence he judges to be significant,among them Grisez, Demmer, Pinckaers, Peschke, and Gula.Authors who had not the same public impact are, again, also chosen:Moser, Dwyer, Furger and Weber are among these. It is herethat one sees the importance of noting the project of this book asoutlined in the first chapter. The ‘matter’ studied is taken from manualsand textbooks: the ‘object’ of the study is to see whether there issignificant analysis of the foundations of moral action in the chosenworks. What emerges is an interesting development for fundamentalmoral theology during the 1980’s: this second phase is clearly concernedwith the underlying theory of morality in a way that the firstphase was not. There is a recurrent preoccupation with the anthropologyof morality, the nature of moral truth, the sources for moralreflection and the hermeneutics of moral interpretation. Bonandidoes not identify any of the attempts as outstanding, in the sensethat underlying problems were resolved, but he clearly indicates hisfrustration with those moral theologians whom he considers to benot sufficiently coherent and systematic in their construction of fundamentalmoral theology.Veritatis splendor (1993) is taken as the dividing line forBonandi’s third phase. He does not pretend that this encyclicalsolved any precise theological problem, but as it does offerMagisterial views on questions pertinent to fundamental moral theologyit is an acceptable as a dividing line. Five authors are taken:García de Haro, Römelt, Colom (in collaboration with Rodriguez-Luno), Angelini and Demmer. The different approaches of thesetheologians are well known, ranging from a type of phenomenologyto a version of transcendental Thomism. That diversity is a positivesign. We are probably entering a phase where there will be legitimatebut differing theological schools of moral reflection. Clearly