Summaries / Resúmenes - Studia Moralia

REVIEWS / RECENSIONES 277Bonandi has a preference for the theological merits of two of these(Demmer and Angelini): the reasons for his choice can be seen inhis critique of the other three. García de Haro is judged to havepresented a florilegium of interesting texts that, however, is “fatallyvague” (p. 190) at the methodological level: the lack of a substantivetheoretic base leaves the impression that moral theology issimply a normative science (p. 196). In Bonandi’s view the work ofRömelt is little more than a list of conclusions lacking a systematicsynthesis (p. 202). Colom is assessed as also deficient in his anthropologicaltheory (p. 218) that is evidenced, for instance, in the confusionbetween Magisterial texts and theological works properly socalled (p. 206). One could have other and more positive views ofthese three theologians: Bonandi’s reservations are based on thepresupposition that what fundamental moral theology needs is aconsistent theoretic analysis of moral action as it relates to the variousaspects of life such as conscience, faith and salvation. In hisview Angelini gives a reasonably successful critical epistemologicalframework to do this, though some problems are identified such asthe skimpy treatment of the virtues (p. 263). It would seem thatBonandi judges Demmer’s effort to apply a moderate form of transcendentalThomism to fundamental moral theology as the mostsuccessful.It is difficult to talk of conclusions that Bonandi reaches. WhatI appreciate in the work is the sense of historical development thatis used as a matrix to understand a tumultuous period for moraltheologians. His judgments are less brusque than, for instance, theparadigmatic shifts which Vincente Gómez Mier used in La rifondazionedella morale cattolica: Il cambiamento della “matrice disciplinare”dopo il concilio Vaticano 11 (EDB 1998: first published in aSpanish version in 1995). I prefer Bonandi’s approach as it betteridentifies the tortuous path towards a more coherent theologicalversion of the moral life that is both culturally sensitive yet stillcapable of being constructed in a sourced way. Even if I do notagree with his assessment of some particular theologians I got nosense that Bonandi was being negative for any petty aim. He understandsproperly a point that is often overlooked. Optatam totius 16did not mandate a “renewal” of moral theology stressing rather theneed for its “perfection”: specialis cura impendatur Theologiae moraliperficiendae. In Bonandi’s judgment this is the particular task ofwhat is called fundamental moral theology: without coherent and