The Identity of Christian Morality

Ann Marie Mealey

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781032179926
• eBook ISBN: 9781317027966
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

This book argues that moral theology has yet to embrace the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council concerning the ways in which it is to be renewed. One of the reasons for this is the lack of consensus between theologians regarding the nature, content and uniqueness of Christian morality. After highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the so-called autonomy and faith ethic schools of thought, Mealey argues that there is little dividing them and that, in some instances, both schools are simply defending one aspect of a hermeneutical dialectic. In an attempt to move away from the divisions between proponents of the faith-ethic and autonomy positions, Mealey enlists the help of the hermeneutical theory of Paul Ricoeur. She argues that many of the disagreements arising from the Christian proprium debate can be overcome if scholars look to the possibilities opened up by Ricoeur's hermeneutics of interpretation. Mealey also argues that the uniqueness of Christian morality is more adequately explained in terms of a specific identity (self) that is constantly subject to change and revision in light of many, often conflicting, moral sources. She advocates a move away from attempts to explain the uniqueness of Christian morality in terms of one specific, unchanging context, motivation, norm, divine command or value. By embracing the possibilities opened up by Ricoeurian hermeneutics, Mealey explains how concepts such as revelation, tradition, orthodoxy and moral conscience may be understood in a hermeneutical way without being deemed sectarian or unorthodox.

Chapter 1
The Emergence of the Christian Proprium Debate

Although it is common to hear theologians talking about ‘theological ethics’ and the Second Vatican Council’s recommendations to make moral theology more ‘Christocentric’, one hears much less about their desire to reengage with the debate concerning the specificity of Christian morality. Frequently, we hear theologians saying that this particular debate has ‘run its course’, or we hear them say, ‘I thought that debate was over and done with’. While the debate does seem to have been taken off our theological agenda, the recommendations made by the Council prior to the development of this debate have still to be followed and realized. We still await the Christocentric moral theology of which the Council spoke. While it is true that the work of theologians was perhaps stifled by postconciliar discussions about what is unique about Christian morality or whether there is, indeed, a Christian morality, the fact remains that moralists scarcely refer to the Bible when they write about moral theology. Moreover, biblical scholars seldom converse with moralists about the interpretation of Scripture.

In essence, this means that moral theology is not following the recommendations made in Optatam Totius 16. It is not giving special care to the perfecting and teaching of moral theology in light of divine revelation.1 It is very rarely drawing more fully on the teachings of Holy Scripture and it seldom throws light upon the exalted vocation of the faithful in Christ and their obligation to bring forth fruit in charity for the life of the world.2

Current Issues in Moral Theology

The tendency to treat the work of the moralist and that of the biblical scholar as two separate enterprises is commonplace. It is only, perhaps, when we have to teach our students about the postconciliar debate in moral theology about what is specific or unique about Christian morality that we engage with the question of why the Bible is significant in moral matters. This is disappointing. At a very basic level it means that, for the most part, today’s moral theology can and does proceed without any reference to Sacred Scripture. It goes without saying, then, that the moral theology proposed by the Council has not yet materialized. Although the Council wanted to bring moral theology into a closer relationship with the Scriptures, and with the person of Christ revealed therein, contemporary trends in moral theology indicate that frequently the discipline has little or nothing to say about the Bible and how it should be incorporated into the search for faith and understanding, truth and holiness, goodness and virtue. It may come as a surprise to some that the words of the German theologian Josef Fuchs, written more than 40 years ago, still aptly describe the situation in moral theology regarding its renewal. In his work Human Values and Christian Morality, Fuchs points out that ‘moral theology has never yet – strictly speaking – attained the ideal contemplated by the Council’.3

One of the reasons for this may be because there is little or no agreement about whether there is a Christian morality and whether the Bible contains any norms, values or principles that could be considered ‘specifically Christian’. A second reason may well be because scholars often support different schools of thought, and many scholars seem only to work with those who share their particular views about how the Bible should be used in moral theology.

Another reason why the moral theology of the renewal is out of reach for us today has to do with the fact that there is little collaboration between biblical scholars and moralists about the nature of the biblical texts, how they should be interpreted and whether they should be considered as authoritative in the moral sense. The work of moral theologians is often unread by biblical scholars and vice versa. Paradigms shifts that occur in the area of biblical exegesis often go unnoticed by moral theologians, even though these shifts in method may be of vital importance to the work of moral theologians.

The specialization of the disciplines of moral theology and biblical studies makes matters even more complicated. Both biblical scholars and moralists are often divided (for philosophical or exegetical reasons) into various branches or schools of theology, which often makes conversation difficult to initiate. For instance, in the area of biblical studies, one often finds that some scholars support narrative approaches to the Bible, while others believe more strongly in the merits of literary criticism or the historical critical method. Moralists, too, are often divided into schools of thought, such as the ‘revisionists’ ‘faith-ethic’ or ‘autonomy’ schools or, more recently, ‘the new natural law’ school of thought. This makes communication between the disciplines all the more difficult.

The lack of cooperation between the disciplines of moral theology and biblical theology, not to mention any other theological area, is cause for concern for the future of moral theology. Without a continuing dialogue with biblical scholars about the person of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, the possibility of constructing the christocentric moral theology of which the Council spoke becomes less and less likely. What becomes more increasingly likely is that moral theology will turn to the human sciences as a dialogue partner, rather than to the sacred sciences of biblical studies, spirituality or dogmatic theology. While cooperation with the former disciplines certainly has its merits – they can provide moral theology with anthropological, cultural and biological information about the human person – the lack of cooperation with the sacred sciences means that moral theology runs the risk of conducting itself in way that scarcely refers to the person of Jesus or to the call to holiness and transcendence. If moralists continue to write moral theology without reference to the Scriptures or to the person of Jesus, the discipline runs the risk of becoming overly pragmatic or legalistic to the detriment of the spiritual desires of human beings and, more importantly, to the profound message of love and hope given to us by God though Jesus. In fact, if moral theology is not connected to God in any way, the work of the moralist will be akin to the work of the secular ethicist, and will scarcely, if at all, refer to faith. The harsh reality is that if moral theology infrequently refers to the God of Jesus Christ, it can hardly be called moral theology at all.

The Need to Revise the Debate on the Christian Proprium

It is for this reason that I am inviting the reader to revisit the issues raised by the theologians who were calling for a renewal of moral theology as well as the Council Fathers who acknowledged and recognized the limitations of preconciliar moral theology. My central argument will be that in order to follow the Council’s recommendations for renewal and to embrace the ‘new and renewed moral theology’ that was promised 50 years ago, we need to find a suitable way of expressing the nature of Christian morality that will enable theologians to move beyond their disagreements and divisions. I will not so much be suggesting that we should resurrect the debate as it arose in the fifties and sixties. Rather, I will be proposing that we need to move beyond the narrow dichotomies created by scholars who participated in this debate and to look to a more hermeneutical framework of interpretation. This will help us to embrace more fully the idea that, although they may exhibit the same behaviour as a non-Christian, Christians can legitimately claim to possess a specifically Christian identity/self that is constantly being shaped and reshaped, in part, by the story of Jesus as contained in the Bible. Using the work of the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, it will be suggested that Christian moral behaviour is specific in the sense that it is an expression of the Christian understanding of what it means to be a ‘self’ or a ‘human person’, worked out, in part, by using the Bible and its propositions for the forging of character and the self.

My argument is based around the idea that, no matter what else might or might not be said about the uniqueness of Christian morality, its content, its motivation or its vision of life, at a very basic level there is no denying the fact that there is such a thing as a ‘Christian’ and, therefore, a ‘Christian self’ or a ‘Christian person’. This is someone who acknowledges belief in the God of Jesus Christ, and, to put it in very general terms, agrees in freedom to include the person and example of Jesus, as revealed in the Scriptures, in his/her deliberations about good and evil. Although one does not have to believe in God to be moral, when one does believe in God, this must, and does, enter into considerations about what it means to be human, to be good, to be holy, to be merciful and to be just. Precisely how God enters into the equation is the problem, of course, which we shall see later, but, in general, few can disagree with the fact that, when human beings approach moral situations, they bring with them all of their personality, both positive and negative attributes, beliefs, teachings (including those of a magisterium, for instance), values and experiences. We cannot, and do not, simply divide ourselves up into rational, emotional and religious compartments. All aspects of our lives and personalities combine to make us who we are today. This means that when Christians act, they are giving expression to a range of aspects of their specific identity as individuals and as a believers, even if, externally observed, the action looks the same as one chosen and performed by a non-believer.

What is significant, I think, is that, although actions might look the same in terms of their material content, for the Christian person, ‘the right thing to do’ is worked out, of course, through a rational process, but also through using the resources, stories, rituals and teachings of the Christian community, that is, the resources that confirm and communicate something to each person about their own identity. This implies that, irrespective of whether there exists specifically Christian norms or principles, there is a specifically Christian identity or self, which is worked out through the pages of the Scriptures and is brought to the moral arena whenever a moral decision has to be made. Precisely what this ‘self’ is in any given situation is subject to interpretation and change over time as we grow more fully into the life of Jesus as well as becoming more familiar with the tools of exegesis. In other words, it cannot be summed up merely in the form of prescriptions, norms, rules or principles or in a single unidimensional motivation or intention.

That is not to say that, to become a Christian self, one can ignore principles; rather, it is to say that we must treat the concept of ‘selfhood’ with some degree of flexibility so that it can allow for the possibility of change and growth over time, as well as allowing for the possibility that a principle or norm, once held to be an absolute truth, might need to be changed in light of new information in the area of biblical exegesis or new experiences that add a different slant to what is being assessed. This kind of flexibility might enable us to make more fruitful use of the Scriptures in moral theology, as well as helping us to move beyond the divisions created by the debate about the uniqueness of Christian morality.

In order to move towards embracing this understanding of the relationship between moral theology and the Scriptures, as well as the specificity of Christian morality, we need to understand the issues first. One cannot really get beyond the Christian proprium debate without stating why it began at all. Our considerations need a context. We will proceed, therefore, by stating:

• why moral theology was in need of renewal;

• what the Council recommended in order for this renewal to happen;

• how some scholars, most notably Josef Fuchs, attempted to embrace the renewal and map out the contours of a ‘new moral theology’;

• how these attempts were stifled and side-tracked by a new debate that arose concerning what, if anything, was different about Christian morality;

• what the current state of play is regarding the renewal of moral theology, as well as offering some suggestions about where we should now take the discussions about the specific character of Christian morality.

Why Was Moral Theology in Need of Renewal?

One of the reasons why the debate about the uniqueness of Christian morality began at all has to do with a set of concerns relating to moral theology that arose during the period prior to the Second Vatican Council. During this period theologians around the globe were expressing concern about the then current method used in moral theology. Moral theology, unlike its present form, was taught in seminaries using textbooks or, as they were called, moral manuals that contained what were believed to be universal moral principles. The study of moral theology involved using these principles and applying them to individual cases. It was believed that such a careful application of the principles that were neatly distilled into the moral manuals would help young seminarians to perform their duty as confessors and administer the correct penance to a believer who had sinned. As such, they were legalistic and juridical in tone, and scarcely referred to scriptural teaching or to the example of Christ. Although marked by a predominant emphasis on authoritative, hierarchical teaching,4 the manuals provided priests with clear and objective guidance so that they could be confident about the nature and gravity of a particular sin. In terms of its general method and orientation, then, moral theology had more in common with canon law than it did with the concepts that we now more commonly associate with moral theology. As Thomas Slater, author of the first manual to appear in English claimed: ‘[…] the manuals of moral theology are as technical as the text-books of the lawyer and the doctor. They are not intended for edification, nor do they hold up a high ideal of Christian perfection for the imitation of the faithful. They deal with what is of obligation under pain of sin; they are books of moral pathology.’5

The result of this deductive approach to the quest for goodness was that being moral was understood to be a matter of obedience. Little attention was given to the role of freedom or individual conscience in moral decision-making. Confessors scarcely referred to the dispositions necessary to live a good life. In fac...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1 The Emergence of the Christian Proprium Debate
• 2 Ricoeurian Hermeneutics and the Responsible Christian Self
• 3 Christian Ethics and the Gospels: A Ricoeurian Approach
• 4 Christian Identity: A Quest for Goodness and Holiness
• 5 Toward a Hermeneutic of Christian Identity: The Role of Tradition
• 6 The Limits of a Ricoeurian Approach to Christian Ethics
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index