Msgr Batule on moral theology: Crisis Magazine

[otrrl]

here’s a link to the current issue of Crisis Magazine, an article by Msgr Batule. Read the last paragraph (at least) and come back for a discussion.

Holding Moral Theory Accountable

The death earlier this year of Germain Grisez, the eminent Catholic moral theologian, made me think of the last time I saw something bearing his name in the media. To the best of my recollection…

www.crisismagazine.com

Perhaps the last paragraph could be rephrased, There ARE moral absolutes which must be followed without exception. We have heard that the prohibition against abortion is one such – no exceptions (I think).

I’ve never studied moral theology, and I think I am on shaky ground with questions like: Is it a sin to lie, if otherwise one would be killed?

And, in the Bible, there are lots of conflicts, even in the Gospels. The Pharisees and Scribes are always trying to put Jesus on the spot with these absolutes. The apostles are picking wheat on the Sabbath. Jesus seems to dispel the perceived absolute - no work on the Sabbath – with a higher absolute, the Sabbath was made for man, not the reverse.

I’ve read a book or two on Jewish thoughts on ethics. They deal with the complexity of all the 613 commands in the Torah. Jews had to come up with how to comply with the Torah, especially after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. How could they offer up all those animals without the Temple? They resolved that even READING a command in the Torah was the SAME as performing it.

That was a “reformation” in Judaism. The Jewish scriptures never envisioned a time when there would be no Temple. (Today, Reform Judaism is, as far as I can tell, a reform of the reform.)

It would be nice if we had, as Msgr Batule says, an exhaustive guide for living every aspect and circumstance of our life. Has “moral theology” answered its own question? Does moral theology have this ultimate fundamentalist guidebook to living?

 

[Gorgias]

here’s a link to the current issue of Crisis Magazine, an article by Msgr Batule. Read the last paragraph (at least) and come back for a discussion.

Quoting a single paragraph falls well within the ‘fair use’ clause of copyright law. From the article, here’s its final paragraph:

The goal of Catholic moral theology ought to be the illumination of what are perennially valid principles, ones which are true in all circumstances. This way, we will then be able to apply these unchanging principles in such a way that the Lord of history reigns over all circumstances. For it is the eternal Logos who guides us providentially, not circumstantially, through the portals of history unto life on high with him.

Now… I’m off to read the article and the ‘Open Letter’, as published by First Things…

(…and to pray for the repose of the soul of Grisez. I hadn’t realized he’d passed away…)

 

[BlackFriar]

Well spotted.
Yes this is, and will be, a seminal topic of our times, along with the role of conscience.
The dubia of the 4-2 Cardinals also affirms this.

The Church is still split over this problematic and it has not been resolved.
VS of JPII hasn’t really solved the issue…I am not sure JPII quite understood the depth of the problem to be honest. The Proportionalism that he critiqued was possibly a mischaracterised paper-tiger.

However I think this topic is a little bigger than you can easily lead or understand efficiently yourself if you have no moral theology training I suggest.

Clearly there are exceptionless moral norms at the level of abstraction from individual cases.

But when we try and apply an exceptionless norm into concrete reality we run into a major hermeneutic problem. Concrete reality is multidimensional and poorly observed (we cannot see intentions or all circumstances for example).

So a given scenario could be an example of many different exceptionless norms. Which is the one that applies and how would we know for certain? For example a man kills another man.

Is this an example of “murder” (always wrong) or “legitimate self defence” (always licit given the right circumstances).

The moral analysis of this problem is in no way made easier by adhering to an abstract world of “exceptionless norms” and trying to say “killing is always wrong” so this concrete example must be morally wrong if the actor knew what he was doing and was free to choose otherwise.

For in fact “killing” is not always wrong. It is murder that is always wrong. But then if murder is just defined as killing of the innocent then its a tautological exceptionless norm only. We still don’t know if the killing is murder. We see killing, we don’t see murder. That is reasoned from concrete detail and intention. Which detail and intent is precisely what we do not always discover in concrete reality due to its complexity and the fact we are not gods in the sky with complete knowledge of a concrete situation.

That is the essential weakness of exceptionless abstract moral norms. They presume a view of concrete reality taken from the perspective of God. In the real world of concrete examples this perspicacity is lost. We do not know which exceptionless norm is in play.

The issue is an ouroboros.