CHAPTER NINE

The Responsibility of Moral Theology to Church
and Modern Society

This is the unpublished text of a talk originally given to the Catholic Theological Association of Great Britain meeting at Trinity and All Saints, Leeds, in September, 1999.

Introduction

Moral theology does not stand between Church and society. It is a discipline which has its life and activity within the Church. By the same token, as well as being within the Church, moral theology is also within society.

If moral theology stands within the Church and within modern society, it has to avoid the danger of sundering its allegiance to one or the other. If it sees itself as responsible only to the Church, or only to modern society, it is really being untrue to itself. It is refusing to own part of its identity. It is deserting one of the twin bases for being truly human.

Despite what I have written above, for the Christian moral theologian, the primary location of moral theology is within the Church. That follows from its being theology which, for Christians at least, involves reflecting, exploring and searching within the community of the Church, past and present. In his 1999 Marquette lecture, ‘Moral Theology at the End of the Century’, Charles Curran insists that ‘moral theology exists in the service of the Church and this aspect can never be forgotten’ (p. 41).

Yet that ‘reflecting, exploring and searching’ which is at the heart of moral theology can only take place within the society in which we are living (i.e. modern society), using all the cultural inheritance of language and symbols of our society and wrestling with the challenging human questions and decisions facing us today.

It would seem to follow, therefore, that perhaps the major element in moral theology’s responsibility to the Church lies in its being faithful to its responsibility to modern society. If moral theology evades its responsibility to modern society, it is in fact failing the Church. This point was made very strongly by a US bishop, James Malone, way back in 1986:

A democracy lives by open, public debate where all parties are both free to speak and accountable for the implications of their positions... Catholicism is not a democracy; but that truism does not touch the question of how Catholicism lives in a democratic culture … Bishops and theologians must preserve the faith and share the faith in a culture which values the courage of convictions openly stated, openly criticized and openly defended … (There is need for) a teaching style which fosters within the Church and with the wider society what Father Murray called ‘civilized conversation’ … The cultivation of such civil discourse between bishops and theologians should be a model for extending the same dialogue into Church and society (‘How Bishops and Theologians Relate’, June l986 address at Marquette University, full text in Origins, 31 July 1986, pp. 169-174 at p. 174).

A consequence of this would seem to be that moral theologians are consciencebound to resist any attempt on the part of the Church to prevent their exercising this responsibility to the world.

I would suggest, therefore, that there are a number of unacceptable interpretations of the responsibility of moral theology to the Church and to society which need to be firmly rejected.

For instance, unacceptable interpretations of moral theology’s responsibility to the Church are implicit in the following, often-heard statements:

• ‘a moral theologian must always show loyalty to the Holy Father and his teaching and to all who teach in his name.’
• ‘moral theologians must be careful not to disturb the simple faithful.’
• ‘moral theologians should respect the nature of the Church as a communion in faith and so should do nothing to shake the boat.’
• ‘the Pope should insist that moral theologians toe the line and submit their human judgements to his divine authority.’
• ‘moral theology should be less concerned about the things of this world and should focus much more on spiritual issues.’

With regard to moral theology’s responsibility to modern society, equally unacceptable interpretations are found when a moral theologian sees his or her role as one of:

 

• Claiming that the Church has all the knowledge and wisdom needed to give modern society all the answers it is searching for;
• accepting uncritically the agenda of modern society;
• accepting uncritically the role which modern society tries to impose on the Church, whether it be one of a purely sacristy Church or one of enforcing whatever moral standards modern society chooses to promote;
• offering a tame, compromised moral theology, which provides moral respectability to some ethical committees while keeping clear of the sharp cutting edge of critical moral reasoning;

There is a further question arising from our title, The Responsibility of Moral Theology to the Church and Modern Society.

Can moral theology as such be responsible for anything? In any organisation, questions about responsibility ultimately have to get down to named persons. If we are discussing the responsibility of moral theology to the Church and modern society, we need to pin down who carries this responsibility. Is it a responsibility which all moral theologians have to carry either individually or collectively, as for instance through the Association of Teachers of Moral Theology? Or is it a responsibility of the Church as a whole, and so particularly of its leaders, the bishops, including the Pope and the Vatican Congregations? Or, in these days of co-responsibility, is it a responsibility of all Church members, both individually and jointly?

I would suggest that a ‘yes’ answer can be given to all those questions. In other words, the task of ensuring that moral theology is faithful to its responsibility to the Church and society is shared by all the people I have mentioned above, though with different degrees of accountability.

If this is accepted, it raises some very interesting possibilities.

For instance, what about a papal encyclical addressed to moral theologians, insisting that they face their responsibility and get involved in the public debates on all issues of moral concern and warning them that they will have to answer before God if they merely repeat uncritically the party line and fail to exercise their own critical judgements on these issues, even when this results in disagreement with current Church teaching?

Or what about a letter from the Pope sent to all the bishops reminding them that they should make sure that their local Church is served by moral theologians of independent mind and sound critical judgement – and even urging the bishops to do all in their power to make sure that women are given the chance to serve the local Church as moral theologians? Perhaps even a local bishops’ conference or bishop might challenge their moral theologians for not getting sufficiently involved in the cut and thrust of local moral debate.

What about promoting a climate within the Church built on sufficient trust and confidence that people could feel it worthwhile to write letters of complaint about moral theologians who too readily accept official teaching and who seem out of touch with the real human problems of the day?

A few months ago, in connection with a Chapter entitled, ‘The Mission of the Bishop’, in a preparatory Synod document, my own Archbishop wrote to me asking me for a ‘one-side of A4’ response to the question:

Describe the relationship between the bishops and theologians; one of mutual respect? of collaboration in proclaiming the Gospel? of mistrust? of disagreement? In what areas?

In my answer, I outlined the various joint meetings between the bishops and the ATMT and noted that ‘disagreements have been faced honestly and aspects of current Church teaching have been criticised, when appropriate’. I then went on to add the following final paragraph:

The disagreements faced collaboratively together suggest that It would help the above healthy relationship between bishops and moral theologians if:

1. It was more evident that the views of different schools of moral theology were better represented in moral statements from the CDF;
2. The text of forthcoming moral statements were made available to moral theologians prior to being released to the media;
3. Bishops did not work on the presumption that the proclamation of the Gospel is best served by their publicly agreeing with every moral statement from the Vatican. Their ministry to the truth and their credibility as Gospel-inspired moral teachers might be enhanced if they were prepared, when theologically appropriate, to respond to a document with positive criticism;
4. It was presumed that moral theologians, who, for solid theological reasons, disagree with some aspect of current moral teaching, are being true to their particular role of collaboration in proclaiming the Gospel and are in no way being disloyal to the Church;
5. The theological grounding of both the Final Report of the Birth Control Commission and Humanae Vitae were subjected to a reappraisal in the light of the Vatican II teaching on marriage and the family as found in Gaudium et Spes; and this reappraisal be undertaken by a study commission whose make-up respects the truth, emphasised in the Synodal Preparation paper no. 11, that ‘all Christians – as individuals or as a group – have the duty and the right to collaborate in the mission of the Church, in keeping with their vocation and their gifts of the Spirit.’ Consequently, such a study commission should be ecumenical, include married people and give a voice to the particular concerns of women, as well as representing different schools of moral theology.

I am still wondering what kind of reaction there was to that paragraph both on the part of my own Archbishop and the committee compiling the response of our Bishops’ conference.