I felt a bit frustrated with the discussion on Veritatis Splendor. On the one hand, I completely agree that there is an objective moral truth, and it would be wrong to claim otherwise. On the other hand, I felt that JD and Ed were too quick to cast the issue in terms of two extremes: either we stand for objective moral truth and protect Veritatis Splendor or else we open the floodgates to the forces of chaos and surrender the field to those who believe in no objective morality.
There are, at least potentially, ways that chart a course between those two poles. In fact, many of the so-called "revisionist" moral theologians (Fr. Richard McCormick SJ to name one) whose work was put on ice by Veritatis Splendor were attempting to chart such a middle way. McCormick famously maintained that he believed in objective moral truth and objected to the characterization of his views as relativist or calculatedly proportionalist.
I'm not saying that McCormick's views were correct (I haven't studied him in depth enough to have an informed opinion), but it seems to me that he was not a free-for-all relativist. He maintained that his views were misrepresented by Veritatis Splendor, and yet he felt his theological project had been undermined by it. I can absolutely see how one effect of Veritatis Splendor was to chill theological inquiry on moral matters by people who do not affirm moral relativism.
Perhaps it was necessary to correct excesses by the "revisionists," but the more I read of the revisionists, the more I realize that my preconception of them as relativists or "wishy-washy" pragmatists is simply not true.
I came to Catholicism from evangelical Christianity and have seen this game play out too many times in the mainline protestant and evangelical churches. Nobody in those denominations started out affirming homosexual relationships, it always started with extensive discussion of pastoral care and creating ambiguity in the language. I saw this play out in the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, and recently an attempt in the Christian Reformed Church. In the first two cases, this push was successful. In the CRC, the efforts recently saw a major setback, not sure it is permanent or a mere delay...but the same script has played out time and again. There should be no doubt that this is what is happening now. You can be optimistic, but the confusion, the ambiguity is on purpose and the initial wedge to opening the door.
Condolences to Ed and prayers for his grandmother.
But if he has not seen Season 2 of The Bear, and if his family resembles the Bear family, he definitely has an interesting experience in front of him in the sixth episode.
Ed, thanks for your reflections (on the podcast an in your newsletter) on your grandmother's life and legacy. I'll say a prayer for her and your family.
JD & Ed, thanks for this discussion, which was characterized by the frankness that the topic deserves.
However, I thought JD undersold what he called "the idea that’s being discussed in some theological circles and some Vatican circles that God could call a person to live in some way that is not in accord with objective moral norms.” I mean, "some Vatican circles" is one way to put it. It could be suggested that this is a straightforward description of the content of section 303 of a certain widely discussed Apostolic Exhortation.
Also, the scenario that JD describes as "catastrophic" around 51:00 seems quite likely to come to pass.
Condolences to the extended Condon family. Requiem æternam.
Nevertheless, we were promised a C9 fantasy draft & yet no C9 fantasy draft was to be had.
I felt a bit frustrated with the discussion on Veritatis Splendor. On the one hand, I completely agree that there is an objective moral truth, and it would be wrong to claim otherwise. On the other hand, I felt that JD and Ed were too quick to cast the issue in terms of two extremes: either we stand for objective moral truth and protect Veritatis Splendor or else we open the floodgates to the forces of chaos and surrender the field to those who believe in no objective morality.
There are, at least potentially, ways that chart a course between those two poles. In fact, many of the so-called "revisionist" moral theologians (Fr. Richard McCormick SJ to name one) whose work was put on ice by Veritatis Splendor were attempting to chart such a middle way. McCormick famously maintained that he believed in objective moral truth and objected to the characterization of his views as relativist or calculatedly proportionalist.
I'm not saying that McCormick's views were correct (I haven't studied him in depth enough to have an informed opinion), but it seems to me that he was not a free-for-all relativist. He maintained that his views were misrepresented by Veritatis Splendor, and yet he felt his theological project had been undermined by it. I can absolutely see how one effect of Veritatis Splendor was to chill theological inquiry on moral matters by people who do not affirm moral relativism.
Perhaps it was necessary to correct excesses by the "revisionists," but the more I read of the revisionists, the more I realize that my preconception of them as relativists or "wishy-washy" pragmatists is simply not true.
I came to Catholicism from evangelical Christianity and have seen this game play out too many times in the mainline protestant and evangelical churches. Nobody in those denominations started out affirming homosexual relationships, it always started with extensive discussion of pastoral care and creating ambiguity in the language. I saw this play out in the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, and recently an attempt in the Christian Reformed Church. In the first two cases, this push was successful. In the CRC, the efforts recently saw a major setback, not sure it is permanent or a mere delay...but the same script has played out time and again. There should be no doubt that this is what is happening now. You can be optimistic, but the confusion, the ambiguity is on purpose and the initial wedge to opening the door.
Condolences to Ed and prayers for his grandmother.
But if he has not seen Season 2 of The Bear, and if his family resembles the Bear family, he definitely has an interesting experience in front of him in the sixth episode.
Ed, thanks for your reflections (on the podcast an in your newsletter) on your grandmother's life and legacy. I'll say a prayer for her and your family.
JD & Ed, thanks for this discussion, which was characterized by the frankness that the topic deserves.
However, I thought JD undersold what he called "the idea that’s being discussed in some theological circles and some Vatican circles that God could call a person to live in some way that is not in accord with objective moral norms.” I mean, "some Vatican circles" is one way to put it. It could be suggested that this is a straightforward description of the content of section 303 of a certain widely discussed Apostolic Exhortation.
Also, the scenario that JD describes as "catastrophic" around 51:00 seems quite likely to come to pass.
This was indeed a great catholic conversation.