Our church today is mired in some complex issues and we notice that there are various ways of approaching these complicated moral issues. We each have an initial point of view or a starting point for our conscious understanding of the world. This forms the basis for our morality. Let us look at two predominant worldviews that often find themselves in opposition to each other.
The Classicist worldview
The Classicist worldview is one that was predominant in the pre-Vatican II theology and often comes to be associated with a theology of the Catholic hierarchy.
1. It sees the world as a finished product where the “good” is associated with “knowing.”
2. The intellect and reason is highly valued where the truth is eternal, universal and unchangeable. They are like Platonic ideals that are static and perfect are within the grasp of those few leaders who can understand such principles.
3. Therefore, their job is to teach others about what is right and wrong. Those who are able to access this truth sees the world comprised of natural, unchanging principles that remain valid forever.
4. Their language is replete with the words certitude and clarity, and for them, deductive logic is the key by which they approach the world’s problems.
5. God is transcendent, remote, inaccessible and largely unconcerned with the sufferings of the world. In this high theology and high Christology, God will sweep down into the world to save us and correct our behaviors.
However, when trying to apply this viewpoint within moral theology, we encounter some significant challenges. What happens when the truth is applied for one point in history, but does not fit another circumstance? Can truth be immutable?
6. We exist at a certain historical moment with distinct cultural challenges.
7. Also, it becomes difficult to apply the truth geographically and cultural for all times and places.
8. The Classicist view is concerned more for “what is known” rather than being concerned for the knower. The knower is irrelevant and impartiality is a virtue.
9. This worldview is not interested in compromising community standards for an individual’s understanding of a moral dilemma.
The Historical Mindedness worldview
The Historical Mindedness worldview represents a relatively recent shift in theology. It is characteristics of the reforms of Vatican II. It is represented by many of the believers who try to integrate their faith into the weighty matters of the day.
1. For them, the knower, the person, the subject is extremely important.
2. Moral theology is to be interpreted from within a specific context and audience.
3. The individual person is to be involved in the process of creating principles and guidelines to better understand the situation and the needs around him or her.
4. The knower is an essential part of the decision-making process, but criteria and competency are key values. Partiality becomes a critical value.
For a person with this historical-minded viewpoint, the world is constantly changing and we must investigate the particularity of a situation to gain better understanding. Truth can only be grasped at, but never attained, and it can be better understood through our judgments.
5. We learn more and change based upon the world around us. We are continuously emerging and becoming.
6. Therefore this group seeks to listen and ask questions.
7. We therefore become suspicious of clarity. Inductive logic is the preferred methodology for analyzing problems.
8. This is a church that is always seeking, always striving, to know more, but realizes that we cannot know perfectly or absolutely.
9. God is imminent, near, accessible and intimately concerned with the sufferings of the world. In this low theology and low Christology, God has always been present in the world and stands with us in solidarity – urging us forward to become all that God has created us to be.
The Church as a combination of both
Over the years, the Church has become more historically-minded about many issues, but it lags behind when dealing with moral social teaching. No one can be strictly one way or the other and we need both viewpoints to obtain a fuller picture. It becomes a matter of degree, not of kind. You can see that these viewpoints often will run in parallel and will seldom meet on a certain issue. Therefore, neither side is filled with good or bad people, but merely that our starting points of moral theology are different. Both are valid, good and necessary, but somehow we have to move closer together to help each other understand the ways in which we approach our moral dilemmas.
Examine the social issues of our day with this context and you may be able to see how one side or the other arrives at their judgments.
The dichotomy between classicism and historically-minded moral theology, unfortunately, still needs synthesis in the church. Thanks, Fr. John, for clearly outlining the differences and providing observation and insight on such an important but often overlooked, ignored point of faith. Most laity struggle with or blindly follow the moral teachings of the church; I was (and still am) one of the former. By knowing the intellectual roots for moral discernment vis-a-vis classicism and historically-minded moral theology, we can grow closer to Christ where we are in the world. Moral theology, so beautifully put by Fr. Rich Gula, tells us who we ought to be and how we ought to act in Christ. Thanks for this piece.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome, Stan. I wish more people were able to see this dichotomy because it lessens some of their anxieties about church issues. Let's face it. We all want to follow the teachings of the church, and yet we want them to be relevant, or at least, we want our teachers to be responsive to our puzzling over certain aspects of the teachings that need clarification as we face new issues not addressed in the Gospels. Both ways are roads that lead to Christ and we do have to help each other live faithfully because we don't want to remove a point of encounter with Christ from their lives. You are welcome.
Delete