¹ Rahner, Karl, “Practical Theology Within the Totality of Theological Disciplines,” Theological Investigations, 9 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1972): 102.Google Scholar Emphasis in original.

² Ibid, 105.

³ See, for instance, Gill, Robin, Theology and Sociology: A Reader (London: Cassell, 1996)Google Scholar; Martin, David, Reflections on Sociology and Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Browning, Don S., A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Proposals (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991).Google Scholar

⁴ See Thiel, John E., Senses of Tradition: Continuity and Development in the Catholic Faith (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 100–18.Google Scholar

⁵ Gaudium et Spes §62.

⁶ Lonergan, Bernard J. F., “Moral Theology and the Human Sciences,” Method: Journal of Lonergan Studies 15 (1997): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Peter L. Berger, “Sociological and Theological Perspectives,” in Gill, 97. Emphasis in original.

⁸ In this essay, I embrace the ambiguity of the word virtual, and argue that it can be specified only by dialogue and consensus in the church. I have no doubt that 86% of any population is virtually all of it, but is 80% or 75% or 68%? Only dialogue and consensus can decide.

⁹ The foundational work on reception was done by Congar, Yves, “La réception comme réalité ecclésiologique,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 56 (1972): 369–403Google Scholar, and Grillmeier, Alois, “Konzil und Rezeption: Methodische Bemerkungen zu einem Thema der ökumenischen Discussion der Gegenwart,” Theologie und Phisolophie 45 (1970): 321–52.Google Scholar See additional bibliography in Gaillardetz, Richard R., Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium in the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 252–53.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, §§11–20Google Scholar; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, , Mysterium Ecclesiae 5Google Scholar, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 65 (1973): 402–03; Zizioulas, John, “The Theological Problem of Reception,” Centro Pro Unione, 26 (Fall 1984): 6.Google Scholar

¹¹ Pottmeyer, Herman J., “A New Phase in the Reception of Vatican II: Twenty Years of Interpretation of the Council,” in Alberigo, Giuseppe, Jossua, Jean-Pierre, and Komonchak, Joseph A., eds., The Reception of Vatican II (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 27–43.Google Scholar

¹² Alberigo, Giuseppe, “The Christian Situation after Vatican II,” in Reception of Vatican II, 3.Google Scholar

¹³ Jerome, , Dialogus Contra Luciferianos, 19Google Scholar, PL 23, 172.

¹⁴ Yves Congar lists a series of examples of reception in his classic essay, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality,” in Alberigo, Giuseppe and Weiler, Anton, eds., Election and Consensus in the Church, Concilium 77 (1972): 45–58.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Zizioulas, 4.

¹⁶ Noonan, John T. Jr., “Development in Moral Doctrine,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Denzinger, H. and Schoenmetzer, A., eds., Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum (Freiburg: Herder, 1965), 906.Google Scholar Cited hereafter as DS.

¹⁸ DS 716.

¹⁹ DS 753.

²⁰ Noonan, 664.

²¹ Cited in Curran, Charles E., “Authority and Dissent in the Roman Catholic Church,” in May, William W., ed., Vatican Authority and American Catholic Dissent (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 29.Google Scholar

²² Pius IX, Quanta Cura, in Carlen, Claudia I.H.M., The Papal Encyclicals 1740–1878 (Raleigh, NC: McGrath Publishing, 1981), 383.Google Scholar

²³ Tierney, Brian, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 277.Google Scholar

²⁴ Unitatis Redintegratio, §3.

²⁵ Örsy, Ladislas M., “Reception of Law,” in McBrien, Richard P., ed., Encyclopedia of Catholicism (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1995), 1082.Google Scholar

²⁶ Farley, Margaret A., “Moral Discourse in the Public Arena,” in Vatican Authority and American Catholic Dissent, 177.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Thiel, 47.

²⁹ Newman, John Henry, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961), 73.Google Scholar

³⁰ Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium Primum 2Google ScholarPubMed, PL 50, 640.

³¹ Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae, IIa–IIae, 2, 3, ad 2.Google Scholar See Guibert, J. de, “A propos des textes de Saint Thomas sur la foi qui discerne,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 9 (1919): 30–44Google Scholar; Joyce, C. H., “La foi qui discerne d'après Saint Thomas,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 6 (1916): 433–55.Google Scholar

³² Cited in Dulles, Avery, “Sensus Fidelium,” America, 1 November 1986, p. 240.Google Scholar

³³ DS 3074.

³⁴ Augustine, , De Praed. Sanct., 14Google Scholar, 27, PL 44, 980.

³⁵ Lumen Gentium §12. Emphasis added.

³⁶ Familiaris Consortio §5. Emphasis added.

³⁷ Pottmeyer, 30.

³⁸ Augustine, , De Baptismo, VII, 53Google Scholar, PL 43, 243.

³⁹ Pope Leo the Great, Epist. 14, 2, PL 54, 672.

⁴⁰ Pope Gelasius, , Epist. XIII, PL 59, 63.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Bartelink, Gerard, “The Use of the Words Electio and Consensus in the Church (Until about 600),” Concilium 77 (1972): 147–54.Google Scholar

⁴² Flannery, Austin, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Postconciliar Documents (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 363.Google Scholar

⁴³ Sullivan, Francis A., Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1985), 164.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Congar, , “Reception,” 60.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See, e.g., Tillard, Jean-Marie R., Church of Churches: The Ecclesiology of Communion (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Lawler, Michael G. and Shanahan, Thomas J., Church: A Spirited Communion (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Doyle, Dennis M., Communion Ecclesiology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Congar, , “Reception,” 62.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Kilmartin, Edward, “Reception in History: An Ecclesiological Phenomenon and Its Significance,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 21 (1984): 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Lumen Gentium §12.

⁴⁹ Kasper, Walter, Theology and Church (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 1.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Mysterium Ecclesiae §5.

⁵¹ Gaudium et Spes §4.

⁵² Ibid., §62.

⁵³ Ibid., §36.

⁵⁴ Ibid., §62.

⁵⁵ Familiaris Consortio §5.

⁵⁶ Martin, 69.

⁵⁷ Gill, Robin, Churchgoing and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Emphasis added.

⁵⁸ Lumen Gentium §12.

⁵⁹ Pius, XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 35 (1943): 297–325Google Scholar; Pontifical Biblical Commission, Instructio De Historica Evangeliorum Veritate, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964): 712–18Google Scholar; Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, in Flannery, 750–65; Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Origins, 6 January 1994.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid., 512.

⁶¹ Dei Verbum §19. Emphasis added.

⁶² This word means to interpret, to place a certain meaning on. I use it to insinuate two connected meanings: first, the character of the theologian, professional or otherwise, as construction worker, one who constructs a certain meaning for things; second, the character of all theology as construction, both that theology which preceded the construal of the scripture and that theology which followed after and was dependent upon those scriptures.

⁶³ Interpretation, 520.

⁶⁴ See Rahner, Karl, “Current Problems in Christology,” Theological Investigations, 1 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1965): 150.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Dulles, 242.

⁶⁶ McNamara, Patrick H., Conscience First: Tradition Second (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Ludwig, Robert A., Reconstructing Catholicism for a New Generation (New York: Crossroad, 1995)Google Scholar; D'Antonio, William V., Davidson, James D., Hoge, Dean R., Wallace, Ruth A., Laity American and Catholic: Transforming the Church (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward 1996)Google Scholar; Davidson, James D., Williams, Andrea S., Lamanna, Richard A., Stenftenagel, Jan, Weigert, Kathleen Maas, Whalen, William J., and Wittberg, Patricia, The Search for Common Ground: What Unites and Divides Catholic Americans (Huntingdon, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997)Google Scholar; D'Antonio, William V., Davidson, James D., Hoge, Dean R., and Meyer, Katherine, American Catholics: Gender, Generation, and Commitment (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001)Google Scholar; Hoge, Dean R., Dinges, William D., Johnson, Mary, and Gonzales, Juan L. Jr., Young Adult Catholics: Religion in the Culture of Choice (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ D'Antonio, et al. , American Catholics, 43.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid., 158.

⁶⁹ Gallup, George H. Jr., Religion in America 1996 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Religion Research Center, 1996), 44.Google Scholar A national, random sample study by the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University of Catholics married between 1995 and 1999 found that only 12% had ever practiced the approved Catholic form of birth control, Natural Family Planning. See Center for Marriage and Family, Time, Sex, and Money: The First Five Years of Marriage (Omaha, NE: Creighton University, 2000), 26.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ D'Antonio, et al. , American Catholics, 43.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid. 76.

⁷² Hoge, et al. , Young Adult Catholics, 59–60.Google Scholar

⁷³ See, for instance, Fulton, John, ed., Young Catholics at the New Millennium: The Religion and Morality of Young Adults in Western Countries (Dublin: University College Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Buckley, Timothy J., What Binds Marriage?: Roman Catholic Theology in Practice (London: Chapman, 1997), 1–27.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Wallerstein, Judith S. and Kelly, Joan B., Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce (New York: Basic Books, 1980)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, Judith S. and Blakeslee, Sandra, Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade After Divorce (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, Judith S., Lewis, Julia M., and Blakeslee, Sandra, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study (New York: Hyperion, 2000)Google Scholar; Cherlin, Andrew J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., and McRae, C., “Effects of Parental Divorce on Mental Health Throughout the Life Course,” American Sociological Review 63 (1988): 239–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zill, N. and Schoenborn, C., Developmental, Learning, and Emotional Problems: Health of Our Nation's Children, United States, 1988 (Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics, 1990).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Christensen, Harold T. and Barber, Kenneth E., “Interfaith versus Intrafaith Marriage in Indiana,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (1967): 461–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michael, Robert T., “Determinants of Divorce,” in Levy Garboua, L., ed., Sociological Economics (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979), 223–68.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ McCarthy, Justin, “Religious Commitment, Affiliation, and Marriage Dissolution,” in Wuthnow, Robert, ed., The Religious Dimension: New Directions in Quantitative Research (New York: Academic Press, 1979), 179–97Google Scholar; Lehrer, Evelyn L. and Chiswick, Carmel U., “Religion as a Determinant of Marital Stability,” Demography 30 (1993): 385–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁷⁷ Barna Research, “Born Again Adults Less Likely to Cohabit, Just as Likely to Divorce,” http://www.barna.org, August 6, 2001.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Hout, Michael, “Divorced and Remarried Catholics in the United States: Demography, Attachment, and Participation” (a working paper sent to me by the author; a summary version appeared in America, 16 December 2000).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ D'Antonio, William V., “The American Catholic Laity in 1999,” National Catholic Reporter, 29 October 1999, p. 12.Google Scholar See also D'Antonio et al., American Catholics.

⁸⁰ Hout, “Divorced and Remarried Catholics.”

⁸¹ Murphy, Francis X., “Of Sex and the Catholic Church,” Atlantic Monthly 247 (1981): 44–45, 48–57.Google Scholar

⁸² Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful,” Origins, 27 October 1994.Google Scholar

⁸³ Collins, Raymond F., Divorce in the New Testament (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1992), 205.Google Scholar Those who desire to survey the opinions, may consult Fitzmyer, Joseph, “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence,” Theological Studies 37 (1976): 197–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Myre, A., “Dix ans d'exégèse sur le divorce dans le Nouveau Testament,” in Le Divorce (Montréal: Fides, 1973).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See Lawler, Michael G., Marriage and Sacrament: A Theology of Christian Marriage (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993), 92–93.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ DS 1807 and footnote.

⁸⁶ Familiaris Consortio §5.

⁸⁷ See History of Vatican II, 3 vols, ed. Alberigo, Giuseppe, English version ed. Komonchak, Joseph A. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Gaudium et Spes §50.

⁸⁹ D'Antonio, et al. , Laity, 79.Google Scholar Corroborating evidence is supplied by Davidson, et al. , Search for Common Ground, 47.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Greeley, Andrew M., McCready, William C., and McCourt, Kathleen, Catholic Schools in a Declining Church (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1976), 35Google Scholar; D'Antonio, et al. , Laity, 140Google Scholar; Davidson, et al. , Search for Common Ground, 131.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Hornsby-Smith, Michael, Roman Catholicism in England: Customary Catholicism and Transformation of Religious Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹² The foregoing information may be found in more detail in Murphy, 49–52.

⁹³ Humanae Vitae §11 (Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Bishops).

⁹⁴ Cited in Longley, Clifford, The Worlock Archive (London: Chapman, 2000), 233.Google Scholar Emphasis added.

⁹⁵ See, e.g., Gallup, George Jr., and Castelli, Jim, The American Catholic People: Their Beliefs, Practices, and Values (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987)Google Scholar; Greeley et al., Catholic Schools in a Declining Church.

⁹⁶ Augustine, , De Praed. Sanct., 14Google Scholar, 27, PL 44, 980. See also Lumen Gentium §12.

⁹⁷ Rahner, , “Practical Theology,” 102.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ The Tablet, 9 January 1993, p. 30.