Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:42:51.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recovering the unity of theology by means of mariology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2019

Mehmet Ciftci
Mehmet Ciftci*
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Broad Street, Oxford OX1 [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that Western theology has lost a certain intellectual unity by becoming divided between dogmatic theology (or doctrine) and moral theology (or ethics). The history of theological reflection on Mary illustrates this, because it has become confined to dogmatic theology and has hardly ever been discussed in the context of morals. However, mariology can help us to understand the doctrinal foundations that must support any adequate moral theology. By helping us to see how morals depend on dogma, mariology can help us to recover the unity of theology.

Keywords

dogmatic theologyethicsmariologyMarymoral theology
Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 191 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Walter, James J., ‘The Question of the Uniqueness of Christian Morality: An Historical and Critical Analysis of the Debate in Roman Catholic Ethics’, in Salzman, T. A. (ed.), Method and Catholic Moral Theology: The Ongoing Reconstruction (Omaha, NE: Creighton University Press, 1999), p. 158Google Scholar.

2 Hauerwas, Stanley, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics, 2nd edn (London: SCM Press, 2003), p. 51Google Scholar.

3 Mahoney, John, The Making of Moral Theology: A Study of the Roman Catholic Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 1Google Scholar.

4 Slater, Thomas, A Manual of Moral Theology for English-Speaking Countries (London: Benzinger Brothers, 1906), pp. 5–6Google Scholar; cited in Keenan, J. F., A History of Catholic Moral Theology in the Twentieth Century: From Confessing Sins to Liberating Consciences (London: Continuum Books, 2010), p. 25Google Scholar.

5 Keenan, History of Catholic Moral Theology, pp. 11–12.

6 Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, p. 51.

7 Pinckaers, Servais, ‘The Return of the New Law to Moral Theology’, in Berkman, J. and Titus, C. S. (eds), The Pinckaers Reader: Renewing Thomistic Moral Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), p. 370Google Scholar.

8 Walter, ‘Question of the Uniqueness of Christian Morality’, p. 158.

9 Ibid.

10 Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, p. 51.

11 Torrell, J.-P., Spiritual Master, vol. 2 of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), p. 4Google Scholar.

12 Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, p. 53.

13 Morrissey, P., ‘The Sapiential Dimension of Theology according to St. Thomas’, New Blackfriars, 93 (2012), p. 320CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, p. 53.

15 Morrissey, Paul, ‘Servais-Theodore Pinckaers, O.P., and the Renewal of Sapiential Thomistic Theology’, Nova et Vetera, English edn, 12/1 (2014), pp. 172–91Google Scholar.

16 Bouyer, Louis, The Invisible Father: Approaches to the Mystery of Divinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), p. 255Google Scholar.

17 May, William E., An Introduction to Moral Theology, 2nd edn (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2003), p. 38Google Scholar.

18 International Theological Commission, Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles, and Criteria (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2012), p. 70Google Scholar.

19 E.g. Pinckaers, S., The Sources of Christian Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 251–9Google Scholar; Morrissey, ‘The Renewal of Sapiential Thomistic Theology’, p. 167; cf. Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, p. 3.

20 Hauerwas, Stanley, ‘How “Christian Ethics” Came to Be’, in Berkman, J. and Cartwright, M. (eds), The Hauerwas Reader (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001), p. 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Pinckaers, Sources of Christian Ethics, p. 282.

22 Ibid., p. 286.

23 Ibid., p. 282.

24 Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, p. 52.

25 Tawney, R. H., Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1938), pp. 108–9Google Scholar.

26 Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, p. 52.

27 Stanley Hauerwas, ‘On Keeping Theological Ethics Theological’, in The Hauerwas Reader, p. 56.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid., p. 59.

30 Ibid., p. 60.

31 Ibid., p. 68.

32 Gustafson, James, Can Ethics be Christian? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), p. 163Google Scholar; cited in Hauerwas, ‘On Keeping Theological Ethics Theological’, p. 67.

33 Hauerwas, ‘On Keeping Theological Ethics Theological’, p. 68.

34 Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics (hereafter CD), 13 vols., ed. Torrance, T. F. and Bromiley, G. W. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956–74), II/2, p. 518Google Scholar.

35 Hauerwas, ‘How “Christian Ethics” Came to Be’, p. 48.

36 Barth, CD II/2, p. 518.

37 Hauerwas, ‘How “Christian Ethics” Came to Be’, p. 49.

38 Gambero, L., Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), p. 19Google Scholar.

39 Ibid., p. 27.

40 Ibid., p. 26.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid., p. 19.

43 Haffner, P., The Mystery of Mary (Leominster: Gracewing Press, 2004), p. 5Google Scholar.

44 Graef, H. C., Devotion to the Blessed Virgin (London: Burns & Oates, 1963), p. 37Google Scholar.

45 Ibid.

46 Gambero, Mary and the Fathers, p. 20.

47 Graef, H. C., Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion (London: Burns & Oates, 1963), p. 163Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., pp. 163–4.

49 Gambero, Mary and the Fathers, pp. 227–8.

50 Ibid., p. 20.

51 Nichols, Aidan, There is No Rose: The Mariology of the Catholic Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), p. 140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Garrigou-Lagrange, R., The Mother of the Saviour and our Interior Life (Dublin: Golden Eagle Books, 1949), p. 40Google Scholar.

53 Wilhelm, J. and Scannell, T. B., A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben's ‘Dogmatik ’, vol. 2, 2nd edn (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1898), p. 212Google Scholar.

54 Nichols, There is No Rose, p. 132.

55 Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘On the Position of Mariology and Marian Spirituality within the Totality of Faith and Theology’, in Moll, H. (ed.), The Church and Women: A Compendium (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 71Google Scholar.

56 Rowland, T., Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Benedict XVI (Oxford: OUP, 2008), p. 87Google Scholar.

57 Ratzinger, ‘On the Position of Mariology’, p. 71.

58 Laurentin, R., Mary's Place in the Church (London: Burns & Oates, 1965), p. 154Google Scholar.

59 E.g. Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘The Church's Teaching Authority – Faith – Morals’, in Principles of Christian Morality (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), pp. 55–65Google Scholar.

60 Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘The Renewal of Moral Theology: Perspectives of Vatican II and Veritatis splendor’, Communio 32/2 (2005), p. 358Google Scholar.

61 ‘The Church's Teaching Authority – Faith – Morals’, CD I/2, p. 157; cited in Scheeffczyk, L., ‘Mary as a Model of Catholic Faith’, in The Church and Women, p. 85Google Scholar.

62 Barth, CD I/2, p. 143.

63 Ibid., p. 146.

64 Finan, William J., ‘Impact of Mariology on Christian Ethics’, Marian Studies 28/1 (1977), pp. 114–19Google Scholar.

65 Ibid., p. 103.

66 Ibid., p. 105.

67 Ibid., pp. 102–3.

68 Nichols, There is No Rose, p. 48.

69 Servais Pinckaers, ‘Capreolus's Defense of Aquinas: A Medieval Debate about the Virtues and Gifts’, in The Pinckaers Reader, p. 307.

70 Staudt, R. Jared, ‘Substantial Union with God in Matthias Scheeben’, Nova et Vetera, English edn, 11/2 (2013), p. 525Google Scholar.

71 Ibid.

72 Nichols, Aidan, Discovering Aquinas: An Introduction to his Life, Work and Influence (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2002), p. 92Google Scholar.

73 Nichols, Aidan, Romance and System: The Theological Synthesis of Matthias Joseph Scheeben (Denver, CO: Augustine Institute Press, 2010), p. 77Google Scholar.

74 Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, p. 55.

75 Boss, S., Mary (London: Continuum, 2003), p. 141Google Scholar.

76 Ibid.

77 Ratzinger, ‘On the Position of Mariology’, p. 76.

78 Ibid.

79 Caldecott, S., ‘The Final Mystery’, Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 3/3 (2000), p. 94Google Scholar.

80 Staudt, ‘Substantial Union’, p. 525.

81 Newman, John Henry, The Quotable Newman: A Definitive Guide to his Central Thoughts and Ideas (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2012), p. 251Google Scholar.

82 Staudt, ‘Substantial Union’, p. 525.

83 Nichols, Romance and System, p. 114.

84 Pinckaers, Servais, Morality: The Catholic View (South Bend, IN: St Augustine's Press, 2001), p. 33Google Scholar.

85 Boss, Mary, p. 16.

86 Kerr, Fergus, After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), p. 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Cf. Lee, Patrick and George, Robert P., Body–Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics. Cambridge: CUP, 2008)Google Scholar.

88 Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae, 60 vols. (London: Eyre & Spottiswood, 1964–81), 1/2.4.6Google Scholar.

89 John Berkman, ‘Introduction’, in The Pinckaers Reader, p. xxii; cf. Pinckaers, Return of the New Law to Moral Theology, pp. 369–84.

90 Walter, ‘Question of the Uniqueness of Christian Morality’, p. 158; cf. Summa Theologiae, 1/2.107.4.

91 Pinckaers, Morality, p. 83.

92 Summa Theologiae, 1/2.106.1.

93 Pinckaers, ‘Return of the New Law to Moral Theology’, p. 378; emphasis added.

94 Pinckaers, Morality, p. 91.

95 Pinckaers, Sources of Christian Ethics, p. 187.

96 Duffy, Eamon, Faith of our Fathers: Reflections on Catholic Tradition (London: Continuum, 2004), p. 35Google Scholar.