the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith [no. 10].
It can thus be said, with John Paul II, that the “proximate and obligatory norm in the teaching of the faith … belongs to the hierarchical magisterium” (Familiaris Consortio, no. 73).
Notes for Chapter One
1. This conviction, central to Catholic faith, was developed by the Fathers of the Church and beautifully summarized by St. Anselm of Canterbury in his famous declarations “I believe that I may understand” (Credo ut intelligam) and “I understand that I may believe” (Intelligo ut credam). It was a major theme of Vatican Council I and was addressed in depth by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (1998), in particular in Chapters II, III, and IV.
2. Germain Grisez quite properly, in my opinion, believes that systematic theology ought not be limited to dogmatic theology, insofar as moral theology is systematic, too. He prefers to use the term “contemplative” for “dogmatic.” The contemplative theologian seeks to work out a single, coherent view of all of reality in the light of faith. Moral theology, like contemplative theology, is a systematic reflection on the truths of faith, but as Grisez says, “it is less concerned to round out the Christian view of reality than to make clear how faith should shape Christian life, both the lives of individual Christians and the life of the Church” (The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 1, Christian Moral Principles [Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1983], pp. 5-6).
3. The unity of theology is of critical importance in order to properly understand what moral theology is all about. Many contemporary authors emphasize the unity of theology and the inseparability of contemplative or dogmatic theology from moral theology. On this, see Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, pp. 3-7; Ramón García de Háro, La Vita Cristiana (Milan: Edizioni Ares, 1995), pp. 16-22; Servais Pinckaers, O.P., The Sources of Christian Ethics, trans. Sister Mary Thomas Noble, O.P. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995), pp. 1-14; Romanus Cessario, O.P., An Introduction to Moral Theology (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), pp. 2-16 (Cessario presents in some detail the way St. Thomas Aquinas showed the unity of theology and moral theology’s integral role within it).
4. Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, p. 6.
5. St. Gregory of Nyssa, De Vita Moysis, II, 2-3; PG 44, 327-328; cited in Veritatis splendor, no. 71.
6. One of the most stimulating post-Vatican II accounts of moral theology speaks of human acts in this way — as “words” that we speak, and we ought to speak words worthy of those to whom God addressed his eternal Word, the Word who gives us life. See Herbert McCabe, O.P., What Is Ethics All About? (Cleveland/Washington: Corpus Books, 1969).
7. Matthew Gutowski, Vatican Council II and the Renewal of Moral Theology, unpublished S.T.L. thesis at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, Washington, DC, 1998.
8. The text of this important document is given in full in a translation provided by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., in his article “The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels,” Theological Studies 25 (1964), 386-408 (402-408 provide text of document).
9. A very helpful theological reflection on the centrality of the covenant in both the Old and New Testaments and on the way the new covenant in Jesus “fulfills” and “perfects” the old covenant is provided by Germain Grisez in his Christian Moral Principles, Chapter 21. I have found his presentation of great value and here liberally make use of it.
10. On the dynamic power of the spoken word in the ancient Semitic world, see the short but powerful article of John L. McKenzie, “Word,” in his Dictionary of the Bible (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 938-941.
11. On covenant, see Delbert R. Hillers, The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), pp. 28-70; G.E. Mendenhall, “Covenant,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962), 1.714-723.
12. Scholars point out that the treaty form of covenant is more perfectly illustrated by Deuteronomy, Chapters 5-28, but the account of the covenant in Exodus in many ways offers parallels with the forming of the new covenant at the Paschal meal of Christ with his disciples in the New Testament and thus serves better for the purposes of moral theology. On the treaty form of covenant, see Dennis J. McCarthy, S.J., Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), pp. 109-140.
13. For this, see McKenzie, article “Covenant,” in his Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 153-155.
14. See F. Laubach, “Blood,” and G.R. Beasley-Murray, “Sprinkle,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 1.220-225.
15. On this, see Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), pp. 414-440.
16. Ibid., p. 422.
17. Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, pp. 509-510. Grisez adds an interesting and important footnote at the end of passage cited, in which he says: “For a good treatment of this point and criticism of the excessive polemic of Luther against the law, see Karl Barth, Ethics, ed. Dietrich Braun, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (New York: Seabury Press, 1981), 89-93.”
18. Ibid., p. 510.
19. John G. Gammie, Holiness in Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989).
20. Ibid., pp. 195-198.
21. Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, p. 520; see p. 511.
22. On this, see Pierre Grelot, “Relations between the Old and New Testaments in Jesus Christ,” in Problems and Perspectives of Fundamental Theology, ed. René Latourelle and Gerald O’Collins, tr. Matthew O’Connell (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), pp. 186-199. For a fine treatment of the limitations of Old Testament morality, see Luke Johnston, “Old Testament Morality,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20 (1968), 19-25.
23. Among sources regarding the Pauline and Johannine way of envisioning the moral life, I believe the following relatively brief