Catholic Tradition and Moral Change

RC教会的性质是教义性的。因此，它的自我理解和认同在很大程度上是由教义内容塑造的，这些教义内容已被证明是抵抗历史变化的（尽管不是免疫的），因为它与教会与使徒传统的历史连续性联系在一起。在教会历史的大部分时间里，神学家都反对所谓的“信仰的沉淀”是受历史力量影响的。在历史意识时代，一个关键的解释学任务是理解和在神学上证明已经发生的关于信仰和道德的教义变化。本研究的目的是解决这一任务，关于道德。在现代，道德原则在定义基督徒身份方面已经变得和信仰条款一样重要。然而，天主教的道德教义发生了相当大的变化：以前被谴责的现在被认可了，以前被认可的现在被谴责了。这使得天主教徒的身份不那么安全，并使基督教传统似乎受制于历史相对主义。这个迷人的神学领域，以及它提出的关于信仰和历史的重要问题，从来没有被道德神学家进行过足够深入的研究。这个研究项目的重点是这个问题：天主教传统和道德变化如何能够和应该和解？“教义发展”这个概念经常被用来描述天主教传统和历史变化之间的相互作用，这是有问题和不充分的。随着梵蒂冈第二次会议的召开，教义的发展成为一个在连续性解释学下被“解决”的教会问题：从战略上讲，教义的逆转，如宗教自由的权利，被解释为教会传统的连续性。教义发展的概念通过约翰·保罗二世（在《真理的光辉》中）对道德方面的教义发展的呼吁进一步沉淀到天主教的传统中，其中它与对道德进步的信念联系在一起。与教义发展的概念一样，道德进步的概念提供了诱人的神学可能性，但也受制于概念上的困难。我认为，需要对道德变化有另一种理解，这种理解可以更好地阐明道德的历史和文化条件。我选择通过在认识论和科学哲学学科中对人类知识本质的研究来解决这个问题，在这些学科中，范式变化模型已经被采用。在神学中，当不同的理解范式打开了解释学的视野，允许传统被重新看待时，教义的变化就会发生。这种见解对教义的发展、对传统的忠诚和接受教学的神学思想产生了影响。图尔敏和库恩截然不同的研究方法，虽然都基于概念变化发生在人类认知模型中的假设，但却为理论发展中关于进化和革命性变化的辩论提供了有益的相似之处。据我所知，以前没有人注意到这一点。我相信它为进一步的神学反思提供了丰富的资源。把历史想象成“一件该死的事接一件该死的事”在神学上是站不住脚的，因为教会相信圣灵会引导它走向真理。即使教会承认过去在教导上的错误，道德进步的观念也不必受到损害，认为人类向上帝之城蹒跚前进的进步主义末世论也可以保持不变。我希望这项研究能成为理解当代天主教道德神学的资源，并在某种程度上将天主教研究中的道德与神学重新统一起来。

The RC Church is doctrinal in character. As such, its self-understanding and identity is in large part shaped by doctrinal content that has proved resistant to historical change (though not immune to it), linked as it is to the idea of a Church in historical continuity with the apostolic tradition. For much of the Church's history, theologians resisted the idea that the so-called 'deposit of the faith' was subject to the forces of history. A key hermeneutical task in the age of historical consciousness has been to understand and theologically justify the doctrinal change that has occurred with regard to faith and morals. The aim of this research study is to address this task with regard to morality.In the modern era, principles of morality have become as important as articles of faith in defining Christian identity. However, there has been considerable change in Catholic moral teachings: what was previously condemned is now approved, and what was previously approved is now condemned. This renders Catholic identity less secure and makes Christian tradition seem subject to historical relativism. This fascinating theological area, and the important issues it raises about faith and history, have never been studied in any adequate depth by moral theologians. The key focus of this research project is the question: how can and should Catholic tradition and moral change be reconciled?The concept of 'doctrinal development' frequently employed to describe the interplay between Catholic tradition and historical change is problematic and inadequate. With Vatican II the development of doctrine emerged as an ecclesiological question that was 'solved' under the hermeneutic of continuity: strategically, doctrinal reversals such as to the right to religious freedom were explained in terms of continuity to Church tradition. The notion of doctrinal development was further sedimented into Catholic tradition through John Paul's appeal (in Veritatis Splendor) to doctrinal development with regard to morals, in which it is linked to a belief in moral progress. As with the notion of doctrinal development, the idea of moral progress offers tantalising theological possibilities, but is also subject to conceptual difficulties.I argue that an alternative understanding of moral change is required which better articulates the historically and culturally conditioned nature of morality. I have chosen to address the issue by drawing on work done on the nature of human knowledge in the disciplines of epistemology and philosophy of science, where the model of paradigm change has been employed. In theology, doctrinal change can occur when alternative paradigms of understanding open up hermeneutical horizons that allow the tradition to been seen anew. This insight has ramifications for theological ideas about the development of doctrine, fidelity to tradition and reception of teaching. The contrasting approaches of Toulmin and Kuhn, while both working from the assumption that conceptual change occurs in models of human knowing, provide useful parallels to the debates about evolutionary and revolutionary change within doctrinal development. To my knowledge this has not been noted before. I believe it offers a fruitful resource for further theological reflection. To imagine history as merely 'one damn thing after another' would be theologically untenable for a Church committed to the idea of the Holy Spirit guiding it towards the truth. Even when a Church admits past error in its teaching, the idea of moral progress need not be jeopardised and the progressivist eschatology that views humankind's faltering advance towards the City of God can remain intact. I would hope that this study will become a resource for understanding contemporary Catholic moral theology, and will go some way to reuniting morality to theology in Catholic studies.