III

Abstract

III John S. Grabowski Mark S. Massa utilizes Thomas Kuhn's model of paradigm revolution and replacement in the history of modern science to offer a novel reading of modern Catholic natural law theory. The various paradigms of natural law do not betray linear, organic development as much as wholesale replacement of competing accounts as each sought [End Page 70] to explain better the anomalies of the reigning paradigm and the "data" of lived moral experience, the complexity of which always exceeds the ability of any one model to capture. Certainly, this Kuhnian lens yields insights into the inadequacy of what Massa calls the Neo-scholastic paradigm in the face of the twentieth century crisis of Catholic moral reasoning before and after Humanae Vitae. Yet one cannot help but wish that the landscape was surveyed more widely both historically and analytically. The use of Lonergan's account of "historical consciousness" to outline the overturning of the "classicism" of modern Catholic moral theology can have an ahistorical ring insofar as this language fails to acknowledge its own embeddedness in a historical tradition with its roots in Hegel, Vico, and others. It also tends to create an unfortunate binary in regard to method—either one is classicist or "historically conscious"—as if there were no other alternatives. Something like Alasdair MacIntyre's account of dialogue within and among rival historical traditions seems to offer a more sophisticated approach to this history without smoothing away Massa's sharp Kuhnian edges of disagreement. Another set of problems is posed by Massa's decision to focus on what he calls the "micro-tradition" of natural law. This can create the impression that natural law is a sufficient or stand-alone methodology for Christian moral reasoning and the language of virtue or scripture is an afterthought or add on. In regard to some of the thinkers he engages (e.g., the proportionalism of Richard McCormick or the new natural law of Germain Grisez), this might be fair. But certainly, Jean Porter gives significant weight to the language of virtue in her "robust realist" recovery of Thomas and Lisa Sowle Cahill spends a significant amount of time wrestling with the biblical witness in constructing her pragmatic, cross-culturally capable, feminist ethic. And beyond these figures, much of the work of post-conciliar renewal has been precisely in a deeper engagement with biblical theology and virtue theory. When it comes to the Angelic Doctor himself whom Massa sees as the font of the many paradigms he surveys, the problem is even more pronounced. It is worth considering that while the Summa Theologiae devotes a mere question to natural law (I–II, q. 94), the language of virtue (and opposing vices) occupies much more space within the prima secundae and virtually all of the secunda secundae. Further, Aquinas's entire account of virtue is situated within a deeply biblical account of creation and salvation history. The effort to construct an entire moral system on the basis of natural law is simply foreign to Thomas. In the end Massa's reading is interesting, but the lens too narrow. Catholic moral theology—medieval or modern—cannot be reduced to a [End Page 71] dispute over the most adequate accounts of natural law without significant distortion. John S. Grabowski The Catholic University of America Copyright © 2020 American Catholic Historical Society