In a previous post, I wrote with praise for Paul J. Griffiths’ address to the Catholic Theological Society of America. I also linked to James Keating’s background article in First Things. In that article, Keating refers to a response that was given to Griffiths’ paper.
Well, now I’ve found it, and here it is, by Michele Saracino. Very interesting.
And, while I’m at it, here are a couple of other responses, via Michael Sean Winters at National Catholic Reporter: the first by Meghan Clark, and the second by Charles Camosy.
All three responses are interesting – especially the last two because they are offered in the context of Catholic moral theology – in the light of the discussion Tony and I have been having on the post two below this this one, ie. on Cardinal Kasper’s proposals for the admission of the divorced and remarried to eucharistic communion in the Catholic Church. Saracino criticises Griffith’s over reliance on “intellectual” rather than “affective” approaches to theology. This seems to be precisely the point at issue in both Tony’s response to my post and to Dr Paul McGavin’s response to the Corbett and Co paper on Kasper’s proposals.
These intertwined discussions seem to me to go to the very heart of what Catholic theology is and how the Church determines her teaching and pastoral care and discipline.
Good to see you blogging more Schutz
Thanks, Matthias – I needed an outlet for some of my thoughts – my head was getting cramped!