Abstract
James Keenan has written a definitive history of the field of theological ethics. Honed in the classroom over decades of teaching at Boston College and incorporating elements of his own research and service to the field, the book offers arguments for a broader view of ethics as a discipline and a more generous understanding of Catholic tradition.
The book challenges the standard narrative of the development of the field of ethics, which drew heavily from John Mahoney’s The Making of Moral Theology: A Study of the Roman Catholic Tradition (1989). That story contrasts pre-Vatican II-era morality (sin-obsessed, limited to individuals, act-focused) with the expansive ethics of the post-Vatican II era (marked by more attention to mercy, social structures, and virtue). Much blame typically goes to the sex-obsessed Augustine, the moral manualists, and the casuists. Praise is bestowed on contemporary Catholic ethics, which assumes universal holiness, embraces a good measure of uncertainty, and affirms the rights and duties of conscience.
Though some elements of that narrative remain, K’s research on casuistry (The Context of Casuistry, 1995), mercy (The Works of Mercy: The Heart of Catholicism, 2017), and Scripture (in books co-authored with New Testament scholar Daniel Harrington, 2005, 2010) allows him to expand the story. Improbably for an ethicist, he begins with Scripture and then moves through the history of Christianity claiming for theological ethics a broad cast of characters and modalities. On K.’s view, it was not just Augustine, Aquinas, scholastics, casuists, and manualists who did ethics. Lay groups, spiritual figures such as Abelard and Heloise, as well as lawyers and human rights activists like Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de las Casas, contribute to a much richer picture of Christian engagement in moral questions. With this expansive view, it is possible to claim that the mercy, flexibility, and universal quest for holiness typically associated with the post-Vatican II era are not wholly new. According to K., the flaws of the manualists notwithstanding, the Catholic moral tradition was never all about sinful acts and judgement without mercy. Even those usually tagged as part of the problem (e.g., Augustine and the casuists) are given more sympathetic treatment as K. narrates a two thousand-year quest to pursue Christian discipleship with mercy in every age.
This broader picture emerges not only from a more comprehensive reading of the history of moral theology but also from reading that history through the lens of the present, especially in view of K’s extensive work with the CTEWC (Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church), the global network of Catholic ethicists he founded. Theological ethics today encompasses priests, religious, and lay people and includes theologians who see themselves as activists as well as academics in related disciplines. Theology and spirituality are a viable part of the discussion, and the lines between the theoretical and the practical, the moral and the social, have largely disappeared. With this understanding in hand, K. shows, it is possible to look back and see a broader picture of theological ethics practiced by a diversity of people seeking to love God and neighbor.
It is hard not to be sympathetic to Keenan’s project, as it leaves readers with a much more positive view of Christian history and Christian ethics. The manualists remain the only irredeemable “bad guys” in the narrative, though perhaps they, too, could be more sympathetically engaged. One might wonder, for instance, whether the manualists’ focus on helping individuals think through their own sinfulness could be a helpful counterweight to contemporary ethicists whose focus tends to be more on social reform. Perhaps, though, the picture K. paints is in the main overly rosy. It may not adequately consider the harm done not only by manualists but by the tradition more broadly. In focusing on movements, it tends to underplay the way ordinary Christians receive Catholic moral teaching, assumed in near universal recognition of “Catholic guilt.” Moreover, it is not clear that the radical roots of Christianity are sufficiently engaged. In his understandable emphasis on mercy, flexibility, and a very broad understanding of holiness, K. may unwittingly flatten the tradition, downplaying its radical calls to nonviolence, fidelity, and simplicity.
Despite these concerns, K. provides in his sweeping history of theological ethics a much richer view of the tradition and the many ways Christians have thought about and pursued the good life. This is a story that a new generation of theological ethicists can study, teach, and make their own.