INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy siAmitted. Thus, some tfiesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of ttie copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough. substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, tfiese will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g.. maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in tfie original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6“ x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI' REVISIONIST MORAL THEOLOGY: RECOVERING THE TELEOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the The Ohio State University By Edgar A. Vêlez, M.R.E., M.Div., S.T.L., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2000 Dissertation Committee: Charles Kielkopf, Adviser ApprovedApproved by by . , Justin D’Arms ______ Adviser Peter King Department of Philosophy UMI Number 9982998 UMI UMI Microform9982998 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Artwr, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT While Christian ethics is ordinarily perceived as a model of deontological ethics, based on observance of absolute rules, the renewal o f this discipline in the second half of the 20th century led many Roman Catholic moral theologians to conclude that teleology should hold primacy in Christian moral evaluation. This dissertation seeks to defend philosophically this insight of some leading revisionist moral theologians According to my model for understanding the teleological-deontological distinction, most normative ethical theories combine teleological and deontological styles and assign priority to one orientation over the other. While revisionists claim that Catholic ethics is most faithful to its roots when it assigns primacy to teleology, the papal encyclical Veritatis Splendor }\xé%&s that the teleological orientation of revisionist moral theology collapses into unjustified consequentialism. Granted that both secular and religious ethics recognize problems with the teleological orientation as a guide for moral decision, I argue that the work of the revisionist moral theologians contains the resources needed to steer clear of these problems and avoid the collapse into consequentialism. The principal instrument to avoid this collapse is acceptance of deontological constraints essential to the Christian tradition. A strong teleological dynamic linked to deontological constraints provides a context of broad agreement that shows respect for the transcendent dimension of ii Christian ethics and a united front for Christian moralists in the face of secular ethics that rejects openness to transcendence. The disagreements that remain between the Magisterium and revisionist moral theologians are explained in terms of differences regarding moral methodology, non- moral facts, and the requirements of Christian teleology. I conclude with an argument that revisionist moral theology is a philosophically defensible moral theory that results in genuine good for moral agents and patients. Ill Dedication Tonm y Regina: Recuerdos imperecederos Luchy y Pepito: Lecciones de amor y sacrificio Lily, Edith, Miriam: Mi presente y mi futuro IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Consistent with my identity as a Christian philosopher, I must first express my thanks to Almighty God for giving me the strength and energy to bring this project to completion even while carrying a heavy full time community college teaching load and family obligations. From that same conceptual fi-amework, I thank God for placing the right people in my path at the time I needed them most. My advisor Charles Kielkopf became a role model and mentor fi-om the time I was privileged to participate in his courses on philosophy of religion and Kantian ethics my first year in the Ph.D. program. Later, at a time I was considering plausible dissertation topics, he suggested that many philosophical issues in Veritatis Splendor presented the opportunity for a worthwhile project that I could successfully bring to completion, given my background in moral theology. Without that wise recommendation, I might still be doing research instead of presenting an approved project to the Graduate School. I consider it a distinct honor to be the last Ph.D. student whose dissertation is guided by such a distinguished scholar and gentleman as he approaches retirement. Peter King and Justin D’Arms generously gave of their time and lent their considerable expertise in medieval philosophy and contemporary moral theory to help me create a quality product. If I have made it this far in a challenging program, I owe it in large part to the invaluable help affcrded me in my pre-candidacy days by faculty members Bernard Rosen, Tamar Rudavsky, Justin Schwartz , and Stewart Shapiro. No one who works full time can complete a project such as this one without an understanding boss and supportive colleagues. My thanks to Doug Montanaro and my colleagues in the Humanities Department at Columbus State Community College. The support and prayers of other friends too numerous to mention were also crucial. This dissertation was truly a family affair. Ten years ago we left our Puerto Rican home behind so my wife Lily and I could pursue doctoral degrees at Ohio State. Three of us made that journey, now there are four of us. For practically all their lives, our daughters Edith and Miriam have put up with many limitations because one or both their parents were seeking an advanced degree. It was only fair that Lily should finish first, since she is the heart and soul of this family and motivates all of us to do our best. It is now my pleasure to tell her and our daughters, “Thanks so much. This ordeal is almost over. On to new challenges!” VI VITA July 1, 1950.................................... Bom - Mayagiiez, Puerto Rico 1993 .................................... M.A. Philosophy, The Ohio State University 1979 .................................... Licentiate in Moral Theology, Academia Alfonsiana 1977............. .................................... Master’s in Divinity, Mount St. Alphonsus Seminary 1975 ................................................. Master’s in Religious Education, Mount St. Alphonsus Seminary 1979-82 .................................... Instructor of Moral Theology Mount St. Alphonsus Seminary 1983 - 86 .................................... Associate Pastor, Pastor, San Antonio Church, Guayama, Puerto Rico 1990 - 93 .................................... Graduate Fellow, The Ohio State University 1996-2000 .................................. Humanities Instructor, Columbus State Community College 2000 — present ................................ Assistant Professor of Humanities, Columbus State Community College FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Philosophy vn TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract..........................................................................................................................ii Dedication ......................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... v V ita...................................................................................................................................vi Chapters: 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................1 2. Context of the Debate ........................................................................................... 8 2.1 Roman Catholic Moral Theology: Creating a Bridge........................... 8 2.2 The Second Vatican Council and Moral Theology ...............................14 2.3 Definition of Key Terms .........................................................................20 2.4 Explanation of the Axiological-Deontological Spectrum ...................26 3. Christian Teleology........................................................................................... 40 3.1 The Christian Case for Teleology.........................................................40 3.2 A Christian Concept of the Good ......................................................... 50 3.3 The Function of Rules in Christian Teleology ....................................63 3.4 Importance of Outcomes for Christian Morality ................................66 3.5 Proportionalism