JOSEPHINUM JourNat or THEOLOGY VoL 10,No.2 Summer/Fall 2003, NewSeries ISSN 10718257 Issued biannually (February and August) by the faculty ofthe School of ‘Toeolegy, Pontifical College Josepbinum. Please vit our Web she at ‘coop ufoumalintex n>. Eator Copy Editors James Keating, PLD. Camiyn A Dinoro i ‘my Spencer, MA. Blzabeth v Panes, M.D Book Review Editor ev James F Garmen,Ph Eaitoriat Board ie - Rev, Willam Lya, 5, STD. Rev. Joseph Murphy, SJ. 8D. ‘Rev. John M. MeDermot, SJ, 8D. Carolyn Thomas, SCN, PhD. “The Josrews Joust oF TasL0Gr provides 4 forum for thesoglal sed pastor essays thes aabting schelas and pastoral ministers to ground service to the Church in erica efecto upon fh Chast. ‘Prited by The Herald Printing Company, New Washington, Oho, “The views expresed herein are oot neces the views ofthe Jossnanin JOURLAL OF “Twotocr othe Ponies! Calley Jospin, ‘The Jounaw Jounva oF Teno.ocr i lndexed in Religion Index One: Peron, the Indes to Book Revincs Religion, Zalion Indesex:RIO/RIT/IBRR 1975: om CORO, and the ATLA Religion Database om CD-Rom, published by the American Theological bay Associa, 280 8, Wacker De, 16th Fr, Chicago, I. 60606, ema tlaGat com, ‘werwla.com. The Josenamtum JoubsAt Of THoLocY is alsa Indexed by the Cabot Portada ond Utenatae Inder, pushed by the Catholic brary Asocton, athe, Manche, ‘Manuscripts shold be iced to the editor atthe Pontcat Colege Jovephinum 1625. Not High Sire, Colunbus, Ole 8235 498; . Book reviews and books 10 be reviewed shoud be submited to the book evew edlor 2 he ares above: coalact the book review edlior at . To adverse inthe Jonata JOUeNat (oF Turotocy, coatact the Anociate Edltor at the addcess sbove or via exull, ‘. To subscribe, we te form the hack of hi ewe. Complete dca a ‘cw pejedufouralinder >. 15 20 24 2 3 a7 Contents Articles cyonel the Family Feud The Future of Roman Catholic Moral Theology Anthony F LoPresti Mosul Theology, Development of Doctrine, and Human Experience Christopher Kaczor Moral Renewal Through Renewed Moral Reasoning D Vincent Tawney Preserving, Investigating, and Leaming from Our Past Julia Fleming Catholic Moral Discourse and the Spirituality of Communion Dennis J Bly, CSR A Now Pentecost for Moral Theology: The Challenge of Inculturation of Ehies James T Bretzbe, Sf ‘The Interpretive ask of Moeal Theology: Cultural and Epistemologcal Considerations Margaret R Pfeil What Are We 10 Make of Sin? Alison's Challenge to Moral Theology’ Kongiel A. Serer, 8) 1 laluence of Bioethics on Moral Theology Josep B. Captzzt ‘he Chastian Family and Contemporary American Culture Mark §. Lathe Thomas Merton's Metaphysics of Pesce Robert Barron laity in the Word: A Multiplication of Types Dennis). Billy, CSR.A New Pentecost for Moral Theology: The Challenge of Inculturation of Ethics Rev. James T. Bretzke, SJ. ‘have come to the profession of moral theologian somewhat iniretly. My fist ‘assignment after ordination was o Sogang University in Scoul, Korei—an inst tion founded by the Americans of my home Province butt in the proces of changeover to Korean leadership when Tarrived in 1982, The process was hardly Painless, and I Tearned much about the very real, concrete challenges of incultt ation and cross-cultural encounters. When I was sent to the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 1986 for my doctorate in moral theology choth the lacus and subject matter were chosen by my Korean superion), decided that the best (xin: ing I could obtai. for teaching moral theology back in Korea would be 6 immerse myself in the sacred claim enjoyed by the ancient ethical tradition of Korea Confucianism, and see if could being that into direct interaction claim of a scripturat approach to Roman Catholic mori theology. In this project 1 ‘worked intentionally at trying firs 10 read for understanding the other culture’ sacred text on fs own terms, as far as possible, expecially Dy paying attention to the ways in which the sacred ext enjoys what [eal a “sred eliim” on those ‘who hold the text as “holy” rather than trying to identify immediately how this {ext could be translated or trying to identify clone parillets fon Westem philosophy or theology). My chosen texts came from the Confucian ‘canon, especially the Analects and the Doctrine of the Mean, but in diferent parts ‘of the world the sacred texts themselves would differ 35 well’ My combined experiences of iving for 3 decade in Asis and Europe com: firmed for me the paradigm shift that Karl Rabner had articulated in wht aight be called his last major article on Vatican Il. Rahner spoke of the watershed the ith the Sacre 1 For example, | have jst ha 2 student present a paper om reconciliation in hi hom ‘county of Mazambique drawing heavily upon the African tnt pilosaphy the human person, which has been articulated by Bishop Desai Tuts in his No rte Without Forgiveness (London: Doubedsy, 199), ‘Reverend James. Bretzke, Sj, STD, is Assodate Profesor of Molegy aa Religion ‘States atthe University of Sam Francisco I California He ts the aur of Comsecrtes Phrases: A Lain Theological Dictionary and the forthcoming ® Molly Complex Wor (Cooth from Liturgicat Pres. 250 Council represented in marking the beginning of the Church a5 a truly workd ‘church, andl the challenge this presented for the integration of non-Western cul ‘uses: “[Elither the Church sees and recognizes these essential differences of other ‘euitures for which she should become a world Church and with a Pauline bold ness draws the necessiry consequences from this recognition, or she remains a ‘Western Church and so in the final analysis betrays the meaning of Vatican IL”*If Rahner's theological analysis of Church history ison target, then one ramification {or moral theology in the new. millennium will be that we must not only pay ‘greater attention to how ethics is approached in various parts of the world, but abo to change how we view the nature and task of Roman Catholic moral theolo- x sell, taking ioto greater account places like Asia, Aftica, Micronesia—in short in every geuraphical and cultural aa that has not traditionally been seen as the center of our theological wadicion, This wil involve more than a simple paradigm, yet sre do not have 10 bexin ab ova, Moral theology in the twenty-first century should work out of foundational developments in the last half of the twentieth century. Vatican Tl in at least three key documents, set the scene for this revisioning of the task and scope of moral theology: Laanen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, and Dignitatis Humanae. Lumen Gentium represents 2 paradigm shift in the understanding of the nature of the Church itself, expressed as the People of Gost. This People of God lives in, and not iealy apart from, the modern wor. Gaudin ef Spes anticulates 2 more engaging and positive interaction with this moder world, Finally, Dignitaris Humanae reverses the long-standing allirmation that “error has no rights" by formulating a new doctrine that brings together freedom and sanctity of conscience with an individual's choice to fo} low his or her conscience in one of the most important arenas of human life, namely the choice of religion, Sociologist of religion José Casanova expresses the importance of Diguttatis Humanae for the Church's role in public religion in these terms From a workdhisorical perspective, the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitans Humanae is pechaps the most consequential and ‘the most radical departure from tradition. Tt establishes the very coad tions of possibilty fora modern type of Catholic public reigion... The recopmition of the inalienable right of every individual to freedom of ‘conscience, based on the cred dignity of the human persoa, means that dhe church abandons ts compulsory character and becomes. ‘free ‘Kon faliner. “Towards a Fundamental Theological Iterpretation of Vatican I.” Pheolegicl Suudiee 0 (1979). 724. The tex aso found under the tke “The Abiding Sieniteance of the Second Vatican Council” Teeologcal Investigations, vol. 20, ondow Daron, Longiman and Tod, 1981). 90102; and ia Vatican I The Uinfintsbed agenda, & Look fo tbe Future ed. Lucien Richard, with Dani Harington and Jolin W. O'Malley (New York: Paulit Pres, 1987): 9.32 251Joserranun JOURNAL oF THEOLOGY ‘Ve. 10, No.2 2003 ‘church’, Truth can no longer be imposed, nor is I perme to ‘coerce individual consciences to follow extemal dictates.” Gerainly since Jona XXI's fist social encyclicals—Pucent fu Terris and Mater et Magistra—vp through the pontifeate of Joho Paul I, the Church tas to reach out to the modem world in this more open manne. The many apostolic travels of John Paul It have had the effect of puting a visible, human face on the Church's moral message, especially effective in is social teachings “Truth, asthe gospel and the best of the Catholic rdition have tong alfemed, does sim to set us fee, and coming to 2 aller realization of the splendor ofthat in ‘alls for a new Pentecost for the discipline of moral theoiogy. one tht wil seriously the task of inculturation of ethics Pentecost and Moral Theology ‘As a clue to what this ethical Pentecost might involve, fet us reall the ‘events ofthe birth of he Church, Oa that Pentecost, the fist concrete manifestr tion of the gift ofthe Spint was that the disciples “began to speak in other kre ‘ages [yASooasg, 28 the Spirit gave them ability” In other word the presence and gift ofthe Spit enabled the disciples first to find their own voice to respond to Jesus’ moral mandate ro teach all hate had taught them, OF eourse, what they proclaimed would be the gospel messige as they had come to internalize it through their iavimate association with Jesus. but the key nvovement of dhe Pentecost event was that now it would be the disciples speaking on their own, This methodological finding of one’s theological voice teas then tothe namely speaking cfectively i that voice. Well before Lawrence Kohibeng's work ‘on moral pedagogy, the Church realized that to speak convincingly one must first focate one's audience, and then address them in a langage that #5 compechense be to them, On the fist Pentecost the disciple turned € the “devout Jews from ‘very nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5) and spoke to them ina evolutionary way the native language f8ehexz9 of euch” (Acts 2:6), Spehing in these “dialects” should not be seen as an cily Palestinian feat of simultaneous trast tion in which the Ini proclamation of the gospel message war somchow reproduced exactly and identically into mother tongues ofthe audience One of ‘xt tep. 3 José Casinova, Public Religions in the Moder World (Chicago and Woodko: The Xinweratyof Chicago Pres, 19910, 72 4. Acts 2. All ileal quotations ae taken fom the NRSV. 5. Fora dicusion ofthe necessity of “eomprehensilly” im devetaping moral discouse se Janes T. Bete, SJ. “Life Matters 60 of Moral Diacoune” New Tew) Beview 15 Cay 2012" 3859. (6. The Grek text fs lens sppeet to this terpretation. Note that trom the Apo point of view they are speaking in ater “langues” (y0081¢. ut fom tei hearers Perspective these other ngage” (7 Léoonts obetielyspeaking ce munsforied Subjectivly=peaking nt the “native rguanc” taken) ut cach fstenet. Te shift fs theologically cleat more sigiicat than a mere semantie chowe vocabulary 252 the hey insights of ingulturation is that if the gospel keryzma is to be preached effectively in different cultural setings, it will have to interact difereatly with ‘each cultural milieu. Therefore, the morak message ofthe gospel proclaimed in a variety of lcations will necessarily “sound” different to diferent audiences, Thus tun effective gospelhased! moral theology” will equire using a language, that is, a native dialect, that is genuinely comprebensible by those who are being addres. (he Holy Spirit has heen present in all cultures since the dawn of ime, ‘nd soit is incumbent not just upon evangelists bur also moral theologians to dis- ‘Cem these ways in which the Spirit bas manifested itself in any given culture. Discensing the presence of the Spirit means we must find and then "decode" those jways in which Cox! has operate and continues to operate in and through a given ‘etre “This successful finding of one’s voice for those who have not traditionally bun “heard” isthe fist hallmark of the development of a Pentecostbased, ineul- turited moral theology: that is, we bave (0 attend to and seriously consider how ‘others are speaking, Thus, developing an inculturated mora! theology is atleast a ‘bvosay street, if not a more complicated intersection such asa trafic rotary: We need t bring theological voices from around the world into a safe, secure, and Donderlyiatcesceton. tt will not he sufficient for jaculturation to be essentially a Gneaway street in which thowe nonAWestem Culeares are encouraged t0 look » their own traditions to try and discover an authentic approach for doing, oral theology that speaks to this or that culture. We must bring this conversation {nwo dislagoe whh simile efforts ia other places around the world, including ‘North America, Europe, and the Vatican “In short, Lam anguing that a key task for oral theology in this century is to develop a methodology and practice of an fnculturate and cross-cultural ethics Inculturation and Cross-Cultural Ethics Lat us take each of these concepts in tum. Although much of the sucahutary connected with inculuration was not coined until the last half of the “oventeth centiny, Chrstiznity has struggled from its earliest days with the moral CL Pape Pal i, Erungellt Auntkandl (00 Evangetication in the Modemn Wort {sr cpecialy no. 20 sind 9. 68; Catholic Church, Vatican Counc Th Ad Gentes on ine Church's Missionary Aetvty, 1965, especilly no. 22; Vatican Counc CGmainm ef Spes Cthe Chusch in the Modern World, 1965. especialy ch, 2; and Natwean Counc i, Optatan Totes (On Presy Formation, 1965), no. 16. 18. Ofcourse some important work inthis separd has aleady been wnderaen.F would {al attemion to the series of peegraphic "Notes on Moral Theology” published the [av scrotal yeasin Theol Slee. Sc, for example, James T. Break, 83 "Moral “hong Out Last Asa” Theological Stadles 6Y (March 20003: 10621; Wiliam OONei SJ. "Afcan Moral Theology,” Tealogal Studies 62 (March 2001): 122-8 fame F Keenan. Sand Thomas &. Kepfnstener. "Moral Theolory Out of Western Europe” Toeolageut Studies 39 (1998) 10735, See alo Thomas L Schubeck, SJ fines za Liberation Theology” Toealogcal Studies 96 995) 10722, 253Joserinaun Jounat oF THecxocr Vou. 10, No. 2 2003 umifcations arising from Cross-cultural conflict.” n our own time, despite some ‘misgivings and miscues, inculturation clearly has established itsctfasa primary the- ‘logical concern." While much has becn done in the name of incultration in litur ‘ay, art and music, and biblical and dogmatic theology, to date the field of Christian ethics has tended to be rather wary of immersing itself in these potentially trou bling theological waters. My operating premise is that comtemporary Christian cthics, grounded in a genuine tradition of theological education, howl can and ‘must take much more seriously the challenges posed by inculturation and the ‘ongoing development of the Church as a truly global entity. Inculturation, however, if itis co be truly muliktrectional and dialogicst, ‘must be formed and informed by, as well 2s form and inform, other moral theo. fogical reflections. This process involves what I term “crossfertilization," and it & supported by the approach of crosecultural ethics. Crosscultural ethics differs ‘rom the established academic subsciptine of comparative ethics in both its ‘object and methodology. Comparative ethics is usually undertaken in one of twa ways either 28 an investigation ofa different culture's mores. belief system, 2 the ke Cften done within the discipline of cultural anthropology). os “ethical” {reatment of an issue from a supposedly “neutral” (or “universal” oF “globa) ‘stance. Thus, comparative ethics in the first version iy pursued chiefly as an acad cemnic interest object, while comparative ethics in the second instance often aims a the establishment of some common philosophical platform for discussion ‘anor possibly adjulication of concrete this! issues, which scem to involve ‘many if not all contemporary cultures. Much of the current work in the socalled ‘slobalzation of ethics and human rights asthe language of universal morality is an ‘cxample of what {call comparative ethics in the second instance. These approaches and projects have raised a number of significant questions rearing its method ‘ology, implicit conceptions of culture, as well asthe nettlevome issue of aveinpt: ing to compare diferent cultural ethics from a standpoint that itsclf ix never ‘cultural and therefore can never claim to be completely acute" A number of 9. Ra. the New Tesamen’s evileace concerning dchates ver cums Gominy ‘ion of food sacrificed to kal, ad the neglect of the Gekpesking wines te staring of che community's resources ean le interpreted ta 10 cen dee, in tems of crosseultaral moral conic 10. Fora good overview ofthe genesis and development of inculturation 22 theological term, see Nicholas Sandaer, J. ~L-istom dun néologiame: Leterme eaxtltornions dns ts documents romans,” Nouvelle Revue Tholegiqne 110 (1985). 35570, See ‘iso the set of monographs edited by Aaj A. Roget Crofius, $.. Incuturatons Working Papers on Living Faith and Cultures, 14 wos. (Rome: Cenc Cultures and Religions.” Poatical Gregorian University, 1942-1998), 11, Hans Kins project forthe globalization a etic «perhaps one of Une mms wily known works in this area. See his Global Respumsibiiy: in Search aft Neat World ibic Condon: SCM. 1991). Many authors have used a enc of questo ean the globalization of ethics project. For onc Rood example. sce func O'Connor Doe ‘Global Vilage Warrant a Global Bhi! (An Analy ofA Global Pie. the Deca ‘of te 1998 Pariament of the World's Retigons).”Relgton 24 (19945 5040) See abet 254 INCULTURATION oF Enc recent studies uti various hermeneutical and communicative theories to sketch cut viable paradigms for developing a fundamental ethics asa whole, as well a its ‘rious components such as practical moral reasoning”; yet the accent of most of these studies flly on the zoriversality of ethical discourse and its impact on nor rmaiivity, values, and so on. Surprisingly scant atention seems ta have been given to the particularity of the individual culture, which is found necessarily at the very core of cach ctlws and ethical system, We might wonder, therefore: How could we hope to realize either the project of an authentic globalization of ethics, oF pay the proper attention to the individuality ofthe particular situation of Tocal Christian community, without aking better stock of this essential aspect ‘of cultural particularity? (On the other hand, cross-cultural ethics stresses the concept of culture and many of its related aspects--such as ethos and ethnocentricity ‘and how these interact in particular ethical systems of moral reflection), encul turstion (the processes by which humans become members of 3 given culture and are socialized into this or that moral community), and acculturation Ge, the process of crostcultural intertetion—which is sometimes violent— and the resulting changes that take place in al ofthe parties involved in these interactions). Comparative ethics in the Second version, done from a erose-cultural per. spective, must pay special attention to developing 2 better dialogue process as ‘par of its fundamental methodology. This crossculturl dialogue is necessary $0 that each culture can have its moral say, without being prejudiced oF forced into 4 conceptual framework of another culture’ ethical tradition. This in tur may ‘obscure and/or distort the insights thatthe first culture has to offer in deepening ‘our shared understanding of not just the gospel and its ethical ramifications, but the whote natura law tradition as well, These cultura frameworks contain many ‘of what Kar Rubner terms “global pre-scientifc convictions," which often tend to be “smugued in (binergecimnggett)” to the discussion in such a way that the selection and use of data is done in 4 way that skews the information wilized, and fn tum leads to incomplete and/or imperfect ethical conclusions." To pot Raber into simpler language, i often is not so much a question of what people believe, Dt bo they believe Yes Wie The Langue of tuman Rs—An Ec spe” Vieyapot 56 {G3pay 191214 and Senco Oe, aan Rgs Dace a Morn Nox Compan Reto tc Reape four of Rel Eae23 CS) peas 12, See Gene Oi and John. Recker, Prospect for a Common Moray CPanccn:Pctn ten Ps 195 ee 15, forndictaie af fw may oe ctr concepts cm fon ner ver ‘nang of Civaian ch, see mcr brea’ “clna Panty sad he ‘Gano se Lit of ncn Pacer 91990 6356, 11, atthoc, “On ht Anes ee Ty Tega egatons Ses York Ca 3sJoserranuseJounnat oF THeowony Vor. 10, No.2 2003 4s one means of trying to avoid the pitfalls of cue ylabal presciemtfic eon: Victions while achieving a better cross-cultural communication, { propose entering, into a process of what Robert Schreiter term “intercultural heemencutics” Sehreiter describes crossculrural communication asthe ability both to speak and to understand across cultural houndaries, whieh involves the lack of a common ‘World shared by both the speaker and the hearer. Such cresscultural communi ‘ation then presumes an intercultural hermencurtics that “explores the conditions that make communication possible across cultural boundaries. Kt also presses the ‘Questions ofthe nature of meaning-and of truth under those circumstances, Jes obvious that cross-cultural cthics seen in this made will ave to navi ‘gate berween the Scyla of moral relativism, in which the existence ofa transcul ‘ura and transhistorical moral order of values and norms effectively denied, and the Charybdis of ethical imperial, in whieh one culture abwolutize its whole worldview, mores, customs, and such and seeks to impose it on other cultures Since those who Tind themselves navigating these troubled waters are often accused of drifting toward either one oF the other of these haan, kt me une. score that my proposal for cross-cultural ethics is Founded on the grounding aser. ‘ion of the natura law tradition, namely acknowledgment ofthe existence OF an objective and universal moral order, Thus, Tam not arguing for a pesition of ethi- ‘al relativism, in which mora truths, goodness, norms, and so forth change toes right to wrong oF good to bad depending solely on cultural factors. Rather, t hold tat cross-cultural ethics simply highlights epistemological imitations and cond tions about the knowability of the objective universal moral order. In other words, {cross-cultural ethies may call into question some of our assertions about conchi: sions based on this universal moral order. For example, a natur law ethics such as that used traditionally in Roman Catholic moral theolomy. stresses what fx sup posedly common to all humans in each sge and pace. This elie natant ie approach, however, tends to overlook or minimize the foundational aspect of the ‘essential particularity of any and every culture: the historical ang! cultura aspects ‘of the employment ofthe natural law itself asi have been underemphasized. Our ‘Study of history also reveals that at times throughout the centuries natural lw Arguments have been invoked 10 support some so-called “universal” moeal noems that we now realize more clearly were actually cultural mores ied toa particu time and place. Icis the methodology itself of erasscuttural ethics that becomes ‘the map for intercultural communication and collshoration ‘The methodological presupposition of cross-cultural ethics might ako h ‘expressed with a computer metaphor of “interfacing,” which isthe process and 15. Rober), Schreiter, Pe News Cuthalety: Theale tue th ia ad te Lr Qfanyenol: Orbis Books, 1997), 28, Ths hook 3 revised eon of lectures pce the University of Frankfurt in 1998 See also his fst chaprer,“Glozation sn the Contes of Theology.” for same excellent refccinns on the process of slbalbrtion Involved in conemporay thedloges, 256 the ability of one computer program to access sad work with another program. fa crossculural ethics, the sim of interfacing is achieved first through establishing a basis for dialogue and then moving through this crosscultural dialogue to authen- tic intercultural communication. If communication, though, is going to be in- depth, then it most communicate “culturally.” and this cultural communication will necessary cover a wide range of issues, opinions, beliefs, customs, mores, ‘myths, and stories, as well as what are field as moral norms and the manual law. It {ts my contention thar most, if not all, cultures cast moral norms and ethical argu- ments in terms ofa “thin” rather than “thick” description, to build on anthropolo- ist Cfo Geertz’s wellknown terminology, but that the process by which most arrive atthe cogenicy of the logic of these thin description anguments is more, and nore atten, dhru an inductive rater than a formal deductive process * The tra dition of exssistry, 2s related 10 the notion of intrinsically evil acts Gmmoral seqardiess of intention and circumstances), would be a yood example of a thin description approach to moral caleuls, “Thin” does not mean “bad!” while “thick” reams “Ruext: rither, it reters primarily to the provess of what features are considered aionily relevant and how. 1 would argue merely that the inductive proves is formed and informed by the wide range of factors that are better capes! in terms of 3 thick description, Thus, a cross-cultural ethical methodolo- {Ry Which allows for iteface with both the thick and thin cultural descriptions, is necessary for vai, indepth communication in cross-cultural ethics. As indepth ‘cross-cultural communication fakes place, both parties in the dialogue will lam nel change. AAs an example of eossfertivzation of our moral languages, consider the moral Concept of vewe." For St, Thomas, virtue tends to be seen more function. aly, and thats he refer to the vires in termes such as “habits” The verbs associ- ‘ste! with these sirtacs are tikewise expressed! Functionally; hence, we tend 0 fin terms scl as “exerci” and “Acqiee” Used frequently in this regaed. Possession yor technical proficiency are the ways in which virtues relate to humans inthe Thomistic scheme, while the basic unit of moral agency ia Thomistic (and Wester!) ethics has always beeit the individual, "bomme tout seut ick atin are concept tat, cen 2 Bt “fn.” have nevertheless estabished tents nthe aac. Sc for example Mich! Walurs Tick and Tn: Moral ‘ngunment at Howse sind Abroad (Notre Dame. Unversty of Notre Dame Pres {980 and Rise! Connows Je, “Thick and Tis) Ap Ange “on Catholic Mora “Fenching Learn Stes 2 19903 3635, 1 Anum of pn! works have came oon thls them in een year. Se, for oka Pr Aims heclonre,locommensursbily. Trt, and the Canwersation Betwecn Eanacane seed AeoncBans sh the Vues in Cred Moder Bas West Tenpecties Biot Dosach (enol: Univers of Hwa Pr, 1991) 10625 Wee Nag, Moai nan, of Vue and ns of {Cure SUNY Se, Toad 4 Comparative Psp oF Regen (Aan SU tress 0) swell several acts tat dict lope Year book that were fe the nal of Rls Enis 21 (93 9. 257Joserranum JOURNAL OF THeoLoor Ven. 10, No. 2 2003 In triditional Confucian ethics, however, by counterexample, the basic "unit oF mozal agency is never the individual cout seul. Hather, the individual is lunderstood atwoays and only in terms of 2 matrix of relationships. Thus, the ‘moral agent is conceived as someone's son, father, elder brother, younger si> ling, friend, and so forth. Virue, too, is conceived relationally and it woul Probably be more accurate to speak of the viewes themselves in more ontologs cal terms." Consequently, Confucius speaks of moral “sagehood" and the ideal ‘ofthe Ch'vinezu (which is dificult to translate, but which might be rendered as the “Superior Person" or even “Paradigmatic Individual"). Conteasted to this ‘moral ideal would be the Siaoyjem (the “mean” person, in the senve of being “smalthearted” or egoistic) ‘Verbs associated with concepts of vitwe in Confucian ethics often have a ‘ore aesthetic nuance to them. Consequently, one finds terms taken from semol (omy, such as “cut and polish,” “grind and hone," “cultivate.” and so on sed throughout the books of the Confucian Canon.” Possession of and techaical p> ficiency in the virewes are not inconceivable in the Confucian scheme, but the antic nuance ofthe language of 2 gemutter sugests more accurately tit mora “virwosity” isthe truest goal of me person who strives to be try and fully hums. ‘The Confucian language of oral itwosity and anistry would eeonate well with ‘much of the biblical Wisdom literature, and thus the cruss-ferlization of these. ‘wo canons could help furnish us, along withthe inclusion of Thomas steric ‘insights, with what trae human virtue actually embraces. Conclusion My approach of erosscultural ethics suggests atleast two important con clusions: firs, that a cern plurality of views on important moat concepts ach 238 virtue, du, the common good, the natura law, and s0 fort iva pontive value {in itself, rather than an obstacle to be overcome, sidestepped, of obliterated: and Second, that 2 process of cross-cultural dialogue fused on mutual respect for the various cultures will facilitate the cultivation of the richness of this mora 28, For a filler discussion of this point, see my ante, “The Tao of Confucian Vir Ethics dnlemnational Phitosopoicel Quarterly $5 (1998). 21), Tough see, {ation Of Confucian ethics, I aise stacy, such sy the comin xrouning of eines tics, hich mighe help 0 clay andor expose some of the phiksephel ices fn the curene Wester debate on ethce of virtue va. ethics of tty . 19, Forone of tie best contrmporary interprets ofthe Confocen notion uf the Saperioe Person (Cb'anéza), 28 well as possible applications in Weer elhien ace Antenne (i's Dimensions of Moral Creattoy: Paradigms, Princes leas Wiens ‘ark: Pennsylvania State Univesity Pres. 1978) 20. For one insance ofthis usage, see the exchange between Canis aid one el his rae disciples, Tso kung, a seconded in Te anaects (115) Gates Lee Cofutons ‘ll characters; republication ofthe second revised edition, Onto Claremn Prose 1893, a5 vol. 1 in The Chinese Classics Sere.) 258 INCULTURATION OF ETHICS pluralism, If such'an approach is adopted and followed, then ethical pluralism Asef can be transformed and we shall be able to move from a pluralism of *co- ‘exstence” in which several moral outlooks exist alongside one another, and ‘whose primary moral chim is for mutual tolerance, to healthier pluralism whose ‘central value is better expressed by the metaphor of *crossfertilization. Through ethical crosefertization, 2 fuller understanding of the richness and complexity of the moral world would develop both within individual cultures 2s well 35, ser0ss cultures.” Tesides increasing our grasp of the richness and complexity of the moral ‘world. the crostfertlization involved in crosseultural ethics can help correct some persistent and tenacious problems connected with the darker side of any cul: ‘ure's moral world view and ethical values und practices. Ethics never exists sia ply and merely as philosophical system but is always embodied in 2 particular ‘cultural ethos, The ethos in tura bas both positive and negative aspects: The pos itive aspeets support and facilitate our moral living, but the negative aspects are ‘often difficult 1o see clearly, not 1o mention to avoid. In theofogical terms we could speak of the negative dimension of ethos as involving aspects of original sin. “Though ethnacentrison may be abit like orignal sin fn that wi inborn and to some extent irremovable, this faet does pot condemn us to 2 moral fataksm or deter- minis, We do need, however, to take special pains to mitigate its negative effects, sad this frankly has been for far too long a neglected aspect of methodol. ogy in ethics. In this respect the mutual exchange envisioned by crosecultural ethics can play an important role in both identifying our individual and collective oral blind spots and challenging us to heed voices we otherwise might tend to dlscount : Finally, by way of summary { would highlight four indispensable conditions for a methodology of erossculcural Chistian exhies. The fist condition would be the dialogical conversion {discussed briefly above, In order 10 enter Into this sort, ‘of dialogue, we mnust humbly admit that definitely we do not have al the answers, and that our way of secing something is not the onty way. An intrinsic part ofthis Conversion to dialogue ieaccepting and believing our partners as equals in the con- sersation. and this meais we aust be ready co sten 25 well 25 to speak. ‘The second condition I see as absolutely necessary is coating to learn the (sown terms, by utilizing both a “thick” description of ethics and This wil involve a combination other eutureo what Scheeiter terms “intercultural hermeneutics 21. my-coteiizton” I mean someting kin 0 Jeficy Sous noon of mor cree uch he sls mh fer at Te Lng of or ed Pe Drones Cone: Bescon Pea). For an cxanpe Sf how esses Se ou ne cal mai, Jaen. tay The como {odin CrosCaltora Respective: might om the Cenfian Mora Canty Sn etiane, is € tbe Connon Good Aa bao othe alge Theslony Scie wll James Dons an Merese Moser Qiguc Cen. Tard oncom 1 R08 29Joserranune Journ oF TaHkowoor Vol. 10, No. 2! 2003 of study and experience, done with alot of reflection, discernment, and patience. Any attempe to rush to judgment will most probably result arrival ata sue ‘ment. Acceptance ofthis criterion of cultural reciprocity lets in tura to a third ‘condition, 2 radical openness to accept 2 newer approach for doing moral philos- ‘ophy and/or Christian ethics than has been traditionally the case in the West, Recognition and acceptance of the possibility of doing eur moral theology in another way isan important condition for incutueating Chestin ethics, a well developing 2 viable framework for cross-cultural ethics. AA final condition would be a greater respeet and consideration for the sacred texts and traditions of the groups involved. In Fast Asia, for example, tis ‘would mean respect for and study of taxldhism and-Confactani A ntive ea ing of these traditions oa simplistic acceptance or rejection of such sucved texts will only impede a genuine inculturation of Christan ethis. At the same cine, however, we must aso affirm that the key sacred text forall Christians isthe Bible ‘Any Chistian ethics that is not biblically nourished runs the grave risk of remain ing tied to one pasticuar time and place, and moreover, wil Find i impossible 10 logue with people of other cultures involve in evangelization, che process of ‘hearing and responding to the Good News prezehed to all nen and women in all times and in al cultures. If these conditions are recognized and adopted. then Tbe have made an important frst step in developing a coherent and practical method ‘ology for adapting our Chostian ethics to many of the challenges pened by: our ‘contemporary world. Cross-Cultural ethics not meant to sqpemsadc oF FepLAEE al the other imporant fields of fundamental moral theokgr or Christian ethics. Rather, I have hoped to demonstrate simply that crowscultural eties sands within the best tradition of Christan ethics and/or moral theology. and that this ‘cross-cultural ethics is field dhat merits greater atention inthe future. 22, For additional reflections on this point, sce Headnk M, Vroom Reigns Hermeneutics, Culture and Naraivs,” Studies in Intereigaues Dikegte 4 A991). 199213, 260