Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T06:07:42.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Faith, Praxis, and Practical Theology: At the Interface of Sociology and Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

Michael G. Lawler
Affiliation:
Creighton University

Abstract

This essay is an exercise in practical theology, the theological reflection arising out of and in response to the church's actual situation. Practical theology insists that it is not enough to analyze the church's actual situation with deductive, ahistorical theological principles, but that it is necessary, first, to uncover and, then, reflect critically on the actual situation to test it for the presence of the Spirit, relevance, and significance in light of the gospel. Practical theology grows out of the relationship between theoria and praxis which, for the church, is the relationship between faith and praxis. The essay argues that to recognize scientifically the church's actual situation and to perform the required theological reflection practical theology requires sociology.

The essay explores, therefore, the relationship between practical theology and the data of sociological research. It also examines the theological realities, sensus fidei and reception, and explores their relationship to that data. The exploration is concretized theologically by a consideration of the sociological data and theology about two Catholic moral doctrines, divorce and remarriage without prior annulment and artificial contraception. A theological reflection on the actual situation of both doctrines and a sociological consideration of the data suggest the conclusion that a dramatic development and re-reception of both doctrines, in line with previous dramatic developments of doctrine in the church, is under way.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rahner, Karl, “Practical Theology Within the Totality of Theological Disciplines,” Theological Investigations, 9 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1972): 102.Google Scholar Emphasis in original.

2 Ibid, 105.

3 See, for instance, Gill, Robin, Theology and Sociology: A Reader (London: Cassell, 1996)Google Scholar; Martin, David, Reflections on Sociology and Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Browning, Don S., A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Proposals (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991).Google Scholar

4 See Thiel, John E., Senses of Tradition: Continuity and Development in the Catholic Faith (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 100–18.Google Scholar

5 Gaudium et Spes §62.

6 Lonergan, Bernard J. F., “Moral Theology and the Human Sciences,” Method: Journal of Lonergan Studies 15 (1997): 520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Peter L. Berger, “Sociological and Theological Perspectives,” in Gill, 97. Emphasis in original.

8 In this essay, I embrace the ambiguity of the word virtual, and argue that it can be specified only by dialogue and consensus in the church. I have no doubt that 86% of any population is virtually all of it, but is 80% or 75% or 68%? Only dialogue and consensus can decide.

9 The foundational work on reception was done by Congar, Yves, “La réception comme réalité ecclésiologique,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 56 (1972): 369403Google Scholar, and Grillmeier, Alois, “Konzil und Rezeption: Methodische Bemerkungen zu einem Thema der ökumenischen Discussion der Gegenwart,” Theologie und Phisolophie 45 (1970): 321–52.Google Scholar See additional bibliography in Gaillardetz, Richard R., Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium in the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 252–53.Google Scholar

10 See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, §§1120Google Scholar; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, , Mysterium Ecclesiae 5Google Scholar, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 65 (1973): 402–03; Zizioulas, John, “The Theological Problem of Reception,” Centro Pro Unione, 26 (Fall 1984): 6.Google Scholar

11 Pottmeyer, Herman J., “A New Phase in the Reception of Vatican II: Twenty Years of Interpretation of the Council,” in Alberigo, Giuseppe, Jossua, Jean-Pierre, and Komonchak, Joseph A., eds., The Reception of Vatican II (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987), 2743.Google Scholar

12 Alberigo, Giuseppe, “The Christian Situation after Vatican II,” in Reception of Vatican II, 3.Google Scholar

13 Jerome, , Dialogus Contra Luciferianos, 19Google Scholar, PL 23, 172.

14 Yves Congar lists a series of examples of reception in his classic essay, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality,” in Alberigo, Giuseppe and Weiler, Anton, eds., Election and Consensus in the Church, Concilium 77 (1972): 4558.Google Scholar

15 Zizioulas, 4.

16 Noonan, John T. Jr., “Development in Moral Doctrine,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Denzinger, H. and Schoenmetzer, A., eds., Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum (Freiburg: Herder, 1965), 906.Google Scholar Cited hereafter as DS.

18 DS 716.

19 DS 753.

20 Noonan, 664.

21 Cited in Curran, Charles E., “Authority and Dissent in the Roman Catholic Church,” in May, William W., ed., Vatican Authority and American Catholic Dissent (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 29.Google Scholar

22 Pius IX, Quanta Cura, in Carlen, Claudia I.H.M., The Papal Encyclicals 1740–1878 (Raleigh, NC: McGrath Publishing, 1981), 383.Google Scholar

23 Tierney, Brian, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 277.Google Scholar

24 Unitatis Redintegratio, §3.

25 Örsy, Ladislas M., “Reception of Law,” in McBrien, Richard P., ed., Encyclopedia of Catholicism (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1995), 1082.Google Scholar

26 Farley, Margaret A., “Moral Discourse in the Public Arena,” in Vatican Authority and American Catholic Dissent, 177.Google Scholar

28 Thiel, 47.

29 Newman, John Henry, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961), 73.Google Scholar

30 Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium Primum 2Google ScholarPubMed, PL 50, 640.

31 Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae, IIa–IIae, 2, 3, ad 2.Google Scholar See Guibert, J. de, “A propos des textes de Saint Thomas sur la foi qui discerne,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 9 (1919): 3044Google Scholar; Joyce, C. H., “La foi qui discerne d'après Saint Thomas,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 6 (1916): 433–55.Google Scholar

32 Cited in Dulles, Avery, “Sensus Fidelium,” America, 1 November 1986, p. 240.Google Scholar

33 DS 3074.

34 Augustine, , De Praed. Sanct., 14Google Scholar, 27, PL 44, 980.

35 Lumen Gentium §12. Emphasis added.

36 Familiaris Consortio §5. Emphasis added.

37 Pottmeyer, 30.

38 Augustine, , De Baptismo, VII, 53Google Scholar, PL 43, 243.

39 Pope Leo the Great, Epist. 14, 2, PL 54, 672.

40 Pope Gelasius, , Epist. XIII, PL 59, 63.Google Scholar

41 See Bartelink, Gerard, “The Use of the Words Electio and Consensus in the Church (Until about 600),” Concilium 77 (1972): 147–54.Google Scholar

42 Flannery, Austin, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Postconciliar Documents (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 363.Google Scholar

43 Sullivan, Francis A., Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1985), 164.Google Scholar

44 Congar, , “Reception,” 60.Google Scholar

45 See, e.g., Tillard, Jean-Marie R., Church of Churches: The Ecclesiology of Communion (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Lawler, Michael G. and Shanahan, Thomas J., Church: A Spirited Communion (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Doyle, Dennis M., Communion Ecclesiology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000).Google Scholar

46 Congar, , “Reception,” 62.Google Scholar

47 Kilmartin, Edward, “Reception in History: An Ecclesiological Phenomenon and Its Significance,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 21 (1984): 34.Google Scholar

48 Lumen Gentium §12.

49 Kasper, Walter, Theology and Church (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 1.Google Scholar

50 See Mysterium Ecclesiae §5.

51 Gaudium et Spes §4.

52 Ibid., §62.

53 Ibid., §36.

54 Ibid., §62.

55 Familiaris Consortio §5.

56 Martin, 69.

57 Gill, Robin, Churchgoing and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Emphasis added.

58 Lumen Gentium §12.

59 Pius, XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 35 (1943): 297325Google Scholar; Pontifical Biblical Commission, Instructio De Historica Evangeliorum Veritate, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964): 712–18Google Scholar; Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, in Flannery, 750–65; Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Origins, 6 January 1994.Google Scholar

60 Ibid., 512.

61 Dei Verbum §19. Emphasis added.

62 This word means to interpret, to place a certain meaning on. I use it to insinuate two connected meanings: first, the character of the theologian, professional or otherwise, as construction worker, one who constructs a certain meaning for things; second, the character of all theology as construction, both that theology which preceded the construal of the scripture and that theology which followed after and was dependent upon those scriptures.

63 Interpretation, 520.

64 See Rahner, Karl, “Current Problems in Christology,” Theological Investigations, 1 (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1965): 150.Google Scholar

65 Dulles, 242.

66 McNamara, Patrick H., Conscience First: Tradition Second (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Ludwig, Robert A., Reconstructing Catholicism for a New Generation (New York: Crossroad, 1995)Google Scholar; D'Antonio, William V., Davidson, James D., Hoge, Dean R., Wallace, Ruth A., Laity American and Catholic: Transforming the Church (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward 1996)Google Scholar; Davidson, James D., Williams, Andrea S., Lamanna, Richard A., Stenftenagel, Jan, Weigert, Kathleen Maas, Whalen, William J., and Wittberg, Patricia, The Search for Common Ground: What Unites and Divides Catholic Americans (Huntingdon, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1997)Google Scholar; D'Antonio, William V., Davidson, James D., Hoge, Dean R., and Meyer, Katherine, American Catholics: Gender, Generation, and Commitment (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001)Google Scholar; Hoge, Dean R., Dinges, William D., Johnson, Mary, and Gonzales, Juan L. Jr., Young Adult Catholics: Religion in the Culture of Choice (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001).Google Scholar

67 D'Antonio, et al. , American Catholics, 43.Google Scholar

68 Ibid., 158.

69 Gallup, George H. Jr., Religion in America 1996 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Religion Research Center, 1996), 44.Google Scholar A national, random sample study by the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University of Catholics married between 1995 and 1999 found that only 12% had ever practiced the approved Catholic form of birth control, Natural Family Planning. See Center for Marriage and Family, Time, Sex, and Money: The First Five Years of Marriage (Omaha, NE: Creighton University, 2000), 26.Google Scholar

70 D'Antonio, et al. , American Catholics, 43.Google Scholar

71 Ibid. 76.

72 Hoge, et al. , Young Adult Catholics, 5960.Google Scholar

73 See, for instance, Fulton, John, ed., Young Catholics at the New Millennium: The Religion and Morality of Young Adults in Western Countries (Dublin: University College Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Buckley, Timothy J., What Binds Marriage?: Roman Catholic Theology in Practice (London: Chapman, 1997), 127.Google Scholar

74 See Wallerstein, Judith S. and Kelly, Joan B., Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce (New York: Basic Books, 1980)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, Judith S. and Blakeslee, Sandra, Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade After Divorce (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, Judith S., Lewis, Julia M., and Blakeslee, Sandra, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study (New York: Hyperion, 2000)Google Scholar; Cherlin, Andrew J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., and McRae, C., “Effects of Parental Divorce on Mental Health Throughout the Life Course,” American Sociological Review 63 (1988): 239–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zill, N. and Schoenborn, C., Developmental, Learning, and Emotional Problems: Health of Our Nation's Children, United States, 1988 (Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics, 1990).Google Scholar

75 Christensen, Harold T. and Barber, Kenneth E., “Interfaith versus Intrafaith Marriage in Indiana,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (1967): 461–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michael, Robert T., “Determinants of Divorce,” in Levy Garboua, L., ed., Sociological Economics (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979), 223–68.Google Scholar

76 McCarthy, Justin, “Religious Commitment, Affiliation, and Marriage Dissolution,” in Wuthnow, Robert, ed., The Religious Dimension: New Directions in Quantitative Research (New York: Academic Press, 1979), 179–97Google Scholar; Lehrer, Evelyn L. and Chiswick, Carmel U., “Religion as a Determinant of Marital Stability,” Demography 30 (1993): 385404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

77 Barna Research, “Born Again Adults Less Likely to Cohabit, Just as Likely to Divorce,” http://www.barna.org, August 6, 2001.Google Scholar

78 Hout, Michael, “Divorced and Remarried Catholics in the United States: Demography, Attachment, and Participation” (a working paper sent to me by the author; a summary version appeared in America, 16 December 2000).Google Scholar

79 D'Antonio, William V., “The American Catholic Laity in 1999,” National Catholic Reporter, 29 October 1999, p. 12.Google Scholar See also D'Antonio et al., American Catholics.

80 Hout, “Divorced and Remarried Catholics.”

81 Murphy, Francis X., “Of Sex and the Catholic Church,” Atlantic Monthly 247 (1981): 4445, 48–57.Google Scholar

82 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful,” Origins, 27 October 1994.Google Scholar

83 Collins, Raymond F., Divorce in the New Testament (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1992), 205.Google Scholar Those who desire to survey the opinions, may consult Fitzmyer, Joseph, “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence,” Theological Studies 37 (1976): 197226CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Myre, A., “Dix ans d'exégèse sur le divorce dans le Nouveau Testament,” in Le Divorce (Montréal: Fides, 1973).Google Scholar

84 See Lawler, Michael G., Marriage and Sacrament: A Theology of Christian Marriage (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993), 9293.Google Scholar

85 DS 1807 and footnote.

86 Familiaris Consortio §5.

87 See History of Vatican II, 3 vols, ed. Alberigo, Giuseppe, English version ed. Komonchak, Joseph A. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000).Google Scholar

88 Gaudium et Spes §50.

89 D'Antonio, et al. , Laity, 79.Google Scholar Corroborating evidence is supplied by Davidson, et al. , Search for Common Ground, 47.Google Scholar

90 See Greeley, Andrew M., McCready, William C., and McCourt, Kathleen, Catholic Schools in a Declining Church (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1976), 35Google Scholar; D'Antonio, et al. , Laity, 140Google Scholar; Davidson, et al. , Search for Common Ground, 131.Google Scholar

91 Hornsby-Smith, Michael, Roman Catholicism in England: Customary Catholicism and Transformation of Religious Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92 The foregoing information may be found in more detail in Murphy, 49–52.

93 Humanae Vitae §11 (Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Bishops).

94 Cited in Longley, Clifford, The Worlock Archive (London: Chapman, 2000), 233.Google Scholar Emphasis added.

95 See, e.g., Gallup, George Jr., and Castelli, Jim, The American Catholic People: Their Beliefs, Practices, and Values (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987)Google Scholar; Greeley et al., Catholic Schools in a Declining Church.

96 Augustine, , De Praed. Sanct., 14Google Scholar, 27, PL 44, 980. See also Lumen Gentium §12.

97 Rahner, , “Practical Theology,” 102.Google Scholar

98 The Tablet, 9 January 1993, p. 30.