12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
Taking part in secular discussion is difficult for a Christian philosopher. An approach that has often been favoured by Catholic philosophers is to attempt to engage at a level of pure reason using natural law concepts. This paper argues that such an approach sells us short and represents a failure to engage in secular discussion on equal terms and a failure to give adequate witness to the teachings of Christ. The paper seeks to argue that while it is not true that reason has a wax nose, as former Cardial Ratzinger argued, there is a role for faith-derived concepts in secular discussion and for encouraging others to share their view whether faith based or not, and for subjecting those concepts to the scrutiny afforded by rational analysis in an effort to achieve an identified common ground of human goodness that both transcends individual culture and belief but has its individual origins within the disparate cultures and traditions.
The original version of this paper was delivered to a conference at the University of Notre Dame on the theme “Truth and Faith in Ethics”, Sydney, June 27th June 2008.
2 O’Malley, John W., Four Cultures of the West (London: Harvard University Press, 2004) 7Google Scholar.
3 Rowland, Tracey, Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI” OUP 2008, p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger An address to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, “Current Situation of Faith and Theology” (1996) http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/ratzsitu596.htmn Accessed 18th June 2008.
5 Pope John Paul II Fides et Ratio (1998) n. 4.
6 Ratzinger, Joseph “the Dignity of the Human Person” in Vorgrimler, Herbert (ed) Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II Vol V (Burns & Oates: London 1969), pp. 115–163Google Scholar.
7 Ibid.
8 “Sic ergo patet quod virtutes in nobis sunt a natura secundum aptitudinem et inchoationem, non autem secundum perfectionem: prater virtutes theologicas, quae sunt totaliter ab extrinseco”S. Aquinatis, Thomae Summa Theologiae (Marietti: Taurini/Romae 1952)Google Scholar Prima Secundae Partis Q. 63, Articulus I.
9 See for instance, Kerr, Fergus Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians (Blackwell: Oxford 2007) p. 179Google Scholar.
10 See for instance the approach taken by Beauchamp T L and Childress J F in successive editions of their Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, 2001, though the latter edition has tended to move away from autonomy as the dominant value toward a virtue approach.
11 NHMRC National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research Australian Government Canberra 2007 pp. 11–13Google Scholar.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Organ and Tissue Donation by Living Donors: Guidelines for Ethical Practice for health Professionals, Endorsed 15 March, 2007; Organ and Tissue Donation after Death, for Transplantation: Guidelines for Ethical Practice by health Professionals Endorsed 15 March, 2007.
15 National Health and Medical Research Council Ethical Guidelines for the Care of People in Post Coma Unresponsiveness (Vegetative State) or a Minimally Responsive State, Australian Government, Canberra, 2008 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e81_82syn.htm.
16 Charles Taylor “A Secular Age” Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts 2007.
17 Australian Bureau of Statistics Marriages Australia 2005 Document No. 3306.0.55.001 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3306.0.55.001 Accessed 1st April 2008.
18 European Commission “Social values, Science and Technology”Eurobarometer 2005 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf Accessed 1st April 2008.
19 Dworkin, Ronald, Life's Dominion (New York: Knopf, 1993), 164Google Scholar.
20 Black v. The Commonwealth, (1981) HCA 2, (1981) 146 CLR 559 (2 February 1981), at 579, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1981/2.html.
21 I am indebted to John Fleming in a chapter we co-authored entitled “Seeking a Consensus” in Fleming, John and Tonti-Filippini, Nicholas (Eds) Common Ground? Seeking an Asutralian Consensus on Abortion and Sex Education St Paul Publications 2007 pp. 312–330Google Scholar.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Michael Hogan, “Separation of Church and State?” (16 May 2001), http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2001/05/hogan.html.
26 Rawls, John, ‘The Idea of Public Reason Revisited’ in Rawls, John, The Law of Peoples (1999) Harvard University Press 1999Google Scholar.
