This paper examines the Second Vatican Council's declaration that Scripture should serve as the soul of moral theology, tracing how Catholic moral theology has evolved in its use of biblical sources. Drawing on Charles Curran's critique of pre-Vatican II proof-texting, Blankenhorn's analysis of two competing paradigms of Catholic moral thought, and Osborne's treatment of ecclesiology and apostolicity, the paper argues that authentic moral theology must be rooted in Scripture and the teachings of Jesus rather than in human reason alone, philosophical systems, or personal conscience. The paper concludes that any moral theology derived primarily from human will or Greek philosophical frameworks risks serious error.
The paper demonstrates effective use of secondary theological sources to reconstruct an intellectual debate. By contrasting pre-Vatican II proof-texting with post-Vatican II appeals to conscience, the author shows how a single doctrinal issue (the role of Scripture) plays out differently across historical and philosophical contexts — a technique common in systematic theology and religious studies writing.
The paper opens with a framing introduction that establishes the Vatican II directive and Curran's critique of earlier practice. Two major body sections follow, organized around distinct scholars: Blankenhorn's paradigm analysis addresses catechesis and conscience, while Osborne's section addresses ecclesiology and apostolicity. A brief conclusion restates the thesis with normative force. The structure is source-driven rather than argument-driven, making it accessible as a literature synthesis at the undergraduate level.
The Second Vatican Council declared that Scripture should be the soul of moral theology. According to the work of Curran (1999), Catholic moral theology "has only recently begun to ask explicit questions about the use of Scripture in moral theology. In the manuals of moral theology before Vatican II, the primary source of moral wisdom and knowledge was human reason, and the Scriptures were often used in a very uncritical way, primarily as proof texts to support a point that was grounded in human reason" (p. 49).
Curran reports an example of this "uncritical use of Scripture" in the question of killing an individual who threatens one's life. It has been proposed by some manualists that one could, as a last resort, kill a person who insulted one by attacking one's honor, especially if the person attacked was a noble person (Curran, 1999, p. 49). Curran notes how "culturally conditioned realities of hierarchy and honor operate in this justification" (1999, p. 49). Justification was sought through use of Scripture that speaks of how the tongue is more harmful than the sword. However, Innocent XI, "without commenting on this text, condemned the possibility of justly killing the attacker of one's honor even as a last resort" (Curran, 1999, p. 49).
Curran reports that moral theology today acknowledges the necessity of assigning to Scripture "a greater role in its development" (1999, p. 49). This recognition was "made explicitly at Vatican II"; however, before that time, the renowned German theologian Bernard Häring, who taught in Rome, had already posited a "more biblically centered approach in his groundbreaking systematic moral theology — The Law of Christ" (Curran, 1999, p. 49).
Blankenhorn (2007) reports that everyone is "to some extent the product" of their culture and, whether they like it or not, they are "influenced by modern developments in theology, philosophy, science, and historical studies" (p. 1). Blankenhorn notes that the older generation was raised "with a catechesis that emphasized the Ten Commandments" (2007, p. 1). However, the younger generation is reported to have been raised "with a catechesis that did not emphasize the Ten Commandments, and perhaps not much else either" (2007, p. 1).
Blankenhorn states that while one might believe that "these two forms of catechesis are utterly opposed in their basic philosophies," and while this is true to some extent, he proposes that "in one sense, both forms of catechesis spring from the same root" (2007, p. 1). According to Blankenhorn, the moral thinking of ancient Christians was quite different from either of these types. He relates that the first known catechetical text is the Didache (c. 110 A.D.), which reflects very old traditions probably going back to the middle of the first century:
"The Didache is striking in that it combines a very rigorous set of rules that are clearly based on the Ten Commandments with numerous allusions to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. The Didache makes it clear that murder, theft, and abortion are unthinkable acts for a Christian, while almsgiving is not optional for those who are not poor. Intertwined with these precepts are exhortations to pray and fast for one's enemies. The Didache is not interested in presenting a list of minimum requirements for Christian behavior." (Blankenhorn, 2007, p. 1)
Blankenhorn relates that "the pattern we find in the Didache can be detected throughout ancient Christianity. Much of the catechetical instruction of ancient bishops and priests took place in the context of their Sunday sermons. This means that their ethical instructions were almost always based on biblical stories, especially the Gospels. The teaching and example of Jesus became the primary foundation of ancient Christian morality" (2007, p. 1). Blankenhorn reports that the resolution of hard ethical questions in the minds of ancient Christians was answered not by asking "What would Jesus do?" but rather "What did Jesus do?" (2007, p. 1).
However, according to Blankenhorn, a synthesis of the stories of the actions of Jesus and the Old Testament precepts is not easy (2007, p. 1). He reports that many of the Church Fathers and early theologians "found a very handy model in pagan philosophy that enabled them to integrate these distinct sources. The model is none other than the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. The virtues are habitual dispositions to use the mind, will, and emotions well. Prudence is the habit of finding the best means to the end; justice is the habit of treating my neighbor with fairness; temperance is the habit of enjoying the good things of life in moderation; and fortitude is the habit of overcoming fear in order to stand up to injustice" (Blankenhorn, 2007, p. 1).
Osborne (2009) writes that "the theological foundation for holiness led many pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic theologians to argue that the holiness in the church is ontological. The ontological sanctity of the church is, therefore, the foundation for the moral or lived-out holiness of the church" (p. 109). From this view, "ecclesial holiness provides an ontological foundation for ethical holiness" (Osborne, 2009, p. 109). However, it is also clear from this point of view that "any call to change major structures in the church implicitly calls into question the ontological holiness of the church itself" (Osborne, 2009, p. 109).
Osborne notes that according to Salaverri, "apostolicity is the church's unending identity with the mission that Christ gave his apostles when he instituted the church" (Osborne, 2009, p. 111). According to Salaverri, there is a three-fold meaning to apostolicity:
(1) Apostolicity of origin is not simply a general identity but rather an essential identity between the constitution of today's Catholic Church and the constitution that was given by Jesus to the apostles at a definite point in history. Only accidental modifications of this constitution are possible for the benefit of their respective communities.
(2) Apostolicity of doctrine is the objective and specific historical identity of the doctrine in today's church with the deposit of doctrine received and handed down by the apostles.
(3) Apostolicity of succession means that there is a historical identity between the leadership in today's church and the leadership of the apostles. This identical leadership involves the power to teach, sanctify, and govern the Church, and this power has been passed on historically by a legitimate form of succession. (Osborne, 2009, p. 112)
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.