The Possibility and Challenges of an Ethical and Moral Pluralism in the Church

Abstract

Nedvojbeno je da negativistički pristup religijskom i etičkom pluralizmu u modernom svijetu nema potporu u crkvenim dokumentima. Da li se isto može reći za moralni pluralizam unutar Katoličke crkve, na teorijskom ili praktičnom planu? Neki crkveni dokumenti postavljaju određene granice pluralizmu na ekumenskom planu s ciljem da on ne postane sinkretizam (»Dominus Iesus«), ali i moralnom pluralizmu, s ciljem da se spriječi relativiziranje naravnog zakona i apsolutiziranje individualne savjesti (»Veritatis splendor«). Analiza pojedinih dokumenata kao i pokušaja vodećih moralnih teologa da otvore vrata moralnom pluralizmu u Crkvi ne ukazuje na postojanje takve mogućnosti. Za pluralizam koji predmnijeva da je moguće legitimno naučavati i djelovati različito od nauka učiteljstva kada taj nauk zastupa istine za koje smatra da su dio naravnog moralnog zakona te donosi norme u svezi primjene tih načela u praksi teško je naći podlogu u nauku učiteljstva. Mogući je pluralitet razmišljanja o dosezima naravnog moralnog zakona, o tome što je narav i o njezinoj nepromjenjivosti. Na razini praktičnog djelovanja vjernika moguće je da postoji pluralitet ponašanja, kada pojedinac misli da to može opravdati svojom savješću, unutar tzv. »forum internum«, no ovo ne može nikada postati trajno «pravo« da se tako ponaša ili da se drugi tako ponašaju. To trenutačno »pravo« legitimno je ako on stremi prema objektivnoj istini.Without a doubt, the negative approach to religious and ethical pluralism in the modern world is not supported by Church documents. Can the same be said of moral pluralism within the Catholic Church, on the theoretical or practical level? Some Church documents taking into consideration the ecumenical plan, present defined limits for pluralism with the objective that pluralism might not become syncretism (»Dominus Iesus«), but also with regards to moral pluralism, preventing a relativisation of the natural law or (he absolute acceptance of (he individual conscience (»Veritatis splendor«). These possibilities does not seem to exist when taking into consideration relevant Church documents and the efforts by leading moral theologians to open the door to moral pluralism. A pluralism that presupposes that it is possible to legitimately teach and operate differently from the Church's teaching office becomes difficult to find a basis in these teachings when it represents the truth which the office considers to be a part of the natural moral law or and when it presents norms with respect to the practice of these teachings. It is possible to think in terms of pluralicity when considering the implications of natural moral law, and the question of human nature and its immutability. When considering the practical deeds of the believer it is possible that there exist a pluralicity of behaviour, that is, when the individual thinks he can justify something in his conscience, within the so-called »forum internum«. However, this can never become a permanent »right« that he behaves in such a manner or that others may behave in a similar way. This momently »right« is legitimate if it favours the objective truth