Brian Hamilton-Vise

Achristological ethics

It really is odd that the medievals appeal so rarely to the life of Jesus in their general discussions of ethics, and particularly in the context of their discussions of law (law being part of the scholastics’ fundamental ethical vocabulary, a much broader concept than it is today). Secular and canon lawyers alike, along of course with theologians, were more than willing to invoke Scripture as a normative source for law, so it can’t be explained by a reticence to invoke ‘revelation’ in ‘public’ formulations. In Natural and Divine Law, Jean Porter tries to defend them by arguing that no decent Christology can stand without a good doctrine of creation (pp. 171–2)–which is a fine point, but it still fails to give any reason for Jesus’ near-total absence.

Jesus seems to appear only in two places: (1) as the source of the Golden Rule and the love commandments, which are frequently touted as the basic axioms of the natural law; and (2) as the author and example of the ‘counsels of perfection,’ applicable mainly (though not only) to vowed religious.

4 July 2009 | Comments (0)
Tags: Medievals, Natural Law