The survey addresses recent publications in five areas: (1) foundational resources and approaches; (2) Catholic social thought; (3) faith and public life; (4) reconciliation and social conflict; and (5) environmental and economic ethics. Recurring issues include: praxis-based approaches, the common good and human rights, religion's role in public life, restorative justice, as well as attention to the marginalized.]

O CTOGÉSIMA ADVENIENS, Paul VFs letter in 1971 to Maurice Cardinal Roy, 1 marked the eightieth anniversary of Rerum novarum. The letter, in particular its paragraph 4, was heralded as a central expression of a historically conscious methodology in magisterial teaching. Paul VI there highlighted the historically constituted nature of the social teaching of the Church, the role of the local community, and the difficulty as well as the undesirability of a single universal papal message or solution to problems. What has happened to this articulation of a historically conscious methodology in the last 20 years? One response to this question can be uncovered by tracing how and in which contexts this significant paragraph has been used in the encyclical teachings of John Paul Π.Although the historically constituted nature of the social teachings of the magisterium has already been documented, 2 one must remem ber first, that the works prior to Paul VI and Vatican Council II were not as devoid of historically conscious methodologies as some would like to believe, 3 and second, that Gaudium et spes and the writings of Paul VI were not as historically conscious as proponents would like to maintain. 4 Documentation has demonstrated, however, that the en cyclical writings of John Paul II intentionally stray from the earlier emerging articulation of a historically conscious methodology 5 in pref-1 Paul VI, "Octogésima adveniens," Acta Apostolícete Sedis 63 (1971) 401-44.

Commentators have concluded that frequent reference in Veritatis splendor to Gaudium et spes demonstrates a continuity of thought with the pastoral constitution, characteristic of a reiterative model of the use of prior magisterial teaching, one continuous teaching applied to additional issues. Recent centuries have shown that the encyclical teachings are often a vehicle for papal reinterpretation or recontextualization of previous teachings. This paper contends that the use of Gaudium et spes in Veritatis splendor follows this second model. The study demonstrates: first, that the theological anthropology of Gaudium et spes is recast in a dualist, individualist concept in Veritatis splendor, and second, that Veritatis splendor has re-contextualized quotations from Gaudium et spes on change, conscience, human autonomy, and human anthropology into teachings on law and precept. Thirdly, reliance on selective wording from Gaudium et spes enables Veritatis splendor to transform the role of the moral theologian into that of exclusively a disseminator of magisterial teaching.

But unlike secular humanism, theological humanism understands human well-being to include the ability to establish a relationship with "the divine or sacred as the source and scope of goodness" (202) and insists on the role of conscience as intrinsic to human flourishing. S. argues that conscience and responsibility are essential to theological humanism (chaps. 7-9). For him, conscience is neither simple self-authenticity, nor "the psychic tribunal where one stands nakedly before a divine judge" ( 147), but the capacity to discern responsibility in complex situations.Theological humanism, like secular humanism, accepts the claim that as social animals, we form our identity through relationships. But unlike secular humanism, it rejects mere "lateral transcendence" (i.e., merely being in relation with other humans), in favor of a more expansive understanding of human identity as being in relation with others and with God. For S., secular humanism actually contributes to the process of overhumanization precisely because it denies the ultimate ground of human existence and reduces human value to the purely anthropocentric realm.Like so many explorations of global ethics, S. writes from a First World perspective and for an academic audience. Although he shows deep sympathy for the plight of the Two-Thirds World , the voice and insight of the world's poor is missing from his analysis. Adding their voice, narratives, and metaphors could only enrich this significant contribution to the ethics of globalization. S. has advanced this field beyond the prescriptive and proscriptive level. He models a methodology for a thoroughly religious global ethic that can function in a pluralistic setting. While the method is not yet fully formed, S. provides a sorely needed theoretical foundation.

No abstract