A Defense of the Command/Counsel Distinction Based on Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7
As a two-tiered ethic is typically articulated, all Christians are required to live the commandments, but only some live the counsels. As a result, a kind of minimalistic ethic grows up around the laity, whereas religious are called to a higher holiness. After Vatican II’s universal call to holiness...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artigo |
| Idioma: | English |
| Publicado em: |
The Journal of Moral Theology, Inc.
2021-06-01
|
| Colecção: | Journal of Moral Theology |
| Acesso em linha: | https://jmt.scholasticahq.com/article/24530-a-defense-of-the-command-counsel-distinction-based-on-matthew-19-and-1-corinthians-7 |
| Resumo: | As a two-tiered ethic is typically articulated, all Christians are required to live the commandments, but only some live the counsels. As a result, a kind of minimalistic ethic grows up around the laity, whereas religious are called to a higher holiness. After Vatican II’s universal call to holiness, two-tiered ethics no longer makes sense, and moral theologians do not speak of commands and counsels. To use the command/counsel distinction would seem to bring back two-tiered ethics and all that is assumed to be bad about pre-Vatican II ethics. The purpose of this paper is to defend the command/counsel distinction. I argue that, though the rise of two-tiered ethics is related to the use of the command/counsel distinction historically, the connection is only true if one assumes a morality of obligation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2166-2851 2166-2118 |