Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition by Christopher Kaczor (review)

BOOK REVIEWS Proportionalism and the Natural Law Tradition. By CHRISTOPHER KACZOR. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002. Pp. x + 228. $49.95 (doth). ISBN 0-8132-1093-3. In 1989 Richard McCormick observed that a shift had occurred in Catholic moral theology. A "revisionist" perspective on moral analysis, known as "proportionalism," had emerged among Catholic ethicists. Briefly stated, proportionalism is a method for determining the moral rightness or wrongness of actions and for identifying exceptions to moral norms. McCormick further asserted that most Catholic moral theologians embrace some form of proportionahsm. Whether or not this second assertion is still valid, proportionalism remains deeply influential. Yet, does proportionalism mark a renewal of moral theology, as revisionist theologians claim, or is it a corruption? In his insightful and well-written analysis of proportionalism, Christopher Kaczor attempts to answer this question. Kaczor begins his study by describing proportionalism as understood by its proponents (ch. 1). He offers the reader a sympathetic account of proportionalism's inherent attractiveness as a solution to the problems facing moral theology. He then considers proportionalism's relationship to the manuals of moral theology (ch. 2). Although many revisionists see proportionalism as rejecting the manuals and returning to the thought of Aquinas, Kaczor holds instead that proportionalism develops aspects of manualist thought that diverge sharply from Aquinas. Kaczor explains that although proportionalists reach a number of conclusions that manualists would reject, proportionalism is rooted in the moral psychology of the manuals and develops features latent in it. Specifically, proportionalism's view of intention, the central place it affords double-effect reasoning, and even its understanding of proportion all resemble the dominant manuahst perspective on moral analysis. Kaczor next offers an admirable sketch of Aquinas's theory of action, emphasizing the difference between intended and foreseen consequences. This enables Kaczor to compare Thomistic and proportionalist ways of analyzing specific cases and to introduce his initial criticisms of the proportionalist perspective (ch. 3). In the remaining chapters, Kaczor considers features of human action that proportionalists themselves consider fundamentally important: the object of the human act (ch. 4), the character of practical reasoning (chs. 5 and 6), and the nature of moral 481 482 BOOK REVIEWS norms (ch. 7). In these latter chapters Kaczor develops his case against the thesis that proportionalism is a renewal of moral theology. He argues instead that proportionalism harnesses the terminology of the "natural law tradition" only to undermine its core conclusions. Instead of effecting a harmonious evolution in Catholic moral thought, proportionalism marks a revolution that overturns the tradition's fundamental principles. In considering the initial "plausibility ofproportionalism," Kaczor introduces the principal protagonists (Knauer, Janssens, Schuller, Fuchs, McCormick, etc.), and places them in the context of their contribution to proportionahsm's development. This first chapter is slender, yet it sketches accurately proportionalism's central concepts: pre-moral good and evil, proportionate reason, the rightness/goodness distinction, deontology vs. teleology, the question of intrinsically evil acts and of exception!ess moral norms. Kaczor covers ground here familiar to anyone who has followed the debate. His account is dear and well structured. Those unfamiliar with proportionalism will find this chapter an accessible introduction to it. Kaczor's account of the relationship between proportionalism and the tradition of the manuals is perhaps his most important contribution to the contemporary discussion. Without downplaying the differences between proportionalists and the manuals, Kaczor traces convincingly how the proportionalist perspective presupposes a manuahst conception of human agency. In portraying the manualist roots of proportionalism, Kaczor also underlines how both these perspectives differ from Aquinas. First, there is the issue of double-effect reasoning. Aquinas only employs double-effect reasoning once, in a single article of the Secunda Secundae, where it enables him to appiy in a particular case (self-defense) the more fundamental principles he introduced in the Prima Secundae. Both marmalists and proportionalists, however, place double-effect reasoning at the center of their thought, transforming double-effect reasoning itselfinto a fundamental principle, whether this be the "principle of double-effect," or the "principle of proportionate reason." Second, manuahsts and proportionalists share similar conceptions of proportionality. For both, the relevant proportion is between the good and bad effects of...