This dissertation examines how the practical-critical soteriology of Edward Schillebeeckx constructs its interpretation of the connection between emancipation and salvation. I elaborate the extent and manner in which sociopolitical emancipation is intrinsic to and constitutive for salvation in Schillebeeckx' practical-critical soteriology. I then pursue the different mediations Schillebeeckx assigns to practical-critical soteriology in sustaining a progressive political praxis. How are emancipation and salvation related to each other, and how is their interaction constructed by the practical-critical soteriology of Schillebeeckx? In the introduction, I delineate the body of primary literature which forms the basis for this study of Schillebeeckx' practical-critical soteriology. I also indicate why this study is pertinent in relation to existing commentary on Schillebeeckx' soteriology. In chapter one, I establish the practical-critical definition of Schillebeeckx' soteriology. Practical-critical soteriology identifies the kind of discourse Schillebeeckx endorses in drawing out the repercussions of the connection between salvation and emancipation. Schillebeeckx differentiates between soteriology and christology in order to accentuate the distinctness of practical-critical soteriology. In chapter two, I examine the intrinsic and constitutive connection between emancipation and salvation in Schillebeeckx' practical-critical soteriology. Schillebeeckx establishes the basis for their constitutive interdependence based on an extensive consideration of biblical resources. The most significant resource, in this regard, is his reading of the lifepraxis, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is the interdependence between the lifepraxis and the resurrection of Jesus that animates the dialectic between emancipation and salvation. In chapter three, I explore the role of social theory as a mediation which is central to practical-critical soteriology in its effort to orient the communication of love through a liberating political praxis. In chapter four, I examine the mediation of the sociopolitical imagination in assisting practical-critical soteriology to articulate the repercussions of eschatological faith for a liberating political praxis. In chapter five, I examine the account of sociopolitical institutions at work in Schillebeeckx' practical-critical soteriology. This chapter on sociopolitical agencies attempts to delineate two independent yet complementary lines of institutional agency capable of sustaining a progressive political praxis. In the conclusion, I advance some elements towards a critique of Schillebeeckx' practical-critical soteriology. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

The task we have set ourselves is the investigation of the canonical repercussions of a controversial procedure, namely, the removal of artificially assisted feeding and hydration from an unconscious patient resulting in the patient's death. Life-support systems, including assisted feeding and hydration, are able to keep a person alive indefinitely, and the moment of death is often a matter of someone's decision and action. While the problem is not entirely new, there has been little canonical reflection on its implications. The Church's teaching on the sanctity of life is reflected in canon law, and the Code of Canon Law provides penalties and other canonical effects for homicide and abortion. There has been considerable interest in the crime of abortion, but little attention has been given to the crime of homicide, in spite of the fact that medical personnel frequently take steps to end life. This issue of the removal of artificially assisted feeding and hydration from an unconscious patient has been intensely debated by moral theologians and has been the subject of bishops' statements in many countries, particularly the United States of America. Many of these statements have been about specific cases involving Catholic patients and Catholic hospitals. These cases are significant in the light of the worldwide movement to promote euthanasia, and legislatures in several countries have debated and sometimes passed laws allowing for euthanasia. If there is to be a role for Church law in the protection of life, a review of the doctrine of homicide is opportune. Accordingly, we propose to investigate the canonical crime of homicide in the light of a controversial issue. The question we intend to address is: does the canonical crime of homicide apply to the withdrawal of assisted feeding and hydration? If so, to whom does it apply, and in what circumstances? In Chapter One we will study theological reflection on the issue. In Chapter Two we will survey relevant papal and episcopal teaching regarding the preservation of life and the principles that allow for exceptions to the duty to prolong life. Chapter Three will investigate the canonical crime of homicide. The ambit of our inquiry will be limited to the question of imputability, and we will not take up the related issues of canonical process or penalties unless they help clarify aspects of imputability.

Abstract Not Available.

Abstract Not Available.

Abstract Not Available.

Abstract Not Available.

Abstract Not Available.

The issues of political sovereignty and self-government that preoccupies so many aboriginal peoples today were also central when Innocent IV began his deliberations about the right of non-Christian peoples to dominium, the right to exercise political power and to own property. The question for both Innocent IV and Hostiensis was: did non-Christian peoples have de iure dominium? Innocent IV, basing his argument on natural law, affirmed the universal human right of peoples to political sovereignty. Hostiensis, arguing from a theological base, denied de iure dominium to all non-Christian peoples. Because they both supported the Church's mission to evangelize the nations their theories differed little when it came to implementation. In the era of European colonial expansion the issue of dominium was shunted aside in favour of working out relations among the colonial powers themselves. In this context of inevitable European expansionism, the papacy, including Alexander VI, tried to carry out a two-fold ministry of protecting and evangelizing the newly discovered peoples. Alexander's solution was to use the conflict and rivalry between the colonizing powers, and the mechanism of a line of demarcation, to ensure for the Church a space for evangelization. This overriding missionary concern of the papacy was confronted with new ideological challenges during the pontificate of Paul III. Paul III affirmed the humanity of the Indian peoples and defended aspects of dominium, but within the sphere of Iberian political sovereignty. He did this principally because an authentic response to the Gospel message required freedom on the part of those receiving it. Thus justice issues were seen as subordinated to, and as necessary conditions for, the work of evangelization. Leo XIII and his successors took the issue of universal natural rights for granted. In doing so they brought Catholic social teaching on slavery into line with modern teaching and practice. More importantly, Leo XIII began to treat human rights concerns as issues in themselves, and not just as necessary conditions for the successful reception of the Gospel. Leo also retrieved a fuller understanding of dominium. A review of this Catholic social teaching as applied to "minorities," and particularly to "aboriginal peoples," from Leo XIII to John Paul II reveals both continuity and innovation. The earlier overriding concern for evangelization has definitely continued. What is new is that issues of justice, development, and more recently, liberation, are now seen as integral to, and constitutive of, evangelization. This shift occurred principally during the pontificates of John XXIII, and Paul VI. In the pontificate of John Paul II, a growing ecological consciousness has influenced the teaching on the rights of aboriginal peoples. I submit that the Vatican has recognized the special relationship that aboriginal peoples have with the land. Thus the right to an adequate land base for indigenous peoples has been supported in a unique way by linking it with the fundamental right to life. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

Abstract Not Available.

Abstract Not Available.