Jump to content

Casuistry

From Catholicism Wiki
File:Le grand docteur sophiste, maistre Thubal Holoferne.jpg
Le grand docteur sophiste, 1886 illustration of Gargantua by Albert Robida, expressing mockery of his casuist education

Casuistry (/ˈkæzjuɪstri/ KAZ-ew-iss-tree) is a process of reasoning for resolving an ethical dilemma (moral problem) either by extracting or by extending abstract rules from a particular case of conscience, and reapplying those abstract rules to other, different ethical dilemmas.[1] Casuistry is a method of reasoning common to applied ethics and jurisprudence. Moreover, in philosophy, the term casuistry is a pejorative criticism of the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in ethical questions, as in the case of sophistry.[2] As a method of reasoning, casuistry is both the:

Study of cases of conscience and a method of solving conflicts of obligations by applying general principles of ethics, religion, and moral theology to particular and concrete cases of human conduct. This frequently demands an extensive knowledge of natural law and equity, civil law, ecclesiastical precepts, and an exceptional skill in interpreting these various norms of conduct...[3]

Etymology

The term casuistry and the noun "casuist" date from 1600 and derive from the Latin noun casus, case, as used in the phrase a "case of conscience", and the usual sense of the usage was pejorative.[4]

History

Casuistry dates from Aristotle (384–322 BC), and the peak of casuistry was from 1550 to 1650, when the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) used casuistic reasoning, particularly in administering the Sacrament of Penance (or "confession").[5] The term became pejorative following Blaise Pascal's attack on the misuse of the method in his Provincial Letters (1656–57).[6] The French mathematician, religious philosopher and Jansenist sympathiser attacked priests who used casuistic reasoning in confession to pacify wealthy church donors. Pascal charged that "remorseful" aristocrats could confess a sin one day, re-commit it the next, then generously donate to the church and return to re-confess their sin, confident that they were being assigned a penance in name only. These criticisms darkened casuistry's reputation in the following centuries. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary quotes a 1738 essay[7] by Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, to the effect that casuistry "destroys, by distinctions and exceptions, all morality, and effaces the essential difference between right and wrong, good and evil".[8]

The 20th century saw a revival of interest in casuistry. In their book The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (1988), Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin[9] argue that it is not casuistry but its abuse that has been a problem; that, properly used, casuistry is powerful reasoning. Jonsen and Toulmin offer casuistry as a method for compromising the contradictory principles of moral absolutism and moral relativism. In addition, the ethical philosophies of utilitarianism (especially preference utilitarianism) and pragmatism have been identified as employing casuistic reasoning.

Early modernity

The casuistic method was popular among Catholic thinkers in the early modern period. Casuistic authors include Antonio Escobar y Mendoza, whose Summula casuum conscientiae (1627) enjoyed great success, Thomas Sanchez, Vincenzo Filliucci (Jesuit and penitentiary at St Peter's), Antonino Diana, Paul Laymann (Theologia Moralis, 1625), John Azor (Institutiones Morales, 1600), Etienne Bauny, Louis Cellot, Valerius Reginaldus, and Hermann Busembaum (d. 1668).[10]

The progress of casuistry was interrupted toward the middle of the 17th century by the controversy which arose concerning the doctrine of probabilism, which effectively stated that one could choose to follow a "probable opinion"—that is, an opinion supported by a theologian or another—even if it contradicted a more probable opinion or a quotation from one of the Fathers of the Church.[11]

Certain kinds of casuistry were criticised by early Protestant theologians, because it was used to justify many of the abuses that they sought to reform. It was famously attacked by the Catholic and Jansenist philosopher Blaise Pascal during the formulary controversy against the Jesuits, in his Provincial Letters, as the use of rhetorics to justify moral laxity, which became identified by the public with Jesuitism; hence the everyday use of the term to mean complex and sophistic reasoning to justify moral laxity.[12] By the mid-18th century, "casuistry" had become a synonym for attractive-sounding, but ultimately false, moral reasoning.[13]

In 1679 Pope Innocent XI publicly condemned sixty-five of the more radical propositions (stricti mentalis), taken chiefly from the writings of Escobar, Suarez and other casuists as propositiones laxorum moralistarum and forbade anyone to teach them under penalty of excommunication.[14] Despite this condemnation by a pope, both Catholicism and Protestantism permit the use of ambiguous statements in specific circumstances.[15]

Later modernity

G. E. Moore dealt with casuistry in chapter 1.4 of his Principia Ethica, in which he claimed that "the defects of casuistry are not defects of principle; no objection can be taken to its aim and object. It has failed only because it is far too difficult a subject to be treated adequately in our present state of knowledge". Furthermore, he asserted that "casuistry is the goal of ethical investigation. It cannot be safely attempted at the beginning of our studies, but only at the end".[16]

Since the 1960s, applied ethics has revived the ideas of casuistry in applying moral reasoning to particular cases in law, bioethics, and business ethics. Its facility for dealing with situations where rules or values conflict with each other has made it a useful approach in professional ethics, and casuistry's reputation has improved somewhat as a result.[17]

Pope Francis, a Jesuit, criticized casuistry as "the practice of setting general laws on the basis of exceptional cases" in instances where a more holistic approach would be preferred.[18]

See also

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

Casuistry — The application of general principles of morality to definite and concrete cases of human activity, for the purpose, primarily, of determining what one ought to do, or ought not to do, or what one may do or leave undone as one pleases; and for the purpose, secondarily, of deciding whether and to what extent guilt or immunity from guilt follows on an action already posited.

Being merely a science of application, casuistry must be based on the principles and established conclusions of moral theology and ethics. These normative sciences it presupposes; to them it is ancillary; and strictly speaking it is distinct from them. It does not define objective morality, nor the objective circumstances that modify morality, nor the psychological conditions that fix motive and consent; but, borrowing from the moralist the principles that determine these elements of a volitional act, its inquiry regards the extent of their presence or absence in a given case. Neither does it establish the existence of moral obligation; but, assuming the precepts of morality as already established, its only office is to determine the subjective morality of an individual act. In subordination to the sciences which it subserves, its sphere comprises the whole range of man's free activity. The decisions of the casuist are right or wrong, therefore, in so far as they are or are not in accord with a science of morality, which is itself a right interpretation of the natural or positive laws promulgated by the Supreme Legislator of the Universe. They are of no worth, when based on an arbitrary or purely self-sanctioned autonomous philosophy of conduct.

Since the special function of casuistry is to determine practically and in the concrete the presence or absence of a definite moral obligation, it does not fall within its scope to pass judgment on what would be more advisable, or on what may be recommended as a counsel of perfection. It leaves these judgments to the sciences to which they belong, particularly to pastoral and ascetical theology. The prudent director of consciences, however, being more than a casuist, ought in giving advice to make use of these other sciences in so far as they are applicable. Should he fail to do so, the blame cannot be attributed to casuistry.

The necessity of casuistry and its importance are obvious. From the nature of the case, the general principles of any science in their concrete application give rise to problems which trained and expert minds only can solve. This is especially true regarding the application of moral principles and precepts to individual conduct. For, although those principles and precepts are in themselves generally evident, their application calls for the consideration of many complex factors, both objective and subjective. Only those who unite scientific knowledge of morality with practice in its application may be trusted to solve promptly and safely problems of conscience. Personal, social, commercial, and political experience proves this abundantly. Moral education requires long, patient, and delicate training, and few acquire it without the aid of casuistry. The objections that are urged against casuistry arise from misconception of its purpose and scope, or from errors and abuses that have sometimes accompanied its practice. The former are sufficiently disposed of; the latter no more discredit its legitimate use than the corresponding difficulties which may be raised against therapeutics or civil law impair the value of these sciences. Historically considered, casuistry in some form or other is as old as human conscience. Wherever civilization has developed along moral lines, there the casuist has been for the interior forum of conscience what the judge was for the exterior forum of civil legality. The scope of this article, however, is confined to Catholic casuistry. The history of this may be divided into three periods:

I. From the First to the Thirteenth Century

During this period, though there are no works treating of casuistry in a formal and scientific way, practical applications of Christian morality to the conduct of life are numerous and continuous; first, in the works of the Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, in the decisions of popes and bishops, and in the decrees of councils; later, in the Scriptural commentaries, the Books of Sentences, and the Penitential Books.

II. Thirteenth to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century

After the Fourth Council of Lateran the reduction to a scientific form of the casuistic doctrine, which had been gradually developed and elaborated during the patristic period, began concurrently with an awakening interest in theological studies and the apostolic activity of the now flourishing mendicant orders. The work of the Dominican, Raymund of Pennafort, entitled "Summa de Poenitentia et Matrimonio", and published about 1235, opened an era in the scientific study of casuistry, and fixed the manner of treatment which the science retained for over two hundred years. Two other books exercised an influence during this period on the formation of scientific casuistry: The "Summa Astesana", published in 1317 by a Franciscan of Asti in Piedmont; and the "Summa Pisana", written by the Dominican Bartholomew of San Concordio, or of Pisa (d. 1347), which treated casuistic subjects alphabetically, and was the first of a long series of similar works. The "Summa Summarum", of Sylvester Prierias, O.P. (d. 1523), practically brings the age of the great "Summists" to a close. St. Antoninus, O.P., of Florence (d. 1459) is notable in his period for his "Summa Confessionalis" and "Summa Confessorum", which were followed by many more manuals of a like kind. He was probably the first who treated moral theology as a distinct science, and thus prepared the way for that closer union of treatment between it and casuistry which finally obtained in the following period.

III. Middle of the Sixteenth Century to the Present Time

The first hundred years of this period are characterized by a splendid development of theological sciences, due to the ecclesiastical reformation begun and carried out by the Council of Trent, to the institution of a new religious order, the Society of Jesus, and to the intellectual activity evoked in defence of the Church against the pseudo-Reformation of Luther and of contemporaneous heresiarchs. In this progress casuistry shared. Besides the various "Summae Casuum" which were published, the great theologians of the time, in commenting on the second part of the "Summa Theologica" of St. Thomas Aquinas, treated fully and profoundly casuistical questions regarding personal, social, political, and religious duties, regarding the mutual relations of states, and regarding the relative rights of Church and State. During this time moral theology finally attained the dignity of a special science, and became the explicit basis of casuistry. Prominent in bringing about this development were John Azor, S.J. (d. 1603), whose "Institutiones Morales" was printed at Rome in 1600; Paul Laymann, S.J. (d. 1635), who published at Munich in 1625 his "Theologia Moralis"; and Hermann Busembaum (d. 1668), whose "Medulla Theologiae Moralis" became the text for the celebrated commentaries of Claude La Croix, S.J. (d. 1714), of St. Alphonsus Liguori, and in our time of Anthony Ballerini, S.J. The progress of casuistry was interrupted towards the middle of the seventeenth century by the controversy which arose concerning the doctrine of probabilism. This controversy might have been conducted with scientific calm and finally disposed of by the Holy See, but by the injection into it of Jansenistic fanaticism, sophistry, and satire, real issues were confused, and an embittered strife arose, which for nearly two centuries disturbed Catholic schools. The effects on casuistry were deplorable. Two extreme schools, the Rigorists and the Laxists, came into being, and centred attention upon themselves. The vast body of conservative theologians were practically ignored, or charged with laxity because they did not hold the opinions of a narrow school. The Laxists were taken as typical casuists, and because some of them were Jesuits, Jesuit morality became a byword of reproach. The tenets of both Rigorists and Laxists were repeatedly condemned by ecclesiastical authorities; nevertheless the repute of sane casuistry suffered not only among the enemies of the Church, but even to a degree among Catholics also. So much so, that, by the middle of the eighteenth century the very name of casuistry became a synonym for moral laxity -- a signification it yet unfortunately retains in the minds of many whose information on the subject is drawn from prejudiced sources. When Jansenistic rigorism seemed to have attained a permanent triumph, especially in France and Spain, relief was obtained through Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (d. 1787), the saintly founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. By recalling casuists to the study of their classic authors he restored casuistry itself to the place its importance and dignity demanded. His first publication was the "Medulla Theologiae Moralis" of Hermann Busembaum, S.J., with annotations. In eight successive editions this work was enlarged and improved, until it became a synopsis of casuistical literature. The last edition, entitled "Theolgia Moralis", was published in 1785, and received the approbation of the Holy See in 1803. In 1871 Pius IX proclaimed the saintly author a Doctor of the Church. The after-history of casuistry is one of peace and development along the lines laid down by St. Alphonsus.

References

  1. Back to citation "Philosophy-Dictionary.org". casuistry. Archived from the original on 18 January 2012. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
  2. Back to citation "Casuistry". Dictionary of the History of Ideas. University of Virginia Library. Archived from the original on 18 June 2006.
  3. Back to citation Rolbiecki, J. J. (1942). "Casuistry". In Runes, Dagobert D. (ed.). Dictionary of Philosophy. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  4. Back to citation Harper, Douglas R. "casuist (n.)". Online Etymological Dictionary. Retrieved 14 March 2021.
  5. Back to citation Franklin, James (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 83–88.
  6. Back to citation Pascal, Blaise (1898) [1657]. The Provincial Letters of Blaise Pascal. eBooks@Adelaide. M'Crie, Thomas (trans.). London: Chatto & Windus. Archived from the original on 5 September 2015. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
  7. Back to citation "Letters on the spirit of patriotism: On the idea of a patriot king: and on the state of parties at the accession of King George the First / Henry St John, Lord Viscount Bolingbroke. 1752". Royal Collection Trust. Archived from the original on 20 June 2022.
  8. Back to citation "Casuistry". Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 21 September 2017., quoting St. John, Lord Viscount Bolingbroke, Henry (1752). Letters on the spirit of patriotism: On the idea of a patriot king: and on the state of parties at the accession of King George the First. London: A. Millar. p. 187.
  9. Back to citation Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning, Berkeley, U. California Press (1990, ISBN 0-520-06960-9).
  10. Back to citation Decock, Wim (2011). "From Law to Paradise: Confessional Catholicism and Legal Scholarship". Rechtsgeschichte. 2011 (18): 012–034. doi:10.12946/rg18/012-034. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-0013-AE28-C. ISSN 1619-4993.
  11. Back to citation Franklin, Science of Conjecture, pp. 74–76, 83.
  12. Back to citation 170 "Casuistry.destroys, by distinctions and exceptions, all morality, and effaces the essential difference between right and wrong." Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, Letters on the Spirit of Patriotism 1736 (pub. 1749), quoted in Oxford English Dictionary, 1989 ed.
  13. Back to citation Jonsen, Albert R., The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning, University of California Press, 1988. ISBN 0-52-006063-6 (p. 2).
  14. Back to citation Kelly, J.N.D., The Oxford History of the Popes, Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 0-19-282085-0 (p. 287).
  15. Back to citation J.-P. Cavaillé, Ruser sans mentir, de la casuistique aux sciences sociales: le recours à l’équivocité, entre efficacité pragmatique et souci éthique, in Serge Latouche, P.-J. Laurent, O. Servais & M. Singleton, Les Raisons de la ruse. Une perspective anthropologique et psychanalytique, Actes du colloque international «La raison rusée», Louvain la Neuve, mars 2001, Paris, La Découverte, 2004, pp. 93–118 (in French).
  16. Back to citation Moore, George Edward (1993) [1903]. Baldwin, Thomas (ed.). Principia Ethica (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 57. ISBN 0-521-44848-4.
  17. Back to citation "Casuistry | Ethics & Moral Decision Making | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 11 April 2024.
  18. Back to citation "Pope to meet with sex abuse victims for first time in June", Francis X. Rocca[]. Catholic News Service. Online.

Further reading

  • Arras, J. D. (1991). "Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 16 (1): 29–51. doi:10.1093/jmp/16.1.29. PMID 2010719. S2CID 4542283.
  • Biggar, Nigel (1989). "A Case for Casuistry in the Church". Modern Theology. 6: 29–51. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0025.1989.tb00206.x.
  • Blake, David C. (1992). "The Hospital Ethics Committee Health Care's Moral Conscience or White Elephant?". The Hastings Center Report. 22 (1): 6–11. doi:10.2307/3562714. JSTOR 3562714. PMID 1544801.
  • Bliton, Mark J. (1993). The Ethics of Clinical Ethics Consultation: On the Way to Clinical Philosophy (Diss. Vanderbilt)
  • Boeyink, David E. (1992). "Casuistry: A Case-Based Methods for Journalists". Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 7 (2): 107–120. doi:10.1207/s15327728jmme0702_4.
  • Boyle, J. (1991). "Who is Entitled to Double Effect?". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 16 (5): 475–494. doi:10.1093/jmp/16.5.475. PMID 1779208.
  • Brody, Baruch A. (1988). "Ethical Questions Raised by the Persistent Vegetative Patient". The Hastings Center Report. 18 (1): 33–37. doi:10.2307/3562015. JSTOR 3562015. PMID 3350649.
  • Brody, Baruch A. (1989). "A Historical Introduction to Jewish Casuistry on Suicide and Euthanasia". Suicide and Euthanasia. Philosophy and Medicine. Vol. 35. pp. 39–75. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7838-7_3. ISBN 978-90-481-4039-8.
  • Carlson, A. Cheree (1992). "Creative casuistry and feminist consciousness: The rhetoric of moral reform". Quarterly Journal of Speech. 78: 16–32. doi:10.1080/00335639209383979.
  • Carney, Bridget Mary. (1993). Modern Casuistry: An Essential But Incomplete Method for Clinical Ethical Decision-Making. (Diss., Graduate Theological Union).
  • Carson, Ronald A. (1990). "Interpretive bioethics: The way of discernment". Theoretical Medicine. 11 (1): 51–59. doi:10.1007/BF00489238. PMID 2339334. S2CID 22670761.
  • Carson, Ronald A. (1988). "Paul Ramsey, Principled Protestant Casuist: A Retrospective." Medical Humanities Review, Vol. 2, pp. 24–35.
  • Chidwick, Paula Marjorie (1994). Approaches to Clinical Ethical Decision-Making: Ethical Theory, Casuistry and Consultation. (Diss., U of Guelph)
  • Davis, Dena S. (1992). "Abortion in Jewish Thought: A Study in Casuistry". Journal of the American Academy of Religion (2): 313–324. doi:10.1093/jaarel/LX.2.313.
  • Degrazia, D. (1992). "Moving Forward in Bioethical Theory: Theories, Cases, and Specified Principlism". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 17 (5): 511–539. doi:10.1093/jmp/17.5.511. PMID 1431667.
  • Downie, R. (1992). "Health care ethics and casuistry". Journal of Medical Ethics. 18 (2): 61–66. doi:10.1136/jme.18.2.61. PMC 1376108. PMID 1619625.
  • Drane, J.F. (1990). "Methodologies for Clinical Ethics." Bulletin of the Pan American Health Organization, Vol. 24, pp. 394–404.
  • Dworkin, R.B. (1994). "Emerging Paradigms in Bioethics: Symposium." Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 69, pp. 945–1122.
  • Elliot, Carl (1992). "Solving the Doctor's Dilemma?" New Scientist, Vol. 133, pp. 42–43.
  • Emanuel, Ezekiel J. (1991). The Ends of Human Life: Medical Ethics in a Liberal Polity (Cambridge).
  • Franklin, James (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal (Johns Hopkins), ch. 4.
  • Gallagher, Lowell (1991). Medusa's Gaze: Casuistry and Conscience in the Renaissance (Stanford)
  • Gaul, Alice Leveille (1995). "Casuistry, care, compassion, and ethics data analysis". Advances in Nursing Science. 17 (3): 47–57. doi:10.1097/00012272-199503000-00006. PMID 7778890. S2CID 44950319.
  • Green, Bryan S. (1988). Literary Methods and Sociological Theory: Case Studies of Simmel and Weber (Albany)
  • Hoffmaster, Barry (1994). "The forms and limits of medical ethics". Social Science & Medicine. 39 (9): 1155–1164. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90348-4. PMID 7801153.
  • Houle, Martha Marie (1983). The Fictions of Casuistry and Pascal's Jesuit in "Les Provinciales" (Diss. U California, San Diego)
  • Hunter, Michael (1993). "Casuistry in Action: Robert Boyle's Confessional Interviews with Gilbert Burnet and Edward Stillingfleet, 1691". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 44: 80–98. doi:10.1017/S0022046900010216. S2CID 162420334.
  • Hunter, K. M. (1989). "A Science of Individuals: Medicine and Casuistry". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 14 (2): 193–212. doi:10.1093/jmp/14.2.193. PMID 2769113.
  • Jonsen, A. R. (1991). "American Moralism and the Origin of Bioethics in the United States". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 16 (1): 113–130. doi:10.1093/jmp/16.1.113. PMID 2010718.
  • Jonsen, Albert R. (1986). "Casuistry and clinical ethics". Theoretical Medicine. 7 (1): 65–74. doi:10.1007/BF00489424. PMID 3704959. S2CID 5420360.
  • Jonsen, Albert R. (1986). "Casuistry" in J.F. Childress and J. Macgvarrie, eds. Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Philadelphia)
  • Jonsen, Albert R. (1991). "Casuistry as methodology in clinical ethics". Theoretical Medicine. 12 (4): 295–307. doi:10.1007/BF00489890. PMID 1801300. S2CID 7991017.
  • Jonsen, Albert R. (1991). "Of Balloons and Bicycles; or, the Relationship between Ethical Theory and Practical Judgment". The Hastings Center Report. 21 (5): 14–16. doi:10.2307/3562885. JSTOR 3562885. PMID 1743945.
  • Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin (1988). The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (California).
  • Keenan, James F., S.J. and Thomas A. Shannon. (1995). The Context of Casuistry (Washington).
  • Kirk, K. (1936). Conscience and Its Problems, An Introduction to Casuistry (London)
  • Klinefelter, Donald S. (1990). "How is Applied Philosophy to be Applied?". Journal of Social Philosophy. 21: 16–26. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.1990.tb00263.x.
  • Kopelman, Loretta M. (1994). "Case method and casuistry: The problem of bias". Theoretical Medicine. 15 (1): 21–37. doi:10.1007/BF00999217. PMID 8059430. S2CID 27735131.
  • Kopelman, L. M. (1990). "What is Applied About "Applied" Philosophy?". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 15 (2): 199–218. doi:10.1093/jmp/15.2.199. PMID 2351894.
  • Kuczewski, Mark G. (1994). "Casuistry and Its Communitarian Critics". Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 4 (2): 99–116. doi:10.1353/ken.0.0082. PMID 11645267. S2CID 45915303.
  • Kuczewski, Mark G. (1994). Fragmentation and Consensus in Contemporary Neo-Aristotelian Ethics: A Study in Communitarianism and Casuistry (Diss., Duquesne U).
  • Leites, Edmund (1988). Leites, Edmund (ed.). Conscience and Casuistry in Early Modern Europe. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511521430. ISBN 9780521520201.
  • Leites, Edmund (1974). "Conscience, Casuistry, and Moral Decision: Some Historical Perspectives". Journal of Chinese Philosophy. 2: 41–58. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6253.1974.tb00146.x.
  • Long, Edward LeRoy, junior (1954). Conscience and Compromise: an Approach to Protestant Casuistry (Philadelphia, Penn.: Westminster Press)
  • MacIntyre, Alasdair C. (1990). "The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Review)". Journal of the History of Philosophy. 28 (4): 634–635. doi:10.1353/hph.1990.0086. S2CID 144734704.
  • MacIntyre, Alasdair (1984). "Does Applied Ethics Rest on a Mistake?". Monist. 67 (4): 498–513. doi:10.5840/monist198467438.
  • Mackler, Aaron Leonard. Cases of Judgments in Ethical Reasoning: An Appraisal of Contemporary Casuistry and Holistic Model for the Mutual Support of Norms and Case Judgments (Diss., Georgetown U).
  • Macpherson-Smith, Malcolm (1994). "Anchor and Course for the Modern Ship of Casuistry". Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 3 (3): 391–402. doi:10.1017/S0963180100005223. PMID 7994464. S2CID 30253302.
  • Mahowald, Mary B. (1994). "Collaboration and Casuistry". Peirce and Value Theory. Semiotic Crossroads. Vol. 6. pp. 61–72. doi:10.1075/sc.6.09mah. ISBN 978-90-272-1947-3.
  • McCready, Amy R. (1992). "Milton's Casuistry: The Case of 'The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce.' " Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 393–428.
  • Miller, R. B. (1989). "On Transplanting Human Fetal Tissue: Presumptive Duties and the Task of Casuistry". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 14 (6): 617–640. doi:10.1093/jmp/14.6.617. PMID 2614282.
  • Murray, Thomas H. (1994). "Medical ethics, moral philosophy and moral tradition". Medicine and Moral Reasoning. pp. 91–105. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511627842.008. ISBN 9780521459464.
  • Murray, Thomas H. (1993). "Moral Reasoning in Social Context". Journal of Social Issues. 49 (2): 185–200. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00927.x. PMID 17167922.
  • Odozor, Paulinus Ikechukwu (1989). Richard A. McCormick and Casuistry: Moral Decision-Making in Conflict Situations (M.A. Thesis, St. Michael's College).
  • Pack, Rolland W. (1988). Case Studies and Moral Conclusions: The Philosophical Use of Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics (Diss., Georgetown U).
  • Pascal, Blaise (1967). The Provincial Letters (London).
  • Peach, Lucinda Joy (1994). "Feminist cautions about casuistry: The Supreme Court's abortion decisions as paradigms". Policy Sciences. 27 (2–3): 143–160. doi:10.1007/BF00999885. S2CID 143567140.
  • Río Parra, Elena del (2008). Cartografías de la conciencia española en la Edad de Oro (Mexico).
  • Rudy, Kathy (1994). "Thinking Through the Ethics of Abortion". Theology Today. 51 (2): 235–248. doi:10.1177/004057369405100204. S2CID 146934768.
  • Seiden, Melvin (1990). Measure for Measure: Casuistry and Artistry (Washington).
  • Sichol, Marcia (1992). "Women and the New Casuistry". Thought. 67 (2): 148–157. doi:10.5840/thought199267223.
  • Singer, Marcus G. (1980). "Is Ethics a Science? Ought It to Be?". Zygon. 15: 29–42. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1980.tb00374.x.
  • Smith, David H. (1991). "Stories, Values, and Patient Care Decisions." in Charles Conrad, ed. The Ethical Nexus: Values in Organizational Decision Making. (New Jersey).
  • Sobel, Jordan Howard (1985). "Everyone's conforming to a rule". Philosophical Studies. 48 (3): 375–387. doi:10.1007/BF01305396. S2CID 170640015.
  • Keenan, James F. (1993). "Notes on Moral Theology: 1992". Theological Studies. 54: 95–159. doi:10.1177/004056399305400105. S2CID 220489972.
  • Starr, G. (1971). Defoe and Casuistry (Princeton).
  • Strong, Carson (1988). "Justification in Ethics". Moral Theory and Moral Judgments in Medical Ethics. Philosophy and Medicine. Vol. 32. pp. 193–211. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2715-5_14. ISBN 978-94-010-7723-1.
  • Tallmon, James Michael (2001). "Casuistry" in The Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Ed. Thomas O. Sloane. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–88.
  • Tallmon, James Michael (1993). Casuistry and the Quest for Rhetorical Reason: Conceptualizing a Method of Shared Moral Inquiry (Diss., U of Washington).
  • Tallmon, J. M. (1994). "How Jonsen Really Views Casuistry: A Note on the Abuse of Father Wildes". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 19 (1): 103–113. doi:10.1093/jmp/19.1.103. PMID 8201287.
  • Taylor, Richard (1984). Good and Evil – A New Direction: A Foreceful Attack on the Rationalist Tradition in Ethics (Buffalo).
  • Thomasma, David C. (1994). "Clinical ethics as medical hermeneutics". Theoretical Medicine. 15 (2): 93–111. doi:10.1007/BF00994019. PMID 7997974. S2CID 11845065.
  • Tomlinson, Tom (1994). "Casuistry in medical ethics: Rehabilitated, or repeat offender?". Theoretical Medicine. 15 (1): 5–20. doi:10.1007/BF00999216. PMID 8059432. S2CID 45692.
  • Toulmin, Stephen (1982). "How Medicine Saved the Life of Ethics". Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 25 (4): 736–750. doi:10.1353/pbm.1982.0064. PMID 11643854. S2CID 35014697.
  • Toulmin, Stephen (1988). "The Recovery of Practical Philosophy." The American Scholar, Vol. 57, pp. 337–352.
  • Toulmin, Stephen (1981). "The Tyranny of Principles". The Hastings Center Report. 11 (6): 31–39. doi:10.2307/3560542. JSTOR 3560542. PMID 7037683.
  • Van Der Steen, Wim J; Musschenga, Bert (1992). "The issue of generality in ethics". The Journal of Value Inquiry. 26 (4): 511–524. doi:10.1007/BF00138918. S2CID 144980478.
  • Walton, Douglas N. (1990). "Courage, relativism and practical reasoning". Philosophia. 20 (1–2): 227–240. doi:10.1007/BF02382593. S2CID 144539329.
  • Watson, Robert N; Seiden, Melvin (1992). "Measure for Measure: Casuistry and Artistry". Shakespeare Quarterly. 43 (2): 242. doi:10.2307/2870893. JSTOR 2870893.
  • Weinstein, Bruce David (1989). The Possibility of Ethical Expertise (Diss. Georgetown U).
  • Weston, Anthony (1984). "Drawing Lines". Monist. 67 (4): 589–604. doi:10.5840/monist198467440.
  • Wildes, K. Wm. (1993). "The Priesthood of Bioethics and the Return of Casuistry". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 18 (1): 33–49. doi:10.1093/jmp/18.1.33. PMID 8433047.
  • Wildes, Kevin Wm., S.J. (1993). The View for Somewhere: Moral Judgment in Bioethics (Diss. Rice U).
  • Winston, Morton E. (1990). "Ethics Committee Simulations". Teaching Philosophy. 13 (2): 127–140. doi:10.5840/teachphil199013220.
  • Zacker, David J. (1991). Reflection and Particulars: Does Casuistry Offer Us Stable Beliefs About Ethics? (M.A. Thesis, Western Michigan U).
  • Zaner, R. M. (1993). "Voices and Time: The Venture of Clinical Ethics". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 18 (1): 9–31. doi:10.1093/jmp/18.1.9. PMID 8433050.
Retrieved from "https://catholicism.wiki/index.php?title=Casuistry&oldid=56841"