Fundamental Theological Ethics “In Exit”: New Categories and Interdisciplinary Approaches to Human Social Flourishing

Abstract

Early post-Vatican Catholic moral theologians made significant global proposals for renewed theological ethics in their own time and culture. However, after the culmination of the work of these great scholars in the 1980s and 1990s, Catholic moral theology became anchored in contingent polemic and polarized debates. It ceased to offer integral proposals of fundamental Christian ethics for the new challenges in the personal, intersubjective, and social scenarios. Subsequent studies often focused on bioethics, sexuality, family, and social justice but rarely attempted to renew a public fundamental morality for the 21st century. The essential features of this article are the proposal of new categories and debates for fundamental moral theology, grounded on the conviction that promoting this discipline as a humanization proposal builds on the profound potential human beings are called to fulfill. Humanity understood in all its complexity requires a theological ethics capable of incorporating this human condition and its categories, such as vulnerability, corporality, and recognition from a transdisciplinary point of view. These challenges underscore the urgent need for a renewed ethical framework articulated in a significant language for our time. Drawing on extensive literature and analytical research methods, it examines the interplay between these multifaceted issues.

1. Introduction

Theological ethics experienced significant developments in the early post-Second Vatican Council period. Early reforms introduced a dynamic engagement with pressing societal issues, led by scholars like Bernard Häring, Josef Fuchs, and Richard A. McCormick. These theologians emphasized personalist and contextually grounded approaches to moral theology, moving beyond rigid manualist frameworks. However, since the late 20th century, the field has frequently faced stagnation, with debates often polarized mainly around bioethics and sexual morality. While these discussions remain important, they have narrowed the scope of theological ethics, limiting its capacity to address broader contemporary challenges. Social ethics, especially within the Church’s social doctrine, has been one of the few areas to maintain consistent development, as evidenced in Laudato Si’ (Pope Francis 2015) and Fratelli Tutti (Pope Francis 2020). Nonetheless, fragmentation persists, constraining theological ethics’ ability to offer integrative solutions to complex, global issues.

The contemporary world faces unprecedented challenges, from rapid technological advancements to sociocultural and environmental crises that threaten global stability. These include the ethical dilemmas of artificial intelligence (Coeckelbergh 2020), the disruptions caused by climate change (Méndez 2020), and the growing polarization in political and social spheres. In this context, theological ethics must reconsider its fundamental categories and practices to offer relevant and transformative responses. This requires a move beyond entrenched debates, embracing interdisciplinary epistemologies, contemporary moral issues, and language accessible to diverse audiences.

Wentzel van Huyssteen (2001) and Julie Thompson Klein (2018) emphasize interdisciplinarity as crucial for addressing multifaceted ethical challenges. Their work highlights the necessity of integrating diverse methodologies and epistemologies to construct a holistic understanding of human experience. Recent scholarship further supports this perspective. For example, Esposito and Maliandi (2021) propose frameworks that integrate philosophical anthropology and social ethics to confront the ethical dimensions of emerging global crises. Feminist theology also plays a key role in this interdisciplinary discourse. As noted by authors such as Carbine (2023) in Nevertheless, We Persist: A Feminist Public Theology, feminist approaches to theology critically engage with religious structures, advocating for gender equality and challenging patriarchal norms, all while addressing contemporary ethical challenges in the public sphere.

Theological ethics must rediscover its potential as a discipline capable of addressing fundamental questions of humanization and flourishing. The concept of “Theology in Exit” (Teologia in uscita), rooted in Pope Francis’s call for an outward-facing Church, advocates for theology to engage directly with societal and ecological issues, aligns closely with these goals, and proposes a paradigm shift inspired by public theology. This shift urges theological ethics to move beyond self-referential debates and actively engage the public sphere, contributing to human dignity, ecological well-being, and social justice (Francis and Ziebertz 2011). Such a paradigm calls for rethinking theological reflection, research, and action within diverse domains, fostering interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaborations to address shared global challenges (van der Ven 1993).

Contemporary moral theology can benefit significantly from integrating ethical and anthropological categories that illuminate human relationality and social responsibility, such as vulnerability (Montero Orphanopoulos 2021, 2022, 2024), corporality (Butler 2011, 2016; Merleau-Ponty [1945] 2013), and recognition (Honneth 1996; Fraser 2003; Fricker 2007). These categories provide new avenues for dialog with fields such as psychology, sociology, and philosophy. Ultimately, this article seeks to recover the transformative potential of theological ethics, framing it as a humanizing drive. By drawing on interdisciplinary methodologies, engaging with contemporary ethical categories, and embracing openness to technological and social challenges, theological ethics can once again become a vital resource for fostering human flourishing in the face of unprecedented global crises.

Public theology also underscores the importance of community engagement, as seen in programs addressing systemic injustice and advocating for the sometimes called “vulnerable populations”. This perspective emphasizes interdisciplinary collaboration for the common good, urging theological ethics to address complex global crises, including climate change, migration, and technological disruptions. Historical examples of this approach include the Catholic Church’s involvement in addressing global poverty and climate advocacy through encyclicals like Laudato Si’ (Pope Francis 2015). The categories that will be proposed provide a foundation for addressing ethical, social, and ecological challenges. The study also aims to demonstrate how these categories can be applied in practical contexts to foster human flourishing and ethical creativity.

Edgar Morin’s (1990) critique of reductionist paradigms further supports this interdisciplinary vision. By embracing complexity, theological ethics acknowledges the interconnectedness of social, cultural, and natural phenomena. Morin’s approach aligns with contemporary theological ethics, which must navigate the interplay of global challenges and local contexts. Thus, theological ethics integrates insights from philosophy, psychology, and sociology to enrich its understanding of vulnerability, corporality, and relationality.

This article argues that fundamental theological ethics have become fragmented and limited by a focus on issue-specific moral debates (e.g., bioethics, sexual ethics) at the expense of a holistic moral vision. The framework to be overcome is the residual neo-manualist approach that, despite Vatican II’s renewal, still underpins much of contemporary Catholic moral theology. This approach emphasizes casuistry and normativity, often neglecting the broader anthropological and ethical questions foundational to human moral agency. In contrast, the interdisciplinary framework proposed here seeks to re-center theological ethics on categories that emerge from lived human experience—vulnerability, corporality, and recognition—thereby enabling a more relational and contextually grounded ethical reflection. This framework is inspired by moral phenomenology (Levinas 1969), relational ethics (Honneth 1996), and theological anthropology (Rahner 1976), offering a renewed vision of theological ethics that remains both doctrinally grounded and socially engaged. By doing so, it seeks to promote a vision of moral theology that is both humanizing and transformative.

2. Requirements for a New Theological Ethic Framework

In our increasingly interconnected world, globalization has profoundly reshaped human interactions in society, spanning every dimension of life. Heightened awareness of rights and global movements for minority advocacy have amplified the visibility of social struggles, while the COVID-19 pandemic underscored humanity’s capacity for resilience through remote work, online education, and digital commerce. Environmental concerns now permeate national discourses, slowly embedding ecological care into cultural values and ethical norms. Simultaneously, unprecedented migration flows compel states to adopt public policies fostering openness to diversity. However, globalization has also entrenched neoliberal hegemony, exacerbating vulnerability and weakening social bonds through the rise in individualism and the decline of solidarity.

Modernity’s trajectory has led to human-induced risks—climate change and nuclear threats—beyond our control, destabilizing societal, political, and cultural structures. This “risk society” cultivates pervasive insecurity and diminishes collective cohesion. Figures like Furedi, Bauman, and Beck highlight the fragility of modern selves, the fragmentation of communities, and the exhausting demand for individual self-construction in the face of institutional standardization. Against this backdrop, moral theology risks succumbing to rigid frameworks of universal norms that falsely promise certainty. Yet such approaches falter amid globalization’s complexities and the Church’s credibility crises over systemic abuses. Instead, Christian ethics must heed Pope Francis’s call for renewal through discernment and the formulation of salvific truths into accessible, transformative expressions for all. Addressing the imperative of a theology in uscita, we begin by outlining the foundational requirements for a renewed framework before delving into its core categories.

2.1. Interdisciplinary Epistemology: A Fundamental Necessity

Addressing the complex problems of today requires theological ethics to adopt an interdisciplinary epistemology. Scholars like van der Ven (1993) and Thompson Klein (2018) have highlighted the role of interdisciplinarity in achieving these goals, emphasizing that collaborative methods can enrich theological discourse and its real-world impact. As Schweiker (2004) notes, collaboration among theologians, scientists, and humanists fosters constructive dialog that enriches the understanding of global challenges. This perspective is reinforced by Edgar Morin’s critique of the modern paradigm of simplification. He advocates complex thinking that acknowledges the interconnectedness of social, cultural, and natural phenomena. Morin (1990) emphasizes that complexity is a web of events, actions, and interactions that demands a relational and dynamic epistemology.

This call for interdisciplinarity is further supported by the work of Wentzel van Huyssteen (2001), who argues for a public theology that engages with science and other disciplines to create a holistic understanding of human experience. Similarly, J. Thompson Klein (2018) highlights the evolving relationship between interdisciplinarity and complexity, noting their importance in addressing multifaceted ethical issues.

2.2. New Moral Categories: Adapting to Contemporary Realities

A renewed theological ethics has the potential to address fundamental questions of humanization and flourishing by reclaiming its role as an engaged and relational discipline. Concepts such as the recognition of the other (Levinas 1969), corporality, vulnerability, care, ethical emotions, and responsibility are fundamental to addressing 21st-century challenges. These categories find their foundation in permeable and dialogical ethics, emphasizing the importance of constructing an open and relational epistemology that delves deeply into human and transcendent dimensions.

Climate justice, for instance, necessitates a revision of traditional moral categories to integrate intergenerational responsibility and ecological sustainability (Nussbaum 2001). The work of Pope Francis (2015) in Laudato Si’ has been instrumental in framing ecological concerns as moral imperatives within theological discourse. Furthermore, scholars like Lisa Cahill (2015) stress the integration of feminist ethics and postmodern perspectives to address the complexities of contemporary moral dilemmas.

Additionally, the inclusion of moral emotions and corporeality in ethical discourse responds to the need to consider the complexities of the human being in their entirety. The works of Held (2005) on care ethics and Scheler (1973) on emotional intentionality contribute to a richer understanding of these dimensions within theological ethics.

2.3. Significant Language: Communicating with Today’s Men and Women

A third essential requirement for a theological ethics “in exit” is receptivity to and dialog with history, circumstances, and the specificity of singular human experiences. This ethical orientation emphasizes engagement with concrete realities while steering clear of being reduced to a situational ethics framework. Instead, it aligns with Pope Francis’s approach in Amoris Laetitia, where he underscores the importance of attending to lived realities as spaces where the Spirit speaks and guides the Church toward deeper understandings of human mystery. This attentiveness to the historical and the tangible enriches ethical discernment by rooting it in the dynamic interplay between divine presence and human history.

For theological ethics to be effective, it must be articulated in language that is meaningful and accessible to contemporary individuals and resonates with modern concerns and aspirations. Ricoeur (1995) emphasizes the importance of narrative and metaphor in theological discourse, highlighting their role in bridging abstract theological concepts with personal and communal experiences. Similarly, Tracy (1981) advocates for a public theology that engages with diverse audiences through accessible language and dialogical methods.

2.4. Openness to Emerging Challenges: An Innovative Response

Theological ethics that remain anchored in unresolved debates of the past risk irrelevance. Topics such as artificial intelligence, mass migration, the affirmation of LGBTQ+ rights, and the delegitimization of traditional institutions require a reconfiguration of moral categories. As Hauerwas (2018) argued, theological innovation must be informed by a commitment to Christian praxis and openness to dialog with the contemporary world. This perspective is complemented by Mier’s (1995) view of ethics as an “exegesis of human behaviors,” advocating for an open and collaborative discipline with other fields of knowledge.

Recent scholarship on the ethical implications of artificial intelligence, for example, Coeckelbergh’s work (2020), underscores the urgency of addressing these emerging issues within theological frameworks. Similarly, the works of Farley (2006) on sexual ethics and Arendt (1963) on the nature of authority provide valuable insights into rethinking moral categories in light of contemporary social challenges.

2.5. A Christian Proposal in a Plural World

Finally, Christian theological ethics must recognize itself as one among many postmodern offerings of life’s meaning. Vattimo and Zabala (2011) stress the importance of a hermeneutics that renounces hegemonic pretensions and nostalgia for moral Christendom. Instead, it should present itself as a meaningful option for those seeking a profound sense of life and orientation toward integral well-being. This approach, as Montero Orphanopoulos (2024) notes, implies a permeable epistemology that respects the plurality of perspectives and facilitates dialog between faith and culture.

The works of Edward Schillebeeckx on the role of tradition and Johann Baptist Metz on political theology further illuminate the potential for Christian ethics to engage meaningfully in pluralistic contexts. These contributions demonstrate the importance of a dynamic and context-sensitive approach to ethical discourse.

The challenges of our time demand theological ethics that are interdisciplinary, adaptive, accessible, innovative, and pluralistic. Only through an approach that integrates these characteristics can theological ethics offer meaningful and transformative responses to help humanity navigate the complex problems of the 21st century.

3. Contemporary Moral Categories That Need to Be Incorporated into the Christian Ethical Discourse

Julio L. Martínez and Guy Jobin both advocate for a transformative approach to theological ethics, emphasizing its relevance and credibility in addressing contemporary societal challenges. Martínez, drawing on Pope Francis’s vision, calls for Catholic moral theology to actively engage with the complexities of postmodern society—technological innovation, multicultural plurality, and ecological crises—through a method that is dialogical, interdisciplinary, and pastorally responsive (Martínez 2022). Similarly, Jobin underscores the need for theological ethics to articulate itself within the pluralistic public sphere, focusing on both rationality and recognition (Jobin 2006).

Martínez identifies “knots” within the Church—such as rigid dual moral frameworks and polarization—that constrain moral theology’s adaptability. He calls for discernment and relational ethics to untie these knots, emphasizing the Church’s active participation in public debates on justice, human dignity, and sustainability (Martínez 2022). This echoes Jobin’s notion of “reconstructive discourse,” where theology must integrate epistemological and ethical considerations to achieve intelligibility and credibility in the public domain (Jobin 2006). For both, theological reflection demands critical engagement with its sources and traditions, aligning with the conditions of pluralistic societies.

Jobin highlights the interplay between rationality and narrative in theological ethics, critiquing overly rigid rationalist frameworks that neglect the transformative potential of religious narratives (Jobin 2006). Martínez, too, champions a moral theology that prioritizes mercy and flexibility, resonating with Jobin’s emphasis on the ethical responsibility of theological discourse to incorporate diverse perspectives and shared experiences (Martínez 2022).

Both scholars stress the importance of dialog in their frameworks. Martínez advocates for a moral theology that fosters societal discourse, respecting pluralism while contributing faith-based insights to public ethics (Martínez 2022). Similarly, Jobin emphasizes dialogical processes that balance theological responsibility with inclusivity, fostering an ethics of recognition. Drawing on figures like Johann Baptist Metz and David Hollenbach, Jobin explores how theological ethics can transcend doctrinal rigidity and engage in constructive public dialog, offering a model for interdisciplinary cooperation and solidarity (Jobin 2006).

Ultimately, Martínez and Jobin align in envisioning a moral theology that is both deeply rooted in tradition and radically open to the transformative demands of contemporary life. Their shared commitment to dialog, critical reflection, and ethical responsiveness highlights the potential for theology to inspire pathways toward justice, solidarity, and hope in an increasingly interconnected and complex world.

As an example of new core categories necessary for contemporary theological ethics and how they can be integrated into the discourse of contemporary theological ethics, three essential concepts are now reformulated adjusting to the requirements stated above:

(a)

Vulnerability. The integration of vulnerability into theological ethics transforms the discourse by shifting its focus to the relational and transformative dimensions of human existence. Vulnerability is not merely a condition to be mitigated; it is a dynamic interplay between fragility and resilience that opens pathways to solidarity and care (Montero Orphanopoulos 2022). This reframing positions vulnerability as a source of ethical creativity, fostering mutual support and engagement. For example, community-based programs addressing homelessness often leverage vulnerability to cultivate networks of care and solidarity.

Redefining vulnerability as a constitutive dimension of human existence highlights its relational openness and susceptibility to harm (Butler 2011; Montero Orphanopoulos 2022). This perspective underscores the interconnectedness of human lives, urging a moral response to marginalization and structural violence. Case studies from marginalized communities demonstrate how vulnerability serves both as a challenge and an opportunity for fostering solidarity and resilience.

Grounded in the methodological paradigm of Gaudium et Spes 46, which emphasizes integrating theological reflection with human experience (Montero Orphanopoulos 2021, p. 613), vulnerability emerges as a category with ethical-theological significance. By bridging theological anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and psychology, it provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the human condition in its complexity (Montero Orphanopoulos 2021, p. 618).

At its core, vulnerability reflects the constitutive openness of human beings. This openness encompasses relationality, permeability, and exposure to transformative relationships, environments, and existential realities (Montero Orphanopoulos 2021, p. 619). It includes the capacity to be affected positively, through solidarity and care, and negatively, through harm and exclusion. Philosophical perspectives further enrich this framework. A. Gehlen (1980) emphasizes humanity’s inherent incompleteness and reliance on culture for survival, while Nietzsche highlights human fragility as a defining characteristic.

The framework also draws on Adriana Cavarero’s concept of “horrorism” (Cavarero 2009), which critiques the violence inflicted upon the vulnerable as a defining trait of modernity. Cavarero stresses that while vulnerability is a universal condition due to corporeality and exposure to others, it often manifests as an assault on dignity within systemic violence and dehumanization. Byung-Chul Han (2019) echoes this critique, identifying neoliberalism’s role in deepening individual vulnerability through atomization and self-exploitation, which erodes social solidarity.

Theological insights further expand the discussion. Karl Rahner’s anthropology of human openness, or spirit, is pivotal in conceptualizing vulnerability as both a transcendental and relational condition. Rahner (1976) underscores the capacity for self-transcendence and relationality toward the divine, framing vulnerability as an ontological reality and a site for ethical engagement (Montero Orphanopoulos 2021, p. 629). Berríos complements this by situating vulnerability within the broader context of humanity’s need for healing and restoration amid existential fragility, highlighting theological ethics as a space for transformative possibilities (Berríos 2004).

This interdisciplinary approach establishes vulnerability as a critical ethical-theological category. Engaging with this concept is essential for addressing pressing global issues such as social fragmentation, environmental degradation, and systemic inequality. The ambivalence of vulnerability—its potential to either foster solidarity or perpetuate harm—requires a moral theology capable of articulating human dignity while navigating the complexities of modern existence (Montero Orphanopoulos 2021, pp. 625–27).

(b)

Corporality. Human subjectivity cannot be understood apart from the body—or more precisely, the corporality—of the subject. One of the milestones of 20th-century philosophy was the so-called “corporeal turn,” which situated the human body as a pivotal subject of philosophical, theoretical, and even sociocultural reflection. This shift marked a true philosophical revolution, ending the paradigm of the soul or consciousness as the central and privileged referent for understanding humanity.

Grounded in Merleau-Ponty’s ([1945] 2013) phenomenology, corporality emphasizes the embodied nature of human interactions and ethical responsibility. It challenges dualistic paradigms that separate spirit from body, advocating for an integrated approach to ethical action. For example, ecological ethics often highlight the embodied impact of environmental degradation on vulnerable populations, showcasing the intersection of corporality and justice.

Corporality challenges the traditional separation of mind and body by emphasizing their interconnectedness in human experience. Phenomenological approaches, such as those of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, frame the body as central to perception and engagement with the world. Recent research in cognitive neuroscience extends these ideas, showing how embodied cognition arises from the interaction between neural processes and physical contexts (Clark 2023). These findings have profound implications for ethics, grounding moral decision-making in the lived realities of embodied beings. Studies highlight how vulnerability—rooted in our corporeal nature—shapes ethical responsibility, a notion expanded by theorists like Fuchs (2022), who argues that embodiment forms the basis of relationality and moral empathy in contemporary ethics.

The distance between the self and the world is bridged not only through consciousness but also through corporality. Other philosophers, such as Gabriel Marcel and Michel Foucault, also placed the body at the center of ontological inquiry during the mid-20th century, initiating the corporeal turn. By the 1960s and 1970s, theories of the body in social life emerged, and by the 1980s, feminist theology, Black theology, liberation theology, queer theories, and the HIV/AIDS epidemics further solidified the body as a central focus of human inquiry, with profound religious, political, and cultural implications.

The universal human experience confirms that subjectivity is always embodied—an ambiguous fragment of space where spatiality, desire, and language delineate human finitude. These same dimensions enable encounters between bodies, between groups of embodied subjects. The porosity of the human body is both its vulnerability and its capacity for affective connection, making it the locus of violence and love, along with a spectrum of intermediary experiences.

Corporality also carries significant implications in theological ethics, particularly through the lens of relationality and care. The Incarnation, a central doctrine in Christian theology, asserts the sanctity of the human body as a site of divine encounter and moral significance. This understanding compels theological ethics to prioritize embodied care, especially for the most vulnerable. Montero Orphanopoulos (2024) emphasizes that ethical frameworks must integrate the physical, emotional, and social dimensions of vulnerability to address systemic injustices effectively. Recent contributions from ecological theology align with this view, suggesting that embodiment is not limited to individual bodies but extends to humanity’s interconnectedness with the broader ecosystem (Deane-Drummond 2021). Such perspectives underscore the urgent need for an ethics of care that recognizes the interdependence of human and ecological flourishing.

This perspective informs ecological and social ethics by stressing the interdependence of all embodied beings. Emerging research on ecological theology underscores that care for the environment and human vulnerability are inseparable dimensions of ethical responsibility (Francis 2015). These developments expand traditional theological concerns, bridging the gap between personal morality and collective ecological well-being.

In sociocultural contexts, corporality provides a lens for analyzing power dynamics and inclusion. Social identities, shaped by intersecting factors like race, gender, and disability, are experienced and contested through the body. Ahmed (2021) argues that societal norms often regulate and discipline marginalized bodies to sustain structures of power. In healthcare ethics, Garland-Thomson (2022) emphasizes the importance of recognizing bodily diversity to create equitable systems of care. Together, these perspectives challenge dominant frameworks that privilege certain bodies over others, advocating for a justice-oriented approach that accounts for embodied differences. Such critical attention to corporality aligns with growing interdisciplinary work on social justice, which positions the body as a key site for ethical engagement in pluralistic societies.

These insights resonate with the growing interdisciplinary recognition that ethics must be situated within the complex realities of embodied life. As Montero Orphanopoulos (2024) highlights in Reframing Vulnerability, acknowledging the embodied dimensions of human vulnerability challenges abstract moral frameworks, urging a more grounded ethical discourse that accounts for the fragility and agency of corporeal existence.

For Merleau-Ponty, the most decisive aspect of his philosophy of the body lies in recognizing human corporeality as an original and originating instance. Corporeality is a mode of being that resists reduction to the physical or spiritual and is entirely distinct from the realm of consciousness. The body is both subject and object, a “subject-object.” For Merleau-Ponty, “the body is the being of subjectivity, the being of thought; it is also the way we access being or, rather, the way we reveal to ourselves the preeminence of being over our own reflective, intellectual, and cognitive consciousness” (Merleau-Ponty [1945] 2013).

These interpretations have profoundly influenced Christian and gender studies, as well as cultural representations of the body. They necessitate integrating affectivity and sexuality while recognizing the social constructions of both the body and subjectivity. Such representations mediate the individual’s lived experience and their identity, their corporeality, or embodied subjectivity.

Considering the body and its reflective possibilities today allows us to conclude that the body is a locus where the subject’s interiority—aware of its proximity to the world—becomes evident. This is a vital recognition and a phenomenal realization: to be in the world is to discover that the body perceives and inhabits the world, embodying the phenomena it encounters. Our corporeal experience situates us in the world, enabling us to inhabit and recognize things. Through this recognition, the body becomes aware of its surroundings and apprehends them for itself. Hence, sensations evoked by internalized experiences are intentional, as the body engages with the sensible world, initiating a form of reflection and self-awareness. The body thus becomes the link between the self and the perceived world, facilitating the comprehension of the everyday experience of being-in-the-world (Levinas 1969).

For this reason, the body should be considered a moral category within theological ethics not merely to regulate sexuality or conception, as has traditionally been the focus, but to reclaim corporeality as a fundamental dimension of living. The body is where we become aware of our surroundings, open ourselves to others, and truly exist as living beings within time and space—the coordinates from which we choose and act. As part of the human condition, corporeality is vulnerable, open, susceptible to injury, generative of bonds, and capable of error. These qualities encompass the full spectrum of human characteristics integral to vulnerability. In line with contemporary research, this approach advocates for a justice-oriented ethics that embraces bodily diversity while challenging societal norms that privilege some bodies over others (Garland-Thomson 2022). Corporality thus becomes a lens through which social justice movements and ethical theorists alike can critique and reimagine the structures of power and care that shape embodied life.

To construct an ethics that promotes humanization, it is essential to address corporeality—not merely as a material substrate but as the expression of the self, situated in space and time, in relational and social dimensions. Corporeality is the “place” of our shared vulnerability and must be studied as the complex reality it is: biological and sociocultural, affective and sexual, a site of exposure and recognition, a cornerstone of identity, and a continuous construction of self. It is a realm where both love and violence, care and harm, manifest. In contemporary times, no ethical framework aiming at greater humanization can ignore the essential role of the body in human experience.

(c)

Recognition. Drawing on Levinas (1969) and Honneth (1996), recognition affirms the dignity and relational essence of others. It situates individuals within broader social dynamics, promoting ethics of care and recognition. Practical applications include restorative justice initiatives, where recognition plays a central role in healing relationships and fostering community.

The first to explicitly address the issue of recognition from a philosophical standpoint was the young Hegel, within the framework of political philosophy, in Phenomenology of Spirit (Hegel [1807] 2017). In this work, Hegel examines the developmental process of self-consciousness and the formation of the subject as a self-aware being. In the section titled “Sense-certainty: the This and the Meaning,” Hegel introduces the notion of recognition as a crucial element in the formation of self-consciousness. Through interaction with other individuals, the subject is confronted with the need to be recognized and to recognize others as self-aware beings. This process of mutual recognition is fundamental to the constitution of identity and individual freedom.

Hegel suggests, drawing from Fichte and Schelling, that recognition be understood as a movement in which the subject-object knowledge perspective is overcome and a “subject-subject” relationship is developed, which also includes negativity. Recognition, therefore, is approached through struggle and love, at the core of the natural and formal relations that give rise to a threefold sphere: family, state, and civil society. These stages are essential for the political realm but are not confined to it alone. The intersubjectivity and the process of transcending the self and being open to the encounter with the Other to form a society are also the domain of “ethical life” (Sittlichkeit). This is the world of ethical life and the ethical order that clearly requires attention to history and law.

The systematic globality of Hegel’s thought and the depth of his reflection have provided a theoretical foundation for subsequent developments. Two points in Hegel’s theory of recognition stand out as especially relevant to his philosophical thought and, simultaneously, to our study. The first element is the recognition that his philosophy is understood as dialectical, emphasizing the notion of the struggle for recognition at the intersubjective level. The second point is the concept of reciprocity, which demands recognition as a sine qua non condition.

Axel Honneth (1996), building upon Hegel’s notion of recognition, further elaborates on the social and ethical implications of the concept. Honneth argues that recognition is essential for human development, where individuals achieve self-realization through recognition from others within a community. For Honneth, recognition is not just about recognition as equal members of society but also involves validating their identity, capabilities, and contributions. When recognition is denied, individuals suffer from alienation and marginalization, which can have profound consequences on both the individual and social levels. Thus, recognition becomes a fundamental mechanism for achieving justice and fostering solidarity within a community. When coupled with Fricker’s analysis of epistemic injustice, Honneth’s theory underscores how recognition operates within power dynamics, particularly concerning who gets to be acknowledged as a legitimate knower and participant in social discourse (Honneth 1996).

Miranda Fricker’s (2007) theory of epistemic justice complements Honneth’s work by focusing on how knowledge and recognition are intertwined in the context of social justice. Fricker identifies two primary forms of epistemic injustice: testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice. Testimonial injustice occurs when a speaker’s credibility is undermined due to prejudices, and hermeneutical injustice refers to the lack of interpretive resources necessary to understand one’s own experiences. Both forms of epistemic injustice contribute to the marginalization of certain groups, preventing them from fully participating in the construction and dissemination of knowledge. According to Fricker, epistemic justice requires addressing both the misrecognition of the subject’s contributions and the creation of conditions where all individuals can be recognized as legitimate knowers. Her work emphasizes that denying recognition of one’s epistemic agency leads not only to social harm but also to cognitive and psychological damage (Fricker 2007).

Nancy Fraser (2003) builds upon Honneth’s and Fricker’s ideas by expanding the concept of justice to include both redistribution and recognition. Fraser argues that justice must not only address material inequalities (redistribution) but also the cultural and social recognition of identities and experiences. She introduces the concept of “participatory parity,” which calls for the removal of structural barriers that prevent marginalized groups from participating in the social, political, and economic spheres of society. Fraser’s focus on participatory parity highlights the need for a justice that accounts for both the distribution of resources and the recognition of individuals as full and equal participants in society. In this way, her work enriches the discussion by emphasizing that social justice cannot be achieved without addressing both the material and epistemic aspects of recognition (Fraser 2003).

Hille Haker (2021) significantly extends this discourse by integrating recognition into a theological-ethical framework. In her work, she emphasizes the intertwining of recognition and responsibility, grounding her analysis in both philosophical and theological traditions. Haker identifies misrecognition not just as an epistemological or psychological failure but as a moral harm that disrupts self-identity and perpetuates structural injustice. Her analysis connects this harm to the broader narratives of Christian ethics, where recognition precedes and shapes moral responsibility. In this light, Haker critiques conditional recognition, which often reinforces power asymmetries, and argues for an ethics of recognition that is attentive to historical misrecognition and its moral injuries (Haker 2021).

Together, these theories of recognition—Hegel’s dialectical approach, Honneth’s social and ethical dimensions, Fricker’s epistemic justice, Fraser’s participatory parity, and Haker’s theological-ethical critique—provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship between recognition and justice. They all emphasize that the failure to recognize individuals, whether in terms of their identity, knowledge, or participation, leads to social harm and injustice. As such, a holistic approach to social justice must encompass both the material redistribution of resources and the recognition of individuals as knowers and equal participants in the social fabric.

4. Conclusions

Theological ethics must evolve to address the interconnected and multifaceted challenges of the 21st century. This article has proposed a framework that integrates vulnerability, corporality, and recognition as key categories to reimagine theological ethics as a discipline grounded in both relational and practical dimensions. By drawing on interdisciplinary methodologies and engaging with contemporary issues such as climate change, migration, and systemic injustice, this approach highlights the potential for theological ethics to foster human flourishing.

A renewed fundamental moral theology offers a framework that moves beyond factionalism by reclaiming its role as a reflective discipline engaged in moral discernment instead of ideological entrenchment. Rather than aligning exclusively with progressive or conservative agendas, theological ethics centered on vulnerability, corporality, and recognition fosters a moral imagination that recognizes the dignity of all persons, regardless of their ideological stance. This approach does not propose relativism but calls for dialogical ethics that seek common ethical ground amid pluralism. By emphasizing relationality, theological ethics can facilitate encounters between divergent perspectives, cultivating a moral discourse prioritizing human dignity and justice over polarizing doctrinal disputes. This is particularly significant in contemporary ecclesial contexts, where ideological divisions often obscure the theological task of mediating ethical discernment in light of evolving human realities.

Rather than positioning theology in opposition to postmodern thought, renewed theological ethics recognizes postmodernity’s critique of grand narratives while affirming the theological task of articulating meaningful moral visions. The notion of ‘salvific truths’ need not entail rigid dogmatism but can instead be understood as the Christian ethical commitment to human flourishing, articulated in ways that resonate with contemporary experiences. As Gianni Vattimo suggests, a ‘weak thought’ (pensiero debole) approach allows theology to engage constructively with postmodern skepticism, reframing salvific truths not as imposed absolutes but as lived expressions of faith, justice, and solidarity. This allows Catholic moral theology to contribute to public ethics in plural societies, demonstrating its capacity to engage critically yet meaningfully with contemporary moral and social transformations.

A renewed theological ethics does not seek to impose ecclesial authority on public life but rather contributes to moral discourse by offering an ethics of encounter. Catholic Social Teaching, particularly as articulated in Fratelli Tutti and Laudato Si’, provides a vision of the common good that can serve as a bridge between ideological divides. While theological ethics cannot resolve every political or ecclesial conflict, it can cultivate ethical discernment that moves beyond reactionary positions. By grounding moral theology in principles of social justice, ecological responsibility, and the dignity of the vulnerable, theological ethics becomes a space where common ethical concerns can be articulated in ways that resonate across ideological lines. This does not require agreement on all doctrinal matters but invites engagement with moral principles that foster human flourishing in diverse social and political contexts.

Future research should deepen the exploration of the dynamic interplay between these categories and their application in diverse sociocultural contexts. For instance, longitudinal studies on the impact of vulnerability-centered community programs could provide empirical evidence for the transformative potential of this framework. Additionally, further investigation into the intersection of corporality and environmental ethics could illuminate pathways for addressing ecological degradation through embodied practices of care.

The framework must also grapple with critiques, such as the tension between universal ethical principles and the contextual specificity required for practical implementation. Engaging with counterarguments and alternative perspectives will not only strengthen the proposed categories but also ensure their adaptability and relevance across different settings.

A revitalized fundamental moral theology does not retreat into abstraction but actively engages with contemporary moral and social challenges. By addressing polarization, interdisciplinary barriers, and the ethical complexities of postmodernity, theological ethics can contribute meaningfully to both ecclesial and public debates. The task is not to dictate solutions but to cultivate moral discernment that is attuned to the relational, embodied, and structural dimensions of ethical life. In doing so, theological ethics reclaims its transformative role, offering a vision of human flourishing that is both theologically grounded and socially engaged.

Finally, the article underscores the importance of fostering a dialogical and inclusive approach to theological ethics. By engaging with marginalized voices and integrating insights from diverse disciplines, theological ethics can become a vital resource for navigating the complexities of our globalized world. This renewed vision positions the discipline as a catalyst for transformative change, promoting human dignity, social justice, and ecological well-being.