Catholic moral theologians from 63 countries gathered in Padua, Italy, last week. The first International Crosscultural Conference for Theological Ethicists provided a unique opportunity to share views and experiences, as outlined by two of the organisers

It can sometimes be a rather lonely, as well as eclectic, job being a modern practical moral theologian. When we serve on ethics committees for healthcare facilities, for example, we are expected to know the moral tradition in medical ethics, from the Gospel to Benedict XVI. But we also need to know context and data.

Say we are helping to decide whether life-saving but costly drugs should be made available, we need to know about the drug, its pharmacological effects, the facility's specific mission (is it to provide affordable care?) and its financial capabilities to provide the drug, as well as the local bishop's own position about access to expensive but urgent care. Consequently we moralists have many interlocutors, drawn from different professions and various disciplines.

But, paradoxically, we often work alone (for instance, few ethics committees have more than one of us). Additionally, given the urgency of the issues with which we are often preoccupied, we also tend to work locally. In order to offer specific prudential judgements, we descend into the particulars and end up knowing a great deal about our local culture but not enough about those beyond our region.

Moral theology has, rightfully, become more interdisciplinary and ecumenical. But we find that there are few opportunities for a theological exchange among Catholic ethicists. Thus we envisaged a cross-cultural exchange in which moralists could deliberate on and debate major theological themes like conscience, the moral Magisterium, globalisation, social justice and religious pluralism. In setting up this pioneering conference, our planning committee, which itself embodied the geographical and cultural diversity of the world Church, realised that we would also need to talk about practical issues such as Aids, sexual ethics, media ethics, access to medical treatment, gender, war, terrorism, the use of power, labour, marriage and the family, among others. Finally, we knew that to be an international conference, we would need to cover the travel and housing of those from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. So we raised 375,000 euros and funded more than 160 moralists from these regions.

We established as a central feature of our programme five "continental" panels consisting of three moralists who would be representative of different parts of the continent. Each panel faced the same three questions: what are the major moral problems facing our continent? How do we as moralists address these problems? What hope do we have for the future?

Our thematic panels, too, were intercontinental, thereby ensuring that as we considered the sensus fidelium and moral discernment, or hermeneutics and the sources of theological ethics, our frame of reference was global and intercultural.

It was striking that poverty and social inequality were mentioned as the primary concerns for moral theologians from each continent. Panellists from the United States were questioned by an Indian theologian about the extent of poverty amid plenty, while Clement Campos from India and Ronaldo Zacharias from Brazil both spoke of the way in which globalisation had deepened and extended inequality. Each drew on the liberation tradition in suggesting ways in which the impoverishment of large parts of the globe might be addressed.

There were obvious differences among the audience as to whether and how priests should engage in political activity, with some advocating involvement in formal political processes while others resisted such a move. Marianne Heimbach-Steins from Germany argued that issues of poverty and growing inequality were of major concern for Europe too, and she pointed to the growth of urban (often immigrant) ghettos and to the increasing problem of trafficking in women and children.

From the floor Johan Verstraeten from Leuven argued that the idea of the European Union as a political project has been replaced by a purely economic market. In contrast, however, the Polish theologian Piotr Mazurkiewicz denounced aspects of the political agenda of the European Parliament which, he argued, runs counter to Christian values. He cited the recent decision to allow EU funds to be used to fund stem-cell research in countries where it is legal to do so, and the recent resolution on homophobia as examples of this. Soon, he argued, Christians would not even be able to take part in political debates about same-sex marriage because the resolution on homophobia will make citing official Catholic teaching on homosexuality a criminal offence.

Problems of identity politics loomed large in the African panel and there was some debate about the nature and extent of the threat from Islam. Roger Afan, Laurenti Magesa and Sebastien Muyengo Mulombe each spoke about the legacy of colonialism, violence and the problems of governance. Members of the audience, however, took the panellists to task for their failure to mention either the Aids crisis or the problem of gender justice in their analyses.

There were moments of enduring tension too. For example, those from continental Europe often leaned to the more conceptual discussions invoking concern for "method" and hermeneutics; those from the English-speaking world were more interested in the practical working-out of urgent contemporary issues such as Aids, bioethics, the family and globalisation. There were latent tensions too about the place of women in the "profession". One Italian theologian reported that the significant presence of women, especially from the industrialised English-speaking world, created a degree of discomfort for some but made her colleagues realise that she was not out of place.

The most important thing we learned more about was our own Catholicity. Though our approaches or methods of moral decision- making may differ culturally, we all had similar concerns about globalisation, religious pluralism and justice, and wanted to respond better to issues of poverty, war and violence, health care and access to it, marriage, family and sexual matters. For example, it was clear that, regardless of the geographical location from which bioethical issues emerged, they were consistently framed in terms of social justice rather than in terms of individual choice. Indeed, the language of autonomy had virtually disappeared and was replaced by concerns about access and participation.

This solidarity was mirrored in the strong anti-war sentiments consistently expressed and voiced loudest by our North American colleagues. We realised that we had a similar language, that we were rooted in the Gospel. We found out that often we thought considerably alike; for instance, an anticipated argument between Giuseppe Angelini and Paul Valadier (usually styled as exponents of conflicting interpretations of the relationship between conscience and the Magisterium) became an amiable dialogue.

Here, too, we learned a lot about ourselves. Above all, we shared our responsibility to serve the Church and the world. Constantly one heard people referring to our shared vocation as moral theologians. Sometimes people were astonished that a speaker from Ivory Coast could express his understanding of the sensus fidelium (seeing it in terms of a balance between the claims on conscience on the one hand and the Magisterium on the other) in a manner that resonated so clearly with others in India or Italy. This experience was repeated frequently, illustrating the extraordinary fluency and competency over the moral tradition that is present among theologians from the south. We found here, then, a convergence of self-understanding and that in turn developed into a much-needed and much-felt solidarity. Moreover, even when differences emerged this sense of inhabiting a shared tradition remained.

The more we encountered our identity and responsibilities, the more we wanted to solidify into certain forms of incorporation. This led to groups of moralists - graduate students, Jesuits, Africans, women - forming their own networks or associations. Not least, we are hoping to have another conference in four years' time. 

Linda Hogan and James Keenan SJ were respectively a member and chairman of the conference's planning committee. Ms Hogan is Professor of Ecumenics at the Irish School of Ecumenics, Trinity College, Dublin. Fr Keenan is Professor of Theological Ethics at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. For further information visit www.catholicethics.com. The conference's plenaries will be published by Continuum and some of the applied ethics papers will be published by Orbis.