NewDirectionsforCatholicTheology.Bernard Lonergan...

JHMTh/ZNThG; 2019 26(1): 108–131

Benjamin DahlkeNew Directions for Catholic Theology. BernardLonergan’s Move beyond Neo-ScholasticismDOI https://doi.org/10.1515/znth-2019-0005

Abstract: Wie andere aufgeschlossene Fachvertreter seiner Generation hat der

kanadische Jesuit Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984) dazu beigetragen, die katho-

lische Theologie umfassend zu erneuern. Angesichts der o�enkundigen Gren-

zen der Neuscholastik, die sich im Laufe des 19. Jahrhunderts als das Modell

durchgesetzt hatte, suchte er schon früh nach einer Alternative. Bei aller Skep-

sis gegenüber dem herrschenden Thomismus schätzte er Thomas von Aquin in

hohem Maß. Das betraf insbesondere dessen Bemühen, die damals aktuellen

wissenschaftlichen und methodischen Erkenntnisse einzubeziehen. Lonergan

wollte dies ebenso tun. Es ging ihm darum, der katholischen Theologie eine

neue Richtung zu geben, also von der Neuscholastik abzurücken. Denn diese

berücksichtigte weder das erkennende Subjekt noch das zu erkennende Objekt

hinreichend.

Keywords: Bernard Lonergan, Jesuits, Neo-Scholasticism, Vatican II, Thomism

Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984), Canadian-born Jesuit, helped to foster the re-

newal of theology as it took place in the wake of Vatican II, as well in the

council’s aftermath. He was aware of the profound changes the discipline was

going through. Since the customary way of presenting the Christian faith – usu-

ally identified with Neo-Scholasticism – could no longer be considered adequate,

Lonergan had been working out an alternative approach. It was his intent to

provide theology with new foundations that led him to incorporate contem-

porary methods of science and scholarship into theological practice. Faith, as

he thought, should be made intelligible to the times.1Thus, Lonergan moved

beyond the borders set up by Neo-Scholasticism.

1 Close to the end of his life Lonergan gave a long interview in which he said: “My public themehas been, as a professor of theology and a writer in philosophy, to provide Catholics with thebackground for understanding something about the modern world – without giving up their

Benjamin Dahlke: Kamp 6, 33098 Paderborn, Deutschland, E-Mail: [email protected]

Bereitgestellt von | Theologische Fakultät PaderbornAngemeldet | [email protected] Autorenexemplar

Heruntergeladen am | 11.11.19 13:00

Bernard Lonergan’s Move beyond Neo-Scholasticism 109

In order to clarify his endeavour it is essential, first, to take a look at the

rise of Neo-Scholasticism, and the decline of that movement caused by internal

weaknesses. Secondly, it will be shown how these weaknesses were highlighted

and addressed by other theologians. Finally, against the backdrop of these pro-

jects of renewal, Lonergan’s own approach shall be outlined. This case study

aims at contributing to a better understanding of the dynamics of recent Catholic

theology, and it – hopefully – shall induce further surveys on other individual

authors in order to get a broader perspective on the discipline’s development.

1 Neo-Scholasticism and its internal weaknesses

From the mid-19th up to the second half of the 20th century Catholic theology

was dominated by Neo-Scholasticism, which intended to return to the great

medieval thinkers, most of all Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274).2His teaching, es-

pecially his Summa theologiae, was championed not only as outstanding, but

even more as orthodox due to the conviction that exclusively Aquinas’ thought

would serve the needs of Catholicism.3Many theologians and Church o�cials

were suspicious, if not even fearful, that other approaches – principally those in-

spired by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and post-Kantian Philosophy – would not

adequately represent the inherited teachings. Thus, in 1827 the Critique of pure

Catholicity.” See Caring about meaning, patterns in the life of Bernard Lonergan, Thomas MoreInstitute Papers 82, ed. Pierrot Lambert et al. Montreal: Thomas More Institute, 1982, 262.2 Gerald McCool, From Unity to Pluralism. The Internal Evolution of Thomism. New York: FordhamUniversity Press, 1989; ibid., The Neo-Thomists, Marquette Studies in Philosophy 3. Milwaukee,WI: Marquette University Press, 1994; Ralph Del Colle, “Neo-Scholasticism.” In The BlackwellCompanion to Nineteenth-Century Theology, ed. David Fergusson. Oxford: Blackwell, 2010, 375–394; Peter Walter, “Den Weltkreis täglich von Verderben bringenden Irrtümern befreien” (Leo XIII.).Die Internationalisierung der theologischenWissenschaftswelt am Beispiel der Neuscholastik.” InTransnationale Dimensionen wissenschaftlicher Theologie, VIEG.B 86, ed. Claus Arnold, JohannesWischmeyer. Göttingen, Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2013, 319–353; Bernard McGinn,Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. A Biography. Princeton, NJ, London: Princeton UniversityPress, 2014, 163–209. It isworth noting that at that timea revival of themiddle ageswashappeninganyway, including art and literature. On this seeManufacturing Middle Ages. Entangled History ofMedievalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe, National Cultivation of Culture 6, ed. Patrick J. Gearyand Gábor Klaniczay. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013.3 John Inglis, Spheres of philosophical inquiry and the historiography of medieval philosophy,Brill’s studies in intellectual history 81. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 1998; Frank Rexroth, “Die scho-lastische Wissenschaft in den Meistererzählungen von der europäischen Geschichte.” In Die Aktu-alität der Vormoderne. Epochenentwürfe zwischen Alterität und Kontinuität, Europa im Mittelalter23, ed. Klaus Ridder, Ste�en Patzold. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013, 111–134.



110 Benjamin Dahlke

reason was placed on the list of prohibited books, as happened some years later

to the works of the late Georg Hermes (1775–1831), Professor at the University

of Bonn and an ardent admirer of Idealism, whose adherents were ordered to

withdraw from their views.4Other philosophers of religion like Anton Günther

(1783–1863) or Jakob Frohschammer (1821–1893) – both of them priests – were

also condemned.5

Besides the question regarding which kind of philosophy might be fit-

ting, Neo-Scholasticism was considered as a solution to another pressing issue,

namely, the growing awareness of the historicity of human expressions. And

this awareness was intimately connected with, if not indeed a consequence of,

the modern turn to the subject.6As historical scholarship flourished, it gained a

more critical rather than a�rmative treatment of theological disciplines such as

exegesis and Church history, in so far as many doctrinal statements were shown

to be a result more of political machinations than infallible expressions of the

revealed truth. The underlying and perduring tensions erupted in 1863, when

a large group of distinguished Catholic scholars – the Münchner Gelehrtenver-sammlung – gathered in Munich, under the chairmanship of Ignaz Döllinger

(1799–1890), whose programmatic keynote speech was a plea to take philosophy

and, especially, history seriously.7A group of conservatively minded theologians

strongly protested, and among them was Konstantin Freiherr von Schaezler

4 Christian Göbel, “Kants Gift. Wie die ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft’ auf den ‘Index Librorum Prohib-itorum’ kam.” In Kant und der Katholizismus. Stationen einer wechselvollen Geschichte, Forschun-gen zur europäischen Geistesgeschichte 8, ed. Norbert Fischer. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder,2005, 91–137; Herman H. Schwedt, Das Römische Urteil über Georg Hermes (1775–1831). EinBeitrag zur Geschichte der Inquisition im 19. Jahrhundert, RQ.S 37. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder,1980; Georg Sans, “Georg Hermes und die O�enbarung – Eine Fallstudie zum Fortwirken Fichtesim katholischen Denken des 19. Jahrhunderts.” Fichte-Studien 36 (2012): 165–180.5 Herman H. Schwedt, “Zur Verurteilung der Werke Anton Günthers (1857) und seiner Schüler.”ZKG 101 (1990): 301–343; John P. Boyle, “Faith and Reason: The Case of Jacob Frohschammer.” InContinuity and plurality in Catholic theology, Festschrift Gerald McCool, ed. Anthony J. Cernera.Fairfield, CT: Sacred Heart University Press, 1998, 1–12; Elke Pahud de Mortanges, Philosophieund kirchliche Autorität. Der Fall Jakob Frohschammer und die römische Indexkongregation (1855–1864), Römische Inquisition und Indexkongregation. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2005.6 Karl Ameriks, Kant and the Historical Turn. Philosophy as Critical Interpretation. Oxford: Claren-don, 2006; International Yearbook of German Idealism 12 (2010).7 Ignaz Döllinger, “Rede über Vergangenheit und Zukunft der katholischen Theologie.” In Ver-handlungen der Versammlung katholischer Gelehrten in München vom 28. September bis 1. Ok-tober 1863, Pius Bonifatius Gams et al. Regensburg: Manz, 1863, 25–59, at 47 f.: “In Deutsch-land also haben wir künftighin das Heimathland der katholischen Theologie zu suchen. Hat dochauch kein anderes Volk, als das Deutsche, die beiden Augen der Theologie, Geschichte und Philo-sophie, mit solcher Sorgfalt, Liebe und Gründlichkeit gepflegt; sind doch in beiden Gebieten dieDeutschen die Lehrer aller Nationen geworden.”




(1827–1880), for some time a Jesuit, who turned out to be a strong proponent

of Thomism.8Not surprisingly, Neo-Scholasticism has especially deep roots in

Germany.9

Part of the movement’s success was due to backing by Church-o�cials, most

importantly by the Vatican itself. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, at least

for some decades, Neo-Scholasticism enjoyed the status of a semi-o�cial teach-

ing. In this respect the encylical Aeterni patris of 1879 was crucial. This highly

authoritative papal text stressed the centrality of Aquinas for philosophy and

theology.10

The 1907 encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis reinforced this emphasis.

Scholastic thought in general, and especially Thomism, was to remedy a set

of actually quite di�erent matters regarded as threatening to orthodox belief,

but which nevertheless were treated as an unified project labeled ‘Modernism’.11

Pope Pius X insisted that both philosophy and theology rely on Aquinas.12

Ten

years later, the same imperative could be found in the Codex Iuris Canonici, bywhich hitherto local versions of canon law were codified and introduced for

universal use throughout the Church.13

Afterwards e�orts were made to reorgan-

ize the studies required for ordinands with a Thomistic focus. As a result, the

apostolic constitution Deus scientiarum Dominus was published in 1931.14

Pope Leo XIII requested the Jesuit order – interestingly not the Dominicans

8 Theologie, kirchliches Lehramt undö�entlicheMeinung.DieMünchenerGelehrtenversammlungvon 1863und ihre Folgen,MKHSNF4, ed. Franz Xaver Bischof, Georg Essen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,2015.9 Thomas F. O’Meara, Church and Culture. German Catholic Theology, 1860–1914. Notre Dame,IN, London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991; Detlef Peitz, Die Anfänge der Neuscholastik inDeutschland und Italien (1818–1870). Bonn: Nova et Vetera, 2006.10 Serge-Thomas Bonino, “Le fondement doctrinal du projet léonin. Aeterni Patris et la restaura-tion du thomisme.” In Philippe Levillain, Jean-Marc Ticchi (dir.), Le pontificat de Léon XIII. Renais-sance du Saint-Siège?, CEFR 368, ed. Philippe Levillain, Jean-Marc Ticchi. Rome: École Françaisede Rome, 2006, 267–274; Philippe Chapelle, “Le retentissement d’Aeterni Patris en philosophieet théologie.” In ibd., 275–284; Mario Pangallo, “Il tomismo e la filosofia cristiana secondo LeoneXIII.” Lat. 76 (2010): 257–266.11 Claus Arnold, Kleine Geschichte des Modernismus. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2007.12 Pius X, “Pascendi.” ASS 40 (1907): 593–650, at 640 f. For background see Augustin La�ay, “Unrenouveau thomiste aprés Pascendi (1907–1914)? Aux sources de l’antithomisme contemporain.”RThom 108 (2008): 281–299.13 Can. 1366 §2 CIC/1917: “Philosophiae rationalis ac theologiae studia et alumnorum in hisdisciplinis institutionem professores omnino pertractent ad Angelici Doctoris rationem, doctrinamet principia, eaque sancte teneant.“14 Klaus Unterburger, Vom Lehramt der Theologen zum Lehramt der Päpste? Pius XI., die Apostol-ische Konstitution “Deus scientiarumDominus” und die Reform der Universitätstheologie. Freiburgim Breisgau: Herder, 2010.



112 Benjamin Dahlke

– to promote the Thomism he favoured.15

Actually, several Jesuits had been im-

portant figures in the rise of the Neo-Scholastic movement, for instance Matteo

Liberatore (1810–1892) or Joseph Kleutgen (1811–1883).16

The Gregorian Univer-

sity, where Lonergan eventually would study, obtain his doctorate and finally

teach, thus became a center of Neo-Scholasticism, especially in its Thomistic

form.17

For its adherents, the scholastic revival, as inaugurated at the end of the

19th century, was all but a simplistic endeavour, maybe even narrow-minded

and oriented towards a glorified past. The pope himself coined a phrase which

gives proof to this: vetera novis augere perficere, that is to enrich and master the

old by taking the new into account.18

With respect to this, depending on which

aspect would be stressed, there could be quite di�erent, if not conflicting, forms

of Thomism.19

For example, Jesuits were chiefly inclined to follow their confrère,

Francisco Suárez (1548–1617).20

From the beginning, however, Neo-Scholasticism

had internal weaknesses, which would finally lead to its demise in the 1960s.

First, the subject was not taken seriously in that it was excluded from consid-

eration. Secondly, the object of theology, as it was conceived, lacked su�cient

complexity.

In the Critique of Pure Reason Immanuel Kant insisted one cannot make state-

ments about reality without taking the knowing subject into account. Objective

knowledge requires both sense data and concepts together. From then on ex-

pressly acknowledging the role of the subject has been a major concern of philo-

15 Oliver P. Ra�erty, “The Thomistic Revival and the relation between the Jesuits and the Papacy,1878–1914.” TS 75 (2014): 746–773.16 Kleutgen somehow was involed in nearly all convictions of Catholic scholars favouring his-torical criticism and a philosophy oriented to the subject. The German wanted to return to theintellectual achievements of the past because he regarded them as more fitting with the Church’steachings than all other recent intellectual approaches, of which he was well aquainted with. SeeJosef Kleutgen, Die Theologie der Vorzeit, Volume 1. Münster: Aschendor�, 1853, 1–34, esp. 1–6.17 Philip Caraman, University of the Nations. The Story of the Gregorian University with ItsAssociated Institutes, the Biblical and Oriental 1551–1962. New York: Paulist, 1981, 106–114.18 Leo XIII, “Aeterni patris.” ASS 12 (1879): 91–115, at 111: “Hoc autem novitatis studium, cumhomines imitatione trahantur, catholicorum quoque philosophorum animos visum est alicubipervasisse; qui patrimonio antiquae sapientiae posthabito, nova moliri, quam vetera novis augereet perficere maluerunt, certe minus sapienti consilio, et non sine scientiarum detrimento. Etenimmultiplex haec ratio doctrinae, cum in magistrorum singulorum auctoritate arbitrioque nitatur,mutabile habet fundamentum, eaque de causa non firmam atque stabilem neque robustam, sicutveterem illam, sed nutantem et levem facit philosophiam.”19 From a then-contemporary perspective see Helen James John, The Thomist Spectrum, TheOrestes Brownson Series on Contemporary Thought and A�airs 5. New York: Fordham UniversityPress, 1966.20 On the Jesuits’ engagement with Suárez see Stephen Schloesser, “Recent Works in JesuitPhilosophy. Vicissitudes of Rhetorical Accommodation.” Journal of Jesuit Studies 1 (2014): 105–126.




sophy. Protestant theologians made use of various kinds of Post-Kantian Ger-

man philosophy to create innovative ways of approaching the Christian faith.21

For Catholics, it was quite di�erent on account of the belief that returning to

Thomas, was the best way to counter the perils of modern subjectivism, to which

they referred variously as scepticism, relativism, and even atheism.22

Thus, the

antipathy to German philosophy in the wake of Kant was a driving force of

Neo-Scholasticism. Since rather than falling into either fideism or rationalism,

Aquinas integrated faith and reason in accord with the principle that grace does

not supplant natural reason but perfects it.

In general Neo-Scholasticism strongly emphasized natural theology, in or-

der to demonstrate that all human beings have an openness (or obediential

potency) to God’s gratuitous gift of saving grace. Although this was the main

task of apologetics, natural theology would sometimes also be included in the

dogmatic treatise, De Deo Uno.23 All too often in this context the quinque viaeof Aquinas, which, when isolated from their theological context in the Summatheologiae, were mistakenly construed as logical proofs for the existence of God

and employed to oppose Kant’s claim that God is not objectively knowable by

pure reason, but instead has only the cognitive status of a rational postulate

for working out the validity of morals. The claim was that in principle unaided

reason can attain only knowledge that God exists, but that nescimus quid sitDeus since only God understands God’s nature. Humans, in contrast, reach only

something initial or rudimentary, which has to be determined, supplied and

enriched. Here revelation comes into play, displaying God’s own and inner being.

In the dogmatic manuals, the tract De Deo trino treated this very aspect

as the basis for the following topics such as Trinity, Christology, Grace and

others. All of the dogmatic treatises, however, omitted any treatment of the

human subject. Theological anthropology or epistemological questions were

never properly explicated, so that the concrete subject in its situatedness as

conditioned by varying circumstances and living within particular social and

cultural perspectives was overlooked. Instead, the emphasis in dogmatics was

21 See Gary Dorrien, Kantian Reason andHegelian Spirit: The Idealistic Logic ofModern Theology.Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley, 2012.22 Stereotypes like this were reactions not least to the traumatic event of the French Revolution.See Ulrich L. Lehner, The Catholic Enlightenment. The Forgotten History of a Global Movement.New York: Oxford University Press, 2016, 206–218.23 For what follows see Guido Pozzo, “La manualistica.” In Storia della teologia, Volume 3, ed.Rino Fisichella, 309–336. Rome, Bologna: Dehoniane, 1996; Thomas Marschler, “Die AttributeGottes in der katholischen Theologie.” In Eigenschaften Gottes. Ein Gespräch zwischen systema-tischer Theologie und analytischer Philosophie, Studien zur Theologie, Ethik und Philosophie 6,ed. Thomas Marschler and Thomas Schärtl. Münster: Aschendor�, 2016, 3–34.



114 Benjamin Dahlke

exclusively on objective propositions that were supposed to refer to revealed

eternal truths, whereby these propositions tended to be utterly removed from

the historical circumstances in which they emerged and regarded as time-

less.24

Hence, the ambivalent attitude towards the history of doctrine or Dog-mengeschichte, understood as the critical reconstruction of the emergence of a

particular doctrine, as well as its later development.25

Of course, many theolo-

gians acknowledged the need to trace the course of the church’s teaching as

it developed over the centuries, so that historical scholarship flourished, espe-

cially in the fields of patristics and medieval thought. Nevertheless, scholars

felt constrained to limit themselves to a�rming what was plausible to the cur-

rently held truths. Meanwhile, such Protestant scholars as Adolf von Harnack

(1851–1930), Friedrich Loofs (1858–1928), and Martin Werner (1887–1964) were

much more liable to challenge traditional church teaching, thus paving the

way for a liberal understanding of Christianity focused mainly on ethics. In

contrast, Joseph Schwane (1824–1892), professor at Münster and author of a

multi-volumed Dogmengeschichte who was indeed a Catholic pioneer in this

field, conceived the role of his discipline as reconstructing the ongoing unfold-

ing of statements of faith,26

not for the sake of challenging dogmatics, but to

support it by showing the coherence of the Catholic belief-system.27

In brief,

24 Bartholomeo M. Xiberta, Introductio in sacram theologiam. Madrid: Consejo Superior deInvestigaciones Científicas, 1949; Reginald Garriou-Lagrange, “Natura e valore delle formuledogmatiche.” In Problemi e orientamenti di teologia dommatica, Carlo Colombo et al. (ed.). Milan:Marzorati, 1957, 387–408.25 Dogmengeschichte und katholische Theologie, ed. Werner Löser. Würzburg: Echter, 1985.26 Joseph Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Volume 1. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 21892, 1: “DieDogmengeschichte hat wie die Dogmatik an den Dogmen ihr Object, jedochmit dem Unterschiede,daß die letztere die Aufgabe verfolgt, die Wahrheit und den Inhalt derselben zu begründen und zuerklären, wogegen die erstere hauptsächlich ihre geschichtlichen Entwicklungen auseinanderzule-gen hat.”27 Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 14: “In einer innigen Beziehung steht die Dogmengeschichteauch zur Dogmatik. Sie will nicht etwa die Dogmatik ersetzen, wie dies vielfach in den vonder Kirche abgefallenen religiösen Genossenschaften der Fall ist, die mit der Kirche auch dieGlaubensregel und das Dogma verloren haben und die Dogmatik durch eine historische Kenntnißvon den Controversen auf dem Gebiete des Glaubens ersetzen wollen. Sie gibt aber eine Ergän-zung und Vervollständigung der Dogmatik, indem erstere die genetische Entwicklung der Dog-men bloßlegt und dadurch ein deutlicheres Verständniß derselben vermittelt. Namentlich tritt inder Dogmengeschichte die Consequenz in der Durchbildung und Verfolgung der geo�enbartenWahrheiten bis zu den letzten abgeleiteten Sätzen, die geschlossene Einheit und Festigkeit desganzen Glaubenssystems, sowie die Unfehlbarkeit der Kirche nach ihrer Nothwendigkeit wie That-sächlichkeit auf das glänzendste hervor.”




doctrinal development was an highly delicate issue that was being discussed

with great zeal.28

2 Catholic Renewal

The decades after World War I can be seen as a laboratory of theological renewal

in which a lot of exciting scholarship was done. Several attempts were being

made to overcome the obvious weaknesses of Neo-Scholasticism, especially by

French- and German-speaking scholars. But renewal did not necessarily bring

with it a complete change of course. The vast majority of Catholic theologians

of that time would remain within the older framework.

German dogmaticians like Bernhard Bartmann (1860–1938) and Engelbert

Krebs (1881–1950) made e�orts to relate dogma to life, thereby conceding that an

immense gap had grown up between them. Paderborn professor Bartmann poin-

ted out the Lebenswert des Dogmas, so that after explaining a particular doctrine

he would briefly indicate its spiritual value.29

In a similar way, Freiburg pro-

fessor Krebs emphasized how dogmas contain both general human values and

supernatural goals, blessings, empowerments, and mediations of salvation.30

Without these links the inherited teachings appeared alien and so meaningless

to human self-understanding.31

28 For an overview see Karl Rahner, “Zur Frage der Dogmenentwicklung.” In Schriften zur Theo-logie, Volume 1. Einsiedeln: Benziger, 21956, 49–90; Charles Boyer, “Lo sviluppo del dogma.” InProblemi e orientamenti di teologia dommatica, 359–380. For background see Jaroslav Pelikan,Development of Christian Doctrine. Some Historical Prolegomena. New Haven, CT, London: YaleUniversity Press, 1969; Aidan Nichols, From Newman to Congar. The idea of doctrinal developmentfrom the Victorians to the Second Vatican Council. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990; Ward De Pril, “TheConciliar Schema De Deposito Fidei on Doctrinal Progress. An Analysis from the Perspective of Pre-conciliar Theories of Dogmatic Development.” In La théologie catholique entre intransigeance etrenouveau: La reception des mouvements préconciliaires à Vatican II, BRHE 95 ed. Gilles Routhieret al. Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Érasme and Leuven: Maurits Sabbebibliotheek, 2011, 123–144;Guy Mansini, “The Development of the Development of Doctrine in the Twentieth Century.” Ang.93 (2016): 785–822.29 Bernhard Bartmann, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, Volume 1. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 4+51920,V. For background see Benjamin Dahlke, “Aufstieg und Niedergang neuscholastischer Dogmatikin Paderborn.” Jahrbuch für mitteldeutsche Kirchen- und Ordensgeschichte 11 (2015): 77–113.30 Engelbert Krebs, Dogma und Leben. Die kirchliche Glaubenslehre als Wertquelle für dasGeistesleben, KLW 5/1–2, 2 Volumes. Paderborn: Bonifacius, 1921–1925. For background seeThomas F. O’Meara, “The Witness of Engelbert Krebs.” In Cernera (ed.), Continuity and plurality inCatholic theology, 127–153; Michael Quisinsky, “Dogma ‘und’ Leben. Der Freiburger DogmatikerEngelbert Krebs (1881–1950) – ein Theologe des Übergangs?” RJKG 32 (2013): 85–111.31 On the underlying problem, and the neo-scholastic solution to it, see Benjamin Dahlke,



116 Benjamin Dahlke

In a quite di�erent and more philosophically sophisticated manner, Joseph

Maréchal (1878–1944) took up the same concern. This Belgian Jesuit, who had

studied Kant, wanted to reconcile him with his supposed counterpart, Aquinas.32

The publication of a series of papers, under the title, Le point de départe de lamétaphysique, gave birth to the school of transcendental Thomism,

33in which

Karl Rahner (1904–1984) might be regarded the most prominent figure. Building

on his analysis of the knowing subject in his Erkenntnismetaphysik, Rahner

transformed the neo-scholastic apologetics based on natural theology into a

philosophy of religion.34

Rahner thought of human beings as already ordered

to a reality beyond themselves before encountering Christian revelation. The

question that human beings incarnately are finds its answer in God. Rahner,

who continiously engaged with Aquinas,35

eventually became the most read and

influential Catholic theologian worldwide. His work was of tremendous help in

the period leading up to and following Vatican II.

For other theologians St. Thomas was of course important, but he was still

an historical figure, who could not be adequately understood apart from his

medieval context, which meant that his thought could not be simply applied to

“Menschliche Selbstverständigung und kirchliches Dogma. Zu einem neuzeitlichen Problem.”Cath(M) 69 (2015): 208–224.32 Au point de départ. JosephMaréchal entre la critique kantienne et l’ontologie thomiste, Donnerraison 6, ed. Paul Gilbert. Bruxelles: Lessius, 2000.33 This term goes back to the Austrian Jesuit Otto Muck, Die transzendentale Methode in derscholastischen Philosophie der Gegenwart. Innsbruck: Rauch, 1964. English translation: Thetranscendental Method. New York: Herder and Herder, 1968. Muck mentioned also Lonergan. Forbackground see his autobiographical notes “Lonergans Beitrag zur Methode der Philosophie.Erste Rezeption in Innsbruck.” In Österreich – Kanada. Kultur- und Wissenstransfer, VUI 248, ed.Ursula Mathis-Moser. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck, 2003, 187–195. Sometimes Lonergan hasbeen ascribed a transcendental-thomist, not only by Muck but also by Gerald McCool, “Twentieth-Century Scholasticism.” JR 58 (1978) Supplement 198–221. Lonergan refused being labelled such,for example inMethod in Theology. New York: Herder and Herder, 1972, 13 f., fn. 4; and PierrotLambert et al (ed.), Caring about Meaning, 68. Save many di�erences there are, nevertheless,similarities between both Jesuits. On this see Michael Vertin, “La finalité intellectuelle. Maréchalet Lonergan.” In Gilbert (ed.), Au point de départ, 447–465; Paul Gilbert, “Maréchal, Lonergan etle désir de connaitre.” RPF 63 (2007): 1125–1143.34 Karl Rahner, Geist in Welt. Zur Metaphysik der endlichen Erkenntnis bei Thomas von Aquin.Innsbruck, Leipzig: Rauch, 1939; Hörer des Wortes. Grundlegung der Religionsphilosophie.München: Kösel, 1941. For background see Die philosophischen Quellen der Theologie KarlRahners, QD 213, ed. Harald Schöndorf. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005.35 Karl Rahner, “Bekenntnis zu Thomas von Aquin.” In Idem, Schriften zur Theologie, Volume 10.Zürich: Benziger, 1972, 11–20. However, Rahner was dissatisfied with the neo-scholastic manuals,which he wanted to replace. See his programmatic article “Über den Versuch eines Aufrisses einerDogmatik.” In Idem, Schriften zur Theologie, Volume 1, 9–47.




a later and di�erent situation. From the 1930s onward, mainly French scholars

insisted on this, thereby insinuating the limitations of Neo-Thomism. Theology

as a human science is an historically-conditioned undertaking, with many short-

comings and ambiguities.36

According to the Jesuit Henri Bouillard (1908–1981),

a theology which lacks an awareness of the way it is historically conditioned

ultimately fails,37

a claim that would soon be labeled Nouvelle Théologie.38

This term was originally intended pejoratively, and used to discredit dispar-

ate theological approaches. In this perspective, the encyclical Humani Generis,published in 1950, might be seen as a reaction to the widespread discomfort and

disenchantment of Catholic thinkers from Neo-Scholasticism. Pius XII strictly

enforced the use of Thomism,39

so that in the aftermath of Humani Generis many

theologians were subjected to di�erent forms of penalty, as for instance when

their superiors silenced them, forced some to resign from their duties or even

removed them.

Despite these severe measures, and because the underlying problems had

not been adequately faced, the unease remained. Not long after the turmoil with

regard to the Nouvelle Théologie, noted medievalist Fernand Van Steenberghen

(1904–1993) pleaded for an historically sensitive treatment of Aquinas, stressing

that the 13th century situation di�ered greatly from that of the 20th century.40

36 Jean-Claude Petit, “La compréhension de la théologie française au XXe siècle. Vers une nou-velle conscience historique: G. Rabeau, M.-D. Chenu, L. Charlier.” LTP 47 (1991): 215–229.37 Henri Bouillard, Conversion et grâce chez saint Thomas d’Aquin. Étude historique, Theol(P) 1.Paris: Aubier, 1944, 219: “Quand l’ésprit évolue, une vérité immuable ne se maintient que grâce àune évolution simultanée et corrélative de toutes les notions, maintenant entre elles un mémerapport. Une théologie qui ne serait pas actuelle serait une théologie fausse.” Precisely thesesentences were taken up and problematized by David L. Greenstock, “Thomism and the NewTheology.” Thom. 13 (1950): 567–596, at 572. Concluding his attack on Bouillard and various othertheologians, Greenstock wrote (ibid., 595): “However, we can not agree with the new theologianswhen they state that the only solution to this problem is the adaption of the modern philosophiesto a theological end, even though that might mean the rejection of Thomism. The vast majority ofthesemodern systems seek a foundation in an exaggerated viewof the importance of the individualand of the scope of natural science, together with a vain attempt to by-pass philosophical thoughtby the use of methods which, however useful they might be in the natural science, are quiteuseless in the realms of the metaphysical.” For background see Étienne Fouilloux, “Henri Bouillardet saint Thomas d’Aquin.” RSR 97 (2009): 173–183.38 Jürgen Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Théologie – New Theology. Inheritor of Modernism, Pre-cursor of Vatican II. London, New York: T&T Clark, 2010. For further discussion see Ressourcement.A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology, ed. Gabriel Flynn, Paul D. Murray.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.39 Pius XII, “Humani generis.” ASS 42 (1950): 561–578, at 573 quoting can. 1366/2 CIC/1917.40 Fernand Van Steenberghen, “La lecture et l’étude des saint Thomas. Réflexions et conseils.”RPL 53 (1955): 301–320. This article has to be seen in the backdrop of Van Steenberghen’s wider



118 Benjamin Dahlke

Other Catholic intellectuals – cautiously yet consistently – distanced or even

detached themselves from Thomism. Take, for instance, the innovative theolo-

gian (and former Jesuit) Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–1988) and philosopher

Bernhard Welte (1906–1983), professor at Freiburg. Each gave Neo-Scholasticism

an historical character in calling for a renewed theology.41

Another example, the

German philosopher Josef Pieper (1904–1997), used historical scholarship to re-

trieve Aquinas from an ahistorical Thomism.42

As early as 1954, the Dominicans

at Fribourg in Switzerland, who for years had been in charge of the journal DivusThomas, deliberately changed its title to Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie undTheologie. With cautiously articulated reservations, the editors made sure that

the journal’s orientation would remain Thomistic. If Aquinas was indeed an

important figure, he was not to be followed blindly.43

Similarly, in 1955, English

intend, as expressed in his article “Thomism in a Changing World.” NSchol 26 (1952): 37–48,at 46: “One meets Thomists whose too literal fidelity to St. Thomas’ texts seems to imply aconfusion between truth and the human expression of truth. They are convinced that truth doesnot change and that, at least for basic problems, St. Thomas possessed truth. Consequently, theyare shocked and scandalized when they see other Thomists criticizing or correcting some formulaeof St. Thomas, for instance, his famous ‘quinque viae,’ the five proofs he proposes in his SummaTheologiae for the existence of God. There is here, I think, a misunderstanding. Of course, truthdoes not change; further, we can consider it probable that St. Thomas proposed a satisfactorysolution for most of the basic problems, such as the existence of God. But he expressed histhought in the language of his time and with the help of technical formulae proper to his age.Such medieval expression is not adapted to the needs of our century; and it should be the role ofThomists to free the Master’s doctrine from its medieval bark and to transpose it into the languageand mentality of our own time. If we wish to be Thomists according to the mind of our Master St.Thomas, we must, with the help of all the knowledge acquired by the human mind since the 13thcentury down to our own day, labor to construct a rejuvenated Thomism.”41 Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Thomas von Aquin im kirchlichen Denken heute.” GlDei 8 (1953): 65–76; Bernhard Welte, “Zum Strukturwandel der katholischen Theologie im 19. Jahrhundert [1954].”In Idem, Auf der Spur des Ewigen. Philosophische Abhandlungen über verschiedene Gegenständeder Religion und der Theologie. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1965, 380–409; ibid., “Ein Vorschlagzur Methode der Theologie heute [1964].” In Idem, Auf der Spur des Ewigen, 410–426. Analyzingthe current state, Welte wrote (ibid., 410): “In der Theologie ist in den letzten Jahrzehnten sovielin Bewegung gekommen, und so viele und große und seit langem ungewohnte Fragen haben sichin ihr erhoben, daß man daran deutlich sehen kann, daß die Theologie aus einer relativ ruhigenund statischen Phase des Besitzes durch eine mächtige geschichtliche Bewegung in eine Phasedes Übergangs vermutlich von großen Ausmaßen gekommen ist im Zuge einer geschichtlichenEntwicklung, die unsere gesamte Kultur umfaßt.” On Balthasar see Benjamin Dahlke, “Hans Ursvon Balthasars Beitrag zur Überwindung der Neuscholastik.” RJKG 32 (2013): 273–291.42 Josef Pieper, “Die Aktualität des Thomismus.” In Idem, Philosophia negativa. Zwei Versucheüber Thomas von Aquin. München: Kösel, 1953, 47–90.43 See the editorial “Zur neuen Serie unserer Zeitschrift.” FZPhTh 1 (1954): 3–16, at 9 f.: “Tho-mistische Philosophie und Theologie ist nicht denkbar ohne ein Mindestmaß von Traditionsgebun-




Jesuit Frederick C. Copleston (1907–1994) who was a highly respected historian of

philosophy and also an expert in modern philosophy, published an introduction

to Aquinas, whose concluding chapter turned to the post-Aeterni Patris Thomistic

school.44

Copleston, while acknowledging its entanglement with Catholicism

in reaction to modernity, called the Thomists to make their arguments compre-

hensible to reasonable contemporaries.45

That this happened only rarely, is also

attested to by German Catholic philosopher Ludger Oeing-Hanho� (1923–1986).46

In 1962 Oeing-Hanho� o�ered three cases in point: first, that problems posed

by the rise of modern sciences were not taken up seriously; secondly, that the

Neo-Thomists scarcely engaged modern philosophy in dialogue; and thirdly, they

failed to confront the issues raised by Hegel’s conception of history. Again, in a

series of lectures at Georgetown University in 1964, the erudite Thomist Étienne

Gilson (1884–1978), who was deeply aware of the school’s weaknesses, signaled

the need for serious improvements if Thomism were to continue to flourish.47

In

fact, not only did this not happen, but with Vatican II just the opposite occurred

denheit. Doch gerade deshalb, weil unsere Zeitschrift die thomistische Richtung vertritt, steht sieauch zum Satz des heiligen Thomas von Aquin: ‚Locus ab auctoritate quae fundatur super rationehumana, est infirmissimus.‘ [Summa theologiae I q. 1 a. 8 ad 2] Dies aber bedeutet selbst einemThomisten strengster Observanz, daß das Werk auch eines Thomas, trotz seiner unvergleichlichenphilosophischen und theologischen Autorität, als solches und an und für sich ein menschlichesist, also bei aller Größe wissenschaftlicher Leistung eben doch nur ein zu einer bestimmtenZeit gesetztes und dieser Zeit verhaftetes. Auch es hat Anteil an Zeitbedingtheit, auch es ist dermenschlichen Begrenztheit, der geschöpflichen Kontingenz unterworfen. Darum würde zweifellosein sog. Literarthomismus, der in einer Art wissenschaftlicher Vermaterialisierung um jeden Preisund ohne jede Unterscheidung an jedemWort und an jedem Sätzchen hängt, das sich bei Thomasfinden läßt, zutiefst unthomistisch sein.”44 Frederick C. Copleston, Aquinas. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 21957, 235–25545 Copleston, Aquinas, 239: “Despite its de facto connexion with Catholicism it is not part of theCatholic faith; and if we wish to judge of its philosophical merits and its potentialities for fruitfuldevelopment, we have to turn to those Thomists who have written as serious philosophers ratherthan to the somewhat slick statements of Thomist positions by popular apologists.”46 Ludger Oeing-Hanho�, “Thomas von Aquin und die Situation des Thomismus heute.” PhJ 70(1962): 17–33, at 19: “Thomas vernachlässigte in seiner Philosophie [. . .] nichts, sofern man dasüberhaupt vom menschlichen Bemühen nicht um die ganze Wahrheit, die wir nie erreichen, son-dern um die Wahrheit vom Ganzen sagen kann. Darin kommt dem Aquinaten von den späterenhöchstens Descartes und Hegel gleich. Niemand wird Ähnliches vom heutigen Thomismus be-haupten wollen.”47 Étienne Gilson, The Spirit of Thomism. New York: Kenedy, 1964, 84–102. An American Domin-ican friar wrote an article, countering the then widespread anti-thomistic attitude, namenly An-thony D. Lee, “Thomism and the Council.” In Vatican II. The Theological Dimension, ed. Anthony D.Lee. Washington, DC: Thomist Press, 1963, 451–492.



120 Benjamin Dahlke

when Thomism lost the support and backing from the Magisterium which it had

enjoyed until then. Thus, the sudden demise of Neo-Scholasticsm.48

In the course of the Council, vigorious debates took place on how Catholic

theology should undergo aggiornamento. The Roman Curia and many bishops

were simply content to go on a�rming and promoting the utility of Thomism

as had been done from the 19th century onwards. Opposition arose, however,

because when the first drafts of a potential conciliar decree on the formation of

prospective priests were presented, influential Conciliar fathers harshly criticized

this aspect of the texts. Only after lengthy struggles was a considerably altered

text composed. The finally adopted decree, Optatam totius, stated that dogmat-

ics should be studied with Saint Thomas as master49

– a very modest claim

compared to previous papal statements, which happened to have a tremendous

e�ect. Post-conciliar statements by contemporary Thomists oscillated between

warning and encouragement.50

Yet within a comparativly brief period, Thomism

disappeared from nearly all schools, whether seminaries or university philo-

sophy and theology departments.51

To mention just one example to illustrate

48 In what follows see Joseph Komonchak, “Thomism at the Second Vatican Council,” in Cern-era (ed.), Continuity and plurality in Catholic theology, 53–73; Michel Fourcade, “Thomisme etantithomisme à l’heure de Vatican II.” RThom 108 (2008): 301–325.49 Optatam totius, 16. For background information see Ottmar Fuchs, Peter Hünermann, “Theo-logischer Kommentar zum Dekret über die Ausbildung der Priester Optatam totius.” In HerdersTheologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, Volume 3, ed. Bernd Jochen Hil-berath, Peter Hünermann. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005, 315–489, at 345–368, 428–430;Anthony A. Akinwale, “The Decree on Priestly Formation, Optatam totius.” In Vatican II. Renewalwithin Tradition, ed. Matthew Lamb, Matthew Levering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008,229–250; Grant Kaplan, “The Renewal of Ecclesiastical Studies. Chenu, Tübingen, and TheologicalMethod in Optatam Totius.” TS 77 (2016): 567–592.50 See, for instance, Anicet Fernandez, “Actualité et nécessite de la philosophie de saint Thomasdans la période postconciliaire.” RThom 66 (1966): 177–189; Ralph M. McInerny, Thomism in anAge of Renewal. Garden City, NY, New York: Doubleday, 1966. A critical statement on Thomismcan be found in Gerard A. Vanderhaar, “The Status of Scholastic Philosophy in Theology Today.”PCTSA 21 (1966): 71–93. This paper, presented at a conference, happened to lead to a controversialdiscussion.51 The Future of Thomism, ed. Deal W. Hudson, Dennis Wm. Moran. Mishawaka, IN: AmericanMaritain Association, 1992; Un nouvel age de la théologie? 1965–1980, ed. Dominique Avon,Michel Fourcade. Paris: Karthala, 2009; Serge-Thomas Bonino, “Le thomisme de 1962 à 2012:vue panoramique.” NV 87 (2012): 419–446; Gerd-Rainer Horn, The Spirit of Vatican II. WesternEuropean Progressive Catholicism in the Long Sixties. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, 5–59.Striking is the remark by Ludger Oeing-Hanho�, “Vorwort.” In Thomas von Aquin 1274/1974, ed.Ludger Oeing-Hanho�.München: Kösel, 1974, 7–12, at 7: “Das Thomas-Jubiläum dieses Jahres fälltin eine Zeit, die – ohnehin mehr der Gestaltung ihrer Zukunft als der Erinnerung ihrer Geschichtezugewandt – es sich als Fortschritt anrechnet, in ihrer Theologie und Philosophie den im 19.Jahrhundert restaurierten Schulthomismus hinter sich gelassen zu haben.”




the dynamics of the post-conciliar period, only months after the council’s end,

the title of the learned German Jesuit journal, Scholastik, was changed to Theo-logie und Philosophie. The editors, in explaining this change to their readership,

spoke of scholasticism’s negative image that was linked to the fact that many

considered the journal’s exclusion of other approaches too one-sided.52

The implosion of scholasticism was accompanied by an explosion of other

approaches that their adherents identified as genuinely modern.53

Indeed, if

the historically conditioned subject were to be taken into account, the whole

enterprise of theology would have to change. Leading figures were aware of

this, for instance diocesan-priest Joseph Ratzinger (*1927), the Dominican friar

Marie-Dominique Chenu (1895–1990), and the Jesuit René Latourelle (*1918).54

As Lonergan remarked:

52 “Theologie und Philosophie.” ThPh 41 (1966): 1 f.: “[D]er bisherige Obertitel konnte denEindruck erwecken, unsere Zeitschrift befasse sich ausschließlichmit der Geschichte undNeubele-bung mittelalterlicher Theologie und Philosophie. [. . .] Zudem hat die Erfahrung gezeigt, daßschon das Wort ‚Scholastik‘ immer wieder falsch verstanden wird. Man denkt an schulgebundeneund imwesentlichen weitergebende, rein interpretierende Theologie und Philosophie. Daß unsereZeitschrift, im lebendigen Kontakt mit der großen theologischen und philosophischen Überliefer-ung, darauf bedacht ist, von heutigen Fragestellungen aus und mit neuzeitlichen Methoden dasBleibende und Gültige jener Überlieferungen fruchtbar zu machen, das wurde für viele aus dembisherigen Titel nicht deutlich. Dazu kommt, daß der Name ‚Scholastik‘ nicht nur die überzeitlichgültigen Gehalte mittelalterlicher Theologie und Philosophie bezeichnet, sondern nicht minderauch eine Form und Methode ihrer wissenschaftlichen Behandlung, die nicht die gleiche überzeit-liche Geltung für sich in Anspruch nehmen können. Der Name könnte vermuten lassen, unsereZeitschrift wolle sich auf eine historische Form festlegen und sich Bemühungen um eine neue,zeitgemäße Gestalt christlichen Wissens von vornherein verschließen.”53 Karim Schelkens et al., Aggiornamento? Catholicism from Gregory XVI to Benedict XVI, Brill’sSeries in Church History 63. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013, 201–209.54 Joseph Ratzinger, “Theologia perennis? Über Zeitgemäßheit und Zeitlosigkeit in der Theolo-gie.”WiWei 15 (1960): 179–188; Marie-Dominique Chenu, “The History of Salvation and the Histor-icity of Man in the Renewal of Theology.” In Renewal of Religious Thought, Theology of Renewal 1,ed. Laurence K. Shook. New York: Herder and Herder, 1968, 153–166; René Latourelle, Théologie.Science du salut, ENT.T 5. Brugges: De Brouwer, 1968, 241 f.: “Au XVIe siècle, la théologie a étémar-quée par l’humanisme; au XVIIIe siècle, elle a subi l’influence du rationalisme; au XIXe siècle, celledu scientisme. Nous pouvons a�rmer que la théologie du XXe siècle se développe sous le signede l’histoire et d l’homme dans sa condition historique, et sous le signe de l’intersubjectivité. [. . .]L’homme contemporain a découvert la dimension historique; il a pris conscience de l’historicité es-sentielle de l’homme et de la condition humaine. Il conçoit l’homme, non plus comme un universel,à la manière de Pascal et de Racine, mais comme un sujet-en-situation-historique. La théologie n’apas échappé à ce changement de mentalité.” Thus he added: “On peut dire sans exagérer que larenouveau actuel de la théologie est dû en grande partie au fait que, consciemment etméthodique-ment, on a introduit la dimension historique dans tous les secteurs de la théologie. Cette con-science de la dimension historique a modifié radicalement la perspective de toutes le disciplines



122 Benjamin Dahlke

“It is true enough that a disappearance of Scholasticism has been con-

spicuous in Catholic theology since Vatican II. It remains that Vatican II merely

released the manifestation of a change that had begun long before and sooner

or later was bound to emerge. The German Historical School of the first half

of the nineteenth century introduced into theology the critical history and the

interpretative techniques that in the first half of the twentieeth century had

discredited in the eyes of Catholic theologians many basic procedures of Schol-

astic research. Modern philosophies – critical, idealistic, positivist, pragmatist,

voluntarist, personalist, phenomenological, existential, linguistic – piled up in

the wake of modern natural and human science to necessitate a stance and style

for which the Aristotelian corpus and the Thomist Summa were no adequate

preparation.”55

As this comment reveals, the passing of Neo-Scholasticism was not a matter

that concerned Lonergan, since he regarded it not only as outdated but as

deeply flawed. But by the time he made the previous comment, he had already

spent a long time working out new foundations for Catholic theology – a job he

continued to pursue.56

3 Bernard Lonergan

Pope Leo XIII had not meant the Thomist renewal to be a mere repristination of

medieval scholasticism, because he called for all that had been handed down to

et tous les traités. Elle a fait naître aussi de nouvelles disciplines: par example, la théologie del’histoire. Sous l’influence de ce renouveau de la théologie positive, la réflexion théologiequeconnaît elle-même un nouvel élan. Une nouvelle synthèse s’élabore, ou du mpins se fait désirer,qui puisse recueillir et organiser les résultats de ce riche inventaire des données de l’histoire.”55 Bernard Lonergan, “The Larkin-Stuart Lectures at Trinity College, University of Toronto.” InIdem, Collected Works, Volume 17. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004, 219–298, at 224.See also Idem, “The Future of Thomism [1968].” In Idem, A Second Collection. Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press, 1996, 43–53.56 Noteworthy with regard to this are remarks by Bernard Lonergan, “Theology in its New Con-text [1968].” In Idem, A Second Collection, 55–67, at 64–67. Turning to the questions on whichfoundations theology should be rebuild, Lonergan briefly outlined his own approach. Just by theway he would mention this (ibid., 64): “To this topic I have elsewhere given considerable attention,first, to assure historical continuity, in a study of cognitional theory in the writings of St. Thomas[i. e. his dissertation], then in a study of contemporary development entiteled Insight, to takeinto account the fact of modern science and the problems of modern philosophy.” Lonergan’spaper first appeared in the important collection of essays, edited by Shook, Renewal of ReligiousThought, 34–46. He alludes to his monograph Insight. A Study of Human Understanding. NewYork: Philosophical Library, 1957. Another interesting comment can be found in Bernard Lonergan,“Questionaire on Philosophy [1976].” Method. Journal of Lonergan Studies 2 (1984): 1–35, ad 13 f.




be augmented and perfected – vetera novis augere perficere. In stating his work

on theological method, Lonergan often quoted this very line,57

making clear

his deep commitment to the Leonine program, which Neo-Scholasticism had

derailed. So to call him a Thomist, even in a broad sense, would be misleading.

Instead, it might be more accurate to assume that by spending years reaching

up to the mind of Aquinas to retrieve the authentic vetera Lonergan intended

to meet the challenge to modernize theology. Thus, Lonergan learned from

Aquinas that one has to take possession of one’s own interiority as constituted

by one’s rational self-consciousness – one’s own intelligence, reasonableness,

and responsibility – to get behind the verbal exterior of mathematics, science,

common sense, modern hermeneutics, and critical history in order to envisage

what the novamight be.

His lengthy and earlier formation as a Canadian Jesuit included philosophy

courses at Heythrop College in England, in which manuals in the Suárezian mode

were used.58

This familiarized Lonergan with Neo-Thomism. After his theology

studies at the Gregorian university in Rome, he did a dissertation supervised

by the distinguished scholar and indeed leading Thomist of his time, Charles

Boyer (1894–1980)59, which was a genetic study of Aquinas’s theology of grace.

60

A survey on the concept of verbum, published as a series of articles, would

57 Bernard Lonergan, “Letter of Bernard Lonergan to the Reverend Henry Keane, S.J.”Method.Journal of Lonergan Studies NS 5 (2014): 23–40, at 35; The Concept of Verbum, 393; De constitu-tione Christi ontologica et psychologia. Rome: Universitas Gregoriana, 1956, 19; Insight, 747 f.;“Isomorphism of Thomist and Scientific Thought [1955].” In Collection. Papers by Bernard Loner-gan, ed. Frederick E. Crowe. New York: Herder and Herder, 1967, 142–151, at 151; Lonergan, TheLarkin-Stuart Lectures, 238, 298. Of major importance is the above mentioned quotation in TheConcept of Verbum, where Lonergan distinguishes two kinds of understanding: “There is the de-velopment that aims at grasping what Pope Leo’s vetera really were; there is the developmentthat aims at e�ecting his vetera novis augere et perficere. To fail to distinguish between thesetwo aims even materially [. . .] results not in economy but in confusion. The immediacy of logicalimplication has no respect for di�erences of place and time and no power of of discriminationbetween di�erent stages of development of an essentially identical philosophic or theologicaltradition. One can aim at understanding Aquinas; one can aim at a transposition of his position tomeet the issues of our own day; but to aim at both simultaneously results inevitably, I believe, insubstituting for the real Aquinas some abstract ideal of theoretical coherence that might, indeed,be named the Platonic idea of Aquinas, were it not for the fact that a Platonic idea is one, whilesuch ideals of logic coherence happen to be disquietingly numerous.”58 On Lonergan’s formation see Richard M. Liddy, Transforming Light. Intellectual Conversion inthe Early Lonergan. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993.59 For biographical information see Luigi Bogliolo, “Il Padre Carlo Boyer S.J., segretariodell’Accademia di S. Tommaso dal 1934 al 1980.” DoC 35 (1982): 3–14.60 Bernard Lonergan, “St. Thomas’ Thought on Gratia Operans.” TS 2 (1941): 289–324; 3 (1942):69–88, 375–402, 533–578= CollectedWorks, Volume8. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016.



124 Benjamin Dahlke

follow.61

After having taught in Jesuit seminaries in Montreal and Toronto, when

he was assigned to teach at the Gregorian62, he had to employ the neo-scholastic

thesis format with its proofs drawn from the loci theologici scripture and the

patristic, medieval, Renaissance/Reformation and later tradition, building up to

systematic analogies based largely on Thomist metaphysics. While teaching at

Rome, Lonergan wrote several treatises on the Trinity and Christology ad usumauditorum, to aid students follow his lectures.

63Mention must be made of De

constitutione Christi ontologica et psychologica64, De Verbo incarnato65

, Divinarumpersonarum66

, and De Deo trino67. Like his predecessors in dogmatic theology,

he, too, referred to Aquinas, but interpreted him in accord with the findings of

his own years of scholarship, which enabled him to develop Thomas’s position

in a creative way. For instance, turning to an heavily disputed question of those

days, Lonergan brought the real distinction between esse and essentia, as well

as between substantia and subjectum to bear upon his explanation of Christ’s

divine and human consciounesses.68

However much he would refer to Aquinas

61 Bernard Lonergan, “The Concept of Verbum in the Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.” TS 7(1946): 349–392; 8 (1947): 35–79, 404–444; 10 (1949): 3–40, 359–393 = Collected Works, Volume2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.62 Matthew L. Lamb, “Bernard Lonergan S.J.: The Gregorian Years.” In Lonergan’s AnthropologyRevisited. The next fifty years of Vatican II, AnGr 324, ed. Gerard Whelan, 57–80. Rome: Gregorianand Biblical Press, 2015.63 Looking back to his academic life, Lonergan in two interviews pointed out, that those treatiseswere only meant to serve the needs of his students. See “An Interview with Fr. Bernard Lonergan,S.J.”, ed. Philip McShane. In Idem, A Second Collection 209–230, at 211 f.; Pierrot Lambert et al.(ed.), Caring about Meaning, 105 f. Although this might be true, Lonergan somehow underplaysthe significance of his treatises, as is stressed by William E. Murnion, “Lonergan’s The IncarnateWord and The Triune God: Experiments in theological method.” LoWo 22 (2011): 303–375.64 Lonergan, De constitutione Christi = Collected Works, Volume 7. Toronto: University of TorontoPress, 2002.65 Bernard Lonergan, De Verbo incarnato. Rome: Universitas Gregoriana, 21961 = CollectedWorks, Volume 8. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016.66 Bernard Lonergan, Divinarum personarum conceptionem analogicam. Rome: UniversitasGregoriana, 21959.67 Bernard Lonergan, De Deo trino. I. Pars Dogmatica. Rome: Universitas Gregoriana, 21964 =Collected Works, Volume 11. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009; Idem, De Deo trino. II.Pars Systematica. Rome: Universitas Gregoriana, 31964 = Collected Works, Volume 12. Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 2007.68 Lonergan, De Verbo incarnato, 269–312 (Thesis 10), esp. 273 = Collected Works, Volume8, 464–539 (Thesis 10), esp. 472 f. With regard to this, see in addition Pierrot Lambert et al.(ed.), Caring about meaning, 258: “I was very interested in philosophy, but I have no use forthe scholastic philosophers. I first discovered that Saint Thomas might have something to say,when I was taught De Verbo Incarnato in Rome. Can you have one person who has two natures?




throughout his life,69

Lonergan’s relation to later Baroque and Neo-Scholastic

tradition remained highly critical. Already, in a letter he wrote to his Canadian

superior during his theology studies dating from 1935, he expressed his general

discontent with Neo-Thomism:

“The current interpretation of St Thomas is a consistent misinterpretation.

A metaphysics is just as symmetrical, just as all-inclusive, just as consistent,

whether it is interpreted rightly or wrongly. The di�erence lies in the possibility

of convincing expression, of making applications, of solving disputed questions.

I can do all three in a way that no Thomist would dream possible.”70

Lonergan here provides three criteria required of a viable Thomism, namely,

to be expressed convincingly, to be able to be applied, and be capable of solving

disputed questions. Upon completing his doctorate, Lonergan started to figure

out how to meet such demands by developing a foundational methodology. To

be sure, his gratia operans and verbum studies in the thought of Aquinas – re-

covering the authentic vetera – had always been oriented towards the nova that

The argument given me by a good Thomist, Father Bernard Leeming, was that if you have a realdistinction between esse and essence, the esse can be the ground of the person and of the essencetoo. If the esse is relevant to the two essences, then you can have one person in two natures. Onthat basis I solved the problem of Christ’s consciousness: one subject and two subjectivities. Itwasn’t the divine subjectivity that was crucified but the human subjectivity; it was the humansubjectivity that died and rose again, not the divine person.” Lonergan alludes to the Jesuit BernardLeeming (1893–1971). In order to explain, what he previously had explained by the means ofscholastic terms, Lonergan – in “Christology Today: Methodological Reflections [1975].” In A ThirdCollection, ed. Frederick E. Crowe. New York: Paulist, 1985, 74–99 – referred to the distinctionbetween identity and subjectivity. On the doctrinal issues at stake see Aloys Grillmeier, “ZumChristusbild der heutigen katholischen Theologie.” In Fragen der Theologie heute, ed. JohannesFeiner et al. Einsiedeln: Benzinger, 31960, 265–300.69 Giovanni B. Sala, “Da Tommaso d’Aquino a Bernard Lonergan: continuità e novità.” Rassegnadi Teologia (Napoli) 36 (1995): 407–425; Matthew L. Lamb, “Divine Transcendence and Eternity:The Early Lonergan’s Recovery of Thomas Aquinas as a Response to Father McCool’s Question.” InCernera (ed.), Continuity and plurality in Catholic theology, 75–106; Gilles Mongeau, “BernardLonergan as Interpreter of Aquinas: A Complex Relation.” RPF 63 (2007): 1001–1023; GiuseppeGuglielmi, B. J. F. Lonergan tra tomismo e filosofie contemporanee: coscienza, significato e lin-guaggio. Naples: Editrice Domenicana Italiana, 2011. Two examples should illustrate this. First,Lonergan, Insight, 748: “After spending years reaching up to the mind of Aquinas, I came to atwo-fold conclusion. On the one hand, that reaching had changed me profoundly. On the otherhand, that change was the essential benefit. For not only did make me capable of grasping what,in the light of my conclusions, the vetera really were, but also it opened challenging vistas onwhat the nova could be.” Secondly, Pierrot Lambert et al. (ed.), Caring about Meaning, 103: “Ihave learned an awful lot from Thomas. The structure of my thinking at the present time is con-spicuously Thomist; people can see what I’m doing and know what Thomas was doing. And I don’tbelieve the Thomistic tradition knows much about Thomas.”70 Lonergan, Letter of Bernard Lonergan to the Reverend Henry Keane, S.J., 32.



126 Benjamin Dahlke

would integrate mathematics, the natural and human sciences, economics, and

contemporary forms of existential, personalist, phenomenological, and hermen-

eutic philosophy. One has the impression that for quite some time Lonergan was

living in two di�erent, only partly interacting, worlds.

In 1957 he published Insight, a massive, erudite study of human understand-

ing. Only at the end did he acknowledge the magnitude of his debt to Aquinas.71

What Lonergan had learned from him, is now put to work in relation to modern

mathematics, science, and problems regarding interpretation and the critique

of belief. Insight focused upon a cognitional theory based on insight into the

insight made possible by a generalized empirical method that accounts for the

data of consciousness as well as those of the senses, and grounds an empiric-

ally verifiable response to the specifically modern concern with epistemology.72

Once a basic pattern of operations on the level of attentiveness, intelligence,

reasonableness, and responsibility is established, then the empirical, normative,

and absolute criteria of objectivity can be verified in any true judgments. Sense

experience furnishes data on the object; direct understanding grasps the intelli-

gibility in the data as sensed or imagined; reflective understanding grasps the

su�ciency (or insu�ciency) of the evidence for objective judgments regarding

truth or falsehood. The self-correcting cycle of experience, understanding and

judgment continues until one gets the object of inquiry and reflection right.

The dynamism of conscious intentionality is a detached, unrestricted, and dis-

interested desire to know everything about everything. In this way Lonergan

credited Aquinas with teaching him how to overcome both Neo-Scholasticism’s

penchant for neglecting the subject, as well as how to correct the various modern

truncated, immanentist, and alienated accounts of the subject.

In doing so Lonergan was determined to surmount the one-sided emphasis

on the object, which was characteristic of the 16th century scholastic theology

that arose in post-reformation Spain.73

In a 1968 lecture he bemoaned scholastic

theology’s failure to take seriously the subject’s historical, social and psycholo-

71 Lonergan, Insight, 748: “[. . .] one can hope to reach the mind of Aquinas and, once that mindis reached, then it is di�cult not to import his compelling genius to the problems of this later day.”Thus is the concluding sentence. An detailed account of the various stages the book underwent isprovided by William A. Mathews, Lonergan’s Quest. A Study of Desire in the Authoring of Insight.Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.72 Providing readership with a guiding thread, Lonergan, Insight, XXVIII wrote thus: “Thoroughlyunderstand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all thereis to be understood but also you will posses a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon allfurther developments of understanding.” This line – ascribed as a “programme” – is repeated atthe very end of the book (ibid., 748).73 Bernard Lonergan, “The Subject [1968].” In Idem, A Second Collection, 69–86, at 71 f.




gical conditionedness,74

on the mistaken assumption that if theology is about

the revealed divine truth contained in the Church’s teaching, then attending

to the subject is not only beside the point but also threatens that very truth.

This approach over time had very negative results,75

because of so insisting “on

the objectivity of the truth as to leave subjects and their needs out of account.”

Lonergan knew that the neglect of the subject led not only to the Enlightenment’s

turn to the subject, but also wreaked havoc. There was a “widespread alienation

from the faith” due to such things as wrongheaded catechetics and censorship.

He understood that “before the subject can attain the self-transcendence of

the truth there is the slow and laborious process of conception, gestation, par-

turition,” since the “fruit of truth must grow and mature on the tree of the

subject, before it can be plucked and placed in the objective realm.”76

Both

communicating and receiving the faith depends on the dynamism of people’s

conscious intentionality’s capacity to be attentive, intelligent, reasonable, and

responsible.77

In short, humans are subjects by degree: they realize themselves

only progressively in the unfolding of the existential subject as reflected in the

various levels of consciouness.78

By means of this, Lonergan tried to overcome one central weakness of Neo-

Scholasticism, that is the neglect of the subject. If humans are historical beings

this has to be taken seriously.79

No wonder why Lonergan, especially from the

late 1950s on, tried to come to terms with the notion of history, taken in its

74 Lonergan, The Subject, 69 f.75 Lonergan, The Subject, 71: “It remains that one can be fascinated by the objectivity of truth,that one can so emphazise objective truth as to disregard or undermine the very conditions ofits emergence and existence. In fact, if at the present time among Catholics there is discerneda widespread alienation from the dogmas of faith, this is not unconnected with a previous one-sidedness that so insisted on the objectivity of truth as to leave subjects and their needs out ofaccount.”76 Lonergan, The Subject, 70 f.77 Lonergan, The Subject, 73–79.78 Lonergan, The Subject, 79–84.79 Bernard Lonergan, Theology in Its New Context, 60 f. Lonergan stresses that “any deepeningor enriching of our apprehension of man posseses religious significance and relevance. Butthe new conceptual apparatus does make available such a deepening and enriching. Withoutdenying human nature, it adds the quite distinctive categories of man as an historical being.Without repudiating the analysis of man into body and soul, it adds the richer and more concreteapprehension ofman as incarnate subject.” How Lonergan’s concept of the subject was developingis outlined by Robert M. Doran, “Bernard Lonergan’s Notion of the Subject.” In Idem, Theologyand the Dialectics of History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990, 19–41.



128 Benjamin Dahlke

modern sense.80

But first and foremost in the 1960s he realized how the rise

of historical consciousness had a�ected all fields of scholarship, necessarily

including theology.81

As Lonergan explains:

“One of the profoundest changes in Catholic theology has been brought

about by modern methods of historical study. It is true, of course, that Christian-

ity has always been a historical religion. The Fathers appealed to the Scriptures,

the medieval theologians both to the Scriptures and to the Fathers, later theo-

logians to all their predecessors. But they did not have at their disposal the

resources and the collaboration of modern scholarship with its critical editions

of texts, its indices and handbooks, its specialized institutes and congresses, its

ever-mounting accumulation of monographs and articles. The ideal that focused

their attention was not the historical ideal of critically evaluating all available

evidence with the aim of bringing back to life the societies and cultures of the

past; it was the theological ideal of knowing God and knowing all things in their

relation to God. So they assumed not only an unbroken tradition of faith but

also unchanging modes of apprehension and conception.”

With the rise of historical consciousnes this model, which had been domin-

ant in theology for so long, was now outdated – and was to be replaced:

“A great revolution was needed – and it is not yet completed – to make

the development of doctrine an acceptable notion, to have it apprehended not

merely in some abstract and notional fashion but concretely and really through

exact study of relevant texts, to admit historical methods not only in the patristic

and medieval and later fields but also in the scriptures, and finally – to come to

the as yet unfinished task – to e�ect the synthesis of historical and theological

aims so that we have neither history without theology nor theology without

history, but both.”82

80 Frederick E. Crowe, “‘All my work has been introducing history into Catholic theology’ (Loner-gan, March 28, 1980).” LoWo 10 (1992): 49–81; Thomas J. McPartland, “Lonergan’s Philosophy ofHistory: Ontological, Epistemological, and Speculative.” RPF 63 (2007): 961–989.81 An important role must be attributed to Peter Hünermann, Der Durchbruch geschichtlichenDenkens im 19. Jahrhundert. Johann Gustav Droysen, Wilhelm Dilthey, Graf Paul Yorck von Warten-burg. Ihr Weg und ihre Weisung für die Theologie. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1967. The book isbased on an Habilitationsschrift by a German priest who actually had studied with him at Rome.On this see “In der Freiheit des Geistes leben”. Peter Hünermann im Gespräch, ed. Margit Eckholt,Regina Heyder. Ostfildern: Grünewald, 2010. Lonergan, as he frankly admitted, owed a big deal toHünermann, when working on what eventually would be published asMethod in Theology. Onthis see Pierrot Lambert et al (ed.), Caring about Meaning, 25 f. For a critical assessment of Loner-gan’s position see John Finnis, “Historical Consciousness and Theological Foundations [1992].” InIdem, Religion and Public Reasons. Collected Essays: Volume V. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2011, 139–162.82 Bernard Lonergan, “Theology and Man’s Future [1969].” In Idem, A Second Collection, 135–




To accomplish this goal, Lonergan began working towards the publication,

in 1972, of Method in Theology.83 This book fits into the academic discourse of the

time. After the well-grounded passing of Neo-Scholasticism there was a demand

for new foundations upon which theology could be rebuild.84

Lonergan wanted

to provide those very foundations – not by means of developing a carefully

structured system of propositions interrelated to each other, but by a considera-

tion of how knowledge in theology is actually gained. Method, thus, is defined

as “a normative pattern of recurrent and related operations yielding cumulativeand progressive results.”85 Knowledge stems from data, which are investigated

and finally systematized.86

Since both the data and the person making use of

them are historically conditioned, theology is an ongoing process, from data to

results.87

Thereby both the productive role of the subject and history ought be

taken seriously. Taking up what he had already outlined in Insight, he construed

theology as a continouus interplay of eigth functional specialties, which are

subdivided into two phases of theology: First of all, the positions of the past

are collected in order to be informed as to what has been said with regard to

a particular current question (Mediating Theology). This includes making data

available, understanding and contextualizing them, whereby a comprehensive

viewpoint is reached. At this point comes into play what Lonergan calls ‘conver-

148, at 135 f. The term ‘revolution’ occurs variously in Lonergan’s writings, for instance “Revolutionin Catholic Theology [1972].” In Idem, A Second Collection, 231–238. Entiteled as ‘Revolution inCatholic Theology?’ was a series of lectures, in 1973 and 1974 delivered at various places. SeeLonergan, The Larkin-Stuart Lectures.83 Lonergan, Method in Theology. For background see Ivo Coelho, Hermeneutics and Method. AStudy in the Universal Viewpoint in Bernard Lonergan. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001.Lonergan’s study has gained some attention among Catholic theologians, for instance by PeterHünermann, Dogmatische Prinzipienlehre. Glaube – Überlieferung – Theologie als Sprach- undWahrheitsgeschehen. Münster: Aschendor�, 2003, 198–200; Robert Doran,What is SystematicTheology?, Lonergan Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005; Gerald O’Collins, Re-thinking Fundamental Theology. Toward a New Fundamental Theology. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2011, 16 f.; Neil Ormerod, Christiaan Jacobs-Vandegger, Foundational Theology. A New Ap-proach to Catholic Fundamental Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015; Thomas P. Rausch,Systematic Theology. A Roman Catholic Approach. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016.84 Welte, Ein Vorschlag zur Methode der Theologie heute; Karl Rahner, “Überlegungen zurMethode der Theologie.” In Idem, Schriften zur Theologie, Volume 9. Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1970,79–126; JohannesBeumer,Die theologischeMethode, HDG I/6. Freiburg imBreisgau: Herder, 1972.85 Lonergan, Method in Theology, 5. See also ibid., 4, 13 f., 20, 125, as well ibid., XI: “Method isnot a set of rules to be followedmeticulously by a dolt. It is a framework for collaborative creativity.It would outline the various clusters of operations to be performed by theologians when they goabout their various tasks.”86 Lonergan,Method in Theology, 125 f.87 Lonergan,Method in Theology, 127–145.



130 Benjamin Dahlke

sion,’ that is a new beginning as a result of a process of clarification.88

When

this takes place, the individual theologian presents his or her own answer, which

eventually will be a part of further considerations (Mediated Theology). After the

theologian has indicated his or her solution to a problem, stated which teaching

is to be regarded as essential, this has to be explained.

basic humanoperations

Mediating Theology Mediated Theology

experiencing, i. e. being

attentive

(1) research, i. e.

making data available

(8) communications,

i. e. theology in its

external relations

understanding, i. e.

being intelligent

(2) interpretation, i. e.

understanding what is

meant

(7) systematics, i. e. to

work out a coherent

concept

judging, i. e. being

reasonable

(3) history, i. e.

contextualizing

(6) doctrines, i. e.

judgments of fact and

value

deliberating, i. e. being

responsible

(4) dialectics, i. e.

reaching a

comprehensive

viewpoint

(5) foundations, i. e. a

statement is made

4 Conclusion

Neo-Scholasticism did not take the subject seriously in that it was excluded from

consideration, and as it conceived the object of theology, it lacked su�cient

complexity because the notion of history was overlooked. Bernard Lonergan

was aware of these internal weaknesses. Therefore he aimed at providing new

foundations for a better understanding of Christianity. In this regard he is in line

with other thinkers who have heavily contributed to theological renewal, like

Karl Rahner, Yves Congar (1904–1995), Edward Schillebeeckx (1914–2009), and

Hans Urs von Balthasar.89

His various writings, especially Insight and Method

88 Lonergan,Method in Theology, 237–244.89 Fergus Kerr, Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians. From Neoscholasticism to Nuptial Mysti-cism. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007, 120.




in Theology, helped to move Catholic theology beyond the borders established

by Neo-Scholasticism.90

This is, of course, an observation from a viewpoint of

historical scholarship. It is up to today’s systematicians to engage (critically)

with Lonergan’s ideas – and to further develop them, given especially the needed

renewal of theology.91

90 Due to his not only weak, but moreover declining health, Lonergan could not contribute thatmuch.91 Neil Ormerod, “The Needed Renewal of Systematic Theology.” LoWo 26 (2014): 323–338;Benjamin Dahlke, “Anthropologische Möglichkeitsbedingungen christlichen Glaubens? Zur Wei-terentwicklung der Systematischen Theologie.” FZPhTh 64 (2017): 211–232.



NewDirectionsforCatholicTheology.Bernard Lonergan...

Documents

Transcript of NewDirectionsforCatholicTheology.Bernard Lonergan...