{"title":"Karl Rahner on Original Sin: An Uncomfortable Truth","authors":"Declan Marmion, SM","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14351","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>When I need to give a brief overview of Karl Rahner's theology, I often find myself including a list of some of the topics on which he wrote. Not only did he publish on grace, ecclesiology, Christology, sacraments, and the doctrine of the Trinity, I might say, but also on leisure, childhood, poetry, death, televising the Mass, old age, indulgences, sleep, power, penance, the spiritual senses, and so on. A list can communicate something about the range of Rahner's work, and its occasional quality. Though I've used different lists on different occasions, original sin has never appeared on any of them. Original sin wasn't in fact a central topic for Rahner. This does not mean that he was a naïve optimist who didn't take sin seriously, but simply that the particular doctrine, as a subject of controversy or puzzlement, wasn't a particularly prominent focus of his attention. I therefore came to this symposium on Rahner on original sin with a fear that it would turn out to be a little thin. In fact, the opposite has proved to be true—this is a rich, fascinating, and valuable set of papers.</p><p>The essays of Carl Scerri and David Sendrez both have a philosophical focus, and converge in other ways, so I will take them, below, as a pair. I will begin, however, with few brief comments about Stephen Fields's paper.</p><p>Fields presents what is—in spite of the admirable clarity of his prose—quite a dense and complex essay. He covers, first, Rahner's understanding of original sin against the background of the concept of the supernatural existential; second, his (Fields's) own position on original sin, including the suggestion that Adam's fall brought about genetic and chromosonal change, together with a revisionary proposal about Adam's relation to sanctifying grace; and then, finally, an overall critical evaluation of the concept of supernatural existential.</p><p>It is beyond the scope of this response to take up everything in Fields's paper, so I will limit myself to one quite specific and one general comment. The specific point has to do with a distinction Fields makes between ‘categorical supernatural existential’ and ‘transcendental supernatural existential’. These expressions come not directly from Rahner but from a proposal for reading Rahner which Fields adopts from Weger. In my view it is a proposal we should approach with caution. It is not only that ‘supernatural existential’ is already too much of a mouthful as it is, or that to push Rahner's thought towards becoming a more elaborate and self-contained system revolving around his own technical terms is to do it a disservice; it is also that, as far as I can see, ‘categorical supernatural existential’ is an oxymoron. As Rahner uses these terms, ‘categorical’ and ‘existential’ pull in exactly opposite directions. This is not to say that Fields's basic presentation of Rahner's view is inaccurate, but only that it tends to make the topic a little more complex and confusing than it need be.</p><p
{"title":"Rahner on Original Sin: A Response to The Symposium","authors":"Karen Kilby","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14355","url":null,"abstract":"<p>When I need to give a brief overview of Karl Rahner's theology, I often find myself including a list of some of the topics on which he wrote. Not only did he publish on grace, ecclesiology, Christology, sacraments, and the doctrine of the Trinity, I might say, but also on leisure, childhood, poetry, death, televising the Mass, old age, indulgences, sleep, power, penance, the spiritual senses, and so on. A list can communicate something about the range of Rahner's work, and its occasional quality. Though I've used different lists on different occasions, original sin has never appeared on any of them. Original sin wasn't in fact a central topic for Rahner. This does not mean that he was a naïve optimist who didn't take sin seriously, but simply that the particular doctrine, as a subject of controversy or puzzlement, wasn't a particularly prominent focus of his attention. I therefore came to this symposium on Rahner on original sin with a fear that it would turn out to be a little thin. In fact, the opposite has proved to be true—this is a rich, fascinating, and valuable set of papers.</p><p>The essays of Carl Scerri and David Sendrez both have a philosophical focus, and converge in other ways, so I will take them, below, as a pair. I will begin, however, with few brief comments about Stephen Fields's paper.</p><p>Fields presents what is—in spite of the admirable clarity of his prose—quite a dense and complex essay. He covers, first, Rahner's understanding of original sin against the background of the concept of the supernatural existential; second, his (Fields's) own position on original sin, including the suggestion that Adam's fall brought about genetic and chromosonal change, together with a revisionary proposal about Adam's relation to sanctifying grace; and then, finally, an overall critical evaluation of the concept of supernatural existential.</p><p>It is beyond the scope of this response to take up everything in Fields's paper, so I will limit myself to one quite specific and one general comment. The specific point has to do with a distinction Fields makes between ‘categorical supernatural existential’ and ‘transcendental supernatural existential’. These expressions come not directly from Rahner but from a proposal for reading Rahner which Fields adopts from Weger. In my view it is a proposal we should approach with caution. It is not only that ‘supernatural existential’ is already too much of a mouthful as it is, or that to push Rahner's thought towards becoming a more elaborate and self-contained system revolving around his own technical terms is to do it a disservice; it is also that, as far as I can see, ‘categorical supernatural existential’ is an oxymoron. As Rahner uses these terms, ‘categorical’ and ‘existential’ pull in exactly opposite directions. This is not to say that Fields's basic presentation of Rahner's view is inaccurate, but only that it tends to make the topic a little more complex and confusing than it need be.</p><p","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/heyj.14355","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>The considerable attention to the theme of original sin in post-Vatican II theology bears witness both to its perceived importance and to a sense of crisis as to how it should be articulated. There are two broad areas of concern. Firstly, attempts to reconcile the primal history of Genesis 1-3 (the story of a transgression which precipitates the fall of humanity from a state of original bliss) and evolutionary theory anxiously acknowledge a perceived divergence between faith/religion and reason/science. At stake is the intellectual credibility of Christian faith in the face of scientific modernity. To use a term that will be discussed below, we appear to be at a ‘Galileo’ moment.</p><p>The second challenge is related: an allegedly foundational component of Christian faith no longer has emotional hold, even for believers. Here is a question of affective rather than intellectual coherence. As David Ford points out, a successful metaphor of salvation must have ‘gripping power’ in order to do justice to the specificity and urgency of what is at stake. He cites the theatre director, Peter Brook: ‘For an idea to stick, it is not enough to state it: it must be burnt into our memories.’1 The doctrine of original sin, by contrast, seems to have no traction on the contemporary imagination.</p><p>William T. Cavanaugh and James K.A. Smith offer an interesting way of negotiating the two challenges. They urge us to move ‘beyond Galileo to Chalcedon’, by which they mean that theology is facing a dead-end if it sees the problem of original sin as an analogy of the Galileo crisis. This denotes an urgent anxiety to reconcile what science tells us about human origins and what our tradition asserts; if we fail in this task, the credibility of the Christian faith is imperilled. To cite Charles Taylor, we find ourselves ‘cross-pressured’. The problem is that, framed in these terms, there can only be one outcome: tradition will give way to scientific rationality, and the doctrine will have to go.</p><p>The alternative, according to Cavanaugh and Smith, is to think of this as a ‘Chalcedonian opportunity’, in which we creatively keep the tension in place rather than dissolve it. Just as the Chalcedonian fathers found a way of asserting both the divinity and humanity of Christ, so we need to ‘embrace the cross pressure as an impetus for genuine, yet faithful, theological development’.2</p><p>A shift ‘from Galileo to Chalcedon’ means the explicit adoption of the Council of Chalcedon as the model and template for creative theology in the contemporary ‘cross-pressured’ world. More generally, and with respect to the doctrine of original sin, it serves as a call to make Christology the guiding principle of our discussion, rather than the anthropological sciences. Such an emphasis is found in theologians inspired by the mimetic theory of René Girard (1923-2015), specifically James Alison and Raymund Schwager.3 Each seeks to secure the credibility of the doctrine in the light
{"title":"Mimetic Theory and Original Sin: René Girard, James Alison, and Raymund Schwager","authors":"Michael Kirwan, SJ","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14349","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14349","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The considerable attention to the theme of original sin in post-Vatican II theology bears witness both to its perceived importance and to a sense of crisis as to how it should be articulated. There are two broad areas of concern. Firstly, attempts to reconcile the primal history of Genesis 1-3 (the story of a transgression which precipitates the fall of humanity from a state of original bliss) and evolutionary theory anxiously acknowledge a perceived divergence between faith/religion and reason/science. At stake is the intellectual credibility of Christian faith in the face of scientific modernity. To use a term that will be discussed below, we appear to be at a ‘Galileo’ moment.</p><p>The second challenge is related: an allegedly foundational component of Christian faith no longer has emotional hold, even for believers. Here is a question of affective rather than intellectual coherence. As David Ford points out, a successful metaphor of salvation must have ‘gripping power’ in order to do justice to the specificity and urgency of what is at stake. He cites the theatre director, Peter Brook: ‘For an idea to stick, it is not enough to state it: it must be burnt into our memories.’1 The doctrine of original sin, by contrast, seems to have no traction on the contemporary imagination.</p><p>William T. Cavanaugh and James K.A. Smith offer an interesting way of negotiating the two challenges. They urge us to move ‘beyond Galileo to Chalcedon’, by which they mean that theology is facing a dead-end if it sees the problem of original sin as an analogy of the Galileo crisis. This denotes an urgent anxiety to reconcile what science tells us about human origins and what our tradition asserts; if we fail in this task, the credibility of the Christian faith is imperilled. To cite Charles Taylor, we find ourselves ‘cross-pressured’. The problem is that, framed in these terms, there can only be one outcome: tradition will give way to scientific rationality, and the doctrine will have to go.</p><p>The alternative, according to Cavanaugh and Smith, is to think of this as a ‘Chalcedonian opportunity’, in which we creatively keep the tension in place rather than dissolve it. Just as the Chalcedonian fathers found a way of asserting both the divinity and humanity of Christ, so we need to ‘embrace the cross pressure as an impetus for genuine, yet faithful, theological development’.2</p><p>A shift ‘from Galileo to Chalcedon’ means the explicit adoption of the Council of Chalcedon as the model and template for creative theology in the contemporary ‘cross-pressured’ world. More generally, and with respect to the doctrine of original sin, it serves as a call to make Christology the guiding principle of our discussion, rather than the anthropological sciences. Such an emphasis is found in theologians inspired by the mimetic theory of René Girard (1923-2015), specifically James Alison and Raymund Schwager.3 Each seeks to secure the credibility of the doctrine in the light","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/heyj.14349","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Forgotten Stain on The Soul: Eleonore Stump's Defence of The Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin","authors":"Patrick Zoll, SJ","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14350","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Imaginative Sources of Rahner's Theology of Original Sin","authors":"David Sendrez","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14353","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Karl Rahner's philosophical and theological project is often read either in light of Immanuel Kant's transcendental philosophy, via Joseph Maréchal, or Martin Heidegger's phenomenology. These approaches are useful, but do not tell the whole story. It is true that Rahner draws on these two authors. He even declares that ‘Martin Heidegger was the only teacher for whom [he] developed the respect that a disciple has for a great master’.1 However, despite the unmistakable influences of these two philosophers, Rahner always insisted that he was his own man. He was an independent thinker. In fact, when later in life he was asked what his philosophy was, he replied: ‘I do not have a philosophy’.2 This does not mean that he was not influenced by the philosophies of his time. What Rahner is saying, however, is that he took in this philosophical <i>Zeitgeist</i> without subscribing to one particular philosophy.</p><p>In light of Rahner's own comments, it would be reductive to read his philosophical thinking exclusively in light of Kant and Heidegger. Connections can be made between Rahner and other important philosophers of his time. One philosopher often neglected in evaluations of Rahner's thinking is Edmund Husserl. When Rahner went to Freiburg to study philosophy in 1934, phenomenology was still very much influenced by the thought of its founder, and when he was there, Rahner took a seminar on Husserl. Moreover, the respective projects of Rahner and Husserl share much in common. Both try to develop a transcendental project—understood, in the Kantian sense, as the study of the conditions of possibility of knowledge and experience—and both build their project on the centrality of the ego or the subject.3 Because of an exclusive emphasis on Kant and Heidegger, these possible connections between Rahner and Husserl have remained unstudied.</p><p>Having similar approaches, the projects of Rahner and Husserl also face similar difficulties. Both thinkers are aware that it is difficult for a transcendental project that starts and ends with the question of the subject to avoid being solipsistic. Transcendental projects—whether philosophical or theological—are doomed to fall into some form of solipsism. This is the reason why intersubjectivity becomes an important question for both Husserl and Rahner. Both try to address this question: Husserl in his fifth <i>Cartesian Meditation</i> and Rahner in his <i>Foundations of Christian Faith</i>. Both seek a way to reconcile transcendentality with intersubjectivity. However, as we shall see, although their questions are similar, their answers are completely different. While Husserl remains stuck in a transcendental solipsism, Rahner overturns the meaning of the transcendental. He develops it in a new direction. This comes out with particular clarity in his theology of sin and original sin, expressed in the section of <i>Foundations of Christian Faith</i> which we will be considering in this article.</p><p>Rahner's und
{"title":"Husserl, Rahner, and Their Transcendental(S): Transcendentality, Intersubjectivity, and Original Sin","authors":"Carl Scerri","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14352","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Karl Rahner's philosophical and theological project is often read either in light of Immanuel Kant's transcendental philosophy, via Joseph Maréchal, or Martin Heidegger's phenomenology. These approaches are useful, but do not tell the whole story. It is true that Rahner draws on these two authors. He even declares that ‘Martin Heidegger was the only teacher for whom [he] developed the respect that a disciple has for a great master’.1 However, despite the unmistakable influences of these two philosophers, Rahner always insisted that he was his own man. He was an independent thinker. In fact, when later in life he was asked what his philosophy was, he replied: ‘I do not have a philosophy’.2 This does not mean that he was not influenced by the philosophies of his time. What Rahner is saying, however, is that he took in this philosophical <i>Zeitgeist</i> without subscribing to one particular philosophy.</p><p>In light of Rahner's own comments, it would be reductive to read his philosophical thinking exclusively in light of Kant and Heidegger. Connections can be made between Rahner and other important philosophers of his time. One philosopher often neglected in evaluations of Rahner's thinking is Edmund Husserl. When Rahner went to Freiburg to study philosophy in 1934, phenomenology was still very much influenced by the thought of its founder, and when he was there, Rahner took a seminar on Husserl. Moreover, the respective projects of Rahner and Husserl share much in common. Both try to develop a transcendental project—understood, in the Kantian sense, as the study of the conditions of possibility of knowledge and experience—and both build their project on the centrality of the ego or the subject.3 Because of an exclusive emphasis on Kant and Heidegger, these possible connections between Rahner and Husserl have remained unstudied.</p><p>Having similar approaches, the projects of Rahner and Husserl also face similar difficulties. Both thinkers are aware that it is difficult for a transcendental project that starts and ends with the question of the subject to avoid being solipsistic. Transcendental projects—whether philosophical or theological—are doomed to fall into some form of solipsism. This is the reason why intersubjectivity becomes an important question for both Husserl and Rahner. Both try to address this question: Husserl in his fifth <i>Cartesian Meditation</i> and Rahner in his <i>Foundations of Christian Faith</i>. Both seek a way to reconcile transcendentality with intersubjectivity. However, as we shall see, although their questions are similar, their answers are completely different. While Husserl remains stuck in a transcendental solipsism, Rahner overturns the meaning of the transcendental. He develops it in a new direction. This comes out with particular clarity in his theology of sin and original sin, expressed in the section of <i>Foundations of Christian Faith</i> which we will be considering in this article.</p><p>Rahner's und","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/heyj.14352","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Henri de Lubac and The Question of Original Sin for Catholic Theology","authors":"Philip Moller, SJ","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14346","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"‘No What without a How’: The Theology of Original Sin","authors":"Patrick Riordan, SJ","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14345","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14345","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Developments in the Low Countries: The Interpretations of Original Sin of Schoonenberg and Schillebeeckx","authors":"Tom McLean","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14348","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14348","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Any survey of diverse methods applied by Catholic theologians teaching and writing in the twentieth century should include the Canadian theologian Bernard Lonergan, SJ. While Lonergan might best be known for his <i>Method in Theology</i>, published originally in English, his work on soteriology was originally in Latin in the context of his teaching Christology, <i>De Verbo Incarnato</i>. Only with the publication of his <i>Collected Works</i> are the relevant Latin texts now widely available, also with English translation.1</p><p>Lonergan's soteriology is well summarised in a lecture title: ‘Healing and Creating in History’.4 ‘History’ identifies the context of ‘the concrete situation of humans’; ‘creating’ locates the dynamic capabilities for generating good; and ‘healing’ refers to the woundedness of humanity, the extent of which is revealed in the complexity of the solution offered. The woundedness in question includes the reality of sin, both actual and original. There is only a brief mention of original sin in this essay.5 What is referred to here is <i>Erbsünde</i> rather than <i>Ursünde</i>, <i>peccatum originale originatum</i> and not <i>peccatum originale originans</i>. The focus is on inherited original sin, <i>Erbsünde</i>.</p><p>As an additional introductory note, I should acknowledge Lonergan's distinction from <i>Method in Theology</i> between ‘Doctrines’ and ‘Systematics’ in the second four of the eight functional specialties.6 Doctrines indicates the task of establishing what the Church teaches on specific matters, while systematics takes on the task of explaining the teaching and integrating it with other elements of the Christian faith. In the texts dealt with in this paper Lonergan is largely engaged in the work of systematisation, taking doctrine taught by the Church as given. The following points are relevant: the role of history in Lonergan's theology; his replacement of metaphysics by cognitional theory and epistemology; his analysis of progress and decline (dialectic); the theme of healing. Finally, I ask why the offered explanation is an account of inherited original sin.</p><p>Frederick Crowe, SJ, a student of Lonergan and one of his more careful defenders, highlights Lonergan's concentration on history, and his concern with Christ's historical causality, his influence on the healing of the world.7 Crowe provides a commentary on a supplement added to Lonergan's <i>De Verbo Incarnato</i>, where he treats soteriology, the redemption.8 <i>De Bono et Malo</i>, ‘Of Good and Evil’, is the title of the first of six chapters in this supplement, in total comprising 45 articles. Lonergan's exploration of good and evil in history, what he terms Progress, Decline, and Healing or Recovery, is the context, I suggest, for grasping what he has to offer about original sin.</p><p>This topic of Christ's role in history is to be read in the context of Lonergan's own development of the notion of historicism or historical consciousness. An
{"title":"Original Sin in the Context of Lonergan's Soteriology","authors":"Patrick Riordan, SJ","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14347","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Any survey of diverse methods applied by Catholic theologians teaching and writing in the twentieth century should include the Canadian theologian Bernard Lonergan, SJ. While Lonergan might best be known for his <i>Method in Theology</i>, published originally in English, his work on soteriology was originally in Latin in the context of his teaching Christology, <i>De Verbo Incarnato</i>. Only with the publication of his <i>Collected Works</i> are the relevant Latin texts now widely available, also with English translation.1</p><p>Lonergan's soteriology is well summarised in a lecture title: ‘Healing and Creating in History’.4 ‘History’ identifies the context of ‘the concrete situation of humans’; ‘creating’ locates the dynamic capabilities for generating good; and ‘healing’ refers to the woundedness of humanity, the extent of which is revealed in the complexity of the solution offered. The woundedness in question includes the reality of sin, both actual and original. There is only a brief mention of original sin in this essay.5 What is referred to here is <i>Erbsünde</i> rather than <i>Ursünde</i>, <i>peccatum originale originatum</i> and not <i>peccatum originale originans</i>. The focus is on inherited original sin, <i>Erbsünde</i>.</p><p>As an additional introductory note, I should acknowledge Lonergan's distinction from <i>Method in Theology</i> between ‘Doctrines’ and ‘Systematics’ in the second four of the eight functional specialties.6 Doctrines indicates the task of establishing what the Church teaches on specific matters, while systematics takes on the task of explaining the teaching and integrating it with other elements of the Christian faith. In the texts dealt with in this paper Lonergan is largely engaged in the work of systematisation, taking doctrine taught by the Church as given. The following points are relevant: the role of history in Lonergan's theology; his replacement of metaphysics by cognitional theory and epistemology; his analysis of progress and decline (dialectic); the theme of healing. Finally, I ask why the offered explanation is an account of inherited original sin.</p><p>Frederick Crowe, SJ, a student of Lonergan and one of his more careful defenders, highlights Lonergan's concentration on history, and his concern with Christ's historical causality, his influence on the healing of the world.7 Crowe provides a commentary on a supplement added to Lonergan's <i>De Verbo Incarnato</i>, where he treats soteriology, the redemption.8 <i>De Bono et Malo</i>, ‘Of Good and Evil’, is the title of the first of six chapters in this supplement, in total comprising 45 articles. Lonergan's exploration of good and evil in history, what he terms Progress, Decline, and Healing or Recovery, is the context, I suggest, for grasping what he has to offer about original sin.</p><p>This topic of Christ's role in history is to be read in the context of Lonergan's own development of the notion of historicism or historical consciousness. An","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/heyj.14347","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142234731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：