Original Sin in the Context of Lonergan's Soteriology

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 Method in Theology, published originally in English, his work on soteriology was originally in Latin in the context of his teaching Christology, De Verbo Incarnato. Only with the publication of his Collected Works are the relevant Latin texts now widely available, also with English translation.1 In contrast, a philosophy that rejects extrinsicism, that begins from the self-appropriation of the subject = [his] their self-mediation with respect to a tradition = mutual self-mediation within a tradition, begins with [man] the human as [he] one concretely is, as a member of a community, as a receiver and transmitter of a tradition, as in need of conversion such a starting point is isomorphic with the starting-point of one that inquires into Christian claims while there are two formally distinct starting-points, there is only one full solution: when one deals with [man] the human in the concrete, one is dealing with [man] the human under original sin, in need of grace, receiving it, and either accepting or rejecting it – one is in a theological context.3 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 Erbsünde rather than Ursünde, peccatum originale originatum and not peccatum originale originans. The focus is on inherited original sin, Erbsünde. As an additional introductory note, I should acknowledge Lonergan's distinction from Method in Theology 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. 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 De Verbo Incarnato, where he treats soteriology, the redemption.8 De Bono et Malo, ‘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. 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 important article is ‘The Transition from a Classicist Worldview to Historical Mindedness’.9 A theme in that article, ‘Human Nature and Historicity’, is also addressed in ‘Natural Right and Historical Mindedness’.10 Lonergan distinguishes between two approaches to understanding the human: a classicist worldview that focuses on a universal human nature, common to all humans, in all places and all times; and a historically minded or modern approach that sees the human as changing and developing over time, framing in different contexts distinctive literatures, cultures, forms of law and language, and institutions. The acknowledgement of the latter has led many moderns to abandon completely all reference to human nature, or to any constant universal. While accepting the importance of recognising the historical dimension, Lonergan, along with other transcendental Thomists, holds that the universal human nature can be recognised in the operations of human subjects. He remarks in a comment on Rahner's article on natural law, ‘…the more concrete and historical apprehension of man (sic) provides itself with the appropriately concrete foundations in structural features of the conscious, operating subject, by a method that has come to be named transcendental’.11 Where Rahner had focused on the activities of listening and of questioning, Lonergan elaborates a fourfold structure of human cognitional and volitional operations, from experiencing, understanding, reflecting, and judging, deliberating and deciding. In his article on ‘Natural Right’ he contrasts a constant, human nature, and a variable, human historicity. ‘Nature is given man (sic) at birth. Historicity is what man makes of man (sic).’12 Corresponding to the fourfold structure of human consciousness: Experience, Understanding, Judgement, and Decision, are the four transcendental precepts that Lonergan proposes as articulating the common law of this nature: ‘be attentive, be intelligent, be rational, be responsible’. The ongoing process of self-transcendence constituted by the dynamic of the corresponding questioning has its completion in the embrace of value, the state of being-in-love.13 The dynamic of self-transcendence is presented for pedagogical reasons as from below upward, culminating in decision and commitment. However, reality is more complex, and once Lonergan had introduced the explanatory terms he shifted attention to the dynamic in the other direction, from above downward. This is the dynamism beginning with the affective encounter with value (another person, parent, teacher, pastor, partner) leading to the adoption of life-shaping commitments and convictions, thereby framing experience. But whichever the direction of the dynamism in any instance, the account of the human is dynamic, and can be interpreted in line with the transcendental precepts. Accordingly, the notion of natural law is not abandoned, but it is disconnected from a static concept of a universal human nature. Historicity is contrasted with the constant, human nature, Historicity is the of human and in Lonergan indicates that he is both to and and literatures, the writing of and the the law, the a history, as progress and as The to understanding such and is to approach as of the human I the in its of the is both and the is by the human and it is the human which is In Lonergan's language, it is the of man by is a but what is and what is is are dealing with the human that by The natural and by are to be from the of The latter is to now only in from but can point to it as the of the or of the As in a which is a of The of human has to from a of to an historically minded account of the the concrete, and the The also for and Lonergan the leading to his work on Method in Theology the of Method was a that of theologians a of own intelligent, rational, and The of such a and of as to of the on Lonergan's of focus from a universal human nature to the historical metaphysics to a in his of He metaphysics with not that Lonergan all of but that he sees metaphysics as the other with their distinctive and of cognitional and of a metaphysics is not first but from cognitional theory and are as corresponding to what are when are why is that What when analysis on what one is when what are operations as I in different in in in common The are in terms of operations of to understanding the understanding and and is to be in and human the approach to the of and can one to of and an of what might be The point of this when to the that not of the but that and in analysis also to and The common of original and the of a the human of and and the of the and value which that are of the human The in history to which Lonergan refers in the title of his when all However, not is many are to a is and are The original well a of a or it in the at be a of and or it be or both the original and the be or are in as are the of a process in with the transcendental ‘be attentive, be intelligent, be be responsible’. are as are the of or is a of the and But it is a is a constant from a to to to or to and both in the and in the The situation is by the that there can be both and Lonergan distinguishes between the of the subject, and the of a As well as the of for there is the that be the best and of or the of inherited from their or from the of to to to to and to The of or be in the of or In ‘Healing and Creating in Lonergan refers to the of which to of and of He identifies four or of that and from or recognising or to or the of common can development and In chapters and of Lonergan provides a analysis of four forms of human and The latter includes the of common brief on the dynamic structure of human on the on the of and the of on the of such as of common or and on the of within the the complexity of the reality referred to as and human the of the of the human it be recognised both that the human to be be a of and and that the to the human be by the or inherited of the instance, in in and has in an of and with the that more for The of the the and the to in the relevant the that in the and are to for and methods for such distinction of the of and of and Lonergan's own of the functional are relevant is as the concrete of but of In the of can be to their in two but of In the ongoing process of history, can either progress or are and the one in and the other in As well as the of such as in there can be in the of to their own and be in an the and the of be of the which and In that it is not to the addressed the and the of concrete process in which and and and sin, and and But the that the of history also are of that and in their its The of this is that the to in on the development of the the human the of understanding, and decision which that but the and for such an is not to be for Healing is when a dynamic of decline is to be or to development are to be The of development is from below upward, from and understanding to decision and but that can be it its can be or the time, development can be and this in the of tradition, and the direction of the dynamism is from above downward. The or or in the with parent, or teacher, on which are the apprehension of the apprehension of the in understanding of one has a and has into the of the of the to in understanding and by However, this of development can also be either or there is need for healing. An understanding of human the of of and the of Lonergan is in but the holds for other He their attention to their that from a decision and is by a dynamic that from above The to in with about is in an that their common the of healing and of that common is the to the to and to and the to and In in which the their to one there is the of and the of that or conversion in the and the of Lonergan in what a solution to the of evil might He a account of a solution on the analysis of the Healing in Christian tradition is also known as and in his of Lonergan about what the solution might but from the of recognised and the He on the of the as the for good can be from the terms of progress and decline are not presented but there is also the of healing. to a theological account of healing is his on the of the his of the is to Lonergan's explanation of the healing in the and of is why the of and was has and has not to with the of the human but to into a good to the and of the The that are the of of human with one and with that from is to be by and to the by a Lonergan that good as ‘the and in this as well as in the to in all their concrete and has an to the of the in Lonergan's Lonergan of has not to with the of but to into a There is a the of and the of respect to the of the not human but by of and healing and of the of but in the is has on of and and it for to with the reality of in the of This is in the by taking evil and it into of any his that might only more evil and a of dealing with that the to identifies or in the of the from good from and good from The first is the of the from the evil of sin, the of an The second is Christ's of in accepting that and it into a of The is the of the that from and to on are in and his his and are with in the Church are the of and are to offer the and to ‘The of the is rather than to Lonergan's on as historical the is history as by from their and in Lonergan an article to as historical to of the in which the of is He on his analysis of the of the and the good of in the healing in history is and as as a historical is given Lonergan both the historical by and the by historical is not only his influence on but on the and is at human on to the in this from and good with the that the human good of in itself is this itself is by as historical The at the beginning of this might The from a of that the solution only once the has recognised and The of the the as ‘the human in the concrete, the human under original sin, in need of The the solution as This with the of the that the need for and the offered that on this a the and the a of the be to what Lonergan The as are not original but are at the grace, and either accepting or rejecting The concrete human reality to be is one in which the solution is available, and is by and by and accepting or rejecting it is the human This is a reality that Lonergan to with all the of human and human can the complexity in that from his lecture there is only one full solution: when one deals with the human in the concrete, one is dealing with the human under original sin, in need of grace, receiving it, and either accepting or rejecting is in a theological I not the tradition of commentary on theological on the by and the of doctrine at But I this context, and I on I the of the of sin and the of his as an an to the of evil in a that is and to be As Lonergan extrinsicism, the for and explanation in terms of the operations of human subjects. In to Lonergan the human as the between good and the article on original sin in his on The the English Lonergan's The published ‘The human in the of the first human as its the in the of what the as the of the first human as its by an This is not an of an historical but an of the to of the common human reality that all are with and all are with the of that This should be read in with Lonergan's about where is to be I the dynamic of theological which from of the solution to of the the of all are sin are also in need of as is in the of the Church in it that there is sin for which are not which also be this is the inherited peccatum originale in all from the sin, peccatum originale originans. doctrine from the of the of that had by that are not for inherited original and that their under the of for inherited original sin is not to their own evil but to their to The six of that original sin in by is by teaching that the of is for the of original sin, and their that takes the of original sin, but not its such as to any of the on original sin which might be to the doctrine of the of in is a concept of sin that is The common between actual sin and inherited original sin is that a state of from in the human that inherited original sin has the nature of sin. that there is sin in the has to As Lonergan not inherited original sin, but it is in his as to the for which the offer of is the The question I is can an account of inherited original sin from his As his work on healing in history to the functional of He the and in the here he is not with establishing the relevant as be to the functional of approach in systematics on his distinctive approach that has many elements in common with other transcendental such as As above he begins with cognitional theory of This distinction when his remarks on evil as the and A relevant and of Lonergan's is his understanding of evil as is not the of a but the of a good that should be is the of from the an of good that is to be in a is the of a decision to or not to in with a of what to be not to as in Lonergan's is a is There is explanation for the human for it to and explanation for what it given the encounter with with the of decline in history, the for for that the that is the for the of that as for instance, the of sin in Lonergan an to the topic ‘the of the that sin is a an of this what he an The human it not with the or the and in contexts in which there is to that ask why sin, why why the can As Lonergan it, be for can be given. there a not to and had not to a that was not evil but Lonergan in the of and for sin. There is a that can be its as it is not to its as it is not to its by which it is not or Lonergan on the for where are to be what what what and of and good to an an or an I other not of to to their to their what in are not Lonergan's with this for both and is in his remarks in this on ‘the of of to his it to I that this is all can from to the which that sin and the for sin from the In all it is that it is not but the is the of sin, and it was and that the not about the the in the and of this that evil and sin are and can approach the topic of inherited original sin, to which the inherited original sin is sin, it be I Lonergan's on inherited original sin in terms of his analysis of decline and healing in history on his cognitional the question is to the is the human to be what by its nature it is of to be as sin is only with to the of the one to be the is But in the of not what it is to be or what it is not to be can the to to to and be that the the and the are the of the human of and it can be that the of the operations of the human subject is and as the of all that is and the of all that is good is the of the human However, that the subject its and can be not only by but also by and that are not recognised as are the of or of and that to the subject, as Lonergan in his of the of What is when the human to the and the and the good is and given that the human subject is with to the and the and the its has of the of sin as from of or for reality or than that of when are by value and more by and their own which well be for the Good that is the of all this not be as of or but is a that has the of sin. Lonergan can be read in this is from his on Christ's in the as historical the good of good above all has to with the natural to in his the natural for and the natural for and and all are to the extent that the by is and or are to be what of their nature are of and to that extent are not in with the and This from the of inherited original sin in Lonergan in a and this approach to from theory and from of the Lonergan's understanding of in beginning from but natural of the human the one there is for and self-transcendence in Christian is to and with and the other there is to in or the of The to the addressed in Lonergan's transcendental precepts to ‘be attentive, be intelligent, be rational, and be responsible’. The latter to what Lonergan has as the and that the good of the natural and from in the the and the in this analysis from Lonergan with the doctrine of original sin. The analysis points to an a between for and value, and to and to all ‘The doctrine of original sin to this to to to the of and to universal need for the healing of This account is with Christian tradition and doctrine to this it that is not in with and that is not by such as or that is an in the structure of human and while to the analysis of human nature as and it not the to the it for inherited original sin to abandon a of the of human nature as to the the and the This account is also with the understanding of evil as not the of a but the of a good that should be as is in Lonergan's of and the to be and is in the understanding of the Where sin, and decline are the only explanation on offer is in terms of that are or There is a to be In one Lonergan's account is for explaining the of inherited original ‘the is the is to evil and are subject to and What in to inherited original sin the The of the of sin, and the doctrine that the an to be is not for The of the be is here to to from and the doctrine that all of is from However, this reality of is only known offer of is to The of both the of the and provides for healing the of the into the of in which can a the can be and for can be The good is the offer of the of the offered and to the of an from that has This is not or known from the of its in the of the offered of faith. as or the of common be recognised from the of a subject attention and questioning are by the relevant also the reality of from be to the relevant of that all to be and to come to of the and is of that is by and his from the of the the to is to the of that is to and that the is by a offered by might with the that Lonergan had to about sin and original sin. But what he to is in the context of his analysis of in terms of healing in from understanding of the solution in can the of the to be the of the solution above all in the of the which good for the of human operations, the be to the completion and to which are the full of Lonergan's distinctive approach should his that in a by is corresponding to the operations and that and questioning and understanding, and judging, and deciding. Theology is on the that for Christian their in the to the given by and the and teaching and good of in a in which the of the of in and in which the encounter with evil in the forms of and and is an for good of of in and of what might their from This is the context for their of the universal need of for what a need in the to by what can be about what is the in their be on the forms that healing in history might Lonergan the of into by the given to thereby the reality that all other This is the dynamism of in and convictions, the for understanding, and the of with and Lonergan is not in to the reality beginning with the actual situation of the human as The the of and of the human is to be in and from a is with from the other from the of to be is to be from that by grace, and with

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.