Full, Conscious, and Active Participation: the Laity As Ecclesial Subjects in an Ecclesiology Informed by Bernard Lonergan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Full, Conscious, and Active Participation: The Laity as Ecclesial Subjects in an Ecclesiology Informed by Bernard Lonergan Mary Utzerath Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Utzerath, Mary, "Full, Conscious, and Active Participation: The Laity as Ecclesial Subjects in an Ecclesiology Informed by Bernard Lonergan" (2011). Dissertations (1934 -). 116. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/116 FULL, CONSCIOUS, AND ACTIVE PARTICIPATION: THE LAITY AS ECCLESIAL SUBJECTS IN AN ECCLESIOLOGY INFORMED BY BERNARD LONERGAN by Mary Patricia Utzerath, B.S., M.S., M.Div. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2011 ABSTRACT FULL, CONSCIOUS, AND ACTIVE PARTICIPATION: THE LAITY AS ECCLESIAL SUBJECTS IN AN ECCLESIOLOGY INFORMED BY BERNARD LONERGAN Mary Patricia Utzerath, B.S., M.S., M.Div. Marquette University, 2011 Unresolved problems and tensions regarding the status and role of the laity persist nearly a half-century following Vatican II. While the magisterium focuses on issues related to the appropriateness or ability of lay persons to carry out roles in the Church that have traditionally belonged to the ordained, sociological surveys indicate that the experience of lay members of the Church in the United States and in much of the Western world includes inadequate formation, confused Catholic identity, marginalization, low levels of commitment in young Catholics, and the steady exodus of Catholics. These problems of the laity are symptomatic of problems within the Church itself. This dissertation seeks to understand how the full realization of the laity as ecclesial subjects and the full realization of the Church might be possible. Working within the parameters of the ecclesial vision of Vatican II, it employs the thought of Canadian Jesuit theologian, Bernard Lonergan (1904 −1984) to support a framework that both emphasizes the divine initiative in the genesis of the Church as well as the social reality of its existence. Lonergan’s interiority analysis provides the means for transposing abstract notions of human nature and grace into existential categories. It thereby provides the tools by which the full becoming of the laity and of the Church can be described in terms of concrete possibilities. On the basis of Lonergan’s work the author suggests that the full realization of the laity and of the Church are directly related to the achievement of authenticity of all its members. Such authenticity requires graced conversion. The author argues that graced conversion is not merely spiritual, but is also a social reality. As such, it flourishes best in an ecclesial atmosphere that provides opportunities for reciprocal sharing and collaboration between and among laity and clergy. The author concludes that graced dialogical collaborations between laity and clergy provide the condition of possibility for the full realization of both the laity and the Church. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Mary Patricia Utzerath, B.S., M.S., M.Div. I gratefully acknowledge the support of many people who encouraged, inspired, and bolstered me throughout my graduate studies and the writing of this dissertation. The first person I want to acknowledge is my dear husband, Jim. I can’t begin to describe how much his encouragement, heroic sacrifice, help, and loving support have meant to me throughout my studies and writing. He is for me the model of authentic subjectivity and self- sacrificing love. After Jim I want to thank my children, Steve and Michelle, their spouses, Kari and Dan, and my grandchildren, James, Katie, Meredith, Rowan, and Aedan for their loving support, understanding, patience, and willingness to accommodate my never-ending busy schedule. I want to acknowledge also my colleagues in the Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science at Marquette University who have been a source of encouragement, support, and inspiration. In particular I wish to thank Marian Manyo not only for her friendship and collaboration throughout our thirty years of teaching mathematics together, but for her efforts as assistant chair to provide teaching assignments for me that would maximize my research and writing time. A former colleague, Marie Schwerm, deserves special thanks for her on-going support and encouragement. I gratefully acknowledge the support and example of Dr. Susan Wood, my dissertation director. From before we met I have been inspired by her prolific accomplishments, critical thinking ability, and exceptionally clear and scholarly writing. Dr. Wood graciously agreed to work with me on my dissertation before I had solidified what it would be about. I truly appreciate her efforts to keep me on track and focused throughout the process of my writing. Dr. Wood’s scholarship and accomplishments will continue to set the bar for me in my professional career. ii I am grateful and honored that Father Robert Doran, S.J. agreed to be a member of my committee. I am grateful, as well, for his support and help as I worked on this dissertation. Father Doran graciously read my drafts of Chapters Two through Five after I completed each one. He also generously provided me with copies of several of his papers as well as the file of De ente supernaturali: Supplementum schematicum (forthcoming in Vol. 19 of Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan). Father Doran is an editor of almost every Lonergan work that I used. Not only is he the general editor of the Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, he also maintains the Lonergan Resource and Lonergan Archive websites. I and all Lonergan scholars owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Father Doran for his efforts to make the work of Lonergan available and accessible. Father Doran’s contributions to the field of Lonergan studies and beyond will surely play a significant role in my future work. I am grateful to Father Bryan Massingale for the many ways in which his example and support have helped to nurture my vocation as a theologian. As an M.Div. student at Saint Francis Seminary, Saint Francis, Wisconsin, I was introduced to the theological field of social justice in a course taught by Father Massingale. Prior to generously agreeing to be a member of my dissertation committee at Marquette University, Father Massingale had been a member of my master’s thesis committee at Saint Francis Seminary where my thesis was entitled, “A Spirituality for Social Justice.” In his eloquently-expressed and lived passion for social justice, in his efforts to expose cultures of privilege in the Church and beyond, and in his example of mediating the experiences, hopes, and wisdom of those who are victims of racism to those for whom these experiences, hopes, and wisdom are foreign, Father Massingale provides a compelling example of the vocation of the theologian. I am grateful to Dr. Andrew Tallon who graciously and generously agreed to be a member of my committee on the basis of our chance encounter in Marquette University’s Raynor Memorial Library. A widely-regarded expert on Rahner’s philosophy, Dr. Tallon’s interests also iii include Lonergan and Emmanuel Levinas. I hope to become more familiar with Dr. Tallon’s exceptional work. Finally, I am grateful to all of my friends who have supported me with encouraging words and prayers. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 A. Purpose of Present Work ............................................................................................ 1 B. Lonergan’s Contribution ............................................................................................. 2 C. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 5 D. Preliminary Definitions ............................................................................................... 6 1. Ecclesiological Vision of Vatican II ............................................................... 6 2. Laity in the Ecclesiological Vision of Vatican II............................................ 8 E. Procedure of Dissertation ............................................................................................ 9 II. CHALLENGED LAITY IN A CHALLENGED CHURCH ................................................ 12 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 12 B. Presenting Ecclesial and Lay Problems .................................................................... 13 1. Sexual Abuse Scandal and Powerlessness of Laity ...................................... 13 a. Lay Voice Consultative Only ........................................................... 15 b. Clergy Accountability to Laity Not Required .................................. 16 c. Exercise of Lay Charisms Inadequately Provided for...................... 18 2. Issues Related to Decline in Priestly Vocations ........................................... 18 a. Issue of Lay Secular Character .......................................................