JHMTh/ZNThG; 2019 26(1): 108–131 Benjamin Dahlke New Directions for Catholic Theology. Bernard Lonergan’s Move beyond Neo-Scholasticism DOI 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 oenkundigen 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.1 Thus, 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 theme has been, as a professor of theology and a writer in philosophy, to provide Catholics with the background 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 Paderborn Angemeldet | [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).2 His 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.3 Many theologians and Church ocials 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 More Institute 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: Fordham University Press, 1989; ibid., The Neo-Thomists, Marquette Studies in Philosophy 3. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1994; Ralph Del Colle, “Neo-Scholasticism.” In The Blackwell Companion 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 theologischen Wissenschaftswelt am Beispiel der Neuscholastik.” In Transnationale Dimensionen wissenschaftlicher Theologie, VIEG.B 86, ed. Claus Arnold, Johannes Wischmeyer. Göttingen, Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2013, 319–353; Bernard McGinn, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. A Biography. Princeton, NJ, London: Princeton University Press, 2014, 163–209. It is worth noting that at that time a revival of the middle ages was happening anyway, including art and literature. On this see Manufacturing Middle Ages. Entangled History of Medievalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe, National Cultivation of Culture 6, ed. Patrick J. Geary and 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 Mittelalter 23, ed. Klaus Ridder, Steen Patzold. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013, 111–134. Bereitgestellt von | Theologische Fakultät Paderborn Angemeldet | [email protected] Autorenexemplar Heruntergeladen am | 11.11.19 13:00 110 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.4 Other 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.6 As historical scholarship flourished, it gained a more critical rather than armative 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.7 A 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). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Inquisition im 19. Jahrhundert, RQ.S 37. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1980; Georg Sans, “Georg Hermes und die Oenbarung – Eine Fallstudie zum Fortwirken Fichtes im 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.” In Continuity 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, Philosophie und 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 doch auch 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 die Deutschen die Lehrer aller Nationen geworden.” Bereitgestellt von | Theologische Fakultät Paderborn Angemeldet | [email protected] Autorenexemplar Heruntergeladen am | 11.11.19 13:00 Bernard Lonergan’s Move beyond Neo-Scholasticism 111 (1827–1880), for some time a Jesuit, who turned out to be a strong proponent of Thomism.8 Not surprisingly, Neo-Scholasticism has especially