No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
One could say I was startled into examining Lonergan on praxis What startled me was the remark of Lonergan in his essay, “Theology and Praxis”, to the effect that to ask whether theology is a praxis “is to ask whether there are basic theological questions whose solution depends on the personal development of theologians”.
Why should that have startled me? Because, as it stands, it establishes praxis as, first, simply a matter of consciousness, and, second, a function of individual development. Such a concept of praxis startles because it contradicts one’s prior expectation. Two key insights are operative in the modem, that is the post-Hegelian, problematic of the relationship between theory and practice, a problematic dominated by the thought of Marx. The first is that the human activity or praxis which fashions and transforms human beings and grounds the modes of human living is labour, that is, human action as a productive force. It is in acting upon nature to satisfy their material needs that human beings bring about modification in their own nature and develop varying forms of social order and modes of human thought and existence. In other words, the question of praxis is in the first place the question of the dependence of ideas or consciousness upon the productive forces and relationships that constitute the basis of every human society. The second insight behind the recent currency of the term “praxis” is that the activity or practice to which consciousness and theory are linked is social practice. In other words, the question of praxis is in the second place the question of the dependence of our thinking and our judgments, the formation of our consciousness and our production of theories, upon the historical development of human society and upon the place where we find ourselves in that society.
1 The Catholic Theological Society of America: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Convention, Toronto, Ontario, June 15-18, 1977. Vol 32, Edited by Luke, Salm, F.S.C. p 2.Google Scholar
2 Cf. his account of praxis in his article, “The Ongoing Genesis of Methods”, SR: Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, Vol. 6, No. 4, 19767, 351–2.Google Scholar
3 Alvin, W. Gouldner, The Two Marxisms: Contradictions and Anomalies in the Development of Theory (New York: The Seabury Press, 1980). For the two concepts of praxis in Marx, see p 33.Google Scholar
4 Among the writings of Matthew Lamb, see especially: History, Method, and Theology: A Dialectical Comparison of W. Dilthey's Critique of Historical Reason and B. Lonergan's Meta‐Methodology (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977); “The Theory‐Praxis Relationship in Contemporary Christian Theologies”, The Catholic Theological Society of America: Proceedings of the Thirty‐First Annual Convention, Washington, D.C., June 9–12, 1976, Vol. 31, pp 149–178; “A Response (II) to Bernard Lonergan”, The Catholic Theological Society of America: Proceedings of the Thirty‐Second Annual Convention, Toronto, Ontario, June 15–18, 1977, Vol. 32, 22–30. Among the writings of Frederick Lawrence, see especially: “Political theology and The Longer Cycle of Decline”, Lonergan Workshop: Volume I, edited by Fred Lawrence (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), pp 223–255; ‘The Horizon of Political Theology’ in Trinification of the World: A Festschrift in Honour of Frederick E. Crowe In Celebration of His 60th Birthday, Edited by Thomas A. Dunne and Jean‐Marie Laporte (Toronto: Regis College Press, 1978), pp 46–70.Google Scholar
5 Matthew, Lamb, “Contemporary Education and Sinful Social Structures. An unpublished paper given at the Lonergan Workshop, 1979.Google Scholar
6 “Beyond Lonergan's Method: A Response to William Matthews”, New Black friars, 57 (1976), 59–71. This article is the most weighty piece in a debate about Lonergan in New Blackfriars.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Op. cit. 70.
8 Collection: Papers by Bernard Lonergan, S. J., edited by F.E. Crowe, S.J. (Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1967), p 219.Google Scholar
9 Collection, pp 245–6.
10 Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. Revised Students Edition. (London / New York / Toronto: Longmans, 1958), pp 225–244; 688ff.Google Scholar
11 Insight, pp 703–718.
12 Method in Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972), p 43.Google Scholar
13 As he remarks concerning economic problems, with an unmistakable reference to theological critiques of capitalism: “Again, when the system that is needed for our collective survival does not exist, then it is futile to excoriate what does exist while blissfully ignoring the task of constructing a technically viable economic system that can be put in its place”, “Healing and Creating”, Bernard Lonergan: 3 Lectures (Montreal: Thomas More Institute for Adult Education, 1975), p 66.Google Scholar
14 Insight, p 232.
15 Insight, p 630. In the last chapter of Insight, which comes after the account of general transcendent knowledge and the affirmation of God, the theme of sin is introduced, and the social surd becomes the reign of sin (p 692). However, the analysis of the human predicament remains essentially unaltered, inasmuch as its root cause is still seen as the failure of intellectual detachment and reflection.
16 Insight, p 631.
17 Frederick, Lawrence, “Political Theology and The Longer Cycle of Decline”, Lonergan Workshop: Volume I (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), p 240. The quotation from Lonergan is from his essay, “The Role of a Catholic University in the Modern World”, in Collection, p 116. Lawrence is using the account of the role of Machiavelli in the essay of Leo Strauss, “The Three Waves of Modernity” in Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss, edited with an introduction by HilailGildin (Indianapolis/New York: Pegasus, 1975), pp 81–98.Google Scholar
18 Method in Theology, p 55.
19 Insight, p 629.
20 New York: Seabury Press, 1976.
21 Op. cit. 60–1.
22 Insight, p 720.
23 Method in neology, p 115.
24 Method in Theology, p 115.
25 Method in Theology, p 118.
26 Bernard Lonergan: 3 Lectures, p 63.
27 His presentation of praxis as a method is in the article, “The Ongoing Genesis of Methods”, SR: Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, Vol. 6, No 4, 19767, 351–5.Google Scholar
28 Method in Theology, p 55.
29 Insight, p 629.
30 His essay, “Theology and Praxis” contains his remark, “Now I think Voegelin's criticism of doctrines and doctrinization to be exaggerated” (p 13), but in the context of a favourable account of Voegelin's work.
31 In the article, “The Ongoing Genesis of Methods”, he twice refers to extracting the literal meaning from the symbolic as though that were an unproblematic aim and procedure: cf. p 353 and 354.
32 “The Future of Christianity” in A Second Collection: Papers by Bernard J. F. Lonergan, S.J., Edited by William, F. J., Ryan, S.J. and Bernard, J., Tyrrell, S. J. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974), p 159.Google Scholar
33 “Theology and Praxis”, p 1.
34 “The Ongoing Genesis of Methods”, p 351.
You have
Access