is christian charity possible within the capitalist system? some initial findings from the christian-marxist dialogue-dialectic
Hugh Williams
Is Christian Charity Possible Within the Capitalist System? Some Initial Findings from the Christian-Marxist Dialogue-Dialectic
Hugh Williams, March 28, 2026
We face now a complex problematic (polycrisis) along with a desperate and frustrating effort to identify and clarify some primary cause to which other causal factors can be subordinated. In the face of this situation Bernard Lonergan and Robert Doran on the Christian side basically have made a simplifying turn to the subject with a special focus on the cognitional and psychic aspects of human consciousness. For a few Christians who comparatively are more sympathetically engaged with the Marxist side of this dialogue-dialectic, such as Edward Schillebeeckx and Juan Segundo, we have a significant emphasis and focus on capitalism. Any analysis from which this focus is absent, i.e. most of mainstream Christianity, remains seriously suspect.
We know from discussions on this Lonergan-google-list-serve where this move favoring the Christian side leads to – “education, education, education!” As for the Marxist side the focus on capitalism, at least after the meaning of this ‘capitalism’ is clarified, - leads to a focus on economic-political-social structural changes which admittedly will be an ongoing work. Education is also important but always within the praxis context of an effort and commitment toward the necessary structural changes.
Perhaps one can say both approaches are needed and that they are complementary in some way. But we are finding that it is not at all this simple. And this is because many people have now found the Christian analysis to have become somewhat inarticulate and even ineffective in the face of this ‘polycrisis’ and its disturbing elements. It simply seems not up to taking seriously the actual workings of this capitalist imperialism with its continuing wars and worsening ecological crises.
In contrast the Marxist analysis, in no way complete or perfect, at least seems still to be better able to articulate this “polycrisis” and its primary underlying cause.
Now this is how things stand for me, at least on the theoretical dimensions of our above problematic.
As for what is to be done on the practical side … it seems to me that certain relevant goals can be articulated within some identifiable geo-political-economic-cultural context. For me this context is Canadian and the goals proposed are – electoral reform with some form of proportional representation, a wealth tax in some form focused initially on the banks and financial institutions, and a strengthening of workers’ rights to collective bargaining and to sectoral bargaining especially.
These practical goals will give additional focus for both thought and action, and will undoubtedly give a concrete historical context for illustrating and providing a better grasp of the reality of this ongoing critical tension between Christianity and Marxism. I would also insist, on the basis of long and hard experience, that as Canadians, these goals, cannot be let up on if we are to effectively resist our polity entering into further serious decline.
Let me elaborate a little more by focusing on the wealth tax which seeks to effectively address increasing inequality. This inequality in the Canadian context can be concretely articulated by acknowledging that in 2025 income inequality reached a record high being perhaps the most significant change in the national economy’s metrics. A basic measure of this widening wealth gap shows the top 1% of income earners holding 25% of Canada’s wealth while the bottom 40% hold little more than 3%. This seemingly is an outrageous general statement of measures but one should insist that it also is concretely consequential.
Given this context for the second stated practical goal of a wealth tax, I believe one can more easily appreciate my interest in the Marxist-Schillebeeckx-Segundo structural change analysis over that of the Christian-Lonergan-Doran approach of this ‘turn to the subject’. Personally, I found it to be, at least in the first instance, much more relevant and helpful. This of course does not mean that the Lonergan-Doran recommended approach is not needed as well, but it would be secondary. In my own experience, there is a sense that its relevance becomes clearer and more concrete along the difficult way of a committed democratic implementation of the necessary structural changes. For example, if we were successful in electoral reform, a new form of governance would clearly be needed requiring maturity and wisdom in political leadership. Here, reflective attention to the cognitive and psychic dimensions of the human subject (and to inter-subjectivity) would be highly relevant, especially for leadership.
John Raymaker
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lonergan_L" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lonergan_l+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/e8f6b4bd-b111-4446-95fd-fba4e0a9e6d9%40nbnet.nb.ca.
John Raymaker
Hugh Williams
John,
I definitely agree that Pope Francis
with his synodal way was serious about reform
... reform informed by liberation theology's critique of the institutional church ...
I know locally that it exposed both major challenges and opportunities.
But I believe "things broke down" in the end in the sense that the conservative clerical structures
with some degree of lay support closed ranks more or less ...
( I was quite close to the synodal processes back then ...)
and in general and for the most part there has not been the leadership for the needed follow through at the local levels ...
at least speaking for the local Canadian Church.
(Segundo has an exceptional analysis of this complex ecclesial issue in his treatment of what he calls
the mass church and its preoccupations with unity, and minorities with their
serious awareness and critique of ideologies that basically preserve the status quo ...)
Now in Germany there was this special 'moment' ... only for a moment,
before conservative ecclesial forces from America and Germany and in the Vatican rolled back the momentum ...
I've not really heard you speak of that 'moment'
(where the hierarchy or a significant portion of it had a moment of extraordinary collective insight ...)
.... are you able to say a little on where are things at today in the German Church?
Hugh
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/526791910.1061983.1774717653590%40mail.yahoo.com.
John Raymaker
PIERRE WHALON
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/246133239.1220663.1774762464389%40mail.yahoo.com.
Hugh Williams
Pierre et al,
Pierre's brief intervention prompts some further speculation ...
The term I use in the email way below was 'simplifying' not 'simplistic' -
"We face now a complex problematic (polycrisis) along with a desperate and frustrating effort to identify and clarify some primary cause to which other causal factors can be subordinated. In the face of this situation Bernard Lonergan and Robert Doran on the Christian side basically have made a simplifying turn to the subject with a special focus on the cognitional and psychic aspects of human consciousness. For a few Christians who comparatively are more sympathetically engaged with the Marxist side of this dialogue-dialectic, such as Edward Schillebeeckx and Juan Segundo, we have a significant emphasis and focus on capitalism. Any analysis from which this focus is absent, i.e. most of mainstream Christianity, remains seriously suspect."
'Simplifying' was used in reference to this definite 'turn to the subject' that we have in "Insight" especially where, as I understand it, Lonergan’s concern is not primarily the known objects (or what we know) ... which are (and is) constantly changing but the activity of knowing itself based in a recurrent and arguably invariable and necessary structure that in "Insight" is to be investigated in a series of strategically chosen instances. Though the known is always incomplete and subject to constant revision, Lonergan’s concern is with the knowing subject and his/her cognitive operations.
Again, this is the Lonergan of "Insight", as I best understand it ...
However I came to learn that Phil McShane's interpretation is somewhat and even significantly different, and he has had a way of characterizing and summarizing Lonergan's 'full project' that, in my view, goes beyond "Insight" (my gloss)-
‘Lonergan’s project involves three interpenetrating dimensions - a) a partial and incomplete reinvention of the science of economics, b) a fresh rediscovery of an authentic means of self-discovery and self-reflection, and c) the discovery of meaning as a method of and for effective thinking and thought in and through functional collaboration with others. Now the articulation of these three processes is a considerable achievement in that they are intimately interrelated and interdependent within a new heuristic horizon proposed for any serious human enquiry - where ‘a’ is incomplete and partial because it needs ‘c’ for completion. Whereas … ‘c’ emerges from Lonergan’s concern for the struggles to update our reception of revealed theology and the challenging work in Christology especially, ‘b’ was a special rediscovery in the context of these theological struggles. This dynamic project, however and finally, is a forward moving effort much too complex and advanced for the process of meaningful human enquiry to be realized without ‘c’.’
So lumping Lonergan in with Doran may be misleading, as perhaps your intimation implies, ... and this is because any serious engagement with economy and economics is an engagement with an 'objective reality' of significant relational complexity. The point then from the Marxist perspective might be this - we perhaps can better approach some degree of 'completion' of "a" above by coming to terms with the capitalist form of economy as a real and dominating social object as Marxism insists ... and we must do so in order to get any grip on what is being discussed as this emerging polycrisis.
So perhaps then, we could tentatively argue that Lonergan's "a" above, which was so fundamental for McShane (and Marx), can be enhanced and enriched through serious engagement with Marxism, and then perhaps Marxist praxis, which admittedly is a crucial notion that remains somewhat elusive in my view, can be enhanced and enriched through serious engagement with Lonergan's "b" and "c" above.
Hugh
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/83F5F650-B482-4D3E-ABC0-36ACDA5B87EC%40aol.com.