highlighting important issues so as to deal with them credibly

[John Raymaker]

Hugh, you have the ability to highlight important issues. Pope Leo XIV may have been elected to the papal chair because in his career as an Augustinian priest and bishop he exemplified solidarity with the poor and oppressed. In our book Pierre and I followed a similar path, namely solidarity with Christian teachings both in the Bible and with how the Church has responded beginning with Leo XIII to the writings of Karl Marx. Lonergan's overall writings are also along that line, John

[Hugh Williams]

John et al,

I’ve read yours and Pierre’s text “Attentive, Intelligent, Rational, and Responsible: Transforming Economics to Save the Planet” at a ‘turtle pace’ …

It deserves several serious papers trying to interpret and clarify various aspects of its complex argument, especially in an effort to discern its relevance to our present situation as a species … a relevance, in my opinion, that is quite high. Nevertheless, it requires considerable effort, even grace, to allow oneself to be drawn into the complexity of the proper text’s argument (and that of the many footnotes) regarding Lonergan’s overall relevance for our times …

Allow me one example or illustration since a few of us have wrestled with Karl Rahner’s ‘Spirit in the World’ over this past winter.

You mention at p. 34 how Rahner was critical of Lonergan because he felt that what was specific in Christianity gets lost in Lonergan’s methodology. You say in footnote #92 that you do not agree with Rahner and that in some sense he missed the point of ‘Method in Theology’ and its transdisciplinary and transcultural reach. You mention how in large part your own commitment in the text is to a glocal secularity and you believe with Lonergan that this GEM-FS approach is well suited to the present world’s vast challenges and complexities, and for moving towards a viable future world.

Given my ‘Christian-Marxist dialogue’ hermeneutic key and frame of reference for approaching your challenging text (and its actual advances for such a dialogue), I would tend to agree with your response to Rahner. And yet having resurfaced from this very recent in depth reading of Rahner I remain a bit uneasy, ... and so I must note that Rahner’s 'specificity' for Christian theology is not really identified in your text (specificity that perhaps all of us tend to forget or overlook, I know that I do ...).

So here I’d like to recycle and revisit, (see attached) albeit briefly, by way of an attachment a summation of an exchange on this good Lonergan discussion forum from several years ago where this ‘specificity’ in relation to a section of ‘Insight’ was tackled with Gilson in mind. What is quite striking is just how similar Rahner’s concern is to the concern, at that time, expressed by me in Gilsonian terms.

So, having read your text, I agree that there is a sense in which Rahner, may very well have missed the central point of Lonergan’s MiT. But then again there is a sense in which Gilson and Rahner, as Christian theoreticians-metaphysicians, may have a valid point that Lonerganians may also need to take into consideration in this vast and complex project of engaging and confronting these challenging complexities of our world …..    

To be continued (and again, for those interested, see attached)

Hugh

On 2025-06-16 12:40 p.m., 'John Raymaker' via Lonergan_L wrote:

Hugh, you have the ability to highlight important issues. Pope Leo XIV may have been elected to the papal chair because in his career as an Augustinian priest and bishop he exemplified solidarity with the poor and oppressed. In our book Pierre and I followed a similar path, namely solidarity with Christian teachings both in the Bible and with how the Church has responded beginning with Leo XIII to the writings of Karl Marx. Lonergan's overall writings are also along that line, John

--
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/694429480.1010111.1750088433965%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Doug Mounce]

Hugh,

Thanks for the attachment.  I'm at the point where Rahner asks, "Now what is this esse?", and concludes that Thomas focused on esse as to-be-real. I'm still struggling with how Rahner finds the in-itself feature necessary and useful, and he also mentions an idea about valid propositions as a separate, eternal feature, but for Thomas this only shows that an ideal, thinking intellect really precedes them.

More to your attachment, I'm finding Gilson's distinction between being, essence and existence useful.  We have previously discussed whether it is in and through essence that being (ens) has existence (esse) and I still return to Geach on Form and Existence when explaining our place in the universe and what it means to say that Jesus exists. 

~/

https://staff.washington.edu/mounce/

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/8a56175b-7571-4d98-b849-63782f28c624%40nbnet.nb.ca.

[Pierre Whalon]

Thank you, Hugh.

Let me comment first on your paper, "Lonergan on Reflective Interpretation and a Gilsonian (- Rahnerian) Critique." You end with this question: «  Is not the most troubling and specific Christian claim that this Jesus in his flesh, blood, and bones rose in a new form to the same life that death had just destroyed? »  That claim has a corollary that is I think equally troubling. As Irenaeus famously put it, « God became man so that man could become like God. » (the so-called « exchange formula ») It is one thing for Christ to be the event for him. It is quite another that Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is for us. Put the two together and you have the whole disturbing, troubling, liberating message of the gospel.

Second, I think that Rahner went looking into Method looking for the gospel and found a method for thinking in general, and theologically in particular. I remember Phil McShane complaining that Method – L’s most-read work – was written sub specie æternitatis, as he recovered from lung cancer. In other words, it wasn’t his best effort. Phil recalled Lonergan saying that he was trying to compress Insight into one chapter, for instance. Moreover, while it is a method for theology it is not just for theology but in general: GEM-FS, as John dubbed it. But in fact, it is not specifically theology.

And pace Phil, Method is still a great work. 

Have you read The Triune God? 

Finally, you are right. Our text attempted to make L’s economic theory the proof of the validity of GEM-FS. Hardest thing I’ve ever written, and I had to do only half! Thank you ro taking it on!

Yours,

Pierre

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/8a56175b-7571-4d98-b849-63782f28c624%40nbnet.nb.ca.
<Lonergan on Reflective Interpretation and a Gilsonian Critique.doc>