Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T13:28:55.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theology: Transcendental or Hermeneutical?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2014

Francis Schüssler Fiorenza
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza*
Affiliation:
Harvard Divinity School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Jack Bonsor's essay as well as his interpretation of Karl Rahner and especially of Rahner's appropriation of Martin Heidegger's philosophy raises a central issue of theology today. His essay raises the issue of the relation between transcendental and hermeneutical approaches. Are they radically opposed? Or can they be synthesized into a unity?

This issue has become particularly acute within contemporary theology influenced by the contemporary philosophical scene. The American philosophical debates on relativity, realism, and pragmatism have challenged traditional transcendental approaches to philosophy. In addition, hermeneutics has taken a new turn. Previously hermeneutical theory underscored the authority and binding claims of classics. Now literary critical theory and post-structuralist French philosophy emphasize instead the deconstruction of classical texts. This shift entails a further turn away from metaphysics and transcendental philosophy to relativism—a turn exemplified in Richard Rorty's critique of transcendental and metaphysical philosophy. His critique appeals to the hermeneutical tradition of Heidegger and Gadamer, to the pragmatic philosophy of James and Dewey (neglecting Peirce), to the deconstructivism of Derrida, and to a literary theory influenced by Nietzsche.

Another move toward relativism is the emerging debate about modernity that contrasts post-modernity with what modernity represents. The critics of modernity argue that the universalism of transcendental philosophy is a relic of modernity. They label transcendental universality a false universality of a dominating and oppressive reason. They label it a repressive reason for it suppresses the particularities of ethnic, gender, social, and economic groups. Their criticisms of traditional metaphysics and transcendental rationality are often so trenchant that the title of a Richard Bernstein's recent essay seems deserved: “The Rage against Reason.”

Type
Editorial Symposium
Information
Horizons , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , Fall 1989 , pp. 329 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © The College Theology Society 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rorty, Richard, The Mirror of Nature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979)Google Scholar, Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982)Google ScholarPubMed, and Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

2 Much of the controversy exists not only in regard to Rorty's relativism, but also in regard to the validity of his interpretation and appeal to these authors.

3 Lyotard, Jean-François, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984)Google Scholar and The Differend: Phrases in Dispute (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988).Google Scholar

4 In McMullin, Ernan, ed., Construction and Constraint: The Shaping of Scientific Rationality (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), pp. 189–221.Google Scholar

5 Rahner, Karl, Spirit in the World (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968)Google Scholar, Bouillard, Henri, Conversion and Grace (Paris: Cerf, 1944);Google ScholarSchillebeeckx, Edward, De sacramentele heilseconomie: Theologische bezinning op St. Thomas; sacramentenleer in het licht van de traditie en van de hedendaagse sacramentsproblematiek (Antwerp: Nelissen, 1952)Google Scholar, the systematic results of which are summarized in Chrisf the Sacrament of Encounter with God (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963);Google ScholarLonergan, Bernard, Verbum: Word and Idea in Aquinas, ed. Burrell, David (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967)Google Scholar and Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. Burns, J. P. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971).Google Scholar In addition one could add the important historical-theological works of Chenu, deLubac, and Pesch.

6 Seckler, Max, Instinkt und Glaubenswill (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald, 1961)Google Scholar and Das Heil in der Geschichte (Munich: Kösel, 1964).Google ScholarMetz, Johann B., Christliche Anthropozentrik (Munich: Kösel, 1962).Google Scholar

7 Küng, Hans, Justificatio: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981)Google Scholar and Ratzinger, Joseph, The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1971).Google Scholar

8 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972).

9 See The Understanding of Faith: Interpretation and Criticism (New York: Seabury, 1974).Google Scholar

10 Especially his latest book, Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, and Hope (New York: Harper and Row, 1987).Google Scholar

11 The Hermeneutic of Dogma (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975).Google Scholar

12 Radical Hermeneutics: Repetition, Deconstruction and the Hermeneutic Project (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

13 Granier, Jean, “Savoir, idéologie, interprétation” in Lauret, Bernard and Lauret, François, eds., Initiation à la pratique de la théologie (Paris: Cerf, 1982).Google Scholar See also his Le problème de la vérité dans la philosophie de Nietzsche (Paris: Seuil, 1966).Google Scholar

14 The Risk of Interpretation: On Being Faithful to the Christian Tradition in a Non-Christian Age (New York: Paulist, 1987).Google Scholar

15 Theology after Wittgenstein (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1989).Google Scholar Whether Kerr correctly interprets Rahner is of course open to discussion.

16 Christology in Conflict: The Identity of a Saviour in Rahner and Earth (New York: Blackwell, 1987).Google Scholar

17 See Bonsor, Jack, Rahner, Heidegger and Truth (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987).Google Scholar

18 See Fiorenza, Francis, “Karl Rahner and the Kantian Problematic” in Rahner, Karl, Spirit in the World, pp. xix–xlv.Google Scholar

19 See Insight, pp. 342-447, and Method, pp. 214-24.

20 See Matthew Lamb's interpretation of “The Social and Political Dimensions of Lonergan's Thought” in The Desires of the Human Heart, ed. Gregson, Vernon (New York: Paulist, 1988), pp. 255–84.Google Scholar

21 See Tyrrell, Bernard, Bernard Lonergan's Philosophy of God (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1974).Google Scholar

22 See Bernard Lonergan, Method, chapters 4 and 11, Philosophy of God and Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar For a careful analysis of the development of Lonergan's thought, see Crowe's, Frederick E. “Bernard Lonergan's Thought on Ultimate Reality and Meaning” in the collection of his essays Appropriating the Lonergan Idea, ed. Vertin, M. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), pp. 71–105.Google Scholar

23 See Rahner, Karl, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Crossroad, 1978).Google Scholar

24 See footnote 16. It is, of course, one of the major criticisms that Hans Urs von Balthasar has made of Rahner's Christology.

25 Küng, Hans, On Being a Christian (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977).Google Scholar

26 Schillebeeckx, Edward, Jesus (New York: Crossroad, 1980).Google Scholar

27 Gutiérrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation (2nd ed.; Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988);Google Scholar see Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler, “Critical Social Theory and Christology,” CTSA Proceedings 30 (1975), 63–110.Google Scholar

28 Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1984).Google Scholar

29 I do not wish to state that Lonergan's christology is neo-scholastic. In fact, it is not. His interpretations of the psychology of Jesus and the Chalcedon formula are indeed innovative and creative. Nevertheless, his writings do not provide a comparison with the exegetical work of contemporary Roman Catholic christologies.

30 Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934), p. 96.Google ScholarPubMed

31 See The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984).Google Scholar

32 For the literature on broad reflective equilibrium, see Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler, Foundational Theology: Jesus and the Church (New York: Crossroad, 1984), pp. 301–21.Google Scholar

33 Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970)Google Scholar and, with important modifications, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977).Google Scholar For a radical representation of a post-empirical position, see the many writings of Feyerabend, Paul, especially his Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (London: NLB, 1975).Google Scholar

34 See Winch, Peter, The Idea of Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958).Google Scholar

35 Habermas, Jürgen, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Twelve Lectures (Boston: Beacon, 1987).Google Scholar For a comparison between Habermas and Foucault on their understanding of power and rationality, see Honneth, Axel, Kritik der Macht (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1983;Google Scholar 2nd ed. with appendix 1988).

36 Megill, Allan, Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).Google Scholar

37 Gewirth, Alan, Reason and Morality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978)Google Scholar and Lukes, Steven, “Relativism in Its Place” in Hollis, Martin and Lukes, Steven, eds., Rationality and Relativism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982).Google Scholar

38 MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue (2nd ed.; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984)Google Scholar and Whose Justice? Whose Rationality? (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988);Google ScholarPubMedWalzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice (New York: Basic Books, 1983)Google Scholar and Interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

39 See Habermas, ibid., pp. 153-86; McCarthy, Thomas, “Scientific Rationality, and the ‘Strong Program’ in the Sociology of Knowledge” in McMullin, , Constraint, pp. 75–96;Google ScholarStout, Jeffrey, Ethics after Babel: The Language of Morals and Their Discontents (Boston: Beacon, 1988).Google Scholar

40 See Habermas, Jürgen, Nachmetaphysisches Denken (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988), pp. 35–60.Google Scholar

41 My book Foundational Theology seeks to answer this charge against Lonergan by pointing to the double hermeneutic involved in religious understanding engaged in the hermeneutical reconstruction of identity within foundational theology.

42 See especially the writing on apologetics by Henri Bouillard. At times David Tracy also seems to make this claim.

43 Buckley, Michael, At the Origins of Modern Atheism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

44 See Schleiermacher, Frederick, On the Glaubenslehre: Open Letters to Dr. Lucke, tr. Duke, James and Fiorenza, Francis (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).Google Scholar In contemplating a revision of his Glaubenslehre he examines the merits and demerits of beginning with prolegomena or with christology.