Bernard Lonergan’s principles of theological method, together with P. Joseph Cahill’s categories of interpretation, provide a framework for understanding and teaching spirituality at an appropriate academic level.
Fr. James A. Wiseman, O.S.B., teaches spiritual theology in the Department of Theology at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., and serves as novice master at St. Anselm’s Abbey. His anthology, Light from Light, co-edited with Louis Dupré, was published by Paulist Press in 1988. internally consistent framework for the teaching of Christian spirituality.
AT the 1987 annual meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America, one of the professors who had been participating in the Society’s seminar on spirituality for a number of years stated that spiritual theology was still not widely recognized as a legitimate, autonomous specialization within theology as a whole. Others who were participating in the seminar agreed, and one went on to note that even those who teach the history of Christian spirituality or related subjects do so in widely differing and sometimes less-than-effective ways. The purpose of this article is to address these two problems, first by considering what spiritual theology is and how it is related to other theological specializations, and secondly by showing how Bernard Lonergan’s treatment of theological method can provide an internally consistent framework for the teaching of Christian spirituality.
THE NATURE OF SPIRITUAL THEOLOGY
While many persons might have difficulty describing what spiritual theology is, there can be no doubt that such a discipline exists. Throughout the world of Catholic higher education, there are a number of institutes of spirituality, many of them offering advanced degrees. So, too, there are journals devoted primarily or exclusively to questions of Christian spirituality: Geist and Leben, La vie spirituelle, Mystics Quarterly, Spirituality Today, Teresianum, The Way, and many more. Moreover, the Vatican’s Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis, published in 1970 to provide norms for implementing the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Training of Priests (Optatam totius), specifies that spiritual theology is to be included in the seminary curriculum and that it should, among other things, include a study of the theology and spirituality of the priesthood and of the consecrated life.(1) Outside the seminary setting, regular academic courses as well as workshops in Christian spirituality are also being offered with increasing frequency to meet the demand for such training on the part of women religious, brothers, and laypersons preparing for various kinds of ministry within the Church. What, then, is spiritual theology, and how does it relate to the rest of the theological enterprise?
To answer these questions, it is first of all important to be clear about the nature of theology in general. As Lonergan and others have noted, the Christian religion and Christian theology were originally not clearly distinguished from one another: liturgy, prayer, preaching, and theology did indeed all exist from the beginning, but not yet as clearly distinct enterprises. But as time passed and as Christians were forced more and more to reflect on the proper meaning of their faith, to distinguish it from other meanings, and to guard it against aberrations, there arose what Georg Simmel termed die Wendung zur Idee, that “shift toward system” which thematizes what had in fact been part of Christian life from the beginning.(2)
Within the realm of Christian theology as a whole, a division which has become common since the seventeenth century is that between dogmatic and moral theology. To be sure, in recent years there have been many calls to emphasize the basic unity or harmony between the two. The United States Bishops Conference, in its Program of Priestly Formation, states that “the common division of systematic theology into moral and dogmatic has recently given way to the older and more authentic Christian emphasis on the intimate relation between belief and life.”(3) Karl Rahner made essentially the same point in his article “Dogmatik” in the second edition of the Lexikon für Theologie and Kirche, while his fellow Jesuit, the moral theologian Josef Fuchs, has written that even though moral theology and dogmatic theology have been taught as separate disciplines for some centuries, the fact remains that “moral theology, at least in its essence, is one of the many possible tracts of dogmatic theology” and comprises, with the latter, “one and the same discipline.(4) To whatever extent the two are to be distinguished for pedagogical purposes, it will be primarily a difference in emphasis: dogmatic theology concentrates on the credenda of the Christian life — what we are to believe — while moral theology emphasizes the agenda — what we are to do in the light of that belief.
Needless to say, still further specializations have arisen within each of these two kinds of theology. At least for purposes of teaching, dogmatic theology (or what in the English-speaking world is now often called “systematic theology”) embraces such subjects as Christology, ecclesiology, theological anthropology, sacramentology, and eschatology, while in moral theology there are specializations in fundamental moral questions, bioethics, sexual morality, issues of peace and war, social ethics, and so on. Now among the agenda, there is also what may generically be referred to as the human person’s response to God’s self-communication. Obviously this is most intimately linked with one of the most important of the Christian credenda, namely, that God does indeed enter into communion with us, a truth whose Scriptural foundation is clear in such a text as the following: “Anyone who loves me will be true to my word, and my Father will love him; we will come to him and make our dwelling place with him” (Jn 14:23). In past centuries and in the earlier part of our own, scholars tended to limit their description of the ways we properly respond to God’s self-giving to a fairly narrow range of activities: prayer (including those forms commonly known as mystical prayer), the discernment of God’s will for oneself, the assistance given to others so that they might more readily discern God’s call for themselves (traditionally called “spiritual direction”), the overcoming of the chief obstacles to the following of that call (“asceticism”), and laws of growth in Christian virtue. More recently, under the influence of such writers as Jean Leclercq and Walter Principe, a broader view has been emerging. In this view, Christian spirituality would refer to all those aspects of a person’s faith commitment “that concern his or her striving to attain the highest ideal or goal;” namely, “an ever more intense union with the Father through Jesus Christ by living in the Spirit.(5)
The various facets of this striving are not inappropriately treated within moral theology itself. For example, the multivolume work Free and Faithful in Christ by the moral theologian Bernard Haring contains some illuminating passages on prayer and its relationship to social involvement, on vocation, and on the sanctification of everyday life. Charles Curran’s review of Haring’s work noted in particular how it relates the moral life of the Christian “to all aspects of Christian life, especially worship, sacraments, and spirituality.(6) However, it must also be noted that Haring’s treatment of these topics is quite brief, something that is not surprising given the vast scope of his work and the fact that neither he nor any single person could hope to possess the expertise needed to give extensive, magisterial treatment to all the matters touched upon in such a work. Indeed, it would be altogether correct to say that it was primarily the ever-increasing vastness of the material to be studied that first led to the specialization called “spiritual theology” or “spirituality” (terms that have generally replaced the earlier terminology of “ascetical and mystical theology”).
One of the keenest observers of the state of theology today, David Tracy of the University of Chicago’s Divinity School, has rightly pointed out that “no single theologian can today hope to know all theology. So highly specialized has the discipline become that no one can hope to attempt more in one lifetime than a mastery of the method and results of a few questions in one of the theological specializations.”(7) One of the more recent of these specializations is, then, spiritual theology. It can best be viewed as having developed historically out of moral theology’s concern with the agenda of Christian life and as concentrating on all aspects of that particular agendum which is the human person’s attempt to live by the Spirit according to the highest Christian ideals in response to God’s self-giving. Accordingly, the earlier-mentioned Vatican document specifying the norms for implementing Optatam totius significantly states: “Haec doctrina moralis completur in Theologia Spirituali,”(8) while in a similar fashion The Program of Priestly Formation of the United States Bishops Conference treats moral theology and spiritual theology under one general heading.(9)
Against the background of these observations about the nature of spiritual theology, it remains to be seen just how a professor might best approach the task of teaching this subject. The framework for the following reflections on this question will be provided by Bernard Lonergan’s Method in Theology, a work which, since its publication in 1972, has become the most influential and most widely respected treatment of theological methodology in the English-speaking world.
To begin, it is important to note that there are different kinds of specialization. In Lonergan’s terminology, spiritual theology represents a “subject specialization,” that is, a classification that distinguishes the subjects to be taught within an academic department. Another kind of specialization is called “field specialization,” which represents a division of labor allowing individual scholars to keep abreast of ever-expanding developments within their field; field specializations relevant to the concerns of this article would be, for example, medieval Rhenish mysticism, classical Spanish mysticism, seventeenth-century French mysticism, and so forth. A third kind of specialization is particularly relevant to the question of how spiritual theology is best taught — functional specialization. Functional specialties are the primary focus of Lonergan’s study of method in theology, one of his main points being that they are inevitably at work whenever genuine learning occurs but that explicit awareness of their nature is nevertheless most valuable: “while transcendental method [from which these specialties derive] will introduce no new resource, it does add light and precision to the performance of theological tasks.”(10)
In terms of scholarly endeavor, the functional specialties distinguish the successive stages in the process of moving from data to results, and these specialties are based in turn on the normal operations of human consciousness as we move from (1) encountering data to (2) interpreting the data, from there to (3) accepting or rejecting these interpretations, and finally to (4) acknowledging values in what we have accepted and allowing these to influence us. All of this obviously has to do with the assimilation of tradition, and represents what Lonergan calls “mediating theology” or “theology in oratione obliqua.” It is this which can, to a considerable extent, be taught, and it is accordingly on this kind of theology that the present article, with its pedagogical focus, will concentrate. But if theology is to be of more than antiquarian interest, this “oblique” phase must be complemented by “mediated theology” or “theology in oratione recta, in which the theologian, enlightened by the past, confronts the problems of his own day.”(11) Each of the two phases of theology is characterized by four functional specialties, giving eight in all: research, interpretation, history, dialectic, foundations, doctrines, systematics, and communications. It is neither possible nor necessary to discuss each of these in great detail within the confines of this article. Only those aspects of each which are of special importance for the teaching of spiritual theology will be singled out.
The functional specialization called research aims at determining what the relevant data are within any given field. Research specialists will, for example, prepare critical editions of texts, compose indices and bibliographies, and publish bulletins and abstracts. Our present interest, however, is pedagogical, and this means that competent teachers of spiritual theology will at least make sure that their students become familiar with the most important handbooks and dictionaries (such as the Dictionnaire de spiritualité), the key periodicals, and the major editions of the classic works in Christian spirituality, both those in the original languages and those in good, modern translations; in the English-speaking world, the latter editions would certainly include the Paulist/SPCK series of The Classics of Western Spirituality, as well as the Ancient Christian Writers series (Newman /Paulist), The Fathers of the Church (The Catholic University of America Press), and Sources of American Spirituality (Paulist).
However, it is equally important to recognize that the relevant data for spiritual theology include much more than theological literature in the strict sense. It is becoming more and more recognized that the traditional approach to all branches of theology was too verbal, too “wordy.” Such books as Margaret Miles’s Image as Insight and the various publications of P. Joseph Cahill serve as useful correctives to this kind of one-sidedness.(12) In Cahill’s formulation, the subject matter of any religious tradition is mediated by five categories of symbolic expression: (1) a body of literature, especially the normative literature which for Christians is the Bible; (2) theological formulations found not only in systematic treatises but also in story, song, popular wisdom, and legend; (3) visual art forms, such as painting, sculpture, and architecture; (4) aural art forms, usually sacred music; and (5) various historical formulations distinct from literature, such as popular forms of devotion and styles of religious attire. For this reason, it is altogether too narrow to concentrate simply on the first of these five categories and on the systematic treatises within the second if students of Christian spirituality are to be exposed to the riches of their spiritual tradition. Competent professors will also familiarize their students with non-systematic formulations within the second category (such as the Franciscan Fioretti), with masterpieces of the visual and aural arts (ideally through firsthand acquaintance with these in museums, churches, and concert halls, but also through reproductions of paintings, recordings of music, etc.), and with popular devotions and the ther historical formulations in Cahill’s fifth category (again, ideally through attendance at such devotions when they are contemporary and local, or perhaps through videotaped portrayals of ones occurring elsewhere).
Of course, merely showing one’s students how to become familiar with the data is insufficient. What does it all mean? How is such and such a painting, or story, or oratorio, or treatise to be interpreted? These are the kinds of questions that Lonergan’s second functional specialization, interpretation, seeks to answer. Those who have expertise in answering such questions produce monographs and commentaries setting forth their understandings of the data. Students of spiritual theology will normally not yet have that kind of expertise, but it is incumbent on their professors to introduce them to the works of those who have reflected at length and in depth on such questions. A few examples will suffice to indicate some of the ways this might be done: In terms of Cahill’s first category, normative religious literature, such key themes for spiritual theology as that of the divine indwelling should be studied both in their Scriptural contexts and in the reflections on those themes found in the works of such masters of the spiritual life as St. Augustine and St. Teresa of Avila, as well as in the commentaries of the best Scripture scholars of our own day. Students should be alerted to the differences as well as the similarities among these interpretations, so that they might eventually be better equipped to recognize erroneous or one-sided interpretations of these texts from Scripture.
For Cahill’s second category — theological formulations found both in systematic treatises and in story, legend, and song students should be helped to interpret some of the most fundamental texts as thoroughly and accurately as possible. Questions posed by the professor at the time of assigning specific readings could help the students focus on the truly important issues, while common discussion of particularly difficult passages will often elicit insights that might not otherwise arise. Certainly the challenge of interpreting works of fiction should not be overlooked, for these have an indispensable place in the study of spirituality. As David Tracy has written, “by redescribing the authentic possibilities of human existence… fictions open our minds, our imaginations, and our hearts to newly authentic and clearly transformative possible modes of being in the world …. The modern form of Pascal’s wager may well become the risk of entering imaginatively into those fictional worlds.”(13) Works by Albert Camus, Graham Greene, Flannery O’Connor, Shusaku Endo, Mary Gordon, and many other authors can most appropriately be read and pondered by students of spiritual theology, together with the perceptive commentaries of scholars like Nathan Scott and Amos Wilder.
So, too, the visual and aural arts (Cahill’s third and fourth categories) should awaken the students’ desire for sensitive interpretation. On the whole, our educational system does not readily equip them for this task, but there are numerous works that can be of great assistance here. Best of all, perhaps, are the reflections of artists themselves, such as Wassily Kandinsky’s groundbreaking essay “Concerning the Spiritual in Art,”(14) but of almost equal importance are the works of master interpreters whom students should read in conjunction with exposure to the artworks themselves: Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky’s studies of Eastern Orthodox iconography, Jane Dillenberger’s and John Dillenberger’s various reflections on Western Christian art, and Jaroslav Pelikan’s recent study Bach Among the Theologians.(15) Through the careful reading of such works, the students’ viewing of a Rublev icon or their hearing of a Bach oratorio will be greatly enriched.
In Lonergan’s reflections on theological method, it is clear that the work (or “operation”) of understanding in the functional specialty of interpretation and the operation of judging in the following specialization, which he terms “history;” are not mutually exclusive. He explicitly recognizes that the interpreter of a text will be much concerned with judging the correctness of his or her interpretation, while in his chapter on history there are numerous references to the work of understanding. The crucial difference between the two specializations appears in the following passage: “In a previous section on Interpretation we spoke of understanding the author, but there the ulterior aim was to understand what he meant. In history we also seek to understand the authors of sources, but now the ulterior aim is to understand what they were up to and how they did it.”(16) “What they were up to” is elsewhere called “what was going forward in the community.” In other words, the functional specialization of history grasps the connections and so seeks to understand and present as thoroughly as possible “the sum of cultural, institutional, and doctrinal movements in their concrete setting.”(17) This ideal can, of course, be approached only asymptotically.
As regards the pedagogical interests of the present article, the danger is largely that students might become so overwhelmed with specific details from the history of Christian spirituality that they lose all sight of the main lines of “what was going forward.” For that reason, at least at the introductory level, multivolume histories of Christian spirituality such as those by Pierre Pourrat and Louis Bouyer will be most useful as reference works, while a shorter study such as Rowan Williams’s Christian Spirituality (18) might well provide a beginning student with useful material to supplement classroom presentations and discussions. Advanced students will profit immensely from more detailed studies of the historical development of particular themes, like Hugo Rahner’s masterful treatment of the theme of the birth of the Word in the human soul from the beginnings of Christianity up to Meister Eckhart or Henri Bremond’s lengthy study of French spirituality in the seventeenth century.(19) Here, too, the student should also be directed to “what was going forward” in the realm of religious art. Much can be learned about the history of Christian spirituality by studying, for example, the changes in the way of depicting the Crucifixion over the course of the centuries. Such study would provide an excellent illustration of the truth of Josef Weismayei’s observations as to why the history of Christian spirituality should be studied in the first place, namely, not only to learn how things once were but also in order to grasp something of the multiplicity of the Spirit’s work, since the Spirit of God has always opened up new understandings of the message of salvation and new ways of accepting that message.(20)
Weismayer’s remarks also raise another possibility: the diversity that one finds in studying history will be due not only to “the multiplicity of the Spirit’s work” but also to the many kinds of error, bias, misunderstanding, and pride that produce conflicting viewpoints and positions. For students confronted with such diversity, one of the most valuable contributions a professor can make is to help them articulate and order all the major positions and counter-positions in their similarities and differences. What, for example, were the real points at issue in the controversy over Meister Eckhart’s works, or in the disagreement between Bossuet and F nelon during the Quietest controversy in seventeenthcentury France? Furthermore, it is in the specialization of dialectic that the voices of other religious traditions should be heard. All too often, the major themes of Christian spirituality have been studied without reference to the questions raised and answers given in other traditions. T. Howland Sanks of the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley has rightly complained that “theological education still takes place in relative isolation from the great religious traditions of the East (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam) and from the cultural traditions of Asia and Africa.”(21) This situation seems to be changing gradually, and as it does so, the students’ awareness of the deeply human dimension of all spiritual questions can only be sharpened.
CONVERSION AND THE REMAINING FUNCTIONAL SPECIALIZATIONS
There is another aspect to dialectic, however, and one which must be faced if the study of spiritual theology is not to be limited exclusively to concerns from the past. As a student becomes confronted with the vast diversity revealed through the study of history — diversity within the Christian spiritual tradition as well as between it and other traditions — the question will surely arise: “What does this mean for me?” In other words, at this point one will normally be confronted with the call to a radical faith-decision, to what in Lonerganian terminology would be called “religious conversion.”(22) This need not take place in some single striking experience, but unless it has in some way genuinely occurred, there will simply be no impulse to do theology in oratione recta. As Lonergan writes, the first four functional specialties “mediate an encounter with persons witnessing to Christ. They challenge to a decision: in what manner or measure am I to carry the burden of continuity or to risk the initiative of change?”(23) It should be obvious that it is not within the power of a professor of spiritual theology to bring about such conversion; theologically, it is by definition a gift of God. If it does occur and if one accordingly passes from being “a theology student” to being “a theologian,” it is still not up to the professor to determine exactly how such theologizing will be done on the part of the “former” student. By the very nature of the case, such work will be creative, an attempt to do in our own day and for our own communities what Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine of Hippo and Julian of Norwich and Teresa of Avila did in earlier times. Because this cannot be spelled out in advance, the present article on the pedagogy of spiritual theology need not consider the four functional specialties of Lonergan’s “theology in oratione recta” to the same extent as the previous four.
Suffice it to say that the aim of the fifth specialty, foundations, is to select — out of the array of opposing positions discovered in dialectic — some coherent set of positions; that the aim of the sixth, doctrines, is to transpose the doctrines of one’s tradition (as already researched, interpreted, and judged to be correct in the first three specializations and as already appropriated in the conversion occasioned [but not caused!] by dialectic) into terms or categories derived from contemporary interiority and hence accessible to persons of our own time; that the goal of the seventh, systematics, is to arrive at an understanding of the truths of faith enunciated in the preceding specialization and to attain “some grasp of spiritual matters both from their own inner coherence and from the analogies offered by more familiar human experience”(24) and that the aim of the final functional specialty, communications, is, at least in part, “to make full and proper use of the diverse media of communication that are available at any place and time.”(25)
But if these last four functional specialties cannot, strictly speaking, be taught, students of spiritual theology can certainly be presented with good models of how others are in fact performing them today and hence doing — or trying to do — for our age what the spiritual masters of the past did for theirs. Preeminent among Catholic theologians of the twentieth century was the late Karl Rahner, whom Professor Harvey Egan of Boston College has understandably called our century’s doctor mysticus. In the collection of Rahner’s spiritual writings published in English under the title The Practice of Faith, (26) one finds exemplified the way in which material from the Christian spiritual tradition has been rethought, reappropriated, and reformulated so as to speak more directly to the hearts and minds of Western Christians in the late twentieth century. More tentative, but also very impressive, are the writings of the late Henri Le Saux (1910-1973), who went both geographically and spiritually to the border between Christianity and advaitic Hinduism in order to work out correlations between the most fundamental spiritual teachings of these two world religions. He himself was the first to admit that much of what he wrote was necessarily provisional and in need of greater clarity and precision, but as someone who sincerely sought to elucidate the mutual enrichment which interreligious dialogue offers to Christians and non-Christians alike, Le Saux can profitably be read by more advanced students of spiritual theology.(27)
As a third and final example of an attempt to address basic issues of Christian spirituality in terms accessible to educated believers today, there are the works of Evelyn Eaton Whitehead and James D. Whitehead, who skillfully bring the insights of developmental psychology to bear on questions of growth toward Christian maturity. In particular, their books Christian Life Patterns and Seasons of Strength can provide students of spirituality with excellent models of that interdisciplinary effort which is one of the primary desiderata of Lonergan’s eighth functional specialty, communications.(28) Articles in such journals as Human Development and Studies in Formative Spirituality likewise illustrate the kind of interdisciplinary work that prevents theology from being sterilely removed from other branches of human learning. As Karl Rahner once wrote, the new phase of theology whose watershed was the Second Vatican Council is one “which can no longer envisage the Church as a closed group within profane society. It sees itself as the scientific and rational reflection of faith in a Church which is in open dialogue …. It feels obliged to a direct dialogue with modern sciences.”(29)
This article makes no pretension to completeness. Much more could easily be said about any one of the eight functional specialties and the way in which an understanding of them can help professors of spiritual theology in their work. But one final point should here be made, lest anyone draw the conclusion that the foregoing reflections aim only at modifying or enlarging the contents of professorial lectures. Among the most valuable sections of The Program of Priestly Formation is that on “Methods of Instruction and Evaluation;” where the United States bishops make a number of recommendations altogether in accord with the thrust of Lonergan’s thought on the functional specialty of communications.
It has already been stated that a principal goal of any theology course is to lead the students to the threshold of moving from “theology in oratione obliqua” to “theology in oratione recta.” P. Joseph Cahill has made basically the same point in insisting that “theological criticism — which is what can be taught — begins with knowledge about and can put the student in the position to reach knowledge of “(30) Even more simply put, one’s students should be led to the point where they might honestly and validly come to consider themselves to be theologians, persons who can think creatively about the major spiritual issues of the present and future. But this will scarcely come about if in the classroom they are expected simply to listen to lectures and take whatever notes might seem advisable in view of some eventual examination. Rather, as the U.S. bishops write, the methods of instruction in any theological discipline should aim at a deepening of the students’ insight as well as the mastery of information and techniques, and at an understanding of the intrinsic, objective requirements of a developed discipline as well as a growth in broad appreciation. Such methodological objectives “shift the emphasis from the traditional lecture system to stress personal activity by the students in extensive reading, seminars, discussions, independent study, and clinical or field experience. Faculty members should review their teaching methods periodically to make sure that they are most conducive to the objectives mentioned above.”(31) If professors of spiritual theology are responsive to this challenge, then they might confidently expect that their students will not only become skilled at locating the data of the Christian spiritual tradition, competent at interpreting them, and possessed of a sure sense of “what was going forward” in the history of Christian spirituality, but will — on the foundation of such skills and of a God-given religious conversion — be able to advance the never-ending work of theology as it seeks to affirm, understand, and communicate the realities of Christian faith in terms adequate to the needs of each age and culture in which it sets to work.
- Acta Apostolicae Sedis 62 (1970): 321-84; see esp. n. 79.
- Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Method in Theology, 2nd ed. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1973; Minneapolis, Minn.: Seabury, 1979), p. 139.
- The Program of Priestly Formation, 3rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1982), p. 46.
- Josef Fuchs, S.J., “Moraltheologie and Dogmatik, ” Gregorianum 50 (1969): 689.
- Walter Principe, “Toward Defining Spirituality,” SR: Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 12/2 (Printemps/Spring 1983): 127-41, at 139. This article provides an excellent survey of the history of the term “spirituality” as well as Principe’s own reflections on how the term would best be defined. See also Jean Leclercq’s Introduction to The Spirituality of Western Christendom, ed. E. Rozanne Elder (Kalamazoo Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1976), pp. xi-xxxv.
- Charles E. Curran, Critical Concerns in Moral Theology (Notre Dame, Ind.: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1984), p. 11.
- David Tracy, The Achievement of Bernard Lonergan (New York: Herder and Her der, 1970), pp. 237-38.
- Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis, n. 79.
- The Program of Priestly Formation, n. 158.
- Lonergan, Method, p. 24.
- Ibid., p. 133.
- Margaret R. Miles, Image as Insight: Visual Understanding in Western Christianity and Secular Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985); P. Joseph Cahill, Mended Speech: The Crisis of Religious Studies and Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1982); idem, “Theological Education: Its Fragmentation and Unity,” Theological Studies 45 (1984): 334-42.
- David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1975), pp. 207, 209.
- This can be found in Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, ed., Art, Creativity, and the Sacred (New York: Crossroad, 1984), pp. 3-7.
- See, e.g., Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky, The Meaning of Icons (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978); Jane Dillenberger and John Dillenberger, Perceptions of the Spirit in Twentieth-Century American Art (Indianapolis: Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1977); John Dillenberger, A Theology of Artistic Sensibilities, (New York: Crossroad, 1986); and Jaroslav Pelikan, Bach Among the Theologians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986).
- Lonergan, Method, p. 189.
- Ibid., p. 128.
- Rowan Williams, Christian Spirituality: A Theological History from the New Testa ment to Luther and St. John of the Cross (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1980).
- Hugo Rahner, Die Gottesgeburt: Die Lehre der Kirchenvãter von der Geburt Christi im Herzen des Gläubigen (Innsbruck, 1935); Henri Bremond, L’histoire littéraire du sentiment religieux en France depuis la fin des guerres de religion, 8 vols. (Paris, 191528).
- Josef Weismayer, “Spirituelle Theologie oder Theologie der Spiritualitat?” in Spiritualität in Moral: Festschrift far Karl Hormann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Gunter Virt (Vienna: Wiener Dom-Verlag, 1975), p. 72.
- T. Howland Sanks, S.J., “Education for Ministry since Vatican II,” Theological Studies 45 (1984): 499.
- For a contemporary, scholarly study of Christian conversion that is influenced largely, but by no means exclusively, by the thought of Lonergan, see Walter Conn, Christian Conversion (New York: Paulist, 1986).
- Lonergan Method, p. 135.
- Ibid., p. 132.
- Ibid., p. 133.
- Karl Rahner, The Practice of Faith: A Handbook of Contemporary Spirituality (New York: Crossroad, 1983).
- See in particular his work Saccidananda: A Christian Approach to Advaitic Experience, rev. ed. (Delhi: I.S.P.C.K., 1984), which he published under his adopted Indian name of Abhishiktananda. For information about the man himself, see Odette Baumer-Despeigne, “The Spiritual Journey of Henri Le Saux-Abhishiktananda,” Cistercian Studies 18 (1983): 310-29.
- These two books by the Whiteheads were published in Garden City, NY, by Doubleday, in 1979 and 1984 respectively.
- Karl Rahner “Theology,” in Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi, ed. Karl Rahner (New York: Seabury, 1975), cols. 1699-1700.
- Cahill, “Theological Education,” p. 341.
- The Program of Priestly Formation, n. 178.