The Theological Anthropology of David Tracy

318 Pages·2015·1.35 MB·English

The Plural and Ambiguous Self: The
Theological Anthropology of David Tracy
Author: Stephen Okey
Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:104392
This work is posted on eScholarship@BC,
Boston College University Libraries.
Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2013
Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted.
Boston College

The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Department of Theology

THE PLURAL AND AMBIGUOUS SELF:
THE THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF DAVID TRACY

A Dissertation

By

STEPHEN OKEY

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

August 2013
© copyright by STEPHEN OKEY
2013
The Plural and Ambiguous Self:
The Theological Anthropology of David Tracy

Stephen Okey
Director: Mary Ann Hinsdale, IHM

This dissertation explicates and evaluates the theological anthropology of David
Tracy. Through a reading of the whole of Tracy’s published theological corpus, it argues that
Tracy’s work on theological method, hermeneutics, public theology, and otherness rests on
an implicit and evolving understanding of the human person. This anthropology is rooted in
four key characteristics or “anthropological constants”: finitude, relationality, sin, and grace.
The methodological approach of the dissertation is genealogical and hermeneutical.
Each of these four constants is taken as an interpretive lens through which the dissertation
considers the development of Tracy’s thought. This approach will demonstrate first how
finitude, relationality, sin, and grace are interwoven in Tracy’s work, and second how the
development of his core theological loci of method, interpretation, public-ness, pluralism,
and otherness are rooted in these four constants.
The text concludes with an evaluation of Tracy’s theology anthropology in light of
his context as a North American, late 20th century, Catholic theologian. Tracy’s work
provides insight into the interdependence of theological method and anthropology. However,
while he attends to the importance of how historical, linguistic, and social context shape
human persons, his conceptual approach to context tends to ignore particularity and
embodiment. Nevertheless, the four “constants” of Tracy’s theological anthropology could
fruitfully engage contemporary currents such as ecotheology and disability theology.
This dissertation is the most thorough and sustained foray into the question of David
Tracy’s theological anthropology to date, and as such provides a significant contribution to
the field of 20th/21st century North American Catholic theology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Completing a project of this size and duration would be impossible without the
help of many. To begin with, I’d like to thank my dissertation committee of Mary Ann
Hinsdale, Roberto Goizueta, and Frederick Lawrence. Each of them has generously
taken time to read drafts, to help me understand Tracy and his conversation partners, and
to challenge me during my time at Boston College.
I’d also like to thank the colleagues who helped me out during this process. The
Tracy Reading Group that met in the fall of 2010 helped me to formulate my initial sense
of Tracy’s anthropology: Mike Avery, Nick DiSalvatore, Nichole Flores, Tim Hanchin,
Daryn Henry, Kevin Johnson, and Brian Traska. I’d like to thank Gonzalo Villagran, SJ
(Boston College) and William Myatt (Loyola University Chicago), who were also
working on dissertations that substantially used Tracy’s theology during the time I was
working on mine. Many fellow graduate students also served as sounding boards,
editors, and devil’s advocates: Kevin Ahern, Mia Cruz, John Edwards, Katie O’Neill,
Lauren Osborne, Amanda Osheim, Bobby Rivera, Marc Rugani, Heather Miller Rubens,
Andy Salzmann, John Slattery, John Slotemaker, Andy Staron, and Kevin VanderSchel.
I’d also like to thank my parents, Michael and Susan Okey, and my brother, John
Okey, for being supportive of my desire to return to graduate studies in theology and
pursue a career and vocation as a theologian. I’d especially like to thank Paige Cargioli,
who has endured my many late nights of work on this text.
Lastly, I’d like to thank David Tracy himself, who on more than one occasion was
kind of enough to speak with me about my project and offer ideas and clarifications.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments i
Abbreviations v

Introduction 1
Biographical Sketch of David Tracy 2
Methodology of the Dissertation 8
Previous Assessments of Tracy’s Theological Anthropology 10
S. Alan Ray 10
Dwight Hopkins 14
Anthropological Constants 16
Overview of the Dissertation 18

1. Theological Anthropology and Theological Method 22
The State of Theological Anthropology 23
The Anthropological Turn 28
Karl Rahner, SJ 31
Bernard Lonergan, SJ 35
Paul Ricoeur 37
Summary 41
Tracy’s Theological Method 42
Methodological Precursors 45
Paul Tillich 45
H. Richard Niebuhr 47
Bernard Lonergan 49
Method in Blessed Rage for Order 51
Critical Correlation in BRO 52
Theological Sub-Disciplines in BRO 57
Method in The Analogical Imagination 60
Mutually Critical Correlation in AI 61
Public Theology 65
Theological Sub-Disciplines in AI 67
Theological Interpretation as Conversation in Plurality and Ambiguity 77
The Relationship between Anthropology and Method 80

2. Finitude 83
Blessed Rage for Order 84
Transcendental Method in BRO 84
Common Human Experience 89
Limits and the Religious Dimension of Human Experience 91
Summary 100
The Analogical Imagination 100
Methodological Shift I: The Contemporary Situation 101
Methodological Shift II: The Limit in Fundamental and Systematic 104
ii
Theology
The Limit-of and the Whole 106
The Internal Pluralism of the Self 108
Summary 111
Plurality and Ambiguity 113
The Human as Interpreting and Knowing 115
The Limit-of, the Whole, and Ultimate Reality 118
Internal Pluralism and Otherness 121
Summary 124
Dialogue with the Other 126
Conclusion 129

3. Relationality 133
Horizon as Transitional Concept between Finitude and Relationality 134
Public Theology 136
What is “Public” about Public Theology 136
The Two Publics 136
The Three Publics 138
Public Theology and Relationality 145
Tradition 149
Anticipatory Elements in BRO 149
Development in AI 151
Distortions within a Tradition 155
Traditions as Relational 157
Conversation 158
Beginnings in AI 158
Further Development in PA and DWO 161
Conversation and Tradition 164
Human Relations with God 165
The Limit as Revelatory of Relationship 165
The Whole in AI 171
Transformation to the Other 174
Conclusion 178

4. Sin 180
The Relationship between Sin and Finitude 181
The Neo-Orthodox Model of Theology 183
Rahner and Sin 187
The Inevitable Fact of Evil and Sin 190
Tracy’s Three Dimensions of Sin 192
Actual Personal Sin 193
Habitual Sin 197
Inherited or Original Sin 198
Systemic Distortion as Personal 199
Systemic Distortion in History 201
Systemic Distortion in Communication 206
iii
Systemic Distortion in Religion 211
Distortion and Inherited Sin 214
Relations Among the Three Dimensions 215
Conclusion 216

5. Grace 218
Nature-Grace and Sin-Grace 219
The Uncanny and Grace 223
Fundamental Trust in BRO 224
Uncanny in AI 225
Uncanny in PA 228
Jesus Christ 229
Christ as Representation in BRO 229
Christ as Divine Self-Manifestation in AI 232
Forms of Mediation 237
Analogical Imagination 238
Manifestation 238
Proclamation 242
Historical Action 248
Shift in Dialogue with the Other 253
Mystical 255
Prophetic 257
Action 258
Salvation, Liberation, and Transformation 261
Freedom 265
Conclusion 272

6. Tracy’s Anthropology: Toward a Preliminary Assessment 274
Tracy’s Contributions 275
Critiques of Tracy’s Anthropology 280
Trajectories for Further Development 288
Summary 294

Bibliography 298

iv
ABBREVIATIONS

ABL Tracy, David. The Achievement of Bernard Lonergan. New York: Herder
and Herder, 1970.

AI Tracy, David. The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the
Culture of Pluralism. New York: Crossroad, 1981.

BRO Tracy, David. Blessed Rage for Order, the New Pluralism in Theology. New
York: Seabury Press, 1975.

DWO Tracy, David. Dialogue with the Other: The Inter-Religious Dialogue.
Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs 1. Louvain: Peeters Press,
1991.

MT Lonergan, Bernard J.F. Method in Theology. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1999.

NCFT Tracy, David. “The Necessity and Character of Fundamental Theology.”
Lecture, Loyola University of Chicago, 1:27:11. April 8, 2011.
http://webapps.luc.edu/ignation/video-detail.cfm?id=2120034320 (Part I) and
http://webapps.luc.edu/ignation/video-detail.cfm?id=1206034756 (Part II)

ONP Tracy, David. On Naming the Present: Reflections on God, Hermeneutics,
and Church. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 1994.

PA Tracy, David. Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.

v
INTRODUCTION

David Tracy is widely considered to be one of the most important American
Catholic theologians of the twentieth century. During a career spanning six decades, he
has made substantial contributions through his work on public theology, hermeneutics,
and theological method. Sometimes called “a theologian’s theologian,” his work, as well
as his generous spirit, has influenced theologians, philosophers, and other scholars both
internationally and across religious traditions.
While his best-known and most cited works have focused on questions of what he
would call fundamental theology, Tracy has lamented that his contributions to systematic
and doctrinal issues have generally been ignored by his readers and interlocutors.1 Both
his Blessed Rage for Order and Analogical Imagination feature extensive chapters on
Christology; his understanding of public theology includes a subtle and complex
ecclesiology; and the Christian teachings on sin and grace have permeated his work from
very early on. Yet by and large, these contributions have garnered limited interest in the
wider theological community, consequently impoverishing both the understanding of
Tracy’s theological project and the wider theological conversation in which he is
engaged.
This dissertation serves as a modest contribution and corrective to this oversight.
Its founding premise is that Tracy’s theology has a robust, if often implicit, theological

1 Todd Breyfogle and Thomas Levergood, “Conversation with David Tracy,” Cross Currents 44, no. 3
(Fall 1994): 301-2. In particular, he mentions the lack of interest that readers of Blessed Rage for Order
and The Analogical Imagination have shown in his Christology.
1