1. Introduction
Any introduction carries along the perspective of the person writing it like a hidden undercurrent. I am writing this as someone who resonates with Robert Ezra Parkâs notion of the âmarginal manâ:1 â[â¦] a man(!) on the margin of two cultures and two societies, which never completely interpenetrated and fusedâ.2 The many years I spent in Boston where I enjoyed the privilege of Roger Haight as a teacher, seem to permanently inhabit me while gracing me with the challenges and gifts of a marginal man.
âBreaking boundaries in theologyâ might be considered ambivalent or even dangerous. And it certainly can be. Yet, what and where exactly are theologyâs boundaries? To put it differently, by what or whom is theology bound?
This volume is based on the thesis that Roger Haightâs theology can be characterized as one that grapples with boundaries and occasionally breaks them. This is done neither for the heck of it nor for destructive reasons but to enable theology to be bound by what constitutes it, namely by something that cannot but transcend it, i.e., the reality called âGodâ.
This general introduction will be supplemented, later within this volume, by brief content-specific introductions to each of the volumeâs three parts. For now, however, this general introduction here consists of two sections. In the first section, I will present Haightâs theological development as part of a larger transformation, which in Haightâs own assessment marks the birth of a distinctly US-American Catholic theology.3 This should be of interest to readers who are not so familiar with American Catholic theologies.4 On both sides of the Atlantic and throughout the globe, the boundaries of a Eurocentric Catholic theology, heavily regulated by the Magisterium, were once clear and strict. Vatican II (1962â1965) shifted these boundaries. Despite many similarities, this shift had a different impact in the United States than in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australasia. Haightâs theology can be considered exemplary for some major theological developments in the US. In the second section of this introduction, I will then introduce one aspect of Haightâs work on boundaries that can be understood as being paradigmatic for his grappling with boundaries while wrestling to seek common ecumenical ground, i.e., the concept of a transdenominational ecclesiology.5 What Haight demonstrates there in terms of reflective depth, he creatively and constructively applies to other areas of theology, too.6
It should be self-evident that an introduction can merely scratch the surface of such a prolific writer as Roger Haight. Even so, the aim is to entice readers into engaging the substantial material that Haight has produced. His extensive body of work embodies the virtues of an American Catholic theology that has developed a willingness to deal with plurality constructively â thus called pluralism â owing to its context of origin. This implies that Haightâs theology situates itself on a spectrum of possible positions. It must be apologetic to promote its coherence within a very pluralistic context both within and beyond what, for lack of a better term, is named the âRoman Catholic realmâ.
2. Grappling with and Breaking the Stranglehold of European Theologies â Haight and âThe Birth of American Catholic Theologyâ
A boundary-scratching theology like Roger Haightâs can be better understood when analyzing the socio-historical context in which it developed. Such an endeavor is here given an intentional twist when Haight undertakes this analysis himself. As readers, we look over his shoulder, so to speak, and discover under his guidance the cultural context in which he himself became a significant theologian.7
Haightâs analysis is based on the American Jesuit journal par excellence, Theological Studies. On the occasion of the eightieth volume in 2019, Haight worked his way through every issue of the journal and presented the reader with a well-structured thirty-page-article that provides invaluable information on theological developments between 1939 and 2019 focused on Catholic theology in the USA.8 Haight divides these eighty years âinto five periods of unequal length and importanceâ:9 (1) After the Condemnation of Modernism: 1940â1951 (approx. 3 pages); (2) Theology Post-Humani Generis: 1951â1962 (approx. 3 pages); (3) The Energy Released by Vatican II: 1962â1978 (approx. 6 pages); (4) Growing Confidence in Critical Method: 1978â2013 (approx. 9 pages); and (5) The Francis Moment: 2013â2019 (approx. 3 pages).
For Haight to have read or skimmed through countless issues presumably took a remarkable effort, while Haight also admits that in the face of the challenge of âimposing an order on a chaotic range of topics,â the order he eventually imposed âis highly interpretative and synthetic.â10 Haightâs carefully researched and well-structured article is undoubtedly of tremendous service to academic theology within and beyond the bounds of the United States.11
Since Roger Haight, born in 1936, was himself maturing into a defining theologian during this period, I place aspects of his own theological work and academic career alongside his historical analysis of this very period, something that Haight understandably does not address. My reasoning for this is as follows: While Haight insists twice in his analysis that theology is a collective endeavor,12 it is precisely within and due to this collective that Haightâs theology acquires its particularity, which need not stand out from but rather contribute to what can be named one of the core characteristic of an âAmerican Catholic theologyâ,13 i.e., its having become intrinsically plural.
The period that Haight identifies as the longest among the five that he constructs, entitled Growing Confidence in Critical Method, stretches from 1978 to 2013. Little surprise that this coincides with the tenures of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, thus marking a time when the effects of the Council have become tangible reality and the hermeneutics to be applied to Vatican II became more controversial.14 It also matches the time in which Haight taught, researched and published at four different locations:15 the Jesuit School of Theology in Chicago (1975â1981), Regis College in Toronto (1981â1990), Weston (Jesuit) School of Theology in Cambridge/ MA (1990â2004), and Union Theological Seminary in New York City (since 2004). During that time Haight published nine out of his fourteen books and more than 120 articles or documents. This also marks the time of the Vaticanâs Notification followed by a period in which he was banned from publishing theological texts altogether.
Yet, to better understand the historical and ecclesial factors that laid the groundwork for Haightâs own theological development amidst the birth of an American Catholic theology, we need to return to his analysis of the period from 1940 to 1978. The two sections before Vatican II, entitled by Haight as After the Condemnation of Modernism: 1940â1951 and Theology Post-Humani Generis: 1952â1962, cover a period that is historically well-documented and marked notably by theological discourse dominated by the Magisterium and Eurocentric perspectives, and yet two American theologians and Jesuits also came to the fore then who, even beyond the first two decades of Theological Studies, would be instrumental in the development of a genuine American Catholic theology: namely, Bernard Lonergan (1904â1984) and John Courtney Murray (1904â1967). Both of these finished their doctorates at the Gregorian University in Rome in the late 1930s and were thus cognizant of a clerical ecclesiocentric style of theology that saw no need for a critical consciousness whatsoever.16 Yet Lonergan and Murray received their initial socialization in countries (Lonergan having been Canadian) that for historical reasons had developed church-state relations guaranteeing religious freedom, something that did not yet exist in all of Europe. However, in the US, Catholics would remain social underdogs at least until 1960 when John F. Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic elected as President of the United States.
Murray and Lonergan would in their own ways and fields contribute significantly to an opening regarding ecumenism in predominantly Protestant United States, to preparing the way for theology to become public discourse, for method to be central in theology, and also for the need to dialogue seriously with the sciences. Thus, at the end of the subsequent section dealing with The Energy Released by Vatican II: 1962â1978 Haight depicts John Courtney Murray as the âfirst witness to an American Catholic theologyâ, backing this by referring to âA Symposium on John Courtney Murrayâs Unfinished Agendaâ17 published by Theological Studies in 1979.18
The summer before the Second Vatican Council (1962â1965) opened, in a workshop entitled âOn the Method of Theologyâ,19 Bernard Lonergan addressed how a scientific age has turned the conditions for theology upside down: â⦠historical consciousness has invaded every field, to add on a sense of relativity (not relativism); tradition is not a norm in the way it was.â20
In modernity, that the Church had long despised and repressed, there had long been underway a change of and in consciousness that the Council, once opened, couldnât but critically relate to and work with. For Haight, a modern consciousness has a critical side and a constructive side; both sides found expression in Vatican IIâs focus on the church (cf. Lumen gentium, Gaudium et spes), which correspondingly triggered questions about doctrine and the nature of theology. In the years to follow, this newly adapted critical and constructive consciousness unfolded theologically in four areas according to Haightâs summary glance at volumes 27 through 38 of Theological Studies, as follows. (1) Ecumenism: a ânew fundamental sensibility of being one with all Christians that is almost entirely new for Catholic theology.â21 (2) Liberation theology: interestingly, Gustavo Gutiérrezâs âNotes for a Liberation Theologyâ (TS 31/ 2)22 appeared after the publication of James Coneâs âBlack Theology and Black Powerâ. Haight refers to an article by John Carey who already in 197423 was critical about âsome assumptions of white theologyâ that supported racism, at least indirectly.24 (3) Feminist theology: âA quantum leap occurred in December 1975â according to Roger Haight. In volume 36/ 4 seven women theologians and scripture scholars and (only!) two men addressed relevant issues at âa level of competence that could not be disputed.â25 Later on, Haight would claim feminist theology to be âAmericanâ (not, of course, exclusively so).26 (4) Process theology: in the early nineteen-seventies, a first reception of process thinking (Alfred N. Whitehead; Charles Hartshorne) occurred in American Catholic theology breaking open any thinking that is set on changelessness.
If the critical aspect of modern consciousness comes from the irrefutability of historicity, then its constructive aspect builds on this, while yet uniting with historical consciousness a requirement to see, judge and transform social reality. Both aspects of this modern consciousness remained a challenge not only for the Council itself but even more so for the period from 1978 through 2013 that Haight has entitled Growing Confidence in Critical Method.27 It is this period which, according to Haightâs âsearch radarâ, is central for the emergence of a genuine American Catholic theology. The reception of the Council, as controversial as it may still be today, opened windows for theologies in which the historical and social context plays an important role to âenterâ, i.e. to develop. While, ironically, this very period finds Haight silenced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he focuses his search for an American Catholic theology on what went on theologically within these 35 years, as documented in Theological Studies, as ordered into six categories: ecumenism, theology as a discipline, various forms of liberation theology, interfaith dialogue, theology and science, and doctrinal loci. From the large ground covered by Haightâs review of the wide, even âeclecticâ range of topics during these three and a half decades, I take a few examples that both witness the emerging of an American Catholic theology and characterize Haightâs theology. First, Haight notes that fundamental theologyâs grappling with history, revelation, tradition, and method28 âaltered the basic conception of theology. It had become an open, seeking discipline, humbler and less apodictic, and thus deeper and more interesting.â29 It is in order to cross-reference David Tracy here, as Haight remains interested in Tracyâs thought to this very day.30 Second, Haightâs recognition of black liberation theology as one of the various expressions of liberation theology mirrors his own growing awareness of systemic racism in the US. He quotes Mary Doak (2002): âInstead of countercultural, liberationist, postmodern, or public theologies, we need to combine these insights in the development of a more integral theology, an approach in which the perspectives of Black theologians must be central.â31 Nevertheless, Haightâs assessment is sobering: American Catholic theology never really became âliberationist.â Neither the churchâs leaders nor the theologians have followed in doctrine and life the highly regarded documents of the US bishops written in the 1980s: âThe Challenge of Peace: Godâs Promise and Our Responseâ (1983) and âEconomic Justice for Allâ (1986).32 Third, when engaging in dialogue with people from different religions, âtwo distinct subdisciplines developed over this period: comparative theology and theology of religions.â Remarkably, Haight makes use of both: generally speaking, he mainly pursues a theology of religions, but more recently combines it with a comparative method,33 in explicit reference to the âfounder of comparative theologyâ, Francis X. Clooney.34 Both ventures get even more complex if religious pluralism includes âthe testimonies of those with multiple religious belongingâ, as Peter Phan made the readership of Theological Studies ponder in 1997.35
Fourth, while Teilhard de Chardin and Bernard Lonergan had made some significant headway before and shortly after the Council, dialogue with the natural sciences became ever more pertinent over this period in Theological Studies, with an increasing need to clarify the possibilities of such an exchange, to raise critical questions from either side, and, given the gathering ecological situation, to turn practical. Matthew Ashley, for example, in 2010 questioned a facile comparison of two âbig storiesâ, i.e., that of the universe and that of Judeo-Christian creation, as reflected in Scripture, since they âare drawn from a mosaic of smaller and more intricate stories of both sides.â36 As is witnessed in Haightâs own 2019 book, Faith and Evolution. A Grace-Filled Naturalism, this by-then fruitful exchange âhas the potential to influence theological construction broadly and deeply.â37 Fifthly, when it comes to doctrinal issues (God, creation, providence, etc.), Haight claims that the above-mentioned formal perspectives with foci on ecumenism, liberation theology, interfaith dialogue, etc. cannot but generate âdistinct ways of understanding traditional beliefs, making Catholic theology a decidedly pluralistic discipline.â38 Theologyâs âprobing characterâ is hitting home, i.e., requiring a constructive approach.
It could well be that the âdevelopment of an inculturated theology for the USâ occurred incrementally within these three and a half decades and without being much noticed. The difficulty inherent in inculturated constructive theologies not only in the US became cruelly obvious when their authors found themselves facing âVatican-centricâ tribunals.39
The finale of Haightâs extended article on 80 years of Theological Studies is entitled The Francis Moment: 2013â2019, a short period that âhas positively stimulated theological writingâ.40 Sticking to the six categories Haight used already to order the previous period (see above), the issues addressed no longer change much. However, a few things are noteworthy before following Haight into his conclusion. (1) Theology as a discipline has radically changed in these 80 years. Looking back at the beginnings of Theological Studies, as Haight emphasizes the contrast, âone sees the common manual of Catholic theology as a distant memory.â41 (2) Theologyâs critical adaptation of modern consciousness (becoming plural in itself!) is not spared ambivalence. In contradistinction to progress in technology where a new stage of development replaces the previous, âin theology one stage takes the former into itself, slowly widening its horizon and deepening perceptions, allowing a complexification of issues that leads to greater understanding.â42 Such complexification runs the risk of leading to the fragmentation of theology that blurs its contours: â⦠theology assumes so many dialogue partners from different disciplines, addresses so many different human problems and dilemmas, among so many distinct constituencies, at different intellectual levels, using different methods of analysis, that it is hard to define it as an identifiable academic discipline.â43
In concluding his far-ranging articleHaight repeats the original question as to whether there is enough evidence (within 80 volumes of Theological Studies) to talk about âthe birth of American Catholic Theologyâ and what its identity markers might be. An adequate answer requires naming two suppositions: first, this theology is a communal and professionally organized venture. The sheer abundance of articles in and contributors to Theological Studies puts this beyond dispute. Second, âas America possesses a pluralistic culture, a theology produced by it will also be pluralistic. [â¦] by definition it cannot be monothematic.â44 Haightâs theology represents one voice of such a pluralistic theology. Haightâs ability to illustrate the plurality of American Catholic theology through numerous examples of a variety of colleagues testifies to both the quality of his own theological work and the richness of American theology as such.
The âAmericannessâ of US Catholic theology is mirrored according to Haight in both content and method. When I look at content with my European eyes, the following catches these eyes in particular: (1) the pluralistic culture of the US has challenged Catholic theology regarding ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, birthing forth comparative theology; (2) taking into account the history of the US as a country of immigration, â[l]iberation theology too became black, womanist [â¦] and Latina/o.â45 Looking at methods that correlate âtheological issues in conjunction with experienceâ46 requires theologies to be historically and socially consciousness (from Murray to various inculturated forms of liberation theology). Such methods of correlation reflect and safeguard American pluralism which for theology, too, is challenging to live by, for â[o]n the one hand [â¦] this pluralism is so overt that it seems to attack the very idea of any kind of picture of an American Catholic theology. On the other hand, the same thing could be said of the many books that make up the New Testament. [â¦] One needs an open, inclusive, analogical imagination, connected to language, place, and a working body of theologians, to perceive the integral identity of an American Catholic theology.â47
Pluralism is an open-ended experiment that depends on the attitude and efforts of people faced with plurality to understand it as chance and possibility. What does Haightâs theology contribute to such an attitude which can prevent plurality from dissolving âinto fragmentsâ48 or polarization?
3. Seeking a âPartiallyâ Common Ground: Constructive Comparative Ecclesiology
For many theologians in Systematic or Constructive Theology, the field of ecclesiology has, for various reasons, become a no-go area. Ecclesiology does not lend itself to breaking boundaries. For many who today strive to make the existential relevance of theology comprehensible (again), ecclesiology tends to be a drag. It is this unruly circumstance that makes Haightâs undertaking of a âConstructive Comparative Ecclesiologyâ a test case of how his theology can adequately deal with and appreciate plurality. A three-volume work49 that appeared after Haightâs Christology testifies to the extent to which, ultimately and after extensive historical and comparative analysis, he is concerned with grounding the Christian faith in what he calls an âecclesial existenceâ. Any attempt to introduce important aspects of Haightâs theology cannot bypass this extended part of his research.
There are three adjectives with which Haight characterizes his ecclesiological experiment: constructive, comparative, and transdenominational. The last one is obviously the most controversial, for ecclesiologies exist to explain and apologetically defend a particular churchâs nature and mission. While this is to some extent legitimate, it also carries within it an obvious distortion. âThe quest for unity in the whole church struggles uphill against the pull toward fragmentation of Christianity into churches.â50 For Haight, then, any denominational ecclesiology cannot but be âpolemical in its self-definition over against other churches.â51 Realizing ecclesiologyâs âtribalâ tendency, theologians rather turn to other issues. Yet, thereâs too much for all of theology at stake not to take the bull by the horns!52 Thus, Haightâs proposal for a transdenominational ecclesiology:
The goal of this ecclesiology is asymptotic, namely, an approachable but unattainable common Christian ecclesiology. It aims to characterize an ecclesiology in lines broad enough that the many churches can identify themselves in it and thereby lessen any essential or major differences with other churches. But this effort perforce must remain ideal and general enough to disable any possibility of its being the ecclesiology of a particular church and thus a rival of the denominations.53
There is, of course, much that some could object to in an ecclesiology such as Haightâs, not least that there is no church connected to such an ecclesiology, and there are no believers living their faith under these premises. However, transdenominational ecclesiology does not come out of nowhere, nor is it a figment of the imagination of a well-meaning theologian. The two other adjectives might buffer and support Haightâs claim: a transdenominational ecclesiology is based on the method of comparative theology, requiring âhistorical analysis of the ecclesiologies of the various churches and a comparison between them prior to making judgments and statements meant to be inclusive.â54 The âtrans-â does neither eliminate nor judge denominational diversity as such, but blocks two temptations: first, to settle too much into oneâs own church identity (always âjustifiedâ by an apologetic denominational ecclesiology) and, secondly, to regard the demanding ecumenical work required here and now, as propelled by the ongoing scandal of divided churches, as only eschatologically redeemable.
Important as it is, comparison does not suffice and construction is required also: âa transdenominational ecclesiology depends on a mental act of abstraction.â55 Yet, such abstraction must not be looked upon pejoratively, for âthe theological construct of a universal, invisible church is not really a church but precisely a dimension of the churches taken abstractly.â56 As its Latin root suggests, abstraction âpulls awayâ from something concrete â a homonym that also refers to the composite construction material â which, in this second sense, tends to lose its plasticity over time. Good abstraction can therefore induce plasticity, meaning a willingness to be and become moved by the Spirit âtoward unity among the churches.â57 As an abstraction, transdenominational ecclesiology cannot be âa substitute for or rival of any denominational ecclesiology. [â¦] It has to be read alongside, not instead of, the ecclesiology of any given church.â58 âReading alongsideâ implies pluralism, i.e., recognizing âdifference that subsists in a larger common matrix of shared ideas, values, and living space.â59 âReading alongsideâ thus creates a dynamic that challenges because it puts the exclusivity of any denominational ecclesiology in relation to something larger than that.
3.1 Ecclesial Existence
What, then, if not a particular church is the object of a constructive comparative ecclesiology that can be called transdenominational? Since all churches consider Scripture foundational to their identity, they consequently claim to stand in continuity with what Scripture teaches about living out the Christian faith in community. Traditionally, this has been called one of marks of an authentic church, i.e., apostolicity. Being church means to live up to the apostlesâ lives with Jesus Christ and share in his vision and fate. Yet, since the term apostolicity has different strings attached to it (depending on the respective denomination), Haight switches to the broader and more innocuous concept of âecclesial existenceâ and describes it in the following way:
Ecclesial existence refers to human existence as it is lived socially within a Christian church. To characterize Christian existence is to describe in a specifically religious and social way the Christian life, or Christian life in community, or a Christian social existential anthropology. The term âecclesial existenceâ refers to the concreteness of existential Christian life that lies beneath and within the objective structures of the historical churches. This ecclesial existence is always historically structured, but it is distinct from any specific institutional form. Ecclesial existence possesses an identity of sufficient height and depth that it can support a variety of different structures.60
As this quote already suggests, Haightâs transdenominational approach is an approach âfrom belowâ.61 While such a method has sometimes been looked upon at least with reservation, sometimes with suspicion, Haightâs âintentionâ in his three volumes of Christian Community in History âis to use history to open up ecclesial imagination against more rigid conceptions of the church across the denominations.â62 Churches are part of our historical and social reality while, of course, not being reduced to it. Quoting ethicist James M. Gustavson, Haight warns against a theological reductionism where the human elements of churches are not recognized or, if so, only addressed in doctrinal categories.63 Thus, churches are âa simultaneously historical and theological reality.â Since in Haightâs view the theological, i.e., normative aspect of ecclesiology usually prevails, he shifts the focus on the church as âa phenomenon of and in historyâ.64 âAll things being equal, equilibrium between these two poles of knowingâ â that is, the historical âfrom belowâ and the theological âfrom aboveâ â âis the desired ideal.â65 Haight regards this dual situation as supported by Vatican IIâs recognition of âthe correct autonomy of earthly affairsâ (âDe iusta rerum terrenarum autonomiaâ) addressed in the Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et spes, #36.66
Haightâs sense of the need to do justice to the historical as well as the theological dimensions of any church might clarify why Haight seems to favor the term âecclesial existenceâ over the theological concept of apostolicity. While this may appear to be only a slight semantic shift in naming an ecclesial reality,67 it allows us to perceive something that cannot be fully grasped within the framework of normative, i.e., doctrinal formulations.
This brings us back to Haightâs constructive comparative ecclesiology as transdenominational and its major goal. Transdenominational is not steering towards postdenominational. âRather, it relates to each one of them [i.e., denominational ecclesiology; A.T.] as a description of that which is shared in common among all ecclesiologies.â68 If the abstraction of a transdenominational ecclesiology works, it can generate insights into what various churches do have in common amidst and despite their differences, as participants in âecclesial existenceâ. Once this is recognized by various churches, it can be the starting point for what Haight designates âpartial communionâ among churches.
3.2 Partial Communion
At first glance, shooting for âpartial communionâ does not seem desirable since its aims for too little in comparison to full communion. However, to propose full communion as the goal while at the same time admitting it to be unattainable, or to present it as an ideal realizable only eschatologically, turns too blind an eye to the scandalous wound caused by the division of Christian churches and how this permanently gnaws upon all churchesâ credibility. Therefore, Haight makes a case for partial communion as a âfluid historical conceptâ that allows for an indeterminate range of possible, yes, partial communions.
For partial communion to be seen as a goal requires âecclesial existenceâ to be recognized as an adequate expression of apostolicity. Furthermore, it must be clear that any âecclesial existenceâ rests upon complex hybrid ecclesial identity. âEach churchâs identity is a hybrid of multiple factors from history and theological interpretations that cannot be reduced to single terms.â69 Such a complex identity prevents the âfallacy of specific differenceâ70 from taking effect, in which the identity of a person or group is reduced to a single characteristic. âConstructive comparative ecclesiology effectively breaks the hold that this common tendency has on the imagination.â71 Finally, churches must want to affirm others in their âecclesial existenceâ. This requires them to go beyond their own self-understanding, as no ecclesial existence could ever exhaust the depth and breadth of apostolic existence in history.
Thus, partial communion reminds one of a positive and a negative value that come with it: communion is partially possible, yet it remains as such deficient. However, even the naysayers should notice: âA limited value [such as partial communion] is still a value to be cherished.â72 Haightâs general appreciation of plurality (as pluralism) based on the historical and social experience of the US as well as on the philosophical and theological reflections thereupon (cf. J.C. Murray, D. Tracy, et al.) comes into play here, too: âGenuine pluralism, as something valuable, may require a diversity of churches that cannot and should not reach full institutional agreement.â73 Thus, partial communion allows for a breadth of apostolic âecclesial existenceâ.74 Partial communion seeks a delicate balance between accepting the churchesâ division with the accompanying danger of fragmentation,75 on the one hand, and restrictively defining communion by the standards of denominational ecclesiologies, on the other.
What churches have in common is a âcore spiritualityâ, suggests Haight.76 Ecclesial existence can best be characterized by âa spirituality that holds the whole church together rather than by theological analysis of traditional doctrines or organizational structures.â77 Ecclesial existence as it is lived out by Christians within churches that differ greatly in many aspects, is rooted in something deeper: âPlacing Jesus of Nazareth at the center of the Christianâs relationship to God makes this spirituality of following Jesus the substance of the ecclesial spirituality that is shared by all Christians and all the churches.â78 Of course, ecclesial spirituality is experienced and learned in a variety of ecclesial forms through liturgies and ministries that shape Christiansâ consciousness and identity.79 However, an explicitly abstract transdenominational ecclesiology makes us recognize more clearly what unites Christians in living their faith amidst the differences of the churches in organization and structure.
In sum, Roger Haightâs expansive work on ecclesiology with his highly stimulating proposal of a transdenominational ecclesiology can help us to recognize once again the common ground among the churches while not denying their differences. Christiansâ ecclesial experience and theologiansâ critical reflections thereupon may understand Haightâs venture as an invitation that should not be resisted. In fact, itâs not Haightâs but the Spiritâs ongoing and urgent invitation as formulated so poignantly by Saint Paul: âSpare no effort to make fast with bonds of peace the unity which the Spirit gives. There is one body and one Spirit, as there is also one hope held out in Godâs call to you; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in allâ (Eph 4:3â6). There is neither time nor energy to be wasted by the churches with navel gazing: â⦠the great church should conceive of its mission as an extension of Godâs love for the whole of human race and our planet.â80
4. Conclusion as Invitation: Haightâs Theology as âNot without the Otherâ
This collected volume neither can nor does act as a substitute for a long-overdue formal introduction to Roger Haightâs theology. Instead, the editors aim to stimulate a broader reception of Haightâs theology, particularly in non-US-American contexts. Haightâs three texts, originally presented at an online conference in late November 2023 and revised for publication, serve as condensed theological âappetizersâ that should make readers want more. A comprehensive bibliography of Haight at the end of this collected volume fits well with this, as it may also inspire deeper academic engagement through dissertations and publications.
It should have become clear that Haightâs boundary-grappling theology does never take place without keeping others in mind â and in conversation. His theology is not only grappling but breaking boundaries when and if they exclude what must never be excluded: the marginal, the poor, Christians living ecclesial existence in separated denominations, people of faith in other traditions, secular folks, and a never-ending range of new questions.81 His theology is âfaith seeking understandingâ (fides quaerens intellectum) by faith seeking common ground. To sum up in Haightâs own words:
[â¦] we have a sense of the unity of the species today that we have never had before; and historical consciousness has been augmented by social and cultural evolution. Human existence itself calls out for reconciliation. The mission of the church is called to represent and become the agent of Godâs ongoing creativity that underlies world history.82
Godâs creativity in world and its nature fosters âa naturalist spirituality but one that recognizes that nature flows from Godâs creating love, which is available to all, and is accepted and spontaneously acted out by more people than we can know.â83
Bibliography
Ashley, Matthew: Reading the Universe Story Theologically. The Contribution of a Biblical Narrative Imagination, in: Theological Studies 71 (4/2010), pp. 870â902.
Crowe, Frederick E.: On the Method of Theology, in: Theological Studies 23 (4/1962), pp. 637â642.
Dahlke, Benjamin: Katholische Theologie in den USA. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder 2024.
Doak, Mary: Cornel Westâs Challenge to the Catholic Evasion of Black Theology, in: Theological Studies 63 (1/2002), pp. 87â106.
Dulles, Avery SJ: Method in Fundamental Theology. Reflections on David Tracyâs Blessed Rage for Order, in: Theological Studies 37 (2/1976), pp. 304â316.
Fletcher, Jeannine Hill: Monopoly of Salvation? A Feminist Approach to Religious Pluralism. New York: Continuum 2005.
Grasso, Kenneth L.: An Unfinished Argument: Dignitatis humanae, John Courtney Murray, and the Catholic Theory of the State, in: Kenneth L. Grasso/Robert P. Hunt (eds.): Catholicism and Religious Freedom. Contemporary Reflections on Vatican IIâs Declaration on Religious Liberty. Lanham/MD: Sheed & Ward 2006, pp. 161â193.
Gustavson, James M.: Treasure in Earthen Vessels. The Church as a Human Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1976.
Haight, Roger: An Alternative Vision. An Interpretation of Liberation Theology. Mahwah/NJ: Paulist Press 1985.
Haight, Roger: Dynamics of Theology. Mahwah/NJ: Paulist Press 1990.
Haight, Roger: Christian Community in History. Vol. 1: Historical Ecclesiology. New York/London: Continuum 2004.
Haight, Roger: Christian Community in History. Vol. 2: Comparative Ecclesiology. New York/London: Continuum 2005.
Haight, Roger: The Dysfunctional Rhetoric of âWhite Privilegeâ and the Need for âRacial Solidarity, in: Laurie Cassidy/Alexander Mikulich (eds.): Interrupting White Privilege. Catholic Theologians Break the Silence. Maryknoll/NY: Orbis Books 2007, pp. 85â94.
Haight, Roger: Christian Community in History. Vol. 3: Ecclesial Existence. New York/London: Continuum 2008.
Haight, Roger: New Challenges and New Initiatives in Ecclesiology, in: Gerard Mannion (ed.): Comparative Ecclesiology. Critical Investigations. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clarke 2008, pp. 191â202.
Haight, Roger: Comparative Ecclesiology, in: Gerard Mannion/Lewis Mudge (eds.): The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church. New York/London: Routledge 2008, pp. 387â401.
Haight, Roger: The Promise of Constructive Comparative Ecclesiology. Partial Communion, in: Ecclesiology 4 (2008), pp. 183â203.
Haight, Roger: Lessons from an Extraordinary Era. Catholic Theology Since Vatican II, in: America 198 (9/2008), pp. 11â16.
Haight, Roger: Spiritual and Religious. Explorations for Seekers. Maryknoll/NY: Orbis Books 2016.
Haight, Roger: Four Gifts of the American Church to the Universal Church, in: Roger Haight, Spiritual and Religious. Explorations for Seekers. Maryknoll/NY: Orbis Books 2016, pp. 126â137.
Haight, Roger: The Birth of American Catholic Theology, in: Theological Studies 80 (1/2019), pp. 7â36.
Haight, Roger: The World Mission of the Christian Church, in: Mark D. Chapman/Vladimir Latinovic (eds.): Changing the Church. Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue. Cham: Springer International Publishing 2021, pp. 121â128.
Haight, Roger: The Nature of Theology. Challenges, Framework, Basic Beliefs. Maryknoll/NY: Orbis Books 2022.
Haight, Roger: Constructive Catholic Theology in the Light of a Buddhist Imagination, in: Carol S. Anderson/Thomas Cattoi (eds.): The Routledge Handbook of Buddhist-Christian Studies. New York/Abingdon: Routledge 2023, pp. 213â224.
Haight, Roger: The Case for Grace-Filled Naturalism. A Dialogue with Edward Schillebeeckx, in: Journal of Ecumenical Studies 58 (2/2023), pp. 259â286.
Haight, Roger: Facing Race. The Gospel in an Ignatian Key. Maryknoll/NY: Orbis Books 2024.
Hinze, Bradford E.: A Decade of Disciplining Theologians, in: Horizons 37 (1/2010), pp. 92â126.
Komonchak, Joseph A.: The American Contribution to âDignitatis Humanaeâ. The Role of John Courtney Murray, S.J., in: US Catholic Historian 24 (1/2006), pp. 1â20.
Letter, P. de: Our Unity in Faith, in: Theological Studies 38 (3/1977), pp. 526â537.
Lonergan, Bernard: Method in Theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd 21973.
Morris, Charles R.: American Catholic. The Saints and Sinners Who Built Americaâs Most Powerful Church. New York: Random House 1997.
Nelson, J. Robert: Toward an Ecumenical Ecclesiology, in: Theological Studies 31 (4/1970), pp. 644â673.
Park, Robert E.: Human Migration and the Marginal Man, in: American Journal of Sociology 33 (6/1928), pp. 881â893.
Phan, Peter C.: Multiple Religious Belonging. Opportunities and Challenges for Theology and Church, in: Theological Studies 64 (3/2003), pp. 495â519.
Tracy, David: The Uneasy Alliance Reconceived. Catholic Theological Method, Modernity, and Postmodernity, in: Theological Studies 50 (3/1989), pp. 548â570.
I owe this reference to my former colleague Ansgar Kreutzer from which I have learned a lot, particularly regarding sociology.
Park, Human Migration, p. 892.
Haight, The Birth, p. 16.
Cf. for a German introduction to American Catholic Theology, Dahlke, Katholische Theologie. For Brazilian receptions of Haight, cf. the contribution of Jefferson Zeferino in this volume.
Of course, Haightâs âboundary grapplingâ has received most attention regarding his Christology. Cf. for two critical engagements with it in this volume the contributions of Dockter and Bernhardt.
Cf. Haight, Constructive Catholic Theology.
There are several books that describe the development of an American Catholicism: e.g., Morris, American Catholic.
Although there are eight contributions of Haight to Theological Studies between 1974 and 2018, he only mentions himself once.
Haight, The Birth, p. 8.
Haight, The Birth, p. 21.
To my knowledge, there is nothing comparable to better understand the historical development of US-American Catholic theology in a clear and comprehensible way. However, a conservative, even reactionary Catholic theology that has also been active and publicly present in the USA remains unaddressed in Haightâs account, which probably aligns with the editorial policy of Theological Studies.
âI have included names of many theologians, sometimes in footnotes to keep the flow of the narrative, but as a constant reminder of collective authorshipâ (Haight, The Birth, p. 8). âThis is not the theology of a single theologian or even a small group of theologians, but one generated by a broad body of producers. The notation of names, subject matters, and titles pointed to this corporate authorshipâ (Haight, The Birth, p. 34).
It was already in 1976(!), when critically reviewing David Tracyâs Blessed Rage for Order that renowned theologian Avery Dulles was speaking of the search for an âAmerican Catholic theologyâ (Dulles, Method in Fundamental Theology, p. 304).
Cf. for a deeper analysis of Vatican II the introduction to Part III by Sebastian Pittl.
These were not the only places where Haight has taught or researched. He has spent time in Manila, Pune, Lima, Nairobi, and Paris as visiting professor or scholar.
Cf. Haight, The Birth, p. 11 et seq.
Murrayâs role in drafting the document Dignitatis humanae is well documented; cf. Komonchak, The American Contribution, pp. 1â20. The issue of âunfinishednessâ was taken up by Kenneth Grasso in his An Unfinished Argument, pp. 161â193.
Cf. Haight, The Birth, p. 20. The contributions came from (social) ethicists Robin Lovin, Bryan Hehir, John Coleman, and David Hollenbach who edited them.
Cf. Lonerganâs very influential book Method in Theology.
It was Frederick Crowe who summarized Lonerganâs lectures: On the Method, p. 638.
Referring to contributions of Nelson, Ecumenical Ecclesiology (1970) and P. de Letter, Our Unity (1977).
In 1985, Haightâs own take on liberation theology appeared as An Alternative Vision.
It feels awkward to use âalreadyâ in this context given the long-lasting history of slavery and racism. However, there were some Catholic theologians who in the early 1970âs were âalreadyâ sensitized to an issue that would become ever more urgent.
Cf. Haightâs Dysfunctional Rhetoric (2007) and his book Facing Race.
Haight, The Birth, p. 20.
Cf. also Haight, Four Gifts, p. 129 et seq.
Cf. Haight, The Birth, pp. 21â30.
Cf. Haightâs book on fundamental theology, Dynamics of Theology (1990) which deals with these topics.
Haight, The Birth, p. 23.
Haight, The Birth, p. 22, were Haight makes explicit reference to Tracy, The Uneasy Alliance.
Doak, Cornel Westâs Challenge, p. 87.
These important texts can be accessed here: https://www.usccb.org/resources/challenge-peace-gods-promise-our-response-1983;https://www.usccb.org/resources/economic-justice-all-pastoral-letter-catholic-social-teaching-and-us-economy.
Cf. Haight, Constructive Catholic Theology.
Haight, The Birth, p. 26. Cf. for Haightâs understanding of comparative Christian theology and how comparative ecclesiology is a variation of it, Comparative Ecclesiology, pp. 387â401 and pp. 397â399.
Haight, The Birth, p. 27 referring to Phan, Multiple Religious Belonging.
Haight, The Birth, p. 28 referring to Ashley, Reading the Universe.
Haight, The Birth, p. 29.
Haight, The Birth, p. 29.
For an overview of various investigations of theologians by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2022 renamed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) cf. Hinze, Decade of Disciplining, pp. 92â126.
Haight, The Birth, p. 30.
Haight, The Birth, p. 31.
Here and in the following quotation I diverge from Haight, The Birth, quoting from Haight, Lessons, p. 12 (emphasis mine).
Haight, Case for Grace-Filled Naturalism, p. 261.
Haight, The Birth, p. 34.
Haight, The Birth, p. 34.
Haight, The Birth, p. 35.
Haight, The Birth, p. 36.
Haight, The Birth, p. 35.
Haight, Christian Community in History. Vol. 1â3.
Haight, Christian Community. Vol 3, p. 4.
Haight, Christian Community. Vol 3, p. 4.
This concerns theology as a discipline insofar as it reflects on the experiences of believing collectively in a Christian way. Such collective belief cannot but take on institutional forms. If theology no longer articulates and critically reflects its connection to the church (as challenging or difficult as that might be!), it dissolves into philosophy of religion or religious studies. These disciplinary distinctions make sense, yet they are not to become divisions.
Haight, Comparative Ecclesiology, p. 396.
Haight, The Promise, p. 184. Haightâs volumes 1 and 2 of his Christian Community in History attempt to achieve exactly this on close to 900 pages!
Haight, The Promise, p. 186.
Haight, Christian Community. Vol 3, p. 11.
Haight, Christian Community. Vol 3, p. 199.
Haight, Christian Community. Vol 3, p. 12.
Haight, Christian Community. Vol 3, p. 7 et seq.
Haight, The Promise, p. 188.
A phrasing that âappropriately relates ecclesiology to christology from below and draws out the continuity of the methods and content.â (Haight, Christian Community. Vol. 1, p. 4).
Haight, Christian Community. Vol. 1, p. 38.
Cf. Gustavson, Treasure in Earthen Vessels, p. 100.
Haight, Christian Community. Vol. 1, p. 37.
Haight, New Challenges, p. 198.
âFor by the very circumstance of their [earthly affairs; A.T.] having been created, all things are endowed with their own stability, truth, goodness, proper laws and order. Man must respect these as he isolates them by the appropriate methods of the individual sciences or arts.â (https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html)
Against the backdrop of a diverse and increasingly secular reality, for Haight âecclesial existence [â¦] is the equivalent in our time of apostolic ecclesial existenceâ (Haight, The Promise, p. 194).
Haight, Christian Community. Vol 3, p. 12.
Haight, The Promise, p. 194.
Haight takes this notion from Fletcher, Monopoly of Salvation, pp. 82â101.
Haight, The Promise, p. 195.
Haight, The Promise, p. 196.
Haight, The Promise, p. 199 (emphasis mine).
âNo particular historical part can exhaustively contain the wholeâ (Haight, The Promise, p. 200).
Haight regularly refers to this danger in various publications, e.g., in Haight, The World Mission, p. 124.
Haight, The Promise, p. 198.
Haight, Spiritual and Religious, p. 170.
Haight, Spiritual and Religious, p. 146.
Cf. Haight, The Promise, p. 190.
Haight, The World Mission, p. 126.
Haight, Nature of Theology.
Haight, The World Mission, p. 128.
Haight, Case for Grace-Filled Naturalism, p. 286.