Milbank asks the intriguing question of whether de Lubac’s surnaturel thesis “rather deconstructs the terms of the Schleiermacher/Barth divide.” He appears to mean that the polarization of Schleiermacher’s “intrinicism” and Barth’s “extrinicisim” is dissolved by de Lubac’s Thomist understand of nature and grace. To adopt, for the moment, an idiom I shy away from: The supernatural is there in the natural (as Schleiermacher would insist), but the natural is only what it is by extending beyond itself to the supernatural, and so we cannot simply take the natural “as it is.” The supernatural is sheer grace (as Barth would insist), but it fulfills rather than contradicts our humanism.
Again, this whole set of questions needs to be disturbed by a clear understanding of sin.
Moral Certitude and the Iran War
The current military engagement with Iran calls renewed attention to just war theory in the Catholic tradition.…
The Slow Death of England: New and Notable Books
The fate of England is much in the news as popular resistance to mass immigration grows, limits…
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…