Perspectief 2013-20

60 Second, evangelical Catholicism’s view of nature and grace, as adumbrated above, is critically different from the received view of Counter-Reformation Catholicism. Weigel overlooks the latter, particularly its tendency to exaggerate the distinction between nature and grace, a tendency that contributed to the secularization of culture. Briefly, in overreaction to what it perceived as the tendency to the extreme pessimism - say, man’s nature is merely a corrupt vessel - of the Protestant Reformers, Counter-Reformation Catholics emphasized that the abiding normative structures of creation remained what God originally made them to be. This emphasis led to misinterpreting the Thomistic maxim “Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it”. It minimized the effects of sin within the abiding order of creation, and hence since creation requires little or no internal healing and renewal, suggested that grace is just an add-on, a plus factor, erected alongside or above nature as if to say that “it is better for a man to enjoy grace in addition to nature, although nature would be perfectly complete without it” (Eric Mascall). Being understood as a “plus factor” suggests that man can not only do well without the Gospel of Jesus Christ but also can disregard it with impunity. By contrast, evangelical Catholicism holds that grace presupposes nature, and hence grace does not abolish nature but perfects and fulfills it, being as such the “very material in which grace works and for whose ultimate perfection grace itself exists” (to quote Mascall again). In the words of Joseph Ratzinger: “In fact the Cross is not the destruction of man, but rather the foundation of true humanity about which the New Testament says the unfathomably beautiful words: ‘The goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared’ (Tit. 3:4). The humanity of God, this is indeed the true humanity of man, the grace that fulfills nature”. On this matter especially, the Reformed readership of Comment should have much in common with Evangelical Catholicism. Last, Weigel rightly says that “Evangelical Catholicism enters the public square with the voice of reason, grounded in Gospel conviction”. This claim should be of interest to those who are committed to a “public theology for the common good”, as the subtitle of Comment states. Weigel is persuaded that integral evangelization will not make any headway in pluralistic democracies if it loses the intellectual argument, and hence Christian witness in the public square must use the language of reason. Serious argument exercised in civility “is the lifeblood of democracy”. He adds: “If you want an argument to be heard, engaged and accepted, you make it in a language that those you are seeking to persuade can understand”. Significantly, there is also an epistemological point here about rationality, namely “calling the bluff of those who insist that the Catholic Church’s teaching on such issues as abortion, euthanasia and marriage are ‘sectarian’ teachings that cannot be ‘imposed’ on a pluralistic society”. Rather, there are philosophical arguments drawing on the “grammar of reason”, in principle “accessible to all, whatever their theological location and even, indeed, when they lack any religious conviction”. Reformed Christians, with their doctrine of common grace, should find some sympathy for Weigel’s claim. In this light the evangelical Catholic defends and promotes, in virtue of the common good, the dignity of the human person, bearing witness to truths that in principle can be heard by everyone. “Only religious and secular sectarians”, epistemologically speaking, “will find a contradiction here”. I heartily recommend Weigel’s book to Comment’s readers.