First, your major point is sound. The crisis in politics manifests a deeper crisis in cosmology. I worry, however, about your interpretation of Aquinas through Suarez that constitutes part of the problem rather than solving it.
For Aquinas, it seems to me that nature and grace are both two different realms and not two different realms at all. Creation is ex nihilo -- and thus always already graced, not necessary, as you so wisely write. It is not an "event in time" -- but it is an "emanation" of God, from whom, for whom, and to whom are all things. Natural law is not a distinct realm apart by grace, but that by which rational creatures may participate in the Divine Law. Aquinas's Aristotle is a relentless Platonist.
Humans, for Aquinas, aren't created "in the image of God" -- he follows the Vulgate (and most likely the original Hebrew and Greek). Humans are created TO the image of God, i.e., Jesus Christ, the fullness of the image of God. It is a graced, Christ-infused teleology that is very Augustinian. "The image of God" is not a "human possession" that grants particular "universal human rights." It is a grace-infused life that is open to pursue its end in Christ that should not be short-circuited but more intensely participated in through participation in God through the sacramental life of the church.
I obviously don't belong to the neo-scholastic Thomist interpretation that finds its origins in Suarez, but the neo-Platonic Thomas as explicated by Rudi te Velde. It is why natural law must itself find its origin in God, who is always already Triune. Degrees of participation may vary. I'm not sure the difference that this makes for the legal interpretation of "natural law." I merely have an intuition that it does.
Thank you for your work. I don't want to undercut the gist of the book. I would hope that my interpretation of Thomas strengthens rather than diminishes your main point.
The book is just a volume of collected essays on various topics. I disagree very much with one of the essays in the volume in fact. The purpose of the St. Basil Institute is to bring together scholars of various different opinions on the theology of creation to have discussions.
As to the substance of your critique, I will start by noting that my interpretation actually differs significantly from Suarez here. For Suarez, God creates a natural law that follows upon the creation of natures, so law is something extrinsic to natures, even if necessarily following upon them. However, for Thomas, the created nature itself is caused by the eternal law. I'd highly recommend The Light that Binds by Stephen Brock on this point.
As to the relation of nature and grace, I think you're reading into the article more than I put there. I agree with you on the ordering of nature to grace. As I wrote in the article, "Furthermore, we see through divine revelation how God’s intention in creating the world was ultimately to elevate it through grace." My point about the distinction between nature and grace is epistemological. I agree with you entirely that in the order of intention, Christ is first and so nature is for the sake of grace. This essay is actually based on a part of my MA capstone paper, and in another part of the same paper I will argue for an essentially theological purpose for natural law within divine providence.
While you're right that the natural law finds its origins in the Triune God, Thomas's argument for natural law never cites any articles on the Trinity. You can follow through the line of citations from II-II q. 94 all the way back to I q. 5 as I have done to see this. Once we understand in light of Christ that the natural law is ultimately made for the sake of the new law, which itself requires God to be Trinitarian because of the incarnation, then we see that the Trinity is relevant to natural law, but I think we have to distinguish philosophy and theology properly here (even if not separating them).
Also, the neo-scholastic interpretation of Thomas you critique (rightly), is not found first in Suarez, but is at least as early as Cajetan. See my recent paper on my academia page about the baptism of Jewish children. Cajetan's critique of Scotus on this point completely rips apart nature and grace. Many Scotists pointed this out (I cite Faber as one such example), so it's not a modern insight. Many late scholastics opposed the separation of nature and grace.
Thank you for your careful response. Please forgive me for over-reading. I have begun, but not finished, The Light that Binds. I will read it with renewed interest.
We are much in agreement. Obviously you have a wonderful command of the material that I do not possess -- I have not worked through the primary texts in the early modern reception of Thomas but only the 20th and 21st century secondary texts.
How to distinguish between philosophy and theology in Thomas without separating them into two distinct realms becomes a difficult task, one that I cannot claim to have solved.
Finally, let me confess a fear. I often see Thomas's "Treatise on Law" packaged independently of the Summa. Because Law is a theological topic, I fear that students of law can receive his treatise on the Law with a presupposition of the "independence" of Law from Thomas's instructions on how to speak of God well.
Thank you for your explication and kindness. Best wishes in your scholarship and studies.
This is an unexpected but delightful crossover post between some of my favorite public intellectuals - The Editors of the New Digest, and The Byzantine Scotist. Bravo! Can't wait to pick up the book.
It would be a great improvement if Western societies would merely enforce their laws as written rather than the anarcho-tyranny we live under. Let's start there, then make laws based on the Eternal Law of God.
First, your major point is sound. The crisis in politics manifests a deeper crisis in cosmology. I worry, however, about your interpretation of Aquinas through Suarez that constitutes part of the problem rather than solving it.
For Aquinas, it seems to me that nature and grace are both two different realms and not two different realms at all. Creation is ex nihilo -- and thus always already graced, not necessary, as you so wisely write. It is not an "event in time" -- but it is an "emanation" of God, from whom, for whom, and to whom are all things. Natural law is not a distinct realm apart by grace, but that by which rational creatures may participate in the Divine Law. Aquinas's Aristotle is a relentless Platonist.
Humans, for Aquinas, aren't created "in the image of God" -- he follows the Vulgate (and most likely the original Hebrew and Greek). Humans are created TO the image of God, i.e., Jesus Christ, the fullness of the image of God. It is a graced, Christ-infused teleology that is very Augustinian. "The image of God" is not a "human possession" that grants particular "universal human rights." It is a grace-infused life that is open to pursue its end in Christ that should not be short-circuited but more intensely participated in through participation in God through the sacramental life of the church.
I obviously don't belong to the neo-scholastic Thomist interpretation that finds its origins in Suarez, but the neo-Platonic Thomas as explicated by Rudi te Velde. It is why natural law must itself find its origin in God, who is always already Triune. Degrees of participation may vary. I'm not sure the difference that this makes for the legal interpretation of "natural law." I merely have an intuition that it does.
Thank you for your work. I don't want to undercut the gist of the book. I would hope that my interpretation of Thomas strengthens rather than diminishes your main point.
Thank you for this. A few brief points.
The book is just a volume of collected essays on various topics. I disagree very much with one of the essays in the volume in fact. The purpose of the St. Basil Institute is to bring together scholars of various different opinions on the theology of creation to have discussions.
As to the substance of your critique, I will start by noting that my interpretation actually differs significantly from Suarez here. For Suarez, God creates a natural law that follows upon the creation of natures, so law is something extrinsic to natures, even if necessarily following upon them. However, for Thomas, the created nature itself is caused by the eternal law. I'd highly recommend The Light that Binds by Stephen Brock on this point.
As to the relation of nature and grace, I think you're reading into the article more than I put there. I agree with you on the ordering of nature to grace. As I wrote in the article, "Furthermore, we see through divine revelation how God’s intention in creating the world was ultimately to elevate it through grace." My point about the distinction between nature and grace is epistemological. I agree with you entirely that in the order of intention, Christ is first and so nature is for the sake of grace. This essay is actually based on a part of my MA capstone paper, and in another part of the same paper I will argue for an essentially theological purpose for natural law within divine providence.
While you're right that the natural law finds its origins in the Triune God, Thomas's argument for natural law never cites any articles on the Trinity. You can follow through the line of citations from II-II q. 94 all the way back to I q. 5 as I have done to see this. Once we understand in light of Christ that the natural law is ultimately made for the sake of the new law, which itself requires God to be Trinitarian because of the incarnation, then we see that the Trinity is relevant to natural law, but I think we have to distinguish philosophy and theology properly here (even if not separating them).
Also, the neo-scholastic interpretation of Thomas you critique (rightly), is not found first in Suarez, but is at least as early as Cajetan. See my recent paper on my academia page about the baptism of Jewish children. Cajetan's critique of Scotus on this point completely rips apart nature and grace. Many Scotists pointed this out (I cite Faber as one such example), so it's not a modern insight. Many late scholastics opposed the separation of nature and grace.
Thank you for your careful response. Please forgive me for over-reading. I have begun, but not finished, The Light that Binds. I will read it with renewed interest.
We are much in agreement. Obviously you have a wonderful command of the material that I do not possess -- I have not worked through the primary texts in the early modern reception of Thomas but only the 20th and 21st century secondary texts.
How to distinguish between philosophy and theology in Thomas without separating them into two distinct realms becomes a difficult task, one that I cannot claim to have solved.
Finally, let me confess a fear. I often see Thomas's "Treatise on Law" packaged independently of the Summa. Because Law is a theological topic, I fear that students of law can receive his treatise on the Law with a presupposition of the "independence" of Law from Thomas's instructions on how to speak of God well.
Thank you for your explication and kindness. Best wishes in your scholarship and studies.
John
This is an unexpected but delightful crossover post between some of my favorite public intellectuals - The Editors of the New Digest, and The Byzantine Scotist. Bravo! Can't wait to pick up the book.
Glad you liked it! His talks on Suarez, available on YouTube, are terrific.
It would be a great improvement if Western societies would merely enforce their laws as written rather than the anarcho-tyranny we live under. Let's start there, then make laws based on the Eternal Law of God.