Joshua Brotherton

Every Catholic theologian is aware of the Grundaxiom that grace does not destroy nature but, rather, presupposes and perfects it by healing and elevating it. However, it seems that many forgot to pay attention to the implications of this principle for certain debates in recent centuries, such as what ought to be the proper relationship between the Church, primarily considered in terms of its hierarchical authority, and civil society (especially, the modern nation-state). Leaving aside the details of the relevant debates in political philosophy and theology as well as the polemics regarding interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, this essay purports to make a simple application of this nature–grace principle (as found in perennial Christian intellectual tradition) to the project of reconciling the development of secular society with a theology that maintains the essential rights of the Church in the world, which characterized much of Jacques Maritain’s career. In response to Thomas Pink’s critique especially, I defend Maritain’s pertinent proposal on the basis of the view that ecclesiastical and civil realities ought to be distinguished and related to each other in a way that mirrors the relationship between the supernatural and natural orders of reality as such.

"The goal of this volume is to revise Hans Urs von Balthasar's theology of divine suffering, that is, his disputed discourse on the descent of Christ into hell and its implications for the Triune God, according to a robust contemporary Catholic theology. In order to accomplish such an appropriation, I have recourse not only to twentieth-century Thomistic theology, but also to the thought of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II. I seek to engage the best of the vast relevant secondary literature on Balthasar and to offer a balanced assessment of his work on the topic of divine suffering, both critical and appreciative in different respects. I argue for a peculiar interpretation of Balthasar's take on Holy Saturday and for a more refined use of language in theological discourse than is typical of his sometimes-hyperbolic style. Recognizing his laudable attempt to integrate mystical spirituality and systematic theology, I seek to distinguish valid insights from confused mixtures of metaphorical, meta-symbolic, and philosophical discourse on God, particularly, with respect to the classical problem of how the Creator who willed to become incarnate may be said to suffer. Truly, "One of the Trinity has suffered," and yet this is mystery of faith that ought to be carefully explained and understood in conformity with sustained Catholic reflection on divine immutability and simplicity, the dual nature and unique personhood of Christ, the Trinity of divine subsistent relations, the freedom of God in creating and becoming man, the analogy of being, the problem of evil, and the immensity and infinite value of Christ's redemptive suffering"--

The so-called ontological argument has a complex and controverted history, rising to particular prominence in contemporary analytic philosophy. Against this backdrop I will present a non-analytic interpretation of ontological argumentation for God’s existence by attempting to fuse Anselmian and Gödelian perspectives. I defend ontological argumentation in a number of slightly variant forms as neither a priori nor a posteriori, but ab actu exercito. Kantian and especially Thomistic critiques are confronted in the course of explaining how ontological argumentation may be logically valid without depending on or yielding to subjectivist epistemologies. Hence, post-Gödelian ontological argumentation ought to be acceptable to realists.