In the 19th century, two important Roman pronouncements gave it an authoritative status from a magisterial viewpoint. Firstly, the First Vatican Council Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius<\/em><\/a> (1870) affirmed the nature\/super-nature distinction as the normative framework for the Roman Catholic faith in the realm of epistemology and in the relationship between reason and faith. Secondly, the encyclical Aeterni Patris<\/em><\/a> (1879) by Leo XIII elevated Thomas Aquinas\u2019 thought (of which the \u201cnature-grace interdependence\u201d is a pillar) as the supreme reference point for Roman Catholic thought. So when we talk about the nature-grace scheme, we are dealing with a fundamental axis of traditional Roman Catholicism with the imprimatur<\/em> (i.e. stamp of approval) of the magisterium.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though well established in magisterial teaching, the \u201cnature-grace interdependence\u201d went through a significant intra-mural discussion in the 20th century.[1]<\/a> The debate was sparked by the \u201cnew theology\u201d (nouvelle th\u00e9ologie<\/em>) and saw the involvement of the best theological minds of Rome, such as Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, and Hans Urs von Balthasar. According to Duffy, \u201cthis \u2018new theology\u2019 marked the end of the static theology of nature and grace that had been in vogue since the era of the Counter-Reformation.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The perception of these new theologians was that, after the Council of Trent, Thomas Aquinas\u2019 account of nature and grace had been hardened to the point of making nature and grace \u201cextrinsic,\u201d i.e. separate, sealed off, apart from one another, resulting in a static outlook of a super-imposition of grace on top of nature. In his seminal work Surnaturel<\/em> (1946) and in subsequent books, De Lubac in particular argued that this rigid interpretation of Thomas Aquinas had brought about a dichotomy between nature and grace, losing therefore the continuity between the two. Nature and grace had become juxtaposed rather than integrated, with grace being associated with a superior degree of nature rather than its original and pervasive matrix. Grace needed to be re-thought of as immanent to nature, as nature was to be re-appreciated as organically open and disposed to grace. According to this view, grace is not added<\/em> to nature as though nature is void of it; rather grace is always <\/em>part of nature as a costitutive element of it. In Henri Bouillard\u2019s terms, grace is the \u201cinfrastructure of nature,\u201d[3]<\/a> not an external addition to it. Grace makes nature what it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the \u201cnew theology,\u201d then, grace is what constitutes nature, even prior to receiving salvation. There is a natural desire for God that is already a manifestation of grace. Nature is already affected by nature as part of what nature is. Grace is primary, not secondary to nature. In De Lubac\u2019s poignant expression: grace is the \u201cheart\u2019s desire\u201d of the natural man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This line of interpretation of the Thomistic tradition was initially seen with suspicion by the Roman Catholic magisterial authorities. Without naming it, Pope Pius XII\u2019s encyclical Humani Generis<\/em><\/a> in 1950 expressed concerns over any possibile re-interpretation of the Thomistic legacy away from the patterns established by Aeterni Patris<\/em>. It is true to say that only fifteen years later, at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)<\/a>, the Roman Catholic Church embraced the main thrust of the new theology\u2019s account of the \u201cnature-grace interdependence\u201d in its positive view of the modern world, in its nuanced yet redemptive understanding of world religions, and in its reiteration of man\u2019s openness to God because of his\/her natural disposition. By updating the traditional teaching on nature and grace, Vatican II \u201cdeveloped\u201d it to overcome the rigid framework inherited from the 19th century and to adopt a more \u201ccatholic\u201d (embracing and inclusive) understanding of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the consequences of this recent move is that sin, already overlooked in the traditional version, has become even less impactful on the overall Roman Catholic theological mindset. If grace is inherent in nature and by definition present in it, sin cannot be thought of as having brought about a radical breach between God and humanity, but only a minor wound in the relationship. Grace was in nature before sin and continues to shape it after sin. If sin is only a serious wound and not a state of spiritual death, then nature and grace intermingle from beginning to end at various levels of intensity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This present-day reinterpretation of the \u201cnature-grace interdependence\u201d that emerged from the \u201cnew theology\u201d and that was subsequently endorsed by Vatican II is the theological background out of which Pope Francis can talk of atheists going to heaven<\/a>, argue that humanity is made of \u201call brothers,\u201d<\/a> regardless their faith in Christ, ask \u201cwho am I to judge?\u201d<\/a> when dealing with people in irregular relationships, say that \u201cGod is in every person\u2019s life,\u201d<\/a> pray with Muslims and people of other religions<\/a> assuming that we pray to the same God, and insist that mission is the joyful willingness to extend the fullness of grace to the world that is already under grace<\/a>. Because of this view, the Gospel appears not to be a message of salvation from God\u2019s judgment, but instead access to a fuller measure of a salvation that is already given to all mankind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All these expressions of the Roman Catholicism of our time find their historical origin and theological legitimacy in the \u201cnature-grace interdependence\u201d whereby grace is pervasively present and active in all aspects of human life, inside and outside of explicitly Christian influences, in presence or absence of a professed faith in Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to this Roman Catholic view, grace is infused in nature from the beginning and will ever be so. The sacraments of the Church infuse more grace in the faithful, but even those who do not receive the seven particular sacraments live in a state of grace because of who they are, i.e. natural creatures of God inherently oriented toward Him. Remember that according to Roman Catholic teaching, there is no distinction between \u201ccommon grace\u201d (i.e. providence) and \u201cspecial grace\u201d (i.e. salvation). This explains the universalist tendency of Rome\u2019s view of salvation, its optimistic outlook on man\u2019s capacity to cooperate with God to merit salvation, and the positive view of human religions as vessels of grace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Roman Catholicism, both accounts of the \u201cnature-grace interdependence,\u201d the \u201cgratia supponit naturam\u201d of the medieval and modern ages and the idea of \u201cgrace as the heart\u2019s desire\u201d in our time, coexist. The Council of Trent (16th century, endorsing the former) and Vatican II (20th century, affirming the latter) are both pillars of Roman Catholic theology. Rome has no static or rigid doctrinal system. It is moving without losing its fundamental commitment concerning \u201cman\u2019s capacity for God,\u201d in spite of sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> I am following in particular the account given by Stephen J. Duffy, The Graced Horizon. Nature and Grace in Modern Catholic Thought<\/em> (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
![\"Share](\"https:\/\/static.hupso.com\/share\/buttons\/dot.png\")
<\/a>