Abstract
Planned as a three-way comparison of the philosophical foundations of Étienne Gilson, Joseph Ratzinger, and Bernard Lonergan, the project became an analysis, comparison, and evaluation of Gilson and Lonergan when a coauthor withdrew. Ormerod moves beyond the Thomists to consider how they could meet the challenges of Radical Orthodoxy and the New Atheists. His thesis is that “Lonergan’s project both survives the Gilsonian critique of the turn to the subject, and is ‘rationally superior’ (in the sense given by MacIntyre) to the position of Gilson inasmuch as Lonergan can address questions raised by modern science more effectively than Gilson” (32).
Two chapters are devoted to clear, solid analytical expositions of Gilson and Lonergan. O. focuses on the contextual problems that shaped their approaches, their epistemologies, and their uses of natural theology. A chapter of “dialogue” between the two positions follows. O.’s thesis rests on his claim that Gilson’s historically oriented project does not distinguish description from explanation, while Lonergan’s science-influenced project does and is thus more useful. The final chapter confronts the challenges noted above.
O.’s project tends to essentialize “faith” and “reason.” His text ignores the extensive discussions in recent Anglo-American and continental thought. One also wonders how the quarter-century-old Society of Christian Philosophers could possibly function without such a theoretical foundation as O. provides. Yet within the limits of the project, O. usefully reminds us of what is at stake in the differences between Gilson’s and Lonergan’s project. He also glances at Benedict XVI’s “Regensberg Speech” and John Paul II’s “Fides et Ratio,” correcting misunderstandings of the former and appreciating contributions of the latter.