Henri de Lubac has received criticism in his take of nature and grace. He is accused of falling into intrinicism, the idea that the whole world is sacramental and therefore human nature is already supernatural the moment creation comes into existence. I have only read one of deLubac’s works, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, but in that work specifically, I find the criticism unfounded.
de Lubac begins the work by differentiating between nature and supernatural. He is clear in his assessment that there is a difference between nature and the supernatural. Not only a difference, but that they are of “a different order”[1]. The supernatural is not something from the outside superimposed on nature, but it is something of an entirely different order. We are not emptied of our human nature and absorbed into the supernatural; instead, it is found within us (but does not come from us).[2] The supernatural is an entire transformation of nature. de Lubac quotes Maurice Blondel at length explaining that the supernatural is “an adoption, an assimilation, an incorporation, a consortium, a transformation which, through the bond of charity, insures both the union and the distinction of two incommensurables”[3]. In summation, de Lubac says that the nature-supernatural “must be thought of at the outset as a relationship of opposition, of spiritual otherness and of infinite distance; but that if man so wills, it resolves itself finally in an association of intimate union.”[4]
de Lubac goes on to explain that due to the distinction between nature and the supernatural, humanity must adopt an attitude of humility. He insists that humility is not “merely a moral virtue, but [is] a fundamental disposition upon which the entire edifice rests.”[5] The humility that de Lubac is referencing is in humanity’s disposition before the supernatural; it “consists in in accepting that individual reason is ruled by eternal reason”.[6] This humility calls man to recognize that despite man’s best efforts, he cannot work or think himself into being supernatural.[7] The pendulum need not swing all the way in the other direction and say that man is merely an animal; instead, the humility de Lubac calls for is one that leads man to “accept his condition as a creature…”[8] Man needs to recognize that just as he did not create himself in nature, he does not make himself supernatural; rather, in both cases, “God is still the one at work”.[9]
Having defined the difference between nature and the supernatural, as well as the humility called for by the distinction, de Lubac presses on toward a discussion of nature and grace. The distinction between nature and grace is “much more radical” than the difference between nature and the supernatural.[10] de Lubac explains, “Between sinful human nature and divine grace we have not only a dissimilarity, a heterogeneity between two orders of being, an infinite distance that man alone cannot bridge… Between grace and sin the struggle is irreconcilable.”[11] Why is this? According to de Lubac, sin is not merely the “refusal to abide by a law, even a divine law, but a refusal of God’s invitation to share his life.”[12] He emphasizes the point further by quoting Bouillard, “…sin is not only a relative imperfection, but a rupture; not just a mistake, but a breaking away from God that divides man against himself.”[13] The depth of this rupture cannot be understood apart from God’s grace. Cugno explains, “There is no knowledge of sin save in the pardon we receive for it… Sin is not so much something that cripples us as something from which God delivers us… but there can be no liberation unless we are delivered from something. That ‘something’ is sin.”[14]
The call of grace is more than just adding “Christian” to the box that is checked on a survey, or adding church to the list of Sunday activities. Instead, de Lubac explains that the call of grace is “a summons to a ‘total upheaval’, to a ‘conversion’… Faith… restores our being by ‘overturning it completely’.”[15] He goes on to say that the change in the interior life upon hearing the Gospel must affect “all dimension and penetrates even to the depths of one’s existence’.”[16] This is not something man accomplishes himself, but rather is the grace of God. “The supernatural… is not a ‘supernature’ with its own consistency and its own subsistence… nor does it eliminate [human] nature. It neither disdains nor replaces it. It informs it, remolds it; if necessary, it can exorcise it…; it transfigures it in all of its concepts and activities.”[17] Nature and the supernatural have been joined in an intimate union in dependence on the two natures in Christ[18]; therefore the “union of nature and grace can be fully accomplished only through the mystery of redemption.”[19]
Based solely on my reading of A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, I do not see room for the critique of intrinsicism. His definition of nature and supernature distinguishes from the very beginning that man is not supernatural. He explains that although the supernatural can be within us, it is not something that comes from us. He then goes on to explain the humility required of Christianity; humility that acknowledges our creaturely status. If we were not distinct from the supernatural, what would be the purpose of such humility? Why would we need to accept our creaturehood if, in being creation, we were innately supernatural as intrinsicism argues? This point is further emphasized in his treatment of sin and grace. Not only is the gap between nature and supernatural far, the gap between sin and grace is irreconcilable from the creaturely side. There must be a union of the supernatural and natural (only found in the grace of Jesus Christ) that transforms human nature. de Lubac states, “We must not imagine that man can make the journey to God with ease… We must keep in mind the natural heterogeneity distinguishing God and man… There is an abyss that must be bridged… And to make us his, to make us over into himself, there is a trial, a transformation in love that must be suffered and willed, so that this incommunicable One may communicate himself without ceasing to be himself and without our ceasing to be ourselves…”[20]
[1] Cf. de Lubac, Surnaturel, 428 as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 29
[2] Maurice Blondel, Exigences philosophiques du christianisme, 162 as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 29
[3] Maurice Blondel, Exigences philosophiques du christianisme, 58 as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 29
[4] Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 49
[5] Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 55
[6] Joseph Ratzinger, “Je crois en Dieu”, as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 59
[7] J. Beaufret, L’Etre et le neant, as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 60
[8] Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 61
[9] Claude Tresmontant, La Mystique chretienne et l’avenir de Phomme, 179-82 as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 61
[10] Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 119
[11] Ibid.
[12] Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 169
[13] Bouillard, “L’Idee de surnaturel”, as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 130
[14] Alain Cugno, Saint Jean de la Croix, as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 132
[15] M. Clavel, Ce que je crois, 290 as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 119
[16] Cf. Karl Lehmann, Communio, 2-7 as cited in Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 121
[17] Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 86
[18] Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 85
[19] Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 122
[20] Henri de Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, 83