Neoscholastics and Veritatis Splendor 7

[CrossofChrist]

I’m wondering how Neoscholastics who rule out the natural desire for a supernatural end interpret the following:

1. “Then someone came to him…”. In the young man, whom Matthew’s Gospel does not name, we can recognize every person who, consciously or not, approaches Christ the Redeemer of man and questions him about morality. For the young man, the question is not so much about rules to be followed, but about the full meaning of life.** This is in fact the aspiration at the heart of every human decision and action,** the quiet searching and interior prompting which sets freedom in motion. This question is ultimately an appeal to the absolute Good which attracts us and beckons us; it is the echo of a call from God who is the origin and goal of man’s life. Precisely in this perspective the Second Vatican Council called for a renewal of moral theology, so that its teaching would display the lofty vocation which the faithful have received in Christ,14 the only response fully capable of satisfying the desire of the human heart.

It seems to me that the above favors an interpretation that presupposes a natural desire for the beatific vision with Christ (Jesu joy of man’s desiring ).

 

[thinkandmull]

That quote merely says that the moral vocation is what they heart is searching for. I’ve seen quotes similar to this since Vatican II, but they don’t really contradict Scholastics.

Its a matter of overflowing the human heart. Without the beatific vision, the heart can still overflow. It can ache for more, and yet be satisfied in the sense that nothing more is required in order to satisfy justice.

This whole issue between scholastics and new theology really boils down to nothing when analyzed.

Maybe I’ll find my quotes from Aquinas on this issue and post latter this week again

 

[CrossofChrist]

That quote merely says that the moral vocation is what they heart is searching for. I’ve seen quotes similar to this since Vatican II, but they don’t really contradict Scholastics.

It says the question of the full meaning of life is at the heart of every human action, and that meaning is the only thing capable of satisfying the heart’s desire…The full meaning of life is supernatural communion with God.

I don’t understand how that is compatible with the idea that the desire for the beatific vision is only elicited by the introduction of sanctifying grace (at least that’s what I see the neoscholastic view as being).