"It seems to me", he says, "a waste of power and shot to try to show with immense labour that this or the other detail in the gospel narrative may after all be historical when a generation of scholars have concluded that it isn't. The real and important truth remains /whatever the status as history/ of the story in which it is represented."
In Heythrop Journal 25 1984, there is a fascinating lecture given by John Macquarrie (I read part of it). The interesting bit though, seems to be around p282, where Rahner responds with questions to Macquarrie. These questions seem to sum up some of what I am going to have to write in the R&R exam. It has led me to the thought (although not explicitly stated by Rahner) that the position one takes on natural theology depends on how one reads Thomas. If one reads Thomas so as to suggest that Barth changes his mind, as in Rahner's second qn to Macquarrie: "Wd you claim that Barth maintained his objection (as formulated in his earlier writings), or that there came a slight change in his attitude, which eventually brought him closer to the classical Thomistic position?", then one might be led to conclude that "classical Thomism" for Rahner assumes a natural law position. So the argument becomes, "whose Thomas?", because the way that I've been taught to read Thomas allows for some Barthian slippage re. the analogia entis, but it doesn't allow for the possibility of knowing anything of God, reasoning from humans "without the admixture of many errors". Might it be possible to conclude with Rahner that Barth goes too far in denying analogia entis (which he never defines), and yet with Thomas, that even if one doesn't deny the analogia entis, there is only so far that one can get alone?
"As Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have argued in their Empire, American neo-Roman imperialism works by a constant subsumption and inclusion of "others," such that difference is apparently welcomed, yet actually subordinated to an unremitting uniformity. This subsumption coincides with an obliteration of the older distinction between colonies as the extracapitalist sources of "primary accumulation" and the fully capitalized home markets. Now all comes to be within the unrestricted one world market."
(First bit cd be useful for gender comparison w/ von-B, because this is what I think he does...)