{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03235172127747823, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00829531314807134, 'mean_word_length': 5.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: The Social Gospel in Black and White: American Racial Reform, 1885–1912

agent as fundamentally dependent upon the "grace of the Holy Spirit" (153) but gives little complementary attention to the essential intelligibility of moral norms within Thomas' ethics. This ironically represents a position at some distance from that of Thomas, whose own use of Aristotelian logic, natural science, metaphysics, and ethics stands as the prime example of Christian openness to nonreligious and nondoctrinal sources of truth, however imperfect. Fourth, while C. strives to provide an alternative to "legalism," he does not succeed. When he discusses moral norms, "virtue" is replaced by the language of "eternal law" and "divine plan." The life of virtue thus consists of habitually conforming to the teaching of the Church. "Only exaggerated notions of autonomy require one to dispute legitimate authority in the Church"; the life of Christian virtue, in contrast, recognizes that "the Magisterium faithfully and trustworthily represents the designs of the Eternal Law" (153). C. concentrates on the need to develop habits that will empower us to conform to Catholic moral doctrine rather than on providing us means of discovering what is right in situations marked by unclarity and ambiguity. His "moral realism" is thus not complemented with the sense of modesty and openness that we find in other "moral realists," nor with Thomas' sense that the more we descend into the concrete and particular the less moral certainty we attain (e.g., ST 1-2, q. 91, a. 3, ad 2). C. correctly claims that we need to recover the theocentric nature of the Christian moral life. Yet, unlike Rahner and Lonergan, he never addresses the question of the transposition of Thomas in light of the "turn to the subject." As a result, excessively objectivistic assumptions about revelation and a positivist approach to magisterial authority generate a legalism rather than a truly creative retrieval of Thomistic ethics. C. displays an acute knowledge of Thomas' account of habitus and virtue and is most profitably read by those who seek greater knowledge of this aspect of Thomas' moral thought. Those in search of either a contemporary model for the use of the human sciences and contemporary philosophy within Thomistic virtue theory, or for its deeper contemporary theological grounding, however, will have to look elsewhere.