Excellent piece. Finally, an erudite, informed and critical piece. I like some of RO’s ideas, but sometimes worry that they go too far to deny the work that philosophy can do for the faith. Vatican I affirmed that reason can discover many important truths consistent with the faith, or of the faith. That I found troubling with Milbank. Now Rowland attacks thomists and commends them to be augustinians, but I wonder why if God would not, in his mystical Body, have some members work to engage secular thinking and its contribution, whereas others are of a more, theological mindset? The Lord raised both Francis and Dominic, and the latter gave us Aquinas. Although Rowland speaks of thomistic participation as Milbank does, they don’t seem to realise that Aquinas worked hard to re-express those ideas in Aristotelian discourse, and the question needs to be asked why? Why did Aquinas both to speak of act and potency when dealing with the participation of esse? Well, an interesting thing to note is that potency is distinct from nothingness and act. OK but the point is that there is good secular thinking, and not everything developed by non-Catholics is useless trash.