"For an animal such as man, what is natural is affirmed by culture." Or, perversely, not affirmed by culture.

"money and the resurrection are opposed as two systems of possibility:  the system of the virtual and the system of the living.  I am using the word 'virtual' in a very specific [negative] sense that does not encompass all sorts of virtuality or fiction:  there is a good virtuality and even an excellent kind of dreaming that turns us away from reality only to lead us back more deeply into it.  The idea that we would relate immediately and perfectly to existence from the start is the fantasy of people who are sickened by their excessive consumption of artificial things.  For an animal such as man, what is natural is affirmed by culture.  We need myths in order to enter into the logic of the living.  We need fairy tales in order to become realists.  And, in order to reach the soul of reality, we need what at first glance may seem to be a fairy tale but is really the Fact that surpasses all accounting—what may seem to be a myth but is the adventure of the Logos himself:  the News about the Nazarene who died and rose again in Judea during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.
     "What I am calling 'virtual' here refers instead to 'virtual reality,' in other words, to the opposite of myth, poetry, and novels:  a virtuality that tends to substitute itself for reality and to exert its influence over it.  Digital technology is in fact the ultimate stage of cash.  The digitalization of the world through the Internet is the final step in the monetization of the world through money."

     Fabrice Hadjadj, The resurrection:  experience life in the risen Christ, trans. Michael J. Miller (Paris:  Magnificat, 2016;  Résurrection:  mode d'emploi, Paris:  Magnificat, 2016), 41-42.  I'm interested in the claim in the headline (which strikes me as eminently Thomistic), but have set it in context.