I don't think Gilson was ever heavily involved with the nouvelle theologie. He supported Henri de Lubac's work on grace and nature, and some of the letters between the two have actually been published, but that's about it.
I really disagree with this. I think Gilson is often considered, at least in part, one of the key players of the movement.
The wiki article on Nouvelle Theologie states:
The theologians usually associated with Nouvelle Théologie are Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Louis Bouyer, Étienne Gilson, Jean Daniélou, Jean Mouroux and Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).
I could be wrong, but I don't see Gilson mentioned that often in discussions of the
nouvelle theologie. I think the big names tend to be people like Balthasar, Lubac, Rahner, Chenu, Congar, Schillebeeckx, and so forth.
However, I suppose it is possible that Gilson's interpretation of St. Thomas, which broke with the neo-scholastics on at least a few points, might have been important in the development of the
nouvelle theologie, especially when you consider the fact that theologians were often lumped in with the
nouvelle theologie because of their opposition to at least some aspects of neo-scholasticism rather than as a result of any shared positive elements in their work. I think I've posted this before, but here is Gilson giving his opinion of certain scholastic theologians and philosophers:
People conjure up a Thomism after the manner of the Schools, a sort of dull rationalism which panders to the kind of deism that most of them, deep down, really prefer to teach.
He also accused them of creating a "brew of watered-down
philosophica aristotelico thomistica concocted to give off a vague deism fit only for the use of right-thinking candidates for high school diplomas and Arts degrees."
