The Distinctive Unity of the Human Being in Aquinas

This chapter explores the fundamental vision of the human being at the core of Aquinas’ anthropology. Aquinas has typically been construed as defending a fundamentally ‘Aristotelian’ vision of the human being. I show that this label has generated a skewed reading of Aquinas. Accordingly, this chapter does not lay claim to identify what it would take for an anthropology to be authentically ‘Thomistic’. Instead, it makes a proposal concerning what I argue is the ‘guiding vision’ of Aquinas’ anthropology: namely the ‘distinctive unity of the human’. Aquinas prioritizes this notion of distinctive unity in the different areas of his anthropology. I explore how this distinctive unity is expressed (a) in Aquinas’ account of the human soul as the ‘horizon’ of the bodily and spiritual worlds, and (b) in his definition of the human being as ‘rational animal’.

The Reception of Thomas Aquinas by Neo-Scholastic Philosophers in the First Half of the Twentieth Century

Thomism at the beginning of the twentieth century was situated largely within the context of the secular university that regarded medieval thought as nothing more than an archaic system belonging to a period devoid of philosophical reflection. The renewal of Thomism during the first two decades of the twentieth century was of very little concern to most academics and was marked principally by a debate, often polemical, over the theory of knowledge launched by Blondel. The Thomists of the period between the two world wars wanted to bring Thomism to the university scene and into the public arena by addressing contemporary questions in terms provided by Thomas Aquinas, while affirming that philosophy gains in depth and strength when it is rooted in theology and faith. Gilson developed a historical approach of medieval philosophy and theology, while Maritain and Pieper proposed to rethink contemporary problems analytically according to the method of Thomas Aquinas.

Seventeenth-Century Catholic Reception Outside the de auxiliis Controversy

Seventeenth-century Thomists, with the exception of John of St Thomas, are today virtually unknown. Nevertheless, in their day they contributed to the Catholic reception of the thought of the Angelic Doctor not only by continuation of the commentarial tradition but also by engaging in the intramural Catholic debates in which the Holy See intervened. After introducing the reader to some of the more prominent Thomists of the century, this chapter outlines some Thomist responses to intramural Catholic debates concerning the formation of conscience in light of probable opinions, the nature of our desire for the beatific vision and its compatibility with love of God above self, and the role of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

Fifteenth-Century Eastern Reception of Aquinas

The Eastern reception of Aquinas in the fifteenth century was determined by the theological repercussions that occurred in Byzantium in the preceding century, namely the association of Thomism with Barlaamism and Akindynism (the denial of a real distinction between God’s essence and energies or of God’s having energies at all), the use of Aristotle’s syllogistic theory in establishing the Filioque, and the vision of God’s essence in statu patriae. Nevertheless, Aquinas’ two Summae were used and tacitly excerpted (in the translations of the brothers Kydones) by Palamite theologians for settling other theological matters, whereas there was an open vindication of Aquinas both as a philosopher and as a reliable guide in the exposition of the Scriptures by George Scholarios (Patriarch Gennadios II).

Jesus Christ

Historical research has confirmed that there can be no doubt of the importance of Jesus Christ to Aquinas’ faith, devotion, and theological enterprise. This scholarship has exposed the faults of unsympathetic portrayals of his Christology as docetic or Monophysite, and presented his doctrine of the incarnation afresh, particularly by manifesting its distinctiveness in context and its maturation over time. In this way Aquinas’ Christology has been made available for reception in contemporary Christology in a way that goes beyond the recounting of the history of medieval theology. For those who share his confession of faith, the tasks of contemporary Christology can benefit from the enduring worth of many of his conclusions, the arguments employed, and his organization of material. Such a reception can retrieve a sense of fundamental continuity in Christology, of how Christ is unlike as well as like us, and of the bearing this has on our salvation.

The Contemporary Reception of Aquinas on the Natural Knowledge of God

This chapter considers key themes from Thomas Aquinas’ view of the natural knowledge of God, or natural theology, from the opening of his Summa theologiae. It is written from the perspective of Reformed theology, which has traditionally supported natural theology of a certain kind, despite its recent reputation as an opponent of natural theology. According to Thomas, natural theology is insufficient for salvation and is inevitably laden with errors apart from the help of supernatural revelation. But human reason, operating properly, can demonstrate the existence and certain attributes of God from the natural order, and this natural knowledge constitutes preambles to the articles of the Christian faith. The chapter thus engages in a critically sympathetic analysis of these themes and suggests how a contemporary reception of Thomas might appropriate them effectively.

Sixteenth-Century Reception of Aquinas by Cajetan

Thomas de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534) was a uniquely gifted Thomistic philosopher, theologian, biblical exegete, and churchman. His reception of Aquinas holds a meridian place in intellectual history because of the profundity his Thomistic commentaries manifest in their pages and the influence his writings exercised in Catholic life and thought. Cajetan’s was an intensive reception of Aquinas’ universal and necessary first principles. And this intensive reception proceeded according to two movements of concrete application: a defensive movement that responds to the objections of Aquinas’ critics, and an extensive movement that applies Aquinas’ principles to the questions and controversies of his own fifteenth- and sixteenth-century period. Cajetan’s philosophical, theological, and exegetical work received their shape from the fundamental first principles that governed Aquinas’ own thought. Finally, Cajetan’s reception of Aquinas accounts for both the manner and the significance of his ecclesial service in early modern history.

Duns Scotus and William of Ockham

Duns Scotus and William of Ockham engage with Aquinas’ thought in fundamentally negative ways. They never make distinctively Thomist positions their own, and when they use Aquinas’ thought, they do so merely as a way of sharpening their own theologies through the dialectical process of rejecting an opponent’s view. This chapter first considers the role of Aquinas’ thought in Scotus’ teaching on religious language and univocity, divine simplicity and omnipresence, the Trinity, cognitive theory, the question of the first object of cognition, angelic individuation, the beatific vision, the plurality of substantial forms, free will, and normative ethics. A second section discusses Aquinas’ place in Ockham’s teaching on common natures, intuitive cognition, divine ideas, and the nature of grace.

The Contemporary Reception of St Thomas on Law and Politics

The reception of Thomistic political and legal philosophy is considered with respect to what is called ‘political liberalism’. The appeal to a hypothetical state of nature should be rejected, as it misconstrues the social nature of human beings. Aquinas’ account of the origin of political society starts from an interpretation of human nature. On this basis one can account for human rights, the importance of the right to religious liberty, the family as the basic cell of society, civil society as including subsidiary authorities, the importance of private property, and the nature and role of freedom. A key question for the continued flourishing of a free society is what practically enables persons to govern for the genuine good of others.

Saint Thomas and His Sources

St Thomas’s sources are to be found in the ‘authorities’ he quotes; he uses them according to precise criteria that make it possible to put them in a hierarchy. First, citations from the Bible have an authority that is absolute in principle. The argument from authority is the weakest of all in human reason, but it is the most efficacious if it is based on divine revelation. Second, the authority of the Fathers of the Church is great in the realm of faith, but not in other matters; they are susceptible to an expositio reverentialis. Third, when they speak the truth, the authorities of human reason represented by the philosophers likewise carry weight, since reason is not in itself contrary to faith. Since grace does not destroy nature, it is legitimate to have recourse to the philosophers. Thomas holds them in high regard, and the manner in which he behaves in respect to them remains exemplary for us all, whether we be philosophers or theologians.