Thomas Aquinas's Summa theologiae

by Bernard McGinn

  In the decades since 1974 the official voice of Roman Catholicism has continued to recommend Thomas Aquinas, but in a different way from what was found between 1879 and 1965. The new Code of Canon Law promulgated under Pope John Paul II in 1983 speaks of Thomas as a teacher especially endowed for leading students into the depths of the mysteries of salvation, though without any insistence on the supremacy of the Angelic Doctor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church issued in 1994 refers to Thomas sixty-one times, especially from the Summa theologiae, second only to Augustine, who is cited eighty-seven times. The most important recent papal document for the revised status of Thomas is the 1998 Encyclical Fides et Ratio of John Paul II, himself a former professor of philosophy. Several times in the document John Paul refers back to Aeterni Patris as a model for his thinking, but there is also an evident contrast between Leo’s encyclical and John Paul’s. John Paul insists that while there is a necessary connection between theology and philosophical reasoning, there can be no single philosophy taught by the Church. Speaking of Christian philosophy, he says, “[T]he term is valid, but it should not be misunderstood: it in no way suggests that there is an official philosophy of the Church, since faith as such is not a philosophy. The term seeks rather to indicate a Christian way of philosophizing.”2 Many forms of philosophy are useful, though none is totally adequate. Thomas’s thought is mentioned with approval more often than others,3 but only as an example of how to go about trying to relate the demands of philosophy and theology—“Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth” (sec. 78)—not the thinker who provides the answer to all questions.

  The demise of triumphal Thomism has been a boon for historical study of Thomas, as well as philosophical and theological engagement of Thomas’s thought free from ideological concerns. In the words of Otto Hermann Pesch, Thomas has finally been released from house arrest. In the wake of Vatican II, therefore, Thomas has played a more restricted role in Catholic theology than he enjoyed in the first half of the twentieth century, but the new historical and contextual work on Thomas has been fruitful for uncovering the true contours of his thought and seeing its place in the broader tradition. In recent decades scholars have produced insightful studies of specific themes of Thomas’s theology, especially in the Summa, as well as several good introductions to Thomas as theologian. One area that has emerged with special force has been the recognition that Thomas’s Summa theologiae, despite its rigorous form of argumentation, is a work rooted in deep spiritual insight.4

  Philosophical engagement with Thomas and the Summa has continued to be a lively area of research and writing, despite greater awareness that Thomas was actually a professor of theology and that attempts to create a Thomistic philosophy are always new endeavors based on aspects of Thomas’s thought. What is obvious is that Thomas’s way of engaging rational argumentation in the service of understanding faith provides a resource for philosophers and philosophical theologians to enter into dialogue with him on the perennial issue of the relation of faith and reason. This is a tribute to the ongoing power of Thomas’s thought, especially as seen in his two masterworks, Summa theologiae and Summa contra Gentiles. Just as the writings of great philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Henri Bergson inspired studies of the relation of their philosophies and the thought of Thomas, in recent decades there have been attempts to put Thomas into conversation with major twentieth-century philosophers such as Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951). Some Anglo-American analytic philosophers have found in Thomas a useful resource for thinking about how language relates to claims about God and reality. This “Analytical Thomism,” as it has been called, persists in England and in North America.5 There is still a danger, however, in treating Thomas more as a philosopher than as a theologian, or in mistaking his intentions.

  This is not the place to try to review the many forms of Thomism that have appeared in recent decades. A longer book might look at the survival of “Palaeo-Thomism,” roughly what I referred to as Strict-Observance Thomism. (A variant I recently heard of was termed “Taliban-Thomism.”) Other new approaches to Thomas include Radical-Orthodox Thomism, Postliberal Thomism, Postmodern Thomism, and the like. Over the past generation a number of distinguished scholars of Thomas have gazed into their crystal balls to make predictions about what the future of Thomism might hold.6 I will forego any attempt at this. It is difficult enough to try to provide an evaluation of the impact of figures over the past century on the history of the reception of the Summa, let alone to presage the direction that new study of Thomas’s great work might take. One thing that does seem sure, however, is that Thomas and his Summa theologiae will remain an important part of philosophical and theological discussion in the Western tradition. The cycle of wisdom rolls on.

  Abbreviations for Frequently Cited Works of Thomas Aquinas

  STh

  Summa theologiae (Summa of Theology)

  SCG

  Summa contra Gentiles (Summa against the Pagans)

  Comp. theol.

  Compendium theologiae (Compendium of Theology)

  In Sent.

  Scriptum super libros sententiarum (Writing on the Sentences of Peter Lombard)

  De ver.

  Quaestiones disputatae de veritate (Disputed Questions on Truth)

  De pot.

  Quaestiones disputatae de potentia Dei (Disputed Questions on the Power of God)

  De malo

  Quaestiones disputatae de malo (Disputed Questions on Evil)

  Quod.

  Quaestiones de quodlibet (Questions on Various Topics)

  De Trinitate

  Expositio super librum Boethii “De Trinitate” (Commentary on Boethius’s “On the Trinity”)

  NOTES

  INTRODUCTION

  1. IaIIae, q. 66.5; see also q. 57.2, and q. 68.7. Following Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics 6.7), Thomas identifies three speculative habits: understanding (intellectus), the habit that deals with principles; science (scientia), the habit that deals with conclusions; and wisdom (sapientia), the habit that deals with both principles and conclusions and therefore orders and judges the others.

  2. See Ia, q. 43.5, ad 2; and IIaIIae, q. 45.2.

  3. SCG II. 46. Thomas also notes the role of the Incarnation as essential to the circular movement of going forth and returning; see In III Sent., prol., and Comp. theol. 201.

  4. On wisdom in Aquinas, Jacques Maritain, Science and Wisdom (New York: Scribner, 1940), pt. 1; Etienne Gilson, Wisdom and Love in Saint Thomas Aquinas (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1951); and Kieran Conley, A Theology of Wisdom. A Study in St. Thomas (Dubuque, IA: Priory Press, 1963).

  CHAPTER 1 The World That Made Thomas Aquinas

  1. Bernard J. F. Lonergan, “The Future of Thomism,” in A Second Collection, William Ryan and Bernard Tyrrell, eds. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 44.

  2. On the development, Stephen C. Ferruolo, The Origins of the University: The Schools at Paris and Their Critics, 1100–1215 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1985).

  3. For a sketch of the three basic varieties of medieval theology—monastic, scholastic, and vernacular—Bernard McGinn, “Regina quondam … ,” Speculum 83 (2008): 817–39.

  4. The foundational study remains Martin Grabmann, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1909–11).

  5. Beryl Smalley’s The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1940) was the first to draw attention to this.

  6. Fernand Van Steenberghen, Aristotle in the West: Origins of Latin Aristotelianism (Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1955).

  7. On Dominic and the early Dominicans, Simon Tugwell, Early Dominicans. Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press, 1982).

  8. Humbert of Romans, Treatise on the Formation of Preachers I.82, in Tugwell, Early Dominicans, 205.

  CHAPTER 2 The Making of the Summa theologiae

  1. James A. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas d’Aquino. His Life, Thought, and Work (
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974); and Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas. Vol. 1, The Person and His Work (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 1996). See also Simon Tugwell, “Thomas Aquinas: Introduction,” in Albert and Thomas. Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), 201–351.

  2. Not long after the accession to the papacy of John XXII (1316) the Naples Province of the Dominicans began the process that culminated in Thomas’s canonization on July 18, 1323. Three lives of Thomas were written by Dominicans. The oldest was that of William of Tocco, edited by Claire le Brun-Gouanvic, Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino de Guillaume de Tocco (1323) (Toronto: PIMS, 1996). We also have the records of the two canonization inquiries (Naples 1319 and Fossanova 1321). Some of these materials are available in The Life of St. Thomas Aquinas. Biographical Documents, by Kenelm Foster (London: Longmans, Green, 1959).

  3. This story appears in almost all the sources and, according to the hagiographers, was accompanied by a dream vision guaranteeing Thomas’s lifelong chastity.

  4. Tocco, Ystoria, Chap. 13 (ed., 117–18).

  5. Ibid., chap. 15 (ed., 122).

  6. Thomas’s inception lecture, “Rigans montes de superioribus suis,” is translated in Tugwell, Albert and Thomas, 355–60.

  7. Thomas’s most important defense of the mendicants is his 1256 treatise Against Those Attacking the Worship of God and Religion.

  8. On the Perfection of the Spiritual Life, chap. 26.

  9. De ver. consists of qq. 1–20 dealing with truth and knowledge, and qq. 21–29 treating the good and appetite. For an English translation: St. Thomas, On Truth, 3 vols. (Chicago: Regnery, 1952–54).

  10. Thomas’s hagiographers testify to the effectiveness of his preaching; see Tocco, Ystoria, chap. 48 (ed., 182–84).

  11. For a recent interpretation of the importance of unicity of form in Thomas’s thought, Denys Turner, Thomas Aquinas (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 62–69.

  12. Like most medieval people, Thomas had a strong faith in relics and is said to have worn around his neck a relic of St. Agnes, which he once used to cure Brother Reginald of a dangerous fever. In honor of this miracle he ordered that the brothers be given a good meal on the anniversary of the event.

  13. See the account in the First Canonization Inquiry, no. 78, as translated by Foster, Life of St. Thomas Aquinas, 108–9.

  14. First Canonization Inquiry, no. 77 (Foster, Life of St. Thomas Aquinas, 107).

  15. First Canonization Inquiry, no. 79 (Foster, Life of St. Thomas Aquinas, 109).

  16. Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D’Aquino, 321–23; Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 1:289–95.

  17. This story is part of the testimony of Bartholomew of Capua in the First Canonization Inquiry, no. 77 (Foster, Life of St. Thomas Aquinas, 108).

  18. The lives of Thomas and the two canonization investigations are filled with miracle stories, though perhaps not as many as those recorded of many other medieval saints. Pope John XXII, when questioned if there were enough miracles for Thomas’s canonization, is alleged to have responded, “He performed as many miracles as articles he wrote” (tot fecerat miracula quot scripserat articulos).

  19. The story about Thomas dictating different works at the same time is found in Tocco, Ystoria, chap. 18 (ed., 134–35). According to the testimony of one of his scribes, Evan Garnit, Thomas was able to continue dictating even while asleep!

  20. The most recent survey of Thomas’s writings is by Gilles Emery in Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 1:330–61.

  21. First Canonization Inquiry, no. 83 (Foster, Life of St. Thomas Aquinas, 114).

  22. For a good introduction, Jean-Pierre Torrell, Aquinas’s Summa. Background, Structure, & Reception (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2005).

  23. In the early twelfth century summa signified a collection of materials, but by the thirteenth century it had come to mean an ordered presentation. Many thirteenth-century scholastics wrote summae; e.g., William of Auxerre, Alexander of Hales, Roland of Cremona, John of Trevisa, Albert the Great, and, after Thomas, Ulrich of Strassburg and Henry of Ghent.

  24. This calculation is given in Torrell, Aquinas’s Summa, 14.

  25. Given its length, it is not surprising that the almost six hundred manuscripts of the STh indicate that the three parts often circulated independently, as shown by Leonard E. Boyle, The Setting of the “Summa Theologiae” of Saint Thomas (Toronto: PIMS, 1982). The Secunda Pars was the most popular.

  26. On the Dominican program of education, M. Michèle Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent in Study.” Dominican Education before 1350 (Toronto: PIMS, 1998), especially 278–306 on Thomas’s Santa Sabina years.

  27. The case for Santa Sabina being an unusual studium personale was first made by Boyle, Setting of the “Summa Theologiae.”

  28. Parts of this alia lectura exist in an Oxford manuscript edited by Leonard E. Boyle and John F. Boyle, Lectura romana in primum Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (Toronto: PIMS, 2006).

  29. Thomas cites the Pseudo-Dionysius 1,702 times in his works, 562 times in the Summa, according to Torrell, Aquinas’s Summa, 78. See Fran O’Rourke, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005).

  30. Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent,” 278–306, affirms he did; Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, 1:145–47, thinks it likely. Thomas’s teaching of the Summa is denied by James Weisheipl, “The Meaning of Sacra Doctrina in Summa Theologiae I, q. 1,” Thomist 38 (1974): 49–80; and Mark D. Jordan, “The Summa’s Reform of Moral Teaching—and Its Failures,” in Contemplating Aquinas. On the Varieties of Interpretation, Fergus Kerr, ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), 41–54, especially 44–46, 52–54.

  31. On the two levels of Aristotelian scientia, John J. Jenkins, Knowledge and Faith in Thomas Aquinas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 46–49; on Thomas’s intended audience as advanced students, see chap. 3, and 215–19.

  32. See, for example, Boyle, Setting of the “Summa Theologiae”; Mulchahey, “First the Bow Is Bent”; and Jordan, “Summa’s Reform of Moral Teaching.”

  33. For understanding sacra doctrina, Gerald Van Ackeren, Sacra Doctrina. The Subject of the First Question of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1952); Weisheipl, “Meaning of Sacra Doctrina”; and Mark F. Johnson, “The Sapiential Character of the First Article of the Summa theologiae,” in Philosophy and the God of Abraham. Essays in Memory of James A. Weisheipl, R. James Long, ed. (Toronto: PIMS, 1991), 85–98.

  34. De Trinitate, q. 5.4 corp. For more on natural theologia (= metaphysica/divina scientia), see q. 5.1.

  35. E.g., Ia, q. 1.7, sed contra. See also the discussion in IIaIIae, q. 1.5, where he uses theologia in ad 2.

  36. See the discussion of the three senses of scientia in Thomas’s commentary on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics: In I. Post. Anal., c. 28, lect. 41.

  37. The structure is set out by Weisheipl, “Meaning of Sacra Doctrina,” 64–89.

  38. Thomas does not introduce the technical term supernaturalis in q. 1.1, but this is obviously what he is talking about. The evolution of the distinction between what pertains to nature (naturalis) and what goes beyond it in terms of contact with God’s own life (supernaturalis) was an important aspect of the scholastic effort of the late twelfth though mid-thirteenth centuries. Thomas uses supernaturalis and its equivalents about 314 times across his works (115 uses in the Summa).

  39. Etienne Gilson, The Philosopher and Theology (New York: Random House, 1962), 98.

  40. In his study of the necessity of sacra doctrina for salvation, Bruce D. Marshall notes a text from Thomas’s Sermons on the Apostles’ Creed in which he says that none of the ancient philosophers before Christ knew as much “as one old woman [vetula] knows by faith after Christ’s coming.” See Marshall, “Quid scit Una Uetula. Aquinas on the Nature of Theology,” in The Theology of Thomas Aquinas, Rik Van Nieuwenhove and Joseph Wawrykow, eds. (Notre Dame: University o
f Notre Dame Press, 2005), 1–35.

  41. On sacra doctrina and sanctification, Fáinche Ryan, Formation in Holiness. Thomas Aquinas on “Sacra doctrina” (Leuven: Peeters, 2007).

  42. Two of the major difficulties were the following: (1) How can a discipline that deals with contingent historical facts become universal abstract knowledge? and (2) If science demands both evidence and certitude, where is the evidence in the case of faith? On the scientific nature of theology in the thirteenth century, M.-D. Chenu, La théologie comme science au XIIIe siècle, 3rd ed. (Paris: Vrin, 1957); Ulrich Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschaftstheorie im 13. Jahrhundert (Tübingen: Siebeck, 1974); and the essays in What Is “Theology” in the Middle Ages?, Mikolaj Olszewski, ed. (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007. Archa Verbi. Subsidia 1).

  43. On Thomas’s dependence on Aristotle’s notion of scientia from the Posterior Analytics, Jenkins, Knowledge and Faith in Thomas Aquinas, especially pt. 1.

  44. Aristotle considers metaphysics as wisdom in Metaphyics 1.1–2 (981b–983a), and he discusses the difference between practical and philosophical wisdom in Nicomachean Ethics 6.3–8 (1139b–1142a).

  45. B. Montagnes, “Les deux fonctions de la sagesse: ordonner et juger,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 53 (1969): 675–86.

  46. Conley, Theology of Wisdom, 38–47, 81–89, and 121–30.

  47. See, e.g., IaIIae, q. 66.5; IIIa, q. 59.2 and 4.

  48. On sapientia as ordering to the proper end, see IaIIae, q. 102.1, and IIaIIae, q. 19.7.

  49. Thomas’s views on sapientia appear throughout the STh and his other works—theological wisdom, which is both infused and acquired, is discussed in Ia, q. 1.6, and IIaIIae, q. 19.7; see also SCG I.1–2, II.4 and 24, and III.77. Philosophical sapientia is treated in the Sententia super Metaphysicam I.1.31–35, and in IaIIae, q. 57.2. Sapientia as the gift of the Holy Spirit is discussed in In III Sent., d. 34, q. 1.2, and d. 35, q. 2.1, as well as in his In Isaiam, cap. 11. It appears in several places in the Summa: in the general treatment of the gifts (IaIIae, q. 68.4), and specifically in the treatment of the gift of sapientia in IIaIIae, q. 45.1–6 (see also q. 8.6). Also important for Thomas’s understanding of sapientia are In I Sent., prol., and passages in his Pauline commentaries, such as In I Cor. 1:17–31, lect. 3–4; In I Cor. 2:1–16, lect. 1–3; and In Col. 2:2–3, lect. 1.