Skip to main content

Was Aquinas a Thomist? or, the importance of reading primary texts...

Today I have been reading part of the Summa and thinking about natural law in particular. I came to the task with very particular ideas in mind - most significantly that Aquinas put a huge emphasis on natural law theology (which gave rise in turn to natural theology) and that his moral theology was steeped in this way of thinking too. But, part way through my reading I got caught up with self-doubt and questioning - the Aquinas I read was not at all akin to the Thomist I expected to encounter. It was a perplexing experience, which I am still dwelling on an hour or so after putting the text down (this is what good theology should do I think). The self doubt I am experiencing comes not because my expectations were frustrated, but for the more important reason that once upon a time (as an undergraduate) I briefly studied Aquinas. When I did I distinctly remember coming away with the impression that natural law was an almost central concept in Aquinas' thought, but today's work reveals that actually it adopts a relatively peripheral position in the Summa, being as it seems to be discussed in detail only here 1a2ae Q.90-97.

So, accepting that I did actually do 'some' work when I was an undergraduate, and applied myself to some reading, I have been wondering why I was left with what I now think was a misconception. There are, I think, two reasons. The first is that clearly I did not pay enough attention to the primary literature. If I had done so, I would have found that Aquinas said some very interesting and particular things that may have put him at odds with the natural law tradition with which I have associated him. This is a valuable lesson to re-learn (I do persistently advocate reading primary texts to students I teach), and not merely for academic reasons (I am thinking here of the recent public furore surrounding Bishop Peter Broadbent, and what he is supposed to have said and not said about th Royal Family). In an interesting turn for me, the Aquinas I read seemed not a million miles away from the kind of graced nature that I think Barth subtly advoctaes in his concept of moral responsibility. That's not necessarily to say that Barth was a Thomist! The second reason, a point which I make tentatively, is that the secondary literature I read as an undergraduate - though Thomist - may not have been entirely in keeping with Thomas. I make this point tentatively because I struggle to remember who the great theologians were I happened to read at the time (no doubt the usual suspects were present, like Coppelstone), but my thoughts continue to wander in that direction. Could it be that certain forms of Thomist natural law (most prevelant in the Roman Catholic moral tradition) overstate the role of reason and natural perceptions here in a way that Aquinas himself does not? Certainly the experience of today was pleasurable in my discovery of what Aquinas actually said, though somewhat uncomfortable to admit that I should have known better already. So, I am left with the question - Was Aquinas a Thomist?


Popular posts from this blog

Paul Nimmo on Schleiermacher

Once again it's been a while since I blogged anything, but I thought I would flag-up this clip from the increasingly successful Modern Theology  Timeline created by Tim Hull at St John's College Nottingham, UK. This is a recent interview Tim did with the Edinburgh based scholar Paul Nimmo on Friedrich Schleiermacher. It is a really good interview, and will go a long way to rehabilitating FDES for those who mis-read Barth and reject him outright. Happy watching!

Barth on Scripture: George Hunsinger et al.

Finding time for anything other than poor quality posting has been a problem recently: parish ministry rightly has first place, and then there's the small matter of a PhD... BUT, I have had time for some reviewing, and have recently finished a review of George Hunsinger (ed), Thy Word is Truth: Barth on Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eedrmans, 2012). It is a really interesting book, and worthy of fact read my review in Theology when (if?) it is published later this year. For now, though, here's a lovely quote from hunsinger's introductory chapter as he explains something of the significance of dialectical interpretation for Barth's approach to scripture: The cross and resurrection of Christ, as proclaimed by Paul, were for Barth the paradigmatic case. They were what finally made necessry the procedure of dialectic interpretation. What held Christ's cross and resurrection together, he suggested, was not a concept but a name, not a system but a narrative

David Clough on Barth

For those who are interested, here  is an interview with Professor David Clough from earlier this year on the subject of Barth's theological development. It has recently made its way online...alas, the interviewer (me!) has been edited out. The interview was for a new DVD Interactive Multimedia Timeline created  by R ev. Dr Tim Hull at St John's College Nottingham. Several high quality scholars agreed to be interviewed, including Dr Karen Kilby, Dr Ben Fulford, Professor Antony Thiselton, Professor David Fergusson, and several others forthcoming. David Clough is Professor of Theological Ethics at Chester University, UK, and wrote his doctoral thesis on the interpretation of Barth's ethics. It was published in 2005 as, Ethics in Crisis: Interpreting Barth's Ethics (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005).