Thomas de Vio Cajetan | |
|---|---|
 Martin Luther in front of Cardinal Cajetan byFerdinand Pauwels | |
| Born | (1469-02-20)20 February 1469 |
| Died | 9 August 1534(1534-08-09) (aged 65) |
| Education | |
| Alma mater | University of Padua |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | Medieval philosophy |
| Region | |
| School | Thomism |
| Main interests | |
| Notable works | Summula Caietani. |
| Bishop of Gaeta | |
| Church | Catholic Church |
| In office | 1519–1534 |
| Other post(s) | Cardinal-Priest ofSan Sisto |
| Orders | |
| Ordination | 1491[1] |
| Consecration | 1 May 1518 by Niccolò Fieschi |
| Created cardinal | 1 July 1517 byPope Leo X |
Thomas CajetanOP (/ˈkædʒətən/; 20 February 1469 – 9 August 1534), also known asGaetanus, commonlyTommaso de VioorThomas de Vio,[3] was anItalian philosopher, theologian, theMaster of the Order of Preachers 1508 to 1518, andcardinal from 1517 until his death. He was a leading theologian of his day who is now best known as the spokesman forCatholic opposition to the teachings ofMartin Luther and theProtestant Reformation while he was the Pope'slegate inAugsburg, and among Catholics for his extensive commentary on theSumma Theologica ofThomas Aquinas.[4]
He is not to be confused with his contemporarySaint Cajetan, the founder of theTheatines.
He was born inGaeta, then part of theKingdom of Naples, asJacopo Vio. The name Tommaso was taken as his religious as a friar, while the surname Cajetan derives from his native city. At the age of fifteen, he entered theDominican order and devoted himself to the study of thephilosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, becoming before the age of thirty a doctor oftheology atPadua, and subsequently professor ofmetaphysics.[5][6] A public disputation atFerrara (1494) withPico della Mirandola made his reputation as atheologian.
He became general procurator in 1507 andgeneral of the Dominicans a year later in 1508.
In 1511 a group of dissident cardinals called theConciliabulum of Pisa (1511–1512) againstPope Julius II, who had ignored the electoral capitulations he had accepted before being elected. Cajetan displayed vigorous support for the papacy in a series of publications. These were condemned by theSorbonne and publicly burnt by order ofKing Louis XII.
At theFifth Lateran Council (1512–17) which PopeJulius II set up in opposition to that of Pisa, De Vio played the leading role. During the second session of the council, in which he gave the opening oration, he obtained the approval of a decree recognizing the superiority of papal authority to that of councils.
Cajetan composed in defence of his position theTractatus de Comparatione auctoritatis Papæ et conciliorum ad invicem.Jacques Almain answered this work, and Cajetan replied in hisApologia. Cajetan refused to accept Almain's argument that the Church's polity had to be similar to a lay regime, complete with limits on the ruler.[7]
For his support ofpapal rights, Cajetan was madeBishop of Gaeta, and in 1517 would be made acardinal andarchbishop of Palermo byPope Leo X.[5]
In 1517,Leo X made himcardinal presbyter ofSan Sisto inRome for his services. In the following year, he becameArchbishop of Palermo. He resigned Palermo in 1519 to becomeBishop of Gaeta, as granted him by theEmperor Charles V for whose election De Vio had laboured zealously.
In 1518, Cajetan was sent as legate to theDiet of Augsburg and at the behest of theFrederick III, Elector of Saxony was entrusted with examining the teachings ofMartin Luther. According toHilaire Belloc, "[Luther] had not been treated roughly by his opponents, the roughness had been on his side. But things had gone against him, and he had been made to look foolish; he had been cross-examined into denying, for instance, the authority of a General Council — which authority was the trump card to play against the Papacy."[8]
In 1519, Cajetan helped in drawing up the bill of excommunication against Luther.[5]
Having proved to be an able diplomat and administrator, Cajetan was employed in several other negotiations and transactions. In conjunction with Cardinal Giulio de' Medici in theconclave of 1521–1522, he secured the election of Adrian Boeyens, thenBishop of Tortosa, asPope Adrian VI.[5] He retained influence underPope Clement VII, suffered a short term of imprisonment after the storming of Rome by theConstable of Bourbon and byFrundsberg (1527), retired to his diocese for a few years, and, returning to Rome in 1530, assumed his old position of influence with Pope Clement, on whose behalf he drafted the decision rejecting the petition made byHenry VIII of England for the annulment of his marriage toCatharine of Aragon.[citation needed] Appointed by Clement VII to the commission of cardinals assigned to report on the "Nuremberg Recess", De Vio, in opposition to the majority, recommended certain concessions to the Lutherans, notably the marriage of the clergy as in theGreek Church and communion in both kinds according to the decision of theCouncil of Basel.[5]
Cajetan died on August 9th inRome in 1534.
As a philosopher and logician, Cajetan defended the idea ofanalogy.[9]
Though as a theologian Cajetan was a scholastic of the olderThomist type, his general position was that of the moderate reformers of the school to whichReginald Pole, laterarchbishop of Canterbury, also belonged; i.e., he desired to retain the best elements of the humanist revival in harmony withCatholic orthodoxy illumined by a revived appreciation of the Augustinian doctrine of justification.[5] In the field ofThomistic philosophy, he showed striking independence of judgment, expressing liberal views on marriage and divorce, denying the existence of a materialHell and advocating the celebration of public prayers in the vernacular.[citation needed]
Some Dominicans regarded his views as too independent of those of Saint Thomas. TheSorbonne inParis found some of these views heterodox, and in the 1570 edition of his celebrated commentary onAquinas'Summa, the objectionable passages were expunged.[citation needed] In this spirit, he wrote commentaries upon portions ofAristotle and upon theSumma ofAquinas, and towards the end of his life made a careful translation of theOld andNew Testaments, exceptingSolomon's Song, theProphets and theRevelation of St John.[5] Cajetan also wrote opinions on subjects of practical importance, such as the disposition of plundered goods whose ownership could not be determined.[10]
Of theReformation he remained a steadfast opponent, composing several works directed againstMartin Luther,[11] and taking an important part in shaping the policy of the papal delegates in Germany. Learned though he was in thescholastics, he recognized that to fight the reformers he would need a deeper knowledge of the Scriptures than he possessed. To this study he devoted himself with characteristic zeal, wrote commentaries on the greater part of the Old and the New Testament, and in the exposition of his text, which he treated critically, allowed himself considerable latitude in departing from literal and traditional interpretations.
Cajetan was a man of austerepiety and fervent zeal. And from the standpoint of the Dominican idea of the supreme necessity of maintaining ecclesiastical discipline, he defended the rights of the papacy and proclaimed that the pope should be "the mirror of God on earth."[5]
Against the Council of Pisa's advocacy ofconciliarism, which placed the authority of a general council above the pope's authority, Cajetan responded that a general council could only judge a pope if the pope had become a heretic. In the case of a wicked but non-heretical pope, Cajetan insisted that resistance is sufficient to reduce abuses, while deposition is inadmissible as a council convened without a pope would be "headless" (using the scriptural analogy of the relationship between sheep and their shepherd). In the case of heresy, however, Cajetan wrote that an exceptional general council could be convened to grant the reigning pope a fair hearing, and if he was judged to be in heresy, the council could act to sever the bond between the man holding the papacy and the office itself.[12][13] However, he denied that this action constituted the council acting over the pope, which he regarded as theologically impossible. Rather, he considered that such an action merely indicated that the council could undo the election of that particular man to the office of the pope (since the election was also performed by human beings).[12][13] Cajetan, building on similar discussions fromJohn of Paris andAugustinus Triumphus regarding the removal of heretical popes, interpreted Titus 3:10 as saying that a heretical pope should be deposed after two admonitions.[14]
In light of the contemporary economic development, Cajetan cogitated a lot about the morality of trade. More conservative than the futureSchool of Salamanca, his reflections were nonetheless quite modern with utilisation of practical consideration outside of pure theorical thinking and some relevant ideas, like the formulation of theliquidity preference.[15]
However his views onusury were still conservative, as showed by his condemnation ofmounts of piety (that he tried unsuccessfully to ban during theFifth Council of the Lateran),[16] his disapproval ofusury or his prohibition ofcontractum trinius.[17]
In the mid-twentieth century, Cajetan's thought came to be assessed negatively by certain Catholic commentators who, in reacting againstneo-Thomist thought, portrayed Cajetan as the first person to make mistaken interpretations of the thought ofThomas Aquinas.
Fergus Kerr wrote a 2002 book,After Aquinas, attacking Cajetan on this. Among others, he citedÉtienne Gilson, who was responding to arguments that 'philosophy' and 'Christianity' were incompatible disciplines, there existed in Hellenistic Judaism, patristic thought and the medieval period a way of thinking, animated by the ancient Greek quest for the cause of being, which could rightly be called 'Christian philosophy'. In Gilson's account, it was in Cajetan's thought that this link was first broken, since Cajetan, influenced byScotism, reducedThomas Aquinas's metaphysics of the existential act of being to an ontology of substance. Cajetan and his successors therefore, in Gilson's account, represented Thomas as focused on the forms and essences of beings only, and not on the existence of all things as participation in the pure actuality which is God. Accordingly, for Gilson, 'philosophy' and 'Christianity' are only incompatible if Christian thought is understood in its tradition post-Cajetan—a tradition which is worse than the older, more distinguished tradition of Christian thought.[18]Henri de Lubac wrote inSurnaturel (1946), an account of Aquinas’ views on the natural and the supernatural, that Cajetan's interpretation of Aquinas, while influential, was incorrect. De Lubac argued that Cajetan treated Aquinas as an Aristotelian, working with a definition of nature from Aristotle'sPhysics, which effectively turned human nature into a reality essentially closed in on itself, with its own intrinsic powers, desires and goals. De Lubac did not think Aquinas was an Aristotelian, and that subsequent Catholic thought produced mistaken readings of Thomas Aquinas's account of the relationship between nature and grace.[19]
In 2006,Ralph McInerny and other scholars challenged the negative assessment of Cajetan's work made by De Lubac and Gilson. McInerny writes that the criticisms of Cajetan are not in fact supported by evidence from his works, and furthermore that it is not Cajetan but Gilson whose interpretation of Aquinas is a departure from the latter's beliefs.[20]
Bruce Metzger wrote that Cajetan's biblical commentaries were surprisingly "modern", anticipatingbiblical textual criticism. Notably, Cajetan revived earlier Christian doubts as to the apostolic authorship of the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 John, and 3 John, as well as opposing Paulineauthorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.[21]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Cajetan, Cardinal".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 4 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 961. This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan".Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
| Catholic Church titles | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | Master General of the Dominican Order 1508–1518 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Cardinal-Priest ofSan Sisto 1517–1534 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Archbishop of Palermo 1518–1519 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Bishop of Gaeta 1519–1534 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Cardinal-Priest ofSanta Prassede 1534 | Succeeded by |
