Thomas was a proponent ofnatural theology and the father of a school of thought (encompassing both theology and philosophy) known asThomism. He argued thatGod is the source of the light of natural reason and the light of faith.[9] He embraced[10] several ideas put forward byAristotle and attempted to synthesizeAristotelian philosophy with the principles of Christianity.[11] He has been described as "the most influential thinker of themedieval period"[12] and "the greatest of themedieval philosopher-theologians".[13] Thomas Aquinas's philosophy influenced modernvirtue ethics,aesthetics, and cognitive theory. He has been criticized, notably byBertrand Russell, for seeking to justify conclusions already dictated by faith rather than followreason independently.
As aDoctor of the Church, Thomas is considered one of theCatholic Church's greatest theologians and philosophers.[15] He is known in Catholic theology as theDoctor Angelicus ("Angelic Doctor", with the title "doctor" meaning "teacher"), and theDoctor Communis ("Universal Doctor").[a] In 1999Pope John Paul II added a new title to these traditional ones:Doctor Humanitatis ("Doctor of Humanity/Humaneness").[16]
Thomas Aquinas was most likely born in the family castle ofRoccasecca,[17] nearAquino, controlled at that time by theKingdom of Sicily (in present-dayLazio, Italy),c. 1225.[18] He was born to the most powerful branch of the family, and his father, Landulf VI of Aquino, Lord of Roccasecca, was a man of means. As a knight in the service ofFrederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, Landulf of Aquino held the titlemiles.[19] Thomas's mother, Theodora Galluccio, Countess of Teano, belonged to the Rossi branch of theNeapolitan Caracciolo family.[20] Landulf's brother Sinibald wasabbot ofMonte Cassino, the oldestBenedictinemonastery. He was the youngest of four sons and had two sisters. While the rest of the family's sons pursued military careers,[21] the family intended for Thomas to follow his uncle into the abbacy;[22] this would have been a normal career path for a younger son of Southern Italian nobility.[23]
At the age of five, Thomas began his early education at Monte Cassino. After the military conflict between Frederick II andPope Gregory IX spilt into the abbey in early 1239, Landulf and Theodora had Thomas enrolled at thestudium generale (university) established by Frederick inNaples.[24] There, his teacher in arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music wasPetrus de Ibernia.[25] According to his biographerGuglielmo Tocco,[26][27]Martin of Dacia was his teacher of grammar and logic.[28] It was at this university that Thomas was presumably introduced toAristotle,Averroes andMaimonides, all of whom would influence his theological philosophy.[29]Peter of Ireland was teaching the recently translated works of Aristotle as commented on by the Spanish-Arabic philosopherAverroes.[28] During his study at Naples, Thomas also came under the influence of John of St. Julian, a Dominican preacher in Naples, who was part of the active effort by theDominican Order to recruit devout followers.[30]
At the age of nineteen, Thomas resolved to join theDominican Order. His change of heart, however, did not please his family.[31] In an attempt to prevent Theodora's interference in Thomas's choice, the Dominicans arranged to move Thomas to Rome, and fromRome, toParis.[32] However, while on his journey to Rome, per Theodora's instructions, his brothers seized him as he was drinking from a spring and took him back to his parents at the castle ofMonte San Giovanni Campano.[32]
Thomas was held prisoner for almost one year in the family castles at Monte San Giovanni and Roccasecca in an attempt to prevent him from assuming the Dominican habit and to push him into renouncing his new aspiration.[29] Political concerns prevented the Pope from ordering Thomas's release, which had the effect of extending Thomas's detention.[33] Thomas passed this time of trial tutoring his sisters and communicating with members of the Dominican Order.[29]
Family members became desperate to dissuade Thomas, who remained determined to join the Dominicans. At one point, two of his brothers resorted to hiring a prostitute to seduce him, presumably because sexual temptation might dissuade him from a life ofcelibacy. According to the official records for his canonization, Thomas drove her away wielding a burning log—with which he inscribed a cross onto the wall—and fell into a mystical ecstasy; two angels appeared to him as he slept and said, "Behold, we gird thee by the command of God with the girdle of chastity, which henceforth will never be imperilled. What human strength can not obtain, is now bestowed upon thee as a celestial gift." From then onwards, Thomas was given the grace of perfect chastity by Christ, a girdle he wore till the end of his life. The girdle was given to the ancient monastery ofVercelli in Piedmont, and is now atChieri, nearTurin.[34][35]
Thomas is girded by angels with a mystical belt of purity after his proof ofchastity. Painting byDiego Velázquez.
By 1244, seeing that all her attempts to dissuade Thomas had failed, Theodora sought to save the family's dignity, arranging for Thomas to escape at night through his window. In her mind, a secret escape from detention was less damaging than an open surrender to the Dominicans. Thomas was sent first to Naples and then to Rome to meetJohannes von Wildeshausen, theMaster General of the Dominican Order.[36]
Paris, Cologne, Albert Magnus, and first Paris regency (1245–1259)
The Virgin Mary with s.Paul and s. Thomas Aquinas (altarpiece portable totriptych, totempera on wood, work byBernardo Daddi,c. 1330). The Virgin Mary holds in her hand a text that contains the first words of theMagnificat, while Thomas, author of one of the most important medieval commentaries on the Pauline epistolary, holds one of his works in his hand.
In 1245 Thomas was sent to study at the Faculty of the Arts at theUniversity of Paris, where he most likely met Dominican scholarAlbertus Magnus,[37] then the holder of the Chair of Theology at the College of St. James in Paris.[38] When Albertus was sent by his superiors to teach at the newstudium generale atCologne, in 1248,[37] Thomas followed him, decliningPope Innocent IV's offer to appoint him abbot of Monte Cassino as a Dominican.[22] Albertus then appointed the reluctant Thomasmagister studentium.[23] Because Thomas was quiet and did not speak much, some of his fellow students thought he was slow. But Albertus prophetically exclaimed: "You call him the dumb ox [bos mutus], but in his teaching he will one day produce such a bellowing that it will be heard throughout the world".[22]
Thomas taught in Cologne as an apprentice professor, instructing students on the books of theOld Testament and writingExpositio super Isaiam ad litteram (Literal Commentary on Isaiah),Postilla super Ieremiam (Commentary on Jeremiah), andPostilla super Threnos (Commentary on Lamentations).[39] In 1252, he returned to Paris to study for a master's degree in theology. He lectured on the Bible as an apprentice professor, and upon becoming abaccalaureus Sententiarum (bachelor of theSentences)[40] he devoted his final three years of study to commenting onPeter Lombard'sSentences. In the first of his four theological syntheses, Thomas composed a massive commentary on theSentences entitledScriptum super libros Sententiarium (Commentary on the Sentences). In addition to his master's writings, he wroteDe ente et essentia (On Being and Essence) for his fellow Dominicans in Paris.[22]
In early 1256, Thomas was appointed regent master in theology at Paris and one of his first works upon assuming this office wasContra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem (Against Those Who Assail the Worship of God and Religion), a defense of themendicant orders, which had come under attack byWilliam of Saint-Amour.[41] During his tenure from 1256 to 1259, Thomas wrote numerous works, including:Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate (Disputed Questions on Truth), a collection of twenty-nine disputed questions on aspects of faith and the human condition[42] prepared for the public university debates he presided over duringLent andAdvent;[43]Quaestiones quodlibetales (Quodlibetal Questions), a collection of his responses to questionsde quodlibet posed to him by the academic audience;[42] and bothExpositio super librum Boethii De trinitate (Commentary on Boethius's De trinitate) andExpositio super librum Boethii De hebdomadibus (Commentary on Boethius's De hebdomadibus), commentaries on the works of 6th-century Roman philosopherBoethius.[44] By the end of his regency, Thomas was working on one of his most famous works,Summa contra Gentiles.[45]
From 1252 to 1257, Thomas lived and worked with saintBonaventure of Bagnoregio, of whom he became a fraternal friend.[46] Both of them were teaching theology at the University of Paris.[47] They disagreed about the role of faith and theology in relation to natural reason.[48]
In 1259 Thomas completed his first regency at thestudium generale and left Paris so that others in his order could gain this teaching experience. He returned to Naples where he was appointed as general preacher by the provincial chapter of 29 September 1260. In September 1261 he was called toOrvieto as conventual lector, where he was responsible for the pastoral formation of the friars unable to attend astudium generale. In Orvieto, Thomas completed hisSumma contra Gentiles, wrote theCatena aurea (The Golden Chain),[52] and produced works forPope Urban IV such as the liturgy for the newly createdfeast of Corpus Christi and theContra errores graecorum (Against the Errors of the Greeks).[45] Some of the hymns that Thomas wrote for the feast of Corpus Christi are still sung today, such as thePange lingua (whose final two verses are the famousTantum ergo), andPanis angelicus. Modern scholarship has confirmed that Thomas was indeed the author of these texts, a point that some had contested.[53]
In February 1265 the newly electedPope Clement IV summoned Thomas to Rome to serve as papal theologian. This same year, he was ordered by the Dominican Chapter of Anagni[54] to teach at thestudiumconventuale at the Romanconvent ofSanta Sabina, founded in 1222.[55] Thestudium at Santa Sabina now became an experiment for the Dominicans, the Order's firststudium provinciale, an intermediate school between thestudium conventuale and thestudium generale. Prior to this time, the Roman Province had offered no specialized education of any sort, no arts, no philosophy; only simple convent schools, with their basic courses in theology for resident friars, were functioning in Tuscany and the meridionale during the first several decades of the order's life. The newstudium provinciale at Santa Sabina was to be a more advanced school for the province.[56]Tolomeo da Lucca, an associate and early biographer of Thomas, tells us that at the Santa Sabinastudium Thomas taught the full range of philosophical subjects, both moral and natural.[57]
While at the Santa Sabinastudium provinciale, Thomas began his most famous work, theSumma Theologiae,[52] which he conceived specifically suited to beginner students: "Because a doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but to him pertains also to instruct beginners. As the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 3:1–2,as to infants in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat, our proposed intention in this work is to convey those things that pertain to the Christian religion in a way that is fitting to the instruction of beginners."[58] While there he also wrote a variety of other works like his unfinishedCompendium Theologiae andResponsio ad fr. Ioannem Vercellensem de articulis 108 sumptis ex opere Petri de Tarentasia (Reply to Brother John of Vercelli Regarding 108 Articles Drawn from the Work of Peter of Tarentaise).[44]
In his position as head of thestudium, Thomas conducted a series of important disputations on the power of God, which he compiled into hisDe potentia.[59] Nicholas Brunacci was among Thomas's students at the Santa Sabinastudium provinciale and later at the Parisstudium generale. In November 1268, he was with Thomas and his associate and secretaryReginald of Piperno as they left Viterbo on their way to Paris to begin the academic year.[60] Another student of Thomas's at the Santa Sabinastudium provinciale wasBlessed Tommasello da Perugia.[61]
Thomas remained at thestudium at Santa Sabina from 1265 until he was called back to Paris in 1268 for a second teaching regency.[59] With his departure for Paris in 1268 and the passage of time, the pedagogical activities of thestudium provinciale at Santa Sabina were divided between two campuses. A newconvent of the Order at the Church ofSanta Maria sopra Minerva began in 1255 as a community for women converts but grew rapidly in size and importance after being given over to the Dominicans friars in 1275.[55] In 1288 the theology component of the provincial curriculum for the education of the friars was relocated from the Santa Sabinastudium provinciale to thestudium conventuale at Santa Maria sopra Minerva, which was redesignated as astudium particularis theologiae.[62] Thisstudium was transformed in the 16th century into the College of Saint Thomas (Latin:Collegium Divi Thomæ). In the 20th century, the college was relocated to the convent ofSaints Dominic and Sixtus and was transformed into thePontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, (aka theAngelicum).
Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas,Doctor Communis, between Plato and Aristotle,Benozzo Gozzoli, 1471.Louvre, Paris.
In 1268 the Dominican Order assigned Thomas to be regent master at the University of Paris for a second time, a position he held until early 1272. Part of the reason for this sudden reassignment appears to have arisen from the rise of "Averroism" or "radicalAristotelianism" in the universities. Not only was this academic trend controversial, but many thought that Thomas himself might be following Averroes, since Thomas also drew on Aristotle extensively. In response and to distinguish his positions from these perceived errors, Thomas wrote two works, one of them beingDe unitate intellectus, contra Averroistas (On the Unity of Intellect, against the Averroists) in which he reprimands Averroism as incompatible with Christian doctrine.[63] Also during his second regency, he finished the second part of theSumma and wroteDe virtutibus (On the Virtues) andDe aeternitate mundi, contra murmurantes (On the Eternity of the World, against Grumblers),[59] the latter of which dealt with controversial Averroist and Aristotelianbeginninglessness of the world.[64]
Disputes with some importantFranciscans conspired to make his second regency much more difficult and troubled than the first. A year before Thomas re-assumed the regency at the 1266–67 Paris disputations, Franciscan master William of Baglione accused Thomas of encouraging Averroists, most likely counting him as one of the "blind leaders of the blind".Eleonore Stump says, "It has also been persuasively argued that Thomas Aquinas'sDe aeternitate mundi was directed in particular against his Franciscan colleague in theology,John Pecham."[64]
Thomas was deeply disturbed by the spread of Averroism and was angered when he discoveredSiger of Brabant teaching Averroistic interpretations of Aristotle to Parisian students.[65] On 10 December 1270, the Bishop of Paris,Étienne Tempier, issued an edict condemning thirteen Aristotelian and Averroistic propositions as heretical and excommunicating anyone who continued to support them.[66] Many in the ecclesiastical community, the so-calledAugustinians, were fearful that this introduction of Aristotelianism and the more extreme Averroism might somehow contaminate the purity of the Christian faith. In what appears to be an attempt to counteract the growing fear of Aristotelian thought, Thomas conducted a series of disputations between 1270 and 1272:De virtutibus in communi (On Virtues in General),De virtutibus cardinalibus (On Cardinal Virtues), andDe spe (On Hope).[67]
Late career, cessation of writing, and death (1272–1274)
In 1272 Thomas took leave from the University of Paris when the Dominicans from his home province called upon him to establish astudium generale wherever he liked and staff it as he pleased. He chose to establish the institution in Naples and moved there to take his post as regent master.[59] He took his time at Naples to work on the third part of theSumma while giving lectures on various religious topics. He also preached to the people of Naples every day in Lent of 1273. Thesesermons on theTen Commandments, the Creed, theOur Father, and theHail Mary were very popular.[68]
Thomas has been traditionally ascribed with the ability tolevitate and as having had various mystical experiences. For example,G. K. Chesterton wrote that "His experiences included well-attested cases of levitation in ecstasy; and the Blessed Virgin appeared to him, comforting him with the welcome news that he would never be a Bishop."[69] It is traditionally held that on one occasion, in 1273, at the Dominican convent of Naples in the chapel ofSaint Nicholas,[70] aftermatins, Thomas lingered and was seen by thesacristan Domenic of Caserta to be levitating in prayer with tears before an icon of the crucified Christ. Christ said to Thomas, "You have written well of me, Thomas. What reward would you have for your labor?" Thomas responded, "Nothing but you, Lord."[71]
On 6 December 1273, another mystical experience took place. While Thomas was celebratingmass, he experienced an unusually long ecstasy.[72] Because of what he saw, he abandoned his routine and refused to dictate to hissociusReginald of Piperno. When Reginald begged him to get back to work, Thomas replied: "Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me"[73] (mihi videtur ut palea).[74] As a result, theSumma Theologica would remain uncompleted.[75] What exactly triggered Thomas's change in behaviour is believed by some to have been some kind of supernatural experience of God.[76] After taking to his bed, however, he did recover some strength.[77]
In 1274Pope Gregory X summoned Thomas to attend theSecond Council of Lyon. The council was to open 1 May 1274, and it was Gregory's attempt to try to heal theGreat Schism of 1054, which had divided theCatholic Church in the West from theEastern Orthodox Church.[78] At the meeting, Thomas's work for Pope Urban IV concerning the Greeks,Contra errores graecorum, was to be presented.[79] However, on his way to the council, riding on a donkey along theAppian Way,[78] he struck his head on the branch of a fallen tree and became seriously ill again. He was then quickly escorted toMonte Cassino to convalesce.[77] After resting for a while, he set out again but stopped at theCistercianFossanova Abbey after again falling ill.[80] The monks nursed him for several days,[81] and as he received hislast rites he prayed: "I have written and taught much about this very holy Body, and about the other sacraments in the faith of Christ, and about the Holy Roman Church, to whose correction I expose and submit everything I have written."[82] He died on 7 March 1274[80] while giving commentary on theSong of Songs.[83]
In 1277Étienne Tempier, the same bishop of Paris who had issued the condemnation of 1270, issued another, more extensive, condemnation. One aim of this condemnation was to clarify that God's absolute power transcended any principles of logic thatAristotle orAverroes might place on it.[84] More specifically, it contained a list of 219 propositions, including twenty Thomistic propositions, that the bishop had determined to violate the omnipotence of God. The inclusion of the Thomistic propositions badly damaged Thomas's reputation for many years.[85]
By the 1300s, however, Thomas's theology had begun its rise to prestige. In theDivine Comedy (completedc. 1321),Dante Alighieri sees the glorified soul of Thomas in theHeaven of the Sun with the other great exemplars of religious wisdom.[86] Dante asserts that Thomas died by poisoning, on the order ofCharles of Anjou;[87]Giovanni Villani cites this belief,[citation needed] and theAnonimo Fiorentino describes the crime and its motive. But the historianLudovico Antonio Muratori reproduces the account made by one of Thomas's friends, and this version of the story gives no hint of foul play.[88]
When thedevil's advocate at hiscanonization process objected that there were nomiracles, one of the cardinals answered, "Tot miraculis, quot articulis"—"there are as many miracles (in his life) as articles (in hisSumma)".[89] Fifty years after Thomas's death, on 18 July 1323,Pope John XXII, seated inAvignon, pronounced Thomas asaint.[90]
A monastery at Naples, Italy, nearNaples Cathedral, shows a cell in which he supposedly lived.[88] His remains were translated from Fossanova to theChurch of the Jacobins inToulouse, France, on 28 January 1369. Between 1789 and 1974 they were held in theBasilica of Saint-Sernin. In 1974 they were returned to the Church of the Jacobins, where they have remained ever since.
The Catholic Church honours Thomas Aquinas as asaint and regards him as the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood. In modern times, under papal directives, the study of his works was long used as a core of the required program of study for those seeking ordination as priests or deacons, as well as for those in religious formation and for other students of the sacred disciplines (philosophy, Catholic theology, church history, liturgy, andcanon law).[94]
During the 19th century, a movement that came to be known asneo-scholasticism revived Catholic scholarly interest in scholasticism generally and Thomas in particular, as well as the work of the Thomists of second scholasticism. The systematic work of Thomas was valued in part as a foundation for arguing againstearly modern philosophers and "modernist" theologians. This movement was given papal support inAeterni Patris, the 1879encyclical byPope Leo XIII stating that Thomas's theology was a definitive exposition of Catholic doctrine. Leo XIII directed the clergy to take the teachings of Thomas as the basis of their theological positions. Leo also decreed that all Catholic seminaries and universities must teach Thomas's doctrines, and where Thomas did not speak on a topic, the teachers were "urged to teach conclusions that were reconcilable with his thinking." CitingPope Sixtus V, the encyclical mentions Aquinas and Bonaventure as the "founders" of scholastic theology.[98]
In 1880 Thomas was declared the patron saint of all Catholic educational establishments.[88][99] In 1879 Leo XIII instituted thePontifical Academy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, putting into practiceAeterni Patris' recommendations.[100] Similarly, inPascendi Dominici gregis, the 1907 encyclical byPope Pius X, the Pope said, "...let Professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment."[101] On 1 September 1910 Pius X addressed the letterSacrorum Antistitum to all bishops and teachers of religious orders, by which he decreed that the Scholastic philosophy of Thomas was to be 'established as the foundation of sacred studies' for young clerics.[102] Pius X's 1914 decreePostquam sanctissimus gave further Vatican endorsement to 24 specific neo-scholastic theses of "Official Catholic Philosophy" understood to be rooted in Thomism.[103]
In response to neo-scholasticism, Catholic scholars who were more sympathetic to modernity gained influence during the early 20th century in thenouvelle théologie movement (meaning "new theology"). It was closely associated with a movement ofressourcement, meaning "back to sources", echoing the phrase "ad fontes" used by Renaissance humanists. Althoughnouvelle théologie disagreed with neo-scholasticism about modernity, arguing that theology could learn much from modern philosophy and science, their interest in also studying "old" sources meant that they found common ground in their appreciation of scholastics like Thomas Aquinas.[104] TheSecond Vatican Council generally adopted the stance of the theologians ofnouvelle théologie, but the importance of Thomas was a point of agreement.[104] The council's decreeOptatam Totius (on the formation of priests, at No. 15), proposed an authentic interpretation of the popes' teaching on Thomism, requiring that the theological formation of priests be accomplished with Thomas Aquinas as teacher.[105]
On 20 November 1974, Paul VI wrote the apostolic letterLumen ecclesiae, inviting the Dominicans to return to the source and rediscover the true doctrine of Thomas.[106]With 70 quotations, prevalently in the field ofCatholic liturgy, Thomas is one of the most frequently cited authors of the 1997Catechism of the Catholic Church.[107] General Catholic appreciation for Thomas has remained strong in the 20th century, as seen in the praise offered byPope John Paul II in the 1998 encyclicalFides et ratio,[108][109] and similarly inPope Benedict XV's 1921 encyclicalFausto Appetente Die.[110]
The cognitive neuroscientistWalter Freeman has proposed that Thomism is the philosophical system explaining cognition that is most compatible withneurodynamics.[112]
Henry Adams'sMont Saint Michel and Chartres ends with a culminating chapter on Thomas, in which Adams calls Thomas an "artist" and constructs an extensive analogy between the design of Thomas's "Church Intellectual" and that of the gothic cathedrals of that period.Erwin Panofsky later would echo these views inGothic Architecture and Scholasticism (1951).[113]
Thomas's aesthetic theories, especially the concept ofclaritas, deeply influenced the literary practice of modernist writerJames Joyce, who used to extol Thomas as being second only to Aristotle amongWestern philosophers. Joyce refers to Thomas's doctrines inElementa philosophiae ad mentem D. Thomae Aquinatis doctoris angelici (1898) of Girolamo Maria Mancini, professor of theology at theCollegium Divi Thomae de Urbe.[114] For example, Mancini'sElementa is referred to in Joyce'sPortrait of the Artist as a Young Man.[115]
The influence of Thomas's aesthetics can also be found in the works of the ItaliansemioticianUmberto Eco, who wrote an essay on aesthetic ideas in Thomas (published in 1956 and republished in 1988 in a revised edition).[116]
20th-century philosopherBertrand Russell criticized Thomas's philosophy, stating that:
He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, butspecial pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.[117]
This criticism is illustrated with the following example: according to Russell, Thomas advocates the indissolubility of marriage "on the ground that the father is useful in the education of the children, (a) because he is more rational than the mother, (b) because, being stronger, he is better able to inflict physical punishment."[118] Even though modern approaches to education do not support these views, "No follower of Saint Thomas would, on that account, cease to believe in lifelong monogamy, because the real grounds of belief are not those which are alleged".[118]
In particular, Thomas pleads that he possesses knowledge of the "essence" of God[119] and that this knowledge is not only beyond human reason but is knowledge to which human reason must be "adapted".[120]
An attribute often found in his portraits is a ray of light on the saint's chest or shoulder: often the rays emanate from the book of the Summa that is open on his chest. But the radiating light [...] is not the only attribute: often adove appears as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, sometimes alily to emphasise hischastity or achalice; and finally a model of a church as in the panel of the Dominican saints in thesacristy ofSanta Maria Novella inFlorence.
Aquinas is often depicted in a Dominican habit with acincture that refers to his prayers to God for being kept in perpetual virginity.[122] The chalice refers to his doctrine of Eucharistictransubstantiation.
Thomas Aquinas viewed theology, "the sacreddoctrine", as a science,[76] by which he meant a field of study in which humanity could learn more by its own efforts (as opposed to being totally dependent on having divine revelation planted into our minds). For Thomas, the raw material data of this field consists of writtenscripture and the tradition of the Catholic Church. These sources of data were produced by the self-revelation of God to individuals and groups of people throughout history. Faith and reason, being distinct but related, are the two primary tools for processing the data of theology. Thomas believed both were necessary—or, rather, that theconfluence of both was necessary—for one to obtain true knowledge of God.[76]
Thomas blended Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine by suggesting that rational thinking and the study of nature, like revelation, were valid ways to understand truths pertaining to God. According to Thomas, God reveals himself through nature, so to study nature is to study God. The ultimate goals of theology, in Thomas's mind, are to use reason to grasp the truth about God and to experience salvation through that truth. The central thought is "gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit" ('grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it').[76]
Thomas believed that truth is known through reason, rationality (natural revelation) and faith (supernatural revelation).Supernatural revelation has its origin in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is made available through the teaching of the prophets, summed up in Holy Scripture, and transmitted by theMagisterium, the sum of which is called "Tradition".Natural revelation is the truth available to all people through their human nature and powers of reason. For example, he felt this applied to rational ways to know the existence of God.
Though one may deduce the existence of God and his Attributes (Unity, Truth, Goodness, Power, Knowledge) through reason, certain specifics may be known only through the special revelation of God throughJesus Christ. The major theological components of Christianity, such as theTrinity, theIncarnation, and charity are revealed in the teachings of the church and thescriptures and may not otherwise be deduced.[123] However, Thomas also makes a distinction between "demonstrations" of sacred doctrines and the "persuasiveness" of those doctrines.[124] The former is akin to something like "certainty", whereas the latter is more probabilistic in nature.[124]
In other words, Thomas thought Christian doctrines were "fitting" to reason (i.e. reasonable), even though they cannot be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.[124] In fact, theSumma Theologica is filled with examples of Thomas arguing that we would expect certain Christian doctrines to be true, even though these expectations are not demonstrative (i.e. 'fitting' or reasonable).[125] For example, Thomas argues that we would expect God to become incarnate, and we would expect a resurrected Christ tonot stay on Earth.[125][126]
According to Thomas, faith and reason complement rather thancontradict each other, each giving different views of the same truth. A discrepancy between faith and reason arises from a shortcoming of either natural science or scriptural interpretation. Faith can reveal a divine mystery that eludes scientific observation. On the other hand, science can suggest where fallible humans misinterpret a scriptural metaphor as a literal statement of fact.[127]
Augustine of Hippo's reflection on divine essentiality oressentialist theology would influenceRichard of Saint Victor,Alexander of Hales andBonaventure. By this method, theessence of God is defined by what God is, and also by describing what God is not (negative theology). Thomas took the text ofExodus beyond the explanation of essential theology. He bridged the gap of understanding between the being of essence and the being of existence. InSumma Theologica, the way is prepared with the proofs for the existence of God. All that remained was to recognize the God ofExodus as having the nature of "Him Who is the supreme act of being". God is simple, there is no composition in God. In this regard, Thomas relied onBoethius who in turn followed the path ofPlatonism, something Thomas usually avoided.[128]
The conclusion was that the meaning of "I Am Who I Am" is not an enigma to be answered, but a statement of the essence of God. This is the discovery of Thomas: the essence of God is not described by negative analogy, but the "essence of God is to exist". This is the basis of "existential theology" and leads to what Gilson calls the first and onlyexistential philosophy. In Latin, this is calledHaec Sublimis Veritas, "the sublime truth". The revealed essence of God is to exist, or in the words of Thomas, "I am the pure Act of Being". This has been described as the key to understandingThomism. Thomism has been described (as a philosophical movement), as either the emptiest or the fullest of philosophies.[128]
As a Catholic, Thomas believed that God was the "maker of heaven and earth, of all that is visible and invisible." But he thought that this fact can be proved by natural reason; indeed, in showing that it is necessary that any existent being has been created by God, he uses only philosophical arguments, based on his metaphysics of participation.[129] He also maintains that God createsex nihilo, from nothing, that is he does not make use of any preexisting matter.[130] On the other hand, Thomas thought that the fact that the world started to exist by God's creation and is not eternal is only known to us by faith; it cannot be proved by natural reason.[131]
Like Aristotle, Thomas posited that life could form from non-living material or plant life:
Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then.[132]
Super Physicam Aristotelis, 1595
Additionally, Thomas consideredEmpedocles's theory that various mutatedspecies emerged at the dawn of Creation. Thomas reasoned that these species were generated throughmutations in animal sperm, and argued that they were not unintended bynature; rather, such species were simply not intended for perpetual existence. That discussion is found in his commentary on Aristotle'sPhysics:
The same thing is true of those substances Empedocles said were produced at the beginning of the world, such as the 'ox-progeny', i.e., half ox and half-man. For if such things were not able to arrive at some end and final state of nature so that they would be preserved in existence, this was not because nature did not intend this [a final state], but because they were not capable of being preserved. For they were not generated according to nature, but by the corruption of some natural principle, as it now also happens that some monstrous offspring are generated because of the corruption of seed.[133]
Thomas believed that theexistence of God is self-evident in itself, but not to us. "Therefore, I say that this proposition, "God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects."[134]
Thomas believed that the existence of God can be demonstrated. Briefly in theSumma Theologiae and more extensively in theSumma contra Gentiles, he considered in great detail five arguments for the existence of God, widely known as thequinque viae (Five Ways).
Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion. Since, as Thomas believed, there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be aFirst Mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.
Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be aFirst Cause, called God.
Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.
Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God.[b]
Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God.[c][135]
Thomas was receptive to and influenced byAvicenna'sProof of the Truthful.[136] Concerning the nature of God, Thomas, like Avicenna felt the best approach, commonly called thevia negativa, was to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five statements about the divine qualities:
God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.[137]
God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.[138] Thomas defined God as the IpseActus Essendi subsistens, subsisting act of being.[139]
God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.[140]
God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.[141]
God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Thomas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' isnecessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."[142]
FollowingAugustine of Hippo, Thomas definessin as "a word, deed, or desire, contrary to theeternal law."[143] It is important to note the analogous nature of law in Thomas's legal philosophy. Natural law is an instance or instantiation of eternal law. Because natural law is what human beings determine according to their own nature (as rational beings), disobeying reason is disobeying natural law and eternal law. Thus eternal law is logically prior to reception of either "natural law" (that determined by reason) or "divine law" (that found in the Old and New Testaments). In other words, God's will extends to both reason and revelation. Sin is abrogating either one's own reason, on the one hand, or revelation on the other, and is synonymous with "evil" (privation of good, orprivatio boni[144]). Thomas, like all Scholastics, generally argued that the findings of reason and data of revelation cannot conflict, so both are a guide to God's will for human beings.
Thomas argued that God, while perfectly united, also is perfectly described byThree Interrelated Persons. These three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are constituted by their relations within the essence of God. Thomas wrote that the term "Trinity" "does not mean the relations themselves of the Persons, but rather the number of persons related to each other; and hence it is that the word in itself does not express regard to another."[145] The Father generates the Son (or the Word) by the relation of self-awareness. This eternal generation then produces an eternal Spirit "who enjoys the divine nature as the Love of God, the Love of the Father for the Word."
This Trinity exists independently from the world. It transcends the created world, but the Trinity also decided to give grace to human beings. This takes place through theIncarnation of the Word in the person ofJesus Christ and through the indwelling of theHoly Spirit within those who have experiencedsalvation by God; according to Aidan Nichols.[146]
Thomas's five proofs for the existence of God take some of Aristotle's assertions concerning the principles of being. For God asprima causa ("first cause") comes from Aristotle's concept of theunmoved mover and asserts that God is the ultimate cause of all things.[147]
In theSumma Theologica, Thomas begins his discussion of Jesus Christ by recounting the biblical story ofAdam and Eve and by describing the negative effects oforiginal sin. The purpose of Christ's Incarnation was to restore human nature by removingthe contamination of sin, which humans cannot do by themselves. "Divine Wisdom judged it fitting that God should become man, so that thus one and the same person would be able both to restore man and to offer satisfaction."[148] Thomas argued in favour of thesatisfaction view of atonement; that is, thatJesus Christdied "to satisfy for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on account of sin."[149]
Thomas argued against several specific contemporary and historical theologians who held differing views about Christ. In response toPhotinus, Thomas stated that Jesus was truly divine and not simply a human being. AgainstNestorius, who suggested that the Son of God was merely conjoined to the man Christ, Thomas argued that the fullness of God was an integral part of Christ's existence. However, counteringApollinaris of Laodicea's views, Thomas held that Christ had a truly human (rational)soul, as well. This produced a duality of nature in Christ. Thomas argued againstEutyches that this duality persisted after the Incarnation. Thomas stated that these two natures existed simultaneously yet distinguishably in one real human body, unlike the teachings ofMani andValentinus.[150]
With respect toPaul the Apostle's assertion that Christ, "though he was in the form of God... emptied himself" (Philippians 2:6–7) in becoming human, Thomas offered an articulation of divinekenosis that has informed much subsequent CatholicChristology. Following theCouncil of Nicaea,Augustine of Hippo, as well as the assertions of Scripture, Thomas held the doctrine ofdivine immutability.[151][152][153] Hence, in becoming human, there could be no change in the divine person of Christ. For Thomas, "the mystery of Incarnation was not completed through God being changed in any way from the state in which He had been from eternity, but through His having united Himself to the creature in a new way, or rather through having united it to Himself."[154]
Similarly, Thomas explained that Christ "emptied Himself, not by putting off His divine nature, but by assuming a human nature."[155] For Thomas, "the divine nature is sufficiently full, because every perfection of goodness is there. But human nature and the soul are not full, but capable of fulness, because it was made as a slate not written upon. Therefore, human nature is empty."[155] Thus, when Paul indicates that Christ "emptied himself" this is to be understood in light of his assumption of a human nature.
In short, "Christ had areal body of the same nature of ours, atrue rational soul, and, together with these,perfect Deity". Thus, there is both unity (in his onehypostasis) and composition (in his two natures, human and Divine) in Christ.[156]
I answer that, The Person or hypostasis of Christ may be viewed in two ways. First as it is in itself, and thus it is altogether simple, even as the Nature of the Word. Secondly, in the aspect of person or hypostasis to which it belongs to subsist in a nature; and thus the Person of Christ subsists in two natures. Hence though there is one subsisting being in Him, yet there are different aspects of subsistence, and hence He is said to be a composite person, insomuch as one being subsists in two.[157]
EchoingAthanasius of Alexandria, he said that "The only begotten Son of God... assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."[158]
Thomas Aquinas identified the goal of human existence as union and eternal fellowship with God. This goal is achieved through thebeatific vision, in which a person experiences perfect, unending happiness by seeing the essence of God. The vision occurs after death as a gift from God to those who in life experienced salvation and redemption through Christ.
The goal of union with God has implications for the individual's life on earth. Thomas stated that an individual'swill must be ordered towards the right things, such as charity, peace, andholiness. He saw this orientation as also the way to happiness. Indeed, Thomas ordered his treatment of the moral life around the idea of happiness. The relationship between will and goal is antecedent in nature "because rectitude of the will consists in being duly ordered to the last end [that is, the beatific vision]." Those who truly seek to understand and see God will necessarily love what God loves. Such love requires morality and bears fruit in everyday human choices.[159]
Thomas Aquinas belonged to the Dominican Order (formallyOrdo Praedicatorum, the Order of Preachers) which began as an order dedicated to the conversion of theAlbigensians and other heterodox factions, at first by peaceful means; later the Albigensians were dealt with by means of theAlbigensian Crusade. In theSumma Theologiae, he wrote:
With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith that quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy, which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition", asthe Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.[160]
Heresy was a capital offence against the secular law of most European countries of the 13th century. Kings and emperors, even those at war with the papacy, listed heresy first among the crimes against the state. Kings claimed power from God according to the Christian faith. Often enough, especially in that age of papal claims to universal worldly power, the rulers' power was tangibly and visibly legitimated directly through coronation by the pope.
Simple theft, forgery, fraud, and other such crimes were also capital offences; Thomas's point seems to be that the gravity of this offence, which touches not only the material goods but also the spiritual goods of others, is at least the same as forgery. Thomas's suggestion specifically demands that heretics be handed to a "secular tribunal" rather thanmagisterial authority. That Thomas specifically says that heretics "deserve... death" is related to his theology, according to which all sinners have no intrinsic right to life. For Jews, Thomas argues for toleration of both their persons and their religious rites.[161]
The position taken by Thomas was that if children were being reared in error, the Church had no authority to intervene. FromSumma Theologica II-II Q. 10 Art. 12:
Injustice should be done to no man. Now it would be an injustice to Jews if their children were to be baptized against their will, since they would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were Christians. Therefore, these should not be baptized against their parent's will. The custom of the Church has been given very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of Catholic Doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than that of anAugustine or aJerome or any doctor whatever. Now it was never the custom of the Church to baptize the children of Jews against the will of their parents. There are two reasons for this custom. One is on account of the danger to faith. For children baptized before coming into the use of reason, might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and this would be detrimental to the faith. The other reason is that it is against natural justice. For a child is by nature part of its father: at first, it is not distinct from its parents as to its body, so long as it is enfolded within the mother's womb and later on after birth, and before it has the use offree will, it is enfolded in the care of its parents, like a spiritual womb. So long as a man does not have the use of reason, he is no different from an irrational animal. Hence, it would be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before coming to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parent's custody, or anything done against its parent's wish.
The question was again addressed by Thomas inSumma Theologica III Q. 68 Art. 10:
It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xiv), quoting theCouncil of Toledo: In regard to the Jews the holy synod commands that henceforth none of them be forced to believe; for such are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that their righteousness may be without flaw. Children of non-believers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore, of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract in marriage. Consequently, such can be lawfully advised and persuaded to be baptized. If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients were saved through the faith of their parents.
The issue was discussed in a papal bull byPope Benedict XIV (1747) where both schools were addressed. The pope noted that the position of Aquinas had been more widely held among theologians andcanon lawyers, than that ofDuns Scotus.[162]
only God can perform miracles, create and transform.[163]
angels and demons ("spiritual substances") may do wonderful things, but they are not miracles and merely use natural things as instruments.[164]
any efficacy of magicians does not come from the power of particular words, or celestial bodies, or special figures, or sympathetic magic, but by bidding (ibid., 105)
"demons" are intellective substances which were created good and have chosen to be bad, it is these who are bid.[165]
if there is some transformation that could not occur in nature it is either the demon working on human imagination or arranging a fake.[166]
A mention of witchcraft appears in theSumma Theologicae[167] and concludes that the church does not treat temporary or permanent impotence attributed to a spell any differently to that of natural causes, as far as an impediment to marriage.
Under thecanon Episcopi, church doctrine held that witchcraft was not possible and any practitioners of sorcery were deluded and their acts an illusion. Thomas Aquinas was cited in a new doctrine that included the belief in witches. This was a departure from the teachings of his masterAlbertus Magnus whose doctrine was based in theEpiscopi.[168] "To what extent Dominican inquisitors such as Heinrich Kramer really found support in Thomas is irrelevant in this context, thus associating Thomas's name with the whole aspect of witchcraft and the persecution of witches."[169]
The famous 15th-century witch-hunter's manual, theMalleus Maleficarum, also written by a member of the Dominican Order, begins by quoting Thomas Aquinas refuting theEpiscopi and goes on to cite Thomas Aquinas over a hundred times.[170] Promoters of the witch hunts that followed often quoted Thomas more than any other source.[168] "Thomas Aquinas's statements remain essentially theoretical and lack any direct relation to the subsequent persecution of witches."[169]
A grasp of Thomas's psychology is essential for understanding his beliefs about the afterlife and resurrection. Thomas, following church doctrine, accepts that the soul continues to exist after the death of the body. Because he accepts that the soul is the form of the body, then he also must believe that the human being, like all material things, is form-matter composite. The substantial form (the human soul) configures prime matter (the physical body) and is the form by which a material composite belongs to that species it does; in the case of human beings, that species is a rational animal.[171] So, a human being is a matter-form composite that is organized to be a rational animal. Matter cannot exist without being configured by form, but form can exist without matter—which allows for the separation of soul from body. Thomas says that the soul shares in the material and spiritual worlds, and so has some features of matter and other, immaterial, features (such as access to universals). The human soul is different from other material and spiritual things; it is created by God, but also comes into existence only in the material body.
Human beings are material, but the human person can survive the death of the body through the continued existence of the soul, which persists. The human soul straddles the spiritual and material worlds, and is both a configured subsistent form as well as a configurer of matter into that of a living, bodily human.[172] Because it is spiritual, the human soul does not depend on matter and may exist separately. Because the human being is a soul-matter composite, the body has a part in what it is to be human. Perfected human nature consists in the human dual nature, embodied and intellecting.
Resurrection appears to require dualism, which Thomas rejects. Yet Thomas believes the soul persists after the death and corruption of the body, and is capable of existence, separated from the body between the time of death and theresurrection of the flesh. Thomas believes in a different sort of dualism, one guided by Christian scripture. Thomas knows that human beings are essentially physical, but physicality has a spirit capable of returning to God after life.[173] For Thomas, the rewards and punishment of the afterlife are notonly spiritual. Because of this, resurrection is an important part of his philosophy on the soul. The human is fulfilled and complete in the body, so the hereafter must take place with souls enmattered in resurrected bodies. In addition to spiritual reward, humans can expect to enjoy material and physical blessings. Because Thomas's soul requires a body for its actions, during the afterlife, the soul will also be punished or rewarded in corporeal existence.
Thomas states clearly his stance on resurrection, and uses it to back up his philosophy of justice; that is, the promise of resurrection compensates Christians who suffered in this world through a heavenly union with the divine. He says, "If there is no resurrection of the dead, it follows that there is no good for human beings other than in this life."[174] Resurrection provides the impetus for people on earth to give up pleasures in this life. Thomas believes the human who prepared for the afterlife both morally and intellectually will be rewarded more greatly; however, all reward is through the grace of God. Thomas insists beatitude will be conferred according to merit, and will render the person better able to conceive the divine.
Thomas accordingly believes punishment is directly related to earthly, living preparation and activity as well. Thomas's account of the soul focuses on epistemology and metaphysics, and because of this, he believes it gives a clear account of the immaterial nature of the soul. By accepting the essentiality of both body and soul, he allows for aHeaven andHell described in scripture and churchdogma. He also argued the elect in Heaven will be able to look down and witness the suffering of the damned, that they may more rejoice in God. This belief has been used by later critics likeFriedrich Nietzsche, as coming from a place of hate and resentment. While modern theologians argue it is being misconstrued, and is entirely life affirming, being about God's divine justice and salvation.[175]
Thomas Aquinas was a theologian and aScholastic philosopher.[176] He never considered himself a philosopher, and criticized philosophers whom he saw as pagans, for always "falling short of the true and proper wisdom to be found in Christian revelation".[177] With this in mind, Thomas did have respect for Aristotle, so much so that in theSumma, he often cites Aristotle simply as "the Philosopher", a designation frequently used at that time. However, Thomas "never compromised Christian doctrine by bringing it into line with current Aristotelianism; rather, he modified and corrected the latter whenever it clashed with Christian belief".[178]
Much of Thomas's work bears upon philosophical topics, and in this sense may be characterized as philosophical. His philosophical thought has exerted enormous influence on subsequent Christian theology, especially that of the Catholic Church, extending to Western philosophy in general.
Thomas Aquinas believed "that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act."[179] However, he believed that human beings have the natural capacity to know many things without specialdivine revelation, even though such revelation occurs from time to time, "especially in regard to such (truths) as pertain to faith."[180] But this is the light that is given to man by God according to man's nature:
Now every form bestowed on created things by God has power for a determined act[uality], which it can bring about in proportion to its own proper endowment; and beyond which it is powerless, except by a superadded form, as water can only heat when heated by the fire. And thus the human understanding has a form, viz. intelligible light, which of itself is sufficient for knowing certain intelligible things, viz. those we can come to know through the senses.[180]
"Eternal law" redirects here. For 2012 fantasy drama series, seeEternal Law.
Thomas was aware that the Albigensians and the Waldensians challenged moral precepts concerning marriage and ownership of private property and that challenges could ultimately be resolved only by logical arguments based on self-evident norms. He accordingly argued, in the Summa Theologiae, that just as thefirst principle of demonstration is the self-evident principle of noncontradiction ("the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time"), the first principle of action is the self-evidentBonum precept ("good is to be done and pursued and evil avoided").[181]
This natural law precept prescribes doing and pursuing what reason knows is good while avoiding evil. Reason knows what is objectively good because good is naturally beneficial and evil is the contrary. To explain goods that are naturally self-evident, Thomas divides them into three categories: substantial goods of self-preservation desired by all; the goods common to both animals and humans, such as procreation and education of offspring; and goods characteristic of rational and intellectual beings, such as living in community and pursuing the truth about God.[182]
To will such natural goods to oneself and to others is to love. Accordingly, Thomas states that the love precept obligating loving God and neighbour are "the first general principles of the natural law, and are self-evident to human reason, either through nature or through faith. Wherefore all the precepts of the decalogue are referred to these, as conclusions to general principles."[183][184]
To so focus on lovingly willing good is to focus natural law on acting virtuously. In hisSumma Theologiae, Thomas wrote:
Virtue denotes a certain perfection of a power. Now a thing's perfection is considered chiefly in regard to its end. But the end of power is act. Wherefore power is said to be perfect, according as it is determinate to its act.[185]
Thomas emphasized that "Synderesis is said to be the law of our mind, because it is a habit containing the precepts of the natural law, which are the first principles of human actions."[186][187]
According to Thomas,
all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law: since each one's reason naturally dictates to him to act virtuously. But if we speak of virtuous acts, considered in themselves, i.e., in their proper species, thus not all virtuous acts are prescribed by the natural law: for many things are done virtuously, to which nature does not incline at first; but that, through the inquiry of reason, have been found by men to be conducive to well living.
Therefore, we must determine if we are speaking of virtuous acts as under the aspect of virtuous or as an act in its species.[188]
Thomas defined the fourcardinal virtues asprudence,temperance,justice, andfortitude. The cardinal virtues are natural and revealed in nature, and they are binding on everyone. There are, however, threetheological virtues:faith,hope, andcharity. Thomas also describes the virtues as imperfect (incomplete) and perfect (complete) virtues. A perfect virtue is any virtue with charity, charity completes a cardinal virtue. A non-Christian can display courage, but it would be courage with temperance. A Christian would display courage with charity. These are somewhat supernatural and are distinct from other virtues in their object, namely, God:
Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. On the other hand, the object of the intellectual and moral virtues is something comprehensible to human reason. Therefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.[189]
Thomas Aquinas wrote "[Greed] is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things."[190]
Furthermore, in hisTreatise on Law, Thomas distinguished four kinds of law: eternal,natural, human, anddivine.Eternal law is the decree of God that governs all creation: "That Law which is the Supreme Reason cannot be understood to be otherwise than unchangeable and eternal."[191]Natural law is the human "participation" in theeternal law and is discovered byreason.[192]Natural law is based on "first principles":
this is the first precept of the law, that good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based on this..[193]
Whether the natural law contains several precepts, or one only is explained by Thomas, "All the inclinations of any parts whatsoever of human nature, e.g., of the concupiscible and irascible parts, in so far as they are ruled by reason, belong to the natural law, and are reduced to one first precept, as stated above: so that the precepts of the natural law are many in themselves, but are based on one common foundation."[194]
The desires to live and to procreate are counted by Thomas among those basic (natural) human values on which all human values are based. According to Thomas, all human tendencies are geared towards real human goods. In this case, the human nature in question is marriage, the total gift of oneself to another that ensures a family for children and a future for mankind.[195] He defined the dual inclination of the action of love: "towards the good which a man wishes to someone (to himself or to another) and towards that to which he wishes some good".[196]
Concerning Human Law, Thomas concludes,
that just as, in the speculative reason, from naturally known indemonstrable principles, we draw the conclusions of the various sciences, the knowledge of which is not imparted to us by nature, but acquired by the efforts of reason, so to it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from general and indemonstrable principles, that human reason needs to proceed to the more particular determination of certain matters. These particular determinations, devised by human reason, are called human laws, provided the other essential conditions of law be observed.
Human law ispositive law: the natural law applied by governments to societies.[188] Natural and human law is not adequate alone. The need for human behaviour to be directed made it necessary to have Divine law. Divine law is the specially revealed law in thescriptures.[197]
Thomas also greatly influenced Catholic understandings ofmortal andvenial sins.
Thomas refers to animals asbruta, non-rational, and that the natural order has declared animals for man's use. Thomas denied that human beings have any duty of charity to animals because they are not persons. Otherwise, it would be unlawful to kill them for food. But humans should still be charitable to them, for "cruel habits might carry over into our treatment of human beings."[198][199]
Thomas contributed toeconomic thought as an aspect of ethics and justice. He dealt with the concept of ajust price, normally its market price or a regulated price sufficient to cover sellercosts of production. He argued it was immoral for sellers to raise their prices simply because buyers were in pressing need of a product.[200][201]
Thomas's theory of political order became highly influential. He sees man as a social being who lives in a community and interacts with its other members. That leads, among other things, to thedivision of labour.
Thomas made a distinction between a good man and a good citizen, which was important to the development oflibertarian theory. That indicates, in the eyes of the atheist libertarian writerGeorge H. Smith, that the sphere ofindividual autonomy was one which the state could not interfere with.[202]
Thomas thought that monarchy was the best form of government because a monarch does not have to form compromises with other persons. Thomas, however, held that monarchy in only a very specific sense was the best form of government—only when the king was virtuous is it the best form; otherwise if the monarch is vicious it is the worst kind (see De Regno I, Ch. 2). Moreover, according to Thomas,oligarchy degenerates more easily intotyranny than monarchy. To prevent a king from becoming a tyrant, his political powers must be curbed. Unless an agreement of all persons involved can be reached, a tyrant must be tolerated, as otherwise, the political situation could deteriorate into anarchy, which would be even worse than tyranny. In his political workDe Regno, Thomas subordinated the political power of the king to the primacy of the divine and human law ofGod the creator. For example, he affirmed:
Just as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst.
According to Thomas, monarchs are God's representatives in their territories, but the church, represented by the popes, is above the kings in matters of doctrine and ethics. As a consequence, worldly rulers are obliged to adapt their laws to the Catholic Church's doctrines and determinations.
Thomas said slavery was not the natural state of man.[203] He also held that a slave is by nature equal to his master. He distinguished between 'natural slavery', which is for the benefit of both master and slave, and 'servile slavery', which removes all autonomy from the slave and is, according to Thomas, worse than death.[204] Aquinas' doctrines of the Fair Price,[205] of the right oftyrannicide and of the equality of all the baptized sons of God in theCommunion of saints established a limit to the political power to prevent it from degenerating into tyranny. This system had a concern in the Protestant opposition to the Catholic Church and in "disinterested" replies to Thomism carried out byImmanuel Kant andBaruch Spinoza.
[M]en who are in authority over others do no wrong when they reward the good and punish the evil.
[...] for the preservation of concord among men it is necessary that punishments be inflicted on the wicked. Therefore, to punish the wicked is not in itself evil.
Moreover, the common good is better than the particular good of one person. So, the particular good should be removed in order to preserve the common good. But the life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.
Furthermore, just as a physician looks to health as the end in his work, and health consists in the orderly concord of humors, so, too, the ruler of a state intends peace in his work, and peace consists in "the ordered concord of citizens." Now, the physician quite properly and beneficially cuts off a diseased organ if the corruption of the body is threatened because of it. Therefore, the ruler of a state executes pestiferous men justly and sinlessly in order that the peace of the state may not be disrupted.
However, in the same discussion:
The unjust execution of men is prohibited...Killing which results from anger is prohibited...The execution of the wicked is forbidden wherever cannot be done without danger to the good.
While it would be contradictory to speak of a "just schism", a "just brawling" or a "just sedition", the word "war" permits sub-classification into good and bad kinds. Thomas, centuries afterAugustine of Hippo, used the authority of Augustine's arguments in an attempt to define the conditions under which a war could bejust.[207] He laid these out in theSumma Theologica:
First, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than the pursuit of wealth or power.
Second, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.
Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[208]
Thomas maintains that a human is a single material substance. He understands the soul as the form of the body, which makes a human being the composite of the two. Thus, only living, form-matter composites can truly be called human; dead bodies are "human" only analogously. One actually existing substance comes from body and soul. A human is a single material substance, but still should be understood as having an immaterial soul, which continues after bodily death.
In theSumma Theologiae Thomas states his position on the nature of the soul; defining it as "the first principle of life".[209] The soul is not corporeal, or a body; it is the act of a body. Because the intellect is incorporeal, it does not use the bodily organs, as "the operation of anything follows the mode of its being".[210]
Saint Thomas Aquinas by Luis Muñoz Lafuente
According to Thomas, the soul is not matter, not even incorporeal or spiritual matter. If it were, it would not be able to understand universals, which are immaterial. A receiver receives things according to the receiver's own nature, so for the soul (receiver) to understand (receive) universals, it must have the same nature as universals. Yet, any substance that understands universals may not be a matter-form composite. So, humans have rational souls, which are abstract forms independent of the body. But a human being is one existing, single material substance that comes from body and soul: that is what Thomas means when he writes that "something one in nature can be formed from an intellectual substance and a body", and "a thing one in nature does not result from two permanent entities unless one has the character of substantial form and the other of matter."[211]
Thomas addressed most economic questions within the framework of justice, which he contended was the highest of the moral virtues.[212] He says that justice is "a habit whereby man renders to each his due by a constant and perpetual will."[213] He argued that this concept of justice has its roots in natural law. Joseph Schumpeter, in hisHistory of Economic Analysis, concluded that "All the economic questions put together matters less to him than did the smallest point of theological or philosophical doctrine, and it is only where economic phenomena raise questions of moral theology that he touches upon them at all."[214]
Thomas Aquinas distinguished thejust, or natural, price of a good from that price which manipulates another party. He determines the just price from a number of things. First, the just price must be relative to the worth of the good. Thomas held that the price of a good measures its quality: "the quality of a thing that comes into human use is measured by the price given for it".[216] The price of a good, measured by its worth, is determined by its usefulness to man. This worth is subjective because each good has a different level of usefulness to every man. The price should reflect the current value of a good according to its usefulness to man. "Gold and silver are costly not only on account of the usefulness of the vessels and other like things made from them, but also on account of the excellence and purity of their substance."[217] The discussion of just price sees that there should be an understanding of what is fair to both sides of the parties. Neither should be exploiting the others circumstance. It is considered that the just price should account for a persons relative statues in life. Someone of less means would have a different obligation compared to someone who is well off. "Need is subjectivised the concern of the buyer and the seller in their respective conditions during the transaction."[218]
[I]n distributive justice something is given to a private individual, in so far as what belongs to the whole is due to the part, and in a quantity that is proportionate to the importance of the position of that part in respect of the whole. Consequently, in distributive justice a person receives all the more of the common goods, according as he holds a more prominent position in the community. This prominence in an aristocratic community is gauged according to virtue, in an oligarchy according to wealth, in a democracy according to liberty, and in various ways according to various forms of community. Hence in distributive justice the mean is observed, not according to equality between thing and thing, but according to proportion between things and persons: in such a way that even as one person surpasses another, so that which is given to one person surpasses that which is allotted to another.
Thomas asserts that Christians have a duty to distribute with provision to the poorest of society.[220]
"Social justice" is a term that arose in the 19th century in the writings of Luigi Taparelli,[221] and it was his term for the reality Thomas Aquinas called "legal justice" or "general justice". Legal or social justice is the contribution of the individual to the common good. So for Thomas, distributive justice goes in the direction from thecommon good to the individual, and is a proportional distribution of common goods, to individuals based on their contribution to the community. Legal or general justice, or what came to be called social justice, goes in the other direction, from the individuals to the common good.[222]
Thomas also wrote extensively on usury, that is, the lending of money with interest. He condemned its practice: "to take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice".[223] Money, and other similar goods, are consumed only when they are used. Charging a premium for money lent is a charge formore than the use of the good. Thus, Thomas Aquinas concluded that the lender is charging for something not his own, in other words, not rendering to each his due.
Although he was only writing actively for about two decades, Thomas managed to write over eight million words.[224] Thomas's systematic works, particularly theSumma Theologiae, are his best-known, but collections of his complete works are dozens of volumes long. His works can be grouped into six categories:
Works written in direct connection to his teaching, including seven systematic disputations and twelvequodlibetal collections.
Philosophical commentaries – eleven on Aristotle, and two each on Boethius andProclus.
Lesser tracts, including polemic writings, letters, expert opinions, homilies, and his "catena aurea" collection of glosses on the Gospels.
His systemic works: theSumma Theologiae,Summa contra Gentiles, and his commentary on Peter Lombard'sSentences.
The critical edition of Thomas's works is the ongoing edition commissioned byPope Leo XIII under the titleSancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelica Opera Omnia, known as theLeonine Edition. Most of his major works have now been edited for the Leonine Edition. They include Thomas's commentaries on Aristotle'sOn Interpretation (Peri hermeneias) andPosterior Analytics (Posteriorum analyticorum), prepared by Thomas Maria Zigliara, in the first volume (1882), theSumma Theologiae in nine volumes from 1888 to 1906, and theSumma contra Gentiles in three volumes from 1918 to 1930.
Electronic texts of mostly the Leonine Edition are maintained online by the Corpus Thomisticum[226] by Enrique Alarcón,University of Navarra, and at Documenta Catholica Omnia.[227]
^See Pius XI,Studiorum Ducem 11 (29 June 1923), AAS, XV ("non-modo Angelicum, sed etiam Communem seu Universalem Ecclesiae Doctorem"). The titleDoctor Communis dates to the fourteenth century; the titleDoctor Angelicus dates to the fifteenth century, see Walz,Xenia Thomistica, III, p. 164 n. 4.Tolomeo da Lucca writes inHistoria Ecclesiastica (1317): "This man is supreme among modern teachers of philosophy and theology, and indeed in every subject. And such is the common view and opinion, so that nowadays in theUniversity of Paris they call him theDoctor Communis because of the outstanding clarity of his teaching."Historia Eccles. xxiii, c. 9.
^Thomas does not ascribe actual qualities to God Himself.
^Even when we guide objects, in Thomas's view the source of all our knowledge comes from God as well.
^David, Marian (Summer 2022)."The Correspondence Theory of Truth".Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved24 February 2023.
^"Thomas Aquinas".Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved9 October 2024.Thomas Aquinas... was an Italian Dominican theologian, the foremost medieval Scholastic.
^"Thomas Aquinas (1224/6–1274)".Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved10 October 2024.However, it also seems right to say—if only from the sheer influence of his work on countless philosophers and intellectuals in every century since the 13th, as well as on persons in countries as culturally diverse as Argentina, Canada, England, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Poland, Spain, and the United States—that, globally, Thomas is one of the 10 most influential philosophers in the Western philosophical tradition.
^McInerny, Ralph; O'Callaghan, John (5 February 2018). "Saint Thomas Aquinas". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
^According to Bonaventure, theology begins where philosophy ends in mystery and can go no further. According to Thomas, faith and theology grow together in a faith-reason hermeneutic circle in which philosophy uses all the other sciences to place itself at the service of theology. Bonaventure jokingly accused Thomas of having contaminated the pure wine of faith with the water of reason, and Thomas replied that even in the miracle of theWedding at Cana the water was transformed into wine. Cf.Thomas d'Aquin, inEncyclopædia Universalis, vol. XVI, 1981,ISBN2-85229-281-5. LCCN at The Library of Congress at Washington, n. 68-59350.
^Summa theologiae, I, 1, prooemium: "Quia Catholicae veritatis doctor non-solum provectos debet instruere, sed ad eum pertinet etiam incipientes erudire, secundum illud apostoli I ad Corinth. III, tanquam parvulis in Christo, lac vobis potum dedi, non-escam; propositum nostrae intentionis in hoc opere est, ea quae ad Christianam religionem pertinent, eo modo tradere, secundum quod congruit ad eruditionem incipientium."
^abcdMcInerny, Ralph; O'Callaghan, John (2018)."Saint Thomas Aquinas". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.) – via stanford.edu.
^Grant, Edward (1996).The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 81–82.ISBN0-521-56762-9.
^"Aeterni Patris".. Quote: "By the divine favor of Him who alone gives the spirit of science wisdom, and understanding, and who thou ages, as there may be need, enriches His Church with new blessings and strengthens it with safeguards, there was founded by Our fathers, men of eminent wisdom, the scholastic theology, which two glorious doctors in particular angelic St. Thomas and the seraphic St. Bonaventure, illustrious teachers of this faculty, . . .with surpassing genius, by unwearied diligence, and at the cost of long labors and vigils, set in order and beautified, and when skilfuly arranged and clearly explained in a variety of ways, handed down to posterity."
^abMettepenningen, Jürgen (2002).Nouvelle théologie – new theology : inheritor of modernism, precursor of Vatican II. London, England:T&T Clark.ISBN978-0567697301.
^"Optatam Totius".Next, in order that they may illumine the mysteries of salvation as completely as possible, the students should learn to penetrate them more deeply with the help of speculation, under the guidance of St. Thomas, and to perceive their interconnections.
^Fuente, Antolín González (1997). "La teologia nella liturgia e la liturgia nella teologia in san Tommaso d'Aquino".Angelicum.74 (3):359–417.JSTOR44617298.
^Pope John Paul II also recalled Aquinas duringhis speech at the Pontifical Athenaeum 'Angelicum' (1979),his address at the International Congress of the Thomas Aquinas Society (1986), as well as in aletter to the General of the Dominicans (2001).
^Benedict XV, EncyclicalFausto appetente die.Archived 21 February 2014 at theWayback Machine. 29 June 1921, AAS 13 (1921), p. 332;Pius XI, EncyclicalStudiorum Ducem, §11, 29 June 1923, AAS 15 (1923), cf. AAS 17 (1925), p. 574;Paul VI, 7 March 1964, AAS 56 (1964), p. 302 (Bouscaren, vol. VI, pp. 786–788).
^In theGemäldegalerie in Berlin, for example, there is a panel depicting Saint Thomas: the artist, from the school ofBernardo Daddi, imagines and depicts angels girding the hips of the saint, absorbed in prayer, while they communicate to him that his prayer to the Lord for theperpetuae virginitatis cingulum had been accepted. Cfr. C.M.J.Vanstenkiste - M.C. Celletti,Tommaso d'Aquino, inBibliotheca Sanctorum XII, Roma 1969, coll. 544-566, specialmente 563-566; P.Amargier,Tommaso d'Aquino, in A. Vauchez (ed.),Storia dei santi e della santità cristiana Ch. VI.L'epoca del rinnovamento evangelico 1054-1274, Milano 1991, pp. 245-260.
^Hankey, Wayne (2013).The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion (Second ed.). CSU East Bay: Routledge. pp. 134–135.ISBN978-0-415-78295-1.
^Summa of Theology I, q.2, "The Five Ways Philosophers Have Proven God's Existence".
^Adamson, Peter (2013). "From the necessary existent to God". In Adamson, Peter (ed.).Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0521190732.
^Thomas Aquinas. "Question 114, Article 4".Summa Theologica. Vol. I.
^"Question 38, Article 2".Summa theologica Supplement.Whether a spell can be in impediment to marriage. Note this Supplement was written or compiled by others after Thomas's death.
^abBurr, G. L. (1943). L. O. Gibbons (ed.).Selected Writings. New York. pp. 173–174.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) Original essay (1890) available here[1]Archived 25 February 2021 at theWayback Machine.
^Kramer, Heinrich (2009).Malleus Maleficarum. Translated by Christopher Mackay. Cambridge. pp. 91–92.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Duignan, Brian, ed. (2011). "Age of the Schoolmen".The History of Philosophy, Medieval Philosophy, from 500 to 1500 CE. New York: Britannica Educational Publishing.ISBN978-1-61530-244-4.
^Honderich, Ted, ed. (1995)."Animals: Peter Singer".The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford. pp. 35–36. Archived fromthe original on 13 October 2009. Retrieved30 November 2006 – via utilitarian.net.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Thomas Aquinas. "Question 64. Article 1".Summa Theologica. Vol. Second Part of the Second Part.
^Aquinas, Thomas (1920). "Question 75, Article 1".Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Second and Revised ed.).
^Aquinas, Thomas (1920). "Question 75, Article 3".Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Second and Revised ed.).
^Aquinas, Thomas; et al. (1975). "5 volumes.".Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by Anton C. Pegis. Notre Dame, Ind.: U. of Notre Dame Press.
^Thomas Aquinas (1981).Summa Theologica. New York: English Dominican Fathers. pp. II–II, Q78, A1.
^Pasnau, Robert (2024),"Thomas Aquinas", in Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved27 July 2024.
Vaughan, Roger Bede (1871).The Life and Labours of St. Thomas of Aquin. Vol. I. London, England.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Thomas Aquinas (2000). Mary T. Clark (ed.).An Aquinas Reader: Selections from the Writings of Thomas Aquinas. Fordham University Press.ISBN0-8232-2029-X.
[De unitate intellectus]McInerny, Ralph M. (1993).Aquinas Against the Averroists: On There Being Only One Intellect. Purdue University Press.ISBN1-55753-029-7.
_-_stained_glass%2c_St._Thomas_Aquinas%2c_detail.jpg)
_-_stained_glass%2c_St._Thomas_Aquinas%2c_detail.jpg)
_%25C3%2589glise_Saint-M%25C3%25A9en_-_Int%25C3%25A9rieur_-_Baie_100_-_02.jpg)
