Epilogue
It would take a long chapter to try to do justice to the varieties of Thomism and the forms of reception of the Summa theologiae that have proliferated since the anniversary of Thomas’s death in 1974. Though Neothomism seems dead, many other forms of Thomism are alive and well, as Neothomism’s end sparked a new generation of historical, philosophical, and theological retrievals of the Summa, so varied as to defy generalization. Thus, Fergus Kerr recently referred to “the diversity and incommensurability of the available interpretations of Thomas’s work” as a characteristic of our time.
In the decades since 1974 the official voice of Roman Catholicism has continued to recommend Thomas Aquinas, but in a different way from what was found between 1879 and 1965. The new Code of Canon Law promulgated under Pope John Paul II in 1983 speaks of Thomas as a teacher especially endowed for leading students into the depths of the mysteries of salvation, though without any insistence on the supremacy of the Angelic Doctor. The Catechism of the Catholic Church issued in 1994 refers to Thomas sixty-one times, especially from the Summa theologiae, second only to Augustine, who is cited eighty-seven times. The most important recent papal document for the revised status of Thomas is the 1998 Encyclical Fides et Ratio of John Paul II, himself a former professor of philosophy. Several times in the document John Paul refers back to Aeterni Patris as a model for his thinking, but there is also an evident contrast between Leo’s encyclical and John Paul’s. John Paul insists that while there is a necessary connection between theology and philosophical reasoning, there can be no single philosophy taught by the Church. Speaking of Christian philosophy, he says, “[T]he term is valid, but it should not be misunderstood: it in no way suggests that there is an official philosophy of the Church, since faith as such is not a philosophy. The term seeks rather to indicate a Christian way of philosophizing.” Many forms of philosophy are useful, though none is totally adequate. Thomas’s thought is mentioned with approval more often than others, but only as an example of how to go about trying to relate the demands of philosophy and theology—“Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth” (sec. 78)—not the thinker who provides the answer to all questions.
The demise of triumphal Thomism has been a boon for historical study of Thomas, as well as philosophical and theological engagement of Thomas’s thought free from ideological concerns. In the words of Otto Hermann Pesch, Thomas has finally been released from house arrest. In the wake of Vatican II, therefore, Thomas has played a more restricted role in Catholic theology than he enjoyed in the first half of the twentieth century, but the new historical and contextual work on Thomas has been fruitful for uncovering the true contours of his thought and seeing its place in the broader tradition. In recent decades scholars have produced insightful studies of specific themes of Thomas’s theology, especially in the Summa, as well as several good introductions to Thomas as theologian. One area that has emerged with special force has been the recognition that Thomas’s Summa theologiae, despite its rigorous form of argumentation, is a work rooted in deep spiritual insight.
Philosophical engagement with Thomas and the Summa has continued to be a lively area of research and writing, despite greater awareness that Thomas was actually a professor of theology and that attempts to create a Thomistic philosophy are always new endeavors based on aspects of Thomas’s thought. What is obvious is that Thomas’s way of engaging rational argumentation in the service of understanding faith provides a resource for philosophers and philosophical theologians to enter into dialogue with him on the perennial issue of the relation of faith and reason. This is a tribute to the ongoing power of Thomas’s thought, especially as seen in his two masterworks, Summa theologiae and Summa contra Gentiles. Just as the writings of great philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Henri Bergson inspired studies of the relation of their philosophies and the thought of Thomas, in recent decades there have been attempts to put Thomas into conversation with major twentieth-century philosophers such as Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951). Some Anglo-American analytic philosophers have found in Thomas a useful resource for thinking about how language relates to claims about God and reality. This “Analytical Thomism,” as it has been called, persists in England and in North America. There is still a danger, however, in treating Thomas more as a philosopher than as a theologian, or in mistaking his intentions.
This is not the place to try to review the many forms of Thomism that have appeared in recent decades. A longer book might look at the survival of “Palaeo-Thomism,” roughly what I referred to as Strict-Observance Thomism. (A variant I recently heard of was termed “Taliban-Thomism.”) Other new approaches to Thomas include Radical-Orthodox Thomism, Postliberal Thomism, Postmodern Thomism, and the like. Over the past generation a number of distinguished scholars of Thomas have gazed into their crystal balls to make predictions about what the future of Thomism might hold. I will forego any attempt at this. It is difficult enough to try to provide an evaluation of the impact of figures over the past century on the history of the reception of the Summa, let alone to presage the direction that new study of Thomas’s great work might take. One thing that does seem sure, however, is that Thomas and his Summa theologiae will remain an important part of philosophical and theological discussion in the Western tradition. The cycle of wisdom rolls on.