Contemporary Academic Interest in the “Thomists”

In a previous essay (“Aeterni Patris and 21st Century Catholic Theology”), I considered aspects of Pope Leo XIII’s “Leonine revival of Thomism.” As noted in that previous essay, the “Leonine Revival” was a movement properly proportioned to the needs, concerns, and contingencies of the 19^th century. Although the implementation of Aeterni Patris bore significant consequences for the 20^th century, it would be anachronistic to regard the Leonine Revival as something akin to a philosophical or theological skeleton key for the needs, concerns, and contingencies of every generation. Including our own. An exact return to “Leonine Thomism”—not just in matter, but also in form—would be peculiar in the 21^st century. The questions that occupy the present moment are different from those of previous generations. If Thomism is anything, it is certainly not static.

This brings us to a fascinating theme of the late-20^th century. Thomas and the Thomists were held in suspicion or even disdain by many philosophers and theologians—even by philosophers and theologians in the Church. Senior scholars can relate striking memories of the anti-Thomistic sentiments that characterized their formative education in the mid to latter parts of the twentieth century. Aquinas was not held in esteem in the halls of academia. It was not uncommon for doctoral students, for example, to be advised against writing (or even forbidden to write) about Aquinas’s thought. Some resourceful students, however, circumvented these prohibitions by writing about Aquinas in reference to another, often patently non-Thomistic, philosopher or theologian. Much like an unpalatable elixir, Aquinas was only comestible if mixed with something else—to mask the flavor (if not to neutralize the effects).

In many respects, this response to Thomas Aquinas is not surprising. If the Leonine Revival led many students to feel like the Church’s intellectual menu only listed Aquinas, it is little wonder that many students yearned to sample from the offerings of other thinkers and perspectives. This pining for things other than Aquinas was particularly acute given the societal changes of the 20^th century. The questions and concerns of the 20^th century were not those of the 19^th century. Thus, the philosophers and theologians of prominence and influence during the 20^th century were quite different from those who were of standing and impact in previous generations. It is not at all unreasonable for the intellectuals of a given time to strive to understand their given time. Indeed, such presence-of-mind would seem to be a virtue. And when it comes to a given moment’s distinctive thought, the philosophers of influence are valuable indicators of where the culture is heading and what heads the interest of the culture. Regardless of the possible prognostications that a cultural observer could offer, however, few would have thought that Aquinas was on the intellectual horizon.

Impressively, however, Thomistic convictions held on and Thomistic projects continued. The branding of things like “Existential Thomism” and “Analytic Thomism” reflects the desire Aquinas’s disciples to carry on a conversation that had, seemingly, died out. Thomism had a long half-life—longer, perhaps, than many had expected. Some Thomistically-sympathetic philosophers and theologians attempted a fusion of perennial thought with modern questions and concerns. The Leonine moment had past, but the Angelic Doctor did not completely disappear from view.

The Recovery of Thomas Aquinas (without the Thomists)

The person and the work of Thomas Aquinas cannot, alone, account for the decline of Thomistic sympathies in the 20^th century. In many respects, Thomism itself—as distinct from the figure of Thomas Aquinas—received the opprobrium of the academy. Elsewhere, I have proposed that we can identify two broad movements in the fall and resurrection of Thomas Aquinas in the 20^th century.¹ (1) In the period that directly preceded and immediately followed the Second Vatican Council, there was a decided movement away from Thomas because of the Thomists. In other words, the association of Thomas with his Thomists contributed to the decline of Thomistic studies. Thomistic authors (and especially the classical Thomistic authors like Capreolus, Cajetan, Bañez, John of St. Thomas, Billuart, Del Prado) were clearly not content merely to repeat the verba Thomae. They were philosophers and theologians in their own right. They advanced arguments, responded to objections, and proposed positions that are not found explicitly in Aquinas’s own writings. Moreover, their work frequently bears a philosophical intricacy that is not easy to follow (much less engage). With the decline of the more philosophically-inspired Leonine Revival, it is not surprising that the form and method of the classical Thomists did not enjoy ongoing appeal.

(2) As the 20^th century drew closer to its term, however, Thomas Aquinas remerged as a figure of interest in the academy. Books written about Thomas Aquinas and his thought were not just published but they were read. (Here the writings of Jean-Pierre Torrell and Servais Pinckaers come to mind.) It is interesting to observe that this renewed interest in Aquinas was framed in strict distinction (if not opposition) to the Thomists and to “Thomism.” In other words, the academy turned to Thomas without the Thomists. Historical scholarship into the person and work of Aquinas was very significant for this renewed interest in Aquinas. And the precise focus on the person and work of Thomas was reflected in the adoption of a distinction between studies of a “Thomasienne” (sometimes translated as “Thomasian” or “Thomanian”) and “Thomist” nature.² Torrell offers a summary of this distinction: “Since around 1950 it [the adjective ‘Thomist’] has been in competition with a new word, ‘Thomasian,’ although this coinage has not been accepted everywhere or by everyone. ‘Thomasian’ is sometimes used to refer to what relates directly to Aquinas, and the literal exegesis of what he wrote, while ‘Thomist’ and ‘Thomism’ are used to refer to his followers.”³

This proposed distinction between “Thomasian” and “Thomistic” studies does not, necessarily, reflect any ideological hostility to Thomism. For example, Serge-Thomas Bonino has expressed great appreciation for the “Thomist school.”⁴ He has also published a collection of insightful essays titled Études thomasiennes in which he observes that there is no inherent tension between a scholar’s attention to sources and to the Thomistic “commentators.”⁵ Nonetheless, these titles (i.e., “Thomasian” and “Thomistic”) do indicate that the academy continues to draw a clear distinction between Thomas and the Thomists.

A Theory about Contemporary Academic Interest in the “Thomists”

One of the surprising things about research and publishing in the present moment, however, is the renewed interests in the Thomists. Not only is Thomas Aquinas seemingly “in” today, but the Thomists also find themselves subject to interest, study, and translation. Several years ago, at an international academic conference, a revered European professor of theology shared with me a trend that he was observing among his graduate students. “They all want to write on Cajetan, Bañez, John of St. Thomas, and Garrigou-Lagrange.” This, he explained, was something that he had never anticipated. This professor related that he generally did not permit his students to write on these Thomistic figures because their thought (not to mention their writing) was so difficult, at times, to penetrate. Nonetheless, this trend had caught his interest. He asked me if I had any theories about the renewed interest in not just Thomas but, also, the Thomists.

I shared with him a theory. I explained that the modus operandi of contemporary doctoral studies seems to proceed through a type of “compare and contrast” literary method. This method entails summarizing the thought of a significant philosopher or theologian—ideally, in a work that has not received much attention in recent years—in reference to another philosopher or theologian.

This method necessarily presupposes and requires central and ancillary figures and works to write about—to feed into the research mechanism, so to speak. There are, of course, scores of figures and works that doctoral candidates can study. Thus, this method has perdured for more than a few generations of graduate students. The unforeseen—yet inherent—limitation of this method, however, is that significant figures and works are, nonetheless, finite in number. Moreover, not all figures or works are of equal significance, interest, and importance. Thus, the graduate student (and the professor who continues to research and publish) is compelled to look for forgotten or ignored figures and students. And it is here that the contemporary interest in the Thomists themselves is intelligible. Graduate students require additional (and other) figures and works to feed through the academic machine. Thomist figures, quite nicely, meet many of the requirements of today’s graduate studies and academic writing: they were influential figures in times past, they wrote many long and erudite works, and they have not received a lot of academic attention in contemporary times.

I propose that the present interest in Thomistic figures and writings is, in no small way, an unforeseen side-effect of the source-oriented modus operandi of theological research and publication today. On one level, this is an amusing phenomenon. Source-oriented methods of theological writing were largely proposed as an alternative to the principial-oriented formality of neo-scholasticism in general and Thomism in particular. It is striking to observe that the Thomists have now, themselves, become sources for source-oriented research and writing.

On another level, however, the rise of “Thomists as sources” raises further questions about academic theology and the nature of Thomism. And it is to these further questions that we will turn in subsequent essays.

---

1. Cajetan Cuddy, O.P., “Garrigou-Lagrange and the Renewal of Catholic Theology,” in Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., On Divine Revelation: The Teaching of the Catholic Faith, trans. Matthew K. Minerd, vol. 1 (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic, 2022), 1–43.↩︎

2. On March 14, 1965, the renowned Dominican historian, philosopher, and theologian James Athanasius Weisheipl, O.P., delivered a lecture titled “Thomism as a Perennial Philosophy” (James A. Weisheipl, O.P., “Thomism as a Perennial Philosophy,” Chaplain’s Day Address, The Cardinal Stritch College, Milwaukee, WI, March 14, 1965). One notes that this date was only a few months prior to the formal close of the Second Vatican Council (December 8, 1965). Clearly, the conciliar moment in the Vatican II renewal provided the context for his reflections on the history and situation of Thomas and the Thomists. The lecture attracted the attention of ecclesial thinkers, and the following year Fr. Weisheipl was invited to give a version of this “brief and important history of Thomism” at a conference on “Philosophy in an Age of Christian Renewal” at the University of Notre Dame (September 1966) (this version of his lecture was published as “The Revival of Thomism as a Christian Philosophy” in New Themes in Christian Philosophy, ed. Ralph M. McInerny [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968], 164–85). In his lecture, Weisheipl remarks: “A distinction must be made between Thomanian doctrine and Thomistic doctrines. Thomanian, to coin an adjective, refers to a doctrine as understood and intended by St. Thomas himself. Thomistic, on the other hand, refers to doctrines as understood, applied, and developed by those who claim to follow the teaching of St. Thomas. In this paper we are not concerned with Thomanian doctrine, but with Thomism” (Weisheipl, “Revival of Thomism,” 171). Fr. Weisheipl later observes that “many reactions to Thomism in the past half-century have been, in fact, to a pseudo-Thomanianism and a half-understood Thomism” (184). It is interesting to note that Weisheipl does not invoke the distinction between Thomanian and Thomistic doctrines in the original (1965) version of his essay.↩︎

3. Jean-Pierre Torrell, “Thomism,” in Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, ed. Jean-Yves Lacoste, vol. 3 P-Z (New York: Routledge, 2005), 1578–83 at 1578.↩︎

4. Serge-Thomas Bonino, O.P., “The Thomist Tradition,” Nova et Vetera 8, no. 4 (2010): 869–81.↩︎

5. “This priority attention to the sources, upstream, is in no way incompatible with the interest, downstream, in the contributions of the 'commentators,' that is to say of the later Thomist tradition (cf. Études 11, 19) which, whatever Gilson may think, is perhaps not 'the worst test' of Saint Thomas” (Serge-Thomas Bonino, Études thomasienne [Paris: Parole et Silence, 2018], 13). French original: “Cette attention prioritaire aux sources, en amont, n’est en rien incompatible avec l’intérêt, en aval, pour les apports des « commentateurs », c’est-à-dire de la tradition thomiste postérieure (cf. Études 11, 19) qui, quoiqu’en pense Gilson, n’est peut-être pas « la pire épreuve » de saint Thomas.”↩︎