Contemporary Questions and the Recovery of Thomism: Sacred Theology's Need for Philosophy

Introductory context: the practice of Catholic theology has undergone an essential change in the twentieth century. This change can be expressed thus: Over the course of the twentieth century, the practice of sacred theology underwent an essential shift—from first principles to sacred sources. (I have explored, in a preliminary manner, these themes elsewhere—e.g., my introduction to vol. 1 of Dr. Matthew K. Minerd's translation to Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's On Divine Revelation. Please consult this text for a fuller—even if still preliminary—presentation of this theme.) Ironically, theology has lost sight of its sacred identity. Here, philosophy is an aid to sacred theology. Why? Philosophy's primary focus is first principles (albeit, of course, naturally knowable first principles—but first principles nonetheless). Thesis: philosophy will help contemporary theology to recall its sublime scientific-sapiential dignity (STh I, q. 1, aa. 2–6) and salvific necessity (STh I, q. 1, a. 1).

Cultural context: The world is in a complicated condition. Few would object to this claim. No one—whether on the Right, or the Left (or the ever-elusive Center)—is currently content with matters political, economic, or social. The consternation that many feel over the current changes in society is evident in the discourse often highlighted in the media. I merely point out the point of civil unrest to identify a point that, I believe, all can agree on.

Liberals and conservatives have always debated topics. This is nothing new. They have also debated different things throughout history. This is also nothing new. What is new—uniquely, in our twenty-first century period—is the absolute and fundamental nature of the topics that the Left and the Right are currently debating.

The topics that aggravate the contemporary person are evident: marriage, gender, identity.

Why do these things vex us so profoundly?

The answer: the human person stands at the center of matters of ethics, politics, and economics. The identity of the human person is at stake in the current debates. Thus, questions about identity, gender, and marriage are of great interest to all. Everyone is deeply invested in these topics simply through being human. And because humans are rational, we naturally desire to understand what things are, the way things are, and how things can (or ought to) be.

Much has happened quickly. During the Obergefell v. Hodges case, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito famously held up his smartphone and said: "Whatever gay marriage is, it is more recent than this." The newness of the current preoccupations is a cause, no doubt, of the consternation that the Right and the Left express over the current situation. The fact that these ideas, these movements, and these initiatives—in a word, these questions—are subject to debate is one thing. The fact that these matters have not been subject to such universal dispute is another. There is, thus, perhaps, another reason why the controversies carry so much investment and attract so much attention: these current subjects are not just new, they touch on the foundations of personal identity and human experience.

Materially, the topics that stand in the spotlight touch on convictions that lie within the most basic elements of reality. Questions of gender and marriage, supremely, touch on first order matters. These debates, thus, are not just disputes between opposing political camps. In other words, the tenor of these debates is not merely one of "the same song but of a different key." No. The left and the right are debating foundational things—things they've never debated before. First things. Things more important than which it would be difficult to conceive.

And it is here, I propose, that all people are compelled to reexamine the things that are "most first"—both in the order of being and in the order of knowledge.

What does this mean for Thomists? Thomists are identified by their commitment to specific first principles. First principles—first truths—constitute the essential form of Thomism. Thomists of prior times would, probably, be surprised by the topics that are presently subject to debate (and, no doubt, would be rather troubled by what they see). But the Thomist would also recognize the origin of the radically different approaches heralded in the contemporary moment.

Contemporary disputes all boil down to different conceptions of being and of reality. First principles.

A Thomist might propose, then, that we are presently entering a moment in which philosophy is highlighted. The questions of today—if we are going to think profoundly and consistently about the positions that are advanced—demand philosophical reflection. Disputes over these fundamental topics entail presuppositions about (and have implications for) first principles in a way that is unavoidable.

Thus, I suggest that a big-picture evaluation of the current state of public and personal discourse points to one conclusion: philosophy is, once again, overtly relevant to public discourse. This conclusion is true no matter what one's personal persuasion about gender, sex, and marriage.

Philosophy is notoriously difficult to define. The reason for this difficulty, of course, is that the most supreme science always eludes definition the most. Philosophy, in its essence, is a speculative endeavor. Most have engaged in ratiocination for practical ends (e.g., the critique or the advancement of marriage questions, etc. etc.). We would do well to recover philosophy's speculative essence.

As a wisdom, however, the contingencies of contemporary society render it difficult for human persons to remain intellectually listless. Regardless of whether one falls on the Right or on the Left, all are compelled to think and to reflect (1) on what is happening (i.e., the contingency), and (2) what is (i.e., the necessary or, perhaps, even the natural).

The point: the chaos of contemporary society does not leave philosophy only to those who have the leisure to contemplate. All must contemplate. All are contemplating.

Progressive and conservative theologians both (forgive these regrettable and artificial adjectives) are faced with a truth that, perhaps, requires re-appreciation: being matters. This truth, of course, starts on the level of philosophy. But this truth extends beyond the natural realm to the supernatural.

The theological questions that arise in the light of faith and fall within the dynamics of grace both presuppose something natural that is illuminated by faith and transformed by grace.

The tensions and consternations of contemporary society have shone a light upon the penurious state of Catholic theology in its contemporary practice. Theologians are ill-equipped to engage the contemporary questions that the world poses to them (or, perhaps even worse, that theologians wished the world would pose to them). This penurious situation is present on both the level of the speculative and the practical.

Here, I propose that authentic philosophy may come to the aid of sacred theology. Sacred theology—as it is often practiced—has forgotten how to speak its proper language. Its parlance sounds like its original language (i.e., classical forms of theological discourse). But the language has changed.

Philosophy, of course, does not speak the same language as theology. The two are objectively distinct sciences.

Nonetheless, the ontological vocabulary of philosophy provides a lexicon that has been collecting dust on the shelf of theology. A theology that does not terminate in reality is not fully sacred theology.

In sum: the questions of today are questions that demand reconsideration of first principles. The first principles of philosophy are most proximate to today's questions. Nonetheless, the first principles of the sacra doctrina are also relevant. Indeed, today's questions invite the sacred theologian to revisit its essential principle-formality.

How do the questions of today demand the reintegration of philosophical first principles and the revealed principles of the Depositum fidei? The controversies of the present moment touch on matters that are per se natural. One does not need divine revelation in order to discover the nature of gender, sexuality, or marriage. How do we know this? Divine revelation is not required to be born in a gender, in order to copulate, or to enter into nuptial union.

Divine revelation, however, does have things to say about these natural realities. Moreover, confusion about the nature of gender, sexuality, and marriage can frustrate the workings of grace—this is evident in divine revelation (both Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition). If confusion infects the order of nature, then the order of grace suffers.

Nota bene: I do not rejoice in the questions that the contemporary world asks, per se. But I do hope that we philosophers and theologians might awake from the slumber of sources and narratives to the demands of being and reality. Such an awakening would enable sources and narratives to find an even higher and more salvific utility.

Beyond philosophy, the current situation also makes certain demands upon theologians as well. As noted at the beginning of this essay, contemporary theology represents a gradual movement away from first principles to sacred sources. And, for a generation or two, the source-based practice of theology has been able to thrive and to bear much fruit. But the current situation places demands on the theologian which exceed the resources available to sacred sources. And this for the simple reason: sources don't address some of these things (e.g., gay marriage, transgenderism).

Saint Anselm famously defined theology as fides quaerens intellectum. Today, fides without intellectus is insufficient. Likewise, "theology" without any intellectus is unintelligible.

Additionally, the technological advances of the twenty-first century render certain phenomena possible that previous generations of theologians would never have been able to anticipate. For example, the gender-changing procedures that individuals can choose today would have not even been imaginable by previous generations of theologians. God is always the same. Sacred theology—in its formality—never changes. But the things to which the wisdom of sacred theology must extend have indeed changed. And because such things are radically new, the sacred sources don't contain—in an exhaustive manner—all that is required to resolve the significant questions debated today.

Thus, it is necessary, once again, for the sacra doctrina to extend formally to the new questions currently under dispute. And this extension—exactly, as an extension—cannot be something on the level of text and verse alone. Questions of gay marriage and gender require engagement with the same formality of the sacra doctrina. Because the world has gone into unexplored avenues, and divine revelation exists for the salvation of the world, the theology must extend further than it has grown accustomed to.

Perhaps the current practice of Catholic theology is ill-equipped to deal with contemporary questions. The reason: sources are insufficient. We need authentic fides quaerens intellectum. And in order to have fides quaerens intellectum, we need a more profound grasp of intellectus. Thus, philosophy—and philosophy's grounding in first principles—is required at the moment for the properly theological task that presently faces Catholic thinkers.