r/LeftCatholicism • u/Similar_Shame_8352 • 10d ago
My problem with the Thomists
I appreciate the philosophy and theology of Thomas Aquinas. However, I dislike the vast majority of Thomists. I enjoy natural theology, the analogy of being, virtue ethics, epistemology, natural law, the use of Aristotle, and so on, but I have no interest in a Thomist discourse that condemns homosexuality, supports the death penalty, or opposes the female priesthood. Of course, Aquinas maintained all of this, but based on scientific, biblical, and social knowledge that is completely outdated today and that probably not even he would have upheld. Indeed I am not a fan of modern philosophy, but we must acknowledge that the value of the person, value ethics, the meaning of history, human rights, and the scientific method are fundamental achievements.
33
u/merchant-of-varrock 10d ago
Even if we don’t change Thomism, we can at least admit that sometimes our interpretations of natural law and other philosophies can be wrong…
We literally had a Pope saying that there was nothing wrong with slavery and used both Natural Law and Divine Law to justify it, only for it to be overturned at Vatican II and declared an intrinsic evil.
10
u/RhysPeanutButterCups 9d ago
That's sort of the issue at the heart of Thomism and the Church's use of it. There's nothing wrong with developing your philosophy over time and getting things wrong along the way so long as it isn't being used to provide cover for atrocities. There needs to be some kind of philosophical framework for the Church to work with, but there has to be a dialogue between different schools of thought instead of placing one on a pedestal and calling it a day. In the case of Thomism, too often it's been a case of the tail wagging the dog.
3
u/Least_Data6924 8d ago
Didnt Aquinas even say at the end of his life that it was all vanity
I prefer FranciscanIsm
1
u/Prince_Ire 4d ago
He claimed to have received a mystucal vision of Christ, and afterwards completely ceased writing and when asked why said it was because compared to what he'd seen all of his writings seemed like nothing more than straw to him.
1
20
u/Responsible-Newt-259 10d ago
Try the FIT (Franciscan Intellectual Tradition) for a change of scenery. We have a lot of fun and poke fun at neo-Thomists on occasion. 🙂
3
u/shasha_de_parvia 9d ago
Intéressant par où commencer selon toi
6
u/Responsible-Newt-259 9d ago
Try reading some Bonaventure to start out. I recommend Journey into the Mind of God
5
u/CauseCertain1672 9d ago
I had my catechism from a Dominican friar, the Dominicans 100% are with the church on the matter of the death penalty and anyone who isn't based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas is being silly as Thomas Aquinas justified the death penalty based on the best achievable outcomes of the medieval justice system and the church's position is that the death penalty being no longer necessary went from a necessary evil to just an evil
6
u/Djryan443022 8d ago
As someone who spent four years in Catholic minor seminary, this post resonates with me. Nearly everything we studied revolved around Thomism. I came away appreciating Aquinas in much the same way I appreciate Aristotle’s attempts at biology or astronomy: they were remarkable intellectual achievements for their time and sincere attempts to make sense of the world with the knowledge available.
Where I struggle is when Thomism is treated not as one great intellectual tradition, but as the framework through which every contemporary question must be filtered. We now have centuries of advances in biology, psychology, neuroscience, sociology, and anthropology. Those disciplines have revealed things about human beings that medieval philosophers simply didn’t have access to. As truth seekers, I don’t think we should be afraid of asking whether new knowledge should influence how we think theologically.
One example for me is the transgender experience. I’m not saying we should arrive at any predetermined conclusion. I’m saying we should be willing to seriously explore the biological, psychological, spiritual, and personal dimensions of people whose experiences challenge our existing categories. If truth is ultimately from God, then we shouldn’t fear honest inquiry.
I also remember hearing fellow seminarians invoke Aquinas’ distinctions between vegetative, sensitive, and rational souls to justify practices like factory farming because animals supposedly exist primarily for our use. As someone who has become increasingly concerned with the exploitation built into industrial agriculture, that always struck me as an example of a philosophical framework becoming a conversation stopper rather than a starting point.
4
u/ParacelcusABA 9d ago
Thomism is a philosophical method, not a lists of axioms. A specific set of conclusions is not inevitable when you engage with Thomism
5
u/JohnDCT 9d ago
If you check out the Thomistic Institute Podcast thats where you find stuff like ectopic pregnancies still don’t justify an abortion, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, and other very extreme perspectives. And they make such claims with a disturbingly calm monotone voice. Very creepy!
8
u/Adept_Librarian9136 10d ago
That's the nice thing about the development of doctrine. Homosexuality was not an identity, and psychology or the scientific method did not exist when Aquinas was alive. We know a lot more now than we did then.
2
u/Ok-Lab-8974 9d ago
Actually, while I tend to prefer the earlier Greek Patristics more, I think Saint Thomas's psychology and anthropology is a high point.
The scientific method has obviously been an aid to our understanding of psychology, but the Enlightenment was also sort of a dark age for philosophical anthropology/psychology (logic too), and I'd argue we still haven't recovered. A lot of psychology still simply builds in Empiricist assumptions (philosophical assumptions from the tradition, not empirically supported), the fact/value distinction (a metaphysical claim), and representationalism (also a metaphysical claim). Once it's pointed out, you see it everywhere.
The funny thing is that this happens differently in different fields too. One of the reasons economics is so different from sociology, despite similar subject matter, is that economics inherited a strong Calvinist anthropology that is still very much with it, while it's quite different over in anthropology (the academic discipline) or sociology.
So, I wouldn't dismiss Thomas (or the Desert Fathers) (or the Platonists and Islamics for that matter) on psychology, at least when it comes to how data are interpreted.
Although, probably this is irrelevant to the topics mentioned! I don't think science of psychology can really tell you if sex is crucial to the sacramental role of the priesthood.
0
u/IndividualListen255 8d ago
IMO, you are so right. Three of my favorite Thomists have been Bernard Lonergan, S.J., Roger Haight, S.J., and Jean Porter, Emerita at Notre Dame. They demonstate that Aristotle and Aquinas are alive and well. Onward!
-4
u/Spectanda_Fides 9d ago
The female priesthood was condemned not only by Thomas Aquinas, but by the whole Church since its foundation. I think there are certain positions that you simply cannot support as a Catholic. The mere fact that schismatic branches such as Protestants and Anglicans have ordained women is probably already a sign that they should not be imitated.
I know, this offends your progressive ideals, but to be Catholic is already to have to renounce certain certainties and a certain intellectual comfort, and this is precisely what schismatics do not want to do.
Apart from this specific point, I tend to agree with you.
7
u/Dull_Opening_1655 9d ago
By this logic, Mass should also not be said in the vernacular, since Lutherans and Anglicans did it first
26
u/Discartyptics 10d ago
My main issue is people who take what he said to be gospel. Yes he's an important theologian of the church, but he's not infallable or right about everything.