September
15th, Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows
It has become popular of late
to claim that St. Thomas Aquinas (and all the other scholastics with him,
excepting [perhaps] St. Bonaventure) was a dry and boring author. “Sure”, some
will say, “he was a great thinker and did much to help explain the faith with
clarity; but there is no feeling and
nothing which grasps the reader’s heart.”
Indeed, quite sadly, this derogatory
style of speech is common even to our Holy Father Pope Benedict who scarcely
misses an opportunity to point out that St. Augustine is more human than St. Thomas (at least in terms
of his theological writings). Now, I am not sure who soured our Holy Father to
the writing-style of St. Thomas, but that man did Pope Benedict a great
disservice – as we shall see, St. Thomas isn’t dry at all! [Certainly, the
Common Doctor is no more “dry” than St. Augustine can be, as anyone who has
attempted to read The City of God has
discovered.]
The
poetry and theology of St. Thomas
Now, there are some who will
attempt to defend the Angel of the Schools (i.e. St. Thomas Aquinas) by
pointing to his hymns – Adoro te devote,
Lauda Sion, Pange Lingua, et cetera.
However, although this is a good start – since it is clear that the mind which
wrote those hymns was not so dry and emotionally repressed as the modern
critics claim – we must go much further. It is not merely the hymns of St.
Thomas which are filled with devotion (and even, to a surprising degree, emotion), but even his most “scholastic”
and “systematic” works.
In this little article, we turn
to the Common Doctor’s reflection on the suffering which our Savior endured
while on the Cross. The relevant article from the Summa Theologica is no “dry” and “detached” speculative exercise,
but is very clearly the fruit of profound prayer and devotion – any who claim
that St. Thomas is not human enough,
have clearly failed to read him carefully.
Many of those who claim that
St. Thomas is “too philosophical” or “too impersonal” (especially in his
systematic writings) make little or no reference to the third part of the Summa Theologica. The tertia pars delves into the person of
Christ, specifically considering him as our Savior – it is in the third part
that St. Thomas discusses the life of Christ in great detail. While there are
many profound passages throughout the Summa,
the third part is characterized by the union of reason with piety.
Especially in his discussion of
the Passion of our Savior, St. Thomas shows that devotion and speculative
theology are not the least bit opposed. In question forty-six, the
writing-style of the Angelic Doctor is filled with that human devotion and
personal piety which so many (even conservative) Catholics claim St. Thomas lacks.
The
sufferings of our Savior
After discussing why it was fitting
for our Savior to die on the Cross, St. Thomas turns to a consideration of the
sufferings themselves. In Summa
Theologica III, q.46, a.5, St. Thomas asks “Whether Christ endured all
sufferings?”
The Angel of the Schools points
out that the word “all” can be taken in two ways: either to mean that Christ
suffered every kind of suffering specifically,
or that he suffered every kind of suffering generically.
Now, it is clear that our Lord did not (and could not) suffer every suffering
specifically, since some are mutually exclusive (as for example, drowning and
being burnt to death). Indeed, Jesus suffered only one kind of death:
Crucifixion.
However, considered generically, we say that the Lord
suffered all things, insofar as he suffered in every way that a man can suffer
(without sin). First, the Savior suffered from every class of men – he was
rejected and hated by men and women, by Jews and Greeks, by soldiers and
civilians, by friends (Judas) and enemies, by rulers (Pilot and Herod) and
slaves, by freemen and criminals, etc.
Secondly, St. Thomas points out
that our Savior suffered all things insofar as he suffered in every way that a
man can suffer: He was dishonored, abandoned, blasphemed, mocked and insulted,
robbed (when they took his garments), saddened, wearied, made to fear, beaten,
scourged, and killed. Thus, the Lord lost friends, reputation, honor, material
goods, and he suffered in both his soul and in his body.
Finally, at the end of the
article, St. Thomas turns to a consideration of the suffering which the Lord
endured in all his bodily members. It is this final point which shows the
devout, and indeed mystical, core of St.
Thomas’ speculative thought.
The
union of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
“Thirdly, [the Passion] may be considered with regard to His
bodily members. In His head He suffered from the crown of piercing thorns; in
His hands and feet, from the fastening of the nails; on His face from the blows
and spittle; and from the lashes over His entire body.
“Moreover, He suffered in all His bodily senses: in touch,
by being scourged and nailed; in taste, by being given vinegar and gall to
drink; in smell, by being fastened to the gibbet in a place reeking with the
stench of corpses, which is called Calvary;
in hearing, by being tormented with the cries of blasphemers and scorners; in
sight, by beholding the tears of His Mother and of the disciple whom He loved.”
(ST III, q.46, a.5)
The Angel of the Schools leaves
us looking through Christ’s own eyes upon the sorrow and the tears of his
blessed Mother and of St. John. While the original Latin carries more force, even
the English translation witnesses to the devotion and affectation of St. Thomas’
writing-style.
This particular example is not
the least unique or extraordinary. The whole of the third part of the Summa (not to mention many portions of
his other works) is filled with such examples as this. Anyone who would claim that
the Common Doctor is “dry” or “inhuman” or “impersonal” has either not read much
of St. Thomas or has come to his writings with a pre-conceived bias against our
greatest theologian.
We will go a step further: If a
man has not yet wept while reading the Summa
Theologica, he has thus far missed the genius of St. Thomas.
Our
Lady of Sorrows, Pray for us!
St.
Thomas Aquinas, Pray for us!
2 comments:
Father,
I agree with your assesment of St. Thomas not being the dry humorless person some of his critics would have us believe.
I would only add two points to your excellent article: first, considering the Holy Father's erudition, I think that his opinion of St Augustine being more human than St. Thomas is no doubt his own based on his personal reading and study of these two great Doctors of the Church.
Secondly, I have always thought that comparing the two is very unfair to both of them. They are a thousand years apart and their lives and reasons for writing are very different in most cases. In my humble opinion, it is very much the apples and oranges comparison.
Both are great lights of the Church that we desperately need in this dark time that we are living.
As a side note to you Father, I really appreciate this blog and the service you are rendering to us in the Church. I remember you in my prayers and pray that you will continue to preach the Catholic faith to us especially showing us the importance of the Fathers of the Church and especially the power of St Thomas in explaining our Faith.
D.C.
I agree.
Also, there is something about the rigor and clarity of his thinking that gives it more force with which to pierce the heart. When reading more "human" authors, you can easily be moved at the moment, and then afterward feel that what you read wasn't all that solid. Once it becomes doubtful, it loses its force. (We might summarize this by saying that what easily enters the soul easily falls out of it.) With St. Thomas, on the other hand, you come away from studying him thinking there is no way to deny what he said, and that such truths must be rigorously taken to heart, no matter what. Never do you get the sense that you have been hoodwinked by pious fluff or dubious motives. And that is a beautiful thing.
Post a Comment
When commenting, please leave a name or pseudonym at the end of your comment so as to facilitate communication and responses.
Comments must be approved by the moderator before being published.