Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T00:33:27.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theology, Faith, Universities: From Specialization to Specification in Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Philip Neri Reese OP
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The issue of hyper-specialization within the various academic fields has often been raised in the context of recent discussions concerning the purpose or end of the modern university. Theology, one such field in which continual specialization seems prevalent, is further complicated by questions regarding the relationship between faith and the scientific character of theology, as well as the role of the university with regard to that relationship. Though seemingly diverse, a resolution to both of these questions may be found by giving an account of how the sciences, like theology, are specified. It is the purpose of the present article to explore the classical Thomistic position on this subject, and to apply its principles to the case of theology. It is shown that the specification of a science can be understood in terms of both the “formal object which” is known in a given science and the “formal object under which” it is known. The former can provide a correct starting point for managing the multiplicity of “sub-fields” and various specializations within the science of theology, while the latter can help to answer the question of the interrelation between faith and theology as a science in a university setting.

Keywords

Thomismsciencetheology“formal object which”“formal object under which”
Type
Original Articles
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 92 , Issue 1042 , November 2011 , pp. 691 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 The Author. New Blackfriars

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The text of the Pope's lecture can be found online at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html; Ashley, Benedict O.P., The Way toward Wisdom (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacIntyre, Alasdair, God, Philosophy, Universities (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2009)Google Scholar, and ‘The Very Idea of a University: Aristotle, Newman and Us’, New Blackfriars 91 (2010)Google Scholar; Hütter, Reinhard, ‘God, The University, and the Missing Link – Wisdom: Reflections on Two Untimely Books’, The Thomist 73 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a thought-provoking treatment of the unity of theology, published subsequent to the writing of the present article and taking a slightly different approach, see Hütter, Reinhard, ‘Theological Faith Enlightening Sacred Theology: Renewing Theology by Recovering Its Unity as Sacra Doctrina’, The Thomist 74 (2010)Google Scholar.

2 Reinhard Hütter, in his above-cited article, sees both Ashley and MacIntyre in fundamental agreement that the purpose of the university is the teaching of universal knowledge, though he draws out the different nuances of their positions. Hütter himself explicitly emphasizes that this teaching of universal knowledge is the pursuit of wisdom.

3 DiNoia, Joseph A. O.P., ‘The Practice of Catholic Theology’, in Bauerschmidt, Frederick C., Buckley, James, and Pomplun, R. Trent, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Catholicism (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), pp. 247–49Google Scholar.

4 A wonderful summary of this approach is given by Francis Wade, S.J. in John of Saint Thomas, Outlines of Formal Logic (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1955), p. 3Google Scholar. It is important to acknowledge that this philosophical “hermeneutic of continuity” adopted by classical Thomism differs in significant respects from the historical hermeneutic found in many of the contemporary schools of Thomism.

5 For a brief and clear summary of this distinction, see Nichols, Aidan, The Shape of Catholic Theology (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 15–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 In English, see Aquinas, Thomas St., Commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, trans. Berquist, Richard (Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books, 2007), pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

7 Ibid.; Prooemium. pp. 2–3.

8 English translation from The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, vol. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 1981). The quote is from the Prima Secundae, question 54, article 4, response to objection 3, and all further citations will be in the following format: ST I-II.54.4.ad.3.

9 While this distinction is not explicitly made by Saint Thomas, its seed can be found in his treatment of the distinction between the “material object” and the “formal object” found in the corpus of ST I.1.3 and in the importance placed on divine revelation vis-a-vis theology as a science in ST I.1.7. ad.2. The tripartite distinction is given a full, explicit, and clear exposition in Joannis a Sancto Thoma, O.P., Ars Logica, ed. P. Beato Reiser, O.S.B (Torino: Marietti, 1820), p. 260. The quote is from book 2, question 1, article 3, and all further citations will be in the following format: AL II.1.3, p. 260. An English translation of most of the second book of the Ars Logica can be found in The Material Logic of John of St. Thomas, trans. Simon, Yves, Glanville, John, Hollenhorst, G. Donald (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)Google Scholar.

10 This “formal object” discussed by St. Thomas in the corpus of ST I.1.3 is to be identified with the ratio formalis quae of John of Saint Thomas in AL II.27.1, p. 819.

11 For a helpful comparison, see ST I.77.3.

12 See Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald O.P., The One God (St. Louis: Herder, 1943), pp. 57–59Google Scholar. John of Saint Thomas’ preferred term is ratio formalis sub qua.

13 AL II.1.3, p. 260.

14 In AL II.27.1, p. 819, John of Saint Thomas uses the example, not of stained glass, but of seeing a wall. Hopefully we do not lose too much clarity by slightly modifying the example.

15 AL II. 1.3, p. 260.

16 See Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald O.P., The One God (St. Louis: Herder, 1943), p. 58Google Scholar.

17 See ST I.1.3.ad 1&2.

18 ST I.1.7.

19 Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald O.P., The One God (St. Louis: Herder, 1943), p.78Google Scholar; also see Thomas de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan, O.P.'s commentary on ST I.1.7, no.1.

20 ST I.1.4.

21 For a further discussion, see the rich Appendix 6: Theology as Science in Aquinas, Thomas St., Summa Theologiae: Christian Theology, ed. Gilby, Thomas O.P., (Cambridge: Blackfriars, 1964)Google Scholar. Of particular note is the subsection “The Science of Faith,” which proceeds from nos. 21–29.

22 For a fuller treatment of this account, see John of Saint Thomas, Introduction to the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas, trans. McInerny, Ralph (South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2004), pp. 9–11Google Scholar.

23 In addition the citation given above, see Weisheipl, James A. O.P., ‘The Meaning of Sacra Doctrina in Summa Theologiae I, q. 1’, The Thomist 38 (1974), pp. 64–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 See the first part of the corpus of I.1.5 for the connection between the sublimity of principles, their sources, and their certainty.

25 Or at least those parts of theology connected in the order of demonstration to those articles that are not held with the certitude of faith.

26 In a lengthy footnote, Reinhard Hütter gives a helpful treatment of what this pursuit of wisdom will entail for the university when wisdom is understood within a Thomistic framework. See footnote 31 in Hütter, Reinhard, ‘God, The University, and the Missing Link – Wisdom: Reflections on Two Untimely Books’, The Thomist 73 (2009), p. 271CrossRefGoogle Scholar.