The Summa Theologica and Flannery O’Connor

 

For many years now, particularly since becoming a Catholic, I have been reading theological works, not solely literary or secular philosophical works as I used to. I have tried to immerse myself in the best of them. For some time now I have been periodically dipping into the works of the Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas. I have had many different feelings about Thomas, not always totally positive, but slowly growing much more positive with age.  His method has often been viewed as cold, dry and hyper rationalistic by some detractors as well as an over reliance on Aristotle’s philosophy . His thought and writings were  taken by the Catholic Church to be canonical and authoritative and after Pope Leo XIII, the primary theologian and philosopher taught in all seminaries and Catholic schools. His actual works were not always read but outlined in manuals. During the time of Vatican II this official Thomism or neo-scholasticism was challenged and there came about a new pluralism in Catholic theology and philosophy . This pluralism has been one of the distinguishing features of post Conciliar Catholic life. Unfortunately for younger theologians this displacement has sometimes been very frustrating. We no longer have such a solid edifice of thinking to build on. I remember telling an older philosophy prof and a religious studies prof I was immersed in reading the Summa Theologica and both seemed positively horrified. They thought that seriously studying St Thomas, such an old and medieval philosopher and theologian, went out of fashion after Vatican II. 

I however have found the reading of Thomas Aquinas to be an adventure. For some, this reading of Thomas is often in the light of more modern or contemporary philosophers such as a Kant or Heidegger. Many great Catholic philosopher/theologians such as Karl Rahner and before him Jacques Maritain,  have in different ways related Thomistic thought  with Existentialist thinking. Theologians of the Radical Orthodoxy school have related his ideas critically with postmodern ones.

 However I deeply enjoy reading some of his questions and answers directly from his Summa Theologica. Right now the question most interesting to me is his very first question and article, the question at the very beginning of his Summa, Why do we need theology in the first place? We have philosophy, and there's even a place within philosophy, called natural theology, which treats of God so why do we need the theological sciences? Doesn't philosophy treat all things that are real and true? Isn’t reason sufficient? Thomas however argues that humans are created for an end that far surpasses the understanding of the created mind. Human reason is limited. Revelation is needed and because this end or beatitude is so important a definite revelation has been given to guide us.  Because this revelation, found in scripture has God as it’s source it can also be truly called a science ( Sum I-q1 a. 2) 

During Lent I aspire to pray a decade of the rosary for an intention and read an article of the Summa before bed. I was inspired to do this by the writer Flannery O’Connor. She relates reading the Summa Theologica at night before bed in her book the Habit of Being. 

« I couldn’t make any judgment on the Summa, except to say this: I read it every night before I go to bed. If my mother were to come in during the process and say, “Turn off that light. It’s late,” I with lifted finger and broad, bland, beatific expression, would reply, “On the contrary, I answer that the light, being eternal and limitless, cannot be turned off. Shut your eyes,” or some such thing. In any case I feel I can personally guarantee that St. Thomas loved God because for the life of me I cannot help loving St. Thomas.”
— Flannery O’Connor, The Habit of Being