In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

s e v e n Creation in St. Thomas Aquinas’s Super Evangelium S. Joannis Lectura David B. Burrell, C.S.C. It will hardly seem strange to remind ourselves that appropriating Aquinas for our times may well require deconstructing appropriations effected in other intellectual climes, especially those of the last century. Indeed, an outstanding note of these earlier readings had been their unilateral focus on Aquinas the philosopher, generating a fast distinction between “philosophy” and “theology”—a distinction that hardened into an institutional separation between such faculties in Catholic colleges and universities. There emerged a bridging discipline , to be sure, called “natural theology,” which purported to treat theological issues from “reason alone.” Yet the issues so treated—typically the existence of God and the immortality of the soul—were not considered part of theology as such, which operated from premises of faith, but rather deemed to be “preambles to faith.” Proving such matters by reason was said to facilitate one’s acceptance of truths of faith, though philosophical demonstrations of the required sort could never be regarded as a prerequisite for a responsible assent to faith. They were rather thought to be useful ploys for fending off skeptical objections , and so handy to have available on demand but hardly a necessary part of every believer’s intellectual equipment. Under the general rubric of apologetics, such inquiries could take place under the aegis of a theology faculty as “fundamental theology” or in a philosophy faculty as “natural theology”—where “natural” contrasted with “supernatural ” as reason to faith. The firm distinction between “theology” and “philosophy” remained intact, however, leaving a yawning gap in the purported “bridge” between them; as philosophical demonstrations intended to supply “motives of credibility” could lead up to but  = never quite suffice to bring one into faith, which always required the action of grace. But a seminal article by Guy de Broglie, S.J., in 1 challenged this picture as an accurate reading of Aquinas’s use of the expression preambula fidei (“preambles to faith”), thus implicitly undermining the entire conceptual and institutional edifice firmly separating philosophical inquiries from theological investigations.1 An influential English collection of articles published soon after under the title New Essays in Philosophical Theology served to coin a phrase for an authentic bridging discipline, “philosophical theology,” whose implications continue to be explored, but which challenges the neat separation implied by the predecessor title of “natural theology,” with the collateral effect of vastly expanding the range of topics treated in this domain.2 Instead of confronting us directly with the “natural/supernatural” distinction, this descriptive phrase makes it clear that the subjects to be considered will be theological in character, while the mode of treatment will be philosophical. So it tends to be inclusive rather than exclusive, allowing premises from revelation to work in tandem with rational arguments.3 That description, of course, could accurately depict Aquinas’s procedure in his Summa theologiae, and so threaten the handy distinction-becomeseparation between the two disciplines named. Yet it is precisely that later distinction -become-separation which must be recognized to be the construction that it is, and so effectively dismantled, yet without losing the penetrating edge that philosophical rigor brings to theological inquiry. Once we have dispensed with the demand to know whether Aquinas is doing “philosophy” or “theology” in a particular text, we have a better chance to recognize what he is actually doing. A decisive incentive to deconstruct the earlier appropriation of Aquinas will come from recognizing its roots in modernity, which put great store in “reason alone,” whereas following the ways in which Aquinas actually proceeds will allow us to acknowledge how his use of reason is imbedded in presuppositions of faith. And once we have accomplished that, it will become clear that his mode more nearly matches ours, as we follow both Gadamer and Wittgenstein into paths of inquiry that utilize convictions of varying provenance in an inescapably intertwining manner. We will be able, we shall see, to distinguish diverse strands of inquiry, yet not be constrained to separate them. Indeed, the distinction we need can be found in an article of the Summa theologiae that will provide a key to our inquiry into 116 D B. B, C.S.C. 1. Guy de Broglie, S.J., “La vraie thomiste des praeambula fidei,” Gregorianum  (1): 1–. 2. Anthony Flew, ed., New Essays in Philosophical Theology (London: SCM Press, 1). . “Theology and Philosophy,” in Blackwell Companion...

Share