Neo-scholasticism

Neo-scholasticism, also known as neo-scholastic Thomism, or neo-Thomism because of the great influence of the writings of Thomas Aquinas on the movement, is a revival and development of medieval scholasticism in Catholic theology and scholastic philosophy, which began in the second half of the 19th century.

Origins

During the medieval period, scholasticism became the standard accepted method of philosophy and theology. The Scholastic method declined with the advent of humanism in the 15th and 16th centuries, after which time it came to be viewed by some as rigid and formalistic. "Scholastic philosophy did not, however, completely disappear. An important movement of Scholastic revival took place during the 16th and 17th centuries and enriched Scholastic literature with many eminent contributions, in addition to adapting scholastic thought to modern problems and synthesising the currents of thought of various authors of medieval scholasticism, such as Thomism, Scotism or nominalism. Francisco de Vitoria (1483–1546), Thomas de Vio Cajetan (1469–1534), Gabriel Vásquez (1551–1604), Francisco de Toledo (1532–1596), Pedro da Fonseca (1528–1599), and especially Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) were profound thinkers, worthy of the great masters whose principles they had adopted." Moreover, as J. A. Weisheipl emphasises, within the Dominican Order Thomistic scholasticism has been continuous since the time of Aquinas: "Thomism was always alive in the Dominican Order, small as it was after the ravages of the Reformation, the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic occupation. Repeated legislation of the General Chapters, beginning after the death of St. Thomas, as well as the Constitutions of the Order, required all Dominicans to teach the doctrine of St. Thomas both in philosophy and in theology." A further idea of the longstanding historic continuity of Dominican scholasticism and neo-scholasticism may be derived from the list of people associated with the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas.

In the mid-19th century, interest in scholastic thought began once again to flourish, in large part in reaction against the Modernist current inspired by thinkers such as René Descartes, Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel, whose principles were perceived to conflict with Christian dogma. Theological Modernism never coalesced into an authoritative doctrine; perhaps it was most clearly defined by Pius X in 1907, when he condemned it as ‘the synthesis of all heresies’. However, the most consistent threads of Modernist thought include: (1) the belief that revelation continues up to the present day and did not stop after the apostles; (2) the belief that dogmas are not immutable, and their formulas could change both in interpretation and content; (3) the use of the historical-critical method in biblical exegesis.

For many thinkers, the dangers of Modernism could only be overcome by a complete restoration of scholastic theology which culminated in Aquinas. His writings were increasingly viewed as the ultimate expression of orthodox philosophy and theology, to which all Catholic thought must remain faithful.

This was particularly vigorous at first in Italy. "The direct initiator of the neo-Scholastic movement in Italy was Gaetano Sanseverino (1811–1865), a canon at Naples." The influential German Jesuit Joseph Kleutgen (1811–83), who taught at Rome, argued that post-Cartesian philosophy undermined Catholic theology, and that its remedy was the Aristotelian scientific method of Aquinas. From 1874 to 1891, the Accademia di San Tommaso published the review La Scienza Italiana. Numerous works were produced by Giovanni Maria Cornoldi (1822–92), Giuseppe Pecci, Tommaso Maria Zigliara (1833–93), Satolli (1839–1909), Matteo Liberatore (1810–92), Barberis (1847–96), Schiffini (1841–1906), de Maria, Talamo, Lorenzelli, Ballerini, Mattiussi and others. The Italian writers at first laid special emphasis on the metaphysics of Scholasticism, and less on the empirical sciences or the history of philosophy.

Papal support for such trends began under Pope Pius IX, who praised the movement in various letters. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception (1854), the Syllabus of Errors (1864) and the proclamation of papal infallibility (1870) all heralded a move away from Modernist ideas.

The most decisive impetus was Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Aeterni Patris of 4 August 1879, which set out and strongly endorsed the principles of neo-scholasticism, calling for "Christian philosophy to be restored according to the spirit of St Thomas".

Key principles

"Neo-Scholasticism is characterized by systematic investigation, analytical rigor, clear terminology, and argumentation that proceeds from first principles, chief among them that objective truth is both real and knowable." Neo-scholasticism sought to restore the fundamental doctrines embodied in the scholasticism of the 13th century, which may be summarised as follows:

1. God is pure actuality and absolute perfection, substantially distinct from every finite thing. He alone can create and preserve all beings other than Himself. His infinite knowledge includes all that was, is, or shall be, and all that is possible.
2. As to our knowledge of the material world: whatever exists is itself, an incommunicable, individual substance. To the core of self-sustaining reality, in the oak-tree for instance, other realities (accidents) are added—size, form, roughness, and so on. All oak-trees are identical in respect of certain constituent elements. Considering this likeness and even identity, our human intelligence groups them into one species and again, in view of their common characteristics, it ranges various species under one genus. Such is the Aristotelian solution of the problem of universals. Each substance is in its nature fixed and determined; and Scholasticism excludes a theory of evolution which would regard even the essences of things as products of change.

But this static conception requires as its complement a moderate dynamism, supplied by the central concepts of act and potency. Whatsoever changes is, just for that reason, limited. The oak-tree passes through a process of growth, of becoming: whatever is actually in it now was potentially in it from the beginning. Its vital functions go on unceasingly (accidental change); but the tree itself will die, and out of its decayed trunk other substances will come forth (substantial change). The theory of matter and form is simply an interpretation of the substantial changes which bodies undergo. The union of matter and form constitutes the essence of concrete being, and this essence is endowed with existence. Throughout all change and becoming there runs a rhythm of finality; the activities of the countless substances of the universe converge towards an end which is known to God; finality involves optimism.

3. Man, a compound of body (matter) and of soul (form), puts forth activities of a higher order—knowledge and volition. Through his senses he perceives concrete objects, e.g. this oak; through his intellect he knows the abstract and universal (the oak). All our intellectual activity rests on sensory function; but through the active intellect (intellectus agens) an abstract representation of the sensible object is provided for the intellectual possibility. Hence the characteristic of the idea, its non-materiality, and on this is based the principal argument for the spirituality and immortality of the soul. Here, too, is the foundation of logic and of the theory of knowledge, the justification of our judgments and syllogisms.

Upon knowledge follows the appetitive process, sensory or intellectual according to the sort of knowledge. The will (appetitus intellectualis) in certain conditions is free, and thanks to this liberty man is the master of his destiny. Like all other beings, we have an end to attain and we are morally obliged, though not compelled, to attain it.

Natural happiness would result from the full development of our powers of knowing and loving. We should find and possess God in this world since the corporeal world is the proper object of our intelligence. But above nature is the order of grace and our supernatural happiness will consist in the direct intuition of God, the beatific vision. Here philosophy ends and theology begins.

Late-19th-century spread

In the period from the publication of Aeterni Patris in 1879 until the 1920s, neo-scholasticism gradually established itself as exclusive and all-pervading.

On October 15, 1879, Leo XIII created the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, and ordered the publication of the critical "Leonine Edition", of Aquinas' complete works. The pope expanded Thomist studies in the Collegium Divi Thomae de Urbe (the future Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum), founding its Faculty of Philosophy in 1882 and its Faculty of Canon Law in 1896.

The thought of Thomas Aquinas gained papal ascendency over all other ‘modern’ systems of thought. In particular, the Aristotelianism of Thomas preferred to the thought of Kant. Other ‘modern’ forms of thought, including ontologism, traditionalism, the dualism of Anton Günther, and the thought of Descartes, were also seen as flawed in comparison to Thomism.

The movement spread outside Italy, finding supporters in Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, England, Switzerland, France, Hungary, the United States, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Australia. At Louvain in Belgium (then still a francophone university), Leo XIII in 1891 established the Institut de philosophie to teach the doctrine of Aquinas together with history and the natural sciences. It was endorsed by four Catholic Congresses: Paris (1891), Brussels (1895), Freiburg (1897), and Munich (1900).

Early-20th-century development

In the early 20th century, neo-Thomism became official Catholic doctrine, and became increasingly defined in opposition to Modernism.

In July 1907, Pope Pius X issued the decree Lamentabili sane exitu, which condemned 65 Modernist propositions. Two months later, he issued the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in which he unequivocally condemned the agnosticism, immanentism, and relativism of Modernism as the 'synthesis of all heresies'. The anti-Modernist oath of 1910 was very important; this remained in force until 1966. In 1914, Pius X issued a list of 24 philosophical propositions summarising the central tenets of neo-scholasticism to be taught in all colleges as fundamental elements of philosophy; and in 1916, these 24 propositions were confirmed as normative. These 24 propositions are:

1. Potency and act divide being: whatever exists is either pure act or composed of potency and act as primary, intrinsic principles.
2. Since act is perfection, it is limited only by a potency that is itself a capacity for perfection; where act is pure it is unique and unlimited, where finite it composes with potency.
3. God alone subsists in absolute being (pure, simple act); creatures participate being and are composed of essence and existence as really distinct principles.
4. “Being” is said analogically of God and creatures (neither univocally nor entirely equivocally).
5. The existence (esse) is the act of a thing’s essence and is the perfection by which essence is actualized.
6. The distinction between essence and existence is real in creatures (not merely conceptual).
7. The first principles of metaphysics and of being are known by natural reason and are the basis for other sciences.
8. The world is caused by God; created being depends on a first cause for its origin.
9. Prime matter and substantial form are principles of the substance: neither has existence by itself, nor are they placed in a category except by reduction as substantial principles.
10. Extension (quantity) follows corporeal nature but is distinct from substance; substance is, in itself, indivisible and different from quantity.
11. Matter under quantity is the principle of individuation (numerical distinction).
12. The composition of body from matter and form explains the unity and plurality of corporeal substances.
13. The human soul is a subsistent, substantial form of the body (a spiritual soul, not a corporeal principle).
14. The intellective soul is immaterial and capable of understanding universal intelligibles.
15. The human soul is the forma corporis — the soul is the principle of life and of the organized unity of the body.
16. The powers of the soul (sensitive and intellectual) are real faculties ordered to their proper acts; intellectual operations are not purely material operations.
17. The vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual operations differ by principle and object; the rational soul has operations proper to its nature.
18. The senses and imagination are distinct powers with distinct objects and modes of operation.
19. The intellect apprehends the forms of things immaterially (by abstraction), and intellectual knowledge is possible because the intellect is immaterial.
20. The will is a free rational appetite, distinct from the intellect though ordered to the good apprehended by the intellect.
21. Human acts proceed from the composite of soul and body and are subject to moral evaluation; grace perfects nature but does not destroy freedom.
22. God’s knowledge and will are primary causes; creatures act under divine providence though causally distinct.
23. The divine simplicity and immutability imply that God’s action and essence are identical in the highest order; God’s perfection is infinite and identical with His existence.
24. Because God is pure being and absolutely simple, the world can come into being only by creation from God; no finite created nature has creative power over being, and created causes depend on God for existence, conservation, and the very exercise of their powers (including physical premotion where applicable).

In 1917, the Church's new Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) insisted that the doctrine, methods, and principles of Thomas should be used in teaching philosophy and theology. Thomist thought therefore became the basis of the manuals and textbooks in Catholic colleges and seminaries before Vatican II, and was promoted also to the laity.

Variation within the tradition

Writers such as Edouard Hugon, Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, and Henri Grenier maintained the tradition of the manuals. Others varied in their interpretation, including Martin Grabmann (1875–1949), Amato Masnovo (1880–1955), Francesco Olgiati (1886–1962), and Antonin-Dalmace Sertillanges (1863–1948). Authors such as Étienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, and Joseph Maréchal investigated alternative interpretations of Aquinas from the 1920s until the 1950s. Gilson and Maritain in particular taught and lectured throughout Europe and North America, influencing a generation of English-speaking Catholic philosophers.

Historical investigation into Thomas's thought led some to believe that neo-Thomism did not always reflect the thought of Thomas Aquinas himself, as argued by writers such as Étienne Gilson, Marie-Dominique Chenu, and Henri de Lubac. At Vatican II, traditional neo-Thomist thought was opposed by exponents of this nouvelle théologie.

Many Thomists, however, continue in the neo-scholastic tradition. Some relatively recent proponents are treated in Battista Mondin's Metafisica di san Tommaso d'Aquino e i suoi interpreti (2002), which treats Carlo Giacon (1900–1984), Sofia Vanni Rovighi (1908–1990), Cornelio Fabro (1911–1995), Carlo Giacon (1900–1984), Tomáš Týn (1950–1990), Abelardo Lobato (1925–2012), Leo Elders (1926–2019), and Enrico Berti (1935–2022), among others. Due to its suspicion of attempts to harmonise Aquinas with non-Thomistic categories and assumptions, neo-scholastic Thomism has sometimes been called strict observance Thomism.

Anglophone theologians such as Edward Feser, Ralph McInerny, Brian Davies have defended a contemporary revival of traditional neo-scholastic Thomistic metaphysics in response to modern philosophy.

See also

• Mortimer J. Adler
• Anthony Kenny
• Analytical thomism

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

Neo-Scholasticism is the development of the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages during the latter half of the nineteenth century. It is not merely the resuscitation of a philosophy long since defunct, but rather a restatement in our own day of the philosophia perennis which, elaborated by the Greeks and brought to perfection by the great medieval teachers, has never ceased to exist even in modern times. It has some times been called neo-Thomism partly because St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century gave to Scholasticism among the Latins its final form, partly because the idea has gained ground that only Thomism can infuse vitality into twentieth century scholasticism. But Thomism is too narrow a term; the system itself is too large and comprehensive to be expressed by the name of any single exponent. This article will deal with the elements which neo-Scholasticism takes over from the past; the modifications which adapt it to the present; the welcome accorded it by contemporary thought and the outlook for its future; its leading representatives and centres.

I. Traditional Elements

Neo-Scholasticism seeks to restore the fundamental organic doctrines embodied in the Scholasticism of the thirteenth century. It claims that philosophy does not vary with each passing phase of history; that the truth of seven hundred years ago is still true today, and that if the great medieval thinkers — Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Duns Scotus -succeeded in constructing a sound philosophical system on the data supplied by the Greeks, especially by Aristotle, it must be possible, in our own day, to gather from the speculation of the Middle Ages the soul of truth which it contains. These essential conceptions may be summarized as follows:

(1) God, pure actuality and absolute perfection, is substantially distinct from every finite thing: he alone can create and preserve all beings other than Himself. His infinite knowledge includes all that has been, is, or shall be, and likewise all that is possible.

(2) As to our knowledge of the material world: whatever exists is itself, an incommunicable, individual substance. To the core of self-sustaining reality, in the oak-tree for instance, other realities (accidents) are added — size, form, roughness, and so on. All oak-trees are alike, indeed are identical in respect of certain constituent elements. Considering this likeness and even identity, our human intelligence groups them into one species and again, in view of their common characteristics, it ranges various species under one genus. Such is the Aristotelean solution of the problem of universals (q.v.). Each substance is in its nature fixed and determined; and nothing is farther from the spirit of Scholasticism than a theory of evolution which would regard even the essences of things as products of change.

But this statism requires as its complement a moderate dynamism, and this is supplied by the central concepts of act and potency. Whatsoever changes is, just for that reason, limited. The oak-tree passes through a process of growth, of becoming: whatever is actually in it now was potentially in it from the beginning. Its vital functions go on unceasingly (accidental change); but the tree itself will die, and out of its decayed trunk other substances will come forth (substantial change). The theory of matter and form is simply an interpretation of the substantial changes which bodies undergo. The union of matter and form constitutes the essence of concrete being, and this essence is endowed with existence. Throughout all change and becoming there runs a rhythm of finality; the activities of the countless substances of the universe converge towards an end which is known to God; finality, in a word, involves optimism.

(3) Man, a compound of body (matter) and of soul (form), puts forth activities of a higher order — knowledge and volition. Through his senses he perceives concrete objects, e.g. this oak; through his intellect he knows the abstract and universal (the oak). All our intellectual activity rests on sensory function; but through the active intellect (intellectus agens) an abstract representation of the sensible object is provided for the intellectus possibilis. Hence the characteristic of the idea, its non-materiality, and on this is based the principal argument for the spirituality and immortality of the soul. Here, too, is the foundation of logic and of the theory of knowledge, the justification of our judgments and syllogisms.

Upon knowledge follows the appetitive process, sensory or intellectual according to the sort of knowledge. The will (appetitus intellectualis) in certain conditions is free, and thanks to this liberty man is the master of his destiny. Like all other beings, we have an end to attain and we are morally obliged, though not compelled, to attain it.

Natural happiness would result from the full development of our powers of knowing and loving. We should find and possess God in this world since the corporeal world is the proper object of our intelligence. But above nature is the order of grace and our supernatural happiness will consist in the direct intuition of God, the beatific vision. Here philosophy ends and theology begins.

II. Adaptation to Modern Needs

The neo-Scholastic programme includes, in the next place, the adaptation of medieval principles and doctrines to our present intellectual needs. Complete immobility is no less incompatible with progress than out-and-out relativism. Vita in motu. To make Scholasticism rigid and stationary would be fatal to it. The doctrines revived by the new movement are like an inherited fortune; to refuse it would be folly, but to manage it without regard to actual conditions would be worse. With Dr. Ehrhard one may say: "Aquinas should be our beacon, not our boundary" ("Der Katholicismus und das zwanzigste Jahrh. im Lichte der Kirchlichen Entwicklung der Neuzeit", Stuttgart, 1902, 252). We have now to pass in review the various factors in the situation and to see in what respect the new Scholasticism differs from the old and how far it adapts itself to our age.

(1) Elimination of False or Useless Notions

Neo-Scholasticism rejects the theories of physics, celestial and terrestrial, which the Middle Ages grafted on the principles, otherwise sound enough, of cosmology and metaphysics; e.g. the perfection and superiority of astral substance, the "incorruptibility" of the heavenly bodies, their external connexion with "motor spirits", the influence of the stars on the generation of earthly beings, the four "simple" bodies, etc. It further rejects those philosophical theories which are disproved by the results of investigation; e.g. the diffusion of sensible "species" throughout a medium and their introduction into the organs of sense. Even the Scholastic ideas that have been retained are not all of equal importance; criticism and personal conviction may retrench or modify them considerably, without injury to fundamental principles.

(2) Study of the History of Philosophy

The medieval scholars cultivated the history of philosophy solely with a view to its utility, i.e. as a means of gathering the deposit of truth contained in the writings of the ancients and, especially, for the purpose of refuting error and thus emphasizing the value of their own doctrine. Modern students, on the contrary, regard every human fact and achievement as in itself significant, and accordingly they treat the history of philosophy in a spirit that is more disinterested. With this new attitude, neo-Scholasticism is in full sympathy; it does its share in the work of historical reconstruction by employing critical methods; it does not attempt to condense the opinions of others into a syllogism and refute them with a phrase, nor does it commend the practice of putting whole systems into a paragraph or two in order to annihilate them with epithet or invective. Neo-Scholasticism, however, does not confine its interest to ancient and medieval philosophy; its chief concern is with present-day systems. It takes issue with them and offsets their theories of the world by a synthesis of its own. It is only by keeping in touch with actual living thought that it can claim a place in the twentieth century and command the attention of its opponents. And it has everything to gain from a discussion in which it encounters Positivism, Kantism, and other forms or tendencies of modern speculation.

(3) Cultivation of the Sciences

The need of a philosophy based on science is recognized today by every school. Neo-Scholasticism simply follows the example of the Aristotelean and medieval philosophy in taking the data of research as the groundwork of its speculation. That there are profound differences between the Middle Ages and modern times from the scientific point of view, is obvious. One has only to consider the multiplication of the sciences in special lines, the autonomy which science as a whole has acquired, and the clear demarcation established between popular views of nature and their scientific interpretation. But it is equally plain that neo-Scholasticism must follow up each avenue of investigation, since it undertakes, as Aristotle and Aquinas did, to provide a synthetic explanation of phenomena by referring them to their ultimate causes and determining their place in the universal order of things; and this undertaking, if the synthesis is to be deep and comprehensive, presupposes a knowledge of the details furnished by each science. It is not possible to explain the world of phenomena while neglecting the phenomena that make up the world. "All that exists, as contemplated by the human mind, forms one large system or complex fact.... Like a short-sighted reader, its eye pores closely, and travels slowly, over the awful volume which lies open for its inspection.... These various partial views or abstractions... are called sciences... they proceed on the principle of a division of labour.... And further the comprehension of the bearings of one science on another, and the use of each to each, and the location of them all, with one another, this belongs, I conceive, to a sort of science distinct from all of them, and in some sense, a science of sciences, which is my own conception of what is meant by philosophy" (Newman, "Idea of a University", Discourse III, iii, iv, 44 sqq.).

There is, of course, the pedagogical problem; how shall philosophy maintain its control over the ever-widening field of the various sciences? In reply, we may cite the words of Cardinal Mercier, a prominent leader in the neo-Scholastic movement: "As a matter of fact", he declares, "the difficulty is a serious one, and one may say in general terms, that it is not going to be solved by any one man. As the domain of fact and observation grows larger and larger, individual effort becomes less competent to survey and master it all: hence the necessity of co-operative effort to supply what is lacking in the work of isolated investigators; hence too the need of union between the synthetic mind and the analytic, in order to secure, by daily contact and joint action, the harmonious development of philosophy and science". ("La philosophie néo-scholastique" in "Revue néo-scholastique", 1894, 17).

(4) Innovations in Doctrinal Matters

Once it turned its attention to modern fashions of thought, neo-Scholasticism found itself face to face with problems of which medieval philosophy had not the slightest suspicion or at any rate did not furnish a solution. It had to bear the brunt of conflict between its own principles and those of the systems in vogue, especially of Positivism and Criticism. And it had to take up, from its own point of view, the questions which are favourite topics of discussion in the schools of our time. How far then, one may ask, has neo-Scholasticism been affected by modern thought? First of all, as to metaphysics: in the Middle Ages its claim to validity met with no challenge, whereas, in the twentieth century, its very possibility is at stake and, to defend it against the concerted attack of Hume and Kant and Comte, the true significance of such concepts as being, substance, absolute, cause, potency, and act must be explained and upheld. It is further needful to show that, in a very real sense, God is not unknowable; to rebut the charges preferred by Herbert Spencer against the traditional proofs of God's existence; to deal with the materials furnished by ethnography and the history of religions; and to study the various forms which monism and immanentism nowadays assume.

Cosmology can well afford to insist on the traditional theory of matter and form, provided it pay due attention to the findings of physics, chemistry, crystallography, and mineralogy, and meet the objections of atomism and dynamism, theories which, in the opinion of scientific authority, are less satisfactory as explanations of natural phenomena than the hylomorphism (q.v.) of the Scholastics. The theory also of qualities, once the subject of ridicule, is nowadays endorsed by some of the most prominent scientists. In psychology especially the progressive spirit of neo-Scholasticism makes itself felt. The theory of the substantial union of body and soul, as an interpretation of biological, psychical, and psycho-physiological facts, is far more serviceable than the extreme spiritualism of Descartes on the one hand and the Positivism of modern thinkers on the other. As Wundt admits, the results of investigation in physiological psychology do not square either with materialism or with dualism whether of the Platonic or of the Cartesian type; it is only Aristotelean animism, which brings psychology into connexion with biology, that can offer a satisfactory metaphysical interpretation of experimental psychology. So vigorous indeed has been the growth of psychology that each of its offshoots is developing in its own way: such is the case with criteriology, aesthetics, didactics, pedagogy, and the numerous ramifications of applied psychology. Along these various lines, unknown to medieval philosophy, neo-Scholasticism is working energetically and successfully. Its criteriology is altogether new: the older Scholasticism handled the problem of certitude from the deductive point of view; God could not have misshaped the faculties with which He endowed the mind in order that it might attain to knowledge. Neo-Scholasticism, on the other hand, proceeds by analysis and introspection it states the problem in the terms which, since Kant's day, are the only admissible terms, but as against the Kantian criticism it finds the solution in a rational dogmatism. Its aesthetics holds a middle course between the extreme subjectivism of many modern thinkers who would reduce the beautiful to a mere impression, and the no less extreme objectivism which the Greeks of old maintained. It is equally at home in thc field of experimental psychology which investigates the correlation between conscious phenomena and their physiological accompaniments; in fact, its theory of the substantial union of body and soul implies as its corollary a "bodily resonance" corresponding to each psychical process.

The laws and principles which the modern science of education has drawn from experience find their adequate explanation in neo-Scholastic doctrine; thus, the intuitive method, so largely accepted at present as an essential element in education, is based on the Scholastic theory that nothing enters the intellect save through the avenue of sense. In the study of ethical problems, neo-Scholasticism holds fast to the vital teachings that prevailed in the thirteenth century, but at the same time it takes into account the historical and sociological data which explain the varying application of principles in successive ages. In view of contemporary systems which, on a purely experimental basis, attempt to set aside all moral imperatives and ideas of value, it is necessary to insist on the older concepts of good and evil, of finality and obligation — a need which is easily supplied by neo-Scholastic ethics. As to logic, the most perfect part of Aristotle's great constructive work and therefore that which has been least modified in the course of time. Its positions still call for defence against the objections of writers like Mill, who regard the syllogism as a "solemn farce". Accordingly, with due consideration for modern modes of thinking, neo-Scholasticism adapts the teaching of the Middle Ages to actual conditions. Even as regards the relations between philosophy and religion, there are important changes to note. For the medieval mind in the Western world, philosophy and theology were identical until about the twelfth century. In the thirteenth the line of demarcation was clearly drawn, but philosophy was still treated as the preliminary training for theology. This is no longer the case; neo-Scholasticism assigns to philosophy a value of its own as a rational explanation of the world, on a par in this respect with Positivism and other systems; and it welcomes all who are bent on honest research, whether their aim be purely philosophical or apologetic.

Parallel with these modifications are those which affect the pedagogical phase of the movement. The methods of teaching philosophy in the thirteenth century were too closely dependent on the culture of that age; hence they have been replaced by modern procedures, curricula, and means of propagation. It would be ill-advised to wrap neo-Scholastic doctrine in medieval envelopes, e.g. to write books on the plan of the theological "Summae" or the "Quodlibetal Questions" that were current in the thirteenth century. Without at all lessening its force, syllogistic demonstration gains in attractiveness when its essential characteristics are retained and clothed about with modern forms of presentation. In this connexion, the use of living languages as a means of exposition has obvious advantages and finds favour with many of those who are best qualified to judge.

III. Appreciation

By interesting itself in modern questions, interpreting the results of scientific research and setting forth its principles for thorough discussion, neo-Scholasticism has compelled attention: it has to be reckoned with. Among non-Catholics, many leaders of thought have frankly acknowledged that its methods and doctrines deserve to be examined anew. Men like Boutroux admit that Aristotle's system may well serve as an offset to Kantism and evolution (Aristote, Etudes d'histoire et de philosophie, Paris, 1901, 202). Paulsen ("Kant der Philosoph des Protestantismus" in "Kantstudien", 1899) and Eucken ("Thomas von Aquino u. Kant, Ein Kampf zweier Welten", loc. cit., 1901) declare that neo-Thomism is the rival of Kantism and that the conflict between them is the "clash of two worlds". Harnack ("Lehrbuch d. Dogmengesch.", III, 3rd. ed., 327), Seeberg ("Realencyklopädie f. Prot. Theol." 5. v. "Scholastik") and others protest against those who underrate the value of scholastic doctrine.

Among Catholics, neo-Scholasticism gains ground day by day. It is doing away with Ontologism, Traditionalism, the Dualism of Gunther, and the exaggerated Spiritualism of Descartes. It is free from the weaknesses of Pragmatism and Voluntarism, systems in which some thinkers have vainly sought the reconciliation of their philosophy and their faith. Neo-Scholasticism has a character of permanence as truth itself has; but it is destined in its development to keep up with scientific progress. Like everything that lives, it must advance; arrested growth would mean decay.

IV. The Leaders and Their Work

The neo-Scholastic movement was inaugurated by such writers as Sanseverino (1811-65) and Cornoldi (1822-92) in Italy; Gonzalez (1831-92) in Spain; Kleutgen (1811-83) and Stöckl (1823-95) in Germany; de San (1832-1904), Dupont, and Lepidi in Belgium; Farges and Dormet de Vorges (1910) in France, who with other scholars carried on the work of restoration before the Holy See gave it solemn approval and encouragement. Pius IX, it is true, in various letters, recognized its importance; but it was the encyclical "AEterni Patris" of Leo XIII (4 Aug., 1879) that imparted to neo-Scholasticism its definitive character and quickened its development. This document sets forth the principles by which the movement is to be guided in a progressive spirit, and by which the medieval doctrine is to take on new life in its modern environment. "If," says the pope, "there be anything that the Scholastic doctors treated with excessive subtlety or with insufficient consideration, or that is at variance with well founded teachings of later date, or is otherwise improbable, we by no means intend that it shall be proposed to our age for imitation.... We certainly do not blame those learned and energetic men who turn to the profit of philosophy their own assiduous labours and erudition as well as the results of modern investigation; for we are fully aware that all this goes to the advancement of knowledge."

In Italy, the movement was vigorous from the start. The Accademia di San Tommaso, founded in 1874, published, up to 1891, a review entitled "La Scienza Italiana". Numerous works were produced by Zigliara (1833-93), Satolli (1839-1909), Liberatore (1810-92), Barberis (1847-96), Schiffini (1841-1906), de Maria, Talamo, Lorenzelli, Ballerini, Matussi, and others. The Italian writers at first laid special emphasis on the metaphysical features of Scholasticism, without paying sufficient attention to the sciences or to the history of philosophy. Recently, however, this situation has undergone a change which promises excellent results.

From Italy the movement spread into the other European countries and found supporters in Germany such as Kleutgen, Stöckl, the authors of the "Philosophia Lacensis", published at Maria Laach by the Jesuits (Pesch, Hontheim, Cathrein), Gutberlet, Commer, Willmann, Kaufmann, Glossner, Grabmann, and Schneid. These scholars have made valuable contributions to the history of philosophy, especially that of the Middle Ages. Stöckl led the way with his "Geschichte d. Philosophie des Mittelalters" (Mainz, 1864-66). Ehrle and Denifle (q.v.) founded in 1885 the "Archiv für Literatur u. Kirchengesch. d. Mittelalters", and the latter edited the monumental "Chartularium" of the University of Paris. In 1891, Von Hertling and Bäumker began the publication of their "Beiträge zur Gesch. d. Phil. des Mittelalters".

Belgium has been particularly favoured. Leo XIII established (1891) at Louvain the "Institut de philosophie" for the special purpose of teaching the doctrine of St. Thomas together with history and the natural sciences. The Institute was placed in charge of Mgr (now Cardinal) Mercier whose "Cours de philosophie" has been translated into the principal languages of Europe.

In France, besides those already mentioned, Vallet, Gardair, Fonsegrive, and Piat have taken a prominent part in the movement; in Holland (Amsterdam) de Groot; in Switzerland (Freiburg), Mandonnet; in Spain, Orti y Lara, Urráburu, Gómez Izquierdo; in Mexico, Garcia; in Brazil, Santroul; in Hungary, Kiss and Pecsi; in England, Clarke, Maher, John Rickaby, Joseph Rickaby, Boedder (Stonyhurst Series); in the United States, Coppens, Poland, Brother Chrysostom, and the professors at the Catholic University (Shanahan, Turner, and Pace).

Neo-Scholasticism has been endorsed by four Catholic Congresses: Paris (1891); Brussels (1895); Freiburg (1897); Munich (1900). A considerable number of reviews have served as its exponents: "Divus Thomas" (1879- 1903); "Rivista Italiana di filosofia neo-scolastica" (Florence, since 1909); "Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne" (Paris, since 1830); "Revue néo-scolastique de Philosophie" (Louvain, since 1894); "Revue de Philosophie" (Paris, since 1900);" Revue des Sciences philosophiques et théologiques" (Kain, Belgium, since 1907); "Revue Thomiste" (Paris, since 1893); "Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Philosophie und spekulative Theologie" (Paderborn, since 1887); "St. Thomas Blätter" (Ratisbon, since 1888); Bölcseleti-Folyóirat (Budapest, since 1886);" Revista Lulliana" (Barcelona, since 1901); "Cienza Tomista" (Madrid, since 1910). In addition to these, various periodical publications not specially devoted to philosophy have given neo-Scholasticism their cordial support.

Further reading

• Boersma, Hans, Nouvelle Theologie and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery, (Oxford: OUP, 2009).
• Cessario, R. A Short History of Thomism, (2005).
• Kerr, Fergus, After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism, (2002).
• Kerr, Fergus, Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians, (Blackwell, 2007).
• Kerr, Fergus, ‘Thomism’, in The Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology, (Cambridge, 2011).
• Mettepenningen, Jürgen, Nouvelle Théologie – New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II, (London: T&T Clark, 2010).
• Aveling, F. "The Neo-Scholastic Movement," The American Catholic Quarterly Review, Vol. XXXI, 1906.
• Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Neo-Scholasticism". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
• Many philosophical and theological journals focus on neo-Scholasticism: Divus Thomas (since 1879); Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica (Milan, since 1909); Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne (Paris, 1830-1913); Revue néo-scolastique de Philosophie (Louvain, since 1894); Revue de Philosophie (Paris, since 1900); Revue des Sciences philosophiques et théologiques (Kain, Belgium, since 1907); Revue thomiste (Paris, since 1893); Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Philosophie und spekulative Theologie (Paderborn, since 1887); St. Thomas Blätter (Ratisbon, since 1888); Bölcseleti–Folyóirat (Budapest, since 1886); Revista Lulliana (Barcelona, since 1901); Ciencia Tomista (Madrid, since 1910). Angelicum, since 1924; The Modern Schoolman since 1925, New Scholasticism since 1927 which became American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly in 1989, The Thomist since 1939. Studia Neo-Aristotelica

External links

• Scholasticon by Jacob Schmutz. Archived 2009-01-29 at the Wayback Machine. Resources for the study of early-modern scholasticism (1500–1800): authors, sources, institutions (in French).