The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-03-22

POLITICALLY, Thomas is a mon
4 archist; the purpose Of social
organization, he argues, is unity;
and unity can be best effected
through a king. But the monarchs
power is limited by natural law and
right: if he violates these, his sub
jectS need not obey.
Since the moral realm is higher
than the political, the spiritual
higher than the corporeal, and the
ultimate end of man Cthe Beatific
Vision more important than any
early aim, it follows that the church
is superior to the state. and has
the right at any time to absolve sub
jectS from their allegiance to en-
perors and kings.
On Thomas assumptions these
were perfectly reasonable conclu-
sions; doubtless a spiritual organ
ization, possessed of eternal truth,
and aiming at the moral welfare
and everlasting happiness of man
kind, was the highest leader that
men could have.
1t seemed all very natural to the
Middle Ages, and men marveled at
the order and unity and complete
ness with which Thomas had eX-
pounded their faith to him and the
heather world; only knaves and
fools could not refuse to accept the
doctrines of the church.
It is true that some holy men Sus-
pected Thomas of heresy. that
SynodS at Paris and oxford con-
demned him for various minor devil
ations from traditional beliefs; but
the schools accepted his expositions
with open arms and hearts; Pope
John XXI canonized him on the
ground that his Syllogisms were
miracles; Leo XIII taught that hui
man wisdom had never before
reached, and would probably never
reach again, SO sublime a height as
in Aquinas.
To this day his texts are the ulti-
mate authority in every Catholic
college and university; and if influ-
ence is the criterion of greatness,
Thomas, whatever our prejudices
may be, deserves to be ranked
among the greatest thinkers of
mankind. There is always a slight
possibility that we are wrong; and
the church, which has seen many
heretics come and go, and has the
quiet wisdom of many centuries in
it, may be nearer to right and
wrong than we.
NEVERTHELESS let us speak
IN our prejudice candidly, and
say that perhaps these great Scho-
lastics were not philosophers at all.
A philosopher is man who fol-
lows reason, frail as it is, wherever
it may lead him; he is engaged in
the greatest and most dangerous
adventure of all, the attempt to I'M
derstand the universe through
thought and knowledge alone; he
must take nothing for granted, not
even the power of reason itself;
there is nothing which he may re-
fuse to doubt.
But with the scholastics philoso-
ply was amelia theologiae," the
handmade Of theology; reason was
not to be trusted, for it's corruption
was part of the Fall of Man and
the punishment inflicted upon hun
dreds of generations because a man
and a woman had eaten an apple;
the dogmaS CO the church, based
not on reason but on revelation,
were to be accepted as the starting
point and the necessary conclusions
of thought; no book might be pub
lished unless the ecclesiastical i'm
primatur" certified to the orthodoxy
of the doctrine; and the hangman
or the stake stood in the offing as
the last certification of the truth.
On such a basis deduction was the
inevitable method, and a circular
futility the inevitable result. For
"the wit and mind of man, if it
work upon matter, worketh accord
ing to the stuff, and is limited
thereby; but if it work upon itself,
as the spider worketh his web,
then it is endless, and brings forth
indeed cobwebs of learning, admir-
able for the finenesS of thread and
work, but of no substance or profit"
(FranciS Bacon).
WE can bear with scholasticism
w only through historical per-
spective. We see it as the training