NEOSCHOLASTICISM AND NEOTHOMISM

Neoscholasticism and neothomism are terms frequently used to designate the revival of thomism in the 19th and 20th centuries (see scholasticism, 3). Even before aeterni patris of leo xiii Catholic scholars eager to promote a christian philosophy tended to identify scholasticism with Thomism and vice versa. The historical studies of M. de wulf revealed some differences among 13th–century scholastics, but these he dismissed in order to obtain a common body of philosophical teachings, which he and others called philosophia perennis. For De Wulf, philosophia perennis, "elaborated by the Greeks and brought to perfection by the great medieval teachers, has never ceased to exist even in modern times." Recognizing that Thomism was too narrow a term to designate a perennial philosophy, he preferred to speak of scholasticism and neoscholasticism. For him, neoscholasticism eliminated false or useless notions in 13th–century scholasticism, such as celestial movers, the incorruptibility of celestial bodies, their influence on terrestrial events, the diffusion of sensible "species" throughout a medium and their introduction into the organs of sense. The generally accepted view of neoscholasticism was expressed by De Wulf in his Scholasticism Old and New, tr. P. Coffey (Dublin 1907). It is retained in the titles of certain Catholic philosophical journals, e.g., The New Scholasticism, Revue néo– scholastique (1894–1909), Revue néo–scholastique de philosophie (1910–45), and Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica.

Later historical studies, notably by P. mandonnet and by É. Gilson, revealed profound differences among medieval scholastics that could not be dismissed. Moreover, a single body of philosophical thought called philosophia perennis could not be found to exist among the Greeks, medieval scholastics, and contemporary scholastics. The view of De Wulf and the Louvain school was discredited by Gilson and others. Neoscholastic and Neothomistic thought were frozen in safe manuals during the crisis of Modernism. Instead of using scholastic and Thomistic principles to solve modern problems, as was the wish of Leo XIII, neoscholastic manuals were, for the most part, content to provide a philosophical foundation for the study of theology. Narrowness and lack of vitality helped to give a pejorative sense to the terms neoscholasticism and neothomism.

More profound studies of the texts of St. thomas aquinas frequently revealed discrepancies between the authentic teaching of St. Thomas and views presented as neothomistic. Thus many Thomists felt that the prefix "neo" could be understood as a negation of true Thomism. For this reason, J. maritain wrote: "I am not a neo–Thomist. All in all, I would rather be a paleo–Thomist than a neo–Thomist. I am, or at least I hope I am, a Thomist" [Existence and the Existent, tr. L. Galantière and G. Phelan (New York 1948) 1].

Neothomism, like Thomism itself, is only one philosophical and theological school within the whole of scholasticism. Moreover, both terms have been used in a favorable and in an unfavorable sense. In a pejorative sense they signify a type of modern thought that is narrow, irrelevant, or unfaithful to the true mind and spirit of the great thinkers of the Middle Ages. In a favorable sense they signify living thought that is both faithful to the great masters of the Middle Ages and relevant to modern problems.

See Also: scholasticism, 3.

Bibliography: m. de wulf, The Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. c. g. herbermann et al., 16 v. (New York 1907–14; suppl. 1922) 10:746–749. p. dezza and g. santinello, Enciclopedia filosofica, 4 v. (Venice–Rome 1957) 3:874–880.

[j. a. weisheipl]