What do you think?
Rate this book
After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism
This guide to the most interesting work that has recently appeared on Aquinas reflects the revival of interest in his work.
268 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
8 people are currently reading
113 people want to read
About the author
Fergus Kerr
14 books14 followersFergus Kerr OP is a Dominican friar, theologian, and philosopher known primarily for his work on Thomas Aquinas and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 22, 2018
Not what I hoped for
Fergus Kerr's book After Aquinas is not a history of thomistic thought through the ages despite the title and subtitle: 'Versions of Thomism'. I anticipated and expected a historical discussion of Thomism and the philosophers/ theologians inspired by him, starting from Suarez, Cajetan, Bañes, Las Casas, Molina, then the Leonine Thomist's like Garrigou_Lagrange, the existential Thomist's like Gilson and Maritain, the transcendental Thomist's like Tanner and Lonergan and finally (or not!) the Dominicans de Lubac and Chenu...
But that book is not this book. That is not to say that this book is without merit, the discussion of Aquinas with regards to epistemology, the five ways and Christology and Trinityology (?) is first rate if somewhat repetitive.
This book is rather an attempt to understand Aquinas himself, not through the various filters that have been developed over the centuries but by returning to the text. Thomas is defended from the frequent retractions of being more Aristotelian than Christian, of believing in a monistic or static god, of replacing faith with reason, of being insufficiently Trinitarian, of being only a natural law ethicist, Christological naivety etc.
In order to defend Thomas, Kerr makes constant reference to Barth, something that places the book in dialogue with the Protestant theologians and students but leaves a rather strong distaste in my mouth. Kerr attempts to strip away so much of Thomism in order to pay him bar, but then contrasts Thomasism with Barthianism as if they were contemporaries. Frankly, I don't care about Barth and I think using him as a foil backfires.
The preface and the conclusion pay lipservice to the versions of Thomism mentioned earlier but the bulk of the book (which I set aside from boredom, then reread nearly a year later) is quite unrelated.
The Aquinas who immerges from the pages of the book is one clearly set in a particular time and place, who is clearly dealing with, reacting to and interacting with issues of the day. There should be little wonder in his failure to explicitly answer Descartes, Kant, Heidegger or Barth...but that is not to say that he doesn't provide fertile soil for theological and philosophical reflection on the issues those philosophers brought up.
I am remiss, I should also add G.E.M. Anscombe and Peter Geech to the list of Thomist's, but the chapter on Virtue Ethics is unfortunately short when dealing with them.
Fergus Kerr's book After Aquinas is not a history of thomistic thought through the ages despite the title and subtitle: 'Versions of Thomism'. I anticipated and expected a historical discussion of Thomism and the philosophers/ theologians inspired by him, starting from Suarez, Cajetan, Bañes, Las Casas, Molina, then the Leonine Thomist's like Garrigou_Lagrange, the existential Thomist's like Gilson and Maritain, the transcendental Thomist's like Tanner and Lonergan and finally (or not!) the Dominicans de Lubac and Chenu...
But that book is not this book. That is not to say that this book is without merit, the discussion of Aquinas with regards to epistemology, the five ways and Christology and Trinityology (?) is first rate if somewhat repetitive.
This book is rather an attempt to understand Aquinas himself, not through the various filters that have been developed over the centuries but by returning to the text. Thomas is defended from the frequent retractions of being more Aristotelian than Christian, of believing in a monistic or static god, of replacing faith with reason, of being insufficiently Trinitarian, of being only a natural law ethicist, Christological naivety etc.
In order to defend Thomas, Kerr makes constant reference to Barth, something that places the book in dialogue with the Protestant theologians and students but leaves a rather strong distaste in my mouth. Kerr attempts to strip away so much of Thomism in order to pay him bar, but then contrasts Thomasism with Barthianism as if they were contemporaries. Frankly, I don't care about Barth and I think using him as a foil backfires.
The preface and the conclusion pay lipservice to the versions of Thomism mentioned earlier but the bulk of the book (which I set aside from boredom, then reread nearly a year later) is quite unrelated.
The Aquinas who immerges from the pages of the book is one clearly set in a particular time and place, who is clearly dealing with, reacting to and interacting with issues of the day. There should be little wonder in his failure to explicitly answer Descartes, Kant, Heidegger or Barth...but that is not to say that he doesn't provide fertile soil for theological and philosophical reflection on the issues those philosophers brought up.
I am remiss, I should also add G.E.M. Anscombe and Peter Geech to the list of Thomist's, but the chapter on Virtue Ethics is unfortunately short when dealing with them.
July 5, 2018
Indispensable resource for those seeking to understand Thomas and his reception.
December 1, 2016
A very good book by Fr Fergus Kerr OP, especially helping one to understand how Thomas came to be so misunderstood in the form of certain 'Thomistic' traditions. The God of St Thomas Aquinas is far from this static, deistic conception as popularly held - in fact, quite the opposite. If anything, St Thomas veers closer to conceptualising God as an event than an entity...though of course he doesn't. Next time I read Thomas, I can read him in the light of the Patristic thought he wrote in consideration of.
Often accused of cruelly subjecting Christianity to the monster of Aristotelianism, again, the opposite is revealed to be the case. One of his core biblical maxims apparently being 2 Cor 10:5, the theologian took what was known to the world (fashionably ancient philosophy) and declared it not to be the truth, but as truth's servant, committed it to the glory of the Cross.
Often accused of cruelly subjecting Christianity to the monster of Aristotelianism, again, the opposite is revealed to be the case. One of his core biblical maxims apparently being 2 Cor 10:5, the theologian took what was known to the world (fashionably ancient philosophy) and declared it not to be the truth, but as truth's servant, committed it to the glory of the Cross.
December 6, 2024
Working through a wide range of topics, the author shows the surprising range of different views, all of which have claimed to represent Aquinas’ viewpoint.
In some cases the differences are nuanced points of interpretation, as perhaps involve Aquinas’ degree of commitment to Aristotelianism. Over the years, interpreters have veered from one extreme of citing Aquinas as a direct (and somewhat slavish) disciple of Aristotle, to the opposite extreme of citing his Aristotelianism as simply a matter of philosophical exegesis, but being of no interest to him as a theologian. Intermediate viewpoints cite Aquinas’ commitment to Neoplatonists such as Proclus, from whom he gained an appreciation of both Aristotelian and Platonist ideas.
On other matters of interpretation there have been diametrically opposite and contradictory claims. Perhaps the classic example of this is Aquinas’ views on nature and grace. Up until Henri de Lubac’s Surnaturel, Aquinas was thought to teach that there was a purely natural destination for (some) humans. But after de Lubac Aquinas was understood as not teaching that, at all.
The range of these differences is well narrated in this book, and readers will get a detailed sense of the breadth of topics where there are (or have been) diverse interpretations of Aquinas. The breadth of the coverage is a impressive and positive feature of the book, but it comes at the cost of depth.
In places the detail necessary to understand the depth of differences is glossed over, or simply omitted. For example, on p.28 readers are informed that there are Wittgensteinian Thomists and there are Analytic Thomists. But there is little by way of explanation about what constitutes those categories and how they differ. (Would writers like Anscombe be a Wittgensteinian Thomist, an Analytic Thomist or perhaps both, and if the latter then does that press the original question about how the categories really differ?)
Another example of issues of depth occurs in relation to ethics. The author tells us that the revisionist Thomism of Finis and Grisez represents a ‘much contested and regrettably much too large a subject to be discussed here’ (Footnote 19 p228). Comments like that inevitably raise the question whether the book is trying to do too much. Would it have been better to cover less, with more depth, and perhaps reserve some topics for a follow up book?
While most of the book argues to interesting and thought provoking conclusions, I wondered about occasional points. For example the book insists that ‘the proofs of God’s existence… cannot be transported from their theological context into philosophy of religion courses…’ (p207). But that cannot be quite right, because the proofs are in fact treated in exactly that way. As Aquinas’ contemporaries would have said: ab esse ad posse valet consequentia (from actuality to possibility is a valid argument).
The issue with natural theology is surely the question of ‘premises’ and whether the premises are the product of ‘natural reasoning’ (whatever that is). One of the points made in John Paul II’s 1998 encyclical (Faith and Reason) is that there are philosophical principles which represent important truths of natural reasoning, but which sinful humans are not always able to acquire, ‘naturally.’ Rahner also made the point that dogma teaches that people accept proofs (and commit to religion) because of grace, not the natural (pelagian) skills of reasoning.
These kinds of points all raise issues about the extent to which a purely natural reasoning (or natural theology) is a concept that makes sense. To put it another way, dont these kinds of considerations raise questions about the possibility of a Philosophy of Religion, rather than questions about the use of proofs in (Thomistic) natural theology?
Overall this is a well edited and produced book, with no significant textual problems. Around 17% of the text consists of end notes, bibliographies and index. The book is written for an audience with a prior understanding of Thomistic issues, so it will be enjoyed most by graduates or readers who have spent time acquainting themselves with the contours of the issues beforehand.
In some cases the differences are nuanced points of interpretation, as perhaps involve Aquinas’ degree of commitment to Aristotelianism. Over the years, interpreters have veered from one extreme of citing Aquinas as a direct (and somewhat slavish) disciple of Aristotle, to the opposite extreme of citing his Aristotelianism as simply a matter of philosophical exegesis, but being of no interest to him as a theologian. Intermediate viewpoints cite Aquinas’ commitment to Neoplatonists such as Proclus, from whom he gained an appreciation of both Aristotelian and Platonist ideas.
On other matters of interpretation there have been diametrically opposite and contradictory claims. Perhaps the classic example of this is Aquinas’ views on nature and grace. Up until Henri de Lubac’s Surnaturel, Aquinas was thought to teach that there was a purely natural destination for (some) humans. But after de Lubac Aquinas was understood as not teaching that, at all.
The range of these differences is well narrated in this book, and readers will get a detailed sense of the breadth of topics where there are (or have been) diverse interpretations of Aquinas. The breadth of the coverage is a impressive and positive feature of the book, but it comes at the cost of depth.
In places the detail necessary to understand the depth of differences is glossed over, or simply omitted. For example, on p.28 readers are informed that there are Wittgensteinian Thomists and there are Analytic Thomists. But there is little by way of explanation about what constitutes those categories and how they differ. (Would writers like Anscombe be a Wittgensteinian Thomist, an Analytic Thomist or perhaps both, and if the latter then does that press the original question about how the categories really differ?)
Another example of issues of depth occurs in relation to ethics. The author tells us that the revisionist Thomism of Finis and Grisez represents a ‘much contested and regrettably much too large a subject to be discussed here’ (Footnote 19 p228). Comments like that inevitably raise the question whether the book is trying to do too much. Would it have been better to cover less, with more depth, and perhaps reserve some topics for a follow up book?
While most of the book argues to interesting and thought provoking conclusions, I wondered about occasional points. For example the book insists that ‘the proofs of God’s existence… cannot be transported from their theological context into philosophy of religion courses…’ (p207). But that cannot be quite right, because the proofs are in fact treated in exactly that way. As Aquinas’ contemporaries would have said: ab esse ad posse valet consequentia (from actuality to possibility is a valid argument).
The issue with natural theology is surely the question of ‘premises’ and whether the premises are the product of ‘natural reasoning’ (whatever that is). One of the points made in John Paul II’s 1998 encyclical (Faith and Reason) is that there are philosophical principles which represent important truths of natural reasoning, but which sinful humans are not always able to acquire, ‘naturally.’ Rahner also made the point that dogma teaches that people accept proofs (and commit to religion) because of grace, not the natural (pelagian) skills of reasoning.
These kinds of points all raise issues about the extent to which a purely natural reasoning (or natural theology) is a concept that makes sense. To put it another way, dont these kinds of considerations raise questions about the possibility of a Philosophy of Religion, rather than questions about the use of proofs in (Thomistic) natural theology?
Overall this is a well edited and produced book, with no significant textual problems. Around 17% of the text consists of end notes, bibliographies and index. The book is written for an audience with a prior understanding of Thomistic issues, so it will be enjoyed most by graduates or readers who have spent time acquainting themselves with the contours of the issues beforehand.
March 30, 2022
I commend Kerr for his clarity in explaining some of Thomas's most difficult concepts and his engagement with Thomas's more oft-neglected topics like trinitarian theology and the personhood of Jesus Christ. With that said, as other reviewers have noted, the title and subtitle of this book is a little misleading as Kerr does not really expound on differing "versions of Thomism." Rather, he is attempting to clarify his own reading of Thomas ("what Thomas seems to actually be saying is..." or "If you read Thomas within his context...") by using other interpretations as a starting point.
May 30, 2018
A very interesting book. well worth the read. the author has made a number of interesting observations. however, the author is too influenced by post-modern philosophical theology, and this shows in his reading of Thomas Aquinas.
March 22, 2018
I like this book for its clarity. Kerr does an exceptional job of communicating concisely and clearly.
February 29, 2016
In exploring the many varieties of Thomism, Fergus Kerr hints at a re-reading of St Thomas' thought. Instead of the stale, two-story view of St Thomas, Kerr offers a vision of Thomas that is rich and grace-oriented. He gives us a vision of ethics that posits man as a movement to God. And he gives us a God that is not the static entity of Aristotle, but the fiery dynamism of Exodus 3:14.
A few thoughts:
RE Anthropology: Kerr sees regenerate man as a divine spirit desiring face-to-face communion with God, which can only be granted by God as a gift.
RE Theosis: Kerr's Thomas sees sanctification as union with God in Christ. It is a move from God to God, from the Triune to man's bliss in God.
Conclusion:
The book was helpful in showing how the boring standard view of Thomas isn't necessarily warranted. The section on the processions in the Godhead were great. A few problems with the book: at times it seemed more like a summary of what Thomists were saying rather than what Kerr wanted to say. Also, Kerr would have scored major points if he would have showed how his view of Thomas on the processions of God impacted Filioque discussions. This is especially pertinent since Kerr made the frequent assertion that St Thomas was the heir to the undivided Church.
A few thoughts:
RE Anthropology: Kerr sees regenerate man as a divine spirit desiring face-to-face communion with God, which can only be granted by God as a gift.
RE Theosis: Kerr's Thomas sees sanctification as union with God in Christ. It is a move from God to God, from the Triune to man's bliss in God.
Conclusion:
The book was helpful in showing how the boring standard view of Thomas isn't necessarily warranted. The section on the processions in the Godhead were great. A few problems with the book: at times it seemed more like a summary of what Thomists were saying rather than what Kerr wanted to say. Also, Kerr would have scored major points if he would have showed how his view of Thomas on the processions of God impacted Filioque discussions. This is especially pertinent since Kerr made the frequent assertion that St Thomas was the heir to the undivided Church.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews