Rosmini : Thomist or Neo-Thomist ? The Debate Continues

Neo-Thomism alludes to the aspect of renewal within the context of continuity. Thomas Aquinas himself effectuated expansion and renewal of the works of Aristotle. By virtue of this the neo-Thomist may not allow his thinking to become staid and stagnant in respect of the views of Thomas Aquinas. He should progress and make adjustments in keeping with the dynamics of the current period of time and should not merely relate the words of Thomas Aquinas. The neo-Thomist should carry into effect the spiritual thinking of Aquinas and where possible expound on this. On this basis neo-Thomism is indicative of expansion, renewal, originality and application. According to this premise Rosmini may be considered a neo-Thomist. On the question, whether he will also be considered a Thomist, the answer can be found in the opinions of Rosmini’s advocates and opponents. Rosmini’s advocate’s, on the one hand, argue that he attempted to introduce innovative thinking to the Thomistic tradition that emphasized him as a neo-Thomist. His opponents, on the other hand, uphold traditional Thomism and were adamant that Rosmini could not be classified in terms of this grouping. This paper underpins a via media by emphasizing, on the one hand, that Rosmini’s views of theology and philosophy fall within the ambit of traditional or classical Thomism. His theological and philosophical views would eventually replace Thomism as the official philosophy of the Catholic Church. According to Rosmini’s advocates, his ideas were interpreted out of context by his opponents. They believe that Rosmini upheld traditional Thomism and that hostile political influences should be left out of the picture. It is evident in this paper that Rosmini’s viewpoints uphold the fundamental truths of traditional Thomism while expanding on it in the light of the prevailing social and political context of the era. He applied the points of departure of Thomism in such a way that they gained a new and dynamic actuality. In this respect Rosmini’s views fall into the category of neo-Thomism, in addition to the traditional or classical Thomism.

In his definition of Thomism, J.D. Van der Vyver points out that both Thomism and neo-Thomism are indicative of the connection of Roman Catholic philosophy to the system of thought of Thomas of Aquino.(Note1) Robbers in turn shows that, apart from its connection to the thinking of Thomas Aquinas, neo-Thomism alludes to the aspect of renewal within the context of continuity: "Dit neo-Thomisme wil een Thomisme zijn dat St. Thomas zelf had leurinen voortbrengen in de 20 eeuen, met die sheuten die en by hem reeds waren 'n de 13de eeuw, krachtens een intense dynamiek, die ook het geestesleven van den mens en van die mensheid doet groeien."(Note 2) Before recognising neo-Thomism legitimately as a form of Thomism, there should be clarity as to the actual meaning of Thomism.Up to now Thomism has been seen as an Aristotelian notion.However, owing to the originality of the theoretical view of Thomas Aquinas, Thomism is no longer associated only with Aristotelianism.Robbers accordingly argues that Thomism should also be determined on the basis of the views of Thomas Aquinas and not those of Aristoteles.Manser, on the other hand, claims that Thomism is indicative of the Aristotelian doctrine of the delimitation of faith and knowledge and the harmony that exists between the two.He states that the doctrine of actus and potentia of Aristoteles influenced Thomas Aquinas to such an extent that the latter also attempted to reconcile faith with knowledge.This particular Aristotelian teaching assumed a central position in the philosophical dogma and methodological moments of Thomas Aquinas.(Note 3) According to Robbers, Manser argues that Thomism can be detected in the following quotation which illustrates the development of the Aristotelian doctrines of actus and potentia: "[...] het scherp logisch en consequent doorvoeren en het verder voeren der aristotelische leer van potentia en actus."(Note 4) It was through this development that Thomas Aquinas earned himself the characteristic of originality.Manser writes that Thomas Aquinas further expanded and applied the Aristotelian doctrines of actus and potentia in a consistent and logical manner.(Note 5) In the official document, the Aeterni Patris of 1879, Pope Leo XIII emphasised the advancement and development of knowledge.His message was that the Aeterni Patris document should not be seen as the culmination of ideas, but rather as a point from which progress should continue to be made through further development and application.(Note 6) Pope Pius XI supported Leo XIII in his view that Thomism should not deviate from this developmental line of thinking of renewal and adjustment.They thus endorsed the expansion and intellectual development of traditional Thomism.Rosmini desired to be part thereof by assuming an active role as a contemporary thinker.It should be kept in mind that Thomas Aquinas himself effectuated the expansion, amendment and renewal of the works of Aristoteles.Rosmini has done the same with regard to the works and doctrines of Thomas Aquinas.

Requirements for a Thomist to be considered a neo-Thomist
Neo-Thomism comprises two significant moments: one embodies the thinking of Thomas Aquinas, and the other the thinking of the modern era.These are appropriately referred to as the conservative and progressive elements respectively.The neo-Thomist may be associated with the progressive element.
By virtue of his nature, the neo-Thomist may not allow his thinking to become staid and stagnant in respect of the views of Thomas Aquinas.Instead, the neo-Thomist should progress from the philosophical and theological opinions of Thomas Aquinas and make adjustments in keeping with the dynamics of the current period of time.This implies that where Thomas Aquinas may be silent on certain issues, further development and growth should be evident in the thinking of others in order to generate solutions to present-day problems.The neo-Thomist should thus be capable of original thinking which should further evolve in his works.He should not merely relate the words of Thomas Aquinas, but should carry into effect the spiritual thinking of Aquinas and where possible further expound on this.The following maxim should be put into effect: veteres novis augere (the ancient should be enriched with the modern).(Note 7) On the basis hereof neo-Thomism is indicative of expansion, renewal, originality and application and thus resides under the progressive element: "Veeleer dient rechtvaardigheidshalve de gehele oriëntatie van het neo-Thomisme met het predicaat progressief te worden aangeduid; het denker gevoel als heel het historisch bestaan der mensheid verkeert nu eenmaal 'n een proses, waarin geen stilstand beslaat."(Note 8) According to the above premise, Rosmini may be placed within the category of the progressive element and may be considered a neo-Thomist.
Can Rosmini also be considered to be a Thomist?In order to qualify as a Thomist, Rosmini will need to have upheld traditional or classical Thomism.Was this the actual case?The answer can be found in the opinions of Rosmini's advocates and opponents.

The life and work of Antonio Rosmini
Antonio Rosmini was born in 1797 in Rovereto, an Italian village that had formed part of the Eastern Hungarian Empire at that time.The Rosmini family maintained an affluent lifestyle owing to their involvement in the silk manufacturing industry.(Note 9) Rosmini's father was Baron Pier Modesto Rosmini-Serbati, the member of a wealthy aristocratic family of long standing.His mother was Countess Giovanne dei Formenti who came from Riva, along the lake of Garda.His parents were persons of culture, generosity and piety who zealously advanced the interests of the church.They had four children: Margherita (who became a nun), Antonio, Guiseppe and Felice, the youngest who died at an early age.(Note 10) Rosmini completed his tertiary education in theology at the University of Padua and was ordained as priest in 1821.Because of his unique writing ability and with the encouragement of his colleagues, he spent his time writing books of theology rather than fulfilling his obligations as priest.(Note 11) His publications made a considerable impression in ecclesiastical and philosophical circles.His esteem within the church rose to such an extent that Pius IX considered promoting him to the rank of cardinal.(Note 12)

Rosmini's influence on his followers
During his lifetime and even several years after his death, Rosmini remained a controversial figure in Italy.Notwithstanding his reputation in Italy, he was relatively unknown in Europe.W.J. (pseudonym) expresses the opinion that the magnitude of Rosmini's work in his relatively short lifetime accords him a place amongst the big thinkers and entitles him to a partnership with a small group of intellectuals.W.J. consequently places Rosmini on the same level as Aristoteles, Aquinas, Leibneitz, Kant and Hegel.He believes that Rosmini's views are of particular importance and considers him to be an "intellectual wonder".(Note 13) He states as follows regarding Rosmini: "... because he is alive, and writes for readers taught by all their Lockian and Protestant education to treat the kind of thing that Rosmini represents... thoroughgoing, concatenated, and systematic ontologizing and theologizing by the conceptions of principle and term, substance and essence and act..." (Note 14) The writer, Thomas Davidson, highly appraises Rosmini's work.He considers Rosmini to be the most important philosopher of the nineteenth century and likens him to ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristoteles.(Note 15) According to Davidson, Rosmini's work deserves to receive greater exposure and study since it makes a unique contribution to theology, philosophy, fundamental rights and human society.(Note 16) Davidson believes that Rosmini's work is also of relevance outside Thomistic circles, not only with regard to theology, philosophy and fundamental rights, but also in respect of other scientific disciplines.(Note 17) He states that Rosmini's intellectual work provides clear parallels and cultural tangents with Thomistic and non-Thomistic schools of thought.(Note 18)

Proponents and opponents or critics of Rosmini
This article examines the diverse interpretations given to Rosmini's viewpoints.Both the opinions of those who supported Rosmini and those who criticised him will be discussed.Rosmini's advocates argued that he attempted to introduce innovative thinking to the Thomistic tradition.They emphasised neo-Thomism and believed that Rosmini belonged to this category of philosophical thinking.However, Rosmini's opponents upheld traditional or classical Thomism and were adament that Rosmini could not be classified in terms of this grouping.

4.1Rosmini's proponents
Whereas the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas absolutises human reasoning, Rosmini states in his writings that such a theory is both subjective and flawed.(Note 19) Similarly to Thomas Aquinas, the British empiricists and German Romantic school absolutised reasoning, ignoring the illumination of faith.(Note 20) Davidson is of the opinion that Rosmini obviates the dangers of the absolutisation of subjective human reasoning by concentrating instead on the "light of divine reason" which is objective.(Note 21) The writer, Beales, is of the opinion that the distinction between the "light of reason" and the usage of reason as found in Rosmini's Nuovo Saggio sull' Origine delle Idee (New Essay on the Origin of Ideas), constitutes an important expansion of Thomism.(Note 22) He points out that Rosmini became unpopular in ecclesiastical circles because his writings tended at times to run contrary to the Thomistic tradition.(Note 23) Later, two of his most well-known works were placed under censorship.(Note 24) One of these censored pieces, Delle Cinque Piaghe della Santa Chiesa ( "The Five Wounds of the Holy Church"), which deals with the relationship between the church and the state, serves as an example of Rosmini's criticism of Thomistic doctrine.(Note 25) The latter work is of particular importance for contemporary society and presents solutions to theological and philosophical issues faced by the church and state today.(Note 26) Irrespective of the considerable value of Rosmini's works and their theological and philosophical truths, they were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) at the insistence of the Jesuits who presumably upheld the classical Thomistic doctrine of the Catholic Church.(Note 27) As Aubrey states in respect of the Jesuits' animosity towards Rosmini: "... his works were placed on the Index at the instigation of the Jesuits, then apparently released, and have been a subject of controversy ever since as to their ecclesiastical standing..." (Note 28) Rosmini's Jesuit critics used his divergence from ecclesiastical viewpoints to discredit his writings.(Note 29) Since the Jesuits were one of the oldest orders of the Catholic Church, and since, according to Pesch, they maintained the strictest adherence to traditional Thomism as the official doctrine of the church, they called for a review of Rosmini's theological, philosophical and legal works.Rosmini's criticis' modus operandi was the upholding of classical or traditional Thomism.(Note 30) Their desire was to see Rosmini's works placed back on the Index of Forbidden books after previously having been removed from this list.After Pius IX refused to accede to the demands of the Jesuits, Leo XIII, his successor, granted them their request.(Note 31) Pesch writes: "... but hardly had a new and more pliable Pope ascended the throne, when they applied to him for a remedy against Rosminianism, in the shape of a rehabilitation of Thomism, pure and simple, as the philosophy of the Church..." (Note 32) Leo now launched a desperate attempt to reappraise the works of Rosmini to be in keeping with traditional Thomism as evident in his encyclical, Aeterni Patris, in 1879.(Note 33) Boelaars explains the propensity that Pius had for traditional Thomism as follows: ".... Paus Leo XIII verborg van de begin af zijn voorliefde voor de wijsbegeerte van den H. Thomas niet.Reeds enkele malen had hij er blijk van gegeven, toen den 4 Augustus 1879, als derde zijner encyclicken, de wereldbrief Aeterni Patris verscheen: De philosophia christiana ad mentem sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris angelici in scholis catholicis instauranda; over het herstel van de christelijke wijbegeerte naar den geest van den engelachtigen leeraar, den H. Thomas van Aquino, in de katholieke intichtingen van onderwijs."(Note 34) Boelaars alleges that Leo XIII recommended in an encyclical of June 1880 with the title Dum Vitiatae that the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas was to be followed according to the exegesis of Cajetanus, Ferrariensis, Liberatore, Sanseverino and Zigliara, and that Rosmini's doctrine was to be avoided.(Note 35) Leo XIII's revision of Rosmini's works ended with the condemnation of forty propositions from Rosmini's posthumous works.(Note 36) The decree, Sacred Congregation of the Index, was ratified on 6 June 1849 by Leo XIII.The condemnations listed in the Sacred Congregation of the Index are usually given in one of the following formulae, namely prohibeatur, prohibeatur donec corrigatur aut expurgetur and dimittantur.(Note 37) Rosmini's works were later released from censorship through the last-mentioned formula, the dimittantur, by a ruling of Pius IX in 1854 and could not be placed under censorship again.(Note 38) The dimittantur exonerated Rosmini's works from heresy, but made it clear that his works were to be considered dangerous or detrimental to the interests of the church: "... merely by their liability to misinterpretation in consequence of peculiar expressions and the particular temper of the times."(Note 39) Following the exoneration of Rosmini's works by means of the dimittantur of Pius IX, Leo XIII was only able in his decree, Post Obitum of 1887, to pronounce that forty propositions contained in Rosmini's prohibited works, Delle Cinque Piaghe della Santa Chiesa ("The Five Wounds of the Church") and the Costituzione Secondo la Giustizia Sociale ("Constitution on Social Justice"), were not in agreement with Catholic truths: "catholicae veritati haud consonae videbantur."(Note 40) Reaction against the encyclical, Aeterni Patris, came from various quarters.The most impressive argument against the Aeterni Patris was that the pope was endeavouring to return civilisation to the Middle Ages.Boelaars considers the speech of Leo XIII of 7 March 1880, Pergratus nobis, to reflect this line of thought.Speculation followed Leo XIII's statements of the time and it was alleged that his preference for the Middle Ages led to the deduction being made that he wished to elevate the non-Christian Aristoteles above Christian philosophers such as St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.Notwithstanding the allegations levelled against Leo XIII, the latter expressively campaigned for the execution of Thomistic philosophical education.(Note 41) After Leo XIII's fervent campaign for a Thomistic tradition in the church (at the request of the Jesuits), Rosmini's 40 propositions stood no chance of being accepted by mainstream Catholic thinkers.Neither were his propositions in a position to penetrate the rest of the world.Now that attitudes towards Rosmini have changed as a result of the dedicated work of a few persons who believed in Rosmini's "system of truth" at the time of his vilification or persecution, it is the hope of this research that Rosmini's works will receive the general acceptance and credit that they deserve.(Note 42) Sheldon believes that Giuseppe Morando made the assumption that Leo XIII was placed under pressure by the Jesuits and that this led him to subject the works of Rosmini to censorship -something which he would not otherwise have done.Sheldon is also of the opinion that Rosmini's propositions were in fact in keeping with healthy theological and philosophical teachings of the time and can be considered to be in accordance with Catholic standards.(Note 43) Furthermore, Sheldon believes that as an adherent of Rosmini, Morando defended Rosmini's philosophical views.(Note 44) He remains convinced thereof that the rejection of Rosmini's philosophy was an injustice and expresses his dismay at the antagonistic references found in textbooks which discredit Rosmini's philosophy.According to Sheldon, Morando was thoroughly convinced that Rosmini was in no way guilty of disregarding the Catholic Church's doctrines.In this regard he refers to a quotation of Morando in which Pope Gregory XVI showed great regard for Rosmini: "... virum excellenti ac praestanti ingenio praeditum, egregiisque animi dotibus ornatum, rerum divinarum atque humanarum scientia summopere illustrem."(Note 45) Sheldon believes that the rejection of Rosmini's teachings by the pontificate of Leo XIII was the consequence of improper influence on the part of the Jesuits and their political considerations.(Note 46) Some writers believe that Rosmini's teachings can be brought into relation with the viewpoints of Galileo.Sheldon explains that: "... over against an Inquisition which has committed the two greatest possible errors in the field of physical science and in that of metaphysics, in condemning Galileo and Rosmini, the rebels of today are the truest Catholics of tomorrow."(Note 47) Sheldon also cites another advocate of Rosmini, Guiseppe Morando, who states that Rosmini's viewpoints are not at all contrary to Catholic opinions and that "... each of the forty condemned propositions can be justified as being in harmony with sound philosophy and theology, and agreeable to Catholic standards."(Note 48) In Morando's opinion Rosmini was not guilty of any serious divergence from church dogma.
The writer, Norman St John-Stevas, believed that Rosmini's theological and philosophical views would eventually replace Thomism as the official philosophy of the Catholic Church.(Note 49)

Rosmini's opponents
It is characteristic of Thomism to make a connection between theology and philosophy since these two fields supplement one another.(Note 50) In consideration hereof, Rosmini's views on theology and philosophy fall within the ambit of traditional or classical Thomism.
Rosmini believes that, although the soul possesses both a corporeal (natural) and a divine nature, it forms a unity that reaches maturity in humanity.(Note 51) Rosmini assumes that the good and divine nature of humankind will ultimately conquer the corporeal (natural) and that in this way mankind obtains participation in God, the Highest Being.This participation in the Godly, however, demands strict adherence to natural law.This view shows some parallel interpretations with the Thomistic analogia entis and participation theory.(Note 52) The debate as to whether Rosmini's view of God or his theological viewpoints lead to pantheism, is a salient issue in view of the investigation to determine whether Rosmini's school of thinking belongs to neo-Thomism rather than traditional (classical) Thomism.Keeping this in mind, particular attention has been paid to specific doctrines of Rosmini.Proposition 20 of Rosmini's doctrines states that the human soul multiplies through generation: "... non repugnat ut anima humana generatione multiplicetur."(Note 53) This apparently deviates from the Thomistic viewpoint contained in the Summa contra gentiles which reads as follows: "... quod anima humana non traducatur cum semine."(Note 54) It should be kept in mind that Rosmini attempts in his doctrine to indicate that the human soul through development becomes one/unites with the esse initiale in the course of time.On the grounds hereof, Rosmini's viewpoint (Proposition 20) deviates from the Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine in so far as the soul is concerned.(Note 55) As already mentioned, Rosmini alleges in Proposition 22 that two soul constituents are present in the human body -one corporeal (natural) and the other divine (intellectual).(Note 56) In the human body these two soul constituents are joined together to form a unity so that the human body ultimately only has one soul.Winterton shows by means of a quotation from the works of Rosmini that the latter was an advocate of the idea that the two distinguishable soul constituents unite in the human body: "... God might possibly separate the intellectual principle from the animated body, without the latter ceasing to be animate: but if animate, there must remain some sort of anima or other.Was it there before, or not?If not, where does it come from now?If so, then there were two souls in man, existing together."(Note 57) The Aristotelian-Thomistic theological viewpoint on the soul differs from that of Rosmini in so far as it advocates three soul constituents as opposed to Rosmini's two.Both Rosminianism and Thomism thus adopt the point of view that the human being possesses more than one soul constituent, the main difference between the two views being that Thomism under the influence of Aristoteles and Plato distinguishes three parts of the soul.The latter forms part of the theory of hylomorphism which means that an earlier form of the soul will be replaced by a later more developed form of the soul since "... generation requires corruption."(Note 58) Thomas Aquinas alleges that: "... when a more perfect form comes on, the prior is corrupted, but in such a way that the following form has whatever the first had, and still more."(Note 59) This in effect means that the vegetative soul constituent degenerates and is replaced by a more developed soul constituent, the sensitive soul part, which in turn further degenerates/becomes corrupt and is subsequently replaced by a rational soul constituent.(Note 60) Rosmini argues that ultimately there is only one soul that remains in the human being, namely the rational soul constituent.He does not support the hylomorphistic view of Aristoteles and Thomas Aquinas and maintains that two soul constituents interact with each other in the human being rather than undergo a process of replacement whereby one soul constituent degenerates and is replaced by another.Rosmini believes that two soul constituents exist simultaneously.Hylomorphism, on the other hand, assumes a process of generation and constant degeneration/corruption. (Note 61) According to Winterton, Rosmini's theological view on the soul is incorrect and the Thomistic view should be upheld as the valid one since it carries the support of the ecclesiastical magisterium.He supports his argument by stating that Rosmini in his Proposition 24 adopts the assumption that the soul does not constitute the substantial form of the body, but instead is the cause thereof.Winterton considers this statement to be contrary to Thomism with regard to the Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of form/matter whereby humanity is typified as the form of the soul.(Note 62) Winterton later recuses his opinion on Rosmini and instead argues that Rosmini's ideas were interpreted out of context.He believes that it was as a result of political considerations that Rosmini was done an injustice and that he would never have published the propositions as it later became apparent.(Note 63) Hereby Winterton confirms that Rosmini upheld traditional Thomism and that hostile political influences should be left out of the picture.
According to Thomas Guarino, when John Paul II juxtaposed Rosmini's theology and philosophy with that of neo-Thomists such as Gilson and Maritain on the one hand, and with that of orthodox philosophers such as Florensky and Lossky on the other hand, this created a dilemma for some of the clergy.Although John Paul II wished to reconcile Rosmini with Thomism, Guarino states that Leo XIII in his encyclical, Aeterni Patris, expressed the opinion that Rosmini's theological views were divergent from those of Thomism.(Note 64) Leo XIII (supported by Ratzinger), according to Guarino, made the following statement: "... the adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position like that of Rosmini because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St. Thomas Aquinas." (Note 65) Guarino believes that owing to the divergent or heterodox interpretations accorded to Rosmini's work, Ratzinger came to view some of Rosmini's viewpoints as ambiguous and confusing.According to Guarino, Ratzinger considered Rosmini's theological views to be insufficient and inadequate and not in keeping with traditional (classical) Thomism.(Note 66) Notwithstanding Ratzinger's rejection of Rosmini's theological views, John Paul II declared in his encyclical, Fides et ratio, that Rosmini was one of the most recent writers to establish a fruitful relationship between theology and philosophy.With these words John Paul II implied that Rosmini's views were in no respect contradictory to traditional (classical) Thomism and that his theological and philosophical systems should rather be seen as a means of further developing classical Thomism.Rosmini's theological system accordingly affords Thomism with new opportunities to overcome challenges presented by modern-day thinking.John Paul II in effect provides scope in his Fides et ratio for the reinstatement of Rosmini's theological views.According to Guarino and Winterton this is unnecessary because Rosmini's posthumous works have not been interpreted in context.They argue that Rosmini was an adherent of traditional or classical Thomism.(Note 67)

Conclusion
In his encyclical, Aeterni Patris, Leo XIII upheld Thomism as the official point of view of the Catholic Church.Davidson states that Rosmini continued the Thomistic tradition in the nineteenth century, while relating the traditional and classical form thereof to modern tendencies.According to Davidson, however, Thomism was not always exempt from criticism.(Note 68) This explains why Rosmini's theological views received considerable attention, placing him on an equal footing with Thomism.In the event of a difference of opinion between the views of Thomas Aquinas and Rosmini, the latter's views should be accepted as the correct ones in the opinion of Davidson, because Thomism did not advocate a fixed theory.(Note 69) Davidson states as follows: "... they speak as if Thomas had settled all his views, before he began to write.Consequently, when they find contradictions in his writings (and these are not rare), they try, by what they call a 'benign interpretation,' to explain them away.Unfortunately, a benign interpretation generally means a disingenuous interpretation, and how far such interpretations may be carried may be seen in a little work by Father Cornoldi on St. Thomas's views with regard to the Immaculate Conception, in which that zealous Jesuit tries to show that St. Thomas meant exactly the opposite of what he said.The Saint's views on the Immaculate Conception were anything but orthodox.It is but fair to say that Cardinal Zigliara, in the volume before us, shows no tendency to benign interpretations, and that he treats his opponents, when speaking of them individually, with becoming respect..." (Note 70) In summary, Rosmini's views differ in some respects from those of Thomas Aquinas.As already mentioned, Thomism has its shortcomings.Rather than acting in an offensive way towards Thomism, Rosmini makes an important contribution towards the further development thereof.
It can be seen from Rosmini's theological viewpoints that he endeavoured to uphold the fundamental truths of traditional (classical) Thomism while expanding on it in the light of the prevailing social and political contexts of the era.He applied the points of departure of Thomism in such a way that they gained a new and dynamic actuality.In this respect Rosmini's views also fall into the category of neo-Thomism, in addition to the traditional or classical Thomism.
In consideration of the above, it may be understood that the false dilemmas postulated by Rosmini's critics or opponents with regard to his position within Thomism, are of lesser importance for the time being.
Note 29.Pesch 1880: 424, Davidson 1883: 144-7.Pesch believes that about a century ago when philosophy in Europe came under the attack of sensism, criticism and Hegelianism and the Jesuits were imposing a form of materialism on the church, Rosmini strove to restore dignity to reason and to elevate reason to the foundation of religion or theology.He did this by focusing on the traditional philosophy of the church -Thomism.Pesch states that Rosmini was successful in his attempt and that the Jesuits wished to bring him over to their side.When they ascertained that Rosmini employed an entirely different philosophical and theological system to theirs and that he would not allow himself to be used for their own profit, the Jesuits started to discredit Rosmini's works.After they failed to have Rosmini's works placed on the Index, the Jesuits attempted through private slander to create the impression that Rosmini's works contained erroneous doctrines and convinced the church to restore Thomism in a way that excluded Rosmini's proposed improvements to Thomism.During the pontificate of Pius IX the Jesuits were unsuccessful in their attempts to have Rosmini's works placed on the Index.Parkinson states that when Leo XIII, who was a more pliant pope, ascended the throne, the Jesuits advocated a remedy against Rosmini's works in the form of the rehabilitation of Thomism as the church's philosophy: "… and a distinct condemnation of its improved form (Rosminianism)."He feels that Leo XIII failed to restore Thomism: "… because his hands were tied by a decree of the Congregation of the Index which had declared Rosmini's words free from censure."Parkinson states that the Congregation of the Index never gave the decree "nihil censura dignum", but rather the "dimittantur."He believes that the "dimittantur" in no way served to give approval to Rosmini's works and that in his opinion a decree of the Congregation of the Index could be revoked by the pope.According to Parkinson, the pope's hands were not actually tied by the decree of the Congregation of the Index.He states that after the encyclical, Aeterni Patris, the Jesuits flooded the world with books in order to confirm the doctrines of Thomism as the official doctrines of the church (secundum principia S. Thomae Aquinatis).Parkinson explains that the Jesuits' views corresponded more with those of Rosmini than with those of Thomism: "… the Jesuits are… emphasizing views that are often quite as much at variance with those of St. Thomas as with those of Rosmini, against which they were directed."http://mb-soft.com/believe/txoneothomi.htm, 1.In the early nineteenth century in Italy certain scholars in the Thomistic school considered the doctrines of Aquinas to be basic principles that could resolve the problems created by Kantianism, Hegelian idealism, British empiricism, rationalisation, skepticism and liberalism.During 1850 neo-Thomism and neo-Scholasticism were reflected in the works of Gaetano Sanseverino in Naples and Matteo Liberatore in Rome.The publication of Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris in 1879, which was known as the "charter of neo Thomism", took their endeavours to a new climax.By means of ensuing encyclicals, Leo XIII emphasised the application of Thomistic ideas as a means of affording solutions to contemporary problems.Successive popes, including John Paul II, stressed the importance of a Christian philosophy based on Thomistic principles.Note 36.Boelaars 1948: 12.Note 37. Rosmini 1861: 125.The first formula, prohibeatur, was used when a book was condemned as a result of heretical and immoral doctrines.The second formula implies that a book, although considered to be detrimental, was still capable of undergoing change.Such book should, however, not be offensive to the Catholic faith.The third formula is indicative of the acquittal or exoneration of a book.Note 38.Encyclopaedia Britannica: 561.
Burke 1977: 600.Burke is of the opinion in his book discussion of Mc Cool that the latter supported the maintenance of classical Thomism and states as follows: "… and Mc Cool points out, he was also crucial to the development of Thomism into a seedbed for pluralistic theology in the age of Vatican II." Burke's approach is contrary to the neo-Thomistic tradition.Rosmini shows a strong disapproval for the nineteenth century secular rationalism and instead shows a desire to uphold classical Thomism while at the same time enabling adjustment to new changing circumstances.Rosmini's ideas could thus serve as a bridge between classical Thomism and neo-Thomism.Note 31.See Pesch 1880: 425.H. Boelaars 1948: 12. Pope Leo declared in his encyclical, Dum vitiatae of 21 June 1880, that the doctrine of Rosmini should rather be avoided: "Dit werd in Italië zeer goed begrepen, want in meerdere adhaesiebetuigen van Italiaansche bisschoppen en seminarieprofessoren werd onder aanhaling van deze woorden de belofte gedaan de leer van den H. Thomas te onderwijzen volgens den uitleg van Cajetanus, Ferrariensis, Liberatore, Sanseverino, Zigliara, en de leer van Rosmini te vermijden."Note 32.See Pesch 1880: 752.Note 33.See Pesch 1880: 424-5.Note 34.Boelaars 1948: 9. Note 35.Boelaars 1948: 12.