Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

2004

Hello. You may notice that I have moved the text copied from the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia to the Summa Theologica article. (Actually exactly the same text was already there, but unwikified.) I think Wikipedia only needs one copy of that text, and it seems more appropriate in the article dedicated to Summa Theologica alone. Other works by Thomas Aquinas should also get their own articles, I think. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Existing text of talk page as of today. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


This appears to be copyrighted material from http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aquinas.htm

Is it or is it not copyrighted?


They seem to have imported it from the same public domain source and I notice that they haven't done as good a job as Alan Millar has been doing. see this sentence on that link:

But from another side God is the cause of all things, so he is efficacious also in sin as *-ctio but not as ens.

and here:

But from another side God is the cause of all things, so he is efficacious also in sin as actio but not as ens.

Both theirs and ours are from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion, available online and public domain. Alan Millar has been importing lots of it for wikification. --MichaelTinkler.

One awkward thing about importing these old encyclopedia articles is all the internal cross-references to other encyclopedia articles. Ideally, someone (who, me?) would go through and either remove the cross-references or, even better, link them to the appropriate wikipedia article. --Wesley

Welcome to wikification, Wesley! That's the process. If you'd like to see one that is reasonably complete, look at Tertullian. Alan is importing lots of these, and he and others of us are plowing through them. Edit at the same time. These arebase texts - it's sure better than anyone here can do as fast as we're expanding wikipedia, but they're not perfect. For instance, one element of fact that needs to be updated in this entry is the section on authentic vs. inauthentic works; scholarly opinion has shifted on some of them. Another thing - the tone of the Schaff-Herzog, though fairly middle of the road for a 19th c. resource, needs a bit of NPOV and a lot of explanation; the vocabulary is less tricky than the 1880s and 1910s Britannicas, but it still needs work. Edit and wikify away! --MichaelTinkler

fixed old sig

I have reverted the newest version of this article to a previous revision for the following reasons:

  • Critics of Aquinas should be allowed to have final say in the section entitled "Modern criticism." Admirers of Aquinas have the rest of the article to make their case.
    • [You must not incorporate sarcasm into an encyclopedia, nor mark entries as m when they are major 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • The newest version lacked clarity. It strongly appeared as though the editor was deliberately trying to complicate a simple issue with circumlocution.
    • [St. Thomas wrote complicated things; the metaphysical and philosophical relations among things are complex 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • Masturbation is "gravely disordered." Rape is "intrinsically evil." The editor utterly fails to show how the phrase "gravely disordered" is meant as a harsher condemnation that "intrinsically evil."
    • [This is a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: it is not the job of a Catechism to show metaphysical or philosophical relations among things 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • The editor suggests that the gravity of all sins is mitigated when the sinner is unaware that he is committing a sin. The author then suggests that the reason this was added to the paragraph on masturbation but not to the paragraph about rape is because everyone already knows rape is a sin, so there is no reason to point this out. The editor omits the fact that there are additional factors that may lessen or extenuate the moral culpability of masturbation, and these additional factors do not apply to rape. "Force of acquired habit" is a valid excuse for masturbation, but not rape.
    • [The editor is writing about theology, which in Catholicism includes the need for awareness that something is grave matter before it is culpable 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • The editor suggests the final sentence of paragraph 2352 was meant pastorally (as advice), not theologically (as doctrine). Obviously, it was meant as both. Advice on how to behave springs from beliefs on what is good and what is bad. If it wasn't meant doctrinally, it wouldn't have been in the Catechism in the first place. Pope John Paul II called the Catechism "a sure norm for teaching the faith," not "a good book of pastoral advice." And the fact that the Catechism is shorter than the Summa Theologica is irrelevant.
    • [There is a social difference in how people regard rape and masturbation, and the Catechism is intended to reach people and help bring them into the Catholic faith. Therefore it must take account of what people know. St. Thomas labors under no such burden, so he can simply expound the relations among things directly. 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]
  • On a personal note, I would suggest that anyone who entertains the notion that masturbation is a graver sin than rape has never met a rape victim and seen the absolute devastation it causes. That a God would consider the waste of a few cubic centimeters of semen a graver crime than a horrendous violation of a human being is clearly contrary to what the Catechism teaches, as well as all human decency. I would also suggest that the editor ask his mother her opinion. Phrase it like this: "Mom, if I raped you, wouldn't that be less evil than masturbating?" If the editor's mother is deceased, I would suggest he ask a nun.

Adding sig I neglected before: Darnel, a.k.a. 198.81.26.15

    • [St. Thomas provides a theological study, not a list-out of what people consider morally acceptable. 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]

I think this article is too technical for a general purpose encyclopedia. It's fine for maybe a theology graduate, but I have a mere BSc and it largely reads as theo-babble, defining his work in terms of a dozen things I've never heard of. My question was, "What was St Thomas Aquinas known for?" and a general purpose encyclopedia page really should have a couple-paragraph explanation for that without me having to learn what the theo-technical meanings of "exegetical, homiletical, and liturgical, dogmatic, apologetic, ethical and philosophical" are. -- User:Daniel MacKay [The page points to entries explaining words that are complex, and it is safe for people to get a taste of how St. Thomas actually wrote. Also, the issue of St. Thomas on masturbation is one that is not really treated in an accessible way elsewhere on the internet. Furthermore your efforts to alter the entry are inflected with heavy sarcasm; that really has no place in an encyclopedia. 207.192.130.197 16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)]

207.192.130.197

First, please don't put your comments in between the paragraphs of other editors'. It makes the discussion extremely difficult to read. If you want to reply to another editor in context, you can quote them using italic text.

Secondly, I have removed nearly all the material under "Modern Criticism" because it is not encyclopedaic -- rather, it has the tone of a paper or article that argues for particular conclusions. This is certainly terrific and valuable work, and I encourage you to publish it elsewhere on the internet, or on your User page here -- however, it does not fit in an encylopedia. To that end, I have deleted that section, and archived it as Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Modern Criticism. Please don't take it personally -- your work is excellent, it's just not encylopedaic. — Adam Conover † 18:04, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

After seeing your response, I must commend you for your sensible handling of what could have been a very contentious issue. You're a great Wikipedian! :) — Adam Conover † 18:30, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Aquinas Highschool in Rochester New, York is named after Thomas Aquinas.

Thomas Aquinas is importnat because of his incorrect view if the space time historic fall in the garden. Aquina's believed only the 'will' of man was fallen and that mans intellect was not affected by the fall. This lead to a natural theology and also set up and area of autonomy in mans intellect. The framework for a humanist society begins here with Thomas Aquinas. His natural theology involves attempting to answer mans problems beggining with man as the sole integration point for finding all knowledge and truth. Plato knew for true morals to exist there must exist a true moral absolute otherwise we would have only arbitrary laws. Plato never found his universal. Leonardo Davinci also tried to find his universal that explained all that we see and know. He also failed. These men as a result of Thomas Aquinas' incorrect view of the fall in the garden all failed to find a unified field of knowledge. Aquinas may be famous to the Catholics, but he is the father of natural theology and he was responsible for setting up an area of autonomy in man. Catholicism is basically theistic evolution. The Vatican teaches that humans first began as monkeys and developed into what we are today. God intervened at a certain point and so we have the Church. However, Catholicism is the opposite of protestantism in the the protestant was looking to the Bible for answers, the Catholics began with man and not the Bible. If you look a Catholic countries you will see atrocities and unjustice on a mamoth scael. This is because when you begin with monkeys, it is not so difficult to watch them die. This is the Catholic humanist system.

Darnel's Replies to 207

  • St. Thomas wrote complicated things; the metaphysical and philosophical relations among things are complex.

Masturbation is either worse than rape or it isn't. How is that complex?

  • This is a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: it is not the job of a Catechism to show metaphysical or philosophical relations among things.

If the Catechism wasn't interested in showing the relative difference in sinfulness between masturbation and rape, it wouldn't have called one "gravely disordered" and the other "intrinsically evil;" it would have simply said that both are bad.

  • The editor is writing about theology, which in Catholicism includes the need for awareness that something is grave matter before it is culpable.

The editor just did it again: he ignored all of the other additional factors that extenuate the moral culpability of masturbation. The editor seems to have difficulty dealing with the issues head-on, instead choosing to rely on transparently bogus attempts at verbal prestidigitation in the hopes of distracting the readers from his argument's weaknesses.

  • There is a social difference in how people regard rape and masturbation, and the Catechism is intended to reach people and help bring them into the Catholic faith. Therefore it must take account of what people know. St. Thomas labors under no such burden, so he can simply expound the relations among things directly.

So? Again, you're only dealing with one of the factors that extenuate the culpability of masturbation, and ignoring those that hamper your argument, such as maturity. Infants masturbate; are you really claiming that infants are committing a graver sin than rape?

  • St. Thomas provides a theological study, not a list-out of what people consider morally acceptable.

I agree, but so what? Both the Catechism and the Summa Theologica are theological studies, not guides to contemporary behavior. Unfortunately, they contradict each other. And I will also take that remark to mean you're afraid to ask your mother what I suggested, probably because you are unable to reconcile what the Church has taught and the dictates of your conscience. I hope it doesn't take the rape of a loved one to make you see the error of your heartless philosophy.

Darnel 13:03, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Darnel Suddenly Realizes Something Important

Some people cannot be swayed by logical arguments or appeals to human decency; they have their faith, you are their persecutor and that's the end of it. To argue with them is to argue with a brick wall.

I'm not going to stick around to hear the latest reply from 207. I've met my migraine quota.

That's all, folks. It's been fun.

Darnel 12:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

A previous contributor wrote:

"The modern Church seems to differ with Aquinas on another issue, and that is the use of torture. Aquinas said: "Hence just as by public authority a person is lawfully deprived of life altogether on account of certain more heinous sins, so is he deprived of a member on account of certain lesser sins" (Secunda Secundae Partis, Article 65, Part 1) QUOTE. The Catechism, by contrast, says: "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity" (paragraph 2297 QUOTE)."

This would appear to be an incoherent statement, as what Aquinas said does not imply the use of torture. Aquinas referred to the "consent of the owner" as a necessary precondition, stressing furthermore that "it is always possible to further one's spiritual welfare otherwise than by cutting off a member, because sin is always subject to the will". Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not parallel to the Summa Theologica, as the former is a summary of faith and the latter is a treatise that delves into greater detail. Since the contributor appears not to have understood the matter on which he commented, this section should be excised from the entry. Trc | [msg] 22:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Some would say, however, that St. Thomas clashes not only with contemporary ethics, but apparently with the newest version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well. The Catechism refers to masturbation as "gravely disordered" (paragraph 2352) and rape as "intrinsically evil" (paragraph 2356). Some interpret this as a direct repudiation of Aquinas' hierarchy of sin; some do not."

Anyone who would say this doesn't know too much about the history of what the Catholic church has taught. Of course the modern Catechism differs from Aquinas since almost all the theologians and clergy of the church since Vatican II have held radically different beliefs then what preceded them. Not just in the order of how bad masturbation is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.124.242.129 (talk • contribs) 11 June 2004 .

Is the Automata thing real? I can't find anything to back it up, and it doesn't seem to exist in any other translation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brubakerj (talk • contribs) 11 December 2004.

Unfair exageration or extension of Thomas's disciplinary thought to support for slavery

The link that the text connects to does not say he supports slavery. It just says a lawful authority can STRIKE or punish whoever is under their authority.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.227.88 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005.

I haven't read the text in question, but I know that this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The apostle Paul mentions how one should treat their slaves, and this has been wrongly construed as saying that Paul advocated slavery. He was just prescribing some ethics for the structure of the society at the time, and I can see how Aquinas could be doing the same thing without actually advocated slavery over nonslavery. FranksValli 22:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas (whole Article, esp. biographical notes)

Hello! You may notice my Article on my home page, just as follows: http://www.geocities.com/daretoshare2004/vita_aquino.html Thank you for your respect! Greetings from Munich, Germany! Hartmut Geuder —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HGeuder (talk • contribs) 24 November 2005.

favor?

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Aristotle and God

What I find interesting about Aquinas is the way he combines philosophy and theology.He takes alot from Aristotle whom he referred to as " The Philosopher" and blends his teachings with theology. His Famous " Five Ways to prove God's Existence" was his way of proving God's existance based on what man can know from the world. He maintained that what God teaches will always be consistent with whatever truths man will discover. He should have perhaps been more famous during his life, and probably should be read more today.(faithnet.org) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tired dad (talk • contribs) 6 February 2006.


Thomas Aquinas is most famous for his incorrect view of the fall in Eden. He taught that only the will of man was fallen and that mans intellect was not affected. This set up an area of autonomy in the intellect of man. It also set up a humanistic framework for society visible in Catholicism. When Aquinas did this the begginings of a natural theology were set. Man no longer looked to the Bible to answer the questions of metaphysics and of morals. The philosophers also began to look for truth apart from the Bible and so the artist followed, the writer and thengeneral culture followed last of all by theology. By the time we get to Kant and Rousseau, the philosophers had given up any hope of finding a unified field of knowledge. Wilhelm Hegel arrived on the scene and he changes the way humans approached the deep questions. Prior to Hegel the Biblical oresuppositions had been the default mthodology of the known world. With the arrival of Hegel that all changed. Hegel introduced a new methodlogy called dialectical methodology or synthesis in place of the previous Biblical antithesis. In dialectical methodology you have relative truth. This means two opposites can both be right. The Biblical methodology there is either right or wrong. There is no grey areas at all. If you study Plato and Socrates you will find they both grappled witth this issue. Plato knew a moral absolute must exist for true morals to exist. Leonrdo Davinci wanted to paint the soul of a tree and not merely a tree. he never painted very much because he to could not find a unified field of knowledge. These men as a result of Aquinas' incorrect view of the space time historic fall had reached a place of despair. if you view paintings by Gauguin Van Gogh Cezanne, Picasso and Bacon to mention a few. You will see they were seeing the dissapearance of the human race and the emergence of something less than the image and likeness of the God who is there. Francis A Schaeffer's 'Trilogy' is a good starting place to understand what has occurred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.18.201 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

Don't be so dull. Your imaginary friend doesn't exist, and you need to get out more often. Maybe you can become a buddhist and worship wheels if ignorance is your bag. 83.70.219.27 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

^ Speak for yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.187.2 (talk)

What about his philosophy and theology?

I came to this article to see examples of Aquinas's worldview and I see none. I do see a section criticizing Aquinas's writings, but I see no section summarizing his theological or philosophical perspectives. Shouldn't Wikipedia give a summary of a philosopher's views a higher priority than nitpicks? I say this as a frustrated encyclopedia user, not as a partisan in this debate, because I know little to nothing about Aquinas. --Ben Applegate 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Added section on theology. David aukerman 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be more philosophy here. The section on epistemology is woefully inadequate. Thomas' quotation given on the necessity of Divine help is followed, in the Summa, by a "but". He is very clear that God adds nothing to the "natural light" of man's reason, given to her by nature. This needs to be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.246.163 (talk • contribs) 3 September 2006.

GA Failing

Half of this article is a list, you have two references, wild links in the article. Clean, prose, cite. Please see WP:CITE. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved the works to a side page.
This article is looking better - no more lists, better referencing, cleaner. How close do you think we're coming to GA status? David aukerman 02:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy?

I second the complaint of a user above who mentions that this article has nothing on his philosophy or theology. What did the man think that makes him so important? This article is in poor condition on that basis alone. Srnec 20:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Added section on theology. David aukerman 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

King Louis VIII

Some kind of small mistake. There's a line in this page which says: 'During 1269 to 1271 he was again active in Paris, lecturing to the students, managing the affairs of the church and consulted by the king, Louis VIII, his kinsman, on affairs of state'.

Louis VIII died in 1223, so maybe the author here is talking about Louis IX. However, Louis IX died in 1270 (i.e. before 1271), and I don't see how a French king can be kinsman to an Italian scholar. I don't know what was intended so I can't edit this page myself. Who wrote this? -David Cleave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.85.248 (talk • contribs) 3 July 2006.

Good question. It looks like User:Pwqn added the text in question on 6 November 2005. I've asked this user for a response on User_talk:Pwqn, but this person has been inactive since 20 November 2005, so I don't know if we'll get an answer. David aukerman 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica gives this information (particularly the wording "his kinsman"). Perhaps newer resources might resolve the issue... - David aukerman talk 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

Someone added this to the section on epistemology:

Aquinas believed that the purest way to find knowledge is through divine revelation. Specifically, he stressed the necessity of divine grace: "It would seem that without grace man can know no truth. . . . we cannot know truth without grace." (This is what a Wikipedia contributor claims. In fact, this statement is taken from Aquinas' objections. On the contrary, Aquinas states in the sed contra that "Therefore without grace man of himself can know truth," although he concedes that grace at times does come to the aid of man's intellectual endeavors and that man needs God's auxilio generale to attain any truth." See Prima Secundae 109.1. Of course, I would be glad for someone to take this information and put it into the Wikipedia article in the appropriate manner. Nevertheless, I found it absolutely necessary to correct this egregious error as quickly as possible!) He was also, however, an Aristotelian and an empiricist whose influence on those two streams of Western thought is substantial.

Tom Harrison Talk 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this comment here, Tom. This person is absolutely correct! I've made the appropriate changes. - David aukerman talk 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Renom

I've droped by to review that article. You all have done a good job of improving the article, but it still needs a bit of work, so I'll put it on hold. What I need to see is inline documentation of the biography sections of the article, especially the Career section, where we share what contemporaries wrote about him. Which people? When?

Not critical, but very helpful would be some style changes in language. Most readers of the English language find it hard to read long sentences, filled with passive constructions, participles ("ing" words) and semicolons. It makes the text fell fuzzy, distant and abstract. Especially in the bio sections, try shorter sentences, active constructions (Thomas served the church ... vs. the church was served by Thomas), simple word order (subject-verb-object-direct object) and periods/commas v. semicolons. I hope that helps.--CTSWyneken(talk) 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments ... the biography information was added to this article long ago by someone who has since disappeared. Therefore, getting strong documentation for these things will be tricky, but we'll give it a shot.David aukerman 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten the entire biography section to be more readable. Now we need some references... anyone?David aukerman 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's looking pretty good. All that's left is to satisfy the fact tags or comment out the details pending documentation and I'll promote the article. --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've tracked down sources for the remaining {{cn}} tags (at least, I think I got them all!). Most came from the 1911 EB, so I also added {{1911}} to the References section. One quote can be found in another 1911 text available online at nd.edu (link included in footnote). Let me know if I missed anything! - David aukerman talk 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

That does it. Congratulations! I've promoted the article to GA status. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks again for all your help. - David aukerman talk 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. Next step towards FA is a peer review. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

References

This article has virtually no inline citations. Why is this? Isn't it impossible to reach FA without them? Dev920 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion at GA Renom above. (First things first - right now we're going for GA status, not FA status.) Actually, there are plenty of citations in the Philosophy, Theology, and Modern Criticism sections - those are relatively new to the article. What are lacking are citations for the Biography section. After doing a little research, I've found that the biography text (and much of the text of some related articles) was added by User:Alan Millar on 10 December 2001 with the edit summary "(old encyc text)". That edition of the article says that the text comes from the "Schaff-Herzog Encyc of Religion." To that end, I've put the {{Schaff-Herzog}} tag on the Aquinas article. - David aukerman talk 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: I've added inline citations for all of the information taken from Schaff-Herzog. A few unreferenced comments remain in the text... - David aukerman talk 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks great! I've gone through and tried to replace all instances of Ibid. with a named reference in a good faith effort to conform with WP:CITE. Although I could find no explicit guidelines on the use of Ibid., I found an argument on the WP:CITE talk page to be persuasive, which I quote below:
-Fadookie Talk 06:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern Criticism Cleanup

I have made two changes to the Modern Criticism section. The first one has been partially removed, being considered POV. My second edit has been the alteration of the sentence "Aquinas also maintained woman's subjection to man on account of her intellectual inferiority" because I feel that it represents a biased reading of the actual words of St. Thomas. Therefore, I have replaced it with a quotation from the Summa: "because in man the discretion of reason predominates." so the reader may form his/her own opinion. Anyway, I have opened this section in the talk page to prevent any edit war. Thanks --HaveAPinch 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi HaveAPinch - thanks for opening this up here. I was the one who removed your first addition to the Modern Criticism section. Here's why: I felt that the first clause ("Aquinas more polemical writings should be read as a product of its time") was more or less self-evident; this statement seems to attempt to do away with the impact of the modern criticism itself (and hence my concerns about introducing a point of view). The second clause ("many of his views, such as the case of the role of women, were exceptionally modern") is, in my mind, less questionable, but a little out of place in the context of the paragraph. Perhaps its point could be incorporated into the sentence on women exercising temporal power...?
In any case, your second change to the Modern Criticism section looks good to me. That is a helpful change. Thanks for your contributions ... and keep it up! - David aukerman talk 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, David. When I first read the Modern Criticism section, I thought that the original wording of the section contained out of context references to St. Thomas and the reader was being cheated. Consider the case of the death sentence to heretics hiding the fact that lesser crimes (in Aquinas view) were already penalized with death. So I started including the original context. I acknowledge that I went too far and started including my own opinion in reference to Aquina's view of women.
When you erased this second part I understood it perfectly, but there was still that sentence in the article about Aquinas considering women as intellectually inferior to men. That's simply not what he said. But instead of including a remark in the opposite direction of the original I considered that quoting the original text would be the best choice. Had it not been for your correction, I may have not done this. So thanks a lot. --HaveAPinch 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

What castle? Parents live at castle "Roccasecca" near Frosinone, he flees, gets kidnapped and brought back to them in their castle "San Giovanni". Is that the same castle, or if not, where is that other one?--dunnhaupt 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question... I don't know the answer. I do know, however, that this text came from an early 20th century encyclopedia entry about Aquinas - not that that means it's necessarily accurate. For what it's worth, this entire section (Biography) is on my list of things to fix up in the near future. So hopefully this will get cleared up in good time. - David aukerman talk 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone reads this, I should change my statement on the Biography section ... it still needs to be redone, updated, revamped, rewritten, etc., but it's not on my list of things to do any more - too many other things going on for me. So if you have a couple of good, new biographies of Aquinas, feel free to jump in and rewrite the biography section here. David aukerman talk 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review – suggestions for improvement

As a response to the request for peer review, I would like to make a few suggestions:

  • First and foremost the article needs a historical background to Thomas' philosophy: what necessitated the reconciliation of Aristotelian thought with Christian theology? This has to do with the rediscovery of classical texts (the Crusades, growth of the universities etc). This subject is absent, and needs to be explored more fully.
  • Early years: 'on the way to Rome...' Out of context.
  • Career: 'provincial' is not a helpful hyperlink.
  • Ethics: 'Aquinas also greatly influenced Roman Catholic understandings of mortal and venial sins.' Needs expansion.
  • Modern criticism: Shouldn't inline citations be used also here, for consistency? Also, the last sentence ('Many biographies of Aquinas have been written over the centuries, one of the most notable by G.K. Chesterton.') is out of context. It should either (ideally) be expanded to a short bibliography, or removed altogether.

For an example of a good article on a philosopher, I suggest looking at Søren Kierkegaard, which has good prose, good use of pictures, an up-to-date bibliography, and very pretty quotation boxes.Eixo 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and suggestions, Eixo. This gives us a bit to work on... -David aukerman talk 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

-Also, not sure how it works, but Martin Luther King Jr. should be included under influences, because he directly cites Aquinas in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail -Black Mage- 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Thomas Aquinas

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Italian"

I'll remove the word "Italian" from the lead line of the article. I'm not even sure that will be controversial, but it might be a good idea to list the reasons anyway:

  • it's absolutely unclear what "Italian" refers to: Italy as a state did not exist, and, as far as I can find out, the term was used for a peninsula with little or no political connotations. Thomas did not write in Italian (as far as I know?), I know no evidence he considered himself to be Italian, his influence was in no way limited to the Italian peninsula, and much of his life was spent elsewhere.
  • if the "claim" of present-day Italians should be included, it should be included later in the article.
  • I think Thomas is important enough to be listed, without qualification, as a "philosopher and theologian". IMHO, the main idea of the first words of an article should be to filter out as many readers as possible who this isn't the right article for. Anyone interested in 13th-century (that's the first bit of real information in this article) philosophy or theology (and that should be the second fact) must be interested in this article, so there's no point including "Italian" that early.
  • Thomas was born in Naples, we say so very soon in the article, and, as far as I know, that's all the word "Italian" actually has to back it up. Quite redundant, then.

Feel free to revert and discuss, but I really think this is merely an attempt to include a formula that is considered, quite inaccurately, good style in an encyclopedia, and has nothing but imitation going for it ("person" was a "country" "profession").

RandomP 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Thomas was born in Naples. He spent his first 24 years in Italy. From his complexion and appearance we can tell that he is of southern Italian blood. Also, the concept of "Italy" and "Italian" were already in use at the time, as you can infer from Dante Alighieri's work, which comes only few decades later. There is no way you can ignore the fact that Thomas is Italian.

Caballaria 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"From his complexion and appearance"? Sorry, I'll just not go with that sort of "but he looks Italian to me" argument. While the concept of Italy might have been around, there's a difference between saying he lived in present-day Italy (which feel free to do) and claiming he was "Italian". I'm still unconvinced that means anything.
RandomP 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does "Italian" mean here? He was born not in Naples, but in Rocca Secca, in the KINGDOM of Naples, an independent country. He was therefore "Neapolitan," perhaps. His father, Landulph, was Count of Aquino, also in the Kingdom of Naples. Thomas was cousin to the Kings of France, Castile, Aragon and the Holy Roman Emperor. He spent most of his career at the University of Paris. It is an anachronism to claim his "nationality" was Italian, any more than one could call the HRE "German." It was, perhaps, a language group, but Neapolitans, venetians, Genoese, Florentines and Milanese were all quite happy to beat each others brains in during the furious and vicious internecine and interfamily wars of the Middle Ages.HarvardOxon 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

God and Gender

I have removed the changes by Phil Franco and gone back to the previous version by Shipmaster because, according to Aquinas' teachings, God does not have a gender. Aquinas' first point is that "God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form." If this is the case then god certainly has no gender. Aquinas' second point is that "God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of His complete actuality." If god is perfect and lacks nothing then god can't be a male as then he would be lacking the feminine gender and thus not be perfect. Morgan Leigh 00:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

title of doctor of the church

The idea that the title of "doctor of the church" puts Thomas on a level with St Paul is completely mad. Nb. Paul is not on the list of doctors of the church given on Wikipedia. I am worried that the use - indeed extensive outright quotation - of an antiquated "religious encyclopedia" throughout the article - from which this fact is derived - may be cause for general revision. Frege1b 23:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There are actually two different titles being used here. The title "Doctor of the Church" is applied to 33 people throughout history; St. Paul is not on that list, but St. Augustine is. So we shouldn't eliminate that title. I think the term you are concerned about is "Doctor Angelicus," which is (according to this article) why Aquinas is "on a level" with Paul and Augustine. I am not sure why the title "Doctor Angelicus" does this; as far as I can tell, that title always refers to Aquinas. In any case, this is what the 1953 encyclopedia (which, by the way, isn't the oldest source for this article) says. On the other hand, I do agree with you - the Biography section is in need of a sweeping revision (see previous comments on this talk page). -David aukerman talk 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Doctor angelicus" does no such thing. There grew up traditional epithets applied to the "doctors of the church." The Dominican order is sometimes referred to as "angelic" as the choir of angels supposedly regards God in the aspect of Truth, and Aquinas himself was supposedly comforted by an angel after warding off a temptation against chastity. The "aneglic heights" of his thought are also sometimes cited. St. Bonaventure, the Franciscan equiavelent of Thomas, is called "Doctor seraphicus," as the Seraphim supppsedly regard God in the aspect of Love, and a seraph supposedly appeared to St. Francis of Assisi (hence, the Franciscans are sometimes referred to as the "seraphic order"). There is no doubt that Augustine and Aquinas have been the most influential theologians in Catholic history -- either as men whose arguments are taken and built upon, or as men whose arguments must be answered by those who take a different tack. As St. Paul was the first writer whose works made it into the New Testament, and is therefore in some sense the earliest documented Christian witness and thinker, it is hard to imagine anyone attempting to equate even Thomas and Augustine combined with the influence of Paul of Tarsus as one of the original definers of Christianity.HarvardOxon 07:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It is indeed hard to imagine Paul, Thomas, and Augustine on the same level. If/when this biography section gets rewritten, that statement will surely be left out. -David aukerman talk 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Angelic Doctor refers to the fact that Aquinas penned the various kinds of angels... this was done in Summa Contra Gentiles; but in fact, all he is doing is re-writing what Dionysius wrote (Aquinas quotes him).. Dionysius is now known as "Pseudo- Dionysius"A E Francis 01:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs before modern science

He is a theologian who tried to tie Greek philosophy with Christian doctrines, resulting in his belief that it was a marriage of logic and scripture. Of course, he believed that observation of natural events was a justification for the Abrahamic God. And some of his beliefs regarding the nature of the the Abrahamic God and the existence of a trinity provides for contradiction. For his time, he was a great thinker - because he was a product of his time. Mind you that he lived in the 13th century, before the introduction of modern science. Today, in the light of science, his views wouldn't be considered rational. I'm not referring to an Atheistic viewpoint -I'm referring to the secular-humanism of the Greeks and a neutral scientific view. -intranetusa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intranetusa (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2007

View on Heretics

I'm removing this newly added section from the article because (a) it does not add to an encyclopedic understanding of Aquinas, (b) it almost sounds inflammatory or POV, (c) Aquinas himself used "reason" consistently, which this section seems to condemn as sinful, and (d) the material is quoted from a sketchy (at best) online book summary. If this material should be incorporated into this article, let's discuss it here before changing the article. David aukerman talk 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fare enough - I'll find a better source and try and re-word this. I was just shocked that I have heard claims about Aquinas and his view on heretics being thrown around and couldn't find anything mentioning in the Wikipedia article. Also, I believe that the point Sam Harris tries to make using Aquinas is completely in line with your conclusion. In other words, the theology of Aquinas rationally requires the persecution of heretics. Aquinas was being rational and his rational conclusions, at least in this matter, should be alarming.

"it does not add to an encyclopedic understanding of Aquinas" this I disagree with, for instance, Nietzsche's philosophy was often a target of criticism due to Hitler drawing certain "rational" conclusions from his arguments and these are often attributed to him, though I in Aquinas case he actually drew these conclusions himself, I am not imposing them upon him. I do believe that the conclusions of one's philosophy, no matter the time (there were those that didn't support the persecution of heretics during Aquinas time)are quite important.

Point well made though, I typed this in haste and need to clean it up. Look forward to finding a version we can agree on. (Unsigned comment)

Looking at the article as it stands now ( Nov-2009), I don't see any mention of Aquinas' view on how to treat heretics. In his writing he is very clear about what to do with heretics:
they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. (Source: Summa Theologica.)
It would be unfair to ignore this. It is relevant, interesting, accurate and clear.
Pma jones (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If I wanted to promote Aquinas as a great theological teacher from whom we can all learn, then I would definitely prefer to call in the spin doctors and air-brush any disagreeable side of Aquinas out of his wikipedia article. However that's not the way wikipedia works. We need a 'warts and all' attitude. The evolution of the policy of Christians towards heretics is a very interesting topic. It is absolutely worth mentioning that Aquinas was rather faithful to the teachings of Jesus in his suggested treatment of heretics. Pnelnik (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
That quotation is taken grossly out of context. Please observe the next paragraph; this is only one opinion, not the one Aquinas personally holds. -- LightSpectra (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree. In the following paragraph he says that we should be mercyful and give the heretics two chances to recant, after that the heretics will be exterminated thereby from the world by death. Do you think there is some ambiguity there? It seems remarkable consistent and concurs with the original quote that you removed from the article.
For the record here is the following paragraph in full.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
Pma jones (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a commentary on the then-contemporary practices of the Church, not about what should be done. -- LightSpectra (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear. Aquinas says I answer that ... as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
He then goes on to say On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy..., since they offer the heretics a couple of chances to repent and if they refuse they will be killed.
Thus Aquinas is taking a harder line than the church who were executing heretics at the time.
The quote needs to go back into the wikipedia article.
Pma jones (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my point will be more clear if we look at a more strict translation: From New Advent, it reads: "With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death." (Emphasis added)

"On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer..." In other words, the sin of heresy is "worthy" of death in a spiritual sense, but the Church is merciful to them. The next article asks "Whether the Church should receive those who return from heresy?," and the answer is that the first time they repent, it should be done so; and the second time, it would appear that they are attempting to trick those of the Church, which is worthy of penalty. It would be entirely inconsistent if Aquinas demanded that heretics be executed, because the patron saint of the religious order he belonged to, St. Dominic, made it the mission of the Dominican Order to rescue those who have fallen into heresy. --- LightSpectra (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Which-ever translation we read, it is clear that Aquinas thinks heretics deserve to be executed. This is a very note-worthy point. Indeed it is a topic that has come up in numerous recently published books. It was also used as the motivation for the slaughter of Muslims during the crusades. It is too important to ignore in this article.
I'm not too concerned about which translation is used, but I think that the wikipedia article should mention Aquinas' position on heretics. LightSpectra I invite you to write a paragraph for the article mentioning Aquinas' suggested treatment of heretics.

Pma jones (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Heretics deserve death, in the same way that all sinners deserve death by virtue of their crimes against God. However, Christianity is a religion of mercy and forgiveness; hence why Aquinas speaks of offering second chances. He only advocates handing heretics over to "secular tribunals" (fairly vague answer) when they attempt to enter and re-enter the Church several times, which moreso constitutes fraud than anything else. Aquinas would've been removed from the Dominican Order had he took the position on heretics you think he's taking, since the Ordo Praedicatorum was founded for the purposing of converting heretics. -- LightSpectra (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It is amazing how two people (you and I) can read the same short piece and get completely different meaning from it. So perhaps it would be best not to interpret his writing, but rather just take quotes from it. Let the readers of wikipedia make up their own mind.
Your sentence all sinners deserve death by virtue of their crimes against God is remarkable strident. Bearing in mind that people all over the world have made remarkably different claims as to what God (or the gods) want from us. We know that none of them have proof that they do indeed know what God wants or thinks. So if we are really honest we must admit that all we know are what people claim God wants. We can't state with certainty what he wants and thus your sentence has to be read all people who go against teachings claimed by some to be the word of supernatural being deserve death. If people really believed that, then the world would be a very scary place. Can you imagine if people really believed that those who don't accept their God's teachings deserve to die? No one faith has a majority on the planet and so for all religious people, a majority of people belong to a different faith. So if people took that statement seriously, that would mean that the vast majority of the population of the earth thinks a majority of the people on the earth (those of other faiths) deserve to die. It is the kind of statement that could be used to motivate suicide bombers. It is not the kind of statement that could be used as the starting point morality. It would be the end of morality.
But I've been digressing. Aquinas was a remarkable man and clearly (to me) a great thinker. But let's not pretend that people's ideas on what is acceptable morally were the same then as they are now. The wikipedia article needs to be balanced. And if Aquinas wrote some things that we now would not agree with, that is not a reason to exclude them from the biography.
It looks to me as if you and I won't be able to reach an agreement, so perhaps it would be best for some other wiki editor to step in and write the paragraph on Aquinas' teaching on the treatment of heretics.
Pma jones (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to have a formal debate about this, I'd be happy to, because I certainly believe that you misunderstand fundamental Christian doctrines by this point. But the point I must emphasize again is that because the specific wording of Aquinas is ambiguous (seeing as how we reach different conclusions from observing it), that we must therefore turn to his character: and he was a member of an order whose mission was to convert (and thus not kill) heretics. If he was advocating the position you believe he is, then Aquinas would not have been fit to be a Dominican; yet he was hailed as one of the greatest members of his order. -- LightSpectra (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
From what I've read of the method of conversion, it seems to have been a two step process, the heathen are told:
1: Convert or else you'll spend all eternity in hell. If that doesn't work move on to the next step
2: Convert or we'll kill you
It is quite a persuasive argument and so the Dominicans spread the word of God.
However, I'm not suggesting that my summary of the conversion process needs to be included in the article. But we do need to say something about what Aquinas taught. He is clear and consistent.
My proposal is that I re-insert the quote about heretics:
they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.
Let's both of us leave out our personal interpretation of that statement, but if you can find a good citation for how that line could be read, then by all means include it. Alternatively if you think there is another line from Aquinas' own work that balances it, then let's include that line too.
Pma jones (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well there's your problem, you're confusing Catholics with a Fascist Party.
The Catholic Church backed Franco in the Spanish civil war and the Vatican decreed his fight to be a just war, so I do indeed think that the line has been blurred. Pma jones (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Or fundamentalists, I guess. Your personally poor experiences with Christians are what's making you read into that statement incorrectly. For one, the Albigensian heretics was both a religious and a political one simultaneously; they were essentially in open revolt against France and Spain in the 12th/13th centuries, and murdering delegates to sort out the experience. Hence the Albigensian Crusade was called in order to quell it, since military force is necessary to subdue what was essentially a violent secession. St. Dominic went to southern France in an attempt to peacefully convert the Albigensians to orthodox Catholicism, which records indicate was rather effective (though it's ambiguous, admittedly); hence why Pope Innocent III approved the the founding of the Ordo Praedicatorum. Now, when Thomas Aquinas joined the order, it was not yet 50 years old; he was only in the generation of the order that came directly after Dominic himself.
And regarding the quote, I don't believe that's sufficient; you're essentially suggesting that we remove its entire context in order to avoid bias. If you're very insistent on the quote being inserted, I would be happy to give an explanation of it with cited references, but simply giving it alone is very misleading, and hence why I removed it to begin with. -- LightSpectra (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to let you write the paragraph now if you wish. It would seem much more civilised to sort this matter out on this discussion page rather than to hack eachothers edits on the main page. Pma jones (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
LightSpectra or indeed anyone else, let me know how you would like to add or amend the section on treatment of heretics. I propose it should have the following text, (which is largely the same as it was before it was removed):
Aquinas was rather intolerant of heresy. Regarding heretics he wrote:they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. [1]. That said, Aquinas also discusses the church policy of showing some mercy, giving the heretics a couple of chances to convert or repent and only executing them if they refuse.
This article and indeed wikipedia in general, is all the better because people come from very different view points and contribute. It can end up with a balance that it almost impossible to achieve by a single author no matter how sincere, impartial and knowledgeable.
Pma jones (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting how I explained the meaning of that passage to you, and why your interpretation was impossible, and you seemed to agree with me; and then you reinserted the exact same blurb after the debate was settled. Do we have to go through this again? -- LightSpectra (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Clearly two people can read the same paragraphs and come up with completely different conclusions. That can be said of the Aquinas' teachings and indeed of the discussion above. If we were writing a wikipedia article about a major figure in the Chinese Communist Party, then current members of that party would probably not be in a very good position to contribute in a balanced way. Similarly I think that if Christians are to contribute to the Aquinas article, their personal bias may detract from the impartiality of their contribution. It may be best to leave it to non-party members. Pma jones (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
What an absurd theory, considering that I could just as easily say "non-Christians shouldn't write articles on Christianity because of a conflict of interest." I have already explained multiple times why your interpretation is impossible and the quotation is misleading due to a lack of context, so please respond to the argument and defend your belief. -- LightSpectra (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We've been over this before and you and I simply disagree. I maintain that the quote is not in the slightest bit out of context. In Summa Theologica, in the paragraph following the quote that I took, Aquinas discusses showing some mercy and giving the heretics a chance to repent before they are executed.
If someone seriously believes that he may be rewarded in heaven for spreading the word of Christ, then they there is no conflict of interest at all. Their interest is entirely on one side and it would probably be best if they didn't edit anything on a Christian related topic. I would suggest having the same policy on articles related to Scientology, David Koresh etc.
Pma jones (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Simply saying "I disagree" doesn't mean much if you cannot demonstrate your belief. I've already told you multiple times why your interpretation is impossible, and you have done nothing to refute that but plug your ears and shout "not listening!" In regards to your theory: again, it's absurd. I'm not spreading the word of Christ in this article, I'm explaining (which you have done nothing to rebut) why one individual person's opinion differs from what you think it is. Now, why does Wikipedia allow anybody to edit any articles, regardless of bias or motive? Because then nobody would be allowed to edit anything because everybody has an opinion on everything. Again, I could just as easily say that because you aren't a Christian, that you have a personal interest in emphasizing alleged negatives or faults within Christianity, just as I may have a personal interest to do the opposite. The reason your theory isn't Wikipedia policy is because it's demonstratively ridiculous.

And while you speak of this, you haven't done a single thing to explain why your interpretation is possible, given the multiple times I've told you why it is not. You can't simply say "I disagree" and expect your opinion to be universally valid and worthy of mention in Wikipedia articles. I could do the same thing against people with medical degrees and ceaselessly edit Wikipedia articles on obscure diseases, right? "No, I don't think you are right, I simply disagree, I think just herbs and spices can treat lupis." Stupid, right? This isn't any different. Now, either prove me wrong or cease this terribly ignorant edit war. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I can summarise what was written above:
My original suggestion was not to interpret the quote, just to present it. My opinion on whether killing heretics is a good thing is irrelevant.
If we read the whole quote, we can see that Aquinas starts by saying I say, clearly indicating that he is giving his opinion.
In the following paragraph he goes on to discuss the Church's teaching which gives heretics a chance to repent before they are killed. So the quote is entirely consistent with the context and indeed Church teaching at the time.
There simply is no contradiction between wishing to convert the heathen and thinking that sometimes heretics should be killed. The motivation for both is a lack of tolerance of other beliefs.
Let's assume the ridiculous now: suppose that when Aquinas says heretics should be severed from the world by death, he really means that we should respect people of other faiths, (i.e. let's ignore commandment about false gods). Even if that were the case, ( which I do not believe), then I think the quote should still be included in the wikipedia article because it inspired the killing of many. Leaders of the inquisition drew heavily on his work. Aquinas' words were used as a justification for slaughter.
So, my suggestion is that neither of us interpret his work, we just present what he said.
If somewhere else Aquinas where to mention that people should never be harmed for their sincerely held beliefs (though I am not aware of him ever saying such a thing), then I still think the original kill the heretics quote should be included in a paragraph on Aquinas' teaching on how to deal with heretics because it would show some of his aparent inconsistencies.
On the other hand, if Aquinas did genuinely and consistently believe that people should never be harmed for their beliefs, then we would need to answer the interesting question why on earth would he would write that heretics deserved to die. That would be a worthy addition to the article.
When trying to understand someone's moral compass a really good test is to find out how they treat people who disagree with them, whether such people deserve death, eternal damnation or indeed should be happily tolerated. In Aquinas' teachings on heretics we learn a lot about him, in the same way we learn about Jesus or Stalin when we read what they do to people who don't accept their dogma.
Can you imagine if the wikipedia article on Ron L Hubbard were maintained by Scientologist editors? It would be a fawning, air-brushed, useless piece of nonsense. Fortunately wikipedia offers us balanced articles. Though I am concerned that too many of the contributors to the Aquinas article are his Christian fans.
I have no objection to quoting other lines from his writings on the treatment of heretics.
Also if you would like to included what notable people have written about Aquinas' teaching on treatment of heretics, please do so. But both of us need to exclude personal interpretations.
Above you wrote:
If you're very insistent on the quote being inserted, I would be happy to give an explanation of it with cited references
And I'm happy to take you up on that offer. So it seems we are both happy.
Pma jones (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an incredibly silly debate. It seems ridiculous that one can simply remove a piece of an article under the guise that it was ambiguous and inflammatory. The views of Aquinas on heresy, based on his writings in Summa Theologica, are very clear. It is grossly incorrect, LightSpectra, that the writings quoted here were simply "the opinion of the church" - Aquinas expressly writes "I answer that..." when beginning his argument in response to objections that heretics should be tolerated. I'm glad to see that this quote has finally made its way back into the article, as the reason prohibiting its use was absurd. 98.179.13.13 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You apparently didn't understand my argument since that's not what I said at all. To repeat my point, your belief that Aquinas simply wanted to execute heretics nonchalantly is obviously impossible given that he belonged to an order whose specific intent was to convert heretics. I've explained multiple times the meaning of this passage, but Pma's only apparent argument is that Christians cannot edit articles about Christianity because of a conflict of interest. Why the same conflict of interest doesn't apply regarding non-Christians editing articles about Christianity, he didn't say. Because that whole nonsensical debate was a distraction from the fact that he hasn't replied to any of my arguments as of yet. Once more, the passage shouldn't be taken so grossly out of context; either it should be presented with an annotation giving its proper meaning, or removed altogether. Since neither's been done yet, I'll do the annotation. -- LightSpectra (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of what people didn't say at all - I never said anything about any belief of Aquinas "simply wanting to execute heretics nonchalantly." I simply saw an individual who was attempting to scrub an article. I'll give you this: you are remarkably good with your spin. You managed to take his view of putting heretics to death and paint it as a very peaceful and normal thing. 98.179.13.13 (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, typically the beliefs of people become more rational when you're reading what they actually believed as opposed to a strawman designed to discredit them. -- LightSpectra (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why was the quote of Summa Theologica bowlderized such that Aquinas' prescription of the death penalty no longer appears? It reads quite plainly in Summa Theologica that heretics are "to be exterminated from the world by death". That was Aquinas' view, and it belongs in the section of the article concerning heretics, embarrasing though it may be to Catholics, Anglicans, or other apologists of Aquinas. Surely the fact of Aquinas' malice is more relevant to the article than rumors that he could levitate or experienced visions of Jesus' mother. I'm adding the missing text. 24.12.54.39 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Summa Theologica,Q11 A3

Aquinas and Existentialism

I am thinking about adding a section on Aquinas and existential philosophy. Etienne Gilson calls this the only "real" existential philosophy. It came from Aquinas' interpretation of the the name of God as "I Am". St. Augustine had used the name "I Am" to decribe the essence of God by describing what God was not. This is called "negative" or "essential" theology. Augustine asked the question: "I Am" what? Aquinas saw the name "I Am" differently. "I Am" indicates the revealed nature or essence of God is "to exist". This area of study is called "existential theology" and led to the first "existential" philosophy. My question: Should this topic be added in the Aquinas section, in the exitential philosophy section, or on a completely new topic page? Any thoughts are welcome. Of course, the existential philosophy of Aquinas has nothing to do with 20th century existentialism. A E Francis 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)A E Francis

I would suggest creating a new page for your material on Aquinas and existential philosophy, simply because it is quite lengthy and nearly doubles the length of the article on Aquinas. David aukerman talk 15:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I have decided to put a paragraph or two in the Thomas Aquinas site, and not go into a lengthy discussion. Also, a mention of existential theology. At a later time, it may be worthwhile to create a linked separate page on all the intricacies of Aquinas an "existentialism." Maybe you want to do this? A E Francis 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I see... perhaps, if necessary, although I'm not much of a philosopher or a specialist in existential philosophy. :) Please see my comments in the following section... David aukerman talk 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add a little section on Thomas' endorsement of the inquisition twice. It was either cut down or completely omitted. I wonder if David Aukerman is the censor prohibitorum librorum here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.84.22 (talk) 13:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

You should be more careful with your accusations. I neither commented on nor modified your inquisition additions - check the article history. David aukerman talk 16:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be there. But you have to begin with the five "proofs" of God's existance, which sparked off the School of thought.
Sorry for coming in so late.
MacOfJesus (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Aquinas and the Sacraments

I propose splitting this section off into its own page (e.g., Thomas Aquinas and the Sacraments). The length and depth of this section seem to dominate the overall article on Aquinas. As such, we might do well to create a separate article for this topic. Comments? David aukerman talk 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with separating it; it all depends what you want this page to look like. It seemed to me that there should be a fairly "in-depth" look at waht Aquinas actually said about the sacraments. If you think it is too long for this entry, that is fine. It is going to be longer, because I have to put some more in from Summa Theologia... what do you want to do with the others I have added... death penalty, usuary, and forced baptism? A E Francis 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having a lot of information on the Aquinas page. He was a complicated person. Too spread it out in several different places just makes research on the subject difficult. What I was thinking when I wrote about the sacraments is all the people I meet (both Catholic and non-Catholic) who say the sacraments and the Church in general are not based on the Bible. If anything, even a superficial reading of Aquinas should dispel this. But I wanted people who show up on this site to have the opportunity to at least be exposed to some of Aquinas' actual thinking. Summa Contra Gentiles is 1500 pages long. I wrote a "short" synopsis of this in 2000-2002. It is 300 pages long! Summa Thoelogia is even longer. I think an effort to try to reduce Aquinas to a superficial page, such as "he was born, he thought this, he went there, he died here." is a sort of disservice to the man and the Church in general. That is just the way I feel about it. I also intend to put a section on the difference between Platonism and Neo-Platonism with Aristotle's "natural" philosophy, which Aquinas explored. But I am flexible! A E Francis 02:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
David, I have been thinking about this... how hard is it too edit these to another page? The reason I am asking is I intend to keep writing... maybe it will be worth it to see what it looks like, then do some re-arranging, or develop some different pages... I am open to suggestions. A E Francis 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Another thing that prompted me to write this is the Islamic sites... I superficially read some of these, and they aren't at all "shy" about writing long tracts about their religion... so why should we? Maybe we could rearrange some of this under a heading like "The writings of Aquinas" or the "selected philosophies" ... something like that ... as I said, I am flexible. A E Francis 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay... I started writing here but then got sidetracked for a while. :) Anyway, to answer your questions, it's not hard at all to move information from one page to another. And I think it probably ought to be done, since the main Aquinas page is getting pretty long, according to Wikipedia:Article_size. (They make some good points and suggestions in that article.) Having more information about Aquinas certainly isn't bad; it just needs to be readable, and it needs to be encyclopedic (i.e., not totally exhaustive). All this to say that I think some rearranging is in order; much of the new content you have added can be placed in new articles that can be linked from the main page. One sure-fire page is Aquinas and the Sacraments. Another possible new page could be Aquinas's Viewpoints (or something like that) to cover the usury, capital punishment, and forced baptism sections. I don't know if that's totally appropriate, though; my main concern is that the main Aquinas article remain as a thorough summary of his life and thought. (By the way, take a quick look at Death_penalty#Christianity; there's a nice one-sentence summary of Aquinas's position on the death penalty there.) To be thorough and verbose (like the Islam pages you mentioned) is good; to be encyclopedic (and less verbose) is better in tune with what Wikipedia is about. David aukerman talk 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Another thought I just had - last summer I worked to get this article up to Good Article status, and I'd like it to continue to meet the standards for GA articles. With lots of extra information in the article, I wonder if it's starting to become less of a GA article. David aukerman talk 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any problem with moving the bulk of this to other sections; all I want is to present the most effective message; It depends on what the philosophy of this encyclopedia and this page is. Look at Encyclopaedia Britannica before 1960. The articles were fairly "exhaustive". In recent years the encyclopedias have become less informative, with less information. To me, that isn't really scholarship. Is this being written for the average high school student, or something more? To me, if you want to keep the main Aquinas page fairly straight-forward, and not too complicated, that is fine with me. I just think this info should be in Wiki somewhere. If nothing else, for the people who want to see it (and there are some). Anyway, I am going to keep writing, and if we decide to move it... then we will move it. A E Francis 01:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This site was vandalized on June 19, 2007;; it came from 124.105.191.164;; this should be reported, and as far as I am concerned, should be blocked from any further access to Wiki. Thanks for fixing it, Dave. A E Francis 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've been watching this page for over a year now, and it's been subject to vandalism pretty consistently during that time. So ... don't be surprised if it happens again. :) And if you see an edit that's not kosher, go ahead and undo it! David aukerman talk 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

spelling errors

Chris, thanks for cleaing up the typos.... I found a few more... there are probably a lot! Every bit helps! A E Francis 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

March 7

Chris... you bracketed the date March 7, but when I go there, there is no mention of Aquinas' death... A E Francis 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to. That happens with a lot of date references... usually those are there so people can find out what else happened on that date. David aukerman talk 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave, Chris, it is easy to add it; what do you think? A E Francis 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. David aukerman talk 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done ....A E Francis 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

My neighbor told me that anyone who is on AOL cannot edit in Wiki without getting special permission;; All AOL users are automatically blocked;; This apparently was because of the troubles with vandals.A E Francis 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Size of article

They recommend an article larger than 32 KB should be broken up. I don't know how large this is... as I wrote, I intend to keep writing. Actually, I haven't written anything which downgrade this page, but that is a matter of opinion and taste. I spent some years as an editor to a medical legal journal, so I know how these arguments go! Anyway, if we decide to break some sections off, I don't have any problem with it. A E Francis 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas and the death penalty

I went to that site you mentioned. This is a good and concise statement. But I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a longer look at it elsewhere. The idea you mentioned about Aquinas' thought on various subjects is a good potential source of this. I am flexible. There are a lot of subjects which could end up in a section like that. (The difference between Plato and Aristotle and the soul; Aquinas and natural moral law; etc.) If you are wanting to keep this paqe fairly simple and straightforward, this may be better on a separate page. A E Francis 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ready to Move

Dave, I'm ready to move, but I can't figure out how to split these out... all I do is move the whole article, which, of course, I don't want to do... you are correct... it is too long... please tell me how to move this in parts... I looked under splits, but couldn't find how to do it... also cut and paste.. A E Francis 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You can do it via cut-and-paste pretty easily. Just edit the Thomas Aquinas article, cut the desired material to your clipboard, and then enter your new page name in the Wikipedia search box on the left side of the screen. Click Go, and if the page is available, you'll see a page that has a red link "create this page." Click that link, and then paste the material in the new page. You'll want to check out Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section to see how to construct an opening paragraph for the new article. (Just a note ... since Thought of Thomas Aquinas now redirects to Thomas Aquinas, you might need to choose a different name for the new article(s). I don't know how to override an automatic redirect.) Hope this helps... David aukerman talk 23:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" redirects back to "Thomas Aquinas" is because I moved my sections to that title, but then I found I had moved the entire page (I had a moment of panic, thinking I had wiped it out)... but then I hit undo... and everything came back to "normal", but the trace is left... I tried cutting and pasting, but I can't seem to find my clipboard.... I will work on it... it can't be that hard... they recommend nothing over 32 K... and this is now 91 k... so it is proper to break it up.... A E Francis 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Dave, I have started separate pages. I finally decided the easiest way to do this is to type them again on the new pages. As soon as I get them up, I am going to edit them out of this page. Should be a few days. So be patient. A E Francis 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

James Joyce

Perhaps Joyce should be under the 'influenced' section? After all, the last chapter of 'A Portrait of The Artist As A Young Man' is essentially comprised of Aquinas quotes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.57.222 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2007

Well, this was a good call

But the person who added Joyce also added that it was "remarkable"that Aquinas influenced him, a completely unnecessary bit of editorializing, I think. GeneCallahan (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WHOA!

Ok, slow down! If you're going to chop chunks out of this article, you've got to leave summaries behind. Otherwise no-one reading this article will know there's more to read about this guy's thoughts. exolon 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I am willing to leave whatever links you think are appropriate. here is the situation: I happened on this site a few weeks ago, and started adding to it. I was unaware of the limits of 32 KB.... it quickly grew to 95 KB, which as Dave has pointed out, is too long.... now I have started new pages, and since I wasn't typing fast enough, have gotten notices that these new pages were too short, or were redundant and would be deleted. I would have liked to cut and paste, but it isn't at all clearhow to do this... so that is where we are... I am typing as fast as I can... A E Francis 23:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I have addded links at the bottom of the page.A E Francis 23:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to rush. 32k is a guideline, not a hard limit. It exists as there are a few archaic browsers that can't display more than 32k. Sorry about tagging your new article - didn't realise you were splitting this article up. Cutting and pasting is simple - just click the edit this page link at the top, highlight the text you want and right click to copy (or use Ctrl-C on the keyboard, then paste (Ctrl-V) into the editing window of your new page.exolon 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fable

The story of Aquinas and clutching the Ave Maria as an infant is undoubtedly a fable and should not be presented as truth, especially since there is no reference for it. I've removed it. Afabbro 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

~ A fable? Undoubtably a fable?? please explain where you got this info. If you don't have proof, then don't remove the article. It's historical. Are you calling other historical facts fables?

Aquinas and alchemy

I'm curious as to if there are any known sources we can cite for Aquinas being an "alchemist" and if this is worthy for inclusion in the main article on him. If you peruse the what links here page you'll note there a handful of alchemy related articles that link here. It seems the Aquinas article has no mention of it, and I was wondering if that was because it was judged not notable enough for the article, or if the references to him on alchemy writeups are frivolous. --BHC 09:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any such sources; Aquinas's connection to alchemy is news to me. As far as I know, the topic hasn't been discussed here with respect to this particular article. My opinion is that any reference to alchemy in the Aquinas article should be rather brief, just a sentence or two at most. What do you think? David aukerman talk 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In the Summa, St. Thomas says "If however real gold were to be produced by alchemy, it would not be unlawful to sell it for the genuine article, for nothing prevents art from employing certain natural causes for the production of natural and true effects, as Augustine says..." (II-II, Q77, A2, ad1). This, his only use of the word in the Summa, doesn't seem worth mentioning. If there is some other work in which he comments more extensively on it, then maybe. The.helping.people.tick 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen any indication that Aquinas was involved in alchemy. Perhps a cursory knowledge was required by the universities of the day. But I have found no evidence that he did any research in the subject. This is in contrast to the Oxford Franciscan Roger Bacon (an atagonist of Aquinas) who was very active in alchemy, including rudimentary gunpowder. Bacon's wiki article does not mention much about this. Tony Francis A E Francis 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He was so little involved in it that it wouldn't really be worth mentioning it in this article; he cannot be called an alchemist. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Alchemy says:

Many clerics were alchemists. To Albertus Magnus, a prominent Dominican and Bishop of Ratisbon, is attributed the work "De Alchimia", though this is of doubtful authenticity. Several treatises on alchemy are attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas [I cannot name one...]. He investigated theologically the question of whether gold produced by alchemy could be sold as real gold, and decided that it could, if it really possess the properties of gold (Summa Theologiæ II-II.77.2).

Geremia (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Lock

Dave, have you considered putting a lock on this article? I notice some of the more controversial articles have these which makes frivilous and vandalizing changes more difficult. Someone is continually adding some kind of reference to the misconcpetion that Aquinas was an advocate of "executing heretics". While that is true in a sense, in Summa Theologia he advocates it only after a person has been given a trial and has ignored at least two written warnings to cease the activity. So it was not as Draconian as one might preclude. The way it has been added is in a manner to discredit Aquinas as a legitimate Doctor of the Church. Tony FrancisA E Francis 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony, sorry for the delay - no, I don't think a lock is necessary on this article. There are frequent cases of simple vandalism, but it's not unmanageable. I figure lots of articles have this kind of thing going on. The lock, I think, is for really extreme cases or really hot topics. David aukerman talk 13:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you misused "preclude". Unfree (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
A E Francis, you're saying that it is not draconian to execute heretics as long as you give them a trial.
Suppose Stalin had trials for people whom he accused of refusing to accept his dogma, after which he sent them to the gulag, then what adjective would you use to describe him?
Pnelnik (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course that's not very Draconian, AE Francis: The law was well-known, and they were given several chances to stop breaking it. And people were not executed for "refusing to accept" Church teachings, they were executed for actively spreading heresies. GeneCallahan (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

External links

Is it really necessary to advertise books? (Ave Maria Press). Some links don't add any information to Thomas Aquinas, I presume it's just advertising, so they should be wiped out. --Meldor 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Aquinas/Archive_1"