aquinas

Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and On Kingship
by Charles Glenn

Thomas Aquinas’ perennial classic, Summa Theologica, is just that – a summary, perhaps the first, of the Christian theology. His On Kingship is also examined, as an exploration of the various types of governments. As a work of philosophy, Summa Theologica epitomizes the Christian view of metaphysics and human nature; and On Kingship of politics. As the Catholic patron saint of colleges and universities, Aquinas is occasionally hard to follow, but his arguments have lost little validity over the past 700 years.

In Questions 91 through 96 of Summa Theologica, the author argues for the existence of an eternal, or divine, law that is God-given and takes precedence over the laws devised by mankind. He first offers the opposing positions in detail, and then systematically refutes each one. He eliminates the possibility that "natural law" is nothing more than a habit, justifies the need for divine law, and describes the basic precepts of this eternal law.

He then explores what eternal law is intended to control and not control, who it should apply to and not apply to, and concludes by describing how rulers and laws are related. Throughout this discourse, he offers some clues as to what his views are on the nature of man. He appears to believe, unlike Augustine, that man is "perfectable," in that certain men who "follow the spirit of God" are set apart as righteous, or virtuous, men.

Also unlike Augustine, his view is somewhat unconstrained as it applies to Christians, but very constrained as it applies to non-believers or those that do not follow the Spirit.

Chapters 2 and 3 of his political commentary, On Kingship, bears some resemblance to Aristotle’s Politics, but reaches different conclusions.

For Aquinas, the ideal form of government is a King or a single ruler. His argument for this revolves around the idea that it is natural for men to be ruled by a single person, because complete unity of thought and action can only be found in one person. He defines this unity as peace, further adding that governments exists for the sole purpose of achieving this peace.

That said, he agrees with Aristotle insofar as the corrupted form of kingship, tyranny, is the worst kind of government. He ultimately reveals a constrained view of human nature, at least as it relates to politics, when he asserts that democracy is the most sensible form of rule when good kingship is absent.