Six Ways TheologyUses Philosophy

David Foster. Ph.D.

Yote: This paper was first presented in Venice, April, 1996 at'he International Conference on Preparation for Priesthood

with the support of the Wethersfield Institute.

The ContextSince I teach philosophy to seminarians, the

question which is often raised is "how is philosophyused by theology?" My answers, at first, did notmove past the generalities that philosophy is the in-strument of theology or that philosophy taught you tothink logically. Realizing the inadequacy of thoseanswers, I began to study the relationship.

As a result, this paper aims to describe in betterrdetail how theology uses philosophy. Its main con-tributions are 1) a description of the instrumental usesof philosophy,2) the identification of the intrinsicrole of philosophy as material to theology.

Because of the focus on the theological uses ofphilosophy, I will leave aside other contributions ofphilosophy to theology students, such as, helping themto understand the modern world, disciplining theirthinking, stimulating creative thought, and providingorder for a complex world. These contributions ofphilosophy are important, but are not unique to the-ology.

The Traditional Ways Theology Uses PhilosophyFour main uses quickly emerged as a working

hypothesis: philosophy serves theology as a preamble,a tool, a bridge, and a shield.2 These are the moretraditional ways of describing how theology usesphilosophy. The list eventually grew to six.

Philosophy is a preamble in that it prepares people

for understanding the Faith. It is a tool in that it isused as an instrument to better understand the Faith.It is a bridge in that it provides common principleswhere believer and nonbeliever can meet. It is ashield in that it can be used to defend the Faith againstarguments of nonbelievers3. The second use, as atool, is the most common and the most important toarticulate for theology students.

As a PreambleSt. Thomas says "the existence of God and other

5 l

Seminary Journal

like truths about God, which can be known by naturalreason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles tothe articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge,even as grace presupposes nature.,,a philosophy is apreamble to theology by refining concepts such asGod, soul, substance, person, nature, justice, evil, andgood. When St. Paul begins to preach to the Greeks,he can build on the considerable reflection they hadgiven to each of the ideas just mentioned. In Acts 17Luke tells us that Paul had been disputing with theEpicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens (v.lg).Later when he is invited to address the Athenians inthe Areopagus, Paul quotes the third century stoicpoet, Aratus. The scene shows St. paul putting aphilosophical preamble to apologetic use.

" They were to seek God, yes to grope for him andperhaps eventually to find him - though he is notreally far from any one of us. "In Him we live andmove and have our being" as some of your own poetshave put itl /for we too are His offspring.', If we arein fact God's offspring, we ought not to think ofdivinity as something like a statue of gold or silver orstone, a product of man's genius and his art. Acts17:21-29.

Philosophy is a natural preamble to faith and thechosen preamble to the better understanding of faith.It is partly for this reason that seminarians studyphilosophy first. For seminarians, philosophy is nota preamble to their faith, but to their better under-standing of the faith. Maritain suggests that Godprepared for the gospel by making the Greeks thechosen people of reason, just as He had by making theJews the chosen people of faith.s If so, then even Goduses philosophy as a preamble to theology.

As an InstrumentTheology uses philosophy as an instrument to

explain and thus develop the deposit of faith. Thedevelopment is organic; philosophy does not add torevelation but helps it to flower. St. Thomas has this

52

use in mind when he speaks of philosophy as thehandmaid or servant of theology. It is the most com_mon way that philosophy serves theology and the onemost in need of explanation. I will return to this uselater.

As a BridgePhilosophy, as the reflective articulation of the

common questions and experience of mankind, natu_rally provides a common spot where believer andnon-believer can meet (a bridge, as it were). Amongthose common principles are the following: the spe_cial dignity of the human person and the recognitionof rights, as in the UN Declaration of Human Rights;that no man is an island and the complementary prin_ciple that everyone is a unique individual; that wehave a natural moral knowledge that judges generos_ity as good and murder as evil; and that the reason forhuman action is happiness. Add to this that none ofus are ever completely satisfied with our happinessand we have common ground to begin a discussion ofGod and the things of God.

This philosophical bridge can also help the non-believer cross over to faith as in the case of the youngSt. Augustine who,like many others, was troubled bythe reality of evil. It was a Neoplatonic insight thatevil is a privation that helped him overcome the con-tradiction between a loving God and the reality ofevil.

In 1879 Aeterni Patrrs stressed philosophy's usein defense of the faith. In the present day, however,the use as a bridge is more prominent. The outstand-ing example is Vaticanll's Pastoral Constitution onthe Church in the Modern World. Addressed to allhumanity, it justifies this address with extended dis_cussion of the common hopes and fears of all people.

It would be academic myopia to think that goodphilosophy rather than the face of Christ won hearts,but philosophy does have its roll to play in the NewEvangelization called for by rhe Holy Father. Its roll

into the nature of the

Anytime a philosophyhas a true insight

condition, it can be ofworld and the human

use to theology.

is partly as a common starting point as witnessed bySt. Paul's use of the Stoic Poet (cited above) and thePope's recent book Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

As a ShieldThe use of philosophy to defend the faith is clear

in the tradition. Due to the nature of the times, theencyclical of Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, stresses thisuse of philosophy. Speaking of Greek philosophy,Leo quotes this statement by Clement of Alexandria:"though it does not by its approach make the truthmore powerful, it has yet been called a fit hedge andditch for the vineyard, because it weakens the arsu-ments of sophists against thetruth, and wards off the craftytricks of those by whom thetruth is attacked."6

St. Thomas says that ifsomeone does not accept theauthority of Scripture then onecan still show by reason thatnothing of the faith is contraryto reason.T The Summa ContraGentiles is an extended exampleof philosophy being used todefend the Faith.

Both the uses as a shieldand as a bridge have an apologetic character as bothare directed to the nonbeliever. As noted, Vatican IIemphasizes philosophy as a bridge to all mankind.Philosophy still functions as a defense against attack,but when the attack is not argument but slander,philosophy is not the best defense. When the woundis self-inflicted, the Fedrqin€ is nor philosophy butpenance. V^erj'b

Further Exploration

Mapping the Use of PhilosophyI thought of my effort to find the different uses

of philosophy by theology as something akin tomapping. This simply means that I read throughtheological works from the various periods (beingsure to include the various types of works), all thewhile noting where a use of philosophy was foundand what its characteristics were. In doing so, Iidentified two common uses which I had not yetarticulated.

Material UseAs the mapping proceeded, I noticed a category

that I had not listed nor heard discussed, i.e., thatphilosophical terms were sometimes the matter in

Six Ways TheoLogy Ilses philosophy

which theology expressed itself.8Once considered, philosophy asmaterial to theology seemed ratherobvious and logically linked tophilosophy's use as a preamble.Those same refined understandingsof man and the world that are apreamble to the faith are then usedby theologians to express the mys-teries of faith. Theology presup-poses philosophy, as faith presup-poses common sense understand-ing. There is no break or evenradical shift, but rather the slow

refinement of our common understandings.Just as the Gospel presupposes the common

understandings in which it will express itself; so the_ology presupposes philosophy, which refines anddefends these common understandings. The imagesof farmers, fishermen, and shepherds have conveyedthe Gospel from its first preaching by Jesus of Na zarethuntil the present day. These images have done so witha simplicity, clarity, and profundity that reflect theirDivine origin. These images are like sturdy but softlumber; they are good for framing, they support thebold truth, but they are not meant for detailed carving.

As the Church preaches, explains, and defends

53

Seminary Journal

the Gospel, it is able to use (sometimes forced to use)philosophically refined understandings of man andthe world. These understandings are like hard woodthat is able to receive the detailed work of thecarpenter's chisel.

If it is true that philosophical terms are materialas well as instrumental for theology, then it should beevident by this difference: the material use shouldremain in the theological statement, whereas the in-strumental use remains only in the background or, soto speak, on the shelf. This is because material causeis intrinsic to something;whereas instrumental cause,which is a type of efficient cause, is always other thanthe thing itself.

This does happen as, for example, when thequestion is asked, "How can we be free in heaven ifwe are not able to sin?". The answer comes in partfrom a better understanding of freedom, one that showsthat the slavery of sin has nothing to do with freedom,and that the freedom to be ourselves has nothing todo with sin. Insofar as philosophy has given us abetter understanding of freedom, it is now incoqpo-rated as the matter in which the faith is expressed.Thus, it remains.

Other examples of philosophy being material fortheology could be terms such as substance, nature,and person. Substance (ousia in Greek), which hasa rich tradition in ancient philosophy, is given a tech-nical sense by the Church in compounds such ashomoousios, which is used by the Council of Nicea(325 A.D.) to express the Son's complete equalitywith the Father, or transubstantiation, which is adoptedby the Fourth Lateran Council (I215 A.D.) to expressthe real presence of Chr is t in the Euchar is t .Homoousios was not found in the Scriptures but wasconsciously chosen to clarify the meaning of the Scrip-tures.e It remains in our Creed.

An example of the instrumental use of philoso-phy will show that, unlike a material use, instrumentaluse is extrinsic to the theological statement. Com-

54

parisons are often used as theological tools, and by atool's nature once its work is done it is set apart. peterKreeft makes the following comparison to explainwhy we are not able to grasp the reason for the ex_istence of evil: just as we cannot communicate all weknow to animals, so God cannot communicate all Heknows to us.r0 Just as we cannot explain to our dogwhy he must get a rabies shot, so the full reality ofGod's world cannot be explained to us. Once thisidea is grasped, the homely image can be dropped andwe are left with an inkling of how much the realityof God escapes our grasp. Other examples includedistinctions such as substance and accidence or theanalogical use of a tenn. Once we understand howthe analogical use of language allows us to use termsin reference to God without limiting God, then thereference to the tool fades and we continue to speakabout the knowledge and love of God.

Systematic UseThere is another use, akin to instrumental use,

yet different enough to deserve its own category.il Itoccurs when an entire philosophical system is adoptedto provide a perspective from which to systematicallydo theology. It is perhaps the most often referred-touse nowadays because this is the use meant when onespeaks of "pluralism" in philosophy. I do not knowof a name for this use; I will call it the systematic useof philosophy.

In comparison with the instrumental use, this useis more like a workbench than a tool. It is the use ofa metaphysics to provide a perspective and a consis-tent approach to answering the theological questions.Like a workbench it provides the level Surfacearea (horizon) of the theology being done; it purs thesystem in systematic theology.

Anytime a philosophy has a true insighr into thenature of the world and the human condition, it canbe of use to theology. Occasionally there comes aradically new insight that opens up reality for philoso-

phers the way aerial photography and then satellitephotography opened new possibilities for map mak-ers.

Although this has long been the case 1e.g.,Augustine's personal discovery of Neoplatonism), itis especially in modern times that such new perspec-tives have been sought out. Some examples are:Kantian philosophy, Hegelianism, Marxist theory, phe-nomenology, existentialism, process thought, andfeminist philosophy. While philosophy is legitimatelya source of new insights, there is a high risk of dis_torting the Gospel. This effectis evident in history. Some dis-tor t ion is caused by theNeoplatonism of Origen, theAverroism of Siger of Brabant,as well as by the process philoso-phy of some contemporary theo-logians.

The current advocacy ofplu-ralism in philosophy (and, there-fore, also in theology) contains atrap about which new theologians

Legitimate pluralism

Six Ways Theology {Jses philosophy

who seek a foundation are naive or frightened orscheming to keep others in subjection. The valuableinsights of the postmoderns regarding the effect ofhistorical context, the impact of culture and language,and the subjective aspect of all our knowing, stroutachasten our theology. Yet, the hidden premises of thepostmodern philosophers about God and man, leadthem to extreme conclusions and show them not to bepostmodern but ultramodern. They felt themselvespost modern because they no longer sought a founda_tion for knowledge as had Descartes, Locke, Kant,

etc.. They show themselves,however, the children of modernthought by accepting the modernreductions of God to man, of manto beast, and of knowledge tosensation. Given these assump-tions their denial of objectivemth isffievitable outcome ofmodern philosophy.

To sum up, the two charac-teristics of the systematic use ofphilosophy (which provides a

stems from the depthof being that is never

exhausted by ourrese&rches.

should be warned. The pluralism which is appropri-ate to philosophy and which finds support in thedocuments of Vatican II is not based on the impos-sibility of truth bur the impossible richness of truth.Legitimate pluralism stems from the depth of beingthat is never exhausted by our researches. We willnever say all there is about love or friendship, but itis true to say that we need friends. The richness ofbeing always leaves us with something more to ex-plore. Our human nature makes misunderstandingpossible but does not make understanding impossible.

On the other hand, I warn seminarians about ap lu ra l i sm based on the pos tmodern c r i t i que .Postmoderns call naive any claim for transhistoricaltruth, such as to profess the same faith as did ourfathers. This is so because there is no "foundation"upon which such knowledge can be based. Those

workbench as it were) are: 1) it uses a metaphysicalsystem to provide a certain perspective for theology,2) it provides the principles for a consistent set ofanswers to theological questions. The Scriptures,however, are not neutral in regard to certain meta-physical positions and it is the job of the theologianto use one that is compatible with the Gospel and thejob of the magisterium to ultimarely judge this.

Detailing the Instrumental UseThe most common way for theologians to de-

scribe their use of philosophy is as an instrument. Itis found, among others, in Rahner, Lonergan, Aquinas,Maritain, and in Church documents like Aeterni Patris.Of the six uses of philosophy as preamble, instru-ment, bridge, shield, material, and system, the com-plexities of the instrumental use are most important

55

Seminary Journal

to articulate for the new theologian.One way to clarify the instrumental use is to

review the specific tools used by Thomas Aquinas.

Thomas' Philosophical Tool BoxThomas' Principles of Nature is a short work

(six chapters), done during his student days in Paris(L252 - 1256), about the same time as On Being andEssence. Thomas probably composed the work as aprimer for his fellow students on the fundamentals ofAristotle's metaphysics. I think it is aptly describedas Thomas' tool box and to review it is to view thephilosophical distinctions most often used by Aquinas.It is a good introduction to the philosophy he uses inthe Summa Theologiae. Appended to this paper is abrief description of main topics in each chapter witha note on how Thomas will use them in theology.You are invited to view these familiar items as pos-sible tools for theology.

A Contemporary List of Philosophical ToolsAnother way to clarify the instrumental use is to

make a list of the different types. The following ismy list of seven types (categories) of philosophicaltools.

l. Distinctions: The foremost general categoryis the host of distinctions that reveal being by properlydividing it. Distinctions such as between the modesof being, between person and nature, or between actand potency have all served theologians well. Theseare particular instances of the next category.

2. M etaphysical Structure: Philosophy attemptsto describe the most fundamental structure of all being.Put another way, philosophy describes the character-istics common to all being save God. The mostsuccessful of these efforts is still Aristotle's, i.e., hismetaphysical insight that all being has four causes.The causes reveal both the internal structure of beingand its most important relations.

56

3. Rational Order: Rational order is the orderthat puts doctrine in a clear format. It is evident inthe contrast between the order of a catechism or creedand the historical order of the Bible.

4. Logic: Logic allows for the application ofrevealed principles to new situations. It further pro-vides some, but not all, of the logic for theologicalargumentation.

5. Analogies: Analogies are a common andeffective tool of explanation. The parables and alle-gories used by Jesus in the gospel are a type of anal-ogy. There are also important differences which arenot easily distinguished. Philosophy categorizes andexplains the different types of analogy.

6. Analogical Terms: Not every analogy uses aterm analogically. It is the use of a term such as"knowing" with diverse but related meanings thatallows us to predicate it of both man and God mean-ingfully and without equivocation.

7. Models: A model, a type of large scale anal-ogy, can both explain and spur theological insight.For example, Avery Dulles, in his well-known bookon the Church'2, lists five models for the Church:institution, mystical communion, sacrament, Herald,and servant. Each model then serves as a guide toanswering the fundamental questions about the Church.As with analogies and analogical terms, philosophycan supply not only the tool but also the explanationof how the tool works.

As in most tool boxes there are other items to besorted out. There are new insights that arise fortheological consideration, such as those from phe-nomenology. Natural law theory helps us understandthe harmony between what Sacred Scripture com-mands and the natural good for the human person,The recognition of the harmony between nature and

grace is, in part, philosophical. Finally, there are thespecial metaphors, analogies, and contrasts that helpclarify. Like most tool boxes, our box still containsthings whose origin and use are mysterious.

ConclusionI have suggested that the relationship between

philosophy and theology has often been poorly under-stood. A fuller description of this relationship wouldhelp students understand the theological tradition anddo theology better in the present. As a start to a betterarticulation, I suggest theology uses philosophy in sixways.

1. It prepares students for theology by seekingthe answers to the fundamental questions of origin,nature, and destiny, and by refining concepts such assoul, justice, good, and even God.

2. It provides common ground for discussionbetween believers and nonbelievers.

Six Ways Theology Uses philosophy

Dr. David Foster is a Professor of Philosophy at Seton HallUniversity, South Orange, New Jersey.

3. It can be used to defend the Gospel, especiallywith those who do not accept Scripture.

4. It can articulate the set of underlying assump_tions and provide a new perspective for doing theol_ogy.

5. It provides concepts that are material for theo_logical explanations.

6. It provides a host of distinctions, analogies,and concepts that are instruments for doing theology.

Theology students need a clear expression ofhow philosophy can serve them. Thus, I have sus_gested it will serve them4a preamble, a bridge,-a*shield, and a workbench; but most of all (materiatty;as the fine hard wood in which to incarnate the Wordand (instrumentally) as the tool with which to carvethe Word. *

NotesI In my experience those who speculate on this question

concentrate onthe general relationship without consideringthe specifics.Both the Summaand Aeterni Patris give something verysimilar.This assumes the attacks are reasoned arguments, not slan-ders.Summa Theologiae I, q.2, a.2, ab.lJacques Maritain, An Introduction to P hilo sophy, trans. by

E. I. Watkin (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1962), p. 19.The citation can be found in the text of Aeterni Patrisprinted as a forward to Benziger Edition of the SummaTheologiae, Vol. I, p. ix.Summa Theologiae I, q.l, a.8.I am using here the categories of Aristotle's basic meta-physical insight, that all being, save God, has four funda

mental characteristics of unity-continuity, multiplicity-uniqueness, contingency-dependence, and purpose-intelli-gibility. It is the particular actualization of these four as-pects that needs to be understood in order to know some-thing. These are commonly referred to as the four causes:material, formal, efficient, and final.The Church's choice of homoousior seems to have de-pended on the ordinary and common use of the term and noton any already established technical sense.Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith,(San Francisco:Ignatius Press, 1988) p.57.It is akin to the instrumental use in that it seems to be thephilosophical tools taken collectively as part of a consistentmetaphysics.Avery Dulles, Models of the Churclr, Doubleday & Com-pany, Garden City, New York, 1914.See, for example, Summa Theologiae I, q.66, aa. I and 4.

I I

57

Seminary Journal

Chapter 1 opens with the distinction between actand potency. This is the fundamental distinction forThomas because it describes the difference betweenGod, who is pure act, and everything else, whichalways has some aspect of potency. Next is thedistinction between substance and accidents that de-scribes the two fundamentally different ways weexperience things as either existing in themselves orexisting in another. This also provides the distinctionbetween changes wherein something changes withoutbecoming other than itself (accidental change) andchanges where one thing ceases to be and another isgenerated (substantial change). Thomas repeatedlyuses these basic distinctions in the Summa Theologiae.

Chapter 2 describes matter, form and privation.These are Aristotle's principles of nature becausenature is that which has an inner principle of changeand these are the principles needed to explain changeas difference and continuity rather than either exclu-sively accidental or annihilation and creation. Tho-mas uses the intrinsic causes of matter and form todescribe the relation betwee4 body and soul; he usesprivation to describe the nature of evil.

Chapter 3 completes the set of essential causesby showing that besides material and formal causesthere is need for an effrcient cause that initiates theaction and a final cause that is the reason why theefficient cause begins to act. That agents (efficientcauses) act only for an end is easier to see in voluntaryagents, but Thomas must explain how this also ap-plies to natural agents, which do not deliberate but aredirected to an end by a nature given them by the firstefficient cause. For Thomas, the whole world findsits efficient and final cause in God.

Chapter 4 explores relations among causes, e.g.,types of priority, how causes are causes to one an-other, and how the final cause is the cause of causes.

58

Appendix

Thomas' Principles of Nature By Chapters

Something can be first or claim priority either ingeneration and time or in substance and complete_ness. The boy is prior to the man in generation andtime; likewise, the imperfect is prior to the perfect andpotency is prior to act (agent and material cause areprior in this sense). But according to substance orcompleteness the man is prior to the boy; likewise, theperfect is prior to the imperfect and act prior to po-tency (formal and final cause are prior in this sense).You would be surprised how often Thomas uses thisdistinction to settle a dispute between two things thatare both said to be first.r3

Chapter 5 presents the order in causes of thesame type. Each of the four causes can be consideredfrom the particular to the more universal actualiza-tion, which is to say, from the proximate to the uni-versal. For example, the efficient cause of an animalconsidered as proximate is his parents, the intermedi-ate efficient cause is, perhaps, Mother Nature, and theultimate is God. Thomas uses this to explain thesecondary but real causality that human beings oftenexercise.

Chapter 6 discusses degrees of sameness anddifference among things, noting that their causes aresimilar and diverse accordingly. Thomas gives fourdegrees of sameness starting with the identical andmoving toward greater diversity. Thus there is: a)numerical sameness, as when the same thing is spo-ken of and pointed to; b) specific sameness, as whentwo persons are compared as human beings; c) ge_neric sameness, as when horse and dog are comparedas animals; d) analogical sameness, as when the termhealthy is said of man and medicine. The analogicaluse of a term, which allows a wide degree of differ-ence while being in some respect alike, is, of course,crucial to Thomas' explanation of how we can talkmeaningfully about God.