Mad dog of the Lord?

Shadia Drury is mostly known for her books on Leo Strauss and the Straussians: "The political ideas of Leo Strauss", "Leo Strauss and the American right" and "Alexandre Kojève: The roots of postmodern politics". In her latest book, Drury takes on a very different person: Thomas Aquinas.

The 13th century Dominican friar Thomas Aquinas attempted a grand synthesis of Catholic dogma and Aristotelian philosophy. Today, his philosophy (in the form of Neo-Thomism) is the official one of the Catholic Church. Many believe that Thomas did indeed succeed in reconciling faith and reason, and also showed why faith is reasonable.

Shadia Drury disagrees. In fact, she disagrees most vehemently. Her book is a frontal assault on Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, she seems to regard him as a profoundly evil man. (Drury, while a secular liberal, isn't a moral relativist.) According to Drury, Thomas sacrificed reason to faith at every point. He supported the crusades, the inquisition, the temporal power of the papacy and the execution of heretics. Indeed, he worked at the papal court himself, and the inquisition was to a large extent a Dominican affair. Thomas also defended slavery, the persecution of Jews, and the subordination of women. Drury further argues that Thomas' philosophy taken by itself wasn't particularly rational either. Siger of Brabant had a more rational philosophy, but Thomas opposed him. Siger was later accused of heresy by the inquisition and died under mysterious circumstances. Drury believes that Thomas had to distort the true Aristotelian teaching on many points to make it compatible with Catholicism.

Drury has also included an extensive chapter on enforced celibacy, pointing out that Thomas was just as ascetic and misogynist as Augustine. She then criticizes celibacy as detrimental to morality, using the sad affair of Abelard and Heloise as an example. The book ends with a chapter where Drury defends what she calls a "minimalist" version of natural rights. Thus, Drury actually believes in a secular version of natural rights, as an alternative to the nihilism of postmodernity.

"Aquinas and Modernity" is an explicitly anti-Catholic book. Fainthearted readers should brace themselves. The author pulls no punches. At one point, she even demands that Italy occupies the Vatican! I don't agree with every comma in this book. Still, Drury's perspective is interesting. Was Thomas Aquinas really a paragon of Aristotelian reason? Or was he rather another pillar of the Dark Ages?

The question at least needs to be posed.