Folia Theologica et Canonica 2. 24/16 (2013)
SACRA THEOLOGIA - Sebastian Walsh, O.Praem., “Fidelissimus Discipulus Eius”: Charles De Köninck’s Exposition of Aquinas’ Doctrine on the Common Good
132 SEBASTIAN WALSH, O.PRAEM. I. Some Difficulties There are a number of difficulties which could impede a correct understanding of St. Thomas’ doctrine on the common good. I will consider three which are particularly important. The first difficulty facing those who want to understand St. Thomas’ doctrine on the common good correctly is that St. Thomas himself never wrote a treatise dedicated to the common good as such. His discussions of the common good are spread piecemeal throughout his works in widely diverse contexts. Given the difficulty of the subject and the various and contradictory understandings of it even among those who claim to be disciples of St. Thomas, the modern student of St. Thomas may be left saying to himself: '‘Alas! if only St. Thomas had written a Quaestio Disputata De Bono Communi The second difficulty faced by those attempting to attain to a scientific understanding of the common good is the wide latitude of meanings to which the phrase is susceptible.1 2 Taken separately, both terms “common” and “good” are used in widely diverse senses: we speak of common sense and of the common wealth; of good ice cream and good arguments. And so when these words are brought together the likelihood of confusion of meanings is not merely added, but multiplied. The highway system, children, world peace and God are all called common goods. Therefore, a large part of explaining St. Thomas’ doctrine on the common good is making those distinctions necessary for an accurate understanding of the meaning or meanings St. Thomas had in mind in the different contexts in which he wrote. A third difficulty encountered in coming to a distinct understanding of the common good is arriving at a sapiential perspective on the common good: that is, not only understanding the distinct meanings of common good, but ordering those meanings in such a way as to see which meaning or meanings are primary and of most interest to the wise man. The meaning of the common good in which St. Thomas was most interested, the sense which he identified as most profound and important in both Philosophy and Theology, is a meaning very far removed from our senses or imagination. It is therefore a meaning less known to us. And since the human mind habitually falls back upon better known meanings of words, we must constantly be on our guard not to confuse a better known meaning with the one we are seeking to treat here. Our task therefore is to order those meanings in such a way as to lead the mind from those pedestrian meanings of the expression, which are better known quoad nos, to 1 It is of interest to note that one of St. Thomas’ contemporaries, Remigio de Girolomi, did indeed write a treatise on the common good which includes a number of objections and replies. 2 See Froelich, G., The Equivocal Status of Bonum Commune, in The New Scholasticism, 63/Winter (1989) 38-57; cf. Froelich, G., On Common Goods, in The Aquinas Review 15 (2008) 1-26.
