Pope Francis on decadent/bankrupt forms of Thomism

[TimothyH]

**poly

It seems like we can chalk this misunderstanding up to inocente’s wishful thinking. **

The fullness of yourself in your own mind is truly breathtaking. Your adolescent-like unwillingness to consider any point of view other than your own is spectacular to behold.

I hope to never have to stand next to you in a crowd.

-Tim-

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Timothy

The fullness of yourself in your own mind is truly breathtaking. Your adolescent-like unwillingness to consider any point of view other than your own is spectacular to behold.

I hope to never have to stand next to you in a crowd.**

Sounds to me like a very good idea!

Try to suppress your odor of hatred.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m not an expert by any means in the field of Thomism, and was wondering what the Holy Father was referring to in the interview (under the section “Human Self-Understanding”) when he said:

“…we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the Age of decadent Thomist commentaries. Unfortunately, I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism.”

What school of Thomism was represented in the textbooks that he would have studied about 50ish years ago?

Hey, I just found a candidate for one of the decadent Thomists the Pope had in mind. I won’t mention his name publically because he is obviously a good Catholic and family man. But he is a poor representative of Thomism. You can find him here:
aquinasonline.com/Magee/

Linus2nd

 

[Qoeleth]

Vide Brad Gregory The Unintended Reformation, caput II. Apud amicos meos qui philosophiam scholasticam XIV saeculi sapiunt, haec propositio valde dubitata est. Argumentum Gregorii (quod originem non ab eo trahit, sed ab Stephano Gilsone et aliis auctoribus XX saeculi) sic habet: Beatus Scotus ponit “ens” ut nomen univocum ad Deum et creaturas aeque pertinentem. Ergo, Deum in ordine metaphysica cum creaturis includit. Hunc Deum negunt atheisti moderni, authenticam theologiam antiquam Christianiam non intelligentes, quae Deum valde transcendentem et omnes categorias mentis humanae excedentem credit.

Responsio amicorum meorum in theologia scotistica doctorum est: Valde mirabile argumentum, Scotum (et Occamum) transcendentiam Dei negare asserere, qui hanc veritatem exaggerare videntur! Illi magis a voluntate quam a ratione Dei ordinem creatam (tam naturae quam revelationis) pendere asserunt. Etiam si haec philosophia falsa est, non sic errat Deum in ordine metaphysica cum creaturis includere. S. Thomam potius sic accusare debemus, qui Deum a nobis intelligendum credit.

Ego argumentum Gregorii validum puto, quia magna differentia est inter categoriam metaphysicam cuius loquitur Gregorius, et attributa divina quae a nobis intelligenda Thomas credit. Sed haec quaestio valde difficilis est, et ego non in rebus scholasticis tam valeo ut bene de ea disserem.

I’m not used to writing so much Latin at once, and I’m sure I made loads of mistakes. But it was fun, and I hope you could make out the gist of it!

Edwin

Ave Edwin. Responsio tua est valde feliciter legitur me, et bene scipta!

Aliqui, disputo si dicere Deo modo univoco est negare transcendtiam Dei. E contra, verba sicut “ens, amor, bonitas” debent significare eadem conceptiones (in aliquo sensu), quamvis applicata rebus ordine differente. Exempli gratia- ‘tempus’ est differenti ordine ‘funo’- autem, ambo dictus sint “longus”. “Longus” est nomen univocem, significans eadem conceptionem, putasne? Habemus, nos homines, “ens” et aliquem, quamvis parvum, “bonitatis”. Quando haec applicata Deo, debunt significare idem, “ens”, “bonitas”- differentes, scilicet, in quantitate, sed non in essentia. Si non, quomodo haec verba applicari comprehensibiliter? Et, si non comprehensibiliter, quomodo loquemur aliquem de Deo, sicut facit Aquina, sicut Soctus, sicut etiam nos?

 

[inocente]

One gets the impression, from your many drooling posts, that Pope Francis has become a Baptist.

Unfortunately for you, the “carved in stone” teachings of the Church are not going to be overturned by this or any other Pope. The illusion that Pope Francis has no creed, like you have no creed, is absurd on the face of it. Whatever hopes you may have that Catholicism is going to become creedless and therefore irrelevant are simply more drooling.

Wipe your chin.

I’ve not said whether I agree with the Pope, all I’ve done is quote what he said. You’ve just proved yet again that you don’t read what people say, instead you put words into their mouths.

 

[inocente]

That seems a bit over the top. I agree that Pope Francis has no truck with any attempt to safely fit God into a kind of conceptual box, which results in Faith easily being reduced to an ideology or ideological system; but what this would have to do with the American Republican Party is beyond me.

My impression, which is just my impression, is that many CAF posters seem to believe that the only True -]Scotsman/-] Catholic must be far right wing, and anyone who doesn’t fit the bill is called a cafeteria.

Moreover, it begs the question as to whether you think that Democrats aren’t sometimes just as interested in reducing or reinterpeting Faith to fit into their own ideological system. Any and all politics tends to do that to or with Faith and this is nothing new in the history of religions; but it would seem that your own bias prevents you from seeing this. Democrats will twist the Faith for ideological reasons just as much as Republicans might: according to one man, Jesus is a radically anti-government individualist crusading for personal liberties, low taxes and small government; to another, the Lord is a pacifist hippie fighting for the redistribution of wealth and social benefits for the poor. These various political and ideological interpretations of the Lord all have some basis in the facts but, notwithstanding, they both fall short as we superimpose our own beliefs rather than listening to what the Lord is Himself saying and paying attention to what it is He is doing. I think more than anything the Pope is emphasizing our need to be ever open to and receptive of God: i.e. to truly put God at the centre of our lives. I think that is His Holiness’s primary point.

Agreed, the Pope is saying that the Church is no one’s lapdog. I think his message here is aimed at some factions in the Church rather than outside as he says: *“they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.” *

 

[inocente]

Nobody spoke out more against the second Iraqi war than Pope John Paul II. he certainly was no friend to Cheney and his ne-cons, remember Michael Moore’s 2003 Oscar acceptance speach. “Any time you have the pope and the Dixie Chicks against you.” Anyone who’d like to hear it.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7Is43K6lrg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DM7Is43K6lrg

The problem was that once pope John Paul II began to speak against American policy and unbridled capitalism he was blanked out by the North American media. He was only their darling when he was battling communist governments. Once he began to totally focus on corporate abuses and Western policies, all media stories focused on his declining health. As for Benedict, he is clearly in the Augustinian theological camp. Pope Francis is not a theologian, but shows a preference for Augustine. Everything Francis has said, which has been reported as being ground breaking, can be found in the writings and homilies of Benedict. Francis got everyone stirred up because he has mastered the art of the sound bite. Few people, certainly, not hard pressed journalists, had the patience to read Benedict’s work. If you take the time to read Jesus of Nazareth, you’ll find that Benedict is more theologically liberal than Francis has been thus far.

I, therefore; don’t understand why you think Francis will be any different, or any more effective, except within the curia, which he will have to change. As soon as the media realises he’s not going to ordain women, or allow gays to have church weddings, they’ll stop caring about, or reporting, anything he says. I’ve noticed his popularity slipping in the press after the recent excommunication and his speech against abortion. Look at the comments being left on secular media sites to get an indication of this cooling.

I think the Pope was taking the opportunity to use the media to send a message not just to anyone but also to the Church hierarchy - a message of support to some and a warning to others. This is what new leaders often do. For instance, these sentences are obviously directed to the Church:

*"Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists *- -they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.

“Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.”*

americamagazine.org/pope-interview
huffingtonpost.com/quora/is-the-pope-right-that-th_b_3973587.html

 

[inocente]

inocente;11252358:

My first comment that he “wants to move away from the carved-in-stone approach of some Thomists”

The first quote is not even near the quote about Thomism in the interview. If the Pope seemed to be agreeing with you that Thomism constitutes “a past that no longer exists”

You first mistake is that I never said Thomism, I said some Thomists, as you can see from the above.

Your second mistake is that it wasn’t me who said “a past that no longer exists”, it was the Pope who said “a past that no longer exists”.

It seems like we can chalk this misunderstanding up to inocente’s wishful thinking.

So we’ll chalk up your mistakes to polytropos’ wishful thinking.

 

[1AugustSon7]

My impression, which is just my impression, is that many CAF posters seem to believe that the only True -]Scotsman/-] Catholic must be far right wing, and anyone who doesn’t fit the bill is called a cafeteria.

Surely that is possible but let’s consider a few things.

1. Catholic Answers is predominantly American. America is far more conservatively cultured than even their northern neighbours or the Europeans. We should not be surprised if most Catholics from America represented on this forum will be conservative.

That does not mean, however, that you cannot be a more liberal Catholic on this forum. It just means you will have a minority representation. I don’t see anyone being banned for expressing liberal views of either the strictly religious or political kind; I do, however, see ultra-conservatives of the especially religious (as opposed to strictly political) kind being banned. I know of many Catholics who honestly think Catholic Answers is a “cess pit” of modernism or, in other words, (for them) wildly liberal by their standards. Of course, as the case might be, it is really their own Catholicity that is questionable - I mean in danger.

1. What you define as “right-wing” will of course be subject to your own criteria.

Finally, 3., Catholicism does have a Magisterium and it is a religion with dogmas and a concept of orthodoxy or right-belief. To accuse any Catholic of being “right-wing” on account of their believing or just trying to believe those things - I mean, people can misinterpret of course - is nothing more than to accuse them of being Catholics, in which case it would be ridiculous to segment them off from mainstream Catholicism. I think most of the people here are at least trying to believe and apply just what the Catechism teaches; that is, what the Church teaches.

Agreed, the Pope is saying that the Church is no one’s lapdog. I think his message here is aimed at some factions in the Church rather than outside as he says: *“they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.” *

And I agree too. I think the Holy Father’s message is very much an - so to speak - “in-house” one.

Thank you for your time in replying to my post!

God bless.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**inocente

I’ve not said whether I agree with the Pope, all I’ve done is quote what he said. You’ve just proved yet again that you don’t read what people say, instead you put words into their mouths. **

That is not at all the impression you built up in various posts … the impression that you have become a cheerleader for Pope Francis.

If you disagree with the Pope, please state the grounds for your disagreement. They must be legion, since you have said in another thread that you don’t even believe in a creed.

 

[Origen52]

I think the Pope was taking the opportunity to use the media to send a message not just to anyone but also to the Church hierarchy - a message of support to some and a warning to others. This is what new leaders often do. For instance, these sentences are obviously directed to the Church:

*"Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists *- -they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.

“Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.”*

americamagazine.org/pope-interview
huffingtonpost.com/quora/is-the-pope-right-that-th_b_3973587.html

How does anything you say in this comment relate to my post? I did say that there will be changes made to the Curia. The main point of my post was that your statement "That seems to be a shot across the bows, for instance at all those who believe the Church is a right wing branch of the Republican Party" is unsubstantiated, and erroneous, in light of the actions of the last two popes. Neither of the passages you now quote relate to, or support, your supposition that Francis will have a different relation to secular governments than either of his two predecessors.

I don’t know what kind of a “revolution” you are expecting. Pope Francis will likely restructure how the church is run and how decisions are made. He might increase the role of the laity and give local bishops more power. Beyond that there are few changes he can make. As far as church dogma is concerned, not even a full council can change dogma.

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

Finally, the European press’ response to Pope Francis has none of the sensationalism present in the English media. He is just seen as a man who has a very hard job ahead of him. No one seems to hang on to, or parse his every word.

 

[polytropos]

You first mistake is that I never said Thomism, I said some Thomists, as you can see from the above.

But the statement still has no support from Francis’s words. He did not say that it was a “carved-in-stone” approach to Thomism that is decadent. He didn’t say a “carved-in-stone” approach is good either. With regard to Thomism, he didn’t talk about anything being “carved-in-stone”. It was just your own insertion.

Your second mistake is that it wasn’t me who said “a past that no longer exists”, it was the Pope who said “a past that no longer exists”.

The quote was Francis’s. The application of it to the subject of Thomism was yours. It is in an entirely different section of the interview. Yet no one would be able to infer that from your phrasing:

My first comment that he “wants to move away from the carved-in-stone approach of some Thomists”, was based amongst other things on him saying *"Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists - -they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies".

Now, one could read that quote and wonder if Francis thinks it applies to Thomism. Presumably, one would then go on to the section where Francis discusses Thomism and see whether such an application makes any sense. But when he talks about Thomism, he does not associate Aquinas’s past with easy doctrinal security or irrelevance; he actually associates it with brilliance and genius which ought to be recovered:
The church has experienced times of brilliance, like that of Thomas Aquinas. But the church has lived also times of decline in its ability to think. For example, we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the age of decadent Thomist commentaries. Unfortunately, I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism. In thinking of the human being, therefore, the church should strive for genius and not for decadence.
Nothing to suggest that the decadent Thomist commentaries were decadent because they were “carved-in-stone.”

(Which also does not suggest that Thomist commentaries would be good if they were “carved-in-stone” - whatever that means. The Pope simply didn’t speak in those terms, because they are irrelevant. Whether a contemporary Thomist is more or less faithful to St. Thomas does not matter; neither would make them necessarily “decadent,” neither would make them necessarily “genius.” What is important is whether or not his arguments are good. Contemporary Thomists like Brian Davies, Elizabeth Anscombe, and David Oderberg all vary in how much they refer to Aquinas’s writings, how often the break step with him, etc. I think the Pope would agree that that is not any metric for the quality of their philosophy.)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Does this article fit with your impressions of Pope Francis?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-excommunicates-dissident-priest-in-australia/

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But the statement still has no support from Francis’s words. He did not say that it was a “carved-in-stone” approach to Thomism that is decadent. He didn’t say a “carved-in-stone” approach is good either. With regard to Thomism, he didn’t talk about anything being “carved-in-stone”. It was just your own insertion.

The quote was Francis’s. The application of it to the subject of Thomism was yours. It is in an entirely different section of the interview. Yet no one would be able to infer that from your phrasing:

Now, one could read that quote and wonder if Francis thinks it applies to Thomism. Presumably, one would then go on to the section where Francis discusses Thomism and see whether such an application makes any sense. But when he talks about Thomism, he does not associate Aquinas’s past with easy doctrinal security or irrelevance; he actually associates it with brilliance and genius which ought to be recovered:
The church has experienced times of brilliance, like that of Thomas Aquinas. But the church has lived also times of decline in its ability to think. For example, we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the age of decadent Thomist commentaries. Unfortunately, I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism. In thinking of the human being, therefore, the church should strive for genius and not for decadence.
Nothing to suggest that the decadent Thomist commentaries were decadent because they were “carved-in-stone.”

(Which also does not suggest that Thomist commentaries would be good if they were “carved-in-stone” - whatever that means. The Pope simply didn’t speak in those terms, because they are irrelevant. Whether a contemporary Thomist is more or less faithful to St. Thomas does not matter; neither would make them necessarily “decadent,” neither would make them necessarily “genius.” What is important is whether or not his arguments are good. Contemporary Thomists like Brian Davies, Elizabeth Anscombe, and David Oderberg all vary in how much they refer to Aquinas’s writings, how often the break step with him, etc. I think the Pope would agree that that is not any metric for the quality of their philosophy.)

In Inocent’s eyes any Thomist who agrees with Thomas is decadent. Actually, in her eyes, any Metaphysics is decadent. She is grabing the Pope’s comments as justification for her opinions. She believes in two things, Sola Scriptura ( as interpreted by her ), and the mythologies promoted by commenrtators and interpretators of modern physics. She will deny that and call me bad things, but it is the truth.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Catholic Answers is predominantly American. America is far more conservatively cultured than even their northern neighbours or the Europeans. We should not be surprised if most Catholics from America represented on this forum will be conservative.

Although Spain had Franco who was not exactly a socialist. And last night I watched a documentary on RT, which is a Russian news channel (in English), don’t know if you get it in the States. It was about Boris Yeltsin and October 1993 when there was an attempted insurrection, which ended with the army siding with the president and 180 people dead. And that all started after their equivalent of your Congress refused to pass federal budgets. Interesting coincidence given what the Republicans are doing.

I know of many Catholics who honestly think Catholic Answers is a “cess pit” of modernism or, in other words, (for them) wildly liberal by their standards.

Had to wipe the coffee off my screen after reading that. They must be righteously afeared of that new fangled electricity then .

 

[inocente]

That is not at all the impression you built up in various posts … the impression that you have become a cheerleader for Pope Francis.

If you disagree with the Pope, please state the grounds for your disagreement. They must be legion, since you have said in another thread that you don’t even believe in a creed.

I probably disagree on a lot of things, but the thread is about the Pope’s remarks on decadent forms of Thomism.

You could always start a thread asking for non-Catholics’ views of the Pope and see what you get, although Catholics’ views of the Pope might be more interesting after some of the remarks on this thread.

 

[inocente]

How does anything you say in this comment relate to my post? I did say that there will be changes made to the Curia. The main point of my post was that your statement "That seems to be a shot across the bows, for instance at all those who believe the Church is a right wing branch of the Republican Party" is unsubstantiated, and erroneous, in light of the actions of the last two popes. Neither of the passages you now quote relate to, or support, your supposition that Francis will have a different relation to secular governments than either of his two predecessors.

Not sure how you got that impression, I never thought his remarks had anything to do with secular governments. I meant those in the Church who think it is affiliated with particular ideologies, you even quoted me saying “For instance, these sentences are obviously directed to the Church” and you quoted the Pope saying "“Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists *- -they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”

*I don’t know what kind of a “revolution” you are expecting. Pope Francis will likely restructure how the church is run and how decisions are made. He might increase the role of the laity and give local bishops more power. Beyond that there are few changes he can make. As far as church dogma is concerned, not even a full council can change dogma. *

¿Que? I never said anything about revolution, whatcha talking about?

 

[inocente]

But the statement still has no support from Francis’s words. He did not say that it was a “carved-in-stone” approach to Thomism that is decadent. He didn’t say a “carved-in-stone” approach is good either. With regard to Thomism, he didn’t talk about anything being “carved-in-stone”. It was just your own insertion.

“Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists *- -they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”

The quote was Francis’s. The application of it to the subject of Thomism was yours. It is in an entirely different section of the interview. Yet no one would be able to infer that from your phrasing:

If you’re asserting that the Pope wandered around on lots of different topics I disagree. He’s experienced in talking to the media, he knows what message he wants to get across, and he therefore will stay precisely on-message. When he says “they have a static and inward-directed view of things” he means precisely the same people as when he says “decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism”. He’s not in his dotage, he’s not given to rambling, he knows how easily people get the wrong end of the stick and so like any experienced leader he stays on message.

It’s in Leadership 101 .

 

[inocente]

inocente

Does this article fit with your impressions of Pope Francis?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-excommunicates-dissident-priest-in-australia/

Fits perfectly, as I said the Pope is a leader, he’s going to be not a pushover, he’s setting his stamp, laying out his table.

 

[polytropos]

“Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists *- -they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”

If you’re asserting that the Pope wandered around on lots of different topics I disagree. He’s experienced in talking to the media, he knows what message he wants to get across, and he therefore will stay precisely on-message. When he says “they have a static and inward-directed view of things” he means precisely the same people as when he says “decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism”. He’s not in his dotage, he’s not given to rambling, he knows how easily people get the wrong end of the stick and so like any experienced leader he stays on message.

It’s in Leadership 101 .

As I’ve noted several times, that quote is from another section of the interview. If we are to apply it to the section where he mentioned Thomism, we would need specific reasons for doing so. You are acting as though the quote is a unilateral condemnation of people who take traditions from the past seriously. The problem with this interpretation is that it flies in the face of what he actually says when he discusses Thomism. The problem with decadent Thomism is with commentaries that did not reflect Thomas Aquinas’s genius, not with thinkers who still take Thomas Aquinas seriously. Again, he speaks of Thomas Aquinas’s time as one of “brilliance” and “genius,” and he never qualifies those characterizations by saying that, though brilliant and genius, Thomas Aquinas is no longer relevant.

Perhaps it is necessary to quote Pope Francis again:
The church has experienced times of brilliance, like that of Thomas Aquinas. But the church has lived also times of decline in its ability to think. For example, we must not confuse the genius of Thomas Aquinas with the age of decadent Thomist commentaries. Unfortunately, I studied philosophy from textbooks that came from decadent or largely bankrupt Thomism. In thinking of the human being, therefore, the church should strive for genius and not for decadence. (emphases added)
The age of Thomas Aquinas preceded the age of decadent Thomist commentaries. The church should now strive for genius. He says in the next paragraph, “The thinking of the church must recover genius and better understand how human beings understand themselves today, in order to develop and deepen the church’s teaching” (emphasis mine). Since the Pope associates Thomas Aquinas’s thinking with genius, and says that the church must recover genius, it seems more than a little far-fetched to pull a quote from another section of the essay to claim that the Pope thinks that we should stop taking old thinkers seriously.

There is literally no room for your interpretation, inocente. You would like to apply this quote to what the pope has said about Thomism:
“Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists - they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”
But the simple fact is that it’s in another section of the interview, and there is nothing in the section on Thomism that suggests that it is your “carved-in-stone” approach that is the problem. Such an application would require that Thomism represents “disciplinarian solutions,” “exaggerated doctrinal ‘security’,” and “a past that no longer exists.” But none of that makes sense. Traditionally oriented Thomism squares quite well with Pope Francis’s stated goal to promote the context and reasons for moral teachings rather than “a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.” Thomism is not a dogmatic, disciplinarian approach to Catholic teaching; it is a thorough and rigorous justification for its teachings from first principles, which is perhaps why Pope Francis regards Aquinas’s time as one of “brilliance” and “genius.”

All of this is not to say that one must be a traditional Thomist, or that the Pope is implying as much. Rightly, the Pope does not seem to be insisting that the quality of philosophy has to do with whether it’s “carved-in-stone” or not. As I’ve mentioned, contemporary Thomists vary in their willingness to break step with Aquinas, and that is quite fine - it has no necessary bearing on their quality as philosophers. Other good Catholic philosophers might not be Thomists at all. Pope Francis merely brought Thomism up as an example of how a great philosophical system was botched by later thinkers. What he doesn’t say is in what way or which later Thomist commentaries were decadent.