With due deference to St. Thomas, calling a work “Thomistic” does not make it so. As experts on ‘both sides’ have noted, some experts see it as such, some see it as not such at all.
Again, it shows what a label-loving, box-loving, sound-byte loving world we have become. If we are told that a word means “X” by those we trust, then by golly we will call it X as well. And if we are told that the same word means not-X by those we trust, we will call it not-X as well. Then you have the enlightening sight of ‘experts’ who are just yelling back and forth, “Yes it is, no it isn’t”. But how few are the ones who will come out and say, "Wait. According to the definition given by person/group/experts A, X means blah blah blah. According to the definition given by person/group/experts B, X means the opposite, halb, halb, halb. Therefore when you hear the word X used, you need to know which GROUP is using the word, because group A will be using it to mean blah and group B will be using it to mean halb. If YOU in your own study have come to understand X as blah, and you’re listening to group B talking about it, you’re going to think they have it crazy wrong; ditto to a halb person listening to group A. BUT you won’t be thinking that the definition ITSELF might be wrong, you’ll be thinking it is all one group or other who ‘gets it right’ and so in essence you aren’t addressing the actual understanding of the word (i.e. Thomistic), you will be either extolling or condemning the group who uses the word the way you think it should be used.
IOW, you aren’t trying to determine the real meaning or get the other group to change their meaning; you’re either building up the group you like, or tearing down the one you don’t, by calling them wrong and stupid, instead of asking both groups, “How did you determine the definition you use? Can you give us examples of what you mean by Thomistic, in 'layman’s terms?” Can you give us a point by point comparison in several places where you can show how a current teaching or understanding in AL parallels teachings in the Summa?"
That way is neutral and it’s truly educational. It doesn’t involve arguments like, “Because I said so” or giving ONE example and just SAYING that it ‘is’ Thomistic, or referring to an expert who isn’t answering questions but who is supposed to have addressed them at various places, you just go through everything he’s written in the last couple of years and somehow you’ll see the ‘correct take’ on AL.
I surely do hope that sooner or later we will start getting people really looking, comparing, and being intellectually honest enough to present ‘both sides’ clearly and fairly.
