When considering Christian responses to politics, Thomas Aquinas is to often overlooked. Despite his unprecedented contribution to Christian theology, Aquinas’ political contributions are rarely called upon, and William McCormick, SJ’s illuminating work The Christian Structure of Politics: On the De Regno of Thomas Aquinas seeks to correct this imbalance. McCormick’s exegetical examination of Aquinas’ De Regno (On Kinship) offers a convincing and stimulating exploration of one of Aquinas’s lesser-read works, and rejects the prevailing narratives that De Regno is a “patchwork” of broken thoughts that fail to deliver on their promises. Broken down into three distinct sections, the book chronologically documents Aquinas’ development of a “spirit of Christian politics” that carefully acts as a middle way between Augustinian and Aristotelian extremism. This masterful work brings to life the complex and nuanced thinking of Aquinas, and invites the reader to consider its implications for contemporary thinkers reflecting on Aquinas’s theology of politics.
The first and largest section of McCormick’s work analyzes De Regno in an attempt to show its internal coherence. Throughout this section McCormick emphasizes the type of document De Regno is, reminding readers that Aquinas “is not writing a treatise, and so we ought not to read De regno as one” (59). As such, the first three chapters, which explore book 1 of De Regno, establish what Aquinas is trying to teach the Cypriot King, for whom De Regno is written. First, McCormick details how Aquinas accepts politics as a natural part of human life, and that politics is in a way a balance between tyranny and monarchy, the worst and best regimes that can exist. Chapter 2 is written to remind the king of the perils of tyranny, and thus showcases the virtues of kingship in comparison. McCormick concludes his exegesis of book 1 of De regno by showing how Aquinas subverts his readers expectation about what a king’s reward ought to be, and instead takes the opportunity to offer a reflection on the true ends of humanity, identifying beatitude as the true reward of a king. McCormick’s first section—penetrating in questions and convincing in its conclusions—is an excellent exploration of Aquinas’s thinking. Readers are eager to continue to see where Aquinas goes next, with McCormick as our guide.
McCormick’s second section explores book 2 of De Regno, with a primary focus on chapters 1 to 4. McCormick argues that here Aquinas elucidates for the king the practical significance of the theological and philosophical reflections of book 1. In short, what should a king do to ensure he avoids tyranny and guides his population towards beatitude? McCormick masterfully lays out how Aquinas defines the role of the king as minister Dei (minister of God), imitating God “not by securing man’s final end but by securing his intermediate, temporal end,” namely virtue (193). In this way, McCormick can argue that Aquinas elevates politics as a virtuous activity while also reserving the spiritual and final ends of humanity to the Church. The end of chapter 4 skirts over the latter half of book 2 of De Regno, in a manner rather jarring in comparison to the careful, methodical exposition of the previous chapters.
The third section of McCormick’s work seeks to consider where Aquinas’s theology of politics sits in the wider landscape of both theological and political thought. McCormick compares Aquinas to two contemporaries; John of Paris (Jean Quidort) and Giles of Rome. Quidort advocates a radical separation of the state from the Church on account of history and Giles of Rome the reverse on account of legitimacy. McCormick’s reading of Aquinas indicates he rejects both extremes, with both failing to consider the true ends of human life in their theologies and instead focusing too heavily on the role of the respective institutions. Aquinas’ thinking mediates between the two, accepting the legitimate and natural place of politics, yet affirming the primacy of spiritual ends over temporal ones.
McCormick seeks to conclude his practical reflections with a consideration of how Aquinas’s De Regno fairs against two dominant branches of liberalism: rationalism and pluralism. McCormick sees rationalism as rejecting the fine balance Aquinas is creating between spiritual and temporal ends, and finds pluralism a weak interlocutor in comparison to Aquinas’ dualism, which could often be consumed by rationalistic tendencies. While the practical applications of Aquinas’ theology of politics in De Regno is well worth considering in dialogue with pre-modern and modern political thought, McCormick’s brevity may fail to fully satisfy readers, particularly if they are anticipating a discussion of Aquinas’s account of the relationship between politics and Christianity over and against other competing accounts. However, McCormick’s engaging and thought-provoking work succeeds in leaving the reader hungry for more of Aquinas and McCormick’s thoughts on the question of politics and religion.
Overall, McCormick achieves his aim of answering the question “what is the relationship between Christianity and politics” for Aquinas (1). This commanding work takes the reader through De Regno with such sophistication and ease that one feels as though they are reading the work itself. Despite the occasional spelling or grammatical error, McCormick’s writing is gripping, effortlessly weaving together a narrative that draws upon Aquinas, Aristotle, Augustine, Cicero, and others. McCormick continually asks questions of the reader and Aquinas’ text, and treats Aquinas with both reverence and suspicion. The reader is unable to predict the answers to McCormick’s erudite questions and leaves each section craving the answers only found in the subsequent pages. The Christian Structure of Politics provides invaluable insight for scholars of Aquinas and those studying theological approaches to politics in the medieval period, and McCormick is also at pains to keep the work relevant for contemporary political theologians as well. McCormick succeeds in reigniting the discussion of Aquinas’s theology of politics through his nuanced and balanced description of De Regno.
Stephen Dolan received his PhD in theology from the University of Edinburgh.
Stephen Dolan
Date Of Review:
July 2, 2024
