Ranging over a wide variety of topics from philosophy and theology, this is one of the clearest presentations of Pre-Vatican II neo-scholastic theology. It is less detailed than one of the theological ‘manuals’ that were in use in that era, but it is more detailed than simply a reiteration of what Aquinas says. It lies somewhere in the middle, mainly summarising Aquinas albeit with occasional recognitions and dismissals of what other historical figures have said, like Scotus and especially like Jesuits such as Suarez and Molina.
However, this should not be misunderstood to be a detailed presentation (and/or defence) of Aquinas’ views. Where it does engage with other historical figures it does it relatively cursorily. So, for example, we are told that Aquinas’ views on analogy are rejected by Scotus and also rejected in a slightly different way by Suarez. But there is no in depth analysis of why they rejected Aquinas’ views. Their rejection is simply counter-rejected here with a very few words of explanation. Readers interested in a serious understanding of why and to what extent Aquinas and Scotus disagreed will need to turn to more detailed monographs in the history of philosophy.
While the book is generally very clear in presenting Thomist ideas, it is less clear in defending them against some of the serious objections raised by (among others) Kant. Thomism assumes a realist intellectual grasp of reality, such that people see it as it is. Kant said that people are limited by the architecture of their brains, and they see it as their brains represent it. That Kantian viewpoint is a major challenge to the fundamental assumptions of the author's Realism. Yet it is unclear in this book how he manages to refute it, other than by counter assertion. It is worth readers being mindful of the fact that part of the attraction of the transcendental Thomism of Marechal (and Lonergan and Rahner) was that they believed it offered a better response to Kant (than the Thomism presented by the author in books like this one).
One of the other surprising features of the book is that it shows almost no meaningful engagement with the contemporary 1950s problem of Modernism, other than to just dismiss it. As such, the book illustrates a flaw evident in some Pre-Vatican II theology. By refusing to engage with specific issues of theological (cultural) relativism which was at the heart of modernism, all it did was drive those issues underground, so that they would eventually erupt anew on the floor of Vatican II.
We see examples of those problems particularly clearly in chapter 6 article 3, where the author discusses the evolution of dogma. Neo-scholasticism assumed that the only meaningful sense of development occurred when theologians were initially grasping concepts and moving in their understanding towards a full understanding. The author believes that that full understanding had occurred in the historical statements of Ecumenical Councils, so there was no more scope for evolution or development in the meaning or understanding of the dogma proclaimed at councils.
Modernists took a completely different approach, assuming that truth could never be fully understood by humans. So, in their far more extreme opinion, there was constantly a need to change the words, or the meanings of dogmas to match how human understandings of truth changed (and even contradicted each other) from generation to generation.
Between these two positions is the view which was to eventually triumph at Vatican II in 1965. It is a view which can be traced back to a different set of neo-scholastic assumptions about the fact that our human concepts are attempts to grasp the beingness of reality. Contrary to the anti-modernists (like the author of this book) this view assumed that as our understanding of reality improves over time, so there will always be scope to draw deeper meanings from already existing claims about reality (like dogmas). But contrary to the view of the Modernists, this view rejected the idea that the meaning of dogma was ‘changing’ such that it could contradict previous understandings. What this means is that theology refines meaning, not changes it.
It is a shame that books like this were unable to better grasp these issues and engage with them prior to Vatican II. If they had have done so, then the course of the debates and the proceedings at Vatican II could have looked very different.
One of the problems in reprinting books like this without detailed notes to help the reader understand its context, is that it offers an understanding of issues which are frozen to a specific point in time and space. Ideally when books like this are reprinted they need accompanying notes to help readers understand the contextual issues which impact upon the interpretation of the text and the understanding of its place in the development of theological ideas. (A good example of how this can be done well is provided by Matthew Minerd's 2021 edited reprinting of this author's 1936 Thomistic Common Sense)
Overall, this is a useful example of what (Catholic) theology looked like in the mid twentieth century. However its lack of detail and contextual information means that it is of limited value to modern readers who want to engage with the thought of Thomas Aquinas, or engage with the interpretation of mid twentieth century scholastic theology.