Rodrigo Guerra López,  a contributor to Exaudi, received the “Abelardo Lobato 2026” Prize on Saturday, January 17, 2026, in the historic Basilica of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome. The  prize,  awarded by the  Società Internazionale Tommaso d’Aquino (SITA), is now in its second year and is dedicated to the memory of the Dominican friar Abelardo Lobato Casado OP (one of the founders of SITA). It recognizes the recipient “for having developed a relevant and impactful philosophical thought, especially in the anthropological, ethical, and social spheres, founded on the metaphysical thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas.”

Guerra López expressed his profound gratitude to  Professor Lorella Congiunti, President of SITA, and to  Professor Cristina Reyes, Vice-Rector of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, for this undeserved honor. He also highlighted the presence of prominent Thomists, among them the esteemed  Father Lluís Clavell, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. The ceremony, held in the Sala dei Papi of the basilica starting at 4:30 p.m., included the awards ceremony and the recipient’s keynote address:  “Thinking about the present with St. Thomas Aquinas: Abelardo Lobato OP and the renewal of Thomistic thought.”

This award is not only a personal recognition but also an institutional affirmation of the vitality of speculative Thomism in the 21st century: a metaphysical thought rooted in Saint Thomas, capable of engaging with the anthropological, ethical, and social urgencies of the contemporary world without being reduced to mere historical erudition.

A Living, Ecclesial, and Dialogical Thomism

Rodrigo Guerra López’s lecture, delivered in this award-winning context, constitutes a programmatic manifesto for the renewal of Thomism. The author, a Mexican philosopher whose career has been marked by his personal encounter with Abelardo Lobato since 1986, structures his reflection around three interconnected axes that respond directly to the challenges of the present:

1. Recovering the metaphysical dimension of intelligence.  In an “epochal shift” accelerated by technology and culture, Guerra López rejects both modern rationalist optimism and postmodern nihilistic pessimism. He invokes the Thomistic distinction between  separatio  (a compositional-divisive judgment that accesses concrete being) and  abstractio  (proper to the particular sciences), as it appears in the commentary on  Boethius’s De Trinitate. Thomistic metaphysics is not elevated formal abstraction but  resolutio ad ens  (a return to the act of being as the foundation of the concrete). This methodological approach allows us to transcend the phenomenal and contextual without denying historicity, discerning good amidst evil  per accidens. Faced with current anti-metaphysical prejudices (suspicion of substance, nature, or natural law), he proposes a “methodological” Thomism that enters contemporary debates from within, demonstrating the radical relevance of  esse  for the singular.
2. Developing Thomism in communion with and at the service of the Church.  The author insists on a profoundly ecclesial Thomism, faithful to the spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Magisterium. A key reference point is Joseph Ratzinger’s instruction, Donum veritatis  (1990), which regulates theological freedom without marginalizing the authority of the Successor of Peter. It criticizes attitudes that, under the guise of doctrine, reduce the papacy to political intrigues, forgetting the  prudence of God. The Church needs a “diaconate of the believing intellect” (echoing  Veritatis gaudium), which rigorously studies the classics—especially Aquinas—to illuminate current pastoral challenges (bioethics, family, cultural crisis). This implies going “beyond” Thomas without betraying him, through an “essential” speculative Thomism (Fabro), which thinks  in his spirit  and does not repeat formulas.
3. An analytical and nuanced reading of modernity and postmodernism.  Following the Thomistic method of first discerning the truth in every author (even pagan or “suspect”), Guerra López rejects linear views of modernity as a mere decline toward immanentism. He cites a little-known text by Francis (January 28, 2022) on higher syntheses that integrate diverse heritages into a “polyhedral” horizon. Fruitful examples: Bergson in Gilson, Kierkegaard in Fabro, Scheler in Wojtyla, hermeneutics in Beuchot. Inspired by Augusto Del Noce, he advocates for a “philosophy of the history of philosophy” guided by the analogy of being (metaphysics, not logic). For a Latin American, this connects with Methol Ferré and aspects of Francis’s thought (and the current pontificate of Leo XIV).

A Personal and Collective Legacy

The moving closing evokes Lobato’s dialogue with John Paul II about Wojtyla: a reformed phenomenology does not hinder but rather helps to “think about the present and reach being more deeply.” This gesture summarizes the spirit of the tribute: an open, ecclesial, dialogical Thomism guided by the Holy Spirit (“Omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, a Spiritu Sancto est”).

The Abelardo Lobato Prize 2026, in recognizing Guerra López, reaffirms that Thomism is not a museum relic but a living source for the cultural and ecclesial discernment of the 21st century.

Full text of the conference:

Thinking about the present with Saint Thomas Aquinas: Abelardo Lobato, OP, and the renewal of Thomistic thought, by Rodrigo Guerra López

“Abelardo Lobato” Award International Society of Thomas Aquinas Basilica of Santa Maria sopra Minerva Rome, Italy January 17, 2026

Introduction: Many years ago, I had the privilege of meeting Friar Abelardo Lobato, OP. I first heard him speak at the Second World Congress of Christian Philosophy, held in Monterrey, Mexico, from October 20 to 24, 1986. I was 20 years old and a university student studying philosophy. Friar Abelardo was already a leading figure in Thomistic thought. The lecture he gave on that occasion was on “Man as a Personal Being.” As everyone knows, he would become passionate about this topic for most of his life. I remember that, to my great surprise, when I approached him to congratulate him on his presentation, I found an extremely cordial Dominican friar, smiling and spontaneously conveying great enthusiasm for Thomistic studies. He looked me attentively in the eyes, as if he wanted to establish a friendship.

At that time, I was a student of a group of professors who instilled in us a love for Christian philosophy and who were strongly inspired by Etienne Gilson, Cornelio Fabro, Francisco Canals, and Josef Pieper. For us, meeting Abelardo Lobato OP, a former student of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP, was like meeting an exceptional member of that family of great 20th-century Christian philosophers.

In the following years, we met on several occasions. In 1989, the Third World Congress of Christian Philosophy was held in Quito, Ecuador, and he was kind enough to attend the lecture I gave there. I remember with great gratitude that gesture of kindness and the comments he made to me. At the same time, Friar Abelardo offered a spiritual retreat every year at a Dominican convent in the city of Puebla. Taking advantage of his trips to Mexico, he gave us a short course on St. Thomas Aquinas on several occasions and encouraged us to create a SITA group. Thanks to him, we all witnessed with awe how the thought of the “Angelic Doctor” became passion, dialogue, and light for understanding the cultural challenges of our time. Nothing escaped his attention: his research on the person, freedom, natural law, conscience, and sexual differentiation, along with his concerns about the family, society, political life, bioethics, and the contemporary cultural crisis.

And this was the point that, at least for me, was deeply moving and impactful. Seeing how St. Thomas Aquinas’s expert knowledge wasn’t limited to mere philological or historical-critical erudition, but was accompanied by a passion for real human life and its most pressing problems. For Friar Abelardo Lobato, OP, the love of truth, following St. Thomas, was accompanied by enormous enthusiasm and missionary energy. Thomism wasn’t a venerable relic of the past but a proposal that resonated with the hearts of young Mexicans and the philosophical controversies that most concerned us in those years.

It never ceases to amaze me that this twofold dimension—deepening the study of the philosophical and theological thought of St. Thomas and entering into a relevant dialogue with the culture of our time—is the same concern that Pope Francis sought to share in his address to the participants of the last International Thomistic Congress:

“Thomism should not be a museum piece but a living source (…) It is necessary to promote, in the words of Jacques Maritain, a ‘living Thomism,’ capable of renewing itself to respond to current questions. Thus, Thomism advances following a twofold vital movement of ‘systole and diastole.’ Systole, because first one must concentrate on the study of the work of Saint Thomas in its historical and cultural context to identify its structuring principles and grasp its originality. Then, however, comes diastole: engaging in dialogue with the contemporary world, to critically assimilate what is true and just in the culture of our time.”

Thinking precisely about these things that are at the same time pontifical teaching and existential testimony of the life of Friar Abelard, on this occasion I wish to pay a small tribute to him, meditating aloud on the importance of rethinking the challenges of the present with the help of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

To do so, I will attempt to develop three ideas: the need to re-examine the metaphysical scope of intelligence in contemporary philosophical and theological debate. The need to develop Thomism in communion with and at the service of the Church. The need to accompany Thomism with an analytical and nuanced reading of modernity and the various postmodern reactions.

The need to redefine the metaphysical scope of intelligence in contemporary philosophical and theological debate

The cultural and technological shift in contemporary society is profound and accelerating. One doesn’t need to be an expert in the modernity/postmodernity debate to realize that a true “epochal shift” is underway, one that deserves to be closely followed and thoroughly understood. As with many other historical and cultural processes of the past, the changes we are experiencing today have both positive and negative aspects. The modern Enlightenment paradigm has attempted to convince us that the historical process is guided by scientific and technological rationality, which would ultimately guarantee a freer and more rational future for all. For their part, many of the most significant anti-modern movements, perhaps unconsciously, have echoed this same idea, albeit in a negative version; that is, they have proposed that modernity is a path toward immanentism, nihilism, or worse.

A careful observation of reality must recognize that both positions are partly justified and partly profoundly wrong. At any given moment, significant doses of truth coexist with the greatest errors. Moreover, history is not a deterministic process that points in a single direction; it is not, for example, a tragic path toward catastrophe, but rather a drama articulated by multiple freedoms in which evil always exists ‘per accidens,’ in a deficient way, as a certain absence, amidst the presence of a perfection and positivity that characterizes all that is.

To identify and discern being from non-being, truth from error, and good from evil, it is necessary to transcend the purely sensory, purely phenomenal, purely contextual, and purely historical moment and affirm that reality is not exhausted by its temporal and finite aspect. However, this transcendence is not a gradual ascent along the line of abstraction, moving ever further from the singular, but rather a return, so to speak, to the foundation of what makes the concrete entity what it is and simply ‘to be.’ For scholars of St. Thomas Aquinas, this is a well-known issue. A certain formalism has taken hold of the minds of some interpreters of Aquinas, who have sometimes dared to assert that being is the fruit of a very high level of formal abstraction.

However, a careful reading of the commentary on  Boethius’s *De Trinitate* reveals that Thomas Aquinas identifies three types of distinctions the mind makes: one real and two fictitious. The first is the operation of the intellect that composes and divides, which we know as *separatio*. The other two are modes of abstraction that correspond to the physical sciences and purely formal knowledge, such as mathematics. In the same work, Aquinas astutely observes that it is characteristic of the Platonists and Pythagoreans not to sufficiently distinguish between *separatio* and *abstractio*. This is understandable because the failure of the Platonists and Pythagoreans to discover the act of being as the foundation of all formality compelled them to affirm the subsistence of *forms* as the principal causal principle of composite things in the sensible world, thus causing the method of metaphysics to drift into the purely formal realm. Saint Thomas, on the contrary, thinks the method of metaphysics is based on its true object: the being of things and their ultimate cause, the separate Being.

‘Separatio’ is the modality proper to spontaneous knowledge, since we understand things as they are, based on the real union or dissociation of the components of the concrete. Abstraction, on the other hand, distances us from all of reality in all its richness to delve deeper into certain aspects.

From this perspective, metaphysics takes as its object the ‘suppositum,’ the separate reality as such, not as this or that. Metaphysics investigates what is predicated ‘in itself’ of the subsistent, such as being and acting. Therefore, metaphysics does not abstract; rather, its movement is the opposite of abstraction. While the particular sciences multiply, addressing diverse aspects of reality, metaphysics restores the unity of being and constitutes itself as knowledge of the concrete as a whole. Naturally, this is valid only for a metaphysics that recognizes the act of being (esse) in the entity (ens: id quod habet esse). If the object of metaphysics were the essence of things or the idea of ​​being (esse commune), it would immediately fall into the method of maximum abstraction, that is, the indeterminate notion of being.

This brief digression is relevant to understanding that a significant part of the current controversies in the field of philosophy, and even theology, revolves around the genuine recovery of the metaphysical scope of intelligence, that is, the capacity to achieve a ‘resolutio ad ens’ and eventually a ‘resolutio ad Esse.’ Without this, reflection remains trapped in the “transcendental horizon,” not only the purely formal one but also the purely factual and contextual one.

Current philosophical and theological controversies are highly diverse and multiply across various topics, approaches, and schools of thought. However, it does not seem an exaggeration to say that some of them are, so to speak, burdened or conditioned by a concept of reason that, consciously or unconsciously, has totally or partially closed off its properly metaphysical scope. It is not uncommon to hear, in some circles, statements of suspicion or even contempt for metaphysics, based on prejudices about the distance of the first philosophy from reality, about the ‘immobility’ of the notion of substance, about the rigidity of the notion of ‘nature,’ about the impertinence of ‘natural law,’ about the apparent evidence that metaphysics has already been ‘surpassed,’ and so on.

In all these cases, it is not enough to make generic exhortations in favor of metaphysics or “Thomism.” It is necessary for Thomists to enter the spaces and environments marked by these prejudices and, from within them—not from without!—demonstrate with arguments that the science of being as being for the Angelic Doctor does not refer to the abstract but to the most radical coherence of the singular and the concrete as such. Doing this does not mean calling for an apologetic crusade in defense of Saint Thomas, but rather recovering Thomism in a methodological key, that is, following the via inventionis, the path of discovery that we must travel today to rethink the reality of our present with the utmost fidelity and without prejudice.

The need to develop Thomism in communion with and at the service of the Church

A second element that seems fundamental to me when meditating aloud on the renewal of Thomistic thought is the need to develop Thomism with a profoundly ecclesial sense.

This might seem obvious, but it is not when we see that recently there have been significant claims and criticisms of papal teaching by some thinkers, including Thomists. When I say this, I do not mean to imply that it is not legitimate to raise questions or challenge a particular aspect of Church teaching. We all know that it is legitimate to raise questions when, in good conscience, there are well-founded and well-argued reasons. However, it is often forgotten that the content of the Instruction “Donum veritatis” on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian, published by Joseph Ratzinger on March 24, 1990, also applies to Thomists and has not been abrogated.

In other words, the legitimate plurality and freedom of theologians should not be exercised by marginalizing the Magisterium or the authority of the Successor of Peter, much less by failing in charity, damaging communion, or causing scandal. It is a particularly perverse trap to affirm what we consider true outside these parameters.

This attitude is not foreign to the spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas and, in general, to the best theological tradition of the Catholic Church. If there is a doubt, a criticism, or a questioning of a magisterial teaching, there is no need to panic. It is simply necessary to use the appropriate channels, express one’s conviction with true respect, and be patient.

Beyond “Donum veritatis,” a text worth revisiting, I believe that, at its core, some of the seemingly “doctrinal” responses to the Magisterium offered by some Thomists recently involve an even more subtle question that touches the very heart of faith. Do I see the gift God bestows upon me through the Successor of Peter as part of Providence—of God’s prudentia? Or perhaps, without much awareness, do I favor an interpretation of the Pope and his Magisterium in which political maneuvering or palace intrigues become the most decisive factor in my adherence or rejection?

This is a delicate matter that, depending on how it is resolved, greatly influences the Thomistic mind’s willingness to take the next step: placing our intelligence at the service of the Mystery that is the Church. The Church today needs a diakonia of the believing intellect. The new pastoral challenges emerging in every sphere will not be successfully resolved by events or improvisations. It is necessary to observe and understand reality by rigorously studying the classics of Christian thought, among which St. Thomas Aquinas undoubtedly stands out. This has also been emphasized in the guidelines for the application of the Constitution “Veritatis Gaudium” promulgated by Pope Francis.

Naturally, this study is meant to go beyond the mere repetition of certain formulas, which certainly must be learned and understood. The crucial point is to think, guided by Saint Thomas Aquinas, and delve into a speculative Thomism, “essential,” as Cornelius Faber liked to say. Only in this way will it be possible to go beyond the Angelic Doctor without betraying his enduring foundations.

The need to accompany Thomism with an analytical and differentiated reading of modernity and the various postmodern reactions

Saint Thomas Aquinas was a master in many respects. His love for those who came before him is evident in all his works. It has been wonderful that, over time, studies have emerged that profoundly demonstrate that, in addition to his immense appreciation for Aristotle, Aquinas learned from many other authors, such as the Arab philosophers, Neoplatonism, and the Church Fathers, particularly Saint Augustine. Saint Thomas was convinced that to understand an author, it is first necessary to identify the element of truth in their thought and then, naturally, to also recognize its limitations. Error must be interpreted in the light of being; evil must be understood in the light of good. No, the reverse.

This methodological approach allows Saint Thomas to learn a lot from pagan thinkers, ‘suspicious’ to some, such as Aristotle or the Arabs.

Pope Francis, in a little-known text signed on January 28, 2022, the feast of Saint Thomas Aquinas, noted something along the same lines. He stated that it is necessary:

“To understand that philosophy advances is to discover, after studying the various opinions and controversies, a higher synthesis that recognizes the small or large dose of truth in each position. If we look at the great masters of Christian thought throughout the ages, we find nothing different. They are all great precisely because they humbly learn from a kind of empathy with their predecessors, purify their vision in the light of the certainty that faith offers them, and seek to express their discoveries by creating new, complex syntheses in which one can see both the received heritage and, at the same time, the originality of those who have been able to open their minds to a new horizon of understanding—more integrative, fuller, more ‘multifaceted,’ if I may use the expression.”

If we look closely at some important Thomists of the 20th century, I get the impression that the same thing happened within them. I immediately think of the positive impact Bergson’s thought had on the intellect of Etienne Gilson. I think of the impact Kierkegaard’s thought had on Cornelio Fabro. And I cannot fail to mention the influence Max Scheler had on the mind of Karol Wojtyla or how much Maurice Beuchot learned from contemporary hermeneutics. In the four cases I have cited, the Thomists did not uncritically accept their non-Thomist interlocutors, but rather allowed themselves to be challenged by them, discerning with finesse what could be assimilated and what could not. The secret lies in discernment, that is, in the fundamental criteria these Thomist authors used to discriminate and judge without dissolving what was essential.

When modernity is interpreted as a more or less straight path towards increasingly pernicious forms of immanentism, it is very difficult to learn from authors such as Bergson, Kierkegaard, Scheler, or Ricoeur.

Therefore, I believe that we Thomists must refine our philosophical interpretation of modernity and potential postmodern reactions. This refinement, it seems to me, requires not only the history of philosophy but a “philosophy of the history of philosophy,” somewhat as Augusto Del Noce has already emphasized. Only in this way is it possible to achieve a more analytical and nuanced understanding of the debates that characterize our time.

I quote Augusto Del Noce not by chance, but because, without going into the specifics of his thought presently, the great lesson he perhaps leaves us with is that not every philosophical reading of modernity is compatible with the fundamental elements of the philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas, especially when these elements include within them the understanding of the participation of the act of being in entities and the corresponding analogy of reality.

In other words, a philosophical reading of the history of philosophy, animated by a metaphysical and not merely logical understanding of analogy, is one of the tools that best helps us to continue the adventure of Thomistic thought and the enrichment of this thought, recovering the truth and the good that appear in other authors, sometimes very distant and different from Aquinas.

For a Latin American, like the one speaking here, the figure of Del Noce is also particularly dear to us, since the Italian philosopher had a notable influence on Alberto Methol Ferré, one of the intellectuals who best allow us to understand some aspects of the thought of Pope Francis and the ecclesial and cultural significance that Pope Leo XIV has today.

In conclusion, think about the present

Abelardo Lobato encouraged me to pursue a doctorate at the Angelicum. I applied and received my acceptance letter in 1992. However, I couldn’t afford the living expenses and accommodation, and I ended up studying in a very different place. In my doctoral dissertation, dedicated to the philosophical method of Karol Wojtyla, I didn’t want to omit some delicate and somewhat controversial topics from some of Father Lobato’s research, which he patiently explained to me during one of our meetings.

Father Lobato had published a comprehensive study on the thought of Karol Wojtyla in the journal Angelicum in 1979. In this study, after explaining in great detail some of the central intuitions of Karol Wojtyla’s book  Person and Act , he dared to make a criticism: “In his work there is more phenomenology than metaphysics, and this is detrimental to the philosophy of the person, which can only be elaborated with metaphysical rigor.”

The newly elected Pope John Paul II met with him and said, “We must talk.” After their conversation, Brother Abelard discovered that the matter was not so simple. His interpretation of Wojtyla was somewhat influenced by the writings of Mieczyslaw Albert Krapiec, OP. Pope John Paul II pointed out that, in his view, the reform of phenomenology in his philosophical writings indicated a reformulation of classical and personalist metaphysics. However, he also told him that he understood his opinion because the English translation of *Person and Act*  was open to some misunderstandings.

When my book, *Returning to the Person: The Philosophical Method of Karol Wojtyla*, was published in 2002. Friar Abelardo thanked me for clarifying all these issues and told me that he recognized that Karol Wojtyla had been on the verge of a particularly original reformulation of Thomistic metaphysics based on a critical reconsideration of phenomenological realism. The Dominican friar told me something that I quote, appealing to my memory: “In the end, phenomenology reformed as Wojtyla made it is not an obstacle, but an aid to thinking about the present and to reaching being more deeply.”

This evolution of Friar Abelard was not a simple ecclesiastical submission to the Pope. It was, on the one hand, the fruit of his own intellectual and spiritual journey. Friar Abelard was a great metaphysician, a profoundly ecclesial friar, and a man of dialogue always ready to know the truth in everything and everyone. For, as we Thomists often repeat, “Omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, a Spiritu Sancto est,” all truth, whoever speaks it, comes from the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for your patience, and I congratulate the winners of the 2026 Abelardo Lobato Prize in advance. Thank you very much!