I used to be that too, but then I kind of realized that Thomas Aquinas really didn't say anything new that older theologians like St. Augustine haven't already said, but in a more "verbose" fashion, let's say. I've never really understood this attachment to Thomism when there are so many Catholic philosophers whose thoughts are much better put than Aquinas' and still have an effect to this day, like those of Robert Grossteste, Roger Bacon, Nicole Orseme and the other Oxford school of philosophy (all contemporaries of or living in the same era as Aquinas that developed the scientific method as we know it today in addition to being some of the first if not the first humans to prove physical laws with mathematical theorems) in addition to Stanley Jaki and Pierre Duhem, all of whom are very educated men of science who can unite their faith and their scientific knowledge into a more coherent worldview than that of Thomism. I don't think it's necessarily wrong, but it's very lacking in details when you look at it as a whole. He focuses way too much on the metaphysics and not enough on the actual physics (I can't disagree with his approach to ethics since it is the most practical part of philosophy and thus the most approachable from on the ground).
