St. Thomas explains here that reprobation is analogous to predestination.
.
I see what you mean. But predestination-- at least in the Thomstic view-- seems to be advanced as the notion of God's positive will of election, i.e., the extension of efficacious grace which is not refused by man, whereas (as St. Thomas puts it in the article to which you linked) reprobation is merely God's passive will and permission of evil (from which succeeds reprobation).
.
I think that were the Catholic view of predestination (inasmuch as St. Thomas emblemizes it) to
include the "predestination of the damned," St. Thomas wouldn't use different terms. It (reprobation) is part of
providence (as virtually all things are) but it is distinct from
predestination. Why else would St. Thomas use two separate terms if this were not the case? For any other term with multiple meanings he will always say "We can speak of
x in [however many] ways...". He could say "Now, we can speak of predestination in two ways: the predestination of the elect and the predestination of the reprobate. But predestination clearly refers to election, per St. Thomas. And he distinguishes between God's positive will (which elects men) and God's permissive will (which allows them to be reprobate). These are two very different operations.