Can you define your terms?  What do you mean by "realism"?  What, precisely, are the philosophies of "ultra-realism" and "moderate-realism"?  For that matter, what is the philosophy of "realism"?

Most modern-day philosphies are based on false premises.  If there is an opposition in these philosophies but neither has Catholic Truth as a foundation of the philosophical reasoning, then they are arguing which false philosphy is true and both are useless.

Few philosophical modes of thought created in the past few hundred years are able to come to fundamental truths, which is, of course, the purpose of philosphy.  They are unable to reach the foundations because they, almost universally, reject God as revealed Truth, and, in fact, are attempting to reach fundamental truth without God, which is impossible because God is Truth itself.

While I doubt that there is really not any opposition here because the two philosophies are probably merely arguing from the same side of the coin, I can't really say until I truly know what these philisophical ideas are.  So I will await your explanation.

An illustrative quotation taken from Coloumbe's article.

The Platonist sees things in God; the Aristotelian sees God at the summit of things. If both philosophies lead to religion, it is undeniable that the religious element is more spontaneous in a philosophy of the Platonic type for it penetrates its very structure.

I have no idea what you people are talking about.  St. Thomas is widely held  to be a moderate realist.  Plato is in some respects an idealist, with certain strong differences with modern idealists.

I do have strong views about people who use words like heuristic in normal conversations:  They should be shot without benefit of trial.

The Church teaches us to rely on St. Thomas.

Which camp would St. Bonaventure fall into?

Let's start off with the familiar Catholic adage, "moderation in all things". Says a lot for moderate realism right there!

But there is more! The Church has officially incorporated this in to Her canon law:

"The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries, etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold."  - Canon Law 1366, Section 2

"Philosophiae rationalis ac theologiae studia et alumnorum in his disciplinis institutionem professores omnino pertractent ad Angelici Doctoris rationem, doctrinam et principia, eaque sancte teneant."

"To desert Aquinas, especially in his metaphysical teachings, is to risk disaster."
- Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922)

OF THIS CANON Pope Pius XI says that it: "should be held as a sacred command".

"...as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of faith, and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress."  - Pope Pius XII (1939-1958).   "Humani Generis", 1950

The commentary on canon law:

Quote

Mental philosophy and theology must be taught according to the method, teaching, and principles of the Angelic Doctor, to which the professors should religiously adhere.

The method here understood is the scholastic form in which the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas and, in fact, all the great Summae of the thirteenth century are composed.

The term doctrina in this connection is not so easily defined, but, taken as a whole, no doubt means the teaching of St. Thomas, more especially his metaphysics, though not each and every sentence laid down in his works need be accepted.

The principles of the Angelic Doctor are the rules or theses around which his system clusters, and upon which it more or less hinges, especially in metaphysics.'

It was but natural that the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas should be prescribed as the text-book for theological seminaries. This does not mean that no other systematic text-book may be used for recitation purposes, but only that the Summa must be used and explained for the scholastic part, i. e., in the treatment of purely speculative questions. Of modern erudition there is but little in the Summa, and yet dogmatic theology now-a-days must be treated with the aid of history and Holy Writ. That it will not be easy for a Scotist or a Molinist to feel at home in the Thomistic system goes without saying; but no other system is condemned by the preference given to St. Thomas.

Thank you for your contributions. I believe that the commentary provides all the flexibility I could ask for, since "no other system is condemned by the preference given to St. Thomas." Moreover, if the writings of St. Thomas provide the standard for "mental" theology, there is still a mystical theology over and above that, to which the well-known story of St. Thomas calling his writings mere "straw" adequately attests. Moderate realism seems like a mental theology, ultra-realism like a mystical theology, though having no mystical experience myself I have to admit this is only an impression. In any case I will continue happily reading and purveying the Christian ultra-realists.