Summa Theologiae Moralis, vol. I: De Principiis

1. The Notion of Theology. — Theology is the science deduced from the principles of revelation concerning God and other things in their order to God. For, led by the supernatural light of revelation, it treats scientifically of the Deity itself, i.e., of God as God. Moreover, God, under the aspect of Deity, is a supernatural being, inasmuch as He is absolutely elevated above every created nature and natural cognition and is knowable by revelation alone, and He is the supernatural principle, or cause and end, of things, especially of man.

Theology comprises a twofold part: 1° one is merely speculative: "concerning God in Himself and as He is the principle and end of things," which treats of God in Himself, one and triune, and of His works ad extra, especially of man, whom God has destined to a supernatural end: the intuitive vision of Himself, which man can attain through divine grace, which Christ bestows upon us. From this 2° the other part practical spontaneously arises: for if God is our principle and end, duties toward Him follow in us; we must, namely, acknowledge Him as our author, and tend to Him as our ultimate end. This immediately treats of human acts by which we tend to God, and also, but consequently, of their rules and principles. Hence it is inscribed by St. Thomas: "concerning the motion of the rational creature toward God"¹.

Briefly: theology is the science of supernatural religion. Religion is the moral bond between God and man. Whence theology treats not only of God as the author and end of supernatural things, and of man destined to a supernatural end; — but also of the bonds and duties by which man is bound to God, and of the moral relations as well which intervene between the two.

2. The distinction between speculative and practical theology. — Speculative and practical theology differ

1° end: speculative directly and solely tends toward the knowledge of truth, which it seeks for its own sake, i.e., for the perfection of the intellect and in which it rests; — practical further tends toward right operation and seeks truth for the sake of something else, i.e., for the perfection of the will: it seeks, namely, those truths which are necessary for acting well, nay, because it is a rule of acting, directly and principally it intends to direct human acts and morals; whence it speculates about practice;

2° matter: speculative [theology] deals with things to be known merely, or even to be believed, which are called articles of faith or dogmas, and therefore it is called dogmatic; practical [theology] deals with things to be known at once and to be done, which are called matters of morals, whence it is called moral.

3. Definition of Moral Theology. — Moral theology is defined: the part of theological science which treats of human acts as they are to be ordered to God as the supernatural end, according to revealed principles. It is said

1° of science: for it is evident and certain knowledge of truths which are deduced from certain principles and are coordinated among themselves in a synthesis by logical connection and order; and thus it is distinguished from vulgar and catechetical knowledge, which all the faithful have in some way concerning their human acts and duties;

2° theological, i.e., deduced from the principles of revelation, and thus it is distinguished from the human and merely rational sciences which proceed from the light of natural reason alone;

3° part, because it is not a distinct species but only an integral and constitutive part of theological science: for theology does not comprise several sciences like philosophy, but is a science entirely one, because it has one subject: God, and one formal reason (formal object by which): revelation; whence moral theology is one and the same science with dogmatic, although they are different parts.

4° which treats of human acts: this is the special matter with which moral theology deals and about which it is immediately concerned, namely, all human acts, and therefore it regards everything that pertains to them, and thus it is distinguished from dogmatic theology;

Fifthly for human acts to be ordered to God as the supernatural ultimate end: moral theology considers all things in order to God, the supernatural ultimate end, that is, to God as God. For theology has one principal subject, God, about which dogmatics treats, and all other things, even human acts to be ordered, it considers in order to and in conformity with God, who is their supernatural principle, exemplar, and end. Whence morals is not a merely descriptive science, but normative, which judges human acts and directs them to the ultimate end; and yet it differs specifically from natural ethics, which directs them to the natural end.

6° according to revealed principles: it is the formal reason, or proximate motive and immediate medium by which are known the subject, which is the supernatural end, and the acts necessary for it: for revealed principles, admitted by the divine light of faith, are the medium for arriving at theological conclusions and for understanding them².

4. The relation between Moral Theology and other disciplines. — From the aforesaid definition it is understood:

A. How moral theology differs:

1. From Moral Philosophy: this considers human acts in ordination to the natural end and relies solely on principles of reason; that one, however, considers human operations as they are ordered to the supernatural end, and its proper means of knowledge is divine revelation; whence they differ in matter and end, as well as in formal motive. Nevertheless a) the supernatural end does not exclude but rather contains the natural end, just as the perfect contains the less perfect; likewise b) revelation does not destroy reason but rather perfects it; finally c) revelation also teaches many rational moral truths and expressly confirms them, and it has others connected to them. And therefore moral theology agrees with moral philosophy in many things and includes its matter. But it exceeds it, because it extends more widely also to revealed things, namely, to supernatural actions, virtues, and laws, and because it directs us by a higher light.

2. A fortiori a Knowledge of civil law, politics, sociology, economics, etc., which have a proximate temporal end, or even a particular one, not the ultimate end itself.

3. Dogmatics, as already stated, n° 2.

4. From Ascetical and Mystical Theology: moral theology, strictly speaking, deals more with acts necessary for the end insofar as they are under precept (according to the purgative way from sin); ascetical and mystical theology deal with acts insofar as they are of perfection and counsel, so that the end may be attained better and more fully: for they teach the ways of perfection, either for making progress in virtue and acquiring perfection (according to the illuminative way), or for exercising perfection and contemplative union with God (according to the unitive and mystical way).

If, however, it is viewed in a full and complete sense, moral theology includes ascetical and mystical theology, which rest upon the same principles. But, just as dogmatic and moral theology are commonly treated separately, although they are two parts of one and the same theological science, so nothing prevents those things which pertain more to precept, and those which pertain to perfection and counsel, from being explained specifically and distinctly, as is usually done—yet still as integral parts of one practical science ordered to the ultimate supernatural end.

5. A The Science of Canon Law and Liturgy, which studies the scientific knowledge of laws, i.e., their origin, interpretation, and mutual relation both to one another and to their own proper end: for they are concerned immediately with the laws by which the external order of the Church or public worship is determined, and consequently certain acts of the faithful are directed, but proximately to the order and governance of Christian society, not to the ultimate end. Whence they look directly to the social order and the external forum; but moral theology immediately is concerned with acts, and only consequently with laws, even ecclesiastical ones, but it takes these laws in relation to the ultimate end and treats of their value in the forum of conscience. And thus considered, positive laws already pertain to moral science, of which they are an integral part.

6. A Pastoral: this is properly not a science, but a practical method and art, by which the pastor of souls, according to the principles of moral and ascetical theology, leads the souls entrusted to him to salvation and perfection.

B. It surpasses other practical sciences 1) in end and necessity: for it does not, like them, tend toward a further end, but is concerned with the ultimate end itself; 2) in extension: for it reaches all operations in order to the ultimate end; 3) in certainty: it rests on the divine light itself. Hence it is the supreme practical science, and therefore it is a) the norm of others, by which they must be regulated, insofar as with respect to their own proper end and with respect to the choice and use of means they ought to be morally upright, conformable to the ultimate end; likewise b) the mistress, because the others serve it insofar as it uses them as aids, disposing of them toward its own end.

C. That it is true science of happiness, since it concerns the ultimate end itself.

D. As for the difference from Ethics, which hypothetically supposes and imagines man as he could have been but never was nor will be, namely, in the natural state, Moral Theology considers man as he really is. And therefore it alone is absolutely practical moral science³.

E. That it is inferior to Dogmatics: 1) for it deals with human acts, which are a certain secondary matter, whereas Dogmatics deals with God, who is the principal and proper subject of theology; whence 2) Dogmatics is the foundation of the moral part; indeed 3) it is the end, since the moral part is ordered to perfect speculative theology in heaven, where, namely, movement toward God ceases, and there is already perfect rest in God.

5. Division of Moral Theology. — Moral theology is divided into a twofold part:

a) The general part explains the general and common notions and principles, on which as a foundation one must rely in solving various moral questions. Whence it treats

1° On the ultimate end of man, toward which and according to which all human acts are to be ordered: for although it is last in execution, it is nevertheless first in intention, whose knowledge ought to be presupposed as the source, root, and hinge of all the rest, because nothing is willed unless first known; whence it holds itself as a principle in morals and in things to be done, since we are moved by the end toward the means, and our acts have their impulse from it, and so from the end all things depend and are governed;

2° concerning human acts or voluntary acts, which are to be ordered toward an end;

Thirdly, concerning their rules, to which they must conform, proximate and remote, namely, concerning conscience and concerning law;

4° conversely, concerning acts that are at variance with conscience and law, or concerning sins;

5° on the principles of human acts, or on habits, good and bad, virtues and vices. — Concerning all of which it treats not in particular but in general. b) The special part treats specifically of individual good and bad acts, of individual kinds of conscience, of individual virtues and vices, of individual precepts pertaining to all these.

6. Method. — In moral theology, they use a threefold method: a) positive, when they more draw proofs from the documents of revelation and set forth canons; b) scholastic, when they more clarify the principles by reason, establish conclusions, and set everything forth systematically and in an orderly manner; c) casuistic, when they especially apply the principles to practical cases. But it is better to use the threefold method at once, so that we do not neglect the documents of revelation, especially insist on well-founded reasons and systematic presentation, and for the sake of clarity also apply the principles to certain cases.

7. The sources of Moral Theology are the same as those for dogmatic theology, which are customarily expounded in fundamental theology concerning the theological loci. For theology leans upon revelation, as upon its proper and principal source, which we know from the Council of Trent, session 4, to be « the source of all and saving truth and of moral discipline » and to be « contained in written books, and in unwritten traditions » ; — and as upon a subordinate source it leans upon reason, which deduces conclusions from these.

A. Sources properly theological contain or witness to revelation; they are:

1° Sacred Scripture. For « all scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work » II Tim. III, 16-17. For Scripture, as Leo XIII says (encycl. Providentissimus), provides « precepts full of holiness, exhortations seasoned with sweetness and force, examples remarkable in every kind of virtue; there is added a most weighty promise of rewards for eternity in the name and words of God Himself, and a denunciation of punishments ».

It relates: 1. The fundamental notions and principles of morality in the perfect clarity of light. 2. Moral truths, not systematically as in a manual, but as the doctrine of God or of His messengers, or as a practical norm for some or for all, or in the form of prayers, wisdom oracles, promises, punishments, or of praise and approval of persons. 3. Examples also of moral life, and certain cases practically resolved. Let it be noted, however, a) that the doctrine of the Old Law is more imperfect than that of the New Testament (Ezek. XX, 25; Gal. IV, 9); b) that the ceremonial and judicial precepts of the law, unlike the moral precepts, were to be abolished in the New Law; c) that the examples of the saints are not always commended by Scripture, nor are they always to be approved, since error in their moral life was possible;

d) in the N. T. revealed moral doctrine could grow up to the death of the apostles; thereafter there was only a fuller recognition, explanation, and fertilization of the same doctrine, namely by adapting it to different peoples, cultures, questions, and necessities of the times; e) from precepts strictly so called, mere counsels must be carefully distinguished; f) some things are also reported which are only particular and temporary statutes, as e.g. Acts XV, 28.

2° Divine tradition which, if doctrinal, directly; if merely practical or disciplinary, makes moral science known only indirectly insofar as therefrom a doctrine could be deduced.

It completes the Scriptures: moral norms, especially regarding the worship of God, were from the beginning handed down by word of mouth rather than in writing. It also confers firmness and interpretation upon the written word, because it certifies its divine authority and correct meaning.

3° The decisions of the Pontiffs, namely, infallible definitions concerning revealed or natural practical truths, — condemned theses, — practical laws established for the universal Church, which, even if they might not seem opportune to someone, cannot be evil or perverse, since that would be repugnant to the holiness of the Church; — finally, the decisions of the Roman Congregations, which not only establish ecclesiastical laws, but also authentically interpret the natural or divine law.

4° The decrees of ecumenical councils, whether they are infallible doctrinal definitions, or whether they are laws or disciplinary decrees; likewise, the decrees of particular councils, especially if they have been universally received.

5° The sense of the Church and its practice, which become known either from the exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the Popes and bishops in universal preaching or catechetical doctrine, or from the very liturgy, piety, morals, customs, and life of the Church.

6° The unanimous consensus of the Fathers in moral questions, if it testifies to the very doctrine of the Church, or if the Church confirms some doctrine of theirs in particular; otherwise, to depart from their unanimous opinion would be nothing short of rash.

7° The unanimous consensus of the theologians, in the same manner and under the same conditions as we have said regarding the Fathers.

Let it be noted: a) that the general approval of some Doctor, whereby his doctrine is proclaimed as conforming to the doctrine of the Church, does not therefore hold for individual points entirely; b) that special approval was given to St. Thomas because of his authority in all theology, even moral, far surpassing all others, whereby he merited to be proclaimed the heavenly patron of all Catholic schools, and the common Doctor of the whole Church, so that one must always adhere to his principles and in all things have recourse to his principles; c) that in the practical order, the doctrine of St. Alphonsus was also specially approved, inasmuch as those who generally follow all his opinions are not to be disturbed; yet those are not to be reproved who follow opinions handed down by other approved authors (S. Poen. 5 July 1831).

B. Subsidiary sources,* or those common to all rational and human sciences, are:*

1° Human reason which draws conclusions from revealed practical principles, or demonstrates and illustrates natural moral truths, and from both makes applications.

Revelation itself teaches that reason is the proximate norm of morality, which is indicated by nature as such; hence moral theology must also consider the principles and conclusions of reason. Moreover, that a moral discipline may govern life, it must not only hand down general norms, but also descend to the concrete practice of private life; which without rational knowledge and its use is utterly impossible.

2° The knowledge of philosophers, which serves as handmaid to theology, especially of those who cultivate ethics, and other related human disciplines, which bring assistance, such as the juridical, social, and economic sciences.

3° History, especially of the Church and of theology, of human moral science, of canon and civil law.

8. The History of Moral Theology is divided into three epochs, according to the history of human culture.⁴. Moral doctrine indeed remained the same in its general principles and rules, but its understanding and presentation were diverse; systematic science itself did not exist from the beginning, but was slowly elaborated over the course of centuries.

INTRODUCTION

I. The origin and beginnings of moral theology are in the age of antiquity and of the Fathers. The first testimonies are for the most part edificatory, pronounced in a popular style, and given on occasion in the manner of instruction, exhortation, or application; only exceptionally, against false systems, do scientific treatises on a moral matter sometimes appear.

1. Before the Council of Nicaea, during the persecution, Christian ethics, in conformity with the ascetical method, has a practical, parenetic character. Thus the Didache, or the Doctrine of the Apostles, setting forth the two ways (of life and of death) and various admonitions, is a brief compendium of moral teaching; and the Shepherd of Hermas hands down twelve commandments with a view to penitential practice. To these were later added those parts of the Apostolic Constitutions which rise up to this time.

The scientific exposition began in the Alexandrian catechetical school. Clement of Alexandria in the Paedagogus hands down a nearly complete ethics; and in the book Stromata he philosophically examines fundamental moral rules, and defends them against pagan science and laxism. In the West arises Tertullian, whose moral writings present an aspect at once philosophical, juridical, and religious. Both are endowed with a rather severe spirit; the writings of St. Cyprian are more measured and clearer.

2. The greater Fathers, after Nicaea, in sermons, commentaries on Scripture, letters, and special moral works, left abundant material for future science. Specifically on virginity many wrote: Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Methodius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine; on the duties of clerics Ambrose; on the priesthood Chrysostom. The writings of St. Augustine were of the greatest importance for moral matters, such as: On the morals of the Catholic Church; On the work of monks; On the good of marriage; Against lying. The philosophical character of ethics, the intimate nature of supernatural ethics, the psychology and ascetical realization of the perfect moral life he profoundly set forth, while at the same time handing on many things useful in the mystical and casuistical sphere.

After him, the most renowned is St. Gregory the Great, whose writing On Pastoral Care was, as it were, the first casuistic theology, and who through his letters and his most famous work, Book of Morals, constituted the primary source of ascetical science for the medieval period; just as Dionysius the mystic furnished the primary source of mystical science. His immense influences exercised themselves upon the following age.

II. The actual construction of the edifice of Christian moral science was accomplished by the Scholastics, in the medieval period. At the outset, writers were wholly occupied with collecting the sayings of the Fathers; various books of sentences appeared after the pattern of Isidore of Seville and John of Damascus. The unification of moral and juridical material was promoted by the penitential precepts of the Church, which were collected and ordered in the penitential books both in the East and in the West.

From the 11th century onward, a more penetrating intellectual method came to be applied throughout theology, which reached its peak in the 13th century, no less for the moral part than for the dogmatic. Thus the scientific exposition of moral doctrine was separated from the mystical and from casuistry.

The Book of Sentences of Peter Lombard is a text-book, upon which a commentary was written even by the greatest teachers, such as St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Scotus, Giles of Rome, and others after them. Theological Summas were elaborated by William of Auxerre, by Alexander of Hales, by St. Thomas, by Albert the Great two, by Henry of Ghent. In all these works they unite the moral and the dogmatic, and to the positive testimonies of Scripture and the Fathers they join rational and speculative foundations, upon which they chiefly insist according to the dialectical form and the scholastic method. To the primitive tendency, which was rather Platonic-Augustinian, there succeeded the Aristotelian-Thomistic, which uses a sounder and deeper philosophy to illustrate revealed doctrine. The most perfect work, not yet surpassed, is the Theological Summa of Aquinas, which stands out among all for the synthetic unity and at once the breadth of doctrine, the psychological acuteness of genius, the metaphysical depth, and the measured judgment concerning even practical and juridical matters.

The teaching of St. Thomas was assailed by the Scotist school, from which Nominalism arose, which brought Scholasticism near to ruin.

They also published special writings on virtues and vices, e.g., William Peraldus and Hervaeus Natalis; various moral treatises were written by William of Auvergne and John Gerson. At the end of the Middle Ages stands St. Antoninus, in his Summa theologica displaying scholastic art along with casuistry.

Ascetica et mystica generally remain under the influence of Augustine, Dionysius, and Gregory the Great; they were especially cultivated by Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, St. Bernard, Eckhart, Tauler, Suso, Ruusbroeck, Dionysius the Carthusian, and Thomas à Kempis.

The collections of canons and penitential precepts provided the occasion for exercising the casuistic-juridical method. Many summae of moral cases and penitential summae came forth, in which a great part is pastoral or canonical. More celebrated is the summa of St. Raymond of Pennafort; after him are worthy of recall Astesanus, Angelus de Clavasio, St. Antoninus, Sylvester Prierias, Tabiena, Barth. Fumus.

III. From the time of the Council of Trent a new flowering arose theological: in Spain, at Salamanca, under the leadership of Fr. de Victoria, Melchior Cano, and Dominic Soto; in Italy, where Thomas de Vio Cajetan had already flourished earlier, who, second to none in commenting on St. Thomas, also published many practical writings.

From that time on, in the schools, they commented upon the Summa theologica of St. Thomas. Commentaries on it, among others, were written by: Seraphinus a Porrecta, Bannez along with B. de Medina, Sylvius, Arauxo, John of St. Thomas, the Salmanticenses, Gonet, Billuart, etc., all of whom belong to the Thomistic school; likewise, from the Society of Jesus: Toletus, Gr. de Valencia, Vasquez, Suarez, Tanner, Arriaga, etc.; also the Sorbonne doctors: Gammachaeus and Ysambertus. Others followed Scotus.

Larger moral monographs were published: On Laws and On Virtue and the State of Religion Suarez wrote; On Law and Justice Molina, Dom. Soto, Lessius, Lugo, also regarding questions of natural law, in which Fr. de Victoria had already preceded them.

Apologists and polemicists, such as Eck, the great Louvain theologians, Bellarmine, Becanus, and Bossuet, defend not only dogma but also Catholic morality.

Toward the end of the sixteenth century, moral discipline began to be handed down separately from dogmatic. Thus, e.g., Azor, Th. Sanchez, P. de Ledesma, Laymann, Castropalao, Bonacina, Candidus, Sayrus, Sporer, Amort — later Martinez de Prado, Reiffenstuel, Lacroix, the moral Salmanticenses, Roncaglia, Cuniliati, Concina, Patuzzi.

This was an occasion for less cultivating the principles and for following a casuistic method, so that moral works were filled with many cases and practical observations. Thus arose collections of cases, medullae, many directories for confessors, etc.; well known to all are Azpilcueta Navarrus, Busembaum, Elbel, Wigandt, etc.

Ascetica et mystica has shown itself in countless writings. The more celebrated are Lud. Blosius, Lud. Granatensis, St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa, St. Francis de Sales, and finally St. Alphonsus.

From the middle of the seventeenth century a great controversy raged between Rigorists and Laxists, Probabiliorists and Probabilists, over the formation of conscience and the use of probable opinions, until St. Alphonsus, led by a zeal for holy peace as well as by a weighed and practical genius, for many questions at least pointed out the middle way by which in practice we can generally walk safely.

Indeed, the unfortunate process of separating morality from dogmatics, with the predominant influence given to the casuistic method, and the sharp controversy among moralists, together with political upheavals, have brought theological morality to ruin.

In recent times, however, theological science has been restored, even in its moral part. It returns to positive and supernatural ethics; and, with the Popes from Leo XIII onward promoting it, also to the scholastic theology of St. Thomas. Many excellent manuals have been published, the catalog of which it seems quite idle to compile. Yet greater and truly scientific works on moral matters are still largely lacking. And if the return to scholastic theology has borne fruit in dogmatic matters, that this has not yet been sufficiently done for the moral part is evident to all eyes. Outside the Thomistic school, in which the Summa theologica is usually subjected to a continuous commentary, that harmful separation of dogmatic and moral, of speculative and practical, still persists, which harms the deeper and truly scientific study of practical doctrine.

Three duties now seem to press upon moralists: 1. that, with the scholastic method restored, they strive to carry out rational investigation more fully, and to look more deeply into the intrinsic reason of things; — 2. that they treat not only of sins, especially mortal ones, but also set forth the doctrine of the virtues, even in those matters which pertain to perfection or counsel; — 3. that they attend more to the new facts and present-day needs which have arisen from psychological, political, social, or economic circumstances, and pursue more precise solutions.

Bibliography. For the whole general part, the following may usefully be consulted:

1. St. Thomas, with the commentaries of Cajetan, Medina, John of St. Thomas, Sylvius, the Salmanticenses, and Billuart.

2. From the philosophers: Goudin, Roselli, Zigliara, Gredt, Philosophie Néo-Scolastique (of the Louvain school) in their manuals; among the special works: Meyer, Institutiones Iuris Naturalis; Cathrein, Philosophia Moralis; Beysens, Ethiek of Zedenleer; Lehu, Philosophia Moralis et Socialis; De Bie, Philosophia Moralis; Van Hoonacker, Moraalfilosofie; Sertillanges, La Philosophie Morale de S. Thomas d'Aquin; Wittmann, Ethik; E. Ianssens, Cours de Morale générale; Van Oorschot, Beginselen der christelijke Zedeleer.

3. From more recent theologians: Bouquillon, Fundamental Moral Theology; Raphaël a S. Ioseph, Fundamental Institutions of Moral Theology, and other general works known to all, such as Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, Noldin, and Vermeersch; Haine, Mechliniensis Theology, and Tanquery; Prümmer; Goepfert, Mausbach, and Schilling.

4. From historiographers: De la Barre, The Morality according to St. Thomas Aquinas; Dom Lottin, The Elements of the Morality of Acts in St. Thomas Aquinas; Wittmann, The Ethics of St. Thomas Aquinas.

5. From the sacred orators: Janvier, Conferences of N. D.