Summa Theologiae Moralis, vol. I: De Principiis
Benedictus Henricus Merkelbach (1871–1942)
Summa Theologiae Moralis ad mentem D. Thomae et ad normam iuris novi
First published 1935
Volume I (De principiis) of Benedictus Henricus Merkelbach's Summa theologiae moralis sets out the foundations of Catholic moral theology within a Thomistic framework. It treats human acts, conscience, law, sin, and merit in relation to the canon law of its period. The present edition follows the Paris text published by Desclée de Brouwer in 1935 and includes the Latin text with an English translation. It comprises the first volume of the three-volume Summa.
Prologus
Introductio I: Theologia Moralis Generalis: Introductio
Tractatus I: Tractatus de ultimo actu humanorum fine seu de beatitudine
Introductio
Quaestio I: DE FINE ULTIMO IN COMMUNI
Quaestio II: DE BEATITUDINE OBIECTIVA
Quaestio III: DE BEATITUDINE FORMALI
Quaestio IV: DE QUALITATIBUS BEATITUDINIS
Quaestio V: DE MODO OBTINENDI BEATITUDINEM
Tractatus II: De actibus humanis in se
Introductio
Pars I: De actibus humanis secundum esse materiale et psychologicum
§ I: De conditione actuum humanorum
Caput I: De elemento subiectivo actus humani
Quaestio I: De voluntario
Articulus I: De voluntario in se
Articulus II: De voluntario tum positivo et directo, tum negativo et indirecto
Articulus III: De voluntario in se et in causa
Quaestio II: De impedimentis voluntarii seu de involuntario
Articulus I: De violentia
Articulus II: De metu
Articulus III: De concupiscentia
Articulus IV: De ignorantia
Quaestio III: De libero
Quaestio IV: De impedimentis liberi
Articulus I: De passionibus
Articulus II: De habitu et consuetudine
Articulus III: De impedimentis liberi remotioribus
Caput II: De elemento obiectivo actus humani
Quaestio I: De elemento essentiali seu obiecto
Quaestio II: De elemento accidentali seu de circumstantiis
§ II: De distinctione actuum humanorum
Quaestio I: De actibus elicitis
Quaestio II: De actibus imperatis
Pars II: De actibus humanis secundum esse morale
§ I: De moralitate actus humani in genere
Quaestio I: De essentia et speciebus moralitatis
Quaestio II: De fundamentis moralitatis
Articulus I: De intrinseca differentia boni inter et mali
Articulus II: De norma moralitatis
Articulus III: De fundamento obiectivo moralitatis
Articulus IV: De falsis systematibus circa fundamenta moralitatis
Articulus V: De facultate apprehensiva moralitatis
Quaestio III: De principiis seu fontibus moralitatis
Quaestio IV: De distinctione specifica inter actum bonum et malum
Quaestio V: De distinctione specifica inter varios actus bonos vel malos
Articulus I: De obiecto
Articulus II: De circumstantiis
Articulus III: De fine
§ II: De moralitate actuum humanorum in specie
Quaestio I: De bonitate et malitia actus interioris
Quaestio II: De bonitate et malitia actus exterioris
Quaestio III: De bonitate et malitia effectus externi
Quaestio IV: De bonitate et malitia passionum
Quaestio V: De bonitate et malitia circumstantiarum
Pars III: De actibus humanis secundum esse supernaturale et meritorium
Quaestio I: De merito praesertim supernaturali
Quaestio II: De conditionibus meriti supernaturalis
Tractatus III: De conscientia in generali
Introductio
Quaestio I: De conscientia morali secundum se in esse psychologico
Quaestio II: De conscientia prout est regula actuum moralium
Articulus I: De rectitudine conscientiae
Articulus II: De conscientiae certitudine
Quaestio III: De conscientia christiana prout est regula actuum supernaturalium
Tractatus IV: De legibus in genere
Introductio
§ I: De lege secundum esse psychologicum
Pars I: De lege in genere
Quaestio I: De ipsa lege in se
Articulus I: De essentia legis
Articulus II: De promulgatione legis
Quaestio II: De distinctione legum
Quaestio III: De effectibus legis
Articulus I: De vi directivâ seu obligatione legis
Articulus II: De vi coactivâ seu sanctione legis
Pars II: De lege aeterna quae est fundamentum omnis legis
Quaestio I: De essentia legis aeternae
Quaestio II: De potestate legis aeternae
Quaestio III: De mutabilitate legis aeternae
§ I: De legibus quae regunt actus morales
Pars III: De lege naturali
Quaestio I: De essentia legis naturalis
Quaestio II: De potestate legis naturalis
Articulus I: De vi directivâ seu obligatione legis naturalis
Articulus II: De vi coactivâ seu sanctione legis naturalis
Quaestio III: De mutabilitate legis naturalis
Quaestio IV: De Lege Humana in Se
Articulus I: De Auctore legis civilis
Articulus II: De Qualitate legis humanae
Articulus III: De Efformatione legis humanae
Articulus IV: De Divisione legis humanae
Quaestio V: De Potestate Legis Humanae
Articulus I: De Materia legis humanae
Articulus II: De Obligatione legis humanae
Articulus III: De Subditis legis civilis
Articulus IV: De Impletione et Interpretatione legis humanae
Quaestio VI: De Mutabilitate Legis Humanae
Caput I: De Lege Vetere
Quaestio I: De Lege Vetere Secundum Se
Quaestio II: De Potestate Legis Veteris
Quaestio III: De Mutabilitate Veteris Legis
Caput II: De Lege Nova
Quaestio I: De Essentia Legis Novae
Quaestio II: De Potestate Legis Novae
Quaestio III: De Lege Ecclesiastica Secundum Se
Articulus I: De Auctore legis ecclesiasticae
Articulus II: De Materia et Qualitate legis ecclesiasticae
Articulus III: De Efformatione legis ecclesiasticae
Articulus IV: De Divisione legis ecclesiasticae
Quaestio IV: De Potestate seu Obligatione Legis Ecclesiasticae
Articulus I: De Quantitate seu Gravitate Obligationis
Articulus II: De Qualitate et Extensione Obligationis legis praeceptivae
Articulus III: De Qualitate et Extensione Obligationis legis poenalis
Articulus IV: De Qualitate et Extensione Obligationis legis irritantis
Articulus V: De Subditis legis ecclesiasticae
Articulus VI: De Impletione legis ecclesiasticae
Articulus VII: De Interpretatione legis ecclesiasticae
Quaestio V: De Mutabilitate Legis Ecclesiasticae
Articulus I: De Ignorantia
Articulus II: De Impotentia
Articulus III: De Dispensatione
Articulus IV: De privilegio
Articulus V: De cessatione finis
Articulus VI: De abrogatione et derogatione
Articulus VII: De consuetudine
Tractatus V: De peccatis in genere
Introductio I: De Peccatis in Genere
Quaestio I: De essentia peccati
Articulus I: De notione et conditionibus peccati
Articulus II: De peccato omissionis negative voluntario
Articulus III: De peccato commissionis externo, indirecte aut in causa voluntario
Articulus IV: De elementis constitutivis peccati
Articulus V: De definitione peccati
Quaestio II: De distinctione peccatorum
Articulus I: De distinctione specifica
Articulus II: De distinctione numerica
Quaestio III: De comparatione et gravitate peccatorum
Quaestio IV: De subiecto peccati
Articulus I: De motibus seu peccatis sensualitatis
Articulus II: De consensu in delectationem seu de delectatione morosa
Articulus III: De consensu in actum seu de desiderio et gaudio
Pars I: De causis peccatorum
Quaestio I: De causis peccati interioribus
Articulus I: De ignorantia causa peccati ex parte rationis
Articulus II: De passione causa peccati ex parte appetitus sensitivi
Articulus III: De malitia causa peccati ex parte voluntatis
Quaestio II: De causis peccatorum exterioribus
Articulus I: De deo permittente
Articulus II: De diabolo tentante
Articulus III: De homine cooperante
Quaestio III: De peccato quod est causa alterius peccati
Articulus I: De modo quo unum peccatum alterum causat
Articulus II: De superbia et inani gloria
Articulus III: De avaritia
Articulus IV: De luxuria et gula
Articulus V: De invidia et ira
Articulus VI: De acedia
Pars II: De effectibus peccatorum
Quaestio I: De diminutione boni naturae
Quaestio II: De reatu culpae seu macula peccati
Quaestio III: De reatu poenae
Quaestio IV: De peccato mortali et veniali
Articulus I: De differentia inter peccatum mortale et veniale
Articulus II: De gravitate peccati mortalis
Articulus III: De conditionibus ad peccatum mortale requisitis
Articulus IV: De divisione peccati mortalis et venialis
Articulus V: De conversione peccati mortalis et venialis
Articulus VI: De peccato veniali secundum se
Tractatus VI: De habitibus et virtutibus in genere
Introductio I: De Habitibus et Virtutibus in Genere
Pars I: De habitibus in genere secundum esse psychologicum
Quaestio I: De essentia habitus
Quaestio II: De subiecto habitus
Quaestio III: De causa habituum
Quaestio IV: De distinctione habituum
Pars II: De habitibus secundum esse morale seu de virtutibus acquisitis
Quaestio I: De essentia virtutis
Quaestio II: De subiecto virtutis
Quaestio III: De distinctione virtutum
Articulus I: De virtutibus intellectualibus
Articulus II: De virtutibus moralibus
Articulus III: De virtutibus cardinalibus
Quaestio IV: De proprietatibus virtutum
Articulus I: De medio virtutis
Articulus II: De connexione virtutum
Articulus III: De aequalitate virtutum
Articulus IV: De duratione virtutum
Pars III: De habitibus secundum esse supernaturale seu de virtutibus infusis
Quaestio I: De existentia et essentia infusorum habituum ac virtutum
Quaestio II: De distinctione infusorum habituum et virtutum
Articulus I: De virtutibus theologicis
Articulus II: De virtutibus moralibus
Articulus III: De donis spiritus sancti
Quaestio III: De causa infusorum habituum et virtutum
Quaestio IV: De proprietatibus infusorum habituum et virtutum
Articulus I: De medio virtutum infusarum
Articulus II: De connexione habituum infusorum
Articulus III: De aequalitate habituum infusorum
Articulus IV: De duratione habituum infusorum
Tractatus VII: De fide divina
Introductio
Quaestio I: De Obiecto Formali Fidei
Quaestio II: De Obiecto Materiali Fidei
Articulus I: De obiecto materiali in se
Articulus II: De conditionibus ad obiectum materiale requisitis
Articulus III: De evolutione obiecti materialis
Articulus IV: De ecclesia proponente obiectum fidei
S. Th. II-II, q. 1, a. 8, 9, 10.
685. Principle I. The Church infallibly proposes the object of faith. — So that those things which are truly and really in revealed doctrine may be made known to all, Christ instituted the Church, which might be recognized by all as its own, and which would be the authentic organ for infallibly proposing all things which are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith as divinely revealed (Vat. Counc., sess. 3, c. 3 ; Codex Iuris, can. 1322, § 1).
Moreover, there is a twofold manner in which the Church uses in infallibly proposing or defining the truths of faith : one extraordinary and solemn, which she employs in the definitions of Ecumenical Councils and of the Holy Pontiff speaking ex cathedra ; the other ordinary and daily, which the Church spread throughout the world employs, inasmuch as by ordinary and universal magisterium, i.e. by the daily and universal preaching and doctrine of the Holy Pontiff and the bishops, she proposes certain truths as revealed and defines them to be believed (cf. treatise on the Church ; Vat. Counc., l.c. ; Codex Iuris, can. 1323).
686. Principle II. The Church is infallible not only in defining the object of faith itself but also connected truths and facts, and proposes sacred doctrine in various degrees. — The Church is infallible not only in defining revealed doctrine itself ; to protect it perfectly she also infallibly proposes truths (and facts) necessarily connected with it insofar as they are connected ; although she does not command these to be believed with divine faith ; — moreover she does not always define revealed truths themselves from the very beginning as revealed and to be believed, but sometimes as certain and true, or only as safe and to be held. Hence sacred doctrine can be proposed in various degrees : 1° Defined and to be believed by faith, or a dogma of faith, when the Church infallibly and explicitly proposes it as revealed and to be believed ; to this is directly opposed a heretical proposition.
2° Certain, when the Church only proposes or defines it as certain ; to this is directly opposed an erroneous doctrine. Doctrina certa
a) either certain by faith, if it be revealed ; and to this is opposed error in faith or in revealed doctrine ;
b) or theologically certain, if it is not revealed but is deduced from something revealed ; and to this is opposed theological error.
3° Common and safe, if it is admitted by all and held as the only one conformed to revelation, but not proposed as certain ; to this is directly opposed a temerarious proposition ;
4° Probable or more probable, when it is likely, i.e. there is a grave or more grave reason for judging that it is revealed or deduced from revelation ; and to this is opposed a less probable or improbable opinion.
By some a certain doctrine is sometimes called proximate to faith (to which is opposed proximate to heresy), when namely it is already so commonly and certainly proposed as revealed that it is proximately definable as a dogma of faith, e.g. the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the B.V. in the state immediately before the definition ; — or even, according to others, when it has been declared by the Church at least as certain, but it is doubtful whether it is of defined faith.
687. Principle III. The Church is also infallible in condemning and rejecting propositions opposed to the doctrine of faith. — The Church teaches not only positively, by proposing or commending doctrine on account of its conformity with the doctrine of faith ; but also negatively, by condemning or censuring it on account of some opposition to the doctrine of faith. Propositions, moreover, are opposed to the doctrine of faith in various ways :
A. Some are opposed directly because of the very doctrine asserted :
1° A heretical proposition, which is directly opposed (contrarily or contradictorily) to defined revealed doctrine, e.g. Christ is not the Son of God, the soul is not immortal, etc. ;
2° Erroneous, which is directly and immediately opposed to certain doctrine, whether it is revealed, proposed by the Church not as revealed but as certain, and then it is error in faith, e.g. Christ does not have grace ; or it is deduced from what is revealed, and then it is theological error, e.g. Christ is not impeccable ; the Son does not proceed from the Father by way of intellect.
3° Temerarious, not only negatively because it affirms without any reason and authority, but positively and contrarily because it so affirms directly against the common and safe doctrine which is admitted by all as the only one conformed to revelation (though not by necessary connection), e.g. the Church is not infallible in the canonization of saints ; God does not wish to save all children.
4° Improbable which has no grave reasons in its favor, and is directly opposed to probable doctrine, e.g. S. Joseph was immaculately conceived.
To these may be added a proposition proximate to heresy, in the way that was explained in the preceding n°.
B. Others are opposed to the very expression of Catholic doctrine, because of the form of the assertion :
1° Smacking of heresy is a proposition, or one suspected of heresy, which can have a true sense, but nevertheless from the circumstances gives occasion for thinking or suspecting some heresy in the mind of the one enunciating it, e.g. faith justifies ; it is ridiculous to carry the Eucharist in procession ; Christ is less than the Father ; Christ is the most perfect man.
2° Smacking of error or suspected of error : e.g. the Congr. of the Index is harmful.
3° Sounding badly, which has a true sense, but unfitting words, inasmuch as it expresses doctrine against the common and ordinary manner of speaking, e.g. in God there are three relative essences ; the B.V. is a divine mother.
4° Offensive to pious ears, which although it is neither false nor sounding badly, nevertheless says something unbecoming and unworthy, which diminishes the piety and reverence of the faithful, e.g. a proposition explaining the shameful members of Christ, or speaking unbecomingly of the delivery of the B.V., or this : S. Mary Magdalene, harlot, pray for us.
688. Principle IV. The Church uses the Creed as a practical way of proposing faith by ordinary and universal magisterium. — This Greek word signifies both a collection, or the assembling of many, and also a token, a distinctive sign, a watchword. Rightly, therefore, the brief collection or sum of the articles of faith, which is proposed to all to be believed as the sign of their profession, was so called. Now the creeds were composed for three purposes : chiefly a) that by the profession of the creed the faithful might be distinguished from infidels and heretics ; likewise b) for the easier instruction of the faithful ; and c) that uniformity in faith might be preserved throughout the whole world.
There are three creeds of great renown in the Church, of which one explains another, and explicitly, more distinctly, and more fully, expounds the same doctrine according to the necessities of different times, and against various errors, so that the faithful might be fortified against them :
The first, of the Apostles1], which is divided by some into 14, by others into 12, articles, the latter division having become common among the faithful, and having been preserved in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
The second, of the Fathers, which was drawn up in the First Council of Nicaea, but was enlarged in the First Council of Constantinople and in the course of time.
The third is called that of S. Athanasius, because they once erroneously thought it had been drawn up by him2]; it is not a creed except insofar as it has been received by the authority of the Roman Pontiff.