9. On the Object of Morality

1. Marianna is accustomed to tell slight lies to prevent quarrels, oaths, and blasphemies of her husband, which have the best success in constantly preserving the peace of the family.

2. Monica confesses that she has sometimes spoken badly about her neighbors, because, she says, they are truly evil and do evil to all.

3. Aurelius confesses that he, pressed by grave necessity, stole a grave sum of money. But when the confessor declares to him the obligation of restoring, Aurelius replies: it is impossible, because I have nothing. Indeed, since that necessity perseveres, I still ought to continue in the same theft, and afterwards I shall restore everything.

Q. 1. Do human acts derive morality from the object? 2. What must be thought concerning the various cases?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 84. To the second: Marianna, speaking in itself, sinned; but only venially, and this as many times as she lied. The reason is that a lie, as intrinsically evil, cannot be rendered honorable by any extrinsic end, however good, unless perhaps it is done from an invincibly erroneous conscience. For evils are not to be done that goods may come, Rom. 3:8. Therefore Marianna must be advised to abstain altogether from lies; and, when grave necessity urges, rather to use some tergiversation and equivocation, since she is not held always to manifest the truth openly. Elbel 74; G. 27. Cf. I. M. 86, 1523 seqq.

Monica, speaking in itself, must furthermore declare whether she spoke badly about her neighbors in a light matter or in a grave matter; and if in a grave matter, how many times this happened, and whether any other damage happened besides damage to reputation. Speaking in itself; for it is otherwise if from the confession itself it is understood that it is a matter of a thing known and public, whence no damaging of reputation has come; just as already seems sufficiently to be drawn from her words, because they are truly evil and do evil to all. - Elbel 11, 102; G. 31.

Aurelius indeed sinned gravely; for grave necessity does not excuse from theft. Therefore neither can he continue in theft. And if in the present he cannot restore, how will he be able to restore an always greater quantity in the future? Whence neither does his excuse avail. But he sufficiently explained his sin; for the various degrees of grave theft do not change the species. L. 1, 6, n. 47; G. 31; I. M. 1313.