First Commentary: On the Nature of Moral Theology

1. Every treatment and question, in order that it may be rightly instituted, unfolded, and at length resolved, begins from the definition of the thing to be treated and investigated, from its division, and from the way to be followed in it, which is to be established beforehand. Concerning these matters, therefore, we shall speak briefly at the beginning of these Commentaries on the whole of Moral Theology.

2. Theology, in general, is defined: the science concerning God, acquired from divine revelation. Wherefore its material object is: all divine things demonstrable from divine revelation; its formal object is: truth demonstrable from the same divine revelation; its subject: God; its end: both, chiefly, the contemplation of divine truth, and also the sanctification of human life.

3. For indeed Theology, simply so called, is taken antonomastically for sacred or supernatural Theology; and here it is defined by a nominal and real definition. God can be known in two ways: first, from creatures, according to a certain imperfect likeness; second, from Himself, according to His proper nature and proper mode of being. The first knowledge of God is natural, for it is had by natural reason; and it constitutes natural Theology. The other knowledge of God is natural to God alone; exceeding every created intellect, it is wholly supernatural to it. We are made participants in this knowledge through the virtue of faith divinely infused into us. For through it we adhere to God, the First Truth, as to the principle of knowing, believing those things to be true which are revealed by God, because of the authority of God Himself revealing. Hence another science concerning God arises, resting upon this divine and supernatural revelation, which is called Sacred Doctrine, Sacred Theology, and supernatural Theology; and consequently it is rightly defined: the science concerning God, acquired from divine revelation.

4. The material object, or the object which, is that which is proximately and directly attained by some faculty, as whiteness with respect to sight. But Theology proximately and directly attains all divine things demonstrable from divine revelation. These, therefore, are its material object.

5. Hence: 1. The material object of Theology is both those things which we gather by reasoning from faith, and those things which we hold by faith itself; for Theology also demonstrates these, although from the principles or sources of faith itself. - 2. Faith is distinguished from Theology, and precedes it. For faith supplies the first principles from which, by reasoning and demonstration, Theology proceeds to know other things. - 3. The same truth can be the object of faith and of Theology: of faith, insofar as it is immediately believed by divine revelation; of Theology, insofar as it is demonstrated from divine revelation. And in this case, although, speaking per se, faith in the thing which is demonstrated does not precede, nevertheless faith in the thing from which it is demonstrated does precede, that is, in divine revelation and authority, which are known and certain by faith itself. For we believe by divine faith not only the things which have been said by God, but the very word of God itself.

6. The formal object, or the object on account of which, or by which, is that aspect by which the material object is attained by a faculty, as color with respect to sight. But Theology investigates truth from divine revelation, and, as a science, assents to truth on account of this demonstration. Therefore its formal object is truth demonstrable from the word of God.

7. The subject, or object concerning which, of some faculty is that thing to which the material object and the formal object, considered concretely, pertain; as the body, of which there is whiteness and color, is the subject of sight. But all those things which Theology attains as demonstrable from divine revelation are either God Himself, or indeed other things from God, but insofar as they have order to God as to their principle and end, and insofar as they are referred to the greatest knowledge of God. Therefore God is the subject of this science.

8. Hence it is clear: 1. that in the definition of Theology handed down, its subject and formal object are set forth. - 2. Although Theology treats of many and various things, which therefore in some way are its subject, nevertheless properly God alone is its subject; for under the aspect of God it treats those many and various things, and the treatment of each thing is ordered to the manifestation of God. And thus Theology treats of the world, not as Physics or Astronomy does, which consider its various qualities of extension, motion, etc., but by manifesting that it was created by the Omnipotence of God, is governed by Wisdom, and that all things in it cooperate unto good for those who love God. - 3. A twofold formal aspect can be distinguished: of the object and of the subject. The formal aspect of the object, or by which or under which, is the aspect by which something can be demonstrated by Theology; and this is divine revelation. The formal aspect of the subject, or which, is the reason why something is considered by Theology; and this is divinity. - 4. Theology is one science both in object and especially in subject. In object, because it demonstrates all things by divine revelation. In subject, because it is God, who is one not by genus or species, but by singularity.

9. The end of Theology, that is, the end of the work, or that toward which its intrinsic nature tends, is God, the supreme truth to be contemplated; for it discusses the nature and properties of God, the Trinity of the divine Persons, and other mysteries which per se and directly are not ordered to directing human operations. From this side Theology is speculative. Yet the end also of the work, toward which it tends by its nature, is God, the supreme Good to be sought, to whom every human action is to be directed; for it treats of God as the last end, of laws, of grace, of virtues, and of other things which per se and directly are referred to the ordering of the whole of human life. From this side Theology is practical. Yet it is chiefly speculative, because those very things which are proximately referred to the ordering of human life ultimately regard the more perfect knowledge of God. Moreover, each thing is to be judged more from its ultimate end than from its proximate end, since the ultimate end is the final measure of all things which are in it.

10. Theology is the most excellent of all human sciences, both by the dignity of its matter, by the certainty of its conclusions, and by the end to which it orders human life. - By the dignity of its matter. - 1 Cor. 2:6, 10. We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which is hidden, which none of the princes of this world knew... but God has revealed it to us by the Holy Spirit. Therefore divine faith contains very many most sublime truths, hidden and altogether remote from human reason. But Theology rests upon faith; every other human discipline rests upon natural reason. - By the certainty of its conclusions. - Other sciences have certainty from the natural light of human reason, which can err. For although the principles of human reason are most certain, nevertheless they are abstract. Wherefore, in order that we may arrive at knowledge of other things, we need the experience of the senses, and many things are obtained by the aid of human faith. But spiritual things do not fall under the senses, and are apprehended after the manner of sensible things. Hence there is danger, and manifold danger, of erring. But Theology has certainty from the light of divine science, which cannot be deceived. For the principles from which it proceeds are the very word of God; and it draws very many conclusions from the same word of God; and while it treats others by reasoning, it is directed by the infallible magisterium of the Church. - By its end. - Any natural science can dispose man only to natural happiness. But Theology, which is the science of faith, disposes and orders man to that supernatural happiness which is placed in eternal life.

11. Theology, as we have already indicated, is divided into theoretical or dogmatic, and practical or moral. For if the matter which Theology treats is considered, it either proximately rests in the contemplation of divine things, or in directing and ordering operation and human life. If the first, Theoretical or Dogmatic Theology is had; if the second, Practical or Moral Theology is had. Therefore moral Theology can be taken in a broader and in a less strict signification. In the broader signification it is confounded with practical Theology; in the stricter signification, on the contrary, it is distinguished from it, as will soon be explained.

12. If the method by which Theology proceeds is considered, either it merely dwells upon dogmas from the written and handed-down Word of God to confirm them, or it proceeds further to the understanding and reason of the same dogmas, insofar as this can be done by human reason, declaring what is contained in them, searching out their connection and relation, and by reasoning from them also arriving at other things; and thus it tends from faith to understanding. In the first case there is Positive Theology, which lays down the principles and foundations of the science, and which rests upon positive arguments. In the second case there is Scholastic Theology, so called because more common in the Schools. For those ancient masters of Theology, who handed down Theological Institutions in the public Schools, thought that labor should be given rather to the understanding of dogmas than to their demonstration.

13. The Church has not only permitted, and permits, Theology to be cultivated and handed down according to the principles and method of the Scholastic Doctors, but has always commended and does commend it. Now the principles by which the Scholastic Doctors handed down Theology were not, indeed, certain natural principles of reason, from which supernatural truths could not be deduced; rather they were principles of the supernatural order, employed by the Fathers themselves: divine revelation and the divine authority of the Church. The method, however, was not investigative of truth, which in Theology cannot be found by natural reason, since it is of the supernatural order; rather, it is acquired by God's revelation, so that it is held most certainly by faith, and one may not doubt concerning it. Wherefore the method of the Scholastics was only demonstrative and declarative of truth. If, therefore, Theology, as it always accords with the necessities of all times and the progress of the sciences, so also Scholastic Theology accords with these same things, the same certainly must be said of this our time, since sciences are not changed by time in their intrinsic nature. Indeed this must be said especially of this our time, since now on every side naturalism and rationalism attempt to pervade human minds. Wherefore proposition 13 was deservedly condemned in the Syllabus: "The method and principles by which the ancient Scholastic Doctors cultivated Theology are in no way suited to the necessities of our times and to the progress of the sciences."

14. The subjective principle of knowing Theology is not only the human intellect instructed by the natural light of reason, but also adorned by the supernatural light of divine faith. - Theology proceeds from faith, by demonstrating the object of faith, explaining it, and by the knowledge of it arriving at other cognitions. But a progress of this kind presupposes an intellect not only adorned with its native power, but also imbued with the supernatural light of faith.

15. The objective principles, or sources or loci, from which theological cognitions are drawn, are counted as four: Sacred Scripture, divine Tradition, the Church, human reason. The other loci can be referred to these, of which the principal are the Holy Fathers and Theologians. - Divine revelation is contained only in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The Church is the guardian and interpreter of both; excluding a new revelation, but with the Holy Spirit assisting, she infallibly proposes to us the revelation once divinely made. Therefore Scripture and Tradition are, as they say, the quasi-constitutive principles of Theology; the Church is the directive principle. Since, however, Theology proceeds by reasoning and demonstrating, there is another principle of it, namely human reason and natural science, whose value and use are determined by the principles of faith. - Now all cognition is drawn either from the light of faith or from the light of reason. If the first, the sources of such cognition will be Scripture, Tradition, the Church; if the second, the source will be human reason. The Holy Fathers and Theologians, however, are referred to Tradition.

16. But in order that the object of Theology may be fully unfolded, Theology is aided by subsidiary disciplines, of which the chief are: Exegesis or Exposition of the Sacred Books, Ecclesiastical History, Sacred Archaeology, to which all the rest can easily be referred.

17. Just as Philosophy not only investigates its proper object, asking what body is, what spirit is, what the world is, etc., but also considers the very principles of natural cognition, treating of intellect, of reason, of sense, of conscience; similarly Theology not only treats revealed truths, but also treats of revelation itself, of the Word of God Written and Handed Down, and of the other sources of supernatural cognitions. Now this treatment can be instituted in two ways. For either, proceeding by human reason alone, we show by historical and philosophical arguments the fact and value of revelation, of the institution of the Church, etc.; or, setting out from faith, we inquire what revelation itself teaches concerning these principles. The former manner of proceeding supplies the Evangelical Demonstration, which is also called Apologetics. It is not a part of Theology, but a certain propaedeutic or preamble of Theology. For since Theology is the science of faith, it must receive its principles of demonstration through faith itself.

18. The supreme objective principle of demonstration, from which namely other truths are derived by reasoning, is contained in the notion of God received by revelation. - For the supreme principle of any science is situated in the definition of its subject. And thus in man, for example, all properties are deduced from his definition or nature. Those very things which in man are done freely and are known through history are understood and judged according to his nature. In like manner, those things which follow upon the divine nature are deduced from its revealed notion; but things freely done by God are not indeed demonstrated from the same notion of God as having been done, but are understood and judged according to that notion.

19. Concerning the value of the theological sources or loci, these few things suffice. - On Sacred Scripture. 1. Although in Sacred Scripture some things which directly and per se order us to eternal life are proposed for their own sake, while other things are proposed not for their own sake but for the manifestation of these, nevertheless all things are to be believed by divine faith, for all are supported by the same authority of God speaking. The books of Scripture are therefore held to be sacred and divine because, having been written with God inspiring, they have God as their author, and truly and properly are the word of God. Cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 1, a. 6, ad 1. - 2. The Council of Trent declared that, from the various versions, "the old and Vulgate edition, which by the long use of so many centuries has been approved in the Church itself, is to be held as authentic in public readings, disputations, preachings, and expositions," Sess. 4. Wherefore it can and must be called a true and genuine source of revelation. From such a decree, however, as is clear from its whole tenor, end, and circumstances, it does not follow that it is forbidden for the original texts and other ancient versions to be used, and that intrinsic certainty also be had from them. Although their authenticity is declared by no solemn decree, it is proved both by long use and by critical and hermeneutical arguments. - 3. The genuine sense of Scripture is had: 1. from the declaration of the Church; 2. from the consent of the Fathers, against whom, although Scripture cannot be expounded, nevertheless it is not forbidden to bring forward an exposition adding something else to the common exposition; 3. if at times different Fathers expound a certain place differently, it does not on that account follow that a firm argument cannot be drawn thence. For the genuine sense can be determined by hermeneutical rules. The principal rules are: without an evident reason to the contrary, one must adhere to the proper and obvious sense. - Likewise one must adhere to the literal and historical sense, unless it is certainly established concerning the mystical sense.

20. On Tradition. The Council of Trent, Sess. 4, declares the nature of Tradition when it says that "saving doctrine is contained in written books and in unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us, handed on as it were from hand to hand." - The rule for distinguishing tradition, as regards the doctrine of faith, is this: if anything in the universal Church, at any time, is taught and believed as a dogma of faith, that thing, even if it is not written, is certainly contained in divine tradition. And the reason is that the universal Church can never defect from the true faith. - But as regards tradition which concerns the discipline or rites of the Church, the words of St. Augustine are well known, Ep. 54 to Januarius: "Those things which, not written, but handed down, we keep, which indeed are observed throughout the whole world, are understood to have been retained as commended and established either by the Apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most salutary." But since those things which are established by Councils are recorded in their acts and in other documents of history, those things which are observed throughout the whole world, of whose beginning no trace is had in history, are deservedly referred to apostolic tradition. And if these are such that they exceed human power, as are rites concerning the substance of the sacraments, and other things which are intimately connected with dogma, such as the baptism of infants, they are with the best right referred to divine tradition transmitted through the Apostles.

21. On the Church. The Church is strong with an ordinary and perpetual magisterium, which is a continuous and ever-living Tradition expounding and completing the Sacred Scriptures. But since infallibility has been granted not to any part whatever of the Church, but only to the universal Church and to its Head, the Roman Pontiff, it follows that only those things enjoy the firmest certainty which are strengthened either by the universal consent and judgment of the Pastors, or by the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff. - And here it must be noted that the form of expressing a judgment of this kind matters little, provided that the mind of the Fathers or of the Pontiff to define is manifestly established, that is, to declare by proper and full authority what is the sentence to be held by all the faithful. - Since the magisterium of the Church exists for instructing the faithful, just as the universal Church cannot defect from the truth in teaching, so also neither can she defect in believing. Hence the common sense of the faithful furnishes a most firm argument.

22. On the Holy Fathers. The Fathers of the Church are those Ecclesiastical Writers who, besides antiquity, have singular doctrine and sanctity. Now although the authority of individuals is great, nevertheless full authority is had only when by unanimous consent they hand down a doctrine of faith; for then it is certain that it is taught and believed by the Church herself, which venerates them as Fathers. - As the Church not only guards the deposit of faith, but also explains it, so the Fathers are not only faithful witnesses of dogmas, but also doctors declaring them. Therefore those things which the Fathers hand down by unanimous consent for expounding the doctrine of faith are truly to be believed to pertain to the understanding of faith. Likewise, those things which, although known by the natural light, the Fathers hand down as connected with faith, are to be held as such; and in these matters their authority prevails over reason. - In order that there be unanimous consent of the Fathers, by which divine tradition is demonstrated, it is not necessary to find or recite the testimonies of all. From the sayings of some, the consent of others can be deduced from several heads. If at any time one or another seems to contradict all the rest, their sayings are to be explained benignly: from the context; from the end, because, while opposing an error, and being perhaps little concerned about an opposite error not yet arisen, they spoke more securely; finally from the time, because when errors have arisen and matters have been better discussed, formulas of speaking are more determined by use and by ecclesiastical judgment. But if this benign explanation cannot be made, the unanimous consent does not on that account fail, because a morally, not arithmetically, universal consent suffices.

23. On Theologians. In the first centuries of the Church, the Fathers were succeeded, in later time, by Theologians, who are those ecclesiastical Writers who are distinguished both by entire orthodoxy and by excellent doctrine. Their concordant sentence produces certainty. For this concord can be sufficiently explained only from the truth of the matter. What they hand down by unanimous consent in the schools, the pastors preach in the Churches, and the faithful believe. Hence it must not be doubted that those things which they hand down by a concordant, firm, and stable sentence are approved by the Church.

24. On human reason. Human reason is understood here both as the natural faculty of reasoning and as every natural science. Its use in Theology is manifold: 1. to show the foundations and credibility of Faith, Council of the Vatican, De Fide, chs. 3, 4; 2. to deduce the several heads of faith from the principles of Faith; 3. so that those things which are known by divine revelation may either be confirmed by natural arguments, or at least be declared and illustrated, insofar as this can be done; 4. so that errors, which are drawn especially from the natural sciences, may be refuted from those same sciences.

25. Finally, concerning dogma, theological opinions, and censures, a few things also suffice. Dogma here is properly called a sentence proposed by the Church to be believed with divine and catholic faith, or manifestly contained in Scripture or Tradition. And thus the Council of the Vatican, De Fide, ch. 3, says: "All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God written and handed down, and which are proposed by the Church, whether by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium (by which Scripture and Tradition are attested to be the word of God), as divinely revealed and to be believed."

26. A theological sentence is here properly called one which, although it is not revealed or is not handed down as revealed in the common magisterium of the Church from an express definition of hers, nevertheless has an evident connection with revealed things and is deduced from them. If this deduction is imperfect, there will be a scholastic opinion or a theologically probable sentence. But if the deduction is perfect, then it is called a theological sentence simply, or theologically certain; and likewise it is said that it cannot be denied without error and rashness, since it cannot be denied except by one who has cast aside either faith or reason, or both.

27. A theological censure is called that note by which some depraved doctrine is reproved from the principles of faith, whether by the public magisterium of the Church or only by the authority of theologians. There are three principal censures: heretical, erroneous, rash. A sentence is called heretical when it is evidently and directly opposed to an evident dogma of faith. If a dogma of faith is indeed certain, but is not evident as a dogma of faith, then the sentence is called proximate to heresy. But if the dogma of faith is certain and evident, yet it is not certainly and evidently established that there is direct opposition, then it is called suspected of heresy, savoring of heresy, favoring heresy.

28. Error is called an assertion directly opposed to a theological conclusion, or to a theologically certain sentence. Therefore error is opposed to a sentence which is not of faith or dogma, but which is certain from faith, or which is deduced from dogma by an evident inference. Since there are various grades of connection with dogma, if the connection is not proximate but remote, the opposite opinion is not called error, but proximate to error.

29. Rash is the name given to an opinion which is destitute of every sufficient reason and is directly opposed to a sentence commonly received in the Church. For rashness, according to the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor, II-II, q. 53, a. 3, ad 2, is not only to act without reason, but also to act from contempt of the directing rule.

30. After the nature of Theology, considered universally, has been declared, the intimate nature of Moral Theology is now easily understood. Moral Theology is a part of it, and consequently those things pertain to Moral Theology which pertain to Theology generally, and which consequently are common to speculative and practical Theology.

31. Moral Theology, strictly taken, if the name is considered, is the same as discourse concerning morals in order to God. This nominal definition, since the names of things and sciences are not without reason, is proved and explained from the real definition itself. - But if the thing itself is considered, it can be defined: that part of Theology which, resting upon divine law manifested through revelation, inquires what good and evil there is in human acts, what licit and illicit is found in them, in order that it may direct them in order to eternal life.

32. It is called Moral Theology, a part of Theology according to the matter which it treats. For Theology which contemplates divine things is called Dogmatic Theology; but Theology which considers human operations is called Moral. The former is speculative, for it rests in contemplating the truth of things. The latter is practical, for it proceeds to directing operations to man's ultimate end. Yet both attain their proper object by the same formal aspect, since the formal object of Theology is nothing other than truth demonstrable from the revealed word of God. Hence "Sacred Doctrine, being one, extends to those things which belong to diverse philosophical sciences, on account of the aspect which it considers in diverse things, namely insofar as they are knowable by the divine light: whence, although in the philosophical sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless Sacred Doctrine comprehends both under itself, just as God by the same science knows Himself and the things which He makes." St. Thomas, I, q. 1, a. 4. Therefore Moral Theology is not distinguished from Dogmatic Theology as science from science, but as one and the same science according to one part and another part of its proper material object; since the unity of a science is taken not from the material object but from the formal object. Hence a diverse aspect of the knowable induces a diversity of sciences. St. Thomas, I, q. 1, a. 1 ad 2; aa. 3, 7. But if, from the fact that "Sacred Doctrine does not determine concerning God and concerning creatures equally, but concerning God principally and concerning creatures according as they are referred to God as to principle or end... the unity of the science is not impeded," St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 3 ad 1, this is especially true of Moral Theology. For if this Theology does not treat immediately of God Himself, but of human acts, it certainly treats of these according as through them man is ordered to the perfect knowledge of God, in which eternal beatitude consists. St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 4.

33. It is said further that Moral Theology rests upon divine law manifested through revelation, so that at the same time both the formal object and the proper source of this science may be indicated: divine law manifested through revelation. For the good and evil, the licit and illicit, which Moral Theology inquires into in human actions, is proximately derived from law. And if Moral Theology, as Sacred Doctrine, proceeds by reasoning from divine revelation, it properly rests upon divine law manifested through revelation in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and proposed and explained through the magisterium of the Church. Hence Moral Theology does not proceed from principles known by the light of the natural intellect, whether of human Jurisprudence, or of natural Ethics, or of moral philosophy; but from principles known by the light of a higher science, which is the science of God and of the Blessed. Hence it believes those revealed principles from God. St. Thomas, I, q. 1, a. 2. If it also receives something from other human and philosophical disciplines, it does not receive it as from superiors, but uses them only as inferiors and handmaids. Nor indeed does it do this because it needs them of necessity, but for the greater manifestation of those things which are handed down in this science, on account of the defect of our intellect, which, from those things that are known by natural reason, from which the other human sciences proceed, is more easily led by the hand into those things which are above reason and are handed down in this science. St. Thomas, I, q. 1, a. 5 ad 2.

34. Therefore moral Theology does not exclude moral philosophy from itself, but on the contrary contains it within itself; for the supernatural end does not exclude the natural end, but on the contrary presupposes and contains it, since it elevates it to the supernatural order of grace and glory, by which "He has given us the greatest and precious promises, that through these we may be made partakers of the divine nature." 2 Pet. 1:4. Hence it is that what is evil and turns us away from God as natural end also turns us away from God as supernatural end, as is certain by reason and faith. On the contrary, that which leads us to God as natural end cannot lead us to God as supernatural end without supernatural grace, as likewise is certain by reason and faith.

35. And from these things it is clear that the subjective principles of knowing are the same in Moral Theology and in dogmatic Theology: faith of divine revelation and human reason. For in order to attain man's supernatural end it is necessary to observe the laws and precepts of both orders, supernatural and natural. We know the former by divine revelation; the latter also by natural reason. But as divine revelation confirms even natural precepts, so human reason illustrates revealed divine precepts. And we learn the same precepts, whether of the supernatural order or of the natural order, from the infallible magisterium of the Church, which is also the directive principle of moral Theology, as it is the directive principle of dogmatic Theology.

36. But the fundamental and universal objective principle of demonstration, pervading and governing the whole of moral Theology, is that God is the ultimate end of man, and accordingly that man is bound by obligation to tend to God by acts proportioned to the aforesaid end, morally good, and moreover supernatural, since God is the ultimate end of man not merely naturally but supernaturally. For the beatitude to which man is destined in the present order of divine providence consists in the intuitive vision of God and in the fruitful love of God; this end is wholly supernatural, exceeding all the powers and all the exigencies of created nature. Indeed, the reason by which God is moved to create the world and man is His own divine goodness and infinite perfection itself, namely love of His own infinite goodness and perfection. The world exists and we exist because God is good. But since divine goodness and perfection are infinite and cannot in any way be increased in themselves, God, creating the world and man, can intend nothing other than to communicate outwardly His good and His perfections, which consequently all creatures may manifest, and rational creatures may know, and thus may tend to God and glorify Him. The Lord has wrought all things for Himself, Prov. 16:4. Therefore man was founded by God in order that he may know and love Him; and in this knowledge and love of God consists both the glory of God and at the same time the beatitude of man. But, showing the riches of His divine goodness and infinite perfection, God made man a sharer in the divine nature, by destining man to see Him as He is, not through a mirror in an enigma, but face to face. Therefore after this mortal life man enjoys the divine essence, by whose knowledge and love he possesses eternal beatitude. But this immediate and intuitive vision of God, and enjoyment of God from love of the divine goodness immediately known, is a participation in the divine life itself: when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, 1 John 3:2; and consequently it exceeds all natural exigencies and powers, and is wholly supernatural. Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love Him. 1 Cor. 2:3.

37. Since therefore man is destined to a supernatural end, he must tend to it by his own free acts. But since he cannot attain it by his own natural acts, supernatural virtues are therefore infused into man, which supply power to the intellect and will for connaturally producing supernatural acts. And, as in the natural order there is first the nature itself of the soul, and then its natural powers and acts, so in the supernatural order there is sanctifying grace, which inheres in the substance of the soul and elevates man to a supernatural nature; there are infused virtues, which inhere stably in the powers of the soul, namely the intellect and the will, to which they give force and power for eliciting supernatural acts; and finally there are actual graces, by which God actually concurs with each supernatural act of man, to prevent and excite, aid and perfect them. Wherefore an act at once vital and supernatural proceeds from a twofold proximate intrinsic principle, that is, from natural power and from the supernatural habit of infused virtue. This infused virtue is distinguished in two ways, theological and moral. The former has God Himself for its primary material object and some divine perfection for its formal object; the latter generally has for its formal object the very honesty of the human act. And as virtues are infused for the ordinary acts of supernatural life, so also the gifts of the Holy Spirit are conferred for extraordinary and more sublime acts of the supernatural life. To the former man is moved from the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit and from the judgment of reason; to the latter he is moved by the instinct of the Holy Spirit alone. Through the infused virtues man is disposed to be made promptly movable according to the common aspect of Christian virtues, or according to their common rule; through the gifts man is disposed to be made promptly movable by divine inspiration. St. Thomas, I-II, qq. 63, 68.

The relation of man to God in human acts constitutes the moral order. Wherefore if human acts are fitting to that end, they will lead man through to God. Now some of these acts order man immediately to God, naturally by natural knowledge and love, supernaturally by faith, hope, and charity. Other acts immediately order man either in himself, so that the higher powers rule the lower and the lower are subjected to the higher; or to other creatures, so that he may use them only insofar as they are useful to him for attaining his end, and so that he may constitute a fitting society with other men, destined to the same end as himself. Wherefore all these other acts also, by preserving the order of nature established by God, although mediately, consequently order and lead man to God as ultimate end; and in this attainment and eternal possession of the ultimate end there is beatitude. Indeed, by destining man to this beatitude of eternal life and supplying him with the means for attaining it, God evidently imposes upon man by His will the necessity of applying the aforesaid means suitable for attaining the aforesaid end. This necessity constitutes moral obligation, which moral Theology attends to and considers in human acts. - Therefore God as the ultimate end of man is the supreme principle of the whole of moral Theology, by which namely all things which must be performed by man are understood and determined, so that he may act licitly and at last attain eternal life.

38. Moreover, Moral Theology inquires what good and evil there is in human acts, what licit and illicit is found in them. For its material object is not contained in human acts insofar as they are beings of nature, but insofar as they are moral being. Hence the Angelic Doctor, I-II, q. 7, a. 2, says: "First, the theologian considers human acts according as through them man is ordered to beatitude.... Second, the theologian considers human acts according as in them there is found good and evil, better and worse.... Third, the theologian considers human acts according as they are meritorious or demeritorious." And in the same place, ad 3: "The theologian has considerations concerning virtuous and vicious acts... and considers acts according as they merit punishment or reward."

39. If the material object of Moral Theology is considered thus generally and indiscriminately in its whole breadth, it is certainly not distinguished from Practical Theology, and it extends as broadly as the latter extends. But if moral Theology is taken in a certain stricter sense, and according to the common acceptance at present, then Moral Theology is distinguished from Practical Theology as a part from the whole. For Moral Theology is now usually taken in a certain restricted signification, namely insofar as it is confined to the mere consideration of the licit and illicit, or of sins, in human acts. And thus Ascetical and Mystical Theology are usually distinguished from Moral Theology, all of which Practical Theology embraces, and into which it is consequently divided. Ascetical Theology hands down not so much the doctrine of good and evil as the way and manner by which we can free ourselves from vices and attain virtues. Hence, as Moral Theology treats rather of determining sins, Ascetical Theology treats of explaining virtues. But Mystical Theology treats not of the common sanctity of morals, which Ascetical Theology does, but of that special union with God through more sublime contemplation and more intimate love, to which not all can tend and arrive, but those who are heaped by God with special gifts of grace.

40. Pastoral Theology also is usually distinguished. In reality it is only a certain part, or a special treatise of Moral Theology, which discusses the duties of all men. Yet a special and fuller treatment concerning the duties of those who exercise the care of souls - Bishops, pastors, Confessors, priests - supplies Pastoral Theology. Wherefore Pastoral Theology explains in particular the duties of pastors, so that they may rightly exercise the care of souls, and the faithful may be led through their work to eternal life.

41. It is added, that it may direct human acts in order to eternal life. For Moral Theology directs them, not as Moral Philosophy does, insofar as they agree with right reason, but in order to God and as ordered to God. For God is the subject of Sacred Doctrine or Theology, namely the object which is considered by it per se first, and in order to which all other things are treated; whence Sacred Doctrine is called Theology, that is, discourse or doctrine concerning God. "All things are treated in Sacred Doctrine under the aspect of God, either because they are God Himself, or because they have order to God as to principle and end. Whence it follows that God truly is the subject of this science.... All other things which are determined in Sacred Doctrine are comprehended under God, not as parts or species or accidents, but as ordered to Him." St. Thomas, I, q. 1, a. 7, corp. and ad 2. For indeed, as God is the supreme intelligible to be contemplated, which pertains to speculative Theology, so God is the supreme good to be sought, to which every action and our whole life is to be referred, which pertains to practical Theology. But although Theology is therefore both speculative and practical, "nevertheless it is more speculative than practical, because it treats more principally of divine things than of human acts, of which it treats according as through them man is ordered to the perfect knowledge of God, in which eternal beatitude consists." St. Thomas, I, q. 1, a. 4. Wherefore Theology orders human life and operation itself to the perfect knowledge of the supreme truth, that is, to the vision by which the mind possesses God as ultimate end. Therefore the ultimate end of the work, or of practical Theology itself, is the aforesaid knowledge or vision of God; but the proximate end is the sanctity of life and the worship of God.

42. The sources or loci of Moral Theology, in which moral truths are contained and from which they are drawn, are the same as the theological sources or loci of dogmatic Theology, namely: Sacred Scripture, Tradition, the Church, the Holy Fathers, Theologians, human reason. As regards Sacred Scripture, both the Old and New Testament contain moral truths, but chiefly the New Testament, which contains the precepts, counsels, and most perfect examples of Our Lord Jesus Christ. - Moral truths, both speculative and practical, are also contained in Tradition, as in Sacred Scripture. The same must be said of the Church, which, whether by general and particular Councils, or by Decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the Sacred Congregations, declares and defines moral precepts divinely given, and adds new laws and precepts for the common good of ecclesiastical society and for the right and ordered manner of acting of the faithful. The Church's moral doctrine is contained also in her use and practice, in her sacred liturgy. - Likewise the Holy Fathers often propose moral truths, sometimes as witnesses of tradition, sometimes as doctors of truth. To the Holy Fathers, however, theologians are to be added, especially moral theologians, who discuss moral matters expressly. Their common authority, regularly, cannot be abandoned without grave rashness. But if against them a new and grave reason is brought forward, not yet considered or not sufficiently examined by them, then some sentence can be rendered probable even against a common opinion. - Hence human reason also is counted among the loci of moral Theology. For there are many things in Moral Theology which are neither defined nor clearly contained in revelation. Therefore for these there is need of reason, which may inquire and conclude from certain principles. Nor indeed does Moral Theology consider only divine, natural, and canonical laws, but also civil laws, since these too must be observed and cannot be violated without sin. It is certain from the very doctrine of faith that every soul is subject to higher powers, that obedience is owed to them, and that the things due to them must be rendered to them. Rom. 13:1 ff.

43. From the given definition of Moral Theology, the excellence, utility, and necessity of this science are easily drawn out. It is most excellent, for it participates in the supreme excellence of Theology itself, or Sacred Doctrine, of which it is a part. Moreover, as the Angelic Doctor says, I, q. 1, a. 5: "Of practical sciences, that one is more worthy which is not ordered to a further end, as civil science is more worthy than military. For the good of the army is ordered to the good of the city. But the end of this doctrine, insofar as it is practical, is eternal beatitude, to which, as to the ultimate end, all other ends of practical sciences are ordered. Whence it is manifest that it is more worthy than the others."

43. Concerning the utility and necessity of Moral Theology, however, there is nothing for us to say, since the thing itself speaks for itself. For the right operation of free will, nothing certainly can contribute more, besides divine grace, than right knowledge of good and evil, of licit and illicit. This knowledge, which Moral Theology supplies, is most certain, insofar as it is derived from the proper source of divine revelation. Moreover, moral Theology receives very many and chief cognitions from divine revelation, to which very often the infallible magisterium of the Church also accedes. Many things indeed are controverted in Moral Theology; but these regard neither the principal nor the common and ordinary duties of man.

44. Those things which the Angelic Doctor has universally in article 1 concerning the necessity of Sacred Doctrine serve to expound the utility and necessity of Moral Theology. "It must be said," he says, "that it was necessary for human salvation that there be a certain doctrine according to divine revelation, besides the philosophical disciplines which are investigated by human reason. First indeed, because man is ordered to God as to a certain end which exceeds the comprehension of reason, according to that saying of Isa. 64:4: Eye has not seen, O God, besides You, what things You have prepared for those who love You. But the end must be foreknown by men who ought to order their intentions and actions to the end. Whence it was necessary for man's salvation that certain things which exceed human reason be made known to him through divine revelation. Even as regards those things which can be investigated by human reason, it was necessary for man to be instructed by divine revelation, because the truth concerning God investigated by reason would come to few men, and after a long time, and with an admixture of many errors; yet upon the knowledge of this truth depends the whole salvation of man, which is in God. Therefore, in order that salvation might come to men more fittingly and more certainly, it was necessary that they be instructed concerning divine things through divine revelation. Therefore it was necessary, besides the philosophical disciplines which are investigated by reason, that Sacred Doctrine be had through revelation." Cf. Contra Gentiles, I, cc. 4 and 6; De Veritate, q. 14, a. 11.

45. Deservedly, therefore, Tullius, speaking of the science of morals, says that Socrates among Westerners called it down from heaven. Certainly morality must be sought from heaven; hence it is that none deny it except those who deny God, whether explicitly or implicitly, as atheists and rationalists do, and all those who say evil is good and good evil, putting darkness as light and light as darkness. And hence it is that this morality, first well known and then informing human actions, is truly that by which all things at last are to be restored in Christ. For a restoration of this kind consists in restoring and confirming the right order of things. But all things will be well ordered if the duties are rightly observed by which man is bound toward God, by which he is bound toward himself, by which he is bound toward other men and toward human society, both religious or ecclesiastical and also civil, of which he is a part. Jesus Christ Our Lord, who came not to loose the law but to fulfill it, came to manifest again this order of things by His doctrine, that by the work of His more abundant grace it might be fulfilled.

Moreover, the restoration of all things is had if all operate fittingly according to their proper nature. The nature of man is right reason. If therefore he operates according to right reason, his restoration is had. Now right reason requires this: that just as man himself, because he is a creature of God, owes obedience to God, so also in man himself, since the soul is superior to the body, the lower faculties must be subject to the higher. And since that which is subordinated to another ought to be a help and not an impediment to it, man ought so to use the lower faculties that from them he suffer no impediment to his fitting operation and the attainment of his perfection. But man also needs external things for his nature; therefore he must so use them according to the measure of moderation imposed by the necessity of nature itself, that their use be not harmful but useful to the same nature, as appears in disordered or temperate taking of foods. Thus rectitude will at once shine forth in man by its splendor, its comeliness, its beauty, and all things in him will be restored. Finally, it is natural for man to be social; for one man alone does not suffice for all things which are necessary to human life. Therefore those things without which human society cannot be preserved are naturally fitting to man according to right reason. Such are: that subjects render reverence and obedience to superiors, that each one preserve what is his own, that he abstain from injuries, and other things of this kind. What doubt can there be that if all these things are observed, peace will reign in human society, and with peace prosperity and happiness will flourish? Piety and Religion also will reign and flourish. Blessed is the people whose Lord is their God. And this will be the true restoration of society, if God rules over society and His most holy law is observed. - The Supreme Pontiff happily reigning, Pius X, has greatly and already often commended Catholic action to Catholics. Catholic action of this kind is not effectively promoted unless right moral doctrine is promoted and propagated, and effectively led into practice. For behold whence all Catholic action begins, whither it is directed, and in what it consists: "Going, teach all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. 28:19-20.

46. It must now be said concerning the partition of moral Theology, while remaining in that stricter and more limited signification in which it is now usually taken. Now all questions of moral theology are reduced to certain principal treatises, which can be enumerated in order thus: 1. concerning human acts, which are as it were the proper subject of honesty and sin; 2. concerning conscience, which proximately rules human actions; 3. concerning laws in general, which remotely rule the same actions; 4. concerning virtues, from which the honesty of human acts is from conformity with them, and concerning sins, which, being dissimilar to virtues, arise from the deformity of human actions with respect to the rule, whether proximate or remote; 5. concerning laws specifically, by which the licit or illicit regarding human actions is determined in particular. These laws proceed in this order: 1. concerning the properly evangelical precepts, resting upon divine law or revelation, namely concerning the precepts of the Theological virtues, Faith, Hope, Charity, by which man immediately tends to his end; 2. concerning the precepts of the Decalogue, constituted by natural law, but also positively confirmed by divine law; 3. concerning the general precepts of the Church, which depend upon human law; 4. proceeding from more general things to more particular things, concerning the obligations of various states; and by observance of these precepts man mediately tends to his end, cf. Theol. Wirceburg., De Virtut. Theol., n. 32 ff.; De Virt. Relig., nn. 9, 10; 5. concerning the precepts of the sacraments, which contain a law at once commanding and helping; for through them sanctifying grace is infused, and other helps of grace are given, by which man can observe the whole law, so that he may thus be preserved in God's friendship, or restored to it, if by transgressing the law he has gravely sinned against God; 6. concerning censures, which are ecclesiastical penalties consequent upon the transgression of certain special laws, and concerning irregularities, which are partly penalties, partly impediments to receiving sacred orders; and therefore many reckon them to the treatise on orders; 7. concerning indulgences, through which, sins having been remitted from another source, the temporal punishment still due for the same sins is remitted; and thus man is proximately disposed to eternal life. Many add indulgences to the treatise on penance, as its complement.

47. The first four Treatises are general and fundamental, and constitute general or fundamental Moral Theology. For they contain the general and fundamental principles of the whole of Moral Theology. Wherefore they are to be placed before the rest, and in fact, already very commonly in the schools, they are usually placed before all the remaining treatises. The Angelic Doctor places questions concerning the same matters before the remaining moral Questions in I-II, where, although he does not treat expressly and diffusely of Conscience, nevertheless he treats in order of human acts, of sins, and of laws. The other particular Treatises constitute special Moral Theology; and from the nature of the matter they can be ordered in two ways. For since the licit and illicit, which moral Theology inquires into, depend on particular laws and on particular virtues, they can be ordered both according to the former and according to the latter.

48. The Angelic Doctor followed this latter order in II-II. And this in truth is the more correct order of the science. For, as St. Thomas says in the Prologue to II-II, "vices and sins are diversified in species according to matter or object," and accordingly according to the virtue to which they are opposed. Hence the Angelic Doctor treats at the same time in II-II of the virtues and of the opposed vices. First he discusses the theological virtues, and then the cardinal virtues. "All other moral virtues are in some way reduced to the cardinal virtues." Prologue. Hence, in the consideration of some cardinal virtue, St. Thomas also considers all virtues pertaining to it in any way and the opposed vices. Furthermore, St. Thomas followed this order because, as other old theologians did, so he himself also did not distinguish between dogmatic and moral theology, and he himself instituted a perfect treatment of virtues and vices as a part of the whole of Sacred Doctrine, whose golden Compendium he presents in his work, namely in the Summa of all Theology. But since Moral Theology, as it is now handed down in the schools, is explained separately and apart from Dogmatic Theology; and since it rests rather in determining sins than in explaining the nature, properties, and perfections of virtues, so that priests and confessors may chiefly be instructed in fulfilling their proper office, hence it has come about that, after Busembaum and St. Alphonsus, moral treatises are explained in the schools rather according to the order of the precepts than according to the order of the virtues. And since this order has now been proved by experience, and is easier and plainer, it seems to be chosen before the other. Attention must be given chiefly not to doctors, but to beginners. And thus the Angelic Doctor says in the Prologue of the Summa Theologiae: "Because the doctor of catholic truth ought not only to instruct the advanced, but it also pertains to him to educate beginners, according to that saying of the Apostle in 1 Cor. 3:1, As to little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat, the proposed intention in this work is to hand down those things which pertain to the Christian religion in that manner according as it befits the instruction of beginners." But concerning the Sacraments St. Thomas treats in the last place in III, and for the reason already indicated it seems they should be discussed in the last place, as nearly all now do.

49. Moral Theology, taken in the stricter sense, of which we are treating and as it is distinguished from Ascetical and Mystical Theology, can be treated by a threefold method: positive, casuistic, and scholastic. The first proves and sets forth in order the precepts and dogmas of morals from properly theological sources. The second insists upon resolving practical cases, by applying general principles to particular cases determined by various circumstances. The third, finally, proceeds by the discourse of reason rather than by authority. For moral precepts and dogmas already positively proved by properly theological arguments it confirms and illustrates by philosophical principles and reasons, and declares their intimate connections, relations, and consequences. This threefold method can easily be joined and employed together, and from this threefold method, mixed together, there is had a perfect and excellent treatment of Morals.

50. The scholastic method is of itself brief in the treatment of questions. But since many of the old scholastics often instituted a long and learned examination of the opposed opinions of others, in order directly to refute them, or to approve and accept them, and their volumes grew into an immense mass, hence it happened, especially as regards Moral Theology, that their most learned works were handled only by the hands of a few. Wherefore, for handing down the true doctrine of Moral Theology and for the greater utility of students, it seems best to proceed in it by the scholastic method, omitting that long discussion of other opinions; and we observe that this was also done by the Angelic Doctor in the Summa Theologica.

51. One must insist more, however, on the reasons of things. For, as the same St. Thomas teaches, Quodl. 4, q. 9, a. 18: "Every act is to be executed according as it befits its end. But disputation can be ordered to a twofold end. For one disputation is ordered to removing doubt whether it is so; and in such a theological disputation one must especially use authorities which are received by those with whom the dispute is held.... But another disputation is magisterial in the schools, not for removing error, but for instructing the hearers, so that they may be led to the understanding of the truth which he intends; and then one must rely upon reasons investigating the root of truth and making known how what is said is true; otherwise, if the master determines a question by bare authorities, the hearer will indeed be certified that it is so, but he will acquire nothing of science or understanding, and will go away empty." And indeed it must not be denied that there are not lacking more recent theologians who are led by the number of doctors rather than by the firmness of reasons, and who proceed by affirmation rather than demonstration; whence novices in this doctrine are very greatly impeded. St. Alphonsus himself teaches that attention must be given principally to the intrinsic force of reasons: "for extrinsic authority effects nothing other than to offer a presumption of intrinsic force," I, n. 79, p. 59, ed. P. Gaude.

52. Finally, as regards the various vicissitudes of Moral Theology: in the first centuries of the Church down to the thirteenth century, it is contained in many writings concerning the right institution of morals and the right administration of the sacrament of penance, which were published either by private doctors or by the authority of the Church. Moral truths, not yet collected and ordered into one body of doctrine, are found chiefly and everywhere in the works of the Holy Fathers. - But in the thirteenth century, together with dogmatic theology, Moral Theology began to be handed down in scientific and scholastic form, especially by the work of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Scotus. Many little Summas of moral matters were published in this second age, which extends to the fifteenth century and to the Council of Trent. - After the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, innumerable men wrote concerning the theology of morals. Some wrote Commentaries on the I-II and II-II of St. Thomas; others illustrated the whole of moral theology or at least a great part of it. The Spaniards are eminent in this period: some treated special matters, some collected cases of conscience, others rather cultivated pastoral theology. Among others, Eusebius Amort, a German, is celebrated; St. Alphonsus held him in great esteem. Among all, the most celebrated are Thomas Sanchez, S.J.; L. Molina, S.J.; Francis Suarez, S.J.; Cardinal De Lugo, S.J., Spaniards; Leonard Lessius, S.J., a Belgian; Paulus Laymann, S.J., a German. In this third age, which extends to St. Alphonsus M. de Liguori, sharp controversies were stirred up by the works of the Jansenists; defending an exaggerated and intolerable rigorism, they held catholic doctors, whom in contempt they called casuists, as corrupters of Christian moral doctrine. Many fought against them, especially from the Society of Jesus, among whom are reckoned Ven. Paulus Segneri, Bl. Francolinus, La Croix, and many others. In this same age controversies concerning probabilism were begun, and many of them were settled by Apostolic Authority. - The fourth and last age, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, takes its beginning from St. Alphonsus down to our times. He himself is the leader and master of all probabilists, who afterward, in no small number, all followed him down to our times. Rejecting both laxism and rigorism, the Holy Doctor defends true probabilism. According to the Holy Doctor, where the honesty of a human act is at issue, it is licit to follow a truly probable opinion, by forming for oneself a practically certain conscience through reflex principles; and indeed it is licit to follow this truly probable sentence in favor of liberty, even when the opposed more probable one has been left aside. And this doctrine of his, which St. Alphonsus expressly handed down and invincibly proved in the Dissertation for the moderate use of a probable opinion in concurrence with a more probable one, he always most constantly defended and never retracted.

53. A catalogue of various Authors is had in Franc. Ant. Zacharia, De Locis Moralis Theologiae, the introductory book of the work of La-Croix, and in the various Compendia of Moral Theology of Fr. Gury. Also to be consulted are the Literary Nomenclator of Fr. H. Hurter, the Enchiridion adapted for cultivators of the sacred disciplines by Zeph. Zitelli-Natali, Scavini, Tr. 1, nn. 100, 101, 132, 133, 136, 147, 12th ed., Milan, 1874, and the Supplement to the Library of Lucius Ferraris, s.v. Author.