Chapter IV: Moral Theology in its Relation to Moral Philosophy

As there is a purely philosophic discipline treating of God (theodicy), so there is a purely philosophic discipline dealing with morality. The latter, among Catholics, is commonly called Ethics.¹

¹ Rom. I, 19 sqq.; Apoc. XIV, 14—16. —Conc. Vatic., Sess. III, c. 2: "The same holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the principle and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created things by the natural light of human reason." —Can. de Rev., 1: "If anyone says that the one and true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty through the things that have been made by the natural light of human reason, let him be anathema." — Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1914, pp. 15 sqq.; Th. H. Simar, Theologie des hl. Paulus, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1883, pp. 75 sqq.

Ethics and Moral Theology differ from each other in three respects: (1) as to their source, (2) as to their object, and (3) as to their contents. 1. Ethics, or moral philosophy, derives its principles and motives entirely from unaided human reason. Its object is to ascertain what is right and what is wrong, and how man must regulate his conduct to be naturally good and (supposing him in the pure state of nature) how to attain his natural destiny.

2. Moral Theology, on the other hand, draws its precepts and proofs from Revelation and from reason enlightened by supernatural faith. It takes for granted that man is no longer in the pure state of nature and regards him as a rational creature raised to the supernatural order, showing how he must regulate his conduct in order to attain his supernatural end.

Hence Moral Theology is more perfect than Ethics. Its superiority may be further seen from the fact that it inculcates its principles with absolute clearness and certainty ² and furnishes supernatural motives (fear, hope, charity) and supernatural aids (the example of Christ and the saints, the Sacraments, etc.) to a moral life. History shows that, with proper cooperation on the part of man, Catholic moral teaching is able to produce saints.

² John XIV, 6; Matth. V, 17-44: But I say to you. —Cfr. Grasset, Morale Scientifique et Morale Évangélique, Paris 1909, pp. 7 sqq.

3. Despite the essential differences existing between the two sciences, Ethics is a valuable help to Moral Theology, for the reason that faith presupposes natural intelligence. Thus Moral Theology may be said to comprise within its scope natural Ethics, and to derive from it its scientific substructure, while on the other hand Ethics possesses in Moral Theology an unfailing loadstar.

It would be wrong to assert that there is no morality outside the Christian religion. The Church has repeatedly and formally condemned the proposition that the virtues of the heathen are but glittering vices.³ Moreover, pagan philosophy has exercised an undeniable influence on Christian moralists.⁴

³ Prop. Baii Damnat., prop. 25; Prop. Damnat. ab Alexandro VIII, prop. 8; Prop. Damnat. Quesnelli, prop. 42, 48 (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, 10th ed., by Fr. Clement Bannwart, S.J., n. 1025, 1298, 1392, 1398); Conc. Trid., Sess. VI, can. 7; Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1917, pp. 179 sqq.

⁴ Cfr. F. Hasler, Über das Verhältnis der heidnischen und christlichen Ethik, Munich 1866; W. Redepenning, Der Einfluss des Aristoteles auf die Moral des hl. Thomas von Aquin, Goslar 1875; C. Merk, Klemens Alexandrinus in seiner Abhängigkeit von der griechischen Philosophie, Leipsic 1879; E. de Faye, Clément d'Alexandrie, Étude sur les Rapports du Christianisme et de la Philosophie Grecque au IIe Siècle, Paris 1898; B. Barthel, Über die Benutzung der Schriften Ciceros durch Laktanz, Strehlen 1903; P. Ewald, Einfluss der stoisch-ciceronianischen Moral auf die Darstellung der Ethik bei Ambrosius, Leipsic 1881; R. Thamin, S. Ambroise et la Morale Chrétienne au IVe Siècle, Paris 1895; Ph. Schmidt, Ambrosius und die Stoa, Göttingen 1897; Th. Zielinski, Cicero im Wandel der Jahrhunderte, 2nd ed., Leipsic 1908.

Pagan Ethics as such, however, is very imperfect. It misconceives man's relation to his Creator and thereby robs the concept of morality of its prime constituent. Though the science of ethics attained to a high stage of development among the heathen philosophers of antiquity, it never succeeded in stripping off its innate egotism. The true idea of humanity and the great Christian motive of charity remained entirely outside its ken.

A non-Catholic writer who has made a special study of the ethical teaching of the Greeks and Romans outlines its leading characteristics as follows: " It never entered into the pagan concept of humanity to show mercy, much less love, to an enemy. This virtue is not a postulate of human nature or of natural reason. Even among Christians it is not practiced as universally as one might be inclined to expect especially of those who would establish amicable relations between Christianity on the one hand and human nature and civilization on the other. ... To love one's enemies is a supernatural virtue, found only among those who clearly perceive that Christianity requires its followers to sacrifice to God even the natural sentiments of the heart, —in other words, that it imposes regeneration and sanctification. I must admit that I have in mind particularly the saints of the Catholic Church. The noble and humane practice of treating wounded enemies with kindness, which flourishes among the Christian nations of modern times, is quite a different thing. Men as a rule feel no personal grudge against individual members of an enemy nation, and if one of them is hurt, they naturally sympathize with him. The humanity of the ancients scarcely went beyond the feelings of natural sympathy and antipathy. Cicero finds it quite in conformity with natural ethics to hate one's fellowmen heartily (libenter), and says it is impossible to serve all.⁵ Yet it is precisely this that Christianity demands for the sake of God and as a supernatural duty. Tacitus regarded it as an honor to have many enemies.⁶ True, the pagan philosophers distinguish between a mere difference of opinion (opinionum dissensio) and a quarrel (animorum contentio),⁷ and hold that the former should never degenerate into the latter. Cicero plumes himself upon the fact that he and Pompey did not allow their political differences to disturb their friendship.⁸ But where real enmity existed, the average pagan took no pains to conceal the pleasure he derived from his enemy's discomfiture.

⁵ Ad Attic., XIII, 40, 2.

⁶ Dial., 40: "Ipsa inimicitiarum gloria."

⁷ Cicero, Ad Famil., II, 13, 2.

⁸ Phil., II, 38.

... Cursing an enemy and wishing him evil, was quite common.... Christianity exercised a strong influence against slavery, which it opposed in principle, though out of regard for existing conditions and the lot of the unfortunate slaves themselves, the Church discountenanced revolutionary measures." ⁹ If we wish to draw a fair comparison between pagan ethics and the moral teaching of Christianity, we must not detach single propositions from their context but weigh system against system. Doing so we shall find that the latter far surpasses the former.¹⁰ "What ancient Greek culture did for the intellect," says Houston Stewart Chamberlain, "Christ did for the moral life; it was from Him that humanity first received moral power."¹¹ ll "To profit by suffering," writes Bishop Keppler, "was the highest stage attained by ancient philosophy; the religion of the cross teaches us to practice charity while we suffer and to make our suffering productive of charity." ¹² Christianity, as even Protestants admit, was the first to recognize the importance and value of personality; the philosophers of ancient times did not even know the term and hence were unable to appreciate its ethical bearing. 13 READINGS. —Jos. Rickaby, S.J., Moral Philosophy, or Ethics and Natural Law, London 1908. —Chas. Coppens, S.J., A Brief Text-Book of Moral Philosophy, New York 1895.—V. Cathrein, S.J., in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 556 sqq. —J. L. Perrier, The Revival of Scholastic Philosophy, New York 1909, pp. 136 sqq. —Th. Meyer, S.J., Institutiones Iuris Naturalis, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1906; Vol. II, 1900. —A. Castelein, S.J., Institutiones Philosophiae Moralis et Socialis, Bruxelles 1899. —L. du Roussaux, Éthique, Bruxelles 1890 —M. Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. I, Dublin 1909, especially pp. 13 sq. —E. Müller, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 5th ed., pp. 38 sqq., Vienna 1887.—J. Elliot Ross, C. S. P., Christian Ethics, New York 1919, pp. 7 sqq.

⁹ M. Schneidewin, Die antike Humanität, Berlin 1897, pp. 202 sq., 209. Cfr. M. Waldmann, Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt und im Christentum, Vienna 1902; S. Randlinger, Die Feindesliebe nach dem natürlichen und positiven Sittengesetz, Paderborn 1906, pp. 22 sqq., 101 sqq.; F. Steinmüller, Die Feindesliebe, Ratisbon 1909, pp. 17 sqq. —On the attitude of the Church towards slavery see C. S. Devas, The Key to the World's Progress, Being an Essay on Historical Logic, London 1906, pp. 143 sqq.

¹⁰ Cfr. H. Kellner, Hellenismus und Christentum, Cologne 1866; A. Chollet, La Morale Stoicienne en Face de la Morale Chrétienne, Paris 1889, pp. 43 sqq., 59 sqq.; A. Bonhöffer, Epiktet und die Stoa, Stuttgart 1890; A. Dyroff, Die Ethik der alten Stoa, Berlin 1897, pp. 327 sqq.; M. Baumgarten, L. A. Seneca und das Christentum, Rostock 1895; Th. Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet und sein Verhältnis zum Christentum, 2nd ed., Erlangen 1895; K. Jentsch, Hellenentum und Christentum, Leipsic 1903; L. E. M. Bautain, La Morale de l'Évangile, Paris 1855; Germ. tr. by J. M. Gaisser, Die Moral des Evangeliums, Tübingen 1856, pp. 349 sqq., 377 sqq.

¹¹ Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhunderts, Vol. I, 4th ed., Munich 1903, p. 207.

¹² P. von Keppler, Das Problem des Leidens in der Moral, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1904, p. 26.

The Catholic idea of the value of personality is beautifully explained by F. Sawicki, Wert und Würde der Persönlichkeit im Christentum, Cologne 1906, especially pp. ¹³ sqq. and 35 sqq.

¹³ Cfr. G. Wobbermin, Der christliche Gottesglaube in seinem Verhältnis zur heutigen Philosophie, Berlin 1902, p. 80; 2nd ed., 1907, pp. 130 sq. Wobbermin is a Protestant.