Apologetic Preface of the Fourth Edition

[The benevolent reader is earnestly asked not to omit reading through this preface.]

It was not in my mind to preface this fourth edition of my work by even a little word; for what would have had to be said about it would have been sufficiently declared by these five words placed on the front of the book: Fourth edition, enlarged and more corrected. But while I was engaged in writing down the things which I had determined to correct in the third edition and to add to the same, I came upon a writing inserted in a certain French periodical,1 which, if it be read without hearing the other side, can easily preoccupy incautious minds against my work. This was the reason why not a few of those who wish well to my book advised me that, without any delay, I should set forth to the public light in some periodical the false things which are affirmed in that writing, and the true things which are passed over in silence in it. I judged it better not to listen to these advisers, although they were most friendly to me, especially for this reason, that the things which I would write in some periodical, since they would also be read by laymen, would increase and confirm the scandal already given. But it was fixed and certain with me to write a defense both of my own cause and of the cause of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, of which I am a son and which also is assailed in that writing; this defense, however, lest I be an offense to laymen, I present to the benevolent reader in this fourth edition of my work, and in this very preface.

I. Of the things which are carped at in my Compendium, one is that I transcribed very many annotations from those which the distinguished Anthony Ballerini, S.J., added to the Compendium of Father Gury, without naming the author of these. In this matter indeed, benevolent reader, you have me confessing the charge; but not so guilty that there is no place for excuse. Namely, if faith is to be had to the Censor, I suppress Ballerini craftily while I copy him out; and this is worthy of so much the graver rebuke, because I do not omit to name others from whom I take something. - I reply that one who acts craftily scarcely, or not even scarcely, foresees, or even suspects, that the fraud committed by him will someday be detected. But I certainly would have been foolish if I had not foreseen, or at least had not even suspected, that very many of those things which I copied from Ballerini's annotations would be discovered. Or was Father Dumas, S.J., also crafty, who himself turned to his own use about twenty-five of the same annotations which I copied out, without naming their author and with only the words of the same changed? Whether the same Father Dumas took from Ballerini other annotations, that is, ones different from those which I transcribed, I did not judge worth the trouble of investigating; for more and less do not change the species.

And so, to profess what is true, I judged it sufficient to have said in the Notice prefixed to my work that I copied out in very many things the Compendium of Father Gury. For since I was writing after the year 1869, and since everyone is to be judged to have used the latest edition of the work which he uses,

1 And now also for sale separately, and even rendered into English and sent gratis to very many of the clergy of this region.

it ought to have been sufficiently clear that I used that very edition which the distinguished Ballerini had enlarged with his annotations. And this also was the reason why, while I cite others, I do not name Ballerini. But indeed I ought in no way to have confused Gury with Ballerini. Wherefore, in this fourth edition of my book, in the Notice that must necessarily be read, in place of Gury I have written: Gury-Ballerini. - I pass on to other matters.

II. I acted the part of a compiler rather than of an author, the Censor argues, and this, he continues, although I most openly state it in these same words in the Notice prefixed to my work, is nevertheless to be blamed. - Why, you will ask, is it to be blamed? Behold, kind reader, the most acute reason for this matter brought forward by the censor!

In the year 1873, he says, in the periodical L'Univers, someone raised the expectation of a work to be published by the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, in which the whole body of Alphonsian doctrine was to be handed down. But that SOMEONE is believed, rightly or wrongly, to be a son of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, or certainly brought forward the expectation which he raised in the name of that same Congregation; for the same Congregation did not neglect to defend and protect him, and by this very fact ratified what he promised in its name. But Father Konings, a member of the same Congregation, did not make good the pledge of this promise. Therefore he is to be blamed.

To this splendid reasoning let this very simple response be made. It is plainly false that the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer ratified that writing which was inserted in the periodical L'Univers, as is evidently proved by the things which are read on page XI in the Apologetic Preface prefixed to the second edition of the Vindiciae Alphonsianae, in these words:

"On the 8th day of May of last year (1873), entirely without our knowledge, a certain review appeared in the French periodical L'Univers, by the anonymous author E. P. We cannot be silent that the same review (although it contains certain things excellently said, and was certainly written in good faith) affected us with no light sorrow; for, besides the fact that some opinions set forth by us are there not accurately presented, both the immoderate praises attributed to the Vindiciae and the accusations brought forward in the public sheets against Father Ballerini displeased us not a little." By what reasoning, therefore, the adversary, who surely is not ignorant of that second edition of the Vindiciae, could affirm that the things which were written in the aforesaid periodical had been ratified by the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, is plainly not understood. Nor is it understood any more why he did not rather go to the Vindiciae themselves, in which on p. 900 (second edition, T. II, p. 556) the promise or proposal about which the question is raised is set forth in clear words.

But indeed the Authors of the Vindiciae promised another work than that which I brought to light. Therefore I am to be carped at. Truly he must be of a very sharp mind who perceives the force of this argument. Ought not the adversary, before he concluded from that premise that I was to be carped at, to have proved that my work was that very work which - or at least one of those which - the said Authors promised? But he does not prove this; rather, without any proof whatever, in two periods, of which one immediately follows the other, he states it first without any doubt,1 and then indeed by way of opinion.2 Then at length the adversary would have reasoned rightly if he had set up this argument and no other: Father Konings's work is not that of which the Defenders gave a promise. Therefore another is to be expected.

But the adversary's conclusion violates not only the laws of Logic, but also stands entirely apart from the matter itself and from truth. Receive this in a few words, reader. My Compendium, for the greater part already, was prepared for the press before the Vindiciae Alphonsianae were published, as several both of my confreres and of the secular clergy, whose counsel I used in composing it, can testify; - of the Vindiciae themselves, whether to be written or already written, before they were published, nothing whatever had become known to me, as I myself solemnly testify; - I was neither ordered by my Superiors, nor in any way impelled, to compose my work; but, with their permission, I yielded to the requests of students and of other members who desired to have at hand the sincere doctrine of their Holy Father written according to the Gury method, and adapted to the condition of these Federated States.

1 "It is no doubt to do honor to these engagements that Rev. Father Konings, in the name of his confreres, has had printed the Theologia Moralis... Sancti Alphonsi in compendium redacta..."

2 "This is, we believe, the first of the works promised by the school of Saint Alphonsus, in order to give us the whole scientific work of the Doctor of our Age."

Wherefore I also did not write the entire body of Alphonsian doctrine, and I intentionally omitted the things which the Holy Doctor hands down, for example, concerning the obligations of Beneficiaries, Canons, and other things which do not pertain to practice in these our ecclesiastical provinces.

III. I now come to that rebuke by which the mark of literary plagiarism is branded upon me: namely, that I followed completely the method of Father Gury's Compendium, and that the things which I copied out from it fill seven hundred fifty-four columns of my book.

Literary plagiarism, in Vitruvius, even goes by the name of theft. And rightly indeed; for, like theft, it is the occult taking away of another's thing, the owner being reasonably unwilling. Let us see whether this notion of theft fits that which I am accused of having done.

And first indeed, was the taking away in this case occult? I indeed believe that it was not so occult that one who demands it to be more open would seem to demand something which exceeds even the supreme right itself. Namely, it was enough, even for preserving the laws of social propriety, to have warned the reader of my Compendium concerning the matter in these words: "In very many things I have almost copied out the Compendium of Moral Theology of Father Gury, whose most excellent method is approved by almost all both Professors and students of moral theology, and which I have followed, endeavoring before other things that I should bring it as completely as possible into conformity with Alphonsian doctrine." Therefore the reprover demands something excessive, when he demands that, according to the example of my Holy Father, who distinguished the text of Busembaum from his own by marks of quotation,1 in a new edition of my work I should distinguish by the same marks the things which I copied out from Gury. Surely Father Dumas, of the Society of Jesus, when in the year 1875 he published the Gury Compendium, did not believe that he was doing injury to the illustrious name of Father Gury, if, with additions and corrections inserted in the Gury context itself, and these not few, and with no sign distinguishing them, he published the work of that most excellent man.

But, someone perhaps will object, Father Dumas did not lack the right to act in that way; for this had been granted to him by those to whom, by the laws, the faculty of committing the Gury Compendium again to type now uniquely pertains. Therefore he did not usurp another's thing while the owners were reasonably unwilling; wherefore his condition is far different from mine.

Let us see whether this objection has any force, as in appearance, so also in reality and in truth. - The things which I borrowed from Gury can be another's by only a twofold right, namely positive and natural. Concerning positive right there can be no doubt here, since between France and the Federated States of America there exists no literary pact, as they call it. Therefore the question remains only concerning natural right. But Gury and Dumas decide this in my favor. For to the former it seems more probable, and to the latter probable, that a book already published in type by that very fact becomes of common right.2

But even granted, though not conceded, that I usurped another's thing, the question would remain to be discussed whether I usurped it while the owners were reasonably unwilling. Let us go to Ballerini. After he has said that the opinion which seems more probable to Father Gury and probable to Father Dumas must be rejected, in the note to the cited n. 568, q. 4, he has these words: "Nevertheless, since the publication of books in very distant regions less hinders an author from receiving the fruit fitting to his own industry, that principle set forth beforehand" (that is, the principle concerning the natural right of a man to the fruit of his own industry and ingenuity) "seems to press less with regard to these." There is no one who does not see that this is perfectly accommodated to my work.

Let the reader notice besides that in the resolution given by Fathers Gury and Dumas the question concerns the book of some author published in its entirety, or almost in its entirety, by another, or at least not notably enlarged or changed by him. Wherefore the things which the praised authors resolve hold a fortiori concerning my Compendium. For my Compendium, including the XCV pages prefixed to the work, which equal 190 columns, has 2071 columns. And so, even supposing that the number of columns which I copied from Gury was correctly computed, there will remain 1318 columns (or, excluding those 190 prefixed to the work, 1128), which have nothing in common with the Gury Compendium.

1 The example of the Holy Doctor does not make to the matter; since, when he was writing commentaries on Busembaum, he necessarily had to distinguish his own text from this latter's text.

2 See Gury, Tom. I, n. 568, q. 3, and Gury-Dumas, in the same place.

But if the Censor's computation does not comprehend those things which I took from Ballerini's Annotations, the number of columns will indeed be diminished; but even then it will be true that by far the greater part of my work was not borrowed from the Compendium of Gury-Ballerini.

Add that very many of those things which I copied from Gury were changed by me; for "before other things I endeavored" that I should bring Gury's Compendium "as completely as possible into conformity with Alphonsian doctrine." Therefore the title which the Censor prefixed to his Writing labors under the fault of equivocation and wanders in great part from the truth: "The Theology of Gury-Ballerini commended by a disciple of St. Alphonsus." The things said hold by a stronger right concerning this fourth edition of my book, in which not a few things have both been added and changed.

IV. But indeed, the Censor observes, I changed some things taken from the Gury Compendium which there was no need to change, or perhaps3 even changed wrongly; sometimes in such a way that where Gury gives St. Alphonsus entire, I adulterate the text of the latter.4

I would affect the reader with weariness if I touched even lightly on the individual trifles which the industry of an accuser worthy of graver matters has gathered together as if in the place of an argument. Therefore I pass over the noun petasos (which, although by strictness it would have had to be used, today is nevertheless less understood by most), changed into pileos; pluries, which is simpler, said in place of centies; the omitted adverb bene, which there was no necessity of placing. On the other things which are of some importance I am pleased to dwell for a little while.

In n. 1551, 1, of my Compendium I substituted the adjective VERY GRAVE (of a cause) for the adjective GRAVE used by Gury, and even for the adjective JUST used by St. Alphonsus. The Censor asks whether the adjective JUST, which St. Alphonsus used, is more correctly changed into VERY GRAVE than into GRAVE? I reply that the words "for a just cause" are very often used among Theologians in place of a genus, which contains under itself the species of a lighter, graver, and gravest cause; in other words, if, as in the case of which there is question in the cited place, some dispensation is at issue, in order that the cause be just, it must be proportionate to the gravity of the law. Hence, in order that dispensation be given in a law of very grave moment (such as is that of which there is question in the cited place, namely the law of the firmness of a ratified but not consummated Marriage), a very grave cause is required. Wherefore also St. Alphonsus, speaking of the present matter, L. VI. n. 959, does not simply (as someone could infer from the Censor's context) say that a just cause suffices for dispensing in a ratified but not consummated Marriage; rather, using a more restricted expression, he writes these things: "But a just cause (as the aforesaid Authors say) would be either supervening impotence, or imminent scandal, or newly discovered sterility, when it would be necessary for the public good that offspring be generated." There is no one who doubts that each of these three causes is rightly called very grave. The mind of the Holy Doctor is set forth even more clearly by these words, which immediately follow the preceding: "They also add, if there are disparity of condition, contagious disease, foreseen dissensions, mutual consent of the spouses; but these four causes Conc. p. 247, n. 20, does not admit, and deservedly." Surely of these four causes one or another is grave; and nevertheless the Holy Doctor admits none of them as just. Why? Because they do not seem proportionate to the gravity of the law itself. Hence also in Homo Apostolicus, Tr. XXIII, n. 90, he teaches that that dispensation can be granted, "yet with a great cause urging," as he adds. And these things indeed are clearer than light. Therefore both Gury and Dumas rightly abstained from bringing forward the Holy Doctor in defense of their opinion, namely that a grave cause suffices.

No less inept is what the Censor added in confirmation of his rebuke concerning the conflict of the cited n. 1551, 1, with the following 1553, q. 4. - Father Konings, he says, in n. 1553, q. 4, substituted the adjective GRAVE (cause) for the adjective JUST (cause), which Gury uses, and the Censor asks why a JUST cause is in this place called GRAVE, when in n. 1551, 1, it hears the name VERY GRAVE?5 - I am ashamed to teach the one asking; for the same response holds as above.

3 "Modifications to the Gury-Ballerini text of doubtful value."

4 "Corrections to the Gury-Ballerini text which go so far as to reach the text of St. Alphonsus."

5 "Why would JUST first have the value of very grave, and a few lines lower only that of grave?"

Namely, because of the different character of the cases about which there is question in those two numbers, in order that the cause be just, in the case proposed in n. 1551, 1, it is required that it be very grave, while in the case of which n. 1553, q. 4 treats,1 it is required and suffices that it be grave. Or will the Censor judge that a lighter cause suffices in order that a spouse, by private authority, be separated from the bed from an unwilling consort? For here the question is about one unwilling, not one consenting; for of this latter the matter had already been treated in n. 1552, III. 1. Therefore there is no conflict between n. 1551, 1, and n. 1553, q. 4.

But behold, for proof of the same thing, other places brought forward by the Censor, namely numbers 1374 and 1376 of my Compendium, and two ETCETERAS. For an argument from ETCETERAS seems to be among the Censor's delights; but to the reader, who does not swear by the words of the master, it will be able to bring neither any pleasantness nor light. Therefore, passing over the argument drawn from the two ETCETERAS, I come to those numbers 1374 and 1376. But even in these I stick fast; for where the crime is in these numbers, the Censor does not indicate by even a little word. Did I perhaps sin because at n. 1374 I dared to add to the words of Gury from St. Alphonsus (L. VI, n. 471 under 8): "and it can also be forbidden to the scrupulous"? Or because at n. 1376 in the Response to q. 1 I advanced to that degree of rashness that I omitted the adverb more probably, which Gury uses but which is not found in St. Alphonsus (Book VI, n. 502); indeed also because I was unwilling to copy out from Gury (Tom. II, n. 572, Resp. ad 2) some opinion of Suarez not to be admitted from the principles of St. Alphonsus (cited place, Dub. 2 and Dub. 3)? I pass over the rest in silence. For to one comparing Gury's Compendium with mine at the cited n. 1376 and consulting St. Alphonsus, it will be clear almost at first glance that the things which I changed in this number in the Gury Compendium had necessarily to be changed, if, as was firmly proposed to me, I held it a matter of religion not to recede even the breadth of a fingernail from the doctrine of St. Alphonsus.

But nevertheless, the censor carps, sometimes I adulterated the text of the Saint where Gury gives it entire. For in n. 330, Principle I, I omitted the adverb more probably, which is read in Gury, and in n. 331, q. 1, for the word precept, which likewise is found in Gury, I substituted the word necessity. But the words more probably and precept are found in St. Alphonsus. - I reply. It would not have been difficult for the Censor to detect the reason why I omitted that more probably. Namely, in the cited place (n. 330) the discourse is about prayer. But in Book IV, at the beginning, St. Alphonsus really writes: "It is more probable that prayer is necessary for us by necessity of means." But what in this place he hands down as more probable, he hands down as certain in his work: The Great Means of Prayer, c. 1. Wherefore I brought forward both places in citation 4 at the bottom of p. 151, col. 1, and, because of the distinction between these two works of the Holy Doctor, I omitted the adjective more probable. And this also was the reason why at n. 331, q. 1, I substituted for the word precept the word necessity, under which both the necessity of precept and of means can be understood.

After this first unfortunate argument, the Censor heaps up in a mass, for proof of his accusation, numbers 1536, 1557, 1403, 345, 346, 1094, q. 4, of my Compendium, with the usual addition: etc., etc. - There is no leisure to go through each one. But from one, benevolent reader, and indeed from the first, learn all. Tom. II, n. 737, Gury has these things: "If the contracting parties have recently fixed a domicile in the present parish, the banns must be published also in the parish where they formerly lived: but a sufficient time is six months, says St. Lig. n. 991." For the words which are printed in italic letters, substitute others; and so also does the distinguished Dumas substitute others. Why so? Because St. Alphonsus in the cited place has absolutely nothing about those six months. Which one erred? Gury or I?

V. It remains that I clear myself of that most grave!! crime, that sometimes I copied the very errors of Father Gury in citing St. Alphonsus; with so great, namely, and so blind a confidence I used the Gury Compendium!! In place of an argument the Censor brings forward altogether two Gury errors copied by me. Namely, n. 548, q. 1, at the bottom of the page under 3, after the example of Gury I cited St. Alphonsus in this way: Book VI, 432-666; but I ought to have cited: L. VI, 422, 666. Besides, in n. 1394, q. 8, when bringing forward the words of the Holy Doctor, in place of his, which is read in St. Alphonsus, with Gury I wrote hisce. - Let the benevolent reader pardon me if I even briefly touch upon trifles of this kind. Tom. II, n. 96,

1 There the question is about separation from the bed by private authority.

q. 4, Gury (and with him Dumas) cites St. Alphonsus in italic letters, and yet not entire. With the same words as Gury, I cite the Saint; but neither in italic letters nor with marks of quotation. Surely this one thing could have been an argument for the Censor that I did not copy Gury with blind confidence. Another argument of this matter is furnished by n. 1414 of my Compendium, where I bring forward the text of St. Alphonsus entire, while Gury and Dumas omit some word of the same, although, with marks of quotation used, they copy out his text. Therefore did Dumas also copy Gury with a certain blind confidence? He must be foolish who would infer this from it. Therefore, etc.

But now I have tried the reader's patience enough. What I have done, I have done unwillingly, and, unless an inescapable necessity compels me, it is fixed and deliberate with me that, if perhaps the Censor repeats the battle, I shall answer nothing at all. For by those things which I have written, I trust that I have at least obtained this: that those things which he perhaps is going to write again will be read cautiously, and will not be admitted with blind confidence.

A. KONINGS, C.SS.R.

After these things had been printed, by a friendly hand I received another writing of the Censor, in which certain other things also are charged as faults both against me and against the Vindiciae Alphonsianae. To these I reply only this one thing: From my rather long silence toward his former writing, I seemed to the Censor to have given him my conquered hands: "he who is silent," he says, "seems to consent." But from those things which I have written, anyone will easily conclude that this Rule of Law was applied too hastily by the Censor; wherefore I also advise him in a friendly way that, if perhaps a response is made more slowly, or even never, to that second writing, he should not infer from this that the things he wrote are irrefragable.