Question — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Second Question. On The Sources Of Moral Theology
The source of moral theology is taken in a twofold sense: that from which moral truths are first known, a source; and that in which known moral truths are contained, theological places.
9. Sources. The supreme sources of moral theology, from which moral truths are known, are divine revelation and human reason, both natural and theological, that is, enlightened by faith.
a. Moral theology embraces supernatural truths manifested to us through divine revelation: for since the end to which this science must direct man is supernatural, it must contain within itself truths of the supernatural order; and indeed we must know these truths from divine revelation.
b. In order to obtain the end of human life, it is necessary that man also observe the laws of the natural order: for the supernatural end does not exclude the natural end, but supposes and perfects it. Therefore the laws of the law of nature, manifested to us through reason, likewise belong to the object of moral theology. Moreover reason declares and illustrates moral truths divinely revealed, and by reasoning deduces new truths from them.
c. Which moral truths have been manifested to us either through revelation or through reason, we learn from the infallible magisterium of the Church. For this magisterium was instituted by God and endowed with the prerogative of infallibility so that, with supreme and infallible authority, it might propose and declare to us truths, both supernatural and natural, pertaining to the moral order. Therefore by some authors the magisterium of the Church is called the formal or directive principle of moral theology, just as of dogmatic theology.
1 Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis VIII, 4. From the time when moral theology, among the theological sciences, began to exhibit a discipline standing by itself and distinct from dogmatic theology, treatment also began concerning the sources or places of moral theology. For although the sources of moral and dogmatic theology are almost the same, nevertheless moral theology has some proper to itself. Francis Zacharia, S.J., first published a special treatise concerning the places of moral theology, whom others then followed in this matter. Cf. the dissertation prefixed as prolegomena to Alphonsus de Liguori's moral theology, concerning the origins, places, and excellence of casuistic theology; Zacharia composed this dissertation at the request of St. Alphonsus himself, and the holy Doctor had it placed before the third edition of his work.
10. The places of moral theology. Now those documents must be exhibited in order in which moral truths, both supernatural and natural, are found deposited.
- Sacred Scripture, both of the Old and of the New Testament.
a. Sacred Scripture of the New Testament is the primary place of moral theology, insofar as it contains not only moral precepts and counsels brought forth from the mouth of the divine Savior Himself, but also exhibits to us the most perfect example of Christian life in the most holy life of Christ the Lord.
b. Sacred Scripture of the Old Testament comprises precepts both moral and ceremonial and judicial. The ceremonial and judicial precepts, deprived of the force of binding, have ceased; but the moral precepts, confirmed by Christ and raised to greater perfection, retain binding force in the New Testament.
Note. The moral doctrine of the Old Testament is not absolutely, but nevertheless relatively, perfect; and this indeed in a twofold sense: both because it is more perfect than the moral doctrine of the other peoples of antiquity, and because it contains the perfection of the New Testament as it were in its root. For Christ the Lord did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.1 By the most wise counsel of divine providence it was brought about that divine revelation was gradually developed from imperfect beginnings to the perfection due to it. Moreover morality had to be accommodated to the character and capacity of the Israelite people, to whom the utterances of God were entrusted.2 Therefore to a people not yet capable of a more perfect morality, precepts are at first proposed from authority without internal motives, which are added later; likewise at the beginning the same people are drawn to the keeping of the law more with a view to reward than with a view to virtue. But it can by no means be conceded that the Old Testament contains anything opposed to uprightness. What they reproach in the Old Testament, namely that the actions and precepts of God - killing the innocent, taking away what belongs to another, hating enemies, and the like - are vicious, and that persons inspired by God teach and perpetrate things which are vicious, rests upon passages of Sacred Scripture wrongly understood. Besides, the sayings and deeds of the Old Testament must be measured not according to the perfect norms of the New Testament, but according to the intellectual and moral culture of the Israelite people.
- Councils, both general and particular - whether national, provincial, or diocesan - by canons which pertain to morals, partly declare and define moral precepts divinely given, and partly establish new precepts for the salvation of the faithful.
It must be noted that most laws given by the Church are disciplinary laws, which direct the external morals of the faithful and therefore are variable. For external morals, just as the circumstances of things, are changed day by day; hence it happens that disciplinary laws also are various according to the character of times and places: for what is useful at this time and place becomes useless at another time and place, indeed sometimes even harmful.3
- Decrees of the supreme pontiffs, by which in diverse ways - either through constitutions, or encyclicals, or through responses of the congregations - either false moral doctrines are condemned, or moral precepts of divine or ecclesiastical law are declared, or it is expressly established what must be held and what must be done concerning determinate matters.4
From condemned propositions, directly and immediately the proscribed error is known; but indirectly and mediately, at the same time, the truth defined by the Church is also known. For by this very fact, that the error is rejected, the contradictorily opposite proposition is established as true; and since condemned propositions are infallibly false, it is rightly inferred that the opposite propositions are infallibly true.5 Of condemned propositions which pertain to moral matter, these are the chief:
a. The 28 propositions condemned by Alexander VII on September 24, 1665, as scandalous and dangerous in practice.
b. The 17 propositions condemned by the same Alexander VII on March 18, 1666, as scandalous.
c. The 66 propositions condemned by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679, at least as scandalous and pernicious in practice.
d. The 31 propositions condemned by Alexander VIII on December 7, 1690, as rash, injurious, ill-sounding, savoring of heresy, and so forth.
e. The 5 propositions concerning the duel condemned by Benedict XIV on November 10, 1752, by the constitution Detestabilem, as false, scandalous, and pernicious.6
The works of the holy Fathers. The holy Fathers of the Church are to be considered not only as witnesses of tradition, but also as teachers of truths pertaining to morals. Therefore it must be distinguished whether they propose ecclesiastical doctrine or their own. If they agree in proposing ecclesiastical doctrine, their opinion is to be held as absolutely certain, for the Church cannot fail from the truth. But if they propose a truth concerning which nothing has been defined by the Church, whether they agree or do not agree, the arguments by which they confirm it are to be considered and weighed; and regarding their authority, the rules to be established concerning the authority of theologians are valid.
The works of theologians, especially of those whom the Church greatly esteems, and indeed the Church attributes singular authority to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. Hence, when people seek decisions in moral matters, the Church sometimes responds: "Let approved authors be consulted."
Concerning the authority of theologians, these points from Fr. Zacharia must be held:
a. "If in some question all casuists agree with one another, saying that something is lawful, it is close to heresy to depart from their opinion.
b. From the common opinion of almost all casuist authors, arguments are taken as probable to such a degree that, unless a plainly grave and by no one observed reason or authority - but a clear and manifest one - stands in the way, it is rash to oppose them.
c. The testimony of even many casuist theologians, if other learned men contend against them, has no more force for producing belief than either their own reason or a weightier authority will have approved.
d. A single author, if he is above all exception and brings forward a reason which others have not considered or have not sufficiently solved, while he himself conveniently solves the reasons of others, although he teaches against the common opinion, will be able to render an opinion probable."7
- The usage and practice of the Church: for the moral doctrines and laws which the Church proposes are found expressed in the morals and examples of the faithful. Therefore the usage of the Church fittingly serves to prove and confirm moral truths, especially those which refer to the sacraments. Therefore monuments which testify to the ancient usage of the Church are deservedly counted among the sources of moral theology.
1 Matt. 5:17.
2 Rom. 3:2.
3 Cf. Benedict XIV, De synodo l. 5, c. 3, n. 7.
4 A collection of these decrees was made by Jan. Bucceroni, Enchiridion morale complectens selectas decisiones sanctae sedis et s. r. congregationum^3 (Rome: Typographia iuvenum opificum, 1908).
5 Cf. Dominicus Viva, Theses damnatae, etc., proemial question.
6 Commentaries on the condemned propositions were chiefly written by: Dominicus Viva, Damnatae theses ad theologicam trutinam revocatae; Ioannes de Cardenas, Crisis theologica (on the propositions condemned by Innocent XI); Ioannes Reuter, Theologia moralis, Part I, Analysis theologiae moralis reprobatae; Didacus Duarte, Brevis expositio propositionum damnatarum a sede apostolica.
7 Cf. Zacharia, Dissertatio prolegomena, pr. 2, c. 5.