Chapter — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Chapter I. On The Notion And End Of Moral Theology
1. Nominal definition. If the name itself is considered, moral theology is nothing other than the theological consideration of morals, that is, of moral or human acts. Now human morals can be considered in many ways, which diverse ways, however, can be reduced to two more principal categories, namely, to the philosophical and theological consideration of them.
Philosophically human morals are considered if they are judged and directed by the guidance and light of natural reason alone toward the last natural end, that is, earthly beatitude. This is performed by the discipline which is commonly called Moral Philosophy or Ethics. St. Thomas Aquinas writes to the point:1 "It belongs properly to moral philosophy ... to consider human operations, according as they are ordered to one another and to the end.... The subject2 of moral philosophy is human operation ordered to an end, or also man, insofar as he is voluntarily acting on account of an end." - More briefly still it can be said: Ethics is the science of the licit and the illicit, or the science of the rules of human activity toward the last end.3 A twofold principal office falls to moral philosophy: 1. by natural light to judge and indicate what is licit and what is illicit in human acts; 2. to command, by the authority of natural reason, what is to be done and what is to be omitted, after judgment has been passed concerning licitness or illicitness. Since this office embraces the whole free activity of man, it immediately follows that natural Ethics must cultivate a vast field of operations. Accordingly there are joined to it many subordinate sciences, for example, sociology, which considers human actions, namely obligations and rights, in order to human society; economic science (in the Aristotelian sense), which considers the rights and obligations of any domestic society or family; political science, which under a moral aspect considers the activity either of individuals or of communities in the governing of the state, etc.
Theologically human morals are considered if not only human reason is consulted and the natural end intended, but also if a) divinely revealed faith is established as the supreme rule, and b) the supernatural end, namely eternal beatitude or union with God in heaven, is intended. From what has been said it is plain why moral theology is very well described, according to the nominal definition, as the theological consideration of morals. For by it all human morals (whether good or evil) and all free acts (whether merits or demerits) are considered under the aspect of God, namely insofar as, divine revelation teaching, they lead to God or lead away from God. Wherefore the Angelic Doctor4 very well, succinctly, and profoundly teaches: "All things are treated in sacred doctrine [in Theology] under the aspect of God, either because they are God Himself, or because they have an order to God as to their principle and end. Whence it follows that God truly is the subject of this science." God is the principle, because His revelation is the first rule of morality; but He is the end, because the last end of all moral actions is conjunction with God in eternal beatitude. Hence true moral theology is necessarily theistic or theocentric, but not deistic nor autonomous in the Kantian sense.
Real definition. From what has been said concerning the nominal definition or explanation of Moral Theology, the way is now prepared for the real definition. 2 Among the ancients there is scarcely found a real definition of Moral Theology. But definitions given by moderns are not rarely obscure or incomplete. The following definition seems to be rather good: Moral theology is that part of theological science which judges and directs human acts in order to the supernatural end according to revealed principles.
It is said, 1°: it is part of theological science. Theology is divided by moderns in many ways: dogmatic, mystical, ascetical, exegetical, patristic, symbolic, liturgical, catechetical, positive, speculative, scholastic, polemical theology, etc. The old doctors are not accustomed to speak of these divisions; indeed the Angelic Doctor5 expressly teaches that Theology is one science, because it has only one formal object, which is God as principle and end. Nevertheless the same St. Thomas6 admits that, notwithstanding the unity of Theology, it is speculative and practical; which, according to him in this place, signifies dogmatic and moral theology. - Whatever may be the case concerning the parts of Theology, Dogmatics and Morals are intimately joined and cannot be separated from each other. For Dogmatics must always carry the torch before Morals, and Morals is bound to judge and direct human operations conformably to the truths illumined by Dogmatics. Therefore dogmatic Theology also is practical, namely, illuminating reason. Yet because it is occupied principally with the divine mysteries (the divine attributes, the Trinity, Redemption, etc.), whereas Morals is occupied with human actions, hence Dogmatics and Morals are suitably distinguished from each other as speculative and practical science, and Morals can be called a part of Theology. - It was said pointedly and deliberately, "of theological science"; for Morals is a science properly so called, equally as Dogmatics is. For science is commonly defined: knowledge of things through causes. Now moral Theology does not set forth rules of acting nakedly and crudely, but draws them out from the highest principles and investigates their causes; nor moreover is it merely casuistry, but from true theoretical principles it is bound to solve individual practical cases.
It is said, 2°: which judges and directs human acts... By these words the material object of this science is declared, which is human acts. But moral Theology is not a merely descriptive science of human acts, such as, for example, psychology is, but is a practical and normative science. For just as the cardinal virtue of prudence, so also moral Theology has a threefold act, and generally almost the same thing must be said of moral science as of the virtue of prudence, at least if moral Theology is considered as it is a habit existing in the mind. Now St. Thomas7 teaches that the acts or functions of prudence are three: to take good counsel, to judge, and to command. Thus similarly the office of moral Theology is first to take good counsel, namely to inquire with great diligence concerning principles and concerning the connection of the conclusion with the principles. It is by no means sufficient (as not rarely was done by Moral Casuistry of an inferior stamp) to heap together the opinions of some authors and then to admit some opinion proposed by them as probable; rather it is altogether necessary always to recur to indubitable principles, so that it may appear whether some opinion is right or not. Such recourse having been employed, the second office of moral Theology is: to judge concerning the licitness or illicitness of acts. But it must not stop here; rather its further office is to command or prohibit human acts in particular, or to direct them to the last end according especially to the norm of divine law.
It is said, 3°: in order to the supernatural end, to indicate the formal object or respect under which human acts (the material object) are considered. For whatever this science teaches must dispose toward obtaining the supernatural end better and more securely. For God, as He is the last end, is the proper object of moral Theology. Hence it appears why in the sacrament of penance, in which sinful man is joined anew (or more closely) with God, so fertile a field of labor is offered to moral Theology.
Since man cannot attain the supernatural end except by the exercise of virtues and the fulfillment of duties, hence moral Theology can also not unfittingly be defined: the doctrine concerning Christian virtues and duties, which man must fulfill in order to attain the supernatural end. But it is said: must, because it pertains not so much to moral Theology as to ascetical Theology to instruct concerning virtues to be exercised freely and in the most perfect degree.
Dignity and necessity of Moral Theology. As is clear from what has been said above, the principal end of Moral Theology is to direct human acts to the last end, or to meriting eternal life. 3 This end indeed is the highest. From this is plain both the dignity and the necessity of this discipline.8 Moreover moral Theology is a wholly necessary means for fruitfully exercising the government of souls, which deservedly is called by St. Gregory "the art of arts."9 For not all priests laboring for the salvation of souls need to be great orators, illustrious doctors, learned historians; nevertheless all must be well instructed in moral Theology. For how otherwise will they be able fruitfully to administer the sacrament of penance and to teach the Christian people the science of salvation? Accordingly the learned Mabillon10 deservedly admonishes: "The study of Moral Theology is to be cultivated before the others; ... to this, as long as one lives, labor must altogether be given."
Corollary. On the relation of Moral Theology to allied sciences. From what has been said, it can easily be drawn out what relation Moral Theology has with other allied disciplines, and indeed:
4 1. With Ethics. In the present condition of things the whole human race has been elevated to the supernatural order; and accordingly every action ethically good or evil is also morally good or evil, that is, it has an order to the supernatural end. Wherefore there is not given something ethically evil (a so-called philosophical sin) which is not at the same time theologically evil.11 Therefore, although Ethics and moral Theology are intimately connected and in no way opposed, nevertheless they differ in many things, namely: a) by reason of the breadth of the object: Ethics considers only natural practical truths, whereas moral Theology adds to these supernatural practical truths; b) by reason of the means of knowledge: Ethics knows all things through natural reason, but moral Theology also through supernatural faith; c) by reason of the end: Ethics considers man as a creature of God whom it directs to the natural end and happiness, whereas moral Theology considers man as a son of God and directs him to the supernatural end and happiness.
1 Lect. 1 in l. 1 Ethic.
2 What the Angelic calls the subject of some science, modern authors are accustomed to call its object.
3 Thus Bouquillon, Theol. mor. fund. n. 8.
4 S. theol. I, q. 1, a. 7.
5 Ibid., a. 3.
6 Ibid., a. 7.
7 S. theol. II-II, q. 47, a. 8.
8 Cf. S. theol. I, q. 1, a. 5; Bouquillon, Theol. mor. fund. n. 20.
9 Regula past. officii c. 1 (Migne, Patr. lat. 77, 14). In the strict sense moral Theology itself cannot be called an art, because the same thing under the same respect cannot be simultaneously science and art. Now moral Theology is a science properly so called, as was proved above, whose object is truth, namely the truth concerning the morality of human actions. But since moral Theology is so necessary for the art of the government of souls that that government is almost nothing other than the application of moral Theology, hence moral Theology itself is sometimes (but less properly) called "the art of arts."
10 De studiis monast. part 3, c. 2.
11 Cf. below, concerning the morality of human acts, n. 99 sqq.
2. With Dogmatics. The great theologians of old did not distinguish, that is, did not treat separately, Dogmatics and Morals, as was already said above. But if by the more moderns Morals is separated from Dogmatics, still Dogmatics must always remain its foundation and principle. For Dogmatics deduces from theological faith the conclusions to be believed, which conclusions to be believed Morals supposes and applies to the directing of human acts. Dogmatics therefore is as it were the root, while Morals is as it were the tree full of sweet fruits, which must draw its sap from the root, and which would at once wither if it were torn from the root; or Dogmatics is as it were the solid foundation, but Morals as it were a splendid palace built upon this foundation.
3. With Pastoral Theology, which is instruction concerning the care of souls rightly to be exercised, and which accordingly treats of the office of the pastor of souls. Pastoral Theology as a special discipline and distinct from the others was not in use before the eighteenth century; but now it is commonly a special discipline, which, upon moral Theology as upon a solid foundation, treats of those things which particularly concern the pastor of souls, and rightly instructs him in fruitfully performing his office.
4. With canon and civil law. Each of these bodies of law contains laws which (clothed with the due conditions) oblige in conscience. Wherefore moral Theology must attend to and rightly explain the moral obligations arising from ecclesiastical and civil laws.12 But the juridical interpretation of those laws does not pertain to moral Theology, but to the disciplines of ecclesiastical or civil law.
12 Em. Card. D'Annibale rightly says: "To give no attention at all to law and to promise oneself as a moral theologian is to be foolish" (Summula Theol. mor. Proemium n. 16).