Chapter — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Chapter II. On The Sources Of Moral Theology
The sources of existence14 of some science are called the places or storehouses from which it takes its arguments. Moral Theology does not have other sources than dogmatic Theology, namely Sacred Scripture, Tradition, the Holy Fathers, the decisions of the Roman Pontiffs, general Councils, the authority of theologians, and natural reason. Only a few things may be touched here which pertain more specially to Moral Theology.
14 Besides sources of existence, sources of knowledge are distinguished, that is, the means of knowing some science. The sources of knowledge of Moral Theology are divine revelation manifested to us through the magisterium of the Church and natural reason.
5. 1. On the use of Sacred Scripture in moral matters. Sacred Scripture, which indeed is nothing other than the written Word of God, or, as St. Augustine beautifully says,15 "letters sent by God to men, which exhort us to live well," is the clearest source of Moral Theology. Whence St. Paul16 teaches: "All scripture divinely inspired is useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed for every good work." - From these things it is plain that any priest studying Moral Theology is bound frequently to read and search Sacred Scripture. Therefore in the Corpus iuris17 it is held: "Ignorance, the mother of all vices, must especially be avoided in the priests of God, who have taken up the office of teaching among the peoples. For the Apostle Paul admonishes priests to read the Sacred Scriptures frequently.... Therefore let priests know the holy Scriptures and the canons, and let all their work consist in preaching and doctrine." Let St. Bonaventure18 also be heard writing these things: "Since according to Blessed Gregory the government of souls is the art of arts, and since the wounds of thoughts are more hidden than those of the viscera, it is truly horrible to see certain priests of our time, who either through torpor neglect to read Sacred Scripture, in which the art of the aforesaid government is most sufficiently handed down, ... or through ignorance do not know it. And nevertheless they do not shamelessly fear to profess themselves physicians of the heart in hearing confessions." - Certainly neither is the so-called philological or critical study of the Bible among moderns required nor is it sufficient for Moral Theology. Far be it indeed from us to disparage anything of this sort of study, which, when corrected within just limits, certainly can be very useful; but for Moral Theology it is exceedingly dry and unfruitful, at least if it alone is had. On the contrary, a truly theological study of Sacred Scripture is required, in order to draw from it the living truths of faith and morals.
In the Old Testament ceremonial, judicial, and moral precepts are commonly distinguished.19 Ceremonial precepts (for example, concerning circumcision, concerning sacrifices) no longer oblige, nor now can they licitly be observed in the New Law. Judicial precepts (for example, concerning the restoration of goods in the jubilee year, concerning usury, etc.) now no longer oblige, but can be prescribed anew by ecclesiastical or civil power, and this has sometimes been done; for example, certain impediments of marriage of the Old Testament have been sanctioned again by the Church. But moral precepts, for example, the precepts of the Decalogue, still remain in force, as being precepts of the natural law. - The things which are contained in the New Testament all remain in force and oblige; some indeed as precepts, for example, the reception of the Eucharist, but some as counsels, for example, the so-called evangelical counsels. By custom, however, the prohibition issued by the apostles (Acts 15:20) concerning not eating blood and what has been strangled has been taken away. Not a few places in Sacred Scripture need right interpretation concerning moral duties, for example, those things which are said there concerning the prohibition of an oath (Matt. 5:34), concerning communion under both species (Matt. 26:28), concerning divorce (Matt. 5:32), etc.
15 On Psalm 90 (Migne, Patr. lat. 37, 1159).
16 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
17 Dist. 38, c. 1, from the Fourth Council of Toledo.
18 In the Prologue of his Confessional.
19 Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. I-II, q. 99.
6. 2. On the use of Tradition in Moral Theology. "The sacred, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent,20 ... following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books of both the Old and New Testament, since one God is the author of each, and also the Traditions themselves pertaining both to faith and to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Spirit and preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church." Therefore Sacred Scripture is not the sole infallible rule both of faith and of morals, but Tradition preserved in continuous succession is such in an equal manner. In Moral Theology Tradition is especially to be attended to. For there are many things which become known to us only by Tradition (divine or apostolic or ecclesiastical), and oblige us, for example, the matter and form of confirmation, of orders, of extreme unction, etc. Tradition is manifested, if it is lawful so to speak, through the life of the Church, namely by actions (for example, liturgical actions), signs and doctrines (for example, catechetical doctrines), admitted in the Church herself by universal custom, although all these things have not been explicitly declared by her infallible magisterium. But I say: admitted by universal custom. For a particular custom or the doctrine of some particular doctor, however great, is not an irrefragable witness of Tradition, and accordingly does not so strictly oblige. St. Thomas21 teaches to the point: Theology uses "the authorities of other doctors of the Church as if arguing from proper sources, but probably," that is, the authority of one or of a few doctors asserting something, the others being silent, is of itself only probable. St. Augustine22 expresses this very well: "Nor ought we to have the disputations of any men whatever, although catholic and praiseworthy men, as canonical Scriptures, so that it would not be lawful for us, with the honor due to those men preserved, to disapprove and reject something in their writings, if perhaps we have found that they thought otherwise than the truth has, understood by divine help either by others or by us. Such am I in the writings of others; such do I wish the understanders of my writings to be." Therefore neither the opinion of St. Augustine, nor of St. Thomas, nor of St. Alphonsus, if their authority alone is attended to, makes something morally certain and strictly obligatory in Moral Theology; nor is any theologian alone a sufficient witness of ecclesiastical Tradition. Nevertheless it would be a matter of great rashness to contradict such great doctors without a most efficacious reason.
20 Sess. 4, Decree concerning the canon of Scripture (Denz. n. 783).
21 S. theol. I, q. 1, a. 8 ad 2.
22 Ep. 148 to Fortunatianus n. 15 (Migne, Patr. lat. 33, 638).
7. The authority of St. Alphonsus. Certain things are here subjoined concerning the authority of St. Alphonsus de Ligorio, Doctor of the Church, in Moral Theology. Several times the Supreme Pontiffs and Roman Congregations have extolled the Moral Theology of this holy Doctor with the highest praises.23 For the sake of brevity let us here weigh only the more principal points. In the first place comes the decree of the S.R.C. of 18 May 1803, concerning the revision and approbation of the works of Venerable Alphonsus in order to his beatification: "A full report having been made both of the aforesaid printed works and of all the other manuscripts, nothing worthy of censure was found in them." - Such or a similar decree is always required and given when there is question of the solemn beatification of some author who has published books. Whence from a decree of this sort no special commendation can be drawn out. This is also plain from the fact that this decree speaks not only of the Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus, but also of his other works. Now among the other works of this Saint are found some (for example, his doctrine concerning grace) which certainly have no special commendation of the Holy See. Generally Benedict XIV24 teaches that "it can never be said that the doctrine of a servant of God has been approved by the Holy See, but at most that it can be said not to have been disapproved, if the revisers reported that nothing is found in his works which is opposed to the decrees of Urban VIII."
In the second place comes the response of the Sacred Penitentiary, given on 5 July 1831 to the Archbishop of Besancon, Rohan-Chabot. Two questions had been proposed: I. "Whether a professor of Sacred Theology can safely follow and profess the opinions which Blessed Alphonsus a Ligorio professes in his Moral Theology?" II. "Whether a confessor is to be disturbed who follows all the opinions of Blessed Alphonsus a Ligorio in the practice of the tribunal of Sacred Penance for this reason alone, that nothing worthy of censure was found by the Apostolic Holy See in his works?" The Sacred Penitentiary judged that the answer should be: To I: "Affirmatively, yet without it being judged from this that those are to be reprehended who follow opinions handed down by other approved authors." To II: "Negatively, regard being had to the mind of the Holy See concerning the approbation of the writings of servants of God for the effect of canonization." This response was approved by Gregory XVI; but as Bouquillon25 says: "It appears clearer than the midday light that this response is nothing other than the consequence and application of the preceding decree." For from it nothing else follows except that it is licit to follow the opinion of St. Alphonsus just as of any canonized author.
In the third place come other encomia bestowed by the Holy See upon the holy Doctor, for example: "Let him consult approved authors, especially St. Alphonsus de Ligorio, book VI, n. 321, and Benedict XIV, and conform himself to their opinions."26 - "St. Alphonsus moreover elucidated obscure things and declared doubtful things, since amid the entangled opinions of theologians, whether laxer or more rigorous, he laid out a safe way"; thus Pius IX, Apostolic Letter concerning St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church. Pius X, in the letter given on 12 June 1905 to Leonard Gaude, calls St. Alphonsus the Doctor "whom all can safely follow in doctrines of morals" (at the beginning of vol. I of the new edition of the Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus). - Certainly also from these or similar words nothing else follows except that St. Alphonsus is a very approved author and that his doctrine, considered in its complex whole, is altogether eminent; but it does not also follow that the individual opinions of this holy Doctor are to be preferred to others or even that they are true. For, as regards his opinions touching canon law, not rarely have the Sacred Congregations not admitted them, for example, concerning a confessor hearing the confession of an accomplice but not absolving him,27 concerning mixed marriages as probably permitted without dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff.28 But even in some merely moral questions the opinion of St. Alphonsus is opposed by many theologians not without reason, for example, concerning a doer of damage excused from restitution, who burns the house of Caius instead of the house of Titius (Theol. mor. 3, n. 629). Since these things are so, we approve those things which Bouquillon29 says: "These things seemed to have to be proposed sincerely, namely by the study of truth alone. For so great is the authority of St. Alphonsus that it is not necessary to increase it by gratuitous praise. But to us they seem to exceed the just limits of praise who deduce from the documents brought forward that St. Alphonsus is the greatest among the moralists, that he can be in the place of the others, since he read eight hundred, discussed them, etc.; that St. Alphonsus is of as much value in Morals as St. Thomas is in Dogmatics (as if the Angelic did not equally shine forth in each science); likewise those who conclude from the alleged approbations that all opinions of St. Alphonsus are altogether founded, eminent, probable, common; that it is scarcely possible that any opinion of St. Alphonsus lose its probability otherwise than by a judgment of the Holy See, etc."30
23 You may see these encomia in Marc, Inst. moral., at the beginning of the work.
24 De beatif. et canoniz. Sanct. book 2, c. 34, n. 12.
25 Theol. mor. fund. n. 81.
26 S.C.C. 29 Aug. 1860.
27 Book 4, n. 556; cf. S. Poenit. 1 March 1878; S. Offic. 5 Dec. 1883.
28 Book 6, n. 56; cf. S. Offic. 3 Jan. 1871.
29 L. c. n. 85.
30 c. 1366, § 2. Cf. Mausbach, Die kath. Moral I (1913); Koch, Lehrb. der Moralth. § 8; Pruner, Lehrb. der Moralth. 12, and others.
8. 3. On the use of reason in Moral Theology. Right reason is never employed too much in Moral Theology, provided that it is truly right reason. Indeed Moral Theology is a science which primarily rests upon revealed faith; but since between faith and right reason no true contradiction can ever arise - as the Vatican Council defined, and as can easily also be shown, since one and the same truthful and infallible God is the author both of faith and of reason - it follows that reason can inquire with all its powers concerning the objects of Moral Theology. The best guide in this matter is St. Thomas Aquinas, who strives to explain even the highest mysteries of religion by reasons, insofar as this is possible. We shall try according to our powers to follow this Angelic Doctor as guide, and we shall indicate also the internal reason of almost all our assertions. For in this way knowledge will be more perfect and assent firmer. There is no reason for us expressly to note - for it is plain of itself - that we utterly repudiate the attempts of many moderns who wish moral science to be entirely independent from faith, and who patronize the so-called "voraussetzungslose Ethik," that is, an Ethics which is altogether independent from religion. For the end of moral science is to lead to the supernatural end, or to bind us again with God. Therefore moral science without religion is altogether impossible.
Scholion. On other sources of Moral Theology. Here we omit the question of how the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, of the Holy Roman Congregations, and Canon Law are sources for moral science. This matter will be treated better when the discussion is concerning the obligation of laws. For the present let this stand as a general rule: certain ecclesiastical laws introduce a moral obligation for Christians, that is, for those rightly baptized, and accordingly are sources of moral science.