Prologue

In these latest times so many Manuals of Moral Theology, and these most suitable for the use of schools, have seen the light in almost all lands, that someone perhaps might say that a new Manual furnishes nothing else than to carry owls to Athens. Therefore it will not be beside the matter to indicate briefly the reasons for writing.

The first reason is the promise made in my already published Manual of Canon Law. For at that time I promised that I would publish a Manual of Moral Theology as a supplement to the Manual of Canon Law. But to stand by promises, according to one's powers, is a matter of honor.

The second reason is the request of many disciples, repeatedly made known to me. For they earnestly asked that I would commit to print a compendium of the lectures which for several years I had given in the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.

Besides these two external reasons, a third reason, and that an internal one, moved me especially to write. For no one even slightly versed in theological matters will deny that Moral Theology has sometimes declined too much into pure Casuistry. For there are some Moralists who, neglecting serious investigation of principles and virtues, so devote themselves wholly to enumerating, distinguishing, weighing, and measuring sins, that their Moral Theology is now nothing except a list or code of sins. Certain Casuists - to use the words of Blessed Thomas More - strive to show this one thing: how near one may approach to sin without sinning. This manner of acting has indeed brought no small odium upon Moral Theology.

I am not, certainly, one who makes little of Casuistry when circumscribed by its due limits, since it is altogether necessary in every discipline that regards practical life. Hence not only Moral Theology, but also medical science, juridical science, natural science, and so forth, are maimed if all Casuistry is lacking to them. Yet Casuistry ought not to claim for itself the first parts in any true science, and especially not in Moral Theology. For Casuistry is nothing else than the application of principles to particular cases. Therefore right method strongly demands that first of all the principles themselves be unfolded and clearly perceived. When these have been clearly perceived, application in individual cases becomes secure and easy.

Since these things are so, I have tried, as far as I could, to set forth and explain the solid principles of Moral Theology. Therefore I have faithfully followed the method of St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, who in the moral part of his Theological Summa treats sparingly of individual sins, but most broadly of the individual virtues. For if anyone has known the nature and exercise of the several virtues, he will also quite easily make judgment concerning the individual opposed sins. Moreover, knowledge of the virtues will benefit the priest not only in the tribunal of penance, but also in catechesis, in preaching, and in his own spiritual life.

Since these things are so, I have studied with all my powers to explain the individual virtues. After these had been explained, I discussed the opposed vices. I supported the proposed doctrine by the authority and reasons of the Angelic Doctor in such a way that I seem to myself truly to have given a Thomistic Moral Theology. Perhaps in no other modern Manual of Moral Theology are found so numerous citations from the diverse works of Aquinas as in this book.

Besides St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, in almost all questions I examined the works of St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, whose authority in moral matters is exceedingly great. Moreover, I often had recourse to old authors of great name, for example Hugh of St. Victor, St. Raymond of Pennafort, Blessed Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, St. Antoninus, and others. For these old authors seemed to me most worthy to be cited more frequently in Moral Theology than is commonly done today. On the other hand I also adduced many modern authors, and not only theologians, when questions debated today are treated. There is no reason why I should specially note that I also examined the most recent decisions of the Roman Curia. By this manner of proceeding I tried to draw sound doctrine from clear sources, joining new things and old in friendly fashion.

May God grant that this work of mine may redound to His glory and to the utility of its readers.

I was writing at Fribourg, Switzerland, on the 15th day of October 1914.

The Author