Article I. On the Voluntary in General

The voluntary, according to St. Thomas, is that "whose principle is in the one operating . . . yet in such a way that the one operating himself knows the individual circumstances which concur for the operation": or, it is an act proceeding from the will illumined by intellectual knowledge of the individual things, namely of the object, end, and circumstances. Cf. St. Thomas, 3 Ethic., lect. 4.

The voluntary is distinguished in many ways, namely:

1st. Perfect or imperfect. The former is that which is done with full knowledge and full consent of the will; but the latter is that which proceeds from somewhat obscure knowledge, or from imperfect consent.

2nd. Voluntary simply or in a certain respect. The former is sometimes defined as that which is done from full deliberation and inclination of the will; the latter, as that which is done with consent of the will, but with some repugnance, or some inclination of the will toward the opposite. But more often the Doctors understand and explain this division in a different way. For they call voluntary simply that which proceeds from the absolute and efficacious will of man, even if there is given, to the contrary, a certain conditioned nolleity, so that apart from this case it would not be done, as happens in a sailor who, when a storm is pressing, casts merchandise into the sea; then they call that voluntary simply and involuntary in a certain respect, or more briefly a mixed voluntary simply. But if there is present no mixture of the involuntary, because no actual conditioned nolleity is given, as happens in a sinner seriously penitent from fear of hell, then it is called a pure voluntary simply. But voluntary in a certain respect is called by the same Doctors that which is according to the conditioned and inefficacious will of man, although here and now a prevailing unwillingness is present; for example, a player would gladly prolong the game, unless the time of Mass were pressing. Cf. St. Thomas, 1-2, q. 6, art. 6. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 9 and 21. - Voit, n. 4.

3rd. Direct or indirect. The former is that which is intended in itself, or through itself, that is, which in the order of intention is the immediate object of the will, although perhaps it is very remote in the order of execution; but the latter is called that which is not willed in itself but in another, or rather is foreseen as about to follow from another thing directly willed, as an effect from a cause, or as something connected with it; for example, drunkenness in excessive drinking, or homicide from the rash throwing of a stone. Hence the Doctors often express the same division by the name voluntary in itself and voluntary in cause; but they use the name direct and indirect voluntary with St. Thomas to designate the positive and negative voluntary. Cf. St. Thomas, 1-2, q. 6, art. 3. - St. Alphonsus, n. 9.

4th. Positive or negative. The former is called that which is from the will really acting, or which requires a positive action, for instance reading; but the latter is that which proceeds from the omission of an act depending on the will; not insofar as no act is posited by the will which is the cause or occasion of the negative voluntary, but insofar as no positive act is required which is of its essential nature. Cf. St. Thomas, 1-2, q. 71, art. 5; and q. 6, art. 3.

5th. Express or tacit. It is called express if it is manifested by words or signs; but tacit if from some fact, or omission, it is apprehended to be present.

6th. Actual, virtual, habitual, and interpretative. That is called actual which proceeds from the will actually acting, as for example contrition in one who here and now elicits an act of penance. Virtual is an act of the will already posited, which nevertheless still so perseveres that here and now it exercises its power upon that which is being done, of which therefore it exists as the true cause. Such is the intention of a priest who, from an actual will of consecrating or absolving, begins Mass or enters the confessional, but a little afterward is so distracted that he no longer adverts to the words which he utters; nevertheless he truly consecrates and absolves by virtue of the intention which he had, and which morally perseveres and acts. Habitual is called that which indeed was actually emitted by the will, has not yet been revoked, but does not flow into the present action, because it has been interrupted either by sleep, or drunkenness, or a notable delay of time; whence it bespeaks pure concomitance, but not causality in relation to the action now to be posited. It is named interpretative if in no way it has been had, but can prudently be presumed, and would be had if it were thought about, or could be thought about. Thus a sick man deprived of his senses, if he has lived as a Christian, is judged to will to receive Extreme Unction.