§ III. On the End

An end in general is that for the sake of which something is done; but it is distinguished as twofold, namely the end of the work, that is, the end intrinsic to the work itself and to which the work tends through itself; and the end of the one working, that is, the end to which the agent directs his intention at will, or which the agent has set before himself, whether it is the same as the end of the work, or is diverse from it and extrinsic to the work. Concerning this latter end only must we speak, since it alone is properly called the end.

But that end is: 1st, intermediate or ultimate, according as it is referred to another end, or the will rests in it; 2nd, positively or negatively ultimate, or, what is the same thing, simply and as to all things, or in a certain respect and in only some series ultimate, according as it is or is not intended with the exclusion of any other ultimate end whatsoever; 3rd, primary or secondary, according as it is intended first and through itself, or only consequently and with subordination to the primary. Again, the ultimate end can be intended explicitly or implicitly, according as the agent is moved by an end of this sort expressly or only virtually.

I say, 1st. A human act takes true morality from the end. The reason is that the freely intended end ultimately orders the act to this, that it be or not be conformable to right reason. But this ordering is diverse from that which the object and the other circumstances besides the end bestow upon the act. Thus it is conformable to right reason not only to give alms, but also to give them unto the remission of sins; just as likewise it is repugnant to right reason not only to steal, but also to steal in order to make oneself drunk.

I say, 2nd. He sins who acts on account of delight alone, which he does not refer even implicitly or virtually to a further end. The reason is that delight is only a means for carrying out actions more easily, better, and more constantly, but not the ultimate end of an action. Therefore he who acts on account of delight alone perverts the order of things instituted by the author of nature. The same is clear from proposition 8, condemned by Innocent XI, which sounds thus: "To eat and drink even to satiety on account of pleasure alone is not a sin, provided it does not harm health, because the natural appetite can licitly enjoy its acts." Moreover this proposition, as Father Viva observes, was condemned both on account of the clause even to satiety, and on account of the word alone. Cf. St. Thomas, 1-2, q. 4, art. 2. - Viva, on the cited proposition, nn. 5 and 6.

Yet it must be noted, 1st, that this disordering through itself is not grave, and therefore does not exceed venial sin; for he who behaves thus seeks, on the one hand, not a bad thing, but rather a good thing in an undue order, since, as St. Thomas says, Contra Gentiles, lib. 3, cap. 26, n. 6, "delight is good, and to be sought, if it follows a good operation"; and on the other hand he does not ordinarily place the ultimate end of his life in this undue mode of seeking, unless he is of the number of those concerning whom the Apostle says, Philipp. iii, 19: "whose God is the belly." Cf. St. Alphonsus, tract. on sins, n. 73; and tract. on matrimony, n. 912.

It must be noted, 2nd, that this disordering then only has place when someone so acts on account of delight alone that he positively excludes a further honest end. For he does not sin, not even venially, who expressly seeks the delight of food, for example, or of games, even if he does not actually think about a further end, provided only that in some way he virtually intends this further end; for instance, because he wills generally in all these things to behave honestly, and to admit nothing against the prescription of right reason, or because he is accustomed to assume them on account of some utility of soul or body, etc. For such a one must perhaps be said to act on account of delight, but not on account of delight alone. Cf. Viva, on prop. 8, condemned by Innocent XI, n. 6. - Salmantic., de matr., cap. 3, n. 33. - Baller., note (a), p. 26.

Question 1. Does any bad end corrupt the whole goodness of an act?

Response. An end gravely bad always wholly infects an act, however good the object may be in itself. For that act can be good from no part, since the agent, by sinning mortally, totally recedes from God. But an end lightly bad also corrupts the whole act if it is the total end, or at least the primary end, of the agent. For if it is total, it embraces the whole object, and therefore infects the whole, because, as St. Thomas says, "the agent with a bad end wills the good under the aspect of evil, and therefore, insofar as it is willed by him, it is evil." But if a double end is had, and the bad end is primary, it must be resolved in the same way, because that act is still chosen so that it may be an instrument for evil, and therefore it is substantially vitiated. Finally, if an end lightly bad is merely secondary, more probably it does not corrupt the whole act, and therefore this act will be partly good, partly bad. The reason is that that act retains its goodness from the object; but the bad end behaves only concomitantly, and does not flow into the very substance of the action. If it were otherwise, fewer good acts would be found. Cf. St. Thomas, 1-2, q. 19, art. 7. - Billuart, dissert. 4, art. 4.

Question 2. Are all our actions commanded to be referred to God by the words of the Apostle, I Cor. x, 31: "Do all things unto the glory of God"?

Response. Negatively, if there is question of an obligation of actually and explicitly referring all and each of our actions to the glory of God. The reason is not only that the aforesaid words can be taken, and in reality are taken by many Doctors, in a negative sense, insofar as they would mean: do nothing against God; but also because, if they are understood in an affirmative sense and at the same time concerning the actual reference of all our actions to God, they report a mere counsel and not a precept, which would be altogether impossible.

But if there is question of another reference besides actual and explicit reference, at times a sharp controversy has existed among theologians. Those who were called Augustinians, especially from among the Louvain theologians, said that an intention of this kind was necessary, which they called virtually explicit, and that it was commanded by the words of St. Paul, I Cor. x, 31, and Coloss. iii, 17. But indeed, while they thought thus, it could scarcely happen that they would not fall under the condemnation of proposition 25 of Michael Baius: "All the works of unbelievers are sins"; indeed they were to be accused of notable temerity, because, against the sense of the Church, they would condemn of sin very many works of innumerable faithful who operate without such an intention. For that reason their opinion was vehemently attacked by nearly all the other theologians. But these established: 1st, that through an act of charity elicited at due times, the obligation of directing all works universally to God as the ultimate end is sufficiently fulfilled; 2nd, that no law can be brought forth by which we are obliged to refer the same works to God in a more particular mode; 3rd, that, besides, a work honest from its object and vitiated by no depraved end and no bad circumstance, from itself, and therefore in the implicit intention of the one working, is referred by a certain necessary order to God, who is the source, rule, and end of the good and the honest.

"Who endures to praise all day? I suggest a remedy, from which you may praise God all day, if you wish. Whatever you do, do it well, and you have praised God. When you sing a hymn, you praise God: what does your tongue do, unless your conscience also praises? Have you ceased from singing a hymn, and do you go away to refresh yourself? Do not become drunk, and you have praised God. Do you go away to sleep? Do not rise to do evil, and you have praised God. Are you doing business? Do not commit fraud, and you have praised God. Do you cultivate a field? Do not stir up a lawsuit, and you have praised God. In the innocence of your works prepare yourself for praising God all day." St. Augustine, Enarratio in Ps. 34, serm. 11 (M. 36, c. 340). - Cf. St. Thomas, 2 dist. 40, q. 1, art. 5; 2 de Carit., art. 11, ad 2; and 2-2, q. 44, art. 4. - Perrone, de Caritate, cap. 5, art. 1, prop. 4. - Theol. Wirceb., de Act. hum., cap. 3, art. 3.

Question 3. Whether, just as there is not given an act in the individual indifferent in relation to natural honesty, so it can be said that no act is posited by a just man which is indifferent in relation to eternal life?

Response. Negatively. For in order that some act be meritorious of eternal life, it is required that it be supernatural; but it cannot be supernatural unless, besides the honesty of the work and the state of grace of the principle operating, there is also present some supernatural motive. This third condition being lacking, and no one will deny that it can be lacking, that work will be neither meritorious nor demeritorious. Besides, if some act were to be called meritorious of eternal life insofar as it proceeds from a just man, it would follow that every act which proceeds from a sinner is demeritorious, which can in no way be said. And this is the doctrine which is constantly and certainly handed down by St. Thomas in several places. Cf. Suarez, de Merito, lib. 12, cap. 7, nn. 2 and seq., and cap. 10, n. 15. - Mazzella, de Virt. Inf., prop. 55, nn. 1345 and seq.