Case 7. The Method of Moral Theology

Titius, a priest, reads in a certain periodical an article written by another young priest concerning the method of moral theology, in which, among other things, the following are put forward: “Much is lacking in the textbooks which are in circulation, for they touch only one part of present-day life; they treat sins, whereas the duties of men in private and social life ought to be treated; the method is not scientific, since individual questions are proposed to which different answers are often given, so many dissenting authors being cited that it truly produces skepticism. In place of this casuistical method, a manner adapted to modern science is to be followed, so that a solid foundation is first laid, namely: that to be ethically evil which produces evil effects; then, an analysis of human acts having been instituted and history also having been adduced, it is possible to rise to general principles scientifically certain and verified.” It seems to Titius that a method approved by the experience of so many centuries in the Church is not deserving of such censure; nevertheless, he is troubled and does not know what is to be answered. Hence it is asked:

1. What is moral theology?

2. What is to be said about the opinions of the anonymous writer?

1. What is Moral Theology?

Moral Theology is defined by Fr. Bucceroni: That part of theology which, resting upon divine law manifested through revelation, investigates what is lawful and what is unlawful in human actions, in order to direct these toward eternal life.¹ Moral Theology, then, takes its principles from revelation, and because they rest on revelation they have a more secure and certain foundation than human reason could afford. But moral theology does not cover the whole field of Christian conduct. Its object is not to place high ideals of virtue before the people and train them in Christian perfection. Its task is much more restricted and humble. It lays down rules for determining what is right and what is wrong according to the teaching of the Christian faith. Its primary object is to teach the priest how to distinguish what is sinful from what is lawful, so that he may fruitfully administer the sacrament of Penance and perform the other duties of his sacred ministry. It is not intended for edification, nor for the building up of character, nor, it may be added, is it intended to teach people how to shake off the burden of the moral law, or to minimize its obligations.

1 Instit. Theol. Mor., vol. i, n. 1.

2. What is to be said about the opinions of the anonymous writer?

The perfect text-book of moral theology has not yet indeed been written, if it is ever destined to be written. It certainly could not be written on the lines laid down by the anonymous critic. Outside the Catholic Church there is a tendency to regard moral problems from the point of view of evolution, and from the purely naturalistic standpoint. The critic seems to have been reading some modern author of this school, and to have become infected with his spirit. While we remain Christians it would be foolish and disastrous to abandon our secure position in order to adopt the constantly changing systems of our adversaries. We have seen why sin is so prominent in our text-books, but we may add here that in deciding what is sinful we are also virtually laying down duties, for sin is only a violation of duty. The method of moral theology is strictly scientific, but it proceeds by way of deduction from principles which rest on revelation, not by way of induction. The varying answers given in the books to particular questions do not concern moral principles, but their application to particular cases. In these questions it is often impossible to reach any certain conclusion, and so, perforce, different opinions have to be acknowledged, but this does not produce skepticism. We hold fast the truth, but we know the limits of our knowledge, and we know how to arrive at a practical decision when there is a conflict of opinions.

The foundation which the critic proposes for the science of morals is by no means solid. Consideration of the effects of an action often enables us to decide its moral quality, and the ordinary text-books do not neglect this consideration. But much depends upon what we mean by the effects of an action. Evolutionary ethics restricts its attention to the temporal effects of the present life, and those effects are often so subtle, and yet so far-reaching, that is it very difficult to estimate them at their proper value. Even if this could be done, this evolutionary criterion upsets the whole perspective of moral guilt. Judged by their temporal evil effects, how should we classify in the order of guilt (a) the theft of five shillings, (b) indulgence in an immodest thought, (c) the denial of the goodness of God, and (d) an unkind speech to one’s neighbor? We do not know all the bad effects of sin, but among them we must assuredly reckon the displeasure of Almighty God, the loss of heaven, and the sufferings of purgatory and hell. In our estimate of evils we shall go very much astray if we leave the chief of all out of account.

We may and should make use of history in moral theology, especially where positive law is concerned; but with the Catholic theologian it will not occupy the all-important position that it holds in the evolutionary science of ethics.

Most of the teachings of Catholic morality have been sufficiently verified by the experience of twenty centuries. But as they rest on faith, and faith is the conviction of things that appear not, we shall not be able to verify them fully in this life, and to claim the right to do it is virtually to abandon a life of faith, and seek to live by knowledge, which one can not do and remain a Christian.