Some Questions Concerning Intention

We need not go beyond the words of Our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vi. 22; vii. 17), for a proof of the important bearing of our intention | on the morality of our actions. In the sight of God the aim, the intention, with which we perform our actions, is of more importance than what we do. This is a commonplace of theology and of asceticism, and it is admitted by all who profess to guide their conduct by the maxims of the Gospel. But though it be admitted on all hands that the intention is the principal part of our deliberate actions, there is considerable difference of opinion among theologians on several points in the general doctrine of intention. Theologians do not usually discuss these points together, but it may be worth while to consider them together as forming a portion of one body of doctrine, every part of which throws light on every other part. I propose, then, to take St. Thomas principally for my guide, and bring together for the purposes of comparison and mutual illustration a few points in the doctrine of intention.

Intention is nothing more than an efficacious wish or desire of an object; it is a movement of the will towards an end, with reference to the means which must be taken in order to attain that end.

The ends of our intentions are manifold and various as are human nature and human actions, but there is one which is common to all men, and in regard to which we are not free. Man necessarily desires happiness, and if happiness be taken in the abstract, it forms the object of all our endeavors. The will is attracted only by what seems good; it is moved only by what seems likely to contribute to our well-being; in every action, then, we seek for happiness, and cannot do otherwise. If we found ourselves in presence of an object which was wholly good, we could not but love and desire it; and so when the blessed find themselves face to face with God, the infinite source of all goodness and beauty, they are necessarily ravished with love of Him; they cannot but love Him.

However, as no other object but God is wholly good, and as in this world we cannot see Him face to face, and the attainment of the possession of God is accompanied by labor and difficulty, so while we live on earth, though we necessarily seek happiness, yet we do not seek it necessarily in any one object; in other words, we are free to determine the end of our intentions according to our choice.

If we accept the teaching of St. Thomas, we are under a moral obligation to direct all our actions to the honor and glory of God.¹

¹ St. Thomas, Sum. I.-II., q. 100, a. 10 ad 2.

In this sense he interprets the words of St. Paul.² However, this must not be understood as imposing on us an obligation to form ‘an actual intention of doing our every action for God. This would be requiring more than man’s weakness can bear. It will be sufficient if we refer every action to God virtually. St. Thomas explains his mind very fully and clearly on this point in various places of his works. Thus in De Caritate, a. 11, ad 2, he says:

² I Cor. x. 31.

To the second it must be said that it is not possible in this life actually to refer all things to God, just as it is not possible always to think about God, for this belongs to the perfection of the heavenly homeland; but that all things be referred virtually to God belongs to the perfection of charity to which all are bound. To make this evident, it must be considered that, just as in efficient causes the power of the first cause remains in all subsequent causes, so also the intention of the principal end remains virtually in all secondary ends. Hence whoever actually intends some secondary end virtually intends the principal end; thus, while a physician actually gathers herbs, he intends to prepare a potion, perhaps thinking nothing about health; nevertheless he virtually intends the health for which he gives the potion. Thus, therefore, when someone orders himself to God as to his end, in all the things which he does for his own sake there remains virtually the intention of the last end, which is God; hence he can merit in all things, if he has charity. Therefore it is in this way that the Apostle commands all things to be referred to the glory of God.

In the next paragraph St. Thomas distinguishes a virtual from an habitual intention of pleasing God:

To the third it must be said that it is one thing habitually to refer to God and another virtually. For even one who does nothing and actually intends nothing, such as one sleeping, habitually refers to God; but virtually to refer something to God belongs to an agent acting for an end ordered to God. Hence habitually to refer to God does not fall under a precept; but virtually to refer all things to God falls under the precept of charity, since this is nothing other than to have God as the last end.

It is then necessary and sufficient, according to St. Thomas, to refer all our actions to God virtually. What he means by virtually is clear enough from the passages just quoted, but he explains his meaning more fully and more clearly in other places, especially in his commentary on the Second Book of the Sentences, Dist. xl., q. 1, a. 5. There we read the following passages:

To the sixth it must be said that a wholly habitual ordering of an act to God does not suffice, because no one merits from what is in habit, but from what he actually does. Yet it is not necessary that the actual intention ordering to the last end always be joined to every action which is directed to some proximate end; rather, it suffices that at some time all those ends be actually referred to the last end, as happens when someone resolves to direct his whole self to the love of God: for then whatever he orders to himself will be ordered to God. And if it is asked when it is necessary to refer an act to the last end, this is nothing other than to ask when it is necessary for the habit of charity to go forth into act; because whenever the habit of charity goes forth into act, the whole man is ordered to the last end, and consequently all those things which are ordered to him as goods for him.

To the third it must be said that not only an act of charity is meritorious, but also acts of the other virtues insofar as they are informed by grace; although they cannot be meritorious except insofar as they are brought back to the end of charity. It is not necessary, however, that acts always be brought back to that end; rather, for the efficacy of meriting it suffices that they be actually brought back to the ends of the other virtues. For one who intends to preserve chastity, even if he thinks nothing about charity, certainly merits if he has grace. Now every act tending to some good, unless it tends to it inordinately, has as its end the good of some virtue, because the virtues sufficiently perfect a person concerning all things which can be human goods.

It is clear, then, that St. Thomas teaches that it is of obligation to refer all our actions to God, our last end. However, this obligation is sufficiently fulfilled by one who acts from any motive that is not bad; for in thus acting he intends something which he sees to be good, as every human act is either good or bad, according to St. Thomas. But in directing his intention to something that is good, he is necessarily, though only virtually, not actually, directing his intention to God, his last end; for the very notion of moral goodness implies conformity to man’s last end.

St. Thomas further teaches that in him who is in the grace of God, in him who fulfils all the obligations which bind him under pain of grave sin, every act that is ethically good is also meritorious of life eternal. For among our other obligations there is the positive precept of charity, by which we are bound at times to think of God, and elicit an act of love towards Him. By this act of charity we have referred ourselves and all our actions to God, and so unless it be recalled by one that is contrary to it, or by mortal sin, which destroys the bond of friendship between God and the soul, it continues to exert its influence on our subsequent actions, and informs them with the spirit of charity. It thus makes them supernatural and meritorious of a crown of glory in heaven.

The precept of charity obliges us to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength, but our condition here on earth does not permit us to be always engaged in actually thinking of God and forming acts of love towards Him. The limitations of our nature and the necessities of life, as a rule, only permit us to observe this greatest of all commandments by never doing anything directly contrary to it, and by fulfilling it virtually, that is, by virtually directing our every action towards God in the sense explained by St. Thomas. However we are bound at all events occasionally to think of God explicitly, and to give Him the service of our explicit love and affection. This St. Thomas teaches, as we have already seen, and it is certain doctrine, approved and enforced by the Church. Nevertheless, it seems impossible to say when and how often we are bound under pain of sin to form explicit acts of the love of God. St. Thomas³ teaches that at least when a man begins to have the use of reason he then begins to think about his last end, and that he is then bound under pain of mortal sin to refer his whole being and all his actions to God. If he do this, he thereby obtains the sanctifying grace of God if he was still in original sin; if he fail to do it he commits his first sin, so that one who is still in original sin cannot commit venial sin before he has committed mortal sin.

³ Sum. I.-II., q. 89, a. 6.

Although this opinion of St. Thomas has always had its supporters, especially among his followers, yet it does not seem ever to have won the common assent of theologians. The opinion seems not sufficiently grounded in revelation, reason, or experience. At some time, indeed, after coming to the use of reason, and after learning his obligations towards God, his Creator and Lord, every man is bound to give himself to the service of God by an act of love; but other theologians think that the particular time when this obligation must be fulfilled under pain of grave sin cannot be so exactly determined as St. Thomas lays down. All are agreed that we must frequently during our lives form explicit acts of the love of God, but it seems impossible to determine more accurately at what intervals this obligation must be fulfilled under pain of sin.

Intimately connected with the obligation of referring our actions to our last end is the question concerning the influence of our intention on the moral quality of our actions. Some early Christian writers misled by a false interpretation of the words of Our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount, taught that the intention with which we perform our actions is everything, the actions themselves are of no moral quality. Thus the unknown author of the Opus imperfectum on St. Matthew, generally published with the works of St. Chrysostom, says:

Therefore a servant of God cannot do evil; and if it sometimes seems to you that he has acted badly, consider carefully his evil itself, and you will find him inwardly good. For from a good purpose even what seems evil is good, because a good purpose excuses an evil deed; but an evil deed does not condemn a good purpose.

Cassian, too, in his Collationes writes:

For God is not only the examiner and judge of our words and deeds, but also the examiner of our purpose and determination.

4 Hom. xix.

If He sees anything done or promised by anyone for the sake of eternal salvation and with a view to divine contemplation, although it may seem harsh and unjust to men, nevertheless He, looking into the inward piety of the heart, judges not the sound of words but the resolve of the will, because the end of the deed and the disposition of the doer must be considered; by reason of this some, as was said above, could even be justified through a lie, and others through an assertion of truth could incur the sin of eternal death.

Peter Lombard had perhaps these and other authors in mind when he wrote in the Second Book of the Sentences:

But it is asked whether all the works of a man are good or bad from their effect and end. Some think that they are, who say that all acts are indifferent, so that they are neither good nor bad in themselves; but every act is good from a good intention and bad from a bad one.

As it is clear from these extracts, the doctrine that the end justifies the means had its supporters in very early times among Christian writers; it was indignantly and triumphantly refuted by the great St. Augustine, whom St. Thomas and orthodox teachers in the Church have always followed on this point.

In order to have a clear notion of what influence the intention has on the morality of an action, it may be worth while briefly to summarize St. Thomas’s doctrine on the point.

He first of all examines the human act in its totality,’ and teaches that it derives its moral quality from the object, the end, and the circumstances. The object is that about which the human faculty is engaged when the action is produced, or it is that which the faculty produces or does; it is the substance of the action considered in the abstract, and apart from its circumstances. Thus, in the act of theft, the object is the taking away of something which belongs to another, and if this be considered in relation to right reason, it is obvious that it is an act which is contrary to it; or theft is morally wrong because the object of the action is against right reason, which is the rule of human actions.

5 Collat. xvii., c. 17.

6 Dist. xl.

7 Sum. I-IL, q. 18.

The end, on which the morality of an action also depends, is the motive of the action, the reason why it is done. It is obvious from what has been said above that the moral quality of an act depends on its motive or on the intention with which it is done; it is bad to steal, it is worse to steal in order to be able to commit adultery, according to the well-worn illustration.

Finally, the circumstances which accompany an action give it its moral quality, as well as the object and the end. It is wrong to steal, but to steal the Church plate, or the pittance on which a poor man depends for the support of himself and his family is worse.’ To play in the field at the proper time is right, to play in church is wrong. After laying down these principles about the morality of human acts in general, St. Thomas considers in detail the morality of the two chief component parts of a complete and consummated act, the interior act of the will and the exterior act. When a theft is committed, the thief first of all determines to commit the crime, and then sets about its execution. The crime morally considered is one completed human action, but physically it is composed of many, both interior and exterior acts. The will determines upon the theft, and then sets the external faculties in action to accomplish it. We are chiefly concerned with the interior act of the will.

The will is set in motion by some object or end which it wishes to attain. Thus one may come to know of a case of distress, and natural good feeling prompts the desire to relieve it. The relieving of distress in the case is the object towards which the will tends, and which causes the will to form the intention of giving relief. This object, therefore, is the cause of the action of the will, it is the term from which the action starts, and it is the goal towards which the action is directed. And as all motion is specified by the term to which it is directed, so the motion of the will, which we call intention, receives its moral quality from the object or aim to which it tends. So the intention to relieve distress is an act of virtue, and an intention to do an injury is vicious. In other words, the morality of the intention depends upon the object or end in view.

When the will has formed the intention of relieving the case of distress, the next step is to discover the means. If the means are not at hand, it is necessary to work to obtain them, the work undertaken for so charitable a purpose will be colored by the object for which it is undertaken, and itself become an act of charity. The means are desired for the sake of the end, they become the object of the will because of their connection with the end, they therefore put on the moral quality of the end. In the same way, if the end be bad, means, though good in themselves, taken with a view to attain such an end, become corrupted and bad. And so to work in order to obtain money to indulge in debauchery is itself wrong and wicked.

And here we touch upon the celebrated question whether a good end justifies wrongful means. In the sphere of politics there is too much reason to suppose that the view that the end does justify the means is largely acted upon by statesmen of all parties and nationalities. Machiavelli, who has given his name to the theory, lays down the principle with the utmost candor:

A prince, therefore, is not obliged to have all the forementioned good qualities in reality, but it is necessary he have them in appearance; nay, I will be bold to affirm, that having them actually, and employing them upon all occasions, they are extremely prejudicial, whereas having them only in appearance, they turn to better account; it is honorable to seem mild, and merciful, and courteous, and religious, and sincere, and indeed to be so, provided your mind be so rectified and prepared that you can act quite contrary upon occasion. And this must be premised, that a prince, especially if he come but lately to the throne, cannot observe all those things exactly which make men be esteemed virtuous, being oftentimes necessitated for the preservation of his State to do things inhumane, uncharitable, and irreligious; and therefore it is convenient his mind be at his command, and flexible to all the puffs and variations of his fortune: Not forbearing to be good, whilst it is in his choice, but knowing how to be evil when there is a necessity. . . . Let a prince therefore do what he can to preserve his life, and continue his supremacy, the means which he uses shall be thought honorable, and be commended by everybody, because the people are always taken with the appearance, and event of things, and the greatest part of the world consists of the people: those few who are wise, taking place when the multitude has nothing else to rely upon.⁸

⁸ The Prince, c. 18.

More briefly, but perhaps still more to the point, he says in his Discourses on Livy:

And this ought to be considered and observed by every man whose office it is to advise for the good of his country; for where the safety of that is in question no other consideration ought to be coincident, as whether the way be just or unjust, merciful or cruel, honorable or dishonorable, but postponing all other respects, you are to do that which shall procure the safety of your country, and preservation of its liberty.⁹

⁹ Book III., c. 41.

It is by no means an uncommon thing to meet with an almost equally explicit approval of the doctrine that the end justifies the means in the daily press and in modern periodical literature. Such approvals are specially frequent in more or less appreciative accounts of the careers of such men as Bismarck and Rhodes. But Machiavellianism is not confined to politicians, nor of course did unscrupulousness first appear in the days of the crafty Florentine. As we have already seen there are traces of the doctrine that the end justifies the means in several writers of the early ages of the Church.

However, with a few obscure exceptions, theologians have constantly rejected the view. They point out with St. Thomas that an action is not morally good merely because the end or intention is good; it must be good in all particulars; Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu, was the axiom applied in the case. And so if a man steals in order to relieve a case of distress, he does wrong though his intention be never so praiseworthy. It is wrong to steal, and it remains wrong though the theft be committed with a good intention, and the otherwise good action of relieving distress is vitiated by the wrongful means employed to do it, for the will to relieve distress by robbery is a vicious will. As the Society of Jesus is constantly being attacked on this point, it may not be out of place to quote the words in which Vasquez, one of its greatest divines, sums up the doctrine which it has always taught:

In reply to the testimonies of the author of the Imperfect Work on Matthew and of Cassian, we say that these Fathers cannot be excused from the error into which they fell through ignorance; for they thought that a work otherwise evil by its nature could be made good by a good end. They seem, moreover, to understand this even if the nature of the object and of the other circumstances, from which the malice would otherwise arise, is not changed by the good end. For this reason Cassian defends it as lawful to lie for some honorable end and necessity; Augustine attacks this opinion at length in the book Against Lying to Consentius, especially chapter 7, where he also calls it heretical. Gratian also gathers many things against it, 22, q. 2; and it is manifestly contrary to Paul in Romans 3, where he condemns those who said, let us do evil that good may come, whose condemnation he says is just. Augustine therefore rightly teaches that all works which are known to be sins cannot be done well, even if they are done from an intention otherwise right; but other works, which are not sins in themselves, are made right by a right intention.

10 In I.-II. S. Thomæ, Disp. 68, c. 2.

Although a good intention cannot make a bad action good, yet it may sometimes so change the circumstances that the action is no longer forbidden. Thus, to take away a pistol from a would-be homicide in order to prevent him from committing a crime is a good action, while it would not be justifiable without good intention. Some authors, with Vasquez, on the same grounds defend the opinion that one may lawfully intend to kill an unjust assailant of life or limb in self-defense. All admit that it is lawful to kill the assailant in such a case, if this be necessary for self-defense; many theologians, however, with St. Thomas, teach that the object of the intention should be self-defense, and not the killing of one’s adversary. For directly to take away human life, even the life of a criminal, is only lawful when done by public authority; it is never permitted, they say, to private individuals. It is, however, lawful to defend oneself, and if in doing this the aggressor is slain, his death must be imputed to him, it was not directly intended. The point is somewhat fine, and perhaps not very practical, but certainly this view seems to be more in harmony with principles admitted by all theologians.

Another point much controverted among theologians is whether the intention can make an external act formally unjust, which without the intention would not be so. Thus theologians discuss the question whether a thief would be bound to compensate another who was accused of the theft committed by him, when the thief foresaw and intended that the other should be accused of the crime. All agree that he would be so bound, if in any way he procured the accusation of the other. The question concerns the case in which he did nothing to cause the imputation except to commit the crime. Similarly, would a man in foro conscientiae and before being condemned to do so by lawful authority, be obliged to make reparation to a neighbor who had been injured by falling into a man-trap, set in a retired corner where no one was likely to go, but with the intention that any one who did go there should be caught? Here it is conceded that there would be no obligation of making restitution for the injury done, if it had not been intended ; the question is whether the intention changes the case, and imposes the obligation.

It must be admitted that the intention to do harm to another is sinful, and that it is an internal sin against justice. For a desire or intention of doing evil is of the same species as the external act intended. But the obligation of making restitution does not arise from a merely internal act of injustice, it is created only by loss being effectively caused by the unjust action of another. That unjust action must have of itself the effect of causing harm; the harm must follow from it as from its efficient cause, not as from a mere occasion, otherwise there will be no obligation of making restitution. But the intention cannot give efficacy to an external act which it has not of itself. I may intend ever so much to do something, but unless I take effective means, the thing will never be done. The intention cannot change the objective nature of the means employed, and so it cannot make that an effective cause of injustice, which is not an effective cause without the intention. And so in both of the examples above, the answer should be in the negative.

Closely connected with this is another question as to whether he is bound to restitution who, in intending to do harm to one, through mistake does harm to another.

Although great names can be quoted for the opinion that there is no obligation of making restitution in such a case on the ground that no formal injury was caused to the person who suffered loss, that the injustice as regards him was involuntary; still, it would seem that this opinion is wrong; the intention does not change the nature of the external act. That act, as a matter of fact, causes harm; the agent has no right to put it; he foresees the harm that will be done; he is therefore bound in justice to abstain from the action, and if he does not do so, he is bound to repair the harm he has wilfully caused. The fact that he intended the injury for another does not weaken the effectiveness of his action, it does not cause it to be harmless, it does not then release him from the obligation of repairing the loss caused; it was sufficient to impose the burden of making restitution if the harm was foreseen. In such circumstances the injury is formal, although not intended as against this particular person; for whenever a man’s property is knowingly and unjustly destroyed, a formal injury is committed against him although the injury was intended for another. The thief rarely has any direct intention of injuring the man whose goods he steals; if he could only get the goods without injuring their owner he would in general be perfectly satisfied; he is very sorry for the inconvenience he causes, he does not desire it, but few would agree that these dispositions prevent the injury which he does the owner by taking his goods from being formal injustice.