The Modern Period

Almost the whole modern period from the opening of the seventeenth century is occupied with the controversy about the right system of moral theology. Modern research has confirmed the historical accuracy of the account of the origin of this dispute which Fr. Antony Terill or Bonville prefixed to his work Regula Morum, published in 1676. Fr. Terill, S.J., was a learned and acute theologian who taught theology at the English College of the Society at Liége, now represented by Stonyhurst and St Beuno’s. Besides his Regula Morum he published another work, De Conscientia Probabili, in 1668. He was a good and conscientious man, and had ample means of knowing the facts to which he testifies. According to Fr. Terill, until about the year 1638 practically all Catholic theologians of all schools accepted and taught probabilism. The only exception was the not very notable Italian Jesuit Comitolus, who published his Responsa Morala in 1608. Comitolus taught probabiliorism and attributed the doctrine of probabilism quite falsely to what he calls the shameful lapse of Armilla. The opinion of Comitolus passed almost unheeded, and there was peace and comparative harmony in the schools of morals. This peace began to be broken when the friends of Jansen were planning the publication of his famous book Augustinus. The first of the five propositions which were extracted from that book and condemned by Innocent X in 1653 asserted that there were some laws of God which could not be observed even by the just, do what they would, and that God did not give grace to enable them to observe these laws. This heretical and blasphemous proposition, which made God a tyrant who gave orders which he knew could not be obeyed, was altogether out of harmony with the prevailing system of moral theology, and its Jansenist supporters began to attack probabilism in order to make an opening for their own rigoristic doctrine. According to Caramuel, who was at Louvain at the time and who wrote a book against them in 1639, they began to teach covertly that the use of probabilism was something new; that he who leaves the safe way and follows probabilism cannot but be condemned by God; that opinions which are styled probable among us are not probable with God. The war between probabilism and antiprobabilism had broken out, a war conducted with the greatest heat and passion for two hundred years, and not even yet quite ended. The Louvain Doctors, after the condemnation of Augustinus by the Holy See, retaliated by issuing their propositions against probabilism in 1655. The strategy was the same as led Döllinger and Reusch to publish their work on Moralstreitigkeiten, after the definition of Papal Infallibility. The war, however, was soon carried into France, where Jansenism had won the support of a few proud spirits of the highest intellectual gifts. Among these Pascal was pre-eminent, and he struck the hardest blow which probabilism has ever sustained by publishing his Lettres Provinciales in 1656. The book is unfair and misrepresents the doctrines which it attacks, but its wit and style gave it at once a place in the classical literature of the world. It was condemned by Alexander VII at Rome in 1657, but by non-Catholics it is still regarded as the last word on the subject of Catholic, and especially Jesuit, moral theology.

Although the rise of Jansenism was the occasion of the outbreak of war, there were other causes also which contributed to the heat of the combat. Fr. Terill laments the disastrous laxity of opinion on moral questions which was conspicuous in many of the probabilist authors of the day. Many of these wrote books, not to expound the truth, but to attract attention to themselves and acquire notoriety. The means they employed for this purpose was the ventilation of new opinions in morals, By making use of the weak argument from similar cases they broached hitherto unheard-of doctrines which were industriously collected by the casuists.

The fact that somebody or other had said in his book that an opinion was probable and that it had not been condemned by the Holy See was held sufficient to merit for it a place among probable opinions in moral theology. Fr. Terill, himself a strenuous defender of probabilism, raised his voice against the inrush of laxity. He did much by his writings to improve the theory by stating and explaining it more accurately than had been done hitherto. He insisted that in order to be accepted as a rule of conduct it was not sufficient that an opinion should have some slight degree of probability, or should only be probably probable; it should be well grounded, seriously and solidly probable in the judgement of experts, of men of virtue and learning. The common method of proving probabilism by saying that one who acts on a probable opinion acts prudently was objectionable on the theoretical side, and Terill improved it by making use of reflex principles, such as, “A doubtful law is not promulgated and cannot bind.” This eminent English Jesuit thus tried to stem the tide of laxity in an age of immorality by stating the theory of probabilism more accurately and limiting its use to its proper sphere. Other theologians with the same laudable end in view threw probabilism overboard altogether. This was especially the case with the theologians of the great Order of St Dominic. A member of this Order had first formulated probabilism, as we have seen, and, as Salon testifies, other Dominicans were conspicuous as being the first to accept and teach it. The most famous Dominican theologians of the time, Ledesma, Bañez, Alvarez, Ildephonsus, and others were all probabilists. No anti-probabilist Dominican was heard of till the year 1656. In that year a general Chapter of the Order was held at Rome, and all the members were urged to adopt the stricter opinion in morals, From that time onward the chief Dominican theologians have almost without exception been probabiliorists. Among others are the well-known names of Mercorus, Gonet, Contenson, Natalis Alexander, Concina, Billuart, and Patuzzi, the adversary of St Alphonsus Liguori.

From the strife of parties different moral systems began to emerge. Jansenist rigorism, which required direct moral certainty against the law to justify a departure from its observance, and which was not satisfied even with a most probable opinion in favour of the lawfulness of an action, was condemned by Alexander VIII in 1690. Laxism, which was satisfied with even a slightly probable opinion as a rule of conduct, had been condemned by Innocent XI in 1679. Probabiliorism and probabilism together held possession of the field, At the beginning of the eighteenth century a few theologians such as Amort, Rassler, and Mayr, defended equiprobabilism, ‘This system required an opinion in favour of liberty to be equally probable with that in favour of the law before allowing it to be used as a rule of morals. It would not allow anyone to follow an opinion in favour of liberty which was distinctly less probable than that which favoured the law.

These three systems still have their defenders, and the last has acquired strength from the adhesion to it of St Alphonsus in the later portion of his life. St Alphonsus Liguori is recognized as the Doctor of moral theology as St Thomas is of dogmatic. By his writings he drove out of the Church the last remnants of rigorism, and firmly established that common doctrine in moral theology which it has been the aim of the author to expound in these volumes. In spite, however, of general agreement, there are some points of detail which are still matter of controversy among moral theologians.

St Alphonsus was ordained priest in 1726 when he was thirty years of age. He had been taught the probabiliorist system of morals, but in the course of fifteen years of study and experience in the confessional he came to the conclusion that the system was false and harmful to souls, He then adopted probabilism, and mainly using recognized probabilist authorities, especially of the Society of Jesus, whom he acknowledged to be his masters in this branch of learning, he composed his chief work, the Theologia Moralis. The first edition appeared in 1748, and a second and much enlarged edition was issued in 1753. In 1755 St Alphonsus published an elaborate dissertation on probabilism in which he proved the doctrine and refuted the objections commonly brought against it. He became Bishop of St Agatha of the Goths in 1762, and published another dissertation in which he appeared to adopt a new system of moral theology. While admitting that it is lawful to follow a solidly probable opinion, he denied that when in favour of the law there is an opinion which is certainly and notably more probable than its opposite, this latter can be really and solidly probable. The question is one of fact. If this proposition be considered from the practical and concrete point of view, its practical truth may be admitted, and St Alphonsus probably understood it in this sense. Furthermore, it may be admitted that the doctrine has its value in deciding when an opinion is solidly probable or not, and this was what St Alphonsus intended. He wished to exclude laxism from his system, and he invented this formula for the purpose. Moderate probabilists secure the same end by stressing solidly when they require a solidly probable opinion for a lawful rule of action. Considered theoretically and logically, the formula of St Alphonsus is open to attack, as it is not true that a greater probability, even if notable and certain, does necessarily deprive the opposite opinion of all solid probability. On this point there is still some difference of opinion between simple probabilists and equiprobabilists, but the dispute has little to do with practical morals. The dissertation of St Alphonsus was not inserted in the Moral Theology of the saint till it reached its sixth edition, and his change of formula made little change in the doctrine of his work. It remained substantially what it always had been—a great work on moral theology written by a moderate probabilist.

Moral theology is still what St Alphonsus left it. There is general agreement in the schools, a common doctrine which all accept; it only remains to apply this to the social and political conditions which we see growing up around us.

In this modern period of moral theology the sufficiency of attrition without any strictly so-called initial charity on the part of the penitent asa proximate disposition for the remission of sin in the sacrament of Penance may be considered as established. The changed conditions in our modern capitalist society have had their effect on moral questions, for morality must always take account of altered circumstances. Perhaps the chief result in this direction is that a practical solution has been attained of the long controversy about the lawfulness of taking interest for a loan of money. The lawfulness of the practice is now admitted; the only moral question is concerning the amount which may be exacted. The doctrine of the just price is applicable here; money, like other commodities, has in our modern capitalist society its just price.

The new Code of Canon Law came into force on Whit Sunday, May 19, 1918, and made many and important changes in the discipline of the Church, and thus indirectly in many ways affected moral theology.

43. Moral theology, which in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had slept, awakened from sleep by the attacks of the Humanists and Protestants, received new strength, and for nearly two centuries made progress; but, as the seventeenth century waned and thereafter, it again declined, especially because the minute, and sometimes too benign, investigation of particular cases, which is called casuistry, had been cultivated too much.

¹ Cf. Hurter, Nomenclator litterarius recentioris theologiae catholicae, Innsbruck, 1892-1895, with the various authorities cited there.

44. (A) First progressive period. The principal causes of this progress were: the true reform completed by the Council of Trent; the necessity of defending faith and morals against Protestants and Rationalists; the institution of various orders of clerks regular and Congregations, especially of the Society of Jesus, from which came forth an army of theologians; the institution of new Universities or the renewal of old ones; the invention of the art of printing, by whose help the ancient works of the Fathers and theologians became much more easily available to all. - Therefore theology was called back to its sources, Scripture and the Fathers; the method was not exclusively dialectical, but partly historical; not a few subtleties vanished, and new questions, accommodated to the needs of the times, were carefully weighed. - The book of Sentences of P. Lombard is gradually removed from the schools, while the theological summa of St. Thomas is excellently expounded by commentaries. - It will suffice to enumerate the principal theologians in each school, and the best works which they wrote concerning moral matters.

45. (a) In the Dominican school or Order of Preachers, there flourished: Thomas Cardinal Cajetan (1510): Commentaries on the Summa of St. Thomas, Summa casuum conscientiae, where he shows himself to be a probabiliorist; Francisco de Vitoria (+ 1546): theological relections, where, among other things, he treats brilliantly of the right of war, marriage, the increase of charity, temperance, homicide, magical art, and simony; Bartholomew Medina (+ 1581): commentary on the first and third part of the summa of St. Thomas; he is deservedly held to be the prince of the moderate probabilists; Dominic Soto (+ 1560), a serious probabilist author: De justitia et jure; concerning caution in the use of oaths; concerning the manner of keeping and revealing a secret; commentary on the four books of the Sentences; Peter Soto (+ 1563): a classic work concerning the institution of priests; Bartholomew of Ledesma: summa of cases of conscience; John of St. Thomas (+ 1644), excellent expositor of St. Thomas; J. B. Gonet (+ 1681), distinguished by keenness of mind, rejected the more benign opinions of probabilism as intolerable laxities and an evasion of the divine precepts, in the moral part of the Clypeus thomisticus against its new opponents.

John Martinez de Prado (+ 1668): Theologiae moralis quaestiones praecipuae; De Sacramentis in genere et in specie.

46. (b) Among the Franciscans: Anthony of Cordoba (+ 1578), Commentary on the four books of the Sentences, and a theological questionnaire, or forest of cases of conscience; Emmanuel Rodriguez (+ 1613), Regular and Canonical Questions; John of the Trinity, Against Confessors Who Solicit; Martin of St. Joseph (+ 1649), Summa of Moral Theology; John Mary of Castilento (+ 1653) arranged alphabetically the Seraphic polyanthea of moral theology; Gesuald of Bologna, O. Cap., published an entire course of moral theology; Peter Marchant (+ 1661), a notable probabilist: The Sacramental and Visible Tribunal of Souls; Notable Resolutions of Various Cases and Practical Questions; Eligius Bassaeus (+ 1670), O. Cap., gathered the flowers of all practical theology.

47. (c) From the nascent Society of Jesus there came forth many theologians of great name:¹ Blessed Canisius (+ 1597), whose Summa of Christian Doctrine, translated into many languages, counts almost innumerable editions; Toletus (+ 1596), whom St. Francis de Sales greatly esteemed: Instruction of Priests, concerning the seven sins, and a most complete Summa of Cases of Conscience; Emmanuel Sa (+ 1596), whose Aphorisms of Confessors are most useful; Louis Molina (+ 1600): De justitia et jure, a work of great authority among jurists; Gregory de Valentia (+ 1603): Theological Commentaries, in which he excellently expounds all the questions contained in the Summa of St. Thomas; John Azor (+ 1608), a moderate probabiliorist: Moral Institutions; Francis Suarez (+ 1617), among modern theologians most learned, wrote clearly and at the same time profoundly, and indeed with a fuller pen, concerning the principal moral questions; Gabriel Vasquez (+ 1604), celebrated for keenness of mind and profundity, wrote a commentary on the First of the Second of St. Thomas, and also little works concerning almsgiving, scandal, restitution, etc.; Thomas Sanchez (+ 1610), who discusses marriage at length; Vincent Filliuccius (+ 1622), wrote concerning Christian duties and cases of conscience, from which he himself made a synopsis of universal moral theology; he leans toward the more benign opinions; Lessius (+ 1623), whose most praised work treats of right and justice and the other cardinal virtues; Aegidius Coninck, not an unworthy disciple of Lessius (+ 1633): De sacramentis et censuris; concerning the morality, nature, and effects of supernatural acts, where he treats of faith, hope, and charity; P. Laymann, a moderate probabilist (+ 1635): Moral Theology; Ripalda (+ 1648), wrote excellently concerning the theological virtues; John Cardinal de Lugo (+ 1660), most renowned for keenness of mind and perspicuity, subjects the opinions of others to accurate criticism and solidly defends his own: concerning the virtue of divine faith; concerning justice and right; concerning the sacrament and sacrifice of the Eucharist; concerning the virtue and sacrament of penance; concerning suffrages and indulgences; moral responses; Theophilus Raynaud (+ 1663), elegantly and eloquently, though not always critically, wrote concerning virtues and vices, and also concerning equivocation and mental restriction; H. Busembaum (+ 1668), a benign probabilist, very celebrated for his clear method, whose Medulla theologiae moralis reached more than 200 editions, and was explained by commentaries by Lacroix, St. Alphonsus, and Ballerini; Anthony de Escobar (+ 1669), a more benign probabilist: Liber theologiae moralis 24 S. J. doctoribus reseratus; The More Received Opinions of Universal Moral Theology without Dispute; Thomas Tamburini (+ 1675): Explanation of the Decalogue; An Expeditious Method of Confession.

¹ Cf. A. De Backer, Bibliotheque des Ecrivains de la Compagnie de Jesus, Liege, 1869-1876; new edition under the care of Ch. Sommervogel, Brussels, 1890.

48. (d) From other orders likewise certain moralists came forth: among the Benedictines:¹ Louis Blosius (+ 1566), who in the Mirror of Religious and other ascetical little works discusses the religious virtues with genuine piety; J. Graffius (+ 1620), Golden Decisions of Cases of Conscience; L. Engel, who in the year 1661 published a Manual of Parish Priests; J. Saenz de Aguirre (+ 1699): Concerning the Virtues and Vices of Morals. - From the Order of St. Augustine:² Peter Aragon published commentaries on the Second of the Second of St. Thomas concerning faith, hope, and charity, concerning justice and right; Bartholomew Salon likewise wrote learnedly concerning justice. - Alexander Pellegrino (+ 1634), O. Theat., composed a treatise concerning the duel. - Thomas Hurtado, O. Cler. reg., a more benign probabilist: Various Treatises of Moral Resolutions (1651). - Seraphinus a Conceptione,³ O. Carm. (+ 1663): Treatise concerning the Virtue and Sacrament of Penance.

¹ Concerning Benedictine writers, go to Ziegelbauer, Historia rei literariae ordinis S. Benedicti, Vienna, 1754; Dom Francois, Biblioth. generale des ecrivains de l'Ordre de S. Benoit, Bouillon, 1777-1778; Vac.-Mangenot, Dict. de Theol., t. II, p. 602-628.

² Cf. Gandolfus, Dissertatio historica de ducentis augustinianis scriptoribus, Rome, 1740.

³ Concerning him and other Carmelites, cf. Bibl. Carmelitana, Orleans, 1752.

49. (e) From the secular clergy: St. Charles Borromeo⁴ (+ 1584), restorer of Christian life and discipline, whose moral doctrine is found in the Acts of the Church of Milan; worthy of special praise are the instructions for confessors; St. Francis de Sales⁵ (+ 1622), easily the chief among ascetical authors; whose principal works are: Introduction a la vie devote (Philothea); Traite de l'amour de Dieu (Theotimus); Spiritual Conferences, Letters, Sermons; Martin Azpilcueta, called Navarrus (+ 1587), whose Manual, or Enchiridion of Confessors, is a classic work; Martin Bonacina (+ 1631), celebrated for abundance of matters and perspicuity of doctrine: Moral Theology; three treatises concerning laws, sins, and the precepts of the Decalogue; Francis Sylvius (+ 1648), whose principal work is a very neat commentary on the Summa of St. Thomas.

⁴ Vac.-Mangenot, Diction. de Theol., t. II, p. 2267.

⁵ Hamon, Vie de S. Francois de Sales, 3rd ed., Paris, 1858.

50. (B) Second period gradually declining. In this second period, moral theology gradually becomes less scientific, and more casuistic. After a distinction had been made between ascetical and strictly moral theology, the summas or manuals of moral theology often wholly omit, or only touch in passing, the principles of Christian life and the means for cultivating virtues; they set forth especially what is strictly required for avoiding sin. From this, there is sharp dispute between probabiliorists and probabilists as to what is prohibited under grave obligation, what under light obligation, and what can be tolerated; concerning the excellence of virtues, concerning the motives and means of cultivating them, scarcely anything is indicated, under the pretext that these things pertain to ascetical theology. Hence moral theology is turned into a certain spiritual pathology. Moreover, not rarely antiquated or idle questions are treated at length, while new problems, which arise from changed circumstances, are scarcely touched in passing. Wherefore gradually the name of casuist becomes odious.

51. Nevertheless, even in this age, not a few theologians are found who excellently clarified moral matters. Among them:

(a) From the Society of Jesus: Claudius Lacroix (+ 1714), a learned and moderate probabilist:¹ Moral Theology; John Reuter (+ 1762), a weighty and wise author: Theology Morally Divided into Four Parts; The New Confessor Practically Instructed; Dominic Viva (fl. 1710), besides a theological-moral course, wrote a very useful and classic work: Theses Condemned by Alexander VII, Innocent XI, and Alexander VIII; P. Gabriel Antoine, a probabiliorist, whose Universal Moral Theology (published in the year 1726) was explained by order of Benedict XIV in the College of Propaganda Fide; Edmund Voit (+ 1780), whose moral theology is very practical; P. Gury (+ 1866), whose Compendium of Moral Theology and Cases of Conscience often appeared: a brief, neat, and clear work, but merely casuistic; various editions illustrated or corrected with notes were published by Cercia, Dumas, Sabetti, especially Ballerini, who in addition wrote a very learned Moral Work, which Palmieri made public (3rd ed., 1898); Genicot, who arranged Ballerini's Moral Work in better order and briefly (3rd ed., 1900); Lehmkuhl, whose Moral Theology (10th ed., 1902) is more scientific and exhibits moderate opinions; Noldin, whose Moral Summa (3rd ed., 1902) is notable for perspicuity and solidity of doctrine.

¹ Theologians of the Society of Jesus, with few exceptions, defend probabilism.

52. (b) From the Order of Preachers: Natalis Alexander (+ 1724), outstanding in knowledge and erudition, who, besides historical works, arranged theology

dogmatic and moral neatly; J. Mayol, in the year 1704, published a Summa of Thomistic Moral Doctrine, where he defends moderate opinions; Charles R. Billuart (1757), a moderate probabiliorist, wrote a course of universal theology according to the mind of St. Thomas; Benatus Drouin (+ 1742) polished a learned treatise concerning sacramental matters; Vincent Louis Gotti (+ 1742), who likewise lucidly set forth the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor; Daniel Concina (+ 1756), a rigid probabiliorist, attacked the probabilists especially in the work Della storia del probabilismo e del rigorismo, and also in Theologia christiana dogmatico-morali; John Vincent Patuzzi (+ 1769), a most vehement opponent of probabilism: Christian Ethics; Trattato della regola prossima delle azioni umane, etc.; M. A. Potton, in a little work concerning the theory of probability, set forth the system of compensation, in the year 1874. Nor can H. D. Lacordaire (+ 1861) be passed over, who spoke eloquently concerning several Christian virtues in his Conferences.

(c) From the Order of Carmelites came forth the celebrated Cursus theologiae moralis Salmanticensis, which Francis a Jesu Maria, Andrew a Matre Dei, Sebastian a St. Joachim, and Alphonsus ab Angelis arranged (years 1717-1724): notable for abundance of matters and perspicuity of doctrine, but sometimes more benign.

(d) From the Order of St. Francis: Reiffenstuel (+ 1703), who wrote not only Canon Law, but also a clear and solid Moral Theology; Fr. Henno elaborated a dogmatic and scholastic theology, in which he sets forth the principal questions (1706-1713); Patrick Sporer (+ 1683) and Benjamin Elbel (+ 1756) wrote a moral theology, in which the scholastic and the casuistic method are happily joined together; both works were recently edited with new care by Irenaeus Bierbaum (1894 and 1901); Pius Van der Velden (+ 1857), Principles of Moral Theology, a clear and moderate work.

53. (e) From the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer: St. Alphonsus de Liguori (1696-1787), who deservedly is held to be the prince among modern authors of moral theology. That he might hold a middle way between the excesses of the rigid and of the laxists, he tempered probabilism by refining the system which is called equiprobabilism, as we shall set forth in its place. His principal works are: Moral Theology;¹ The Apostolic Man; The Practice of the Confessor; Examination of Ordinands. He wrote besides many ascetical little works, in which the way of perfection is safely shown. Among recent interpreters of St. Liguori are numbered: A. Konings, Moral Theology, seventh edition, New York; C. Marc, Alphonsian Moral Institutions, 4th ed., Paris, 1888; Jos. Aertnys, Moral Theology, 4th ed., 1896: these explain equiprobabilism clearly and moderately.

¹ L. Gaude began to publish a critical edition of the Moral Theology, diligently compared with the old editions, reviewed in the individual allegations of the authors, and illustrated with critical notes and commentaries; t. I appeared at Rome, 1905.

54. (f) Outside the aforesaid schools, certain theologians likewise flourished: first, Prosper Lambertini, afterward Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV (+ 1758), who wrote most wisely concerning canon law, and touched not a few moral questions no less solidly than learnedly in the books concerning the diocesan synod, the ecclesiastical institutions, and in the treatise concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass; L. Habert, a doctor of the Sorbonne: Dogmatic and Moral Theology, 1707; P. Collet, Cong. Miss.: Institutions of Moral Theology, 1758; Eusebius Amort, canon regular (+ 1795), a moderate and eclectic probabilist, very learned: Eclectic Moral and Scholastic Theology; Christian Ethics; Rule of Moral Actions; Idea of Divine Love, or Distinct Exposition of the First and Greatest Commandment; Gaspar Saettler (+ 1779), a moderate probabiliorist, wrote a universal moral theology and admonitions to parish priests; Sailer (+ 1832) wrote many wise things concerning moral, pastoral, and ascetical theology, especially Handbuch der christlichen Moral; Vorlesungen aus der Pastoraltheologie; J. B. de Hirscher (+ 1865) published, among other works, Die christliche Moral, where, indeed learnedly, but not accurately enough, he discusses the Christian life; C. Werner, very versed in theological history and literature, published not only historical works concerning Aquinas, Suarez, Bede, Alcuin, etc., but also an Enchiridion of Moral Theology and System der christliche Ethik; Pruner, a moderate equiprobabilist, published Lehrbuch der Kath. Moralth., 1875-77, of which a new edition has recently been reprinted; Bouvier (+ 1854), Bishop of Le Mans, a weighty author and moderate probabilist, elaborated theological institutions, which were explained as a manual in many seminaries of France; Martinet (+ 1874) wrote a Moral Theology, in which all things, even the sacraments, are referred to the Decalogue; A. Carriere, Cong. S. Sulpice (+ 1864), wrote learnedly, solidly, and moderately concerning justice and right, concerning contracts, and concerning marriage;¹ Vincent and Bonaly, of the same Congregation, arranged classic compendia of dogmatic and moral theology; Ernest Mary Muller (+ 1888) published a moral theology, which is notable for solidity of doctrine and perspicuity of style: he defends equiprobabilism; Joseph d'Annibale (+ 1892) wrote an elegant and learned little summa of moral theology; Thomas Joseph Bouquillon (+ 1902), a moderate probabilist, very learned, had sketched out a great work of moral theology which he was not able to complete; there exist the following treatises: Fundamental Moral Theology, 3rd ed., 1903; Concerning the Theological Virtues, 1890; Concerning the Virtue of Religion, first part, 1880; Emile Berardi, a probabilist, wisely sets forth practical questions especially in these works: De recidivis et occasionariis, 5th ed., Faenza, 1897; Praxis Confessariorum, 4th ed., 1903; likewise John Morino, Cong. Miss., arranged a useful compendium, 5th ed., Turin, 1899.

¹ Concerning him and other members of St. Sulpice, see L. Bertrand, Bibliotheque sulpicienne, Paris, 1900.

55. Conclusion. From this brief historical survey it is permitted to infer that moral theology, at the time when it flourished, namely that of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth century, of the Scholastics of the thirteenth century, and of the Theologians of the sixteenth century, was not merely speculative nor merely casuistic, but at the same time scientific and practical: the principles of morals were solidly proved both by natural reason and by the authority of Scripture and the Fathers, and from them practical rules were inferred for the Christian ordering of life. Moreover, it was not occupied only with those things which are strictly prohibited, but also with the virtues which are desired for a truly Christian life. And deservedly: indeed, what is forbidden under grave obligation and what under light obligation must be accurately defined; but it is of no less moment to propose motives and means for extirpating vices and cultivating virtues: for unless Christians have before their mind the ideal perfection which Christ Himself exhibited by words and examples, they gradually grow cold and soon fall into sin. Certain recent theologians rightly understood this, such as Muller, Lehmkuhl, Bouquillon.

Therefore in this work, adhering to the footsteps of these men, after the general principles of morals have been set forth, we shall treat of virtues and duties in such a way that to directors of souls it may become clearly known not only what Christ strictly commanded, but also what He commended, and what are the means for making progress in the practice of virtues: "He who is just, let him be justified still; and he who is holy, let him be sanctified still."¹ But because we strive for brevity, we frequently refer readers to authors who have treated more fully of Christian perfection, especially to the Gospel itself.

¹ Apoc. XXII, 11.

Fundamental Moral Theology discusses human acts, insofar as they tend toward the ultimate end, namely:

I. Concerning the Ultimate End toward which we tend through human acts, and consequently concerning the norm of morality, which consists in the ordering of our acts to this ultimate end.

II. Concerning Human Acts considered psychologically and morally, insofar as they are general means to the end.

III. Concerning divine and human Laws, or concerning the external norm by which acts are ordered to the end.

IV. Concerning Conscience, or concerning the internal norm, by whose aid laws are applied to individual persons for the right ordering of life.

V. Concerning Sins, or acts by which the will turns aside from the law and from the ultimate end, and also concerning Vices, or evil propensities and habits by which it is inclined to sin.

VI. Concerning Virtues in general, or concerning good habits, by whose aid we are inclined to living rightly, and therefore to pursuing the ultimate end.

1. The general development of the sacred sciences following upon the Council of Trent naturally included Moral Theology. a) For a while St. Thomas was universally followed, and the moralists continued to treat their problems in connection with Dogmatic Theology. Some of them, notably Gabriel Vasquez, S.J. (+ 1604), ¹ Francis Suarez, S.J. (+ 1617), ² and Dom. Bañez, O.P. (+ 1604), composed commentaries on the Summa. Others, e. g., Peter Soto (+ 1563), Adam Tanner (+ 1632), Martin Becanus (+ 1624), Natalis Alexander (+ 1724), Charles Billuart (+ 1757), and Eusebius Amort (+ 1775), adopted a less formal treatment, which enabled them to combine a systematic exposition of Catholic teaching with its defense against the "Reformers."

¹ See Goyena in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 275.

² Cfr. K. Werner, Franz Suarez, Vol. I, Ratisbon 1861, pp. 262 sqq., 354 sqq.; Vol. II, pp. 152 sqq.; Goyena in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 319 sq.; Lehmkuhl, ibid., Vol. XIV, p. 607.

From the close of the sixteenth century Moral Theology began to be treated as a separate discipline. The method commonly employed was scholastic or casuistic. Most writers divided the subject into treatises and made many excursions into the realm of canonical and civil law.

The best-known moralists of this period are: the Jesuits Henry Henriquez (+ 1608), Gregory of Valentia (+ 1603), John Azor (+ 1603), Vincent Filliucci (+ 1622), F. de Castropalao (+ 1633), Louis Torres (Turrianus, + 1635), Paul Laymann (+ 1635),³ Antony Escobar (+ 1669);⁴ Herman Busembaum (+ 1668),⁵ Claude Lacroix (+ 1714),⁶ Paul Gabriel Antoine (+ 1743),⁷ John Reuter (+ 1762),⁸ Nicholas Mazotta (+ 1737),⁹ Edmund Voit (+ 1780);¹⁰ the Salmanticenses;¹¹ the Franciscans Patrick Sporer (+ 1683),¹² Benjamin Elbel (+ 1756),¹³ Anaclete Reiffenstuel (+ 1703); ¹⁴ Louis Abelly (+ 1691);¹⁵ St. Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori (+ 1787); ¹⁶ the Dominicans Didacus Alvarez (+ 1635),¹⁷ Daniel Concina (+ 1756), ¹⁸ and J. V. Patuzzi (+ 1769).¹⁹ The great work of the Wirceburgenses, which first appeared at Würzburg, Bavaria, in 1766-71 and was reprinted in Paris nearly a century later, is deserving of special mention.²⁰

³ Laymann was the ablest moralist among the German Jesuits. He taught Moral Theology in Munich from 1609—25. His Theologia Moralis (6 vols., Munich 1625) went through numerous editions.

⁴ K. Weiss, P. Antonio de Escobar y Mendoza, Klagenfurt 1908; E. Graham in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 534.

⁵ On Busembaum see T. Barrett, S.J., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. III, pp. 86 sq. —Busembaum's Medulla Theologiae Moralis Facili Perspicua Methodo Resolvens Casus Conscientiae ex Variis Probatisque Auctoribus Concinnata was originally published in one volume at Münster, 1650. Altogether there have been more than 200 editions of this work. The latest ("iuxta editionem ultimam S. Congr. de Prop. Fide") appeared at Tournay, 1876, in two volumes. This much misrepresented treatise formed the basis for the moral theologies of Lacroix, Zaccaria, St. Alphonsus, Ballerini-Palmieri, and others.—Cfr. B. Duhr, S.J., Jesuitenfabeln, 4th ed., Freiburg 1904.

⁶ Lacroix taught at Münster and Cologne. His Theologia Moralis (9 vols., Cologne 1707-14) is based on Busembaum and was attacked in Germany, France, and Italy. J. A. P. Zaccaria, S.J., defended Lacroix's teaching in his Apologie de la Theologie Morale, 1758.

⁷ Cfr. G. F. Johnson in the Cath. Encyclopedia. Vol. I, p. 583. —Antoine was an opponent of Probabilism. St. Alphonsus says of him: "Inter rigidos auctores non infimum tenet locum." In spite of its rigorism, however, Antoine's Theologia Moralis Universa ad Usum Parochorum et Confessariorum (Nancy 1726) went through nine editions during the author's life and ten after his death. The last of these, published in Rome, 1747, was prescribed by Benedict XIV as the official textbook of Moral Theology for the College of the Propaganda.

⁸ Reuter taught theology at Treves. His Neo-Confessarius (re-edited by A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., in 1905) is still in use. His Theologia Moralis Quadripartita appeared at Cologne in 1750; his Casus Conscientiae, ibid., 1753.

⁹ His Theologia Moralis (4 vols., Naples 1748; Augsburg 1756) was burnt by order of Parliament at Paris (1763) because of its "laxism."

¹⁰ Voit's Theologia Moralis appeared at Würzburg, Bavaria, where he was a university professor, in 1750, and passed through at least ten editions (Wiirzburg, Bassano, Rome, Paris). Gury calls him "a moderate probabilist, commended for his learning and especially for his practical solutions." Hurter subscribes to this praise, but adds: "Nevertheless, a clearer exposition of the matters and a more orderly method are wanting in the work." (Nomenclator Lit. Theol. Cath., 3rd ed., Vol. V, Part I, col. 234 sq.)

¹¹ The Salmanticenses were a group of theologians of the Order of Discalced Carmelites, teaching and writing at Salamanca in Spain at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century. They made strict adherence to Thomism their fundamental principle. Their Cursus Theologiae Moralis was begun in 1665 by Francisco de Jesus-Maria and completed by Alonso de los Angeles. Cfr. B. Zimmerman, O.D.C., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, pp. 401 sq.; H. Hurter, S.J., Nomenclator Literarius Theologiae Catholicae, Theologos Exhibens Aetate, Natione, Disciplinis Distinctos, Vol. IV, 3rd ed., Innsbruck 1910, pp. 275 sq., 1296 sq.

¹² Sporer taught theology for many years at Passau in Bavaria. He is the author of numerous works, chief among them Theologia Moralis Decalogalis et Sacramentalis, 3 vols. in folio, Würzburg 1681, re-edited at Salzburg, 1692, latest edition by J. Bierbaum, O.F.M., Paderborn 1901 sqq. —For a short biographical sketch of Sporer see the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 236.

¹³ Elbel's Theologia Moralis per Modum Conferentiarum (Venice 1733) was highly esteemed and often quoted by St. Alphonsus. It has been re-edited in three volumes by J. Bierbaum, O.F.M., Paderborn, 3rd ed., 1904 sqq. This book is still a favorite with confessors. Cfr. Buchberger's Kirchliches Handlexikon, Vol. I, Munich 1907, col. 1265.

¹⁴ Reiffenstuel (see Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, pp. 724 sq.) is best known as a canonist. His Theologia Moralis, first published at Munich, in 1692, passed through thirty editions, most notable among them, those prepared by his fellow-Franciscan, M. Kresslinger (Modena 1740; Munich 1742). The edition issued by Flavianus Ricci a Cimbria (Augsburg 1777) makes Reiffenstuel a Probabiliorist. In reality he was a Probabilist.

¹⁵ Abelly was appointed bishop of Rodez in 1664, but resigned his see in 1666 and attached himself to St. Vincent de Paul, whose biographer he became. His famous Medulla Theologica (1651) went through many editions. One appeared at Ratisbon as late as 1839. According to St. Alphonsus, Abelly is "a classic in probabilism." (Cfr. T. Campbell, S.J., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 39).

¹⁶ Liguori's famous Moral Theology first appeared at Naples, 1748, under the title, Medulla Theologiae Moralis R. P. Busembaum S.J. cum Adnotationibus per R. Alphonsum de Ligorio. The second edition was entitled, Theologia Moralis Concinnata a R. P. Alphonso de Ligorio... per Appendices Medullam R. P. H. Busembaum, Naples 1753. The third and following editions appeared in Venice (1756 sqq.). The ninth, published in 1785, received ecclesiastical approval in 1803. Recent editions by M. Heilig (Malines 1845, Paris 1857), M. Haringer (8 vols., Ratisbon 1846-47, 2nd ed., Paris 1879-81); Le Noir (4 vols., Paris 1875, 2nd ed., 1884); and L. Gaude (3 vols., Rome 1903 sqq.). Second in importance among the Saint's moral writings is his compendium entitled Istruzione e Pratica per li Confessori (1757), republished in Latin under the title, Homo Apostolicus Instructus in Sua Vocatione ad Audiendas Confessiones, in 1759. Besides, St. Alphonsus wrote a large number of dogmatic and ascetical works. His Letters (Lettere di Alfonso di Liguori, 3 vols., Rome 1887; German ed., Ratisbon 1892-94) are concerned almost entirely with the spiritual conflicts going on in his time. (Cfr. H. Castle, S.J., the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 334 sqq.; Buchberger, Kirchliches Handlexikon, Vol. I, p. 138).

¹⁷ Archbishop of Trani, 1616-35, is chiefly known as a commentator of St. Thomas and defender of the Thomistic teaching against the Molinists. (Cfr. Hurter, Nomenclator Lit. Theol. Cath., 3rd ed., Vol. III, col. 659 sqq.)

¹⁸ Concina was a famous preacher. His literary activity was confined chiefly to moral topics. His Storia del Probabilismo e Rigorismo (Venice 1743), being directed against the Jesuits, naturally gave rise to controversy, which reached a climax when Concina, under the auspices of Benedict XIV, published his Theologia Christiana Dogmatico-Moralis, in 12 vols. in 4to, Rome and Venice 1749-51. For a brief account of this controversy and Concina's later career see Jos. Schroeder, O.P., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp. 191 sq.

¹⁹ Patuzzi was a prolific writer. Some of his works appeared pseudonymously (Eusebio Eraniste, Adelfo Dositeo). He was a violent opponent of Probabilism and published two pamphlets against St. Alphonsus: La Causa del Probabilismo (Ferrara 1764) and Osservazioni Teologiche (ibid. 1765). His principal work is the Ethica Christiana sive Theologia Moralis, 3 vols., folio, Bassano 1760; new ed., 16 vols., 8vo, Venice 1770. (Cfr. Buchberger 's Kirchliches Handlexikon, Vol. II, col. 1369 sq.; Hurter, Nomenclator Lit. Theol. Cath., 3rd ed., Vol. V, Part I, col. 226 sqq.)

²⁰ The Theologi Wirceburgenses were four eminent Jesuit professors of theology, —Henry Kilber († 1782), Theodore Holtzclau ( + 1783), Ignatius Neubauer (+ 1795), and Ulric Münier or Müller ( + 1759). Their magnum opus (14 volumes, Würzburg 1766-1771, new edition, 10 vols., Paris 1879-80) constitutes a complete course of dogmatic and moral theology and is characterized by clearness and solidity of thought. In the Paris edition of 1879-80, Vol. V contains De Beatitudine, De Actibus Humanis, and De Legibus (by Neubauer); Vol. VI, De Iure et Iustitia (by Holtzclau); Vol. VII, De Peccatis, De Gratia, De Iustificatione, and De Merito (by Kilber); Vol. VIII, De Virtutibus Theologicis (by Kilber). Vols. IX and X contain the treatises on the Sacraments. Cfr. K. Werner, Geschichte der kath. Theologie, pp. 242 sq.; Herder's Kirchenlexikon, Vol. XII, col. 1706-08; Hurter, Nomenclator Lit. Theol. Cath., 3rd ed., Vol. V, Part I, n. 133 (col. 262 sqq.); A. Ruland, Series et Vitae Professorum SS. Theol., qui Wirceburgi docuerunt, Würzburg 1835.

Notable monographs on various ethical topics were composed by Francis Suarez, S.J.,²¹ Cardinal John de Lugo, S.J. (+ 1660), ²² Thomas Sanchez, S.J. (+ 1610),²³ Martin Bonacina (+ 1631),²⁴ Peter Hurtado de Mendoza, S.J. (+ 1631),²⁵ Dominic Soto, O.P. (+ 1560),²⁶ Louis de Molina, SJ. (+ 1600), ²⁷ Leonard Lessius, SJ. (+ 1623 ),²⁸ and John de Dicastillo, S.J. (+ 1653).²⁹ b) The chief exponents of the casuistic method were Martin de Azpilcueta, known as "Doctor Navarrus" ( + 1586), whose Manuale Confessariorum was highly esteemed; Francisco de Toledo, S.J. (+ 1596), philosopher, theologian, and exegete, who besides many other valuable works wrote a comprehensive Summa Casuum; ³⁰ Louis Lopez, O.P. (+ 1596), author of a book entitled Instructorium Conscientiae; ³¹ Emanuel Sa, S.J. (+ 1596), whose Aphorismi Confessariorum ran through many editions; ³² Valerius Reginald, S.J. (+ 1623), whose Praxis Fori Poenitentialis³³ and other writings were praised by St. Francis de Sales and led St. Alphonsus to rank the author among the classics of Moral Theology;³⁴ and Stephen Bauny, S.J. (+ 1649), author of a Summa Casuum Conscientiae, who owes his fame mainly to Pascal.³⁵

²¹ De Legibus, De Triplici Virtute Theologica, De Virtute Religionis. —On the life and writings of this famous theologian, who founded a school of his own in Scholasticism, see Goyena's article in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 319 sq.

²² Disp. de Virtute Fidei Divinae, De Poenitentia, De Iustitia et Iure, Responsorum Moralium Diversorum Libri Sex, etc. —"Endowed with uncommon speculative genius and clear, practical judgment, he [John de Lugo] in many instances pointed out entirely new paths towards the solution of moral questions. Speaking of his Moral Theology, St. Alphonsus styles him 'by all odds leader after St. Thomas.' " (Lehmkuhl in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 607).

²³ Sanchez' chief work, and the only one he himself edited, is the Disputationes de Sacramento Matrimonii (Genoa 1602), of which Fr. Wernz, late General of the Society of Jesus, says (Ius Decretalium, IV, n. 20) that it is even to-day reckoned by the Roman Curia among the classical works on marriage. Strangely enough, the third volume appears on the Index. Even in the earlier editions of the Index, as revised by Leo XIII, till his Constitution "Officiorum et munerum," may still be read: "Sanches, Thorn. Disputationum de Sacramento Matrimonii torn. III. ed. Venetiae, sive aliarum, a quibus /. 8 disp. 7 detractus est integer num. 4. Decr. 4 Feb. 1627." This number, as Fr. Lehmkuhl explains (Cath. Encycl., XIII, 428), which was omitted from the Venice edition of 1614, treats the power of the Pope to grant valid legitimation, through the so-called sanatio in radice, of the offspring of marriages invalid only through Canon Law.

²⁴ Bonacina was Bishop of Utica. He died on the way to Vienna, where he was to serve as Apostolic nuncio. He wrote a Theologia Moralis (2 vols., Lyons 1624), of which the treatise De Legibus has attained fame.

²⁵ He wrote Scholasticae et Morales Disputationes de Tribus Virtutibus Theologicis, 2 vols., folio, Salamanca 1631. —Hurter says of him: "He possessed a most acute intellect and outstanding learning, and the most learned Ripalda always revered him as a master." (Nomenclator Lit. Theol. Cath., 3rd ed., Vol. III, col. 927).

²⁶ De Iustitia et Iure Libri Decem, Salamanca 1556. —On Soto see Ch. J. Callan, O.P., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 152 sq.

²⁷ For a good sketch of Molina's life see J. Pohle in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 436 sq. There is no modern critical biography of this learned and renowned theologian. His treatise De Iustitia et Iure (Cuenca 1593), a classic, is frequently quoted at the present time (7 vols., Venice 1614; 5 vols., Cologne 1733)-

²⁸ Lessius was a Flemish Jesuit and a theologian of high repute. His chief moral works are: De Iustitia et Iure, published in 1605 and subsequently in many editions; De Summo Bono (Antwerp 1616), and De Perfectionibus Moribusque Divinis Libri XIV (Antwerp 1620).—Cfr. Cath. Encyc., Vol. IX, pp. 192 sq.; The Month, London, No. 717, pp. 193 sqq.

²⁹ Dicastillo was of Spanish descent. He taught at Naples and Ingolstadt, wrote Tractatus Duo de Iuramento, Periurio et Adiuratione, necnon de Censuris et Poenis Ecclesiasticis (Antwerp 1662) and De Iustitia et Iure Ceterisque Virtutibus Cardinalibus Libri Duo (Antwerp 1641).

³⁰ This author is more commonly known as Toletus. His Summa appeared at Lyons in 1599 and passed through forty-six editions and many translations (Spanish by Juan de Salas; Italian by Andreo Verna; French by Goffar); also summaries in Latin, Spanish, French, and Italian. (Cfr. Goyena, in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 760 sq.)

³¹ Salamanca 1585; repeatedly reprinted. Lopez also wrote De Contractibus et Negotiationibus, ibid. 1592.

³² Venice 1596. The book was put on the Index in 1603, because of its defense of the validity of confession by letter; released, 1608. (H. Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, Vol. II, 1, pp. 312 sq.; Hurter, Nomenclator Lit. Theol. Cath., 3rd ed., Vol. III, col. 223 sq.)

³³ 2 vols., Lyons 1616.

³⁴ Cfr. Buchberger, Kirchliches Handlexikon, Vol. II, col. 1707.

³⁵ Bauny was highly esteemed for his learning and holiness. His "knowledge of Moral Theology was singularly profound, but he was in many points too lenient," says Fr. T. Barrett, S.J. (Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 352). Bauny's principal works were: Pratique du Droit Canonique au Gouvernement de l'Église (Paris 1634) and Somme des Péchez qui se commettent en tous États (Paris 1630). These two books, as well as the first part of Bauny's Moral Theology, were put on the Index. (Cfr. Hurter, Nomenclator Lit. Thcol. Cath., 3rd ed., Vol. III, col. 1186 sq.). It was mainly Bauny's teaching that the enemies of the Jesuits exploited in order to convict the Society of laxism.

The abuses incident to the one-sidedly casuistical treatment of Moral Theology were combatted by Prosper Lambertini, later Pope Benedict XIV (De Synodo Dioecesana, Institutiones Ecclesiasticae, Quaestiones Canonicae), and especially by St. Alphonsus de' Liguori, who subjected the views of the casuists to a thorough criticism and separated the wheat from the chaff. c) Speculative mysticism having fallen into disrepute in the course of the previous period, the exponents of mystic theology now turned their attention to ascetics. The following writers deserve mention as safe guides on the way of Christian perfection:

Francis Louis de Blois, a Flemish Benedictine abbot, more widely known by the Latinized form of his name, Blosius (+ 1566);³⁶ Louis of Granada, O.P. (+ 1588), called by St. Francis de Sales "the prince of spiritual writers";³⁷

St. Teresa of Jesus († 1582), whose autobiographical writings have been compared to the Confessions of St. Augustine;³⁸ St. John of the Cross († 1591), co-founder, with St. Teresa, of the Discalced Carmelites, whose system has been described as "empirical mysticism";³⁹ Lorenzo Scupoli, Theatine († 1610), whose Spiritual Combat is still widely used for purposes of devotion; ⁴⁰ Alonzo Rodriguez, S.J. († 1616), whose Practice of Christian and Religious Perfection has been a source of untold consolation to religious and laymen throughout the world; ⁴¹ Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (+ 1621), the distinguished Jesuit theologian, whose devotional writings were the fruit of his annual retreats; ⁴² Ven. Louis de Lapuente, or De Ponte, S.J. (+ 1624), known to English readers mainly by his Christian Life and Meditations on the Mysteries of Our Holy Faith; ⁴³ Cardinal John Bona, a Cistercian (+ 1674), whose best known ascetical works are his Manuductio ad Caelum and his treatise on the Sacrifice of the Mass;⁴⁴

St. Francis de Sales (+ 1622), Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Universal Church, whose Traité de l'Amour de Dieu, also known as Introduction à la Vie Dévote, was translated into nearly all civilized languages and went through innumerable editions.⁴⁵

³⁶ De Blois' writings are numerous. They were first published in a complete edition at Louvain, in 1568, and many of them have been frequently reprinted and translated. In the English-speaking world he is known principally by his Mirror for Monks (Speculum Monachorum), translated into English by Sir John Coleridge, 1872, the Book of Spiritual Instruction (London 1900), and Comfort for the Fainthearted (London 1902), the latter two works translated by Father Bertrand Wilberforce, O.P. (Cfr. G. Cyprian Alston, O.S.B., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 604).

³⁷ A famous preacher and theologian, provincial of the Portuguese Dominicans, confessor and counsellor to the queen regent. He declined the honors of the cardinalate offered him by Sixtus V. "Among the hundreds of eminent ascetical writers of Spain, Louis of Granada remains unsurpassed in the beauty and purity of his style, the solidity of his doctrine, and the popularity and influence of his writings." (J. B. O'Connor, S.J., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, p. 385). Nearly all of his works were translated into the various European languages, and several into Turkish and Japanese. The best known of his books is La Guia de Pecadores (Badajoz 1555), which has been favorably compared to the Imitation of Thomas a Kempis. A new and revised English ed., New York 1889. The first part of The Sinner's Guide, entitled Counsels on Holiness of Life, was edited by Shipley in The Ascetic Library, Vol. VIII, London 1869. It contains a brief sketch of the author's life. (V. O'Connor, l.c.)

³⁸ For a life and list of her writings see B. Zimmerman, O.D.C., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 515 sqq. —The most recent English translations are by Lewis, Life and Relations, ed. Zimmerman, 4th ed., London 1911; The Interior Castle, Exclamations, and The Way of Perfection, tr. by the Benedictines of Stanbrook, ed. Zimmerman; the two former, London 1906, the latter, London 1911. Cfr. Burke, St. Teresa, New York 1911.

³⁹ For a sketch of his life and writings see B. Zimmerman, O.D.C., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, pp. 480 sq. English tr. of John's works by D. Lewis, London 1864, with an introduction by Wiseman; revised by the translator and reprinted, London 1889, in 4 vols., with introductions by Fr. Zimmerman. Of his life by Lewis, Fr. Zimmerman says (ibid., p. 481): "The Life of St. John of the Cross (London 1889), compiled from all his Spanish biographers and from other sources, by D. Lewis, is excellent; but what is most wanted now is a biography founded upon the depositions of witnesses in the process of beatification. Not until that work is done shall we have a true picture of the saint."

⁴⁰ On Scupoli see Kaulen in Herder's Kirchenlexikon, Vol. XI, col. 18; Hurter, Nomenclator Lit. Theol. Cath., 3rd ed., Vol. III, col. 616. He entered the Theatine Order at the age of forty and became a much sought confessor, until forced to retire by calumnies ("calumniis, quibus non liquet," says Hurter, I.e.), was reduced to the lay state by a general chapter of his Order, and spent the remaining twenty-five years of his life in humble retirement. The Combattimento Spirituale first appeared anonymously at Venice, in 1589. It has seen innumerable editions and been translated into nearly all European languages.

⁴¹ A short life of this popular spiritual writer is prefixed to the English translation of The Practice of Christian and Religious Perfection, London 1861. John Gilmary Shea left a translation which has never been published. Fr. Th. Slater has contributed a biographical sketch of Rodriguez to the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 109. He says of the Practice: "It is a book of practical instructions on all the virtues which go to make up the perfect Christian life, whether lived in the cloister or in the world. It became popular at once, and it is as much used to-day as it was when it first became known. More than twenty-five editions of the original Spanish have been issued, besides extracts and abridgments. More than sixty editions have appeared in French in seven different translations, twenty in Italian, at least ten in German, and eight in Latin. An English translation from the French by Fr. Antony Hoskins, S.J., was printed at St. Omer in 1612. The best known English translation, often reprinted, is that which first appeared in London, 1697, from the French of Abbé Regnier des Marais."

⁴² Bellarmine's spiritual writings are mainly five, viz.: De Ascensione Mentis ad Deum (1615), De Aeterna Felicitate Sanctorum (1616), De Gemitu Columbae (1617), De Septem Verbis Christi (1618), and De Arte Bene Moriendi (1620). —On Bellarmine see S. F. Smith, S.J., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. II, pp. 411 sqq.

⁴³ On Lapuente see H. J. Swift's article s. v. in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, p. 3.

⁴⁴ The Manuductio has been compared to the Imitation of Thomas a Kempis on account of its simplicity. It appeared in 1658 and in four decades passed through fourteen Latin editions. It has been translated into Italian, French, German, Spanish, and Armenian. An English translation, by Sir Robert L'Estrange, appeared in London, 1900, under the title, A Guide to Eternity. Other well known ascetical works by the same author are: Via Compendii ad Deum (1657), Principia et Documenta Vitae Christianae (1673), and Horologium Asceticum (1676). —See the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. II, pp. 645 sq.

⁴⁵ A complete critical edition of the writings of St. Francis de Sales appeared at Annecy, 1892 sqq. The Traité de l'Amour de Dieu originally appeared at Lyons in 1608.

An excellent introduction to ascetic theology is the Direttorio Ascetico of J. B. Scaramelli, S.J. († 1752), translated into English by Eyre.⁴⁶

⁴⁶ Best edition, Ratisbon 1883, 3 vols.; English translation, The Directorium Asceticum, with Preface by Cardinal Manning, Dublin and London, 1870-71; new, revised ed., London 1879-81; Latin translation, Brixen 1770; Louvain 1848; German translation, Augsburg 1778; Spanish, Madrid 1806; French, Paris 1854.—For a brief sketch of Scaramelli's life see H. Ollion, in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 514.

2. In the second half of the eighteenth century Moral Theology was detached from its supernatural basis and almost completely identified with moral philosophy. Catholic as well as Protestant theologians, especially in Germany, succumbed to the influence of Rationalism, as embodied in the philosophical systems of Leibnitz,⁴⁷ Wolff, Kant, and Fichte,⁴⁸ and based their moral teaching exclusively on "practical reason." Thus Moral Theology lost its Christian and ecclesiastical character. The teachings of Revelation were respected only in so far as they were considered useful in advancing morality and correcting the disproportion existing between virtue and happiness in this life.

⁴⁷ Cfr. Wm. Turner, History of Philosophy, Boston 1903, pp. 506 sqq.

⁴⁸ Turner, op. cit., pp. 525, 528 sqq., 550 sqq.

Moral Theology was restored to its pristine character and dignity by Benedict Stattler, S.J. († 1797),⁴⁹ A. N. Oberrauch, O.F.M. († 1808),⁵⁰ M. von Schenkl, O.S.B. († 1816),⁵¹ J. A. Stapf († 1844),⁵² and especially J. M. Sailer, Bishop of Ratisbon († 1832)⁵³ and J. B. Hirscher († 1865).⁵⁴ a) Of recent writers the following have treated Moral Theology positively and systematically, without however neglecting casuistry and the practical application of moral principles: Fr. Probst (+ 1899),⁵⁵ B. Fuchs,⁵⁶ Conrad Martin, Bishop of Paderborn (Germany) (+ 1879),⁵⁷ Karl Werner (+ 1888),⁵⁸ M. Jocham (+ 1893),⁵⁹ F. Friedhoff,⁶⁰ A. Rietter (+ 1866),⁶¹ Archbishop Th. H. Simar of Cologne (+ 1902),⁶² J. E. Pruner (+ 1907),⁶³ Thomas J. Bouquillon (+ 1902),⁶⁴ F. X. Linsenmann, Bishop-elect of Rottenburg (+ 1898),⁶⁵ J. Schwane (+ 1892),⁶⁶ J. Scheicher,⁶⁷ J. Rappenhöner,⁶⁸ P. Michel,⁶⁹ and F. M. Schindler.⁷⁰ b) The following authors employ the Scholastic method and aim to satisfy mainly the practical needs of the confessor: J. P. Gury, S.J. (+ 1866), ⁷¹ P. Scavini (+ 1869), ⁷² E. M. Müller (+ 1888),⁷³ J. d'Annibale (+ 1892),⁷⁴ C. Marc (+ 1887 ),⁷⁵ Aug. Lehmkuhl, SJ.,⁷⁶ J. Aertnys, C.SS.R.,⁷⁷ J. Bucceroni, SJ.,⁷⁸ A. Ballerini, SJ., and Dom. Palmieri, SJ.,⁷⁹ G. B. Tepe, SJ. (+ 1894),⁸⁰ F. A. Göpfert (+ 1916), ⁸¹ H. Noldin, S.J.,⁸² H. Gatterer (a Sexten), SJ. (+ 1899), ⁸³ D. Delama,⁸⁴ J. C. Vives,⁸⁵ E. Berardi,⁸⁶ A. Bulot,⁸⁷ A. Tanquery,⁸⁸ J. Busquet,⁸⁹ and A. Vermeersch, S.J.,^89a to whom we must add an eminent American theologian, Archbishop F. P. Kenrick, of Baltimore (+ 1863), whose Theologia Moralis did such splendid service to the American clergy during the latter half of the nineteenth century.⁹⁰ particular casuistics are the Casus Conscientiae of J. P. Gury,⁹¹ P. Villada,⁹² J. Bucceroni,⁹³ E. Genicot,⁹⁴ A. Lehmkuhl, S.J.;⁹⁵ the Consultazioni of C. Cennari,⁹⁶ and the Theologiae Moralis Institutiones by Genicot and J. Salsmans, S.J.⁹⁷ In this connection we may also mention the collection of cases in Moral and Pastoral Theology, published under the title, The Casuist, by J. F. Wagner, New York (1906-1917), ed. by J. A. McHugh, O.P., and others).

⁴⁹ Ethica Christiana Universalis, Ingolstadt 1772; Ethica Christiana Communis, 3 vols. in 6 parts, Augsburg 1782; Vollständige christliche Sittenlehre, 2 vols., Augsburg 1791. —On Stattler see A. C. Cotter, S.J., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 282.

⁵⁰ Oberrauch is also known by his name in the Franciscan Order, "Herculanus." His principal work is Institutiones Iustitiae Christianae sive Theologia Moralis, in 4 vols., Innsbruck 1794. It was placed on the Index in 1796, but the censure was not enforced against a new revised edition published at Bamberg and Nuremberg in 1797-98. (V. Herder's Kirchenlexikon, Vol. IX, col. 592).

⁵¹ Ethica Christiana Universalis, 3 vols., 1800; 5th ed., Gran 1830. (Cfr. Buchberger, Kirchliches Handlexikon, Vol. II, col. 1959).

⁵² Theologia Moralis, 1827-31; 7th ed., 4 vols., 1855. The same in German, Die christliche Moral, 4 vols., 1841-42. (Buchberger, op. cit., II, 2194).

⁵³ Sailer was a much misjudged man, but he has been rehabilitated of late years. (F. R. Stölzle in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 328; Buchberger's Kirchliches Handlexikon, Vol. II, col. 1883 sq.). Sailer's Handbuch der christlichen Moral appeared in 3 vols. at Munich, 1817-18, and was reprinted at Sulzbach in 1834. —See Ph. Klotz, Sailer als Moralphilosoph, Paderborn 1909.

⁵⁴ On Hirscher see Goyau in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 363 sqq. His chief moral work is, Die christliche Moral als Lehre von der Verwirklichung des göttlichen Reiches in der Menschheit, Tübingen 1835; 5th ed., 3 vols., 1851,

⁵⁵ Kath. Moraltheologie, 2 vols., Tübingen 1848-50, 2nd ed., 1853.

⁵⁶ System der christlichen Sittenlehre, Augsburg 1851.

⁵⁷ Lehrbuch der kath. Moral, Mayence 1849; 5th ed., 1865.

⁵⁸ System der christlichen Ethik, 3 vols., Ratisbon 1850-52; Vol. I, 2nd ed., 1888; Enchiridion Theologiae Moralis, Vienna 1863.

⁵⁹ Moraltheologie, 3 vols., Sulzbach 1852-54.

⁶⁰ Allgemeine Moraltheologie, Ratisbon 1860; Spesielle Moraltheologie, 1865.

⁶¹ Breviarium der christl. Ethik, Ratisbon 1866.

⁶² Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, Freiburg 1867; 3rd ed., 1893.

⁶³ Kath. Moraltheologie, Freiburg 1875; 3rd ed., 1902-03, 3 vols.

⁶⁴ Dr. Bouquillon is remembered in this country, where he taught Moral Theology in the Catholic University of America. His magnum opus is: Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, Vol. I: Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis, Bruges 1873, 3rd ed., 1903; Vol. II: De Virtutibus Theologicis, 1878, 2nd ed., 1890; Vol. III: De Virtute Religionis, 1880, 2nd ed., 1890.

⁶⁵ Dr. Linsenmann's Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie (Freiburg 1878) exercised great influence upon contemporary theology. It is followed in this Handbook and in the more recent one-volume Moraltheologie of O. Schilling, Freiburg 1922.

⁶⁶ Allgemeine Moraltheologie, Freiburg 1885; Spezielle Moraltheologie, 1878; 2nd ed., 1885.

⁶⁷ Allgemeine Moraltheologie, Ratisbon 1885.

⁶⁸ Allgemeine Moraltheologie, Münster 1891-93.

⁶⁹ Theologiae Moralis Principia, 2 vols., Paris 1900-02.

⁷⁰ Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, 3 vols., Vienna 1907 sqq.

⁷¹ Compendium Theologiae Moralis, 2 vols., Lyons and Paris 1850; Ratisbon 1857; 5th ed., 1874; new ed., enlarged by H. Dumas, 5th ed., Freiburg i. B. 1891; revised by A. Ballerini, SJ. (+ 1881), Rome 1874; 6th ed., 1882; revised by Dom. Palmieri, S.J., 14th ed., 1902; adapted to American conditions by A. Konings, C.SS.R. (Theologia Moralis, Boston 1874, 2nd ed., 2 vols., New York 1876; two later editions by H. Kuper, C.SS.R.; for a biographical sketch of Konings see the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, pp. 690 sq.); again adapted to American conditions and condensed by Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., New York 1884; frequently revised and re-edited since by T. Barrett, SJ.; 27th ed., New York 1919.— Spanish edition of Gury's Compendium, with many additions, has been published by J. B. Ferreres, SJ., 9th ed., Barcelona 1918 sq. — For a brief sketch of Gury's life see J. Salsmans, S.J., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 89. For a refutation of certain calumnies circulated against his work, cfr. B. Duhr, SJ., Jesuitenfabeln, 4th ed., Freiburg 1904, pp. 474 sqq.

⁷² Theologia Moralis Universa ad Mentem S. Alphonsi, 4 vols., 3rd ed., Novara 1847, 11th ed., Milan 1901; Theologia Moralis in Compendium Redacta by I. A. Del Vecchio, 2 vols., 5th ed., Milan 1902.

⁷³ Theologia Moralis, 3 vols., Augsburg 1868-70; Vols. I and II, 9th ed., 1905; Vol. III, 7th ed., 1902; Vol. I, 10th ed., Ratisbon 1923.

⁷⁴ Summula Theologiae Moralis, 3 vols., Milan 1881-83; 5th ed., Rome 1908; Supplementum by D. Mannajoli, Rome 1909.

⁷⁵ Institut. Morales Alphonsianae, 2 vols., Rome 1885; 15th ed., 1917, (see Irish Th. Quarterly, XIII, 50, 167 sqq.)

⁷⁶ Theologia Moralis, 2 vols., Freiburg i. B., 1883-84; 11th ed. ("de integro revisa, refecta, adaucta"), ibid., 1910; Compendium Theol. Mor., ibid., 1886, 5th ed., 1907. A. Lehmkuhl is probably the most frequently quoted and the most highly esteemed of present-day moralists.

⁷⁷ Theologia Moralis iuxta Doctrinam S. Alphonsi, Tournay 1887, 10th ed. by C. A. Damen, C.SS.R., 1919.

⁷⁸ Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, 4 vols., Rome 1887, 6th ed., 1914-15. (V. La Civiltà Cattolica, 1917, quad. 1601, pp. 604 sqq.)

⁷⁹ Opus Theologicum Morale in Busembaum Medullam, 7 vols., Prati 1889-91, 3rd ed., 1902-03.

⁸⁰ Institutiones Theologiae Moralis Generalis, 2 vols., Paris 1899.

⁸¹ Moraltheologie, 3 vols., Paderborn 1897-98; Vols. I and II in 6th ed., 1909; Vol. III in 5th ed., 1906.

⁸² Summa Theologiae Moralis, 3 vols., Innsbruck 1901-2; Vol. I, 17th ed., 1924; Vol. II, 13th ed., 1921; Vol. III, 12th ed., 1920.

⁸³ Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Messina 1899, 2nd ed., Stuttgart 1900, 3rd ed., 1902.

⁸⁴ Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, 2 vols., Trent 1902.

⁸⁵ Compendium Theologiae Moralis, 8th ed., Rome 1904. Vives has also written an excellent Compendium Theologiae Ascetico-Mysticae, 3rd ed., Rome 1908.

⁸⁶ Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis, Faenza 1905; Praxis Confessariorum, 4 vols., ibid., 1905.

⁸⁷ Compendium Theologiae Moralis, 2 vols., Paris 1905.

⁸⁸ Synopsis Theologiae Moralis et Pastoralis ad Mentem S. Thomae et S. Alphonsi, 3 vols., 7th ed., Tournay 1921.

⁸⁹ Thesaurus Confessarii, 4th ed., Paris 1909.

^89a Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, Bruges 1921; II and III, 1924.

⁹⁰ Kenrick's Theologia Moralis first appeared at Philadelphia in 1841-43, in 3 vols. We have before us the second, revised edition, 3 vols., Malines 1860-61. Hurter (Nom. Theol. Cath., Vol. V, 3rd ed., Innsbruck 1911, col. 1152) says that the second edition was published at Mayence (?). He calls the work "valde practica." John J. O'Shea, in his article on Kenrick in Vol. VIII, pp. 618 sq. of the Cath. Encyclopedia is indefinite and inaccurate. Kenrick follows St. Alphonsus, whose very words he frequently adopts. He says in the "Prooemium" (2d ed., Vol. I, p. XIV): "Among recent cultivators of ethics Saint Alphonsus de Liguori stands out; he flourished in the century just past and in our age has been raised to the sacred honors of the Church. He seems to have examined nearly all the books treating this discipline, joining practical experience to knowledge; for through very many years he was engaged in the care of souls, so that he left to us in the Moral Theology which he wrote the fruit of study and practice. We always had this before our hands while preparing this work of ours, such as it is, and very often copied his words, willingly following the authority which is known to be great from the responses of the Sacred Penitentiary (on 5 July 1851), and also from the documents of Pius IX. Nevertheless, we used our own judgment, though slight and weak, to which we ask that nothing be trusted except insofar as authority and the weight of reasons support it."

⁹¹ Ratisbon 1862; 8th ed., Freiburg i. B. 1891.

⁹² Bruxelles 1885.

⁹³ 2 vols., Rome 1894-95; 6th ed., 1913.

⁹⁴ 2 vols., Louvain 1901.

⁹⁵ 2 vols., Freiburg i. B. 1902-03; 3rd ed., 1907.

⁹⁶ 2 vols., 2nd ed., Rome 1902-04.

⁹⁷ 2 vols., 6th ed., Bruxelles 1909.

Of these casuistic writings it has been said: "A man is not a competent moralist unless he has consulted collections of this kind." ⁹⁸ Note, however, that casuistry, though it has been at times cultivated to excess and in a one-sided manner, has never supplanted scientific Moral Theology. The value of casuistry lies entirely within the domain of the penitential discipline. Casuistry has its place in theology as well as in jurisprudence and medicine. Everything depends on the spirit in which it is applied and the dogmatic principles upon which it is based.⁹⁹

⁹⁸ "On n'est jamais un moraliste complet, quand on n'a pas consulté des recueils de cette sorte." (L'Université Catholique, XLI [1902], p. 310).

⁹⁹ Casuistry, says Abbé Hogan (Clerical Studies, 2nd ed., p. 224 sq.), "is not confined to moral science; it is the outgrowth of all legislation. Wherever there is a code, casuistry of a kindred kind grows up around it. The numberless decisions, for instance, of the Congregation of Rites, are the casuistry of liturgy. The very laws of good breeding give birth to a casuistry of etiquette. Indeed, most of what is called law is scarce anything but casuistry. Until the period of its codification under the Emperor Justinian, the Roman law was little more than a collection of 'cases,' or individual decisions, subsequently made into rules. Canon Law was built exactly in the same fashion; that is, on pontifical rulings given on single cases. So also the common law of England, which, different from the statute law made by legislative enactments, rests entirely on the rulings of law courts and the opinions of eminent lawyers regarding single cases submitted to them. Statute law itself soon gathers around it a vast amount of similar cases which practically determine its interpretation, as may be seen in French, Belgian, or Italian jurisprudence, or in the statutory jurisprudence of the United States."

READINGS.—Thos. Slater, S.J., A Short History of Moral Theology, New York 1909, pp. 44-50. —A. Sweens, Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis, 2nd ed., Haaren 1910, pp. 8 sqq. —J. D'Annibale, Summula Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 5th ed., pp. 1-16. —E. Müller, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 5th ed., pp. 45-63. —A. Vermeersch, S.J., Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, Bruges 1922, pp. 18-36.

12. The Council of Trent had a most salutary influence upon the whole Christian life. Not only were the truths of faith explained more clearly by it, but moral and ecclesiastical precepts also were more intensely commended. The Books of Sentences of Peter Lombard were gradually removed from the schools, and in place of them almost exclusively the Summa theologica of St. Thomas was explained and enlarged by subtle commentaries. As it were the standard-bearer of this epoch is Cardinal Thomas de Vio, O.Pr., who not only composed most profound commentaries on the theological Summa of Aquinas, but also wrote for confessors the Summula peccatorum, arranged in alphabetical order; this little Summa, although it is of rather small bulk, nevertheless offers an adequate Casuistry altogether sufficient for those times, indeed not rarely in very few words touches the profound reason of the solution of cases.

From the Order of Preachers, besides Cajetan, celebrated moralists flourished from the time of the Council of Trent: Francis de Victoria (+1546);⁵¹ Bartholomew de Medina (+1581),⁵² who is held as the father of moderate Probabilism; Dominic Soto (+1560);⁵³ Peter Soto (+1563);⁵⁴ Bartholomew de Ledesma (+1604);⁵⁵ John of St. Thomas (+1644), who published excellent dissertations on the theological Summa; Vincentius Candidus (+1654), who wrote Disquisitiones morales; John Baptist Gonet (+1681), distinguished in keenness of intellect, but in some way inclined toward the more rigid opinions;⁵⁶ Natalis Alexander (+1724), outstanding in knowledge and learning, but likewise somewhat rigid, who published a dogmatic and moral Theology; Drouven (+1742), who wrote the very learned work De re sacramentaria, which was edited several times and rather extensively copied out by some authors; Charles Rene Billuart (+1757), equally celebrated in dogmatic Theology and in moral, who with wonderful dexterity joins in Moral Theology the scholastic method with the casuistic, so that his works, although of rather great bulk, have been edited very often down to our own days, and he himself by full right is deservedly counted among the best moralists; Wigandt (+1708);⁵⁷ Daniel Concina (+1756) and Vincentius Patuzzi (+1769), who with great vehemence attacked laxer Probabilism and thereby brought it about that St. Alphonsus in the later editions of his Moral Theology reformed some questions and more and more left pure Probabilism;⁵⁸ Fulgentius Cuniliati (+1759), who wrote a good casuistic Moral Theology, which within twenty years obtained 12 editions. - In the Spanish language the best manuals of Moral Theology were published by Larraga (Prontuario de Teologia moral, a work very often edited, even after the death of the author, for example, by Juan Sanches, Madrid 1919), and Moran (Teologia moral, Madrid 1883). In the Italian language Faustinus Scarpazza published a solid work: Teologia morale, Palermo 1843.

From the Order of Carmelites there came forth the very celebrated both Cursus theologicus and Cursus theologiae moralis Salmanticensis (1665-1724), clearly and neatly elaborated by several authors; they are commonly cited briefly as the "Salmanticenses." They not rarely embrace opinions somewhat more benign. Antonius a Spiritu Sancto wrote Directorium confessariorum, 2 volumes in folio, and Consulta varia, 3 volumes in folio; Angelus a S. Maria published Breviarium morale Carmelitarum, 5 volumes in folio.

In the Order of St. Francis many very celebrated Moralists flourished from the time of the Council of Trent, for example, Peter Marchant (+1661); Bartholomew Mastrius (+1673); Sporer (+1683);⁵⁹ Anacletus Reiffenstuel (+1703), who indeed not only is deservedly numbered among the best canonists, but also wrote a clear and solid Moral Theology; Francis Henno, who wrote a very subtle dogmatic and moral Theology, and especially Benjamin Elbel (+1756), who wrote Moral Theology by way of conferences,⁶⁰ which work is deservedly numbered among the best books that have ever been written on this matter; Guillelmus Herinckx (+1677);⁶¹ Francis Bordonus (+1671);⁶² Corbinianus Luydl (+1778);⁶³ Reinerius Sasserath (+1771), who wrote Cursus Theologiae moralis adnexis casibus practicis, a work rather often edited and very clear; Pius van der Velden (+1857), who wrote Principia theologiae moralis theoretice et practice exposita, which work Piat the Capuchin edited again and illustrated with excellent notes; Hilarius a Sexten (Gatterer; +1899), who wrote Compendium theologiae moralis juxta probatissimos auctores.

From the Society of Jesus very many and very illustrious authors wrote on Moral Theology; we cannot bring forward all of them here. Among the others we name Suarez, Azor, Castropalaus, Laymann, Escobar, Busembaum, Lacroix, Reuter, Lugo, Gury, Lehmkuhl, Ballerini, Bucceroni, Genicot, Noldin, Ferreres, Sabetti, Ojetti, Slater, Arregui, Vermeersch, Ubach.

From the Order of St. Benedict, Babenstuber published an excellent work: Ethica supernaturalis seu cursus Theologiae moralis Salisburgensis, 2 volumes in folio.

From the Cistercian Order, John Caramuel de Lobkowitz (+1682) is worthy of mention; he is called by St. Alphonsus "the prince of laxists." He was a man of plainly marvelous genius and trained in absolutely all disciplines; he knew 24 languages; he wrote 77 volumes in folio. Someone said of him: "Caramuel has intelligence as eight, eloquence as five, judgment as two." Nevertheless his moral works are of little usefulness and contain some condemned propositions.⁶⁴

From the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, as prince of modern moralists, came forth St. Alphonsus de Ligorio, Doctor of the Church, founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer and bishop of St. Agatha of the Goths (1696-1787). He wrote many works, including ascetical ones. But his moral works are very well known to all: Theologia moralis, Homo apostolicus (Praxis confessarii), and Examen Ordinandorum. Among the younger interpreters of St. Alphonsus are counted A. Konings, Clem. Marc, Ios. Aertnys, Franc. Ter Haar, I. B. Raus, C. A. Damen, all of whom wrote very useful and solid works of Moral Theology.

From the times of St. Alphonsus almost innumerable authors have written on Moral Theology, whether on the whole of it or on some part of it. Besides those whom we cited above from the diverse religious Orders, worthy of mention from the secular clergy are Ios. Carriere, Scavini, Ernest Muller, Ios. d'Annibale, Thomas Bouquillon, F. Haine, Aemilius Berardi, Simar, Linsenmann, Pruner, Koch, Mausbach, Gopfert, Schindler, Schilling, Delama, Gennari, Tanquerey, Constantini, Piscetta, etc.

⁵¹ Relectiones theologiae. This work has been edited several times. An edition better than the others appeared at Ingolstadt in 1580. Several works of Francis de Victoria have not yet been printed. Cf. Ehrle in Katholik 1884 II, 505 sqq.

⁵² Commentaries on the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas.

⁵³ De iustitia et iure, and other very good works.

⁵⁴ A classic work on the institution of priests.

⁵⁵ Summa casuum conscientiae.

⁵⁶ Clypeus Thomisticus.

⁵⁷ Tribunal confessariorum, very often edited.

⁵⁸ Concerning the moral system of St. Alphonsus, see Aertnys-Damen, Theol. mor. book 1, n. 85 sqq.

⁵⁹ Newly edited with additions by Irenaeus Bierbaum.

⁶⁰ Edited several times even in our times by Irenaeus Bierbaum.

⁶¹ Summa theol. schol. et mor., 4 volumes in folio.

⁶² All his juridico-regular and moral works were collected in 6 volumes in folio (Lyons 1665).

⁶³ Theologia moralis christiana et evangelica, 20 tomes in 12mo.

⁶⁴ Cf. Hurter, Nomenclator litt. IV, 604 sqq.

13. Conclusion. From this brief historical conspectus it is permitted to infer that Moral Theology had, in the three periods, four epochs of great flourishing, which are: the first, the patristic epoch, in the time of St. Augustine down to Gregory the Great; the second, the scholastic epoch, in the thirteenth century, when St. Thomas wrote his immortal Summa theologica and Raymond de Pennafort his little Summa for confessors; the third epoch began immediately after the Council of Trent, when authors of diverse religious Orders cultivated the whole of Theology almost in rivalry; the fourth epoch began in the time of St. Alphonsus and lasts down to our own days. Certainly, indeed, from the year 1800 to 1860, as almost the whole scientific life languished, so neither then were there great works of Moral Theology. But now for fifty years the study of Moral Theology has flourished in the Catholic world. Especially in these most recent years Moral Theology has obtained vigorous defenders against malicious attacks; moreover, strong attempts have been made to hand down this discipline in a more scientific manner.

Some time ago while looking over the shelves of the library my eye was caught by a venerable-looking quarto bound in limp parchment. Outside it bore the title in faded ink, Hallus: De Quinquepartita Conscientia. I took the book to my room and soon became interested in it. In these days when the history of moral theology is so frequently perverted to the prejudice of the Church, it may be worth while to give my readers some of the fruits which I gathered from a closer acquaintance with the rare old quarto. But first of all a word about its author.

Dr. Richard Hall was a young student at Christ’s College, Cambridge, in the reign of Queen Mary. He took his degree in the year 1556, and was elected a Fellow of Pembroke Hall. He was held in general esteem, and his ability and upright character seemed to insure him a useful and honorable career in life. However, before he took his degree of Master of Arts, Queen Mary died, and Elizabeth succeeded to the throne of England. The new Queen very soon made known what was to be her policy in religion, and young Hall, who was sincerely attached to the Catholic faith, followed the example of many more English Catholics of the time and retired to the continent in search of the liberty of conscience denied to him at home. He first went to Belgium and thence to Rome, where he finished his theological studies and took the degree of Doctor of Divinity. He then returned to Belgium and was given the post of Professor of Morals in the Benedictine monastery of St. Rictrude at Marchiennes not far from Douay. Before long the disturbed state of Belgium at the time compelled Dr. Hall to retire to Douay, where the English College for the education of priests destined for the work of preserving the ancient faith in England had just been founded by Dr. Allen. At Douay, Hall became professor of Holy Scripture, and it was there that Pits, the author of De illustribus Angliae Scriptoribus, made his acquaintance about the year 1580. Subsequently Hall was made canon of the cathedral church of St. Omer and official of the diocese. He died at St. Omer in the year 1604. Pits tells us that Dr. Hall’s “ piety, charity, affability, and varied erudition, caused him to be held in universal esteem.” Dodd, in his Church History of England, says that he was “an excellent casuist, and zealous promoter of Church discipline,” that “his writings and behavior were a continual curb to vice and the liberties of the age, and as he was an enemy to complaisance upon those occasions, so the severity of his morals met with some opposition even among the learned.” 1 The Dictionary of National Biography testifies 1 Vol. II., p. 70.

that “he was a severe and uncompromising moralist.”

While engaged in teaching casuistry to the brethren of St. Rictrude Dr. Hall collected the material which he afterwards used in the composition of his chief work De Quinquepartita Conscientia. He tells us in the Dedicatory Epistle prefixed to this work that the general custom was for the professor of casuistry to begin at once with the discussion of cases of conscience. Hall desired to lay the foundations a little deeper, and began with an elaborate treatise on Conscience, for the matter of which he confesses that he was much indebted to the Dominican, John Nider, who wrote his book, Consolatio Pusillanimium, about the middle of the fifteenth century. Many years’ experience in hearing confessions confirmed him in his estimate of the importance of the treatise on Conscience, and when he was now an old man he devoted the leisure moments which his duties as official of the diocese left him, to the composition of his work. He dedicated it to the Archbishop of Cambrai, a prelate who was zealous for the reformation of morals and the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline. To show the lofty aim which Dr. Hall proposed to himself in publishing his work and as a specimen of his manner, we may quote the following passage from the Dedicatory Epistle:

For when once men’s consciences have been put right, and that Augean stable has been cleansed, it will be very easy to establish that external discipline which all good men desire and long for. To achieve this purpose in the first place pious and good men must everywhere be appointed pastors and confessors who will teach others by word and example and who will not like hirelings only feed themselves, and seek after their own gain and advantage; but who will seek God’s honor alone and the salvation of souls. From such offices those must be excluded who are addicted to gluttony and other fleshly vices, as well as the ambitious and the avaricious. When the tribunal of conscience has been put right, the next step will be the external forum, where judges and magistrates must be appointed who are not only upright and incorrupt so as not to be turned aside a hair’s breadth from the path of duty by hatred or affection, fear, or hope of reward; but who are as far as possible removed from all striving after popularity and notoriety. Because if they are Thasos there will never be wanting Gnathos who will so distort and blind their judgment with their flattery that they will hardly be able to distinguish good from evil. A very good example of this is furnished by Henry VIII of England who held flatterers in high favor and esteem. Once on his return from a battle in which he had been victorious, and which was fought in defense of the Holy See against those who desired to weaken its authority, he met one of the English bishops who had come to congratulate him on his victory. ‘‘Are we not much beholden, Reverend Father in God,’’ said the King, ‘‘to the divine goodness for the glorious victory which we have gained over the enemy?’’ The bishop knew the vainglorious character of the king, and he answered: ‘‘Nay, most serene King, Almighty God owes much to your Majesty since you have fought so well for His glory and the authority of the Holy See.’’ The king was not a little puffed up by the bishop’s words, and conceiving too high an opinion of himself he not long afterwards fell away from the Holy See and from the Faith which he had defended before with his pen and with the sword.

Dr. Hall’s book, the fruit of long years of study and practical experience, was published at Douay in 1598. The date of publication is of special interest. The book was an elaborate treatise on Conscience, written by a learned and experienced Englishman, a confessor for the Faith, a man of lofty character, somewhat austere even and stern in disposition. Twenty-one years before the publication of Hall’s book Bartholomew Medina, O.P., had issued his celebrated Expositio in Primam Secundae Angelici Doctoris D. Thomae Aquinatis. In this book the learned Dominican had been the first to propound and defend Probabilism in the modern form. No theologian of the Society of Jesus, whose pet doctrine Probabilism is supposed to be, had as yet written at any length on the subject. In 1599 Cardinal Toletus, S.J., issued his Instructio Sacerdotum, and in the same year appeared the Commentaries of Gabriel Vasquez, S.J., on the Prima Secundae of St. Thomas. Cardinal Toletus approved of and used the theory, as two or three other Jesuits had already done, but Vasquez was the first Jesuit theologian who discussed Probabilism at length and defended it. From the historical point of view it may be of interest to inquire what was Dr. Hall’s system of morals, and what was his attitude toward the theory of Medina. In this inquiry I propose to adhere strictly to the rôle of the historian. I shall not play the advocate; I shall strive to be as accurate and objective as possible; and I shall let the texts and the facts speak for themselves. As experience has taught me how little we can trust to what is commonly written on this subject, I will only use authorities whose doctrine I have studied at first-hand in their own works.

Catholic theologians have always taught as a primary rule of conduct that it is sinful to do anything which we are not morally sure is right. To act in doubt whether our action is a good or bad one is to manifest a disposition to do it whether it be good or bad, and thereby sin is committed. It is a mortal sin to do what we think is mortal or what we doubt whether it be mortal or not. Hall insists upon this as do all theologians who discuss the point. “In practical doubt,” he says, “or in doubt about doing something in this place and time, or, as others say, here and now, when its lawfulness is supported by only probable reasons, it is the constant teaching of all theologians that as long as the conscience is in such uncertainty nothing may be done against this doubt, whether the doubt be equal on both sides, or unequal ; and whether there is greater danger on one side than on the other, or equal danger on both sides, for then the text of Wisdom is verified —‘ He who loves danger shall perish in it;’ and it is settled by the authority of all masters that he who exposes himself to the danger of committing mortal sin thereby sins mortally. The text of St. Paul is applicable here: ‘Whatever is not of faith is sin” But what is not according to conscience is not of faith, nor is an action according to conscience — or a certain judgment concerning its lawfulness — when the conscience sways to both sides, hesitates which to choose, and to do what you are not sure whether it be lawful.”² He then quotes Origen and Theophylact who explain the text of St. Paul in this sense. The moral certainty of the lawfulness of an action which is required before performing it must not be taken in too absolute or metaphysical a sense. “It is not the result,” says Hall, “ of evident demonstration, but of probable conjectures, which incline more to one side than the other.”³

² De Quinquepartita Conscientia, L. II., c. 2.

³ Loc. cit., L. III., c. 14.

We come to the special subject of this paper when we inquire what rules Hall followed to determine the choice of an opinion when Doctors disagree. He puts the crucial question on this point in the ninth chapter of the second book. He there asks whether it is lawful in morals to abandon an opinion which is more probable and follow one which is only probable. After giving one or two examples in which the question is of practical importance, and quoting the reasons of those who answer the question in the negative, he says:

But we who hope that timid consciences will derive some help from this little work, and who see that innumerable would be the difficulties of pious souls if it were always necessary to inquire which opinion out of many is the more probable, nor could an issue be readily found since an opinion frequently seems more probable to some though it is not so in reality,—supported by the authority of great men we assert that it is sufficient to follow the probable opinion of some Doctor, so that we need not adopt those obscure arguments by which some maintain that the more probable opinion must be discovered and followed. For as that is a probable opinion in the schools and in disputations which can be defended without incurring any note of error, so in practical matters that is probable which we can follow without sin or danger of sin. For a probable opinion is not so called because it can be supported by reasons drawn from either side, for in this sense many errors and heresies, such as that of Arius, have more numerous, and in appearance more probable arguments in their favor than have some truths held by Catholics. But a probable opinion is so called because it seems probable to one or more men of learning, or to those whose knowledge is specially known and approved. Since then this is agreeable to right reason and is confirmed by the judgment of learned men, why may we not follow it? Is it because the other opinion is more probable? But we are not always bound to follow what in everything is more perfect, because it is sufficient if a thing is perfect in its kind; and since in the schools and in theory it is lawful to defend that which is probable, what hinders us from being able to follow that which is probable in practice and in action? And so this is lawful provided that the opinion which we judge to be probable is not evidently contrary to Holy Scripture or a decision of the Church, as St. Thomas says, and if one can by one’s own knowledge or that of another who is worthy of confidence answer the reasons to the contrary, or at least one sees that clever men despise them; for a good argument in practical matters is derived from the praiseworthy life and excellent doctrine of good and holy men. And indeed though there are some precepts which are common to and obvious to all, and of those no one who has the use of reason and free will can or ought to be ignorant, such as the precepts of the Decalogue which natural reason and Holy Scripture clearly manifest to us; there are others which Holy Scripture and ecclesiastical decisions leave uncertain, as is the case with many contracts. No one should violate the former on account of the opinion of any Doctor whatever; but in the latter which are not yet settled by a decision of the Church we may follow the opinion of some Doctors against others,

provided that we are ready to stand by the judgment of the Church, if she determine otherwise, make restitution if required, and in the meanwhile form for ourselves a good conscience in everything without hesitation or notable doubt to the contrary.

In this passage Hall formally adopts the theory which Bartholomew Medina had formulated some twenty years earlier and which is known as Probabilism. In the extract which I have quoted he does not mention either Medina or any one else by name; he is content with saying in general terms that his doctrine is supported by the authority of great men. However, he does mention Medina on the next page and in the same context, and by other frequent references to him Hall shows that he was largely indebted to him for his doctrine. He makes use too of the principal arguments by which Medina proved his theory. In adopting this view he was clearly of the opinion that he was adopting no novelty, he was merely making use of a ready formula for what in substance had been taught by the older theologians. This comes out well in a passage which occurs in the sixteenth chapter of the third book on a Scrupulous Conscience. He there says:

The scrupulous are often tortured at reading the chapter Juvenis, de sponsalibus, in which the saying occurs—‘‘The safer way must be chosen when in doubt’’; from which they think it follows that in everything that course must be chosen which is the furthest removed from all appearance of sin. But if this be granted them, nobody can ever be certain that in any of his actions he has played the part of an honest man, without being afraid that he could have done better. However, the answer to this is easy: it is not necessary always to choose the safer way; it is sufficient to choose that which is safe, as was said above when I was treating of a probable conscience in questions where Doctors differ. I there said that it is not necessary to follow the more probable opinion; it is sufficient to hold that which is probable when both are defended by approved authors. And Navarrus gives this advice as a special remedy against scruples, viz., to adopt one out of several opinions, choosing first of all in the external forum that which is confirmed by custom, unless it is clearly against the natural or divine law, for against these custom can do nothing. But if the matter be doubtful, custom can interpret it, and such interpretation is to be followed. If there is no such custom, that opinion should be preferred which rests on some text, and against which it is not easy to find arguments, though the common opinion may be on the other side, and that, although the chief question may be concerning one law and the text concerning another. Furthermore, that opinion among several should be chosen which rests on an argument which cannot easily be answered. And if none of these rules is applicable, the common opinion should be chosen, that namely which is known for certain to be the common opinion; and if there is no common opinion, that should be chosen which rests on better grounds and reasons, although they may be arguments which can be answered without difficulty because other things being equal a double or a triple cord is broken with greater difficulty. But where none of these rules applies, the more lenient and more favorable opinion is to be followed. The more lenient and the more favorable opinion is that which favors an oath, marriage, dower, will, freedom, a ward, widow, stranger, or other miserable person, or a private person against the exchequer, when the exchequer bases its action on the wrongdoing of a private person; otherwise the contrary holds. That opinion also is more lenient and more favorable which upholds the validity of the act, whether the act whose validity is in question be

a last will, or a statement of claim, or a joining of the issue, or a sentence, or any judicial act, rescript, or privilege. For the presumption in favor of the act outweighs other considerations, although the validity of the act redounds to the advantage of the plaintiff, and to the disadvantage of the State. With these exceptions that opinion is the more lenient which favors the defendant. And if one opinion is better than another in none of these ways, that should be held which those Doctors affirm who excel in authority or knowledge in the matter in question, as theologians if the question belong to theology, canonists in canon law, legists in civil law; for in all these ways an opinion is probable although perhaps the contrary is sometimes more probable.

It is obvious that in thus quoting what Navarrus teaches about the various methods for choosing an opinion and forming one’s conscience when Doctors disagree, Hall believed that he was merely putting his own theory in other words. “In all these ways,” he says, “an opinion is probable although perhaps the contrary is sometimes more probable.” 4

What Hall quotes from Navarrus is merely the common teaching of theologians on this question previous to the time of Medina. Angelus de Clavasio, O. F. M., who published the first edition of the Summa Angelica in 1486, teaches the same doctrine in almost identical terms, as also does Prierias, O. P., who issued the first edition of the Summa Sylvestrina in 1516. So that according to Dr. Hall the theory of Probabilism was no novelty; it was merely a short and convenient way of stating a theory which was

4“ Nam totidem modis opinio fit probabilis ; etsi fortassis altera sit interdum probabilior.”

supported by the common consent of theologians of all schools. This was not an opinion peculiar to Hall; it was shared by all his contemporaries, as is clear from the fact that Medina’s formula was at once accepted by theologians of all schools as an accurate and convenient statement of what they all held. Let us take a few examples. Michael Salon, a Spanish Augustinian, published his Controversiae de Justitia et Jure in the year 1581, four years after the publication of Medina’s work. Salon holds with Medina “ that it is lawful to abandon the more probable opinion and to follow that which is probable and believed to be true, while to follow the more probable is merely matter of counsel.’”” He adds that this is the opinion of “many and very eminent Doctors, especially among the followers of St. Thomas; that more numerous and more eminent authors and more weighty reasons can be quoted for it than for the opposite opinion; and that these reasons cannot be refuted, while those on the other side can be refuted.”⁵

⁵ Quest. 63, a. 2, controv. 2, conclus. 4.

Gabriel Vasquez, the first Jesuit theologian who wrote at length on the question, published his Commentarii ac Disputationes in Primam Secundæ S. Thomæ in 1599, one year after the publication of Hall’s book. Vasquez says: “I think the opinion is true which Bartholomew Medina follows, and which was already common in the schools and long before his time, viz., that a man of learning may act on the opinion of others although that opinion is less safe and in his judgment less probable (provided that it be not destitute of reason and probability) against his own opinion which he considers to be more probable.”⁶

⁶ Disp. 62, c. 4.

John Azor, S.J., published the first volume of his Institutiones Morales in the year 1600. He gives the common rules in vogue at the time for the choice of opinions; they are identical with those which have been given above as quoted by Dr. Hall from Navarrus. Incidentally he mentions the formula of Probabilism, and says that although authors have not taught it, yet it can be defended by this conclusive argument: “ Because that is well done which is done prudently; but one who is guided by the advice of others acts prudently; and therefore one who in his actions follows a probable opinion of Doctors acts prudently.”⁷

⁷ Lib. 2, c. 16.

These theologians whom we have quoted are merely specimens of great numbers of all schools who might be mentioned. With the solitary exception of the Jesuit Comitolus, we have to wait for another forty years before a dissentient voice is raised against Probabilism. Comitolus, an Italian theologian, published his Responsa Moralia in 1608. He brands Probabilism as the shameful lapse of Armilla, who, this writer asserts, taught it in his Summa, while other representative authors are quoted as upholders of Probabiliorism.⁸ With this solitary and not very weighty exception Probabilism was the universally accepted theory of Moral Theology at least from the time of the publication of Medina’s book till the rise of Jansenism in the middle of the seventeenth century. This historical fact of itself is very significant, and it will have the greatest weight with those who are acquainted with the conservative instincts and the quickness to detect novelties which have always been characteristic of theologians. Furthermore, it is the simple fact that in practice the rule of Probabilism when applied to the solution of disputed questions made no difference in ethical doctrine. The laxity of some authors who abused the theory should not be attributed to sound Probabilism. It is merely a universal formula applicable in all disputed questions of right and wrong, and therefore a convenient substitute for the many and diverse rules which were in use before Medina’s time. The practical solutions of ethical questions remained the same, though they were arrived at by a different and more simple process after the introduction of Probabilism. This will be more clear if we continue the last extract from Dr. Hall where we left off. He continues thus:

⁸ Lib. 5, q. 15,

The same author, Navarrus, gave four very useful rules for the use of those who make choice of one opinion out of many. First, that a judge, counselor or agent, who is going to judge, advise, or do anything in a doubtful matter, before doing it, should, to avoid sin, forthwith drive that doubt out of his mind, and believe or hold for certain that the opinion which he chooses is true; and that he ought to judge according to it in that case; because if before doing it he judged what he advised or did to be doubtfully right, he would commit sin by exposing himself to danger of a doubtful conscience. Secondly, he remarks this, that in both the tribunal of justice and of conscience, one and the same man, in one and the same matter, both may and ought to believe something to be true under one respect for one reason, and the contrary to be true under another respect for another reason. As, for example, a woman may and ought sometimes to believe that the man with whom she lives is her husband with regard to rendering to him his marital rights, but the contrary when there is question of demanding them for herself. Thirdly, that although in a court of law, the rules which we borrowed from Navarrus are to be applied, yet in the forum of conscience to avoid sin it is sufficient to choose as true the opinion of one whom we deservedly consider to be a man endowed with the knowledge and uprightness necessary to form a sound opinion. For, he says, the right understanding of the common saying—‘‘The safer opinion must be chosen in doubt’’— is that it is applicable only in negative doubt, which does not exist when a view is held with sufficient authority and reason, nor when one opinion is chosen as true out of many. Fourthly, that an opinion is not to be called common so as necessarily to be preferred to another on the sole ground that many follow it like sheep one after another, for in this respect, he says, I should consider that to be the more common opinion which six or seven classical authors defend and who professedly treat of the matter, than an opinion approved by fifty who were almost entirely led by the authority of others. He even thinks that both opinions may be said to be common when each is defended by eight or ten authors of weight who choose it deliberately.⁹

⁹ Lib. 3, c. 16.

Prierias tells us in his Summa that theologians were unanimous in teaching that in doubtful matters where Doctors disagreed a man might safely follow the opinion of his own Master. “ And this,” he says, “you are to understand not only of one who does his best to get at the truth, for such a one would be excused on account of invincible ignorance even if he embraced a manifestly false opinion; but you are also to understand it of one who from a liking for his own Master forms a probable judgment, as it seems to him that what is false is true.”

Although some Doctors distinguished and put certain limitations, still it was commonly admitted that a confessor not only might, but was obliged to, absolve a penitent who wished to follow a probable opinion, although the confessor was convinced that the opinion was less probable and less safe than the opposite opinion which he held himself.

Men who had been taught and who had acted upon such opinions as the foregoing would accept the formula of Probabilism as a matter of course. They were accustomed to the idea that it was lawful to follow a probable opinion even though the opposite might be objectively more probable and supported by greater authorities and better reasons. A confessor was obliged to give absolution to a penitent who wished to act on a probable opinion, though the confessor believed that it was less probable than the opposite which he held himself. In other words, he was compelled in this case to follow a probable opinion of another against his own more probable opinion. The only step that remained to be taken was to show that logically one might always follow a soundly probable opinion even though recognizing at the same time that the opposite was more probable. Theologians who wrote before the time of Medina had not admitted this. The doctrine that in order to act lawfully one must have a certain conscience and no doubt about the lawfulness of the action stood in the way. A man who chooses what he considers to be a less probable opinion exposes himself to the danger of sin, they said; his conscience fluctuates and is uncertain, and so he commits sin, Where there is danger on both sides we must choose that on which there is less. Moreover, rules of law prescribe that in doubt the safer way must be chosen, and what is uncertain must be abandoned. Besides, a judge would certainly do wrong who gave sentence against a litigant who had more probable arguments on his side than his adversary had.

Medina answers these objections and establishes his theory of Probabilism by pointing out that one who follows a probable opinion exposes himself to no danger of committing sin. The opinion in question is admittedly probable, that is, it is approved, and so there can be no danger of committing sin by following it; if there were any such danger, the opinion could not be approved as a rule for action, it could not be probable. The opposite is more probable and more safe, it is true, but we are under no obligation to follow the safer way; it is sufficient if we follow one that is safe. Medina admits that a judge is bound to give sentence in favor of the litigant who brings the stronger arguments; Probabilism has nothing to do with this case, for here there is no doubt but that the litigant has a strict right to sentence being given in his favor; but he maintains that when there are two opinions about the interpretation of a law the judge may follow a probable against a more probable opinion.¹⁰

¹⁰ Loc. cit., Quest. 19, a. 6.

In this Medina was followed by Salon, Dr. Hall, and other theologians, but this last proposition was rejected by Vasquez and others, and finally it was condemned by Innocent XI, 2 March, 1679. Besides his opinion about a judge, there was another weak point in Medina’s exposition of his theory. To the argument that one who acts on probable opinion, acts with the consciousness that the opposite opinion may be true, and so acts in doubt and against his conscience, Medina replies: ‘One who in these cases acts against his own opinion, does indeed act against a speculative doubt or opinion, but he does not act against his conscience, for he is convinced and has made up his mind that when there are two probable opinions one may follow either indifferently.” 11 But, it may be asked, what ground has he for being certain that he is acting lawfully when he acts according to a probable opinion? Medina virtually replies that the certainty rests on his own judgment or on the judgment of prudent and good men that there is no danger of sin in following the opinion ; that is what a probable opinion means. And it is certainly lawful to do what there is no danger of sin in doing. The maxim that in doubtful matters one may do what prudent and learned Doctors judge to be safe was, as we have seen, commonly admitted by theologians, and in general it is a safe rule of conduct. However, on the theoretical side the basis of the maxim is weak. We have seen that Medina and other approved authors misapplied Probabilism to questions of law in the external forum. It would be easy to give instances where scores of approved theologians have gone wrong and held untenable opinions. Whence one might conclude that an opinion is not necessarily probable because it is judged to be so by a number of 11 Quest. 19, a. 6,

prudent, good, and learned men. We might reply that, although this is so sometimes, as a rule the judgment of good and learned men is correct, and therefore is sufficient ground for moral certainty. However this may be, modern probabilists prefer other methods of forming a certain conscience by means of a probable opinion. For this purpose they use reflex principles, such as —“ A doubtful law does not bind.” Virtually the process takes some such form as this: When there is a probable opinion that a particular action is lawful, there is no certain law which forbids it; such a law is at most doubtful. But a doubtful law cannot impose a certain obligation, or in other words a doubtful law does not bind. This is one of the favorite arguments of St. Alphonsus.

In his method of forming a certain conscience by means of a probable opinion Dr. Hall follows Medina and other theologians of his time. In the ninth chapter of the second book from which we quoted above, he argues as follows:

As to what some say, that a man would expose himself to the danger of committing sin by following a probable opinion and abandoning one that is more probable, this we deny absolutely, seeing that in doing this learned men see no danger of sin. In doubts, indeed, the safer opinion must be followed, because there is danger on both sides; but when one opinion is probable and another more probable, both are safe in morals, though the latter may be safer. And when the canon law says that what is more certain must be followed in case of doubt, it supposes that there is danger on both sides; and this we maintain is by no means the case when there are two opinions of which one is probable though the other is more probable. The reason is because in a question of morals not settled for certain by Holy Scripture or by the Church, it is safe to follow that opinion which one sees approved by a good and wise man. Finally, we allow that a judge ought to give sentence for the party which brings the better proofs of its claim, but when there are two opinions in law, of which one is only probable and the other more probable, he can follow the probable opinion, nor need he investigate which is the more probable so as necessarily to follow it.

Vasquez, the first great Jesuit theologian who treated the question ex professo, not only rejected this opinion about the judge, as we have seen, but required the support of more than one Doctor to make it lawful to follow an opinion against one that is recognized by the agent as more probable. He also required that the opinion should be commonly held not to be erroneous, but still to maintain its probability, and thus not to be obsolete.¹²

¹² Disp. 62, c. 4

In both these points Vasquez was followed by the great body of Jesuit theologians, and we see how true was the remark of the learned Cardinal D’Annibale that the Jesuits, far from being the inventors of Probabilism, were as a matter of fact its moderators.

Almost the whole modern period from the opening of the seventeenth century is occupied with the controversy about the right system of moral theology. Modern research has confirmed the historical accuracy of the account of the origin of this dispute which Fr. Antony Terill or Bonville prefixed to his work “Regula Morum,” published in 1676. Fr. Terill, S.J., was a learned and acute theologian who taught theology at the English College of the Society at Liège, now represented by Stonyhurst and St. Beuno’s. Besides his “Regula Morum” he published another work, “De Conscientia Probabili,” in 1668. He was a good and conscientious man and had ample means of knowing the facts to which he testifies. According to Fr. Terill, until about the year 1638 practically all Catholic theologians of all schools accepted and taught probabilism. The only exception was the not very notable Italian Jesuit Comitolus, who published his “Responsa Moralia” in 1608. Comitolus taught probabiliorism and attributed the doctrine of probabilism quite falsely, to what he calls the shameful lapse of Armilla. The opinion of Comitolus passed almost unheeded, and there was peace and comparative harmony in the schools of morals. This peace began to be broken when the friends of Jansen were planning the publication of his famous book “Augustinus.” The first of the five propositions which were extracted from that book and condemned by Innocent X in 1653 asserted that there were some laws of God which could not be observed even by the just, do what they would, and that God did not give grace to enable them to observe these laws. This heretical and blasphemous proposition, which made God a tyrant who gave orders which He knew could not be obeyed, was altogether out of harmony with the prevailing system of moral theology, and its Jansenist supporters began to attack probabilism in order to make an opening for their own rigoristic doctrine. According to Caramuel, who was at Louvain at the time and who wrote a book against them in 1639, they began to teach covertly that the use of probabilism was something new; that he who leaves the safe way and follows probabilism can not but be condemned by God; that opinions which are styled probable among us are not probable with God. The war between probabilism and antiprobabilism had broken out, a war conducted with the greatest heat and passion for two hundred years, and not even yet quite ended. The Louvain Doctors after the condemnation of “Augustinus” by the Holy See retaliated by issuing their propositions against probabilism in 1655. The strategy was the same as led Döllinger and Reusch to publish their work on “Moralstreitigkeiten,” after the definition of Papal Infallibility. The war, however, was soon carried into France where Jansenism had won the support of a few proud spirits of the highest intellectual gifts. Among these Pascal was pre-eminent, and he struck the hardest blow which probabilism has ever sustained by publishing his “Lettres Provinciales” in 1656. The book is unfair and misrepresents the doctrines which it attacks, but its wit and style gave it at once a place in the classical literature of the world. It was condemned by Alexander VII at Rome in 1657, but by non-Catholics it is still regarded as the last word on the subject of Catholic and especially Jesuit moral theology.

Although the rise of Jansenism was the occasion of the outbreak of war, there were other causes also which contributed to the heat of the combat. Fr. Terill laments the disastrous laxity of opinion on moral questions which was conspicuous in many of the probabilist authors of the day. Many of these wrote books, not to expound the truth, but to attract attention to themselves and acquire notoriety. The means they employed for this purpose was the ventilation of new opinions in morals. By making use of the weak argument from similar cases they broached hitherto unheard of doctrines which were industriously collected by the casuists. The fact that somebody or other had said in his book that an opinion was probable and that it had not been condemned by the Holy See was held sufficient to merit for it a place among probable opinions in moral theology. Fr. Terill, himself a strenuous defender of probabilism, raised his voice against the inrush of laxity. He did much by his writings to improve the theory by stating and explaining it more accurately than had been done hitherto. He insisted that in order to be accepted as a rule of conduct it was not sufficient that an opinion should have some slight degree of probability, or should only be probably probable; it should be well grounded, seriously and solidly probable in the judgment of experts, of men of virtue and learning. The common method of proving probabilism by saying that one who acts on a probable opinion acts prudently, was objectionable on the theoretical side, and Terill improved it by making use of reflex principles, such as, “A doubtful law is not promulgated and can not bind.” This eminent English Jesuit thus tried to stem the tide of laxity in an age of immorality by stating the theory of probabilism more accurately and limiting its use to its proper sphere. Other theologians with the same laudable end in view threw probabilism overboard altogether. This was especially the case with the theologians of the great Order of St. Dominic. A member of this Order had first formulated probabilism, as we have seen, and, as Salon testifies, other Dominicans were conspicuous as being the first to accept and teach it. The most famous Dominican theologians of the time, Ledesma, Bañez, Alvarez, Ildephonsus, and others were all probabilists. No antiprobabilist Dominican was heard of till the year 1656. In that year a general Chapter of the Order was held at Rome and all the members were urged to adopt the stricter opinion in morals. From that time onward the chief Dominican theologians have almost without exception been probabiliorists. Among others are the well-known names of Mercorus, Gonet, Contenson, Natalis Alexander, Concina, Billuart, and Patuzzi, the adversary of St. Alphonsus Liguori.

From the strife of parties different moral systems began to emerge. Jansenist rigorism, which required direct moral certainty against the law to justify a departure from its observance, and which was not satisfied even with a most probable opinion in favor of the lawfulness of an action, was condemned by Alexander VIII in 1690. Laxism, which was satisfied with even a slightly probable opinion as a rule of conduct, had been condemned by Innocent XI in 1679. Probabiliorism and probabilism together held possession of the field. At the beginning of the eighteenth century a few theologians such as Amort, Rassler, and Mayr, defended equiprobabilism. This system required an opinion in favor of liberty to be equally probable with that in favor of the law before allowing it to be used as a rule of morals. It would not allow any one to follow an opinion in favor of liberty which was distinctly less probable than that which favored the law.

These three systems still have their defenders, and the last has acquired strength from the adhesion to it of St. Alphonsus in the later portion of his life. St. Alphonsus Liguori is recognized as the Doctor of moral theology as St. Thomas is of dogmatic. By his writings he drove out of the Church the last remnants of rigorism, and firmly established that common doctrine in moral theology which it has been the aim of the author to expound in these volumes. In spite, however, of general agreement, there are some points of detail which are still matter of controversy among moral theologians.

St. Alphonsus was ordained priest in 1726 when he was thirty years of age. He had been taught the probabiliorist system of morals, but in the course of fifteen years of study and experience in the confessional he came to the conclusion that the system was false and harmful to souls. He then adopted probabilism, and mainly using recognized probabilist authorities, especially of the Society of Jesus, whom he acknowledged to be his masters in this branch of learning, he composed his chief work, the “Theologia Moralis.” The first edition appeared in 1748, and a second and much enlarged edition was issued in 1753. In 1755 St. Alphonsus published an elaborate dissertation on probabilism in which he proved the doctrine and refuted the objections commonly brought against it. He became bishop of St. Agatha of the Goths in 1762, and published another dissertation in which he appeared to adopt a new system of moral theology. While admitting that it is lawful to follow a solidly probable opinion, he denied that when in favor of the law there is an opinion which is certainly and notably more probable than its opposite, this latter can be really and solidly probable. The question is one of fact. If this proposition be considered from the practical and concrete point of view, its practical truth may be admitted, and St. Alphonsus probably understood it in this sense. Furthermore, it may be admitted that the doctrine has its value in deciding when an opinion is solidly probable or not, and this was what St. Alphonsus intended. He wished to exclude laxism from his system, and he invented this formula for the purpose. Moderate probabilists secure the same end by stressing solidly when they require a solidly probable opinion for a lawful rule of action. Considered theoretically and logically, the formula of St. Alphonsus is open to attack, as it is not true that a greater probability, even if notable and certain, does necessarily deprive the opposite opinion of all solid probability. On this point there is still some difference of opinion between simple probabilists and equiprobabilists, but the dispute has little to do with practical morals. The dissertation of St. Alphonsus was not inserted in the “Moral Theology” of the saint till it reached its sixth edition, and his change of formula made little change in the doctrine of his work. It remained substantially what it always had been—a great work on moral theology written by a moderate probabilist.

Moral theology is still what St. Alphonsus left it. There is general agreement in the schools, a common doctrine which all accept; it only remains to apply this to the social and political conditions which we see growing up around us.

In this modern period of moral theology the sufficiency of attrition without any strictly so-called initial charity on the part of the penitent as a proximate disposition for the remission of sin in the sacrament of Penance may be considered as established. The changed conditions in our modern capitalist society have had their effect on moral questions, for morality must always take account of altered circumstances. Perhaps the chief result in this direction is that a practical solution has been attained of the long controversy about the lawfulness of taking interest for a loan of money. The lawfulness of the practice is now admitted; the only moral question is concerning the amount which may be exacted. The doctrine of the just price is applicable here; money, like other commodities, has in our modern capitalist society its just price.