Chapter XVI. Sources of goop and evit (q. 18) preliminaries

So FAR we have studied, psychologically, the twelve acts which concur to form one deliberate and consummate moral act. Now we are to consider these acts morally, under three heads: in their genus (q. 18), in their specific differences, interior and exterior (qq. 19 and 20), in their consequences, namely, merit and sin (q. 21).

These thirty articles, which at first sight may seem repetitious, are in reality very original. Certain modern historians forget that without speculative penetration you cannot know St. Thomas even historically.

ERRORS REGARDING MORALITY

These errors can be reduced to five. Hedonism (morality based on pleasure); utilitarianism (founded on utility, either personal or social); subjectivism (founded on the categorical imperative of conscience); eudaemonism (founded on rational beatitude, but lacking sanction, freedom, and obligation); fideism (founded on God’s positive law).

Above these errors stands traditional ethics, that is, morality founded on good-in-itself, guided by right reason as proximate standard, and by the eternal law as supreme standard.

The Syllabus * condemns absolute evolutionism, according to which God Himself comes into existence by the evolution of humanity. God is one and the same thing with the world, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, truth with falsehood, evil with good, justice with injustice. St. Thomas synthesizes all the truths found scattered in other systems, finding these systems true in what they affirm, false in what they deny. Here follows a synopsis of that synthesis.

Eternal Law necessary Natural Law Revealed Law positive Human Law Ecclesiastical Law Custom Custom Reason Conscience Faith Desire for Beatitude Hope

Natural Love of God Charity Moral Science Moral Theology

Prudence The Will Justice Sense Powers Temperance Fortitude

The Moral Act

ART. 1. HUMAN ACTS, INTRINSICALLY GOOD OR INTRINSICALLY BAD?

Preliminaries

Here we meet two errors, mutually opposed. Followers of Spinoza hold that no action is morally evil because man has no liberty. Men do evil only when they do not know what is good. The arguments in favor of this absolute optimism (really, a very sad thing) are identical with the objections which open this article: first, evil does not act except by virtue of good; secondly, nothing acts except so far as it is actual, and therefore good; thirdly, evil cannot be a cause. Thus murder would not be morally evil, but only a lesser good, an imperfection. Scotus modifies, saying that no action is intrinsically evil except to hate God.

The opposite error is that of Luther and Calvin, who say that all works done before justification are really sins,? and that, in all his deeds, even the just man sins, at least venially, or even mortally, and hence deserves eternal punishment, and is not condemned only because God does not impute these works unto condemnation. These propositions have been condemned as heretical.

Thesis: Some Actions Are Morally Good, Some Are Evil.

Authority: “Every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, that his works may not be condemned. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.” *

Reason speaks thus: Every voluntary action which lacks the fullness of the reality due to it is deficient in good, is morally bad. But among human actions many are thus deficient, in quantity (refusing to pay a debt), or in place (theft in church), Hence not every human act is morally good. This argument is independent of divine positive precepts.

God’s fullness of being rests on simple deity, hence God alone can in no way be deficient. The creature’s plentitude arises, not from simplicity, but from many different factors: its substance, its faculties, its acts. Hence creatures can fall away from the fullness due to them. Just as blindness, e.g., is a physical evil, so the human act, while it is a reality which comes from God, is simply evil, mortally or venially, if it lacks the plentitude due to it.

But note * that what is simply good and even meritorious (for instance, a remiss act of charity) may still be imperfect. A man who has five talents, but acts as if he had only two, performs an act that is simply good, though it is deficient in intensity. Such an act is an imperfection, but not a venial sin.

Some recent writers, neglecting this truth, maintain that, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, there is no distinction between imperfection and venial sin. To speak thus is to confound counsel with precept, to confound a positive precept with a negative precept.

Difficulties Analyzed

1. An act that is simply evil is secundum quid good, being a reality in the physical order. But, since it lacks the rectitude due to it, it is morally evil, not a minor good.

2. The blind man who walks possesses a good in so far as he can walk, thus differing from the paralytic, but his deed of walking lacks perfection.

3. An evil action may result in a physical good (adultery begetting a child), but looked at morally it is simply evil, since it lacks direction by reason.

First corollary. Spinoza and Hegel confound the simple evil with a lesser good. In Hegel’s evolutionistic terms, thesis and antithesis are good in their time, but less good than the higher synthesis which follows. Art, which can very often be pantheistic, is a thesis; while religion, a metaphorical representation of God, is an antithesis; and evolutionistic philosophy is the synthesis. Each is good in its time. Even the crimes of the French and the Russian Revolution, while they are a lesser good than Christian sanctity, are not simply evil.

This doctrine comes from denying the distinction between being and non-being, which are identified in the “becoming” (fieri) of creative evolution. Hence follows also the denial of the distinction between truth and falsehood, between good and evil. Thus materialism would not be simply false, but true for its time, for its moment. The crimes of Bolshevism would not be simply evil, but only an evil secundum quid when a higher synthesis appears.

Second corollary. If we remove the metaphysical primacy of reality in relation to becoming, we destroy radically the distinction between moral good and moral evil. Modernists speak thus: “Truth is not more immutable than man himself, since with him, and in him, and through him truth is evolved.” * The traditional doctrine teaches that, in virtue of the principle of contradiction, there is absolute Opposition between reality and nothing, between the simply true and the simply false, between the simply good and the simply evil. The opposite doctrine of absolute evolutionism, condemned in the Syllabus,’ runs thus: “No supreme, wise, and provident divinity exists, no divinity distinct from this universe, God, identified with nature, and hence subject to change, really comes into existence in man and in the world. All things are God and have the very substance of God. As God is identified with the world, so is spirit identified with matter, necessity with liberty, truth with falsehood, good with evil, justice with injustice.”

The Essence of Morality

What is the moral essence of human action as distinguished from its physical entity? Nominalists answer, either that morality is an extrinsic denomination, as paper becomes money by an extrinsic denomination derived from the will of the prince, or morality is a mere relation of reason, hence identified with liberty itself. Others say that morality is a predicamental relation. Thomists hold that morality is a real transcendental relation to its objective standard. This thesis can be proved, indirectly and directly.

Indirect proof. First. Moral goodness consists in a- plentitude of being, arising from relation to the end which is its objective standard. Now, though the end is an extrinsic cause, still the right proportion to that end, the relation to that end, inheres in the action itself. Moral goodness is in truth a positive perfection, existing objectively in human acts, caused by human virtue and God's grace. Second. Morality presupposes liberty, but is not identified with liberty. Liberty is indeed

ső; BEATITUDE the indispensable subject of morality, because necessary acts are not subject to moral standards. But we must first conceive liberty before we can conceive morality. By the very fact that we conceive an act as going forth from the will under an indifferent judgment, we conceive that act as free, but not yet as moral, because we do not as yet conceive the standard to which that act is subject. To illustrate: think of an act of theft performed with the intention of adultery. Here we have a twofold moral evil, but only one free act. We grant, however, that every free act is a moral act and every moral act is a free act, because, as we will see later, every act done freely is either morally good or morally evil, at least by the agent’s intention.

Direct proof. Morality consists formally in a transcendental and real relation to its objective standard. Preserving proper proportion, we must speak of act in its moral essence as we speak of act in its natural essence. But act, in its natural essence, is a transcendental relation to its objective standard. As sight is related to a colored object, as intellect to reality, as volition to good, so moral volition is a transcendental relation to the objective moral standard.

This relation is not one of reason, it exists in the moral act itself, independently of man’s thought. The saint differs from the criminal, not only in idea, but in fact. Further, it is not a predicamental relation, accidentally superadded. It is related to its object, not merely as a terminus, but as its differentiating specification. An illustration: think of an act of charity, transcendentally related to God as its object.

Objection: The full goodness of the human act is surely not a mere relation. Answer: This fullness, while it cannot rest on a mere predicamental relation, does arise from the truth that human reason is essentially and transcendentally related to its object.

The Different Kinds of Morality

Goodness and malice are the two differences ordinarily assigned. Should we also speak of indifference as a species of morality? Answer: Moral evil can be considered, either as something positive, namely, a transcendental relation to an object dissonant from moral standards, or as something privative, the privation of harmony and rectitude.

Take a sin of commission, Is its essence something positive? Our own view is affirmative, supported by many ‘Thomists: Capreolus, Ferrariensis, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, Salmanticenses, Massoulié, Gonet, Billuart, whereas the negative answer is held by Sylvius, Contenson, Bancel.

Does indifference constitute a species of morality? We affirm, with John of St. Thomas, Contenson, Billuart, and many others, against the Salmanticenses and Gonet.

Proof. An act that is indifferent proceeds from a deliberate will, under subjection to a moral standard which does not command or prohibit, but only permits. Such an act, indifferent in its object, is still subject to the permissive moral law. Hence indifference is a species of morality. “If we speak of a moral act according to its species, then not every moral act is good or evil, but some acts are indifferent.” 8

Summary. Moral goodness is a transcendental relation to an object which conforms to the law. Moral evil is a transcendental relation to an object forbidden by law. Moral indifference is a transcendental relation to an object permitted by the law.

THE SOURCES OF MORALITY (Q. 18)

ART. 1. WHETHER HUMAN ACTS ARE GOOD OR SOME OF THEM BAD

Preliminaries

St. Thomas assigns three sources: object, circumstance, and purpose. The purpose here in mind is not that objective purpose which is identified with the object, but the subjective purpose which is the principal circumstance. This has not been sufficiently noted by historians who have recently

treated of this part of the Summa. The primary and essential source of morality is the natural object of the act: God, for an act of charity, our neighbor's good (in giving alms), our neighbor’s harm (in stealing).

Chief among secondary sources is the subjective purpose of the agent, in three ways. A good act becomes evil by an evil intention (to give alms for the sake of vanity). An evil act does not become good by a good intention (to lie in order to save our neighbor’s life). One and the same act can have two species, either of goodness or of malice, one from the object and the other from the purpose (to give alms in order to satisfy for sin).

Another secondary source are circumstances, which either aggravate or diminish goodness or evil in the same species (to steal much or to steal little), or which even change the very species of the moral act (to steal a sacred thing or in a sacred place).

In one and the same act, we may have a multiple morality. An act, good by its object and purpose (e.g., almsgiving), becomes venially evil, for example, by vainglory. Such an act, though it is meritorious of eternal life, is simultaneously an evil secundum quid, an evil which must undergo temporal punishment.

ART. 2. MAN’S ACTION DERIVES ITS FIRST AND ESSENTIAL GOODNESS OR BADNESS FROM ITS NATURAL OBJECT

Preliminaries

By object we understand the direct and primary goal of the act. Thus God is the object of charity, our neighbor's property is the object of theft. And we are now looking at this object, not physically, but morally, for example, at our neighbor’s property, not as a car or a purse, but as something taken from its unwilling master. One and the same act considered physically (e.g., killing a man) is morally good if done for the sake of justice by an executioner, or morally evil when done by an assassin. Our thesis, then, asserts that the primary and essential goodness or evil of the human act flows from the moral object of that act.

Authority speaks: “They have become abominable as the things which they love.” ° They love adultery, say, or the property of another. Reason speaks: As a natural thing is specifically distinguished by its form, so action by the object to which it essentially tends. This principle holds, not only for first and essential goodness, but also for first and essential evil, since malice is opposed to goodness. As the first physical evil is lack of substantial form (a monster generated instead of a man), so the first moral evil is lack of conformity with the act’s natural standard.

To explain. Action is specifically differentiated by its object. This truth holds good, not only for actions, but also for potentialities and habits. This principle, which Reginaldus +° lays down as the third of the three fundamental principles of St. Thomas, illumines all psychology, ethics, and moral theology.

We here suppose that there are differentiated species in created things, and that essence is the primary constituent element. The nominalists, Occam, Peter de Alliaco, and Gerson, say that essences are not knowable. Evolutionists say that the essences of things are not stable, yea, that all essences are united in a universal flux, so that from a monkey a man can be generated. Here too it would follow that there is no objective difference between good and evil. This is explicitly affirmed by Occam: No act is morally good or evil by its genus, that is, by its object. It has its goodness or evil only from the positive law of God known by revelation. This theological positivism is held by Scotus, who excepts only two acts, the love of God and the hatred of God. It seems, according to Scotus," that the essences of creatures depend on the free will

9 Osee g:11. 10 De tribus principiis S. Thomae. 11 Opera, XIX, 148; XXIV, 377; XXI, 537.

of God. God could have so created man that a son would be bound to kill his aged father, in order to deliver him from the miseries of life. Positivists and evolutionists, since they reject the positive law of God known by revelation, cannot recognize any moral obligation.

Let us add here that this primary objective morality does not change even if circumstances and purpose change. Thus adultery is primarily and essentially an evil by reason of its object, that is, intercourse with another man’s wife. Nature remains invariable, while circumstances and purpose change.

Objections Analyzed

1. In natural objects considered physically there is no moral evil. But in these same objects, seen as standards of human activity, there is moral evil.

2. When we use the word “matter,” we mean, not the matter “from which” (ex qua), but the matter “concerning which” (circa quam).

3. Although the goodness of the action is not caused by the goodness of the effect, still the proportion of the action to its effect is the reason for the goodness of the action, because the object differentiates the action as it is in intention. The causality of the effect is formal and final, not efficient.

4- Moral goodness or malice comes, not from the object, but from the law. Answer: From the law mediately, as its standard, but immediately from the object as specificating form, because action is a motion and a way to the object.

But note that the specificating object may be either goodin-itself, or good only because it is commanded (fasting on Saturday rather than on some other day). The object goodin-itself exercises immediate differentiation, whereas the object good-by-law differentiates mediately.

5. The human act receives its primary morality from the goal to which it tends, while the object is willed only on account of the end. Hence morality comes primarily from the purpose. Thus certain historians, who distort a doctrine com- monly admitted. Answer: What the human act directly regards is the objective end (finis operis), not the subjective end (finis operantis). The objective end coincides with the object. The subjective end enters as an accident, Almsgiving aims, directly and primarily, to relieve the poor. To this objective purpose may be added a subjective purpose, the intention, say, of satisfying for sin.

6. When a man says, “I wish to live right” or “I do not wish to live right,” his act does not have its specific goodness or malice from the object, otherwise this will would precontain the goodness of all virtues or the malice of all vices. Answer: The act, “I wish to live right,” has indeed many material objects, but it is differentiated specifically by the common object, namely, good-in-itself, just as metaphysics, say, is specifically differentiated by being and reality.

A doubt. From what habit does this act come, namely, “I wish to live right?” Answer: If this act follows justification, it comes from charity. If it precedes justification, it comes from the will alone, as naturally inclined to good-in-itself. The opposite act, “I do not wish to live right,” gets its specific difference from useful or delightful good. No one can choose evil as evil.

ART. 3. CIRCUMSTANTIAL GOODNESS OR BADNESS

Preliminaries

Circumstance is an accident which affects the human act in its essential morality. Seven circumstances are enumerated: who, what, where, by what aid, why, how, and when. To illustrate: the agent is a priest, the object is sacred, the place is public or sacred, the instrument is invocation of the demon, the purpose of the agent is evil, the mode is intense, say, or scornful, the time is a festival day, or a longer or shorter period.

Thesis: The human act derives some goodness or evil from circumstances.

Authority. In almsgiving or fasting or prayer, Christ forbids the intention of vainglory. The virtuous man acts as he should, and when he should, and according to other circumstances.'?

Reason. We must judge of goodness or evil in human acts by analogy with goodness or evil in natural things. But natural things are good or evil not only by their substantial form but also by their accidents, e.g., proportion in members, in stature, figure and color. Similarly theft is always bad, but theft in a sacred place is worse.

ART. 4. PURPOSE AS CIRCUMSTANCE

Purpose stands here, not for the natural and objective purpose of the deed, but for the subjective intention of the agent.

Thesis. The human act derives goodness or evil from the agent’s subjective purpose.

Authority. “Beware of doing justice in order to be seen by men.” “If thine eye is evil, thy whole body is in darkness.” ™

Reason. In dependent things, just as their existence depends on agent and form, so does their goodness depend on their purpose. Thus everything created depends on at least three causes: one intrinsic (form), two extrinsic (agent and purpose). But things that are relative, while they are specifically differentiated by their objective purpose, are also related to and dependent on, the agent’s purpose as extrinsic goal.

First corollary. In human action we must distinguish a fourfold goodness: 1. according to genus, looking at the action physically; 2. in its moral species, which comes from its objective goal; 3. in its circumstances, which are its accidents; 4. in its subjective purpose.

But does not St. Thomas say that the subjective purpose is itself a circumstance? Answer: Yes, this purpose is a circum-

stance as related to the commanded exterior act, but not as related to the interior act, the intention. Thus when a man gives alms for vainglory, this vainglory is a circumstance of the exterior act, but since it specificates the intention immediately, it also mediately specificates the exterior act. Hence the agent’s personal purpose, while it is a circumstance, must be distinguished from other circumstances, since it may pass over into a specificating element.

Second corollary. An action is not simply good unless all four kinds of goodness concur. Proof lies in the often quoted word of Denis, namely, good arises from full cause, evil from any defect. Now defect may arise from any lack of conformity with the moral law.

To explain, 1. The aforesaid deformity arises, not only from the object, but also from circumstances and purpose. The act is an evil act, even though it may be good in its object and circumstances, if it is evil by the subjective purpose of the agent. Further, action is simply evil, if it is good only by the purpose of the agent, but intrinsically evil from its object (a lie, say, in order to save the life of our neighbor).

2. An action can be simply good, according to all the aforesaid kinds of goodness, and yet be imperfect in its mode (e.g., a remiss act of charity, or refusal of an unbinding inspiration). Such an act is an imperfection, but not a venial sin.

3. Further, an action may be simply good, in all the preceding four ways, if you consider its principal element, but it can at the same time be venially culpable from a secondary standpoint (e.g., a sermon, good by object, purpose, and circumstances, but venially sinful by a sudden movement of vanity or impatience). Such an act is simply good and meritorious, but with an attendant evil which calls for temporal punishment. Martyrdom itself may be disturbed by slight motions of impatience or cowardice, which are not in conformity with right reason.

Objection. But then venial sin is an act distinct from the work which is simply good. Answer: It can be a distinct act, but it can also be a secondary mode in the principal act (e.g., complacency, or a bitter tone, in defending the truth). Is the martyr to be deprived of his crown because of a passing emotion of cowardice? It is true that martyrdom, in the last instant, satisfies for all venial sins, but even before this last instant the act was simply good. Further, if a slight deordination suffices to make the whole act simply bad, we could hardly find any good act even in holy men. And this conclusion is palpably absurd. How very few, even in the most heroic saints, are deeds unaffected by vainglory, for instance, or selfishness, or self-complacency, or remissness, or excess, Or precipitation, or inconsideration! How few are penitents whose penance is not accompanied by some defect or excess! How few superiors correct with no excess of zeal or anger! How few preachers are unmoved by self-complacency! How few are men who pray without distraction!

ART. 5. GOOD AND EVIL DIFFERENTIATE HUMAN ACTS SPECIFICALLY

Preliminaries

We have seen that human acts receive their goodness or malice from object and purpose. The precise question now is this: Is the morality arising from the object specific? Is the act, for instance, of killing an innocent man intrinsically and essentially evil? Would it remain evil even if God would revoke all positive precepts? Scotus ** says no. He holds that no act is evil by object alone, no act except to hate God. He adds that killing, if God revoked all positive precepts, would not be evil. St. Thomas holds the opposite view, as is clear from the objections preceding this article.

1. Good and evil exist in acts just as they do in things. But in things good and evil do not diversify species. To illustrate: A man who is well and man who is dying belong to the same species.

2. Evil is a privation, and therefore cannot constitute the specific difference of any sin except that of omission.

Scotus and the nominalists, departing from tradition, prepared the way for the positivists, who deny specific distinction between good and evil. Evil, they say, is mere ignorance of what is useful and delightful. Taine said that virtue and vice are natural effects, like sugar and arsenic, arsenic not being specifically injurious, since in small quantities it can be used as a remedy.

Thesis. Good and evil diversify moral acts specifically.

Authority. Aristotle: “Habits that are similar bring forth acts that are similar.” Now a good habit differs specifically from a bad habit, generosity, for example, from prodigality. The Holy See ** has condemned the proposition of the laxists, who hold that masturbation, fornication, and onanism are not intrinsically evil by their object. The following propositions were condemned by Innocent XI: 1. Fornication is evil only because it is forbidden. 2. Masturbation is not prohibited by the law of nature. Hence if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory. The Holy Office ** condemned the following propositions: 1. It is probable that the onanistic use of matrimony is not prohibited by the natural law. The response says that the proposition is scandalous and erroneous, and implicitly condemned by Innocent XI. 2. To a further question, whether the imperfect use of matrimony, whether onanistic or sodomistic, be licit, the answer was, “illicit because intrinsically evil.”

Hence we can no longer hold the following sentences: No act is evil by its object except to hate God: No act against creatures is mortally sinful by its nature, but only by divine precept. Adultery and murder would not be sins if God recalled His positive precept.

Reason. Acts are specifically differentiated by their objects.

Good and evil constitute a specific difference in objects as related to right reason. Hence certain acts are essentially in harmony with reason, just as their objects are. Certain acts are not reasonable.

In this argument right reason is assigned as the proximate foundation of obligation. Good-in-itself belongs essentially to right reason, whereas evil does not. For the rational animal, that is good which belongs to him by reason, and evil is that which disagrees with right reason.

First corollary. The first principle of ethics is “do good, avoid evil,” that is, “live according to reason.”

Second corollary. If, as maintained by empiricism and positivism, reason were not essentially distinct from imagination, then men, not knowing the specific difference between good and moral evil, would not know that good in itself is something higher than delectable or useful good.

Third corollary. Spinoza’s denial of free will destroys the specific distinction between good and evil, since liberty is a conditio sine qua non of morality. In Spinoza’s view, Bolshevism would be nothing more than a kind of sickness.

Fourth corollary. Here appears the essential distinction between the natural law, impressed on our nature, and the divine positive law. This corollary is against Scotus, Occam, Peter of Alliaco, and Gerson.

Difficulties Analyzed

1. Even in objects of nature, good and evil are essentially diverse. A dead body and a living body do not belong to the same species.

2. How can evil, which is a privation, constitute the specific difference, not only of the sin of omission, but also that of commission? Answer: Since evil is a privation of good that is due to the subject, an act is called evil in its species, not because it has no object, but because it has an object that is not in harmony with reason. Thus the object can positively constitute the species of an evil act.

Cajetan quotes St. Thomas: ** Good and evil are not constitutive differences except in the moral world, where acts receive their species from their objective purpose. Now, since good is the reason why an object is end and purpose, good and evil are the specific differences in the moral world. But good is end and purpose per se, whereas evil is so only in so far as it removes the end which is due. The remotion of this due end constitutes a species, but only because it is united to an undue end.

Evil as evil is not a constitutive difference, but only by reason of the good in which it is found. The sin of commission is aversion from God with conversion to that created good by which the sin of commission is differentiated.1* Thus sin is distinguished by its opposite virtue, and virtue by its object. Hence the formal constituent of a sin of commission is not privation, but the positive thing which is the basis of the privation, the positive tendency to an object which does Not agree with right reason.

ART. 6. THE INTENTION IS DIFFERENTIATED BY PERSONAL PURPOSE

Preliminaries

Does the personal purpose diversify human acts specifically, or is it merely a circumstance? Much depends on this question. On it depends, for example, the question whether two sins are to be declared in confession or only one.

Objections

1. Acts are differentiated by the object, and the persona! purpose is not identified with the object.

2. It seems to be a mere accidental blemish that a man gives alms for vainglory; hence, notwithstanding this subjective purpose, the act remains essentially good.

g. Acts which differ specifically can be devoted to vainglory.

Two conclusions. First: Intention, the interior act of the will, is specificated by personal purpose. Second: The exterior act, the commanded act, is differentiated, directly by the object, indirectly by the subjective purpose.

The first conclusion is proved thus: Acts are differentiated by their object, and the subjective purpose is, properly speaking, the object of the intention, the interior act of the will. This truth holds good, not only for intention, but for every interior act of the will. To illustrate: A man commands himself to give alms for vainglory. Here we have, first, intention commanding choice, then choice, commanding a second subordinated choice, the choice of a subordinated means. Again, I will to have health; hence, secondly, I wish a physician; thirdly, I call a servant to seek the physician.

The second conclusion is proved thus: The act of the will is the formal and vivifying element, of which the exterior act is the material. Now the interior act is differentiated by subjective purpose. But the exterior act, although it remains immediately differentiated by its proper object, is differentiated, mediately and formally, by the purpose. The will uses the bodily members as instruments, and exterior acts enter the field of morality only as subject to the will. The act which commands and the act which is commanded, though they are physically two acts, are still only one moral act. ‘This explains, if we are not mistaken, the concept of moral person. A college of physicians, physically multiple, has a moral unity. A similar truth holds true of the mystical body.

Corollary. One who steals in order to commit adultery is an adulterer rather than a thief, because adultery, the subjective purpose, is the form of which theft is the material. In this case there are two sins specifically distinct, to be declared in confession.

ART. 7. DIFFERENTIATION BY OBJECT IS SOMETIMES SUBORDINATED TO DIFFERENTIATION BY PURPOSE

At other times one and the same act is in two disparate species. First conclusion. The species of good which comes from objective purpose is subordinated to the species which comes from subjective purpose. Thus theft may be subordinated to avarice. And the acts of all the other virtues are subordinated per se to the object of charity,

Second conclusion. That species of goodness which comes from an object ordained per accidens to such and such an end is not contained under that other species as genus. He who steals in order to commit adultery unites in his act two disparate kinds of malice.

Corollaries

1. A choice good by the object becomes sordid by an evil intention.

2. An evil choice is not made good by a good intention, though its malice is diminished. Illustration: the man who steals in order to give alms. The end does not justify the means, when the means are intrinsically evil.

3- One and the same act can have two kinds of goodness or malice, one from the object, the other from the purpose, Illustration: to give alms (an act of mercy) in order to satisfy for sin (an act of penance), or for love of God and neighbor (an act of charity).

4. An act, good in object, purpose, and circumstances, remains simply good and meritorious, even if there supervenes secondarily something venially sinful, a tinge, say, of vainglory or of impatience.

Two Doubts

1. Is it a venial sin, or only an imperfection, to choose a lesser good when counsel invites to a greater good? Illustration: A physician hears Mass for nine days to obtain a special grace. He finds that this exercise was no impediment to his work. Would it be better to continue hearing Mass? But, he says, I am not obliged to this, and I can well use this time for the study of medicine, a minor good indeed, but still a good, not an evil. Some authors say that in this case there is a venial sin, but of the lightest kind. Thus they deny the distinction between imperfection and venial sin, since a lesser good here and now takes on the nature of evil. Others deny this view. The act of the physician, they say, who uses his time, not to hear daily Mass, but to study medicine, is a good act, differentiated by a good object, by a legitimate motive. We embrace this second answer.

2. Is it licit to choose a minor evil in order to escape a major evil? The answer here is now clearer. The affirmative answer again comes from the relativists, for whom the lesser evil, in comparison with the greater evil, becomes a good. Those who are rigorists in regard to the lesser good become laxists on the minor evil. Such is the confusion to which relativism leads. Others reply correctly, and negatively, namely, we are not allowed to choose the minor evil to avoid the greater when the minor evil is itself evil by its object. Only under the three following conditions may we choose a minor evil in order to avoid a major evil: (a) both evils cannot be avoided: (b) the lesser evil is not intrinsically evil: (c) the two evils must threaten one and the same person. Moses rightly counseled repudiation of a wife in order to avoid her death. But Lot committed sin when he counseled the men of Sodom to abuse his daughters in order to keep these men from sodomy with Lot’s guests.

ART. 8. SOME ACTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INDIFFERENT

Preliminaries

“Indifferent” signifies an act that, morally, is neither good nor bad. “Specifically” signifies the act in relation to its ob- ject, not in relation to the individual agent. The affirmative answer is by far the more common.

Authority. “Continence is good, lust is bad, indifferent is the act of walking.” * Condemned is the proposition of Huss which denies the existence of acts indifferent in their nature.?’!

Reason. Act is differentiated by its object in relation to right reason. Now there are acts which do not include either harmony or disharmony with reason, for instance, to walk, to write, to speak. Such acts, therefore, are in themselves indifferent, morally neither good nor bad.

Objections Analyzed

1. Since between things privatively opposed, between light and darkness, there is no medium, and since good and evil are privatively opposed, there can be no medium. Answer: If you are talking of things already existing, of darkness in relation to light, of death in relation to life: Yes, there is no medium. But in things that are coming into existence, no. For there is an intermediate indisposition between health and serious illness. Similarly, an indifferent act, like walking, becomes evil when it subserves theft. The evil purpose does not take away objective indifference, but the act, here and now, has become simply evil.

2. But there is no habit specifically indifferent, and therefore no act. Here we deny parity. Habits are acquired by individual acts, and individual acts are never indifferent. The exercise even of the mechanical arts is not indifferent in the individual.

Corollary. Acts specifically indifferent antecede all laws natural or positive. Before any divine positive law an act can be specifically good or evil. This truth condemns Occam and other nominalists, for instance, Gerson and Peter of Alliaco, who say that no act is in its genus evil, not even that of hating

God, but only the evil which is positively prohibited by God. It likewise condemns Scotus, who says that no act is perfectly good in its genus, that is, by its object alone, except to love God, and no act is evil by its genus, that is, by its object alone, except to hate God. These views lead to moral indifferentism and positivism.

ART. g. NO HUMAN ACT IS INDIVIDUALLY INDIFFERENT

Preliminaries

We are not treating of indeliberate acts, such as stroking one’s beard or moving one’s foot, from an impulse of nature or of imagination. These are not human acts, and hence are indifferent even in the individual. Nor are we dealing with acts which are indifferent in relation to supernatural merit or demerit, with acts ethically good, of the infidel or of the sinner, e.g., almsgiving, as a natural good, but without subordination to a supernatural end. Our thesis is the common one, against Scotus and Vasquez. It is taught by St. Bellarmine, Suarez, Valentia, St. Alphonsus, and by many recent authors: Miiller, Bouquillon, Simar, Noldin, Lehmkuhl, and Frins.

Authority. “Of every idle word men will give an account in the day of judgment.” ?? St. Gregory explains: “Idle words are those which lack utility or necessity or piety.” If it does not lack these qualities, it is good. Hence every word is either good or evil. Speech, in itself indifferent, is never so in the individual, supposing him to speak deliberately, not merely mechanically, without consciousness. “Whether you eat or drink or do anything else, do it all for the glory of God.” 23 All that we do must, at least virtually and implicitly, be done for the glory of God.

Reason. As often as a man acts deliberately, he is bound to direct his action to a good end. If he does this, the action will be good, supposing that it is not evil by object or circum-

stances. If he does not do so, his act will be evil, because it lacks proper personal purpose and goal. Hence there is not, and cannot be, an act that is indifferent in the individual.

The principle here is that man, as often as he acts deliberately, acts for a purpose which he establishes by a judgment of his reason. Otherwise his act would take place by chance, and there would be no reason why he would do one thing rather than another, or there would be only an unconscious finality, as in life that is merely vegetative or sensitive. Further, man, acting deliberately, must aim at an end that is in itself good and not merely indifferent, because he must act as man, as a rational agent, whereas if he neglects to act by reason he acts as a beast.

The application is clear: every deliberate act in the individual either stands under the dictate of right reason or not. If the first, then it is good; if the second, then it is evil. Hence, even if the act be indifferent by its object, it becomes good or evil by the purpose of the agent. Man acts according to nature only when he acts according to reason.

Corollaries

1. To act deliberately merely for sense-delight as an end is evil. This corollary follows from the condemnation of the following propositions. 1. Matrimonial intercourse exercised merely for pleasure is not even venially sinful. 2. To eat and drink to satiety, simply and solely for pleasure, is not a sin, supposing that it does not harm the health.” Man’s will is intended, not to serve the senses, but to command them. Man is not indeed forbidden to have sensible delight in exercising operations necessary for the preservation either of the individual or of the species, but he is forbidden to seek these delights as his end, as brute animals do. And even the pursuit of truth, simply on account of the delight annexed to it, would be the vice of curiosity.

2. This doctrine is very consoling for men of good will. All deliberate acts, even the smallest, if they are not sins, are morally good. Thus the just man merits daily an augmentation of grace and glory. This consolation fails if, with Scotus, we hold that some acts, otherwise morally good, are indifferent even in the individual.

A doubt. But is man bound to direct all his acts, not only to a good end, but also to God, at least virtually and implicitly? The answer is affirmative, and opposed to two opposite errors. Baius and the Jansenists say that man must turn all his acts to God actually, otherwise his acts are sins, since by reason of the corruption of nature, there is no medium between heavenly charity and vitiated cupidity. Hence “all the deeds of infidels are sins.” This proposition was condemned by St. Pius V.**

The opposite error, taught by many Jesuits, says that man is not bound to direct all his acts to God even virtually, but that it suffices that they be done for something in itself good. Some (e.g., Noldin) even say that the act remains good even though the man does not intend good-in-itself, but only the delight or the advantage he gains from it. This last view is not safe, for the following proposition has been condemned: The marriage act, exercised merely for pleasure, lacks all guilt, even venial.** The view of Thomists, admitted also by many other theologians, runs thus: Man is bound to direct all his acts to an end which, at least implicitly, is directed to God. Why? Because a last end has been assigned to man by his Creator, an end to which he must tend in all his acts. But this direction and ordination need not be actual and explicit; it suffices that it be implicit, as far as man sees his actions as conformable to right reason and eternal law. Delight is for the sake of the operation, not e converso. “Whether you eat or drink, or do anything else, do it all for the glory of God.” #* Nor is it required that a man daily elicit an explicit proposal

to do everything to God’s glory. It suffices that, at proper times, he elicit an act of faith and charity, acts which contain implicitly the virtual intention.

Analysis of Objections

1. There is no obligation without precept. But there is no precept, natural or positive, to direct every action toward a good end. Here we simply say that there is such a precept.

2. There is no positive precept to direct every action to an end good-in-itself. The words of St. Paul, on eating and drinking, are nota precept but only a counsel. Answer: The words of the Apostle are preceptive, because the word “do” (facite) in Holy Scripture signifies everywhere a precept, and because man, even in the natural order, must do all his deeds for his last end, which is God; a fortiori in the supernatural order.

3- But in the natural order there is no precept to do anything for God's sake. For instance, when a man sneezes, or attends to a need of nature, is he bound to think of his last goal? Answer: Right reason dictates proper care of physical needs for the sake of health.

4. “Act according to reason” is an affirmative precept, which indeed binds always, but not at each moment. Answer: This precept is simultaneously negative, namely, “Do not act idly,” do not act without reason. Hence it binds man in all his deliberate acts.

5. This precept, thus understood, would be too rigorous, would be an intolerable burden. It would result in innumerable venial sins, or would be perpetual occasion for scruple. Answer: The one essential requirement is the general intention to live according to right reason. This general intention remains virtually, unless it be revoked by contrary intention. Further, many inferior actions (spitting, eating, drinking) often occur indeliberately. Hence, on the contrary, this doctrine is one that consoles. All deliberate acts, even the smallest, unless they are sinful, are morally good and meritorious.

6. These inferior actions (spitting, drinking) cannot be made the object of a vow; therefore they are not morally good. Answer: A vow must be devoted, not only to good, but to a higher good.

7. The omission of an act which is not commanded (for instance, to hear Mass on a week day), is not evil, but neither is it good, because its opposite (e.g., to hear Mass) is a good. Therefore such omission is indifferent. Answer: The omission is good if it comes from a reasonable motive, otherwise it is evil. It is evil if it comes from laziness or disgust or contempt, and so on. But it is good if it comes from care for health, or from any other rational motive, and thus, though less perfect, it still remains meritorious. The just man is not bound always to the maximum of generosity possible here and now.

8. A man can be invincibly ignorant of the precept that he must always act for a good end. Now suppose this man to perform an act, indifferent by object and purpose, for instance, to walk through a field. This act is not good, since it is indifferent in object and purpose, nor is it evil, because it proceeds from invincible ignorance. Answer: Some Thomists hold (e.g., Alvarez) that such an act is per accidens possible, and that St. Thomas is speaking only of what is true per se. But it seems better, with Medina, Billuart and Priimmer, to deny the possibility of such invincible ignorance. The age of reason brings obligation to act according to the principles of reason.

ART. 10. SOME CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFERENTIATE ACTS SPECIFICALLY

Authority. The Council of Trent?! defines the circumstances which change the species of a sin (e.g., theft in a sacred place) and says that they are necessary matter in confession.

Reason. Morality arises from relationship to right reason. Now certain circumstances, independently of the moral species derived from the object, carry with them a special

relationship of harmony or disharmony with reason, the proximate standard of morals. Such circumstances change the nature of the act. They do this by superadding a new species to the act (adultery superadded to theft) by turning a specifically indifferent act into an act that is good (walking for health’s sake), or by destroying the primary species of a good act (almsgiving merely for vainglory).

Objections Analyzed

1. Accidents do not create a species, and circumstances are nothing but accidents. Answer: Circumstance is an accident: an accident which can become a principal condition of the object, yes; otherwise, no.

2. But one thing cannot be in different species. A thing that is absolute, I grant; a thing that is relative, proceeding from a twofold consideration of reason, I deny.

ART. 11. SOME CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE ACT, BUT ONLY AUGMENT OR DIMINISH ITS GOODNESS OR EVIL

Certain circumstances, considered apart from the specific nature of the act, do not change that nature, but do influence its gravity. The amount stolen, e.g., determines the difference between grave sin and venial sin.

Corollary, Circumstances changing the nature of sin are matter for confession, as are also, according to the more common and safe view, those circumstances that notably increase the evil. As illustrations, take an act of hatred extending over years, or a long unbroken period spent in impurity.