Chapter II. Divisions of moral theology

THE first division is that between a) moral in general (I-II), and b) moral in particular (II-II). Why this distinction? “The goal determines the road.” The final goal, first in intention though last in attainment, must be treated before we study the roads that lead to that end. Thus there arise four chief divisions: A. The final goal: 1. the final goal in general; 2. blessedness, i.e., attainment of the goal. B. Human acts in themselves: 1. those characteristic of man a) generically (voluntary and involuntary; circumstances);

b) specifically, (1) in relation to the goal (to will, to intend, to enjoy); (2) as to means employed (to consent, to choose, to command, to use); (3) in relation to morality.

2. those common to man and beast, i.e., the passions a) generically (their subject, their differences, their good and evil, their order of succession);

b) specifically, as found in the concupiscible passions (love, hate, desire, joy, aversion, sadness) and in the irascible passions (hope, despair, fear, audacity, anger).

C. Sources of human acts: 1. intrinsic sources (habits in general, virtues and gifts, vices and sins); 2. extrinsic principles a) God, by His Law (law in general, natural law, the

Old Law, the New Law);

b) God, by grace (its necessity, essence and divisions; its cause; its effects).

D. Human acts in particular:

1. theological virtues and correlative gifts;

2. cardinal virtues and correlative virtues and gifts;

3. states of life, state of perfection, charismatic graces. This distribution is marked by perfect and progressive order. This division is contrasted with that of previous authors and with that of subsequent authors.

The chief Scriptural sources of moral theology are (a) the Decalogue, (b) the Sermon on the Mount. In this sermon Jesus proclaims, in all its sublimity, the New Law of love which fulfills the Old Law of fear. The New Law penetrates into man’s interior, eschews even internal sins, commends purity of intention, urges imitation of God: Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. Not perfect like the angels, but perfect like God, since men have received participation, not in angelic nature, but in divine nature.*

Patristic sources of moral theology are found, first, in commentaries on the Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, the Gospels, and the epistles of St. Paul; secondly, in special treatises on particular duties and virtues; thirdly, in oratorical and ascetic exhortations on the full round of Christian morality. To illustrate. Clement of Alexandria; Tertullian (too rigid, does not clearly distinguish precepts from counsels); St. Cyprian and Lactantius; the Cappadocians; St. Ambrose (his De Officiis, suggested by a Ciceronian title, but moving on a higher level); St. Augustine (on the theological virtues, on chastity and matrimony). Last, not least, St. Gregory the Great, who, in his commentary (not scholastic, but allegorical) on the book of Job, gave to medieval ascetics a full treatise of moral theology.

The first scholastic treatise is that of St. John Damascene, who wrote the first Summa, Its three parts are:

DIVISIONS OF MORAL THEOLOGY 11

1. a philosophical introduction (findings of the pagans);

2. heresies (a general exposition);

3. the orthodox faith, in three subdivisions: first, on God; second, on creatures; third, on Christ and His sacraments. The emphasis throughout is on dogma. Moral questions are treated as occasion offers.

Peter the Lombard, whose Sentences remained the textbook until the sixteenth century, follows the third division of St. John Damascene. Peter’s general division, differing notably from that of St. Thomas, seems to be based on the human will, and thus to be a division of moral theology. Yet, in fact, he assigns no special part for moral questions, intermingling them with dogmatic questions.

His general division, based on two acts of the will, namely, to use and to enjoy, has three chief parts: (a) things to be enjoyed (God, One and Triune); (b) things to be used (creatures as means to attain the vision of God; (c) things to be both enjoyed and used (the humanity of Christ, the sacraments, the angels and the saints).

The chief moral questions he discusses are found, first, in his treatise on the first man, where he dwells on grace, on sin, on virtue and merit, on the acts of the will. Secondly, in his treatise on Christ, where he dwells on faith, hope, and charity, on the cardinal virtues, on the seven gifts, on the Ten Commandments, on lying and perjury, on the Old Law and the New. Thirdly, in his treatise on the sacraments, where he discourses on heaven, purgatory, and hell.

Alexander of Hales, who retains Peter’s division and method, shows progress beyond his master, but is still very imperfect.

The innovation introduced by St. Thomas is twofold. First he treats of God in Himself, God as the first reality, God in three persons, God as Creator, before he turns to consider God as the goal that is good and draws man to Himself. “Reality comes before goodness.” Goodness is founded on reality, is¹ a characteristic of reality. Goodness is reality, reality is perfect and desirable. Goodness is counterfeit unless it is founded on genuine reality.

Secondly St. Thomas assigns a second and special part to moral, and treats this part scientifically, not oratorically. Thus he lays a solid foundation for casuistry, for ascetic and mystic theology, proceeding systematically from the universal to the particular.

Historians, then, are right when they say that St. Thomas was the first who systematized ethics, individual and social. See as illustration his treatment of justice, and of prudence, political, economic, and military. His social ideas deserve deeper study today.

The work of St. Thomas was, we say, an innovation. But it was not a revolution. It was the normal development of the union between tradition and that perennial philosophy which prepares theologians to proceed scientifically in matters of faith and morals.

Yet three centuries elapsed before this great innovation conquered the schools. Until the end of the sixteenth century, the textbook in all schools, Dominican schools included, was that of the Lombard. See the commentaries on the Sentences, from Capreolus to Soto.

Cajetan and Koelin were the first to comment on the Summa. Yet this happy innovation made slow headway in the schools, and did not have, even on noted authors, the influence it deserved. Let us look cursorily at these authors.

1. St. Raymond of Pennafort (thirteenth century) wrote a casuistic guide for confessors. He was followed by many others.

2. St. Antonine, O.P., archbishop of Florence, wrote a Summa of moral theology. His method is ascetic, and he does not always follow the doctrine of St. Thomas. A comparative study of the two saints would be useful.

3- Mystic treatment of moral questions appears in Eckhart, Tauler, Suso, Gerson, and Thomas a Kempis.

DIVISIONS OF MORAL THEOLOGY 13

4. When commentaries on St. Thomas replaced those on the Lombard, many authors wrote moral Summas:

a) Cajetan, who had written a casuistic Summa, on sins.

b) Many commented on the second part of the Summa: Victoria, Medina, Dominic Soto, Peter Soto, Ledesma, John of St. Thomas, the Salmanticenses, Suarez, Lugo, Gonet, Alexander Natalis, Billuart. Billuart’s treatment, like that of many others, is both scholastic and casuistic, while others (e.g., the Salmanticenses) keep the two methods separated. Concina and Patuzzi, two Thomists, contended strongly against probabilism. Many religious of various orders, also many diocesan priests, wrote commentaries on the Summa.

5. The two centuries from 1650 to 1850 were devoted to casuistry. Many authors in this period omit all doctrinal questions. Many deal almost exclusively with practical questions: the law, conscience, probable conscience, cases of conscience, the limits of obligation. Moral theology is the science rather of avoiding sin than of cultivating virtue. This casuistic method, inefficacious in urging men to lead good lives, tends to laxism. Asceticism and mysticism lack foundation. Many treatises, ascetic and mystic, have simply no doctrinal value.

6. But during this period there appeared a man, sent by God to remedy the evils of casuistry. This man was St. Alphonsus Liguori, doctor of the Church, founder of the Redemptorists, renowed author of many works, ascetic and moral, highly praised by various popes. He is rather practical than speculative. As founder of equiprobabilism, he cleansed casuistry from the defects of probabilism and laxism.

7. In our own day we find various practices.

a) Seminaries unite the two methods, scholastic and casuistic, adding ascetic applications.

b) Universities generally give two distinct courses, one scholastic, the other practical and casuistic. Some give also special courses in ascetico-mystic theology.

8. When Leo XIII had, we might say, raised Thomism to life, many authors followed St. Thomas. But textbooks gen- erally still labor under the defects of casuistry. They omit important doctrinal questions on human acts, on the passions, on habits.

When asked for treatises on grace, infused virtue, and the gifts, they send you to classes in dogma. But the question returns: How can moral, if it refuses to dwell on the nature of virtue and merit, proceed to a scientific explanation of human acts as the road to a supernatural goal? Science rests on sources and causes. Now the sources of salvific human acts are the infused virtues. Look at the divisions in many moral textbooks. You will find the following general division: on the last end, on human acts, on laws, on conscience, on sins, on virtues in general. Further, you will find a treatise on special moral, which deals indeed with virtues, theological and cardinal, but does not determine their nature, dwells, but all too briefly, on their necessity, while it emphasizes the sins to be avoided. At the end you find a treatise on the sacraments. The moral theology of St. Thomas, it is clear, has not yet found a home in our schools.

Three questions:

1. Why does St. Thomas place moral theology between two dogmatic parts? This question was answered above.

2. Why does he prefer division by virtues to division by precepts?

a) He does treat the precepts, first in the treatise on law, secondly after each virtue. b) He prefers the division by virtues, for three reasons. i) Science rests on principles and causes. The principles of human acts are the virtues, whence good deeds proceed, promptly, easily and gladly. ii) Thus appear clearly the various functions of the spiritual organism, in hierarchical form. iii) Thus we lay the foundation of mysticism and asceticism, which deal with the stages of progress in virtue. 3. But are not precepts the sources of human acts?

DIVISIONS OF MORAL THEOLOGY 15 a) Yes, but they are sources that regulate human acts, not sources which produce these acts.

b) Many precepts of the Decalogue are, in their literal sense, negative. Commenting on St. Paul’s word about the letter that kills and the spirit that quickens, St. Thomas speaks thus: “The mere law, without the Spirit who prints the law on the heart, is an occasion of death.” Why? Because, learning from the precept what we ought to do, we leave the deed undone.

c) There are, of course, affirmative precepts: Love God and your neighbor. But the sublimity and fruitfulness of these precepts are often neglected, and the emphasis remains on the avoidance of vice. But vice is intelligible only by its opposition to virtue, just as darkness by its opposition to light. The Decalogue, finally, while it does contain precepts on religion, does not directly give precepts on faith, hope, and charity.

Footnotes

1. Ia-Ilae, q.107. ↩