CONGRUISMO. — The name of this theological system derives from s. Agostino, who, in bk. I of De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, explaining how efficacious Grace is a special benefit of divine mercy, expresses himself thus: «Cuius autem (Deus) miseretur, sic eum vocat, quomodo scit ei congruere ut vocantem non respuat»: PL 40, 119. This Molinism (v.) in general. More commonly, however, c. is the name given to that particular form of Molinism which was taught by s. Roberto Bellarmino (1542–1621) and Francesco Suárez (1548–1617), and which in 1613 a decree, now abrogated, of the superior general Claudio Acquaviva proposed among the doctrines proper to the Society of Jesus.
Often, for polemical reasons, people have wished either to exaggerate or, on the contrary, to deny the differences between c. and Molinism. Recent publications of unpublished documents and impartial studies have made it possible to re-establish the truth. It is now commonly recognized that c.,
from its very origins, is truly Molinism, insofar as it preserves what was always regarded, by defenders and opponents alike, as the essential core of Molinism, namely, its explanation of efficacious Grace. It differs, however, from pure Molinism, whose principal proponent was Leonardo Lessio (1554–1623), in its doctrine concerning predestination to glory.
Efficacious Grace according to c. — Grace (v.) a motion of God by which the will determines itself infallibly but freely to perform a salutary act, that is, an act possessing value in relation to our supernatural end. Grace (v.), on the other hand, is that motion of God which, although it genuinely gives the faculty of performing the salutary act, remains without effect because of man’s failure to correspond. All Catholic theologians agree on these notions. There remains disagreement among them, however, as to how the intimate nature of the two types of Grace is to be explained further. The congruists, in agreement on this point with all Molinists, do not accept the opinion of those who maintain that there is an ontological difference between efficacious Grace and purely sufficient Grace, such that efficacious Grace, by virtue of its very nature, determines man to consent, while purely sufficient Grace is intrinsically incapable of producing such consent. It seems to them that this opinion, if it is to be consistent with itself, cannot preserve the freedom of the will under the motion of efficacious Grace, nor the true sufficiency of purely sufficient Grace. For this reason they place the difference between the two types of Grace in an extrinsic element, namely, in God’s foreknowledge of the consent or dissent of the will to which the Grace will be granted. That Grace is to be called efficacious which God grants already knowing that man will correspond to it; purely sufficient, on the other hand, is that with respect to which He foresees the contrary.
The congruists themselves differ, however, in explaining how God, already antecedently to the decree to grant man a determinate Grace, can foresee the response. According to Bellarmino, God, knowing each individual perfectly—his passions, his most hidden inclinations, and so forth—can foresee with certainty how he will act in determinate circumstances, under the motion of a determinate Grace. According to Suárez, in agreement on this point with the majority of Molinists, God’s infallible certainty can be explained only by recourse to His so-called middle knowledge, admitted also by Bellarmino, by which He knows what free creatures would do in the various possible circumstances. Thus, simply by decreeing to place them in these or those circumstances, He knows what they will actually do.
Predestination according to c. — Predestination (v.) is, in the theological sense, the plan conceived by God to lead the rational creature to eternal life. According to all Catholic theologians, considered as a whole, it is a gratuitous gift of God, a manifestation of His special love for those who in fact attain salvation. Again, according to all Catholic theologians, glory is given to the elect in recompense for the merits they have acquired. There is no agreement, however, concerning the proximate reason why God elects these particular men to glory and to a particular degree of glory. According to pure Molinism, this reason must be sought, at least for the majority of men, in the merits they have acquired at the moment of their death and which God foresees from all eternity (praedestinatio ad gloriam post praevia merita). According to the congruists, on the other hand, they owe their election solely to the free divine predilection by which He willed them to be saved in preference to others. By virtue of this predilection, God orders their entire life in such a way that they attain salvation and accumulate all the merits necessary to obtain the place God has prepared for them in His Kingdom (praedestinatio ad gloriam ante praevia merita). From this different conception of election to glory there follows also a different way of explaining how God willed the meritorious works that must lead man to salvation. According to pure Molinism, by deciding to give a certain man a grace known by Him to be efficacious, God confers on him a special benefit. It cannot, however, be said that He gave it to him precisely in order to obtain from him the salutary act, decreed antecedently (praedefinitio virtualis actuum salutarium). According to c., on the other hand, this is precisely what takes place, since each and every salutary act of the predestined person has been established by God in relation to the degree of glory to which he has been elected (praedefinitio formalis actuum salutarium).
It is necessary to consult theological treatises for an in-depth discussion of the value of the two systems. Neither of them, as is clear, dispels the mystery of predestination. C. brings more clearly to light the special love of God for the elect, of which the sources of Revelation speak. Pure Molinism, although it does not neglect this element, leaves it rather in the shadows. In compensation, however, it seems to accord better with what those same sources tell us about God’s salvific will, which extends to all men without exception, preparing for each one graces that are truly sufficient to attain salvation.
#### CONHOSPITAE: V. AGAPÈTE.