Congruism

CONGRUISM. - The name of this theological system derives from St. Augustine, who in Book 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 name is often applied to Molinism (v.) in general. More commonly, however, c. is the name given to that particular form of Molinism which was taught by St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and by Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) and which in 1613 a decree, since abrogated, of the general Claudio Acquaviva proposed among the doctrines proper to the Society of Jesus.

Often, for polemical reasons, attempts have been made 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 Recent publications of unpublished documents and impartial studies have made it possible to re-establish the truth.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 considered, by defenders and adversaries alike, as the essential nucleus of Molinism, namely its explanation of efficacious Grace. It differs, however, from pure Molinism, of which Leonardo Lessius (1554-1623) was a particular supporter, in its doctrine on predestination to glory.

Efficacious Grace according to c. - Theologians call efficacious Grace (v.) a motion of God by which the will determines itself infallibly but freely to perform a salutary act, that is, one that has value in relation to our supernatural end. Truly but purely sufficient Grace (v.), on the other hand, is that motion of God which, however truly it gives the faculty to perform the salutary act, remains without effect because of man's failure to correspond to it. All Catholic theologians agree on these notions. There remains, however, controversy among them as to how the intimate nature of the two types of Grace should be further explained. The congruists, in agreement on this point with all Molinists, do not accept the opinion of those who affirm that there is an ontological difference between efficacious Grace and purely sufficient Grace, such that efficacious Grace, by force of its very nature, determines man to consent, and purely sufficient Grace is intrinsically incapable of producing such consent. To them it seems that this opinion, if it wishes to be coherent with itself, cannot safeguard 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, in God's foreknowledge of the consent or dissent of the will to which the Grace will be granted. That Grace must be called efficacious which God grants already knowing that man will correspond to it; purely sufficient, on the other hand, that Grace with respect to which He foresees the contrary.

The congruists themselves, however, differ among one another in explaining how God, already antecedently to the decree of granting a determined Grace to man, can foresee the reaction. According to Bellarmine, God, knowing perfectly each individual, his passions, his most secret inclinations, etc., can foresee with certainty how he will act in determined circumstances, under the motion of a determined 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 Bellarmine, by which He knows what free creatures would do in the various possible circumstances. Therefore, by the very fact that He decrees to place them in these or those circumstances, He knows what they will in reality do.

Predestination according to c. - Predestination (v.) is, in the theological sense, the design conceived by God to lead the rational creature to eternal life. According to all Catholic theologians, it, considered in its entirety, is a gratuitous gift of God, a manifestation of His special love toward those who in fact attain salvation. Further, according to all Catholic theologians, glory is given to the elect in recompense for the merits they have acquired. There is no agreement, however, regarding the proximate reason for which God elects these determined men to glory and to such a degree of glory. According to pure Molinism, this reason must be sought, at least for the majority of men, in the merits they have obtained at the moment of their death and which are foreseen by God 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 that has willed them saved, in preference to others. By force of this predilection God disposes their whole life in such a way that they attain salvation and accumulate all the merits necessary to obtain that place which God has prepared for them in His Kingdom (praedestinatio ad gloriam ante praevia merita). From this different way of conceiving election to glory there also follows a different way of explaining how God has willed the meritorious works that must lead man to salvation. According to pure Molinism, God, in establishing to give to such a man a grace that He knows to be efficacious, confers on him a special benefit. It cannot, however, be said that God gave it to him precisely in order to obtain from him the salutary act, antecedently decreed (praedefinitio virtualis actuum salutarium). According to c., on the other hand, this is precisely what takes place, since all the individual salutary acts of the predestined have been established by God in function of the degree of glory to which he has been elected (praedefinitio formalis actuum salutarium).

It is necessary to have recourse to treatises of theology for an in-depth discussion of the value of the two systems. Neither of the two, as is clear, resolves the mystery of predestination. C. brings more into light the special love of God toward 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 the same sources tell us about God's salvific will, which extends to all men without exception, preparing for each truly sufficient graces to attain salvation.

Maurizio Flick