MORAL THEOLOGY. — This is that part of Catholic theology which directly considers specifically human action, directed toward its ultimate end, which, known through Revelation, becomes concretely attainable through Grace.
I. MATERIAL AND FORMAL OBJECT
It follows that the material object of moral theology is the action of the conscious and free human being. Its formal object lies in the supernatural character of its principles, its conclusions, and the entire systematic development of its doctrines, in relation to man’s ultimate end, which is his eternal beatitude (v.) and which is known through Revelation (v. FINE ULTIMO). In relation to this supernatural end, it sets forth the entire doctrine of the laws, known and also elucidated by Revelation; it treats of the moral virtues destined to be informed by caritas; and of the Sacraments, which are essentially supernatural means. The material object of t. m. also includes indifferent acts (v. ATTO UMANO). Indeed, it cannot be doubted that all human action, including that which is considered indifferent, may saltem intentionaliter be referred to God as its ultimate end, and thus be meritorious and therefore subject to the control of t. m.; the same applies to omissions that have a relation to the ultimate end. The Scholastics encompassed the entire object of t. m. in the general precept: «Declina a malo et fac bonum» (Ps. 36, 27), that is, negative precepts and positive precepts.Certainly, t. m., although essentially grounded in Revelation and therefore in the truths of faith, rationally deduces its conclusions (v. CONCLUSIONE TEOLOGICA), always under the control of the ecclesiastical magisterium; but when it avails itself of precepts and principles of a natural or positive-human order, it does not lose its supernatural character, because those same principles receive from it the light of Revelation and are thereby directed toward the ultimate end, known only through Revelation and attainable only by supernatural means.
With regard to the subjects, that is, the human beings whose actions t. m. must regulate, the same theological principles apply as those concerning the subjects of Revelation in general (v. RIVELAZIONE).
II. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER SCIENCES
By reason of its formal object, moral theology theology (v.), both because the truths taught by the latter are fundamental and necessary premises of moral theology, and because both, while remaining within their specific fields, fully agree in their formal object, that is, in the character of supernaturalness. For this reason, quite rightly, the great Scholastics in their Summas treated dogmatic and moral theology together, according to the famous principle constantly repeated in the sources, whereby the whole theological discipline is contained in fide et in moribus. Nevertheless, by reason of its material object, dogmatic theology is distinct from moral theology, since the former does not directly consider specifically human action, which belongs instead to moral theology. Conversely, moral theology has relations of affinity with ethics, both because it neither destroys nor disregards moral principles of the natural order, and because both directly consider specifically human action. They are distinguished from one another, however, by their formal object. Moral theology therefore essentially surpasses ethics, which is directed solely toward man’s natural end. Accordingly, as regards the relationship between moral theology and ethics, the discussions concerning the relationship between philosophy and theology may also be applied, and consequently the question of whether a Christian philosophy exists (v. FILOSOFIA) and, therefore, whether a Christian ethics exists (v. ETICA). In any event, ethics cannot proclaim as legitimate and true moral doctrines that conflict with the certain principles of moral theology. On the other hand, because of the affinity between the two disciplines, it is necessary that the moral theologian also be well versed in ethics. As for the relationship between moral theology and civil law, legal philosophers, according to their various tendencies, strive to find a fundamental basis for distinction (v. DIRITTO). It may be held that moral theology, by reason of its material object, certainly has relations of affinity and connection with civil law, not only because the latter too regulates human action, even if within the limits of sociality and the external forum, but also because the same civil laws, if legitimate and just, bind in conscience (v. LEGGE, III. L. civile) and therefore have a relationship with the ultimate end, the proper object of moral theology. Yet, by reason of its formal object, moral theology is at the same time distinct from civil law. For whereas the end of civil law is directly the bonum sociale temporale, the end of what is called the theology of law is the bonum sociale aeternum, also controlled by the internal forum; that is, it is the same bonum sociale, but sub specie aeternitatis and under the light of Revelation. For this reason, human positive law does not consider all the rights of man, because, as s. Agostino says, «videtur multa reliquere impunita, quae per divinam Providentiam vindicantur» (De libero arbitrio, c. 5, n. 15: PL 32, 1228); whereas moral theology considers all the rights of man not only as a member of a civil society, but also of a supernatural society, which begins in this life and is perfected in the next (v. CORPO MISTICO). Thus, where the judge of civil law does not reach, the judge of moral theology does reach, namely, the confessor; and for the sake of his right and just judgment, moral theology sets forth the treatise De iustitia with particular care.Canon law is closely connected with moral theology by reason of the formal object, inasmuch as the canons presuppose, for juridical personality, a subject elevated to the supernatural order through Baptism (can. 87) and therefore situated under the vision of the ultimate end to be attained; hence the close connection of canon law with dogmatic and moral truths. Nevertheless, canon law is distinct from moral theology in that it does not, like moral theology, control all human activity in relation to the ultimate end («de internis non iudicat Ecclesia»), and the question arises whether the Church can command merely internal acts (v. canonico). In its casuistry, moral theology does indeed also consider canon laws, because it must judge concretely all human activity in all its circumstances of what is licit and illicit, whatever the law may be; speculative moral theology, however, should not concern itself with them. Nevertheless, for the reasons explained, there are many points of intersection between canon law and moral theology, which readily explains the manner in which moralists and canonists proceed in treating their disciplines.
Today, by contrast, the tendency is more strongly felt not to distinguish ascetical theology essentially from moral theology, in order not to minimize the latter. By its very nature, moral theology cannot in fact be merely the science of what is illicit or of mortal sin alone, but of all human activity, in all its gradations of good and evil, up to every degree of perfection and therefore up to the practice, even heroic, of the virtues. The contrary position is not justified and would make moral theology itself something less estimable in the eyes of those souls who do not practically appreciate this distinction. Every soul, under the inspiration of Grace and with its assistance, is in fact bound to perfect itself continually in view of the ultimate end and eternal beatitude, which will not be equal for all. Moral theology is less clearly distinct, however, from those disciplines regarded as its parts, such as pastoral theology, casuistry (v.), and so forth.
III. SOURCES OF MORAL THEOLOGY
There is no doubt that, given the nature of moral theology itself, its primary source is divine Revelation itself, in Scripture (v.) Tradition (v.); the secondary and subordinate source is human reason.IV. DIVISIONS AND METHODS OF MORAL THEOLOGY
Although moral theologians are generally in agreement in distinguishing and dividing moral theology into two parts, one fundamental and general and the other special, they nevertheless disagree about the subdivisions of these two parts. With regard to fundamental moral theology, some place the treatise on laws before that on conscience, while others do the opposite; some then study sin before laws, while others divide the material differently. O. Lottin (op. cit. in bibl.) proposes that, after the psychological notions concerning the human act, three treatises should follow one another: first, the norm of morality itself should be considered; second, the objective application of these norms to the human act; third, the subjective application of these norms through the judgment of conscience (vita conscienziosa) and through prudential judgment (vita virtuosa); and finally, the necessary consequences in the meritorious life. With regard to special moral theology, there is likewise considerable diversity in the manner of dividing II. Some divide it into the two great treatises De praeceptis and De Sacramentis; others into the treatises De virtutibus and De Sacramentis; still others into individual and social morality, considering in the former the obligations pertaining to the individual and in the latter those having a social relation. Indeed, there are some who have begun to speak and write of social morality as a science in its own right (cf. R. Lortal, Principes de morale sociale, Lyon 1946).As regards the methods of treating and teaching moral theology, traditionally there has been discussion of a positive method, which takes predominant account of the sources of Revelation, with particular attention to the historical-doctrinal development of the moral principles themselves. Secondly, the speculative method is recognized, which insists rather on rationally elucidating the moral principles as well and on deducing new conclusions by harmonizing them with one another. The apologetic method, moreover, takes pleasure in controversies, vigorously attacking error and demonstrating its falsity. The casuistic method, after briefly setting forth the principles, insists on applying them to practical cases. Today new tendencies can be observed that concern precisely the method (for only in this sense can one speak of new tendencies in moral theology). Their principal representatives are found in Germany (with Tillmann), in Belgium (with Mersch and Leclercq), and elsewhere others (v. BIBLICA) who, in teaching moral theology, prefer new approaches to the old manual-based methods. Whatever the development of these new methodological tendencies may be, in treating moral theology one must always bring to light its character as a theological science and as the art that governs the conduct of the individual and the collective human being. Considering, in fact, the very nature of moral theology, it is not enough to organize its principles (speculative morality) under the theological vision of the Mystical Body (Mersch), the imitation of Christ (Tillmann), or Caritas (Gilleman); a wise application of its principles to the concrete human being (casuistic morality) is also necessary, so that one may arrive concretely at a judgment not only concerning the gradual perfection of human actions, but also concerning the gravity or otherwise of the faults that human beings so often commit.
V. BREVE SGUARDO STORICO
Durante il periodo patristico ed in quello susseguente, fin oltre all'età aurea della scolastica, la trattazione della t. m. non ha uno svolgimento a parte dalla teologia genericamente detta (v. SORA); Somme (v.) la t. m. è trattata accanto alla dogmatica, anche se qualche scrittore espone in trattazioni particolari qualche argomento specificamente morale. Dopo il Concilio di Trento, accanto ad alcuni autori che vollero mantenersi ancora sulla linea antica (ad es., Bartolomeo da Medina, Fr. Toledo, D. Banez, G. Vasquez, Johannes a S. Thoma, Fr. Suárez), si ha l'inizio di un periodo fecondo della t. m., trattata come parte a sé, nei testi di T. Sanchez, G. Argor, V. POLE, REGINALD, Fr. da Castro Palao, M. Bonacina, P. Laymann, H. Busembaum e nei trattati più particolari e ristretti a qualche argomento morale di L. Molina, L. Lessio, G. da Lugo, ecc. Né va casistica (v.), che degenerò lassismo (v.).Con l'opera di s. Alfonso de' Liguori, proclamato da Pio XII protettore dei moralisti, si ebbe una svolta salutare e a poco a poco la t. m. venne ricollocata sul piano teorico e scientifico che le compete. Liberato, infatti, il campo dagli errori del giansenismo, del gallicanesimo e del giuseppinismo, la t. m. rinacque con J. Gury, A. Ballerini, D. Palmieri, G. d'Anniola, F. Carrère, G. Frassinetti e continua a fiorire nei numerosi manualisti moderni: A. Lehmkuhl, A. Vermeersch, E. Génicott-Salamans, G. Noldin, D. Prümmer, B. Merkelbach, F. Tillmann, L. Fanfani, F. Aertyns-C. A. Damen, O. Schilling, A. Piscetta - A. Gennaro, G. Pighi - A. Grazioli, A. Lanza, T. A. Iorio, ecc. Ma più importanti dal lato scientifico sono le moderne monografie storico-sistematiche e i numerosi articoli di riviste teologiche su particolari temi e problemi della t. m.
O. Schilling, Reform der moral Theologie?, in Theol. prakt. Quartalschr., 92 (1939), pp. 451-56; A. Liauginas, L'enseignement de la morale, Neuchâtel 1939; P. Guérin, Morale et philos., in Rev. philos., 1939, pp. 329-59; G. Thils, Tendances actuelles en théol. mor., Gembloux 1940; F. Pelster, Eine Kontroverse über die Methode der Moralthol. aus dem Ende des 16. Jahrh. M. B. Solon O.E.S.A. und D. Banez O. P., in Scholastik, 17 (1942), pp. 385-411; T. Pintal, L'enseignement de la morale et et Alphonse, in Rev. Univ. Ottawa, 12 (1942), pp. 97-107; R. Linoges, L'enseignement de la théol. mor., ibid., pp. 153-59; A. Ledent, Hist. des doctrines morales, Bruxelles 1945; J. Leclercq, Morale et méthode positive, in Misc. moralia A. Janssen, Lovanio 1948, pp. 17-28; Ph. Delhaye, La place de l'éthique parmi les disciplines scientifiques, au XIIe siècle, ibid., pp. 29-44; O. Lottin, Comment organiser la théol. mor. fondamentale, ibid., pp. 153-68; E. Hocdez, Hist. de la théol. au XIXe siècle, 3 voll., Parigi 1947-52; E. Mersch, Morale et Corps Mystique, Bruxelles - Parigi 1949; F. Tillmann, Die Idee der Nachfolge Christi, Düsseldorf 1949; id., Die Verwirklichung der Nachf. Chr., ivi 1950; G. Creusen, Dello spirito e del metodo nell'insegn. della t. m., in Quest. attuali di t. m., Torino 1949, pp. 5-10; J. Leclercq, L'enseignement de la morale chrétienne, Parigi 1950; Th. Deman, Aux origines de la théol. mor., Montréal-Parigi 1951; G. Ermecke, Die katholische Moralth. heute, in Theol. u. Glaube, 41 (1951), 127-142; E. Fogliasso, Circa la rettificazione dei confini tra la t. m. e il dir. can., in Salesianum, 13 (1951), pp. 381-413; G. Gilleman, Le primat de la charité en théol. mor., Parigi 1952; Ph. Delhaye, La théol. mor. d'hier et d'aujourd'hui, in Rev. de sc. rel., 27 (1953), 112-30. Ermenegildo Lio