In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS: AN HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE MIND OF ST. THOMAS T HE CONTEMPORARY DEBATE between the official magisterium and many moral theologians about the absolute prohibition of contraception, direct sterilization and abortion, masturbation, homosexual activity, and so forth derives in large measure from a more fundamental disagreement on the question of intrinsically evil acts. The magisterium assumes that there are certain physical actions which are morally evil ex objecto, that is, so morally disordered in themselves that they never can be justified in any circumstances or for any purpose.1 Many contemporary theologians dispute this. They assert, in various ways, that, while such actions are in themselves prima-facie evil (premoral, non-moral, physical, ontic evil) , they cannot be declared morally evil prior to a consideration of circumstances and end.2 It has been assumed generally that the magisterium's position is more faithful to the Thomistic tradition and the mind of St. Thomas. But some recent studies have raised some doubts. From a careful analysis of Thomas's teaching about the possibility of dispensations from the decalogue, Franz Scholz has concluded that, although Thomas himself did not reject the notion of intrinsically evil acts, he did formulate a basis for such a rejection by clearly distinguishing between physical and moral 1 Recent examples of this theology at work are the Declaration on Sexual Ethics (Persona Humana) issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 29, 1975, and the response of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the American hierarchy on sterilization (Documentum circa sterilizationem in nosocomiis catholicis [Prot. 2027/69]) isswed on March 13, 1975. 2 The whole contemporary discussion, of course, is considerably more nuanced. A clear and handy summary is provided by Richard A. McCormick, S.J., in Ambiguity in Moral Ch1>ice: the 1978 Pere Marquette Theology Lecture, and his "Notes on Moral Theology " in Theofogical Studies over the past few years. 385 386 JOHN F. DEDEK evil (e.g. between the factual notion of killing and the value notion of murder) .3 And in a careful textual study of the writings of St. Thomas, John Giles Milhaven has argued that, although Thomas did admit the existence of " negative moral absolutes ," his thought is " more akin to contemporary ethical reflection than one would gather from today's Thomists." 4 Milhaven proposed his interpretation of the Thomistic texts as a tentative hypothesis. For, he said, "to penetrate behind the borrowed formulae to the genuine dynamics of Thomas's synthesis on a given question requires ... an understanding of the historical development of the question up to his time ...." 5 Milhaven's caution was appropriate. Odon Lattin long ago warned theologians about the need to read St. Thomas in his historical context.6 Lottin pointed out that one should distrust merely speculative studies and systematic expositions which mix up texts of different dates with no regard for changes in St. Thomas's meaning; and one must exercise great care in using his commentators, even his immediate disciples, since they frequently tried to develop, correct or assimilate his thought to their own. To read St. Thomas correctly, he said, one must consider his sources and compare his texts with those of the masters whose writings he knew. That is what this study intends to do. First we will cite certain texts of St. Thomas which have led his readers to believe 3 Franz Scholz, "Durch ethische Grenzsituation aufgeworfene Normenprobleme," Theologisch-pralctische Quartalschrift 123 (1975) 341-355. •John G. Milhaven, "Moral Absolutes and Thomas Aquinas," Absolutes in Moral Theology? (ed. Charles E. Curran). Corpus Instrumentorum: Washington, D. C., 1968, pp. 154-185. 5 Ibid., p. 160. Milhaven notes that the work of Dom Lattin in the thirties and forties provides valuable material on natural law in the medieval period but that he never envisioned the contemporary debate and the contemporary theological problematic. Cf. Odon Lottin, Le Droit Naturel chez S. Thomas J'Aquin et ses predecesseui·s. Charles Beyaert: Bruges, 1931; and Psychologie et Morale aux Xlle et Xllle siecles (Vol. II). Abbaye du Mont Cesar: Louvain, 1948. 6 Odon Lottin, "Pour un Commentaire historiqne de la morale de S...

pdf

Share