Chapter II — The Highest Good

Concerning the Kingdom of God as the Highest Good

What is called good?

Everything that a human being desires and longs for as fulfilling his impulses and needs, and consequently constituting part of his happiness, is called good in general.

What is called a moral good?

A moral good is called true moral happiness.

What is called the highest moral good?

Blessedness.

Among the moral goods, which one is preeminent?

Among the moral goods, the highest good is preeminent, which is regarded as such in two ways: a) because in essence and reality it is higher than all other things and consequently to be preferred above them as the ultimate good, in which alone the human being finds the rest and peace that he seeks in vain elsewhere; and b) because it is the most perfect good (bonum consummatum), the fullness of goods, in which every desire is satisfied and every deficiency is filled. Such a supreme good is the kingdom of God, which is a spiritual communion and such an ordering of things, such an organism of persons, powers, activities, and spiritual gifts, in which God reigns not only as Almighty and righteous, but also as redeemer and Savior of the world, making human beings partakers of His holiness, love, grace, and blessedness—that is, of His kingdom.

This kingdom, which comes into the world in time, is a kingdom of freedom and love, toward which the human being ought to strive, because it not only demands from him devotion and sacrifice, but also accords with his true and innermost nature.

The kingdom of God is the supreme good, a precious pearl that must be purchased with the sacrifice of all things, and in which the human being finds

his blessedness, even if he is deprived of all other things; as that one thing which is necessary both for the individual and for the community, because it is necessary since the community without the kingdom of God and his righteousness is deprived of true happiness even if it possesses all other goods; as the most perfect good, which encompasses all perfection; and as such it will appear in the fulfillment of all things at the second parousia of the Lord under the new heaven and on the new earth, where righteousness dwells, when more clearly God will dwell with human beings and will wipe away every tear, where there is no death, no mourning, no crying, no pain, where faith and hope pass away, the first being replaced by sight and the second being fulfilled; but love alone reigns in that heavenly city, which will have no need of the sun or the moon, because the Lord God will illumine it eternally. (Revelation of John, chapter 21:1–27).

Concerning the Kingdom of God on Earth and That It Is Relative

Although the kingdom of God, as the highest good, will be revealed chiefly after the passing away of the form of this world, nevertheless even in the present age we have a certain type of it, because the kingdom of God, being destined to refashion the present world as well, tends to bring divine unity through freedom and love amid the variety of human relations and energies. And as such a relative kingdom of God in this world we understand the totality of moral things, the renewal of humanity as far as possible through the light of the Gospel, the general social organism in which all the energies, tendencies, and purposes of both individuals and society in art and science are concentrated toward one final purpose, namely the ideal of the kingdom of God on earth. But since this ideal can be realized on this earth only in a typical and very limited way, and even where Christianity appears as a victorious culture, because the kingdom of sin is again intertwined with the kingdom of God and the weeds grow together with the wheat, the Christian must keep his gaze fixed on the coming full revelation of the kingdom of God and must await it.

“Yes, come, Lord Jesus.” (Rev. 22:20).

That the kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy

The kingdom of God constitutes blessedness, which begins here in this world as righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. “The kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:17). But the kingdom of God has its true homeland in the new heaven in the age to come, and in this respect it is distinguished from the happiness that is confined to this earth and to the present age, which from a religious perspective is the unity of the heavenly pearl with earthly goods, that is, of blessedness and prosperity. And the Lord, exhorting the disciples to seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, adds that all earthly goods as secondary things will be added to them. (Matthew 6:33)

On the manner in which the kingdom of God can be realized and on evil, that it is evil

The kingdom of God can be realized little by little on this earth through the maintenance of the harmonious relation of the human will to the divine will, through continual struggle against evil.

for the contrary will does not want to recognize God and His will above all things, but itself, and apart from God it strives to rule and enjoy this world. Just as the good will in communion with God pursues the fulfillment of the divine purpose, which is the good, so the evil will, fighting against the good, pursues an entirely different purpose, which is evil. Just as the good will seeks Him, so the contrary will wants evil, which appears at first as opposition to love, as egoism, because evil is not a simple denial and avoidance of the good, but something positive, a will that is truly egoistic and opposed to the good; consequently it is something disharmonious in the world, something that ought not to exist.

The Relation of the Kingdom of God to the Kingdom of Sin.

Just as good, so also evil is represented not only in isolated individuals, but also as a kingdom intertwined with the kingdom of God, as the weeds are sown together with the wheat. And just as the kingdom of God encompasses not only its members on earth, but also those enrolled in heaven, the myriads of angels and the triumphant Church, so also the kingdom of evil extends beyond the boundaries of this earth, encompassing the evil spirits, whose center is the devil. Although evil is represented as a disharmonious and destructive power, it nevertheless has within itself unity and harmony, because all the evil and perverted powers conspire and work together against the kingdom of God. (Luke 23:12; Acts 4:26–27).

The opposition between good and evil became more manifest and stronger through the appearance of Jesus Christ, because from that time the will that accepts salvation is represented as at war against the power that despises and fights against it.

Concerning the Supreme Evil.

Just as the highest good is distinguished among all goods, so the highest evil appears in the union of sin and misery, so that the highest evil is that which is accompanied by the idea of guilt, inner condemnation, and the bitter and terrible reproaches of conscience.

The highest evil becomes most complete and fullest when it prevails and becomes universal, when every trace of conversion and correction disappears and all hope of redemption is extinguished, and to the inner misery is added a corresponding outward wretchedness and affliction—the riches of the kindness and forbearance and long-suffering of God leads the sinner to repentance. (Romans 2:4). Such a most complete evil cannot be revealed in the world, where good and evil, happiness and misery, are intertwined and inseparable, but is manifested and confined to Hades, the place of punishment.

But just as the ideal of the highest good can be realized on this earth only relatively, as a union of Christian morality and happiness, so also the most complete evil, Hades, can appear on earth iconically and relatively as the sum of all evils, as such an abnormal and abominable social condition in which egoism has broken every sacred bond, atheism and brazen blasphemy prevail, vice and crime appear in various hideous forms with inner and outer misery and wretchedness. An image of such evil was presented by the Roman state in its decline, as a great and monstrous corpse, the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), and the first French Revolution (1789). But the highest evil will be revealed in all its repulsive and abominable form after the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, in the final period of testing before the Second Coming of the Lord, “when the apostasy comes and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thess. 2:3–12; 2 Tim. 3:1–5).

Concerning the Relationship of the Kingdom to the World

The kingdom of God is opposed not only to the kingdom of sin, but also to the world, and the world in general

the totality of created things, and in a particular and moral sense, human society in its condition after the fall of man, which is usually called “this world.” The world, even after sin, was not completely corrupted in its essence, but an incorruptible part of its essence was preserved, because God did not abandon it, but in many and various ways revealed Himself to the world, which always remained God’s world, since even before the redemption the goodness and compassion of God are attested in it in many ways. If the world were identified with the kingdom of sin, the kingdom of God would be far removed from the world, and sin alone would reign in it. But the kingdom of God has not abandoned the world, and we see in the world the principle of good contending against the principle of evil, which testifies to the kingdom of God in the world. And though the world is deprived of the highest good, it nevertheless contains the totality of relative goods of relative virtue and happiness, and consequently possesses the good in its essence. The history of great men, for example, is strong testimony to the goodness of the world. The essence of the world, therefore, is twofold and unmixed, so we ought neither to condemn it absolutely as evil, as the pessimists have condemned it, nor to extol it absolutely as good and beautiful, as the optimists have extolled it, but rather to confess both in it to a certain degree.

On Optimism and Pessimism

What does optimism maintain?

Optimism ignores sin and redemption, and maintains that the world is always found in that original state when “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). According to them, the highest good was never lost, nor was the harmony of the universe disturbed; consequently, the world is found in its orderly state and development, and the highest good consists in the free development of humanity, while evil is a certain deficiency and imperfection arising from ignorance and barbarism; consequently, as humanity advances in civilization, evil is limited and diminished.

What does pessimism maintain?

Diametrically opposed to this optimism is pessimism, which accepts either that the world was evil and imperfect from the beginning, or that in the beginning there was a golden age which vanished so that evil might gradually reach its peak. The human being can never attain the highest good in this world, although he has the idea of it as a creation of his imagination and hastens toward it to his own misfortune, while life presents to him only the highest evil, an insoluble disharmony, a painful opposition to the demands of the ideal.

Optimism is more superficial than pessimism, being dim-sighted toward the real evil in the world—that is, the power of sin and death—and is refuted by the facts themselves, since its ideal of blessedness is never realized. But pessimism, penetrating more deeply into the nature of things, has no hope and is godless, denying the good in the world and keenly observing only the evil (Eph. 2:12). But Christianity is the truth of both, because it teaches on the one hand that vanity of vanities, all is vanity (Eccl. 1:2), that the whole world lies in the evil one (1 John 5:19), that the highest good has been lost, that man finds himself far from the lost paradise, and that human life with all its splendor shows only the ruins of its shattered greatness, since man, having abused his own freedom, was deprived of the royal glory and honor with which he had been crowned by God; but on the other hand it teaches that man can be redeemed and clothed again with royal dignity, that the highest good has been restored to humanity in Christ that we might receive adoption as sons, and that the gates of paradise have been opened again. All things are vanity, and all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, whether the world or life or death, whether things present or things to come. all things are yours; and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3:22). Only in Christianity, then, are optimism and pessimism united without contradiction. The gospel, bringing knowledge of sin and guilt, provokes in the soul a sorrow over this life more bitter than any other affliction and misery, but at the same time it lifts the soul above all the wretchedness of the world and fills it with that true joy through which every other innocent pleasure is sanctified. In the gospel the world is presented in the light of reconciliation and the new creation replaces the first. Yet although the perfection of the world and of humanity is seen from afar in hope, and there still remains in the heart of the Christian a feeling of sorrow over the opposition between the ideal and reality, and a longing that the partial may be abolished and the perfect may come, nevertheless in the depths of the Christian’s heart there is already reconciliation through faith and love, which work together toward the coming of the kingdom of God, because the Christian lives in God and in hope in him and his commonwealth is in heaven (Philippians 3:20).

On Laws: that is, on natural law, on rational law, on moral law, and on the law of Revelation.

What is law?

Law is the imposed will of a personal being upon rational beings, according to which they ought to live and conduct their way of life under threat of penalty.

What is natural law?

Natural law is the law of creation that preserves all creation, and which is the necessary principle of the existence and perpetuation of created things.

What is rational law?

Rational law is the necessary rational requirement to act according to reason and according to the manifest demands of the rational.

What is moral law?

Moral law is the will of God imposed upon the rational being as the eternal standard of its will and action. Moral law is divided into innate moral law and the law of revelation.

What is innate moral law?

Innate moral law is the moral law written in our hearts.

What is the moral law of divine Revelation?

The moral law of divine revelation is the innate moral law revealed by God to human beings in time and place, because of their deafness to the voice of the innate moral law, first through the prophet Moses on Mount Sinai, and second through our Lord Jesus Christ, so that it might receive divine authority through the manifest declaration of God.

Is the human being subject to these laws?

Certainly. The human being, as an organic being, is subject to the natural law, whose ordinances he must observe, which are announced as needs, appetites, inclinations, and desires. As a rational being, the human being is subject to the rational law and must observe its commandments, which are announced as needs and demands of the spirit to think rightly, to universalize, to judge, and to reason. But as a morally free being, the human being is subject to the moral law, whose commandments are announced as a longing for the good, the true, and the highest good, and as love of God and neighbor.

Characteristics of the Natural, Rational, and Moral Law.

What are the characteristics of the laws—the natural, the rational, and the moral?

The characteristics of the laws are (a) their catholic authority, and (b) their unalterable necessity or binding force.

From what is the catholicity and the unalterable character of the natural law demonstrated?

From the precise fulfillment of its commandments by all humanity with eagerness and reverence, and from the harm that comes upon anyone who seeks to transgress the law.

From what is the catholicity and the unalterable character of the rational law made manifest?

From the catholic reverence of humanity toward the rational law, as witnessed in the observance of the laws of logic, and from their common end.

From what is the catholic and unalterable character of the moral law made manifest?

From the form in which it presents itself. For the moral law presents itself as a universally valid canon for all humanity, admitting no violation. Witness to this is the common confession of all peoples, civil laws, social ordinances, and family bonds, which are canons and outlines of the moral law. Therefore, however different these may be among different peoples and different epochs, that element which gives them strength and respect, or deprives them of it through weakness or contempt, is their agreement or disagreement with the moral law. Laws not grounded in the moral law are rejected and opposed.

Opposing theories concerning laws.

What are the theories opposed to our theories concerning laws?

Completely opposed theories are the theories of naturalism (Naturalismus) represented by Schopenhauer, and of dualism (Dualismus) led by Kant. Naturalism confuses the two laws, viewing the moral law as a development of the natural law, while dualism places both laws in eternal conflict. The delusion of both systems lies in this: that both systems reject the moral freedom of man and his moral nature. From this, naturalism accepts the irresponsibility and unaccountability of wrongdoers and tends to explain various crimes as the result of instinct, temperament, and other natural laws; while dualism is unable to accept a moral power in man for the triumph of the moral law; the delusion arises from the observed close connection of the two laws; and it is indeed true that both laws are very closely connected, but their coexistence does not mean either a necessary, irreconcilable, and futile war, or a lack of moral power in the will and the conscience for the triumph of the moral law.

Example. In our moral exemplar, Jesus Christ, and in His disciples and followers, we observe that the moral law triumphed in them, and that the natural law was subjected to the moral law. The laws are neither irreconcilable by nature, as if they were naturally opposed and naturally equivalent, nor is one a projection of the other, but each is distinct and the natural law is by nature subordinate to the moral law.

Both views are erroneous and harmful. And naturalism (1) is unable to prove how the transition occurs from irrational, unconscious, and unfree nature to rational, conscious, and free moral nature, upon which the moral law rests; and (2) it condemns the human being to an unavoidable and fruitless struggle.

On the Authority and Content of the Moral Law

Does the innate moral law require external authority?

The innate law does not; because it carries authority within itself; the moral law as innate is validated by the moral nature of the person who wills to choose to keep it; and the moral sense, moral freedom, and free will, whose content is the moral good, will uphold the moral authority of the moral law. The necessity of external authority is imposed by man’s deviation from the truth.

What is the authority of the moral law of Revelation?

The divine will and its holiness, righteousness, and power: these provide authority to the law of Revelation and secure for it strength against every rejection; the necessity of the authority of the moral law testifies that every law, whatever it may be, needs authority supported by the holiness, righteousness, and power of the lawgiver; the law that lacks authority, holiness, righteousness, and power is unable to compel its own fulfillment; such a law expresses only a weak demand and in the end loses its meaning; Power alone, when not accompanied by holiness and righteousness, also supports the authority of the law, but then this law is transformed into an unjust and tyrannical law.

But besides the holiness of righteousness and power, the authority of every law must also be grounded in love, so that it may evoke not only our respect and admiration, but also our gratitude and devotion or trust. And just as the authority of the moral law comes from God, so also does the authority of every rule and power in human society: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.” “For there is no authority except from God.” (Romans 13:1, 4, 5.)

On the Content of the Moral Law

We further observe that just as the authority of the moral law has God as its foundation, being grounded in His holy will, so also the content—the end of the law, which is the ultimate purpose of the law sought through the law itself—has God and the nature of the human person as its foundation.

that is, it will be grounded in the human being who was formed in the image of God. Different moralists define this content differently according to their theories about the nature and destiny of the human being. Among these, some accept happiness or the common good as the final aim of human activity, others freedom or truth, still others likeness to God or living in accordance with human nature, or acting and living according to the absolute value of things, and others yet other things. The destiny of the human being, as one formed in the image of God, can be none other than free communion and union with God, realized through this distinctively Christian commandment of love, which appears in a twofold form—as love toward God and as love toward neighbor—though in essence it is one, because love toward God embraces everything that has come forth from God and is loved by Him, namely the world and humanity. “On these two commandments hang all the law,” etc. (Matthew 22:37–40).

Concerning the Manner of Action.

This love, working in the midst of the various relations of life, must be united with righteousness, which means giving to each person and thing what is due (suum cuique tribuere). But so that both do not fall into one-sidedness in their operation—love into blind love, and righteousness into harsh righteousness—wisdom must also be present with them, that is, practical and teleological knowledge, which shows the true value of each thing. Such content of the moral law is both universal and particular, inasmuch as it refers not only to all humanity, but also to each individual person or community, to which the social laws also apply—laws that are enacted on the basis of the principles of the unchangeable content of the moral law and that regulate the social relations of human beings. Hence also its other distinction into unchangeable and into changeable and temporal. The universal element of the moral law is constituted by its eternal and unchangeable ordinances and commands, while the particular moral element consists of the conditions of each person and each community. Hence the apostle Paul says: “that we may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2).

Accordingly, it is not enough for us to know only the eternally unchanging moral concepts and commandments, but also what exactly God requires of us according to each person’s particular personality, personal gifts, and the talent entrusted to them. From this, however, we should not suppose that we fall into contradiction by distinguishing the content of the moral law into unchangeable and changeable, because the eternal demands of love, righteousness, and wisdom always remain the same, and only their particular and specific relations change.

Why God Gave the Law of Revelation.

Because in man, on account of sin, there appeared a tendency to disobey the demands of the innate moral law and to distort them, God gave him a moral law positively revealed: (a) the law of Moses, also called the old law, and (b) the law of Christ, also called the new and evangelical law, so that in it, as in a mirror, the demands of His holy will might be set before us.

The essential content of the Mosaic law, comprising all the moral and ceremonial ordinances given through Moses, is expressed in the Decalogue, which in a brief outline sets forth the duties of man, dealing with the true relation of man to God and to his neighbor. Because the chief purpose of this law was to educate the people of Israel—a crude and uncivilized people already separating from the pagan world—it was therefore directed more toward the external, toward action. Moreover, it was to be expressed in a prohibitive form by means of the negative ‘not,’ which presupposes the dominance of sin and evil desire in man. In this law full of a spirit of slavery

(Romans 8:15) the will of man, which is contrary to the will of God, was to be disciplined and raised in true freedom, to find in the law of God the law of his own nature, from there to enter into the spiritual meaning of the law, and at the same time to understand his own inability to fulfill it, and thus consequently to become receptive to the grace in Christ. This pedagogical significance of the Mosaic legislation pertains not only to the moral part, but also to the ceremonial, to the entire theocratic commonwealth of the Old Testament in general. Yet all the pedagogical care and attention of this law rests upon the preparatory grace, because in it there is the promise concerning the coming reconciliation in Christ Jesus and the fulfillment of the law by Him.

The relation of Jesus Christ and His law to the Mosaic law is expressed in Matthew 5:17. Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I came not to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all things have taken place. From this passage we learn that the Savior in no way abolished the old law, but fulfilled and perfected it entirely, both the moral and the ceremonial law, freeing it from the temporal forms in which it was bound and revealing its true spiritual nature. The Mosaic law, considered as a whole and not excluding even the ceremonial part, has not lost even a stroke, because the ideas that constitute its foundation and essence were confirmed and included in the gospel law, and the moral part of the old law was freed from its immediate connection with legal ordinances (from slavery to the letter) and from the legal compulsion of external works, and was confined to the mind and disposition. The ritual system of bloody sacrifices and purifications was brought to completion through the spiritual offering, that is, worship in spirit and truth. But while Christ transfers the law from the external to the internal, He simultaneously establishes it as the universal law of humanity—a law that is not [imposed] upon people as some external and positive commandment, but is [recognized] by them as their own law, as the law of their very nature.[1] «As you wish that people would do to you, do likewise to them» (Luke 6:31). Christ, having fulfilled the law, also fulfilled its authority not only through His teaching but also through His example, appearing as both lawgiver and fulfiller, and thus binding people to the exalted power of His words, by which He will judge them. Yet in the precise fulfillment of the gospel law, the inadequacy of human powers becomes evident, and consequently the necessity of divine grace. And people receive these powers in the regeneration that is in Christ.

How should the gospel law be regarded when compared to the Mosaic law?

The most perfect law under all aspects—the religious or liturgical, the moral, and the political: (a) From a religious perspective it excels, because it is the image and the body—that is, the reality of the types and symbols of the worship of the Old Covenant, which prefigured the worship of the New Covenant; (b) From a moral perspective it excels, because it established the most perfect moral principles so that all humanity might be bound together by unbreakable bonds and remain united forever; (c) From a political perspective it excels, because the political principles of the Gospel flow from love and are founded upon equality, freedom, and brotherhood.

The Mosaic law was a Jewish law. The Gospel law is the law of humanity, destined to guide the nations to salvation. The Mosaic is a law of works. The Evangelical is a law of moral formation. The Mosaic is a law of curse. The Evangelical, a law of grace. The Mosaic is a law of the letter. The Evangelical, a law of the Spirit. The Mosaic law is a law of fear and slavery; the Gospel law is a law of freedom and adoption as sons. The Gospel law is the most perfect law, the law of promise; the law of the New Covenant, the law of faith, hope, and love; it is the easy yoke and the light burden; it is the law of salvation.

The Relation of Moral Freedom to the Gospel Law.

(Legalism, antinomianism, and Jesuitism.)

Our Lord not only revealed to us a law freed from the bondage of the letter of the Mosaic law, but He also showed us at the same time the true relation of human freedom to this law, releasing the person from the entirely external definitions (ordinances) of the law, and strengthening its (the law’s) inner and spiritual character.

Among all the redeemed, the law of Christ becomes one with moral freedom, becoming a proper law of freedom (James 1:25), but even among those who are simply emancipated there comes a new relation to the moral law, because they too are freed from the external authority of the law and are set before its spiritual demands.

Against this true relation of human freedom to the moral law rise up both legalism and antinomianism, both personal and social. And legalism is that tendency which, regarding the external relation to the law as the only true and saving one, denies the true spirit of the law in opposition to evangelical freedom; Antinomianism is the system that, in the notion of a false emancipation and an imaginary freedom, releases itself from the commandments of the law and denies its universal necessity and validity. Among the legalists—such as the ancient Pharisees, Catholicism in part, and the Pietists—the law is full of various traditions, usually human, which burden the conscience and destroy the moral freedom of the human being. “Do not touch this, do not taste that”—behold the oft-repeated demands of such a law. The opposite happens among the antinomians, where it is not the moral law that collides with freedom, but freedom, wrongly conceived, that rules over the law. Antinomianism, which has been observed throughout the history of Christianity—as among the ancient Gnostics and in the Reformation—exists even today among many, and especially as a teaching that aims to justify antinomianism itself for the sake of supposedly higher purposes. Antinomianism, proclaiming itself on the one hand as the true ideal ethics, the only one able to satisfy the emancipated human being, and on the other hand as the true practical ethics, is divided into personal antinomianism and social antinomianism.

Personal antinomianism makes a claim for the independence of persons from the law, saying that certain individuals, by virtue of their personal qualities, are independent of the moral obligations to which the masses are bound. Such were the ancient Gnostics, who, distinguishing human beings into carnal, psychical, and spiritual, believed that they themselves, as spiritual persons living in unceasing contemplation of the divine, were above the law and consequently could safely give themselves over to carnal pleasures. Hence their maxim, “Abuse the flesh.” Related to these were other heretics who, misinterpreting the Apostle Paul’s statement, “where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20), taught that in order for a person to experience divine grace more deeply, he must plunge into sin. The error of personal antinomianism lies in this: that it transforms the eternal moral law, which is valid for all, into a personal moral law. Similar to this (personal antinomianism), but with even more destructive consequences, is social antinomianism, which, denying all force and validity to the divine ordinances in the world, seeks to destroy them and consequently to remove from the earth the family, the state, and the Church. According to this view, the highest law is the natural one, and all the rest must be cast out as the cause of human misery. From this is taught the emancipation of the flesh and of marriage, the legitimacy of the passions, communism of property, and so on. A particular manifestation of social antinomianism is political or diplomatic antinomianism, which distinguishes a lower ethics for private life and a higher ethics for political life. Here it is not politics that is reconciled to ethics, but on the contrary, ethics is transformed according to the interests of politics.

A second class of such political thinkers is that of fatalism, who, denying the moral ordering of the divine and human freedom, accept only chance and fate. They recognize as the only forces operating in history power and deceit. A third class consists of those who waver between the moral ordering of the divine and that which rests on fate. Such people serve, according to circumstances, two gods: the god of conscience and the god of circumstances.

Related to both legal and political antinomianism is Jesuitism, established by Ignatius Loyola (d. 1539), which, while at first presenting itself as a conservative champion of the established order, and especially of absolute authority

against the free-mindedness of those who protest, for the attainment of which all other duties change according to circumstances—he can, for example, support one thing today and another tomorrow—and on the other hand he is also antinomian, because for him what has absolute authority is not the moral law but expediency, and consequently expediency is placed above the law. Jesuitism supports its erroneous theories by means of the following three anti-evangelical principles: its first principle is: “the end justifies the means,” that is, one may employ all means, both lawful and unlawful, provided one fulfills a sacred purpose. second principle: moral probabilism (probabilismus), that is, the discovery and implementation in life of the more plausible moral course on the basis of the authority of various teachers;[2] The third is mental reservation (reservatio mentalis) [which is also found in the Gnostic Valentinian, against whom Tertullian wrote], that is, thinking one thing and saying another. It was against the teaching of the Jesuits in general that Pascal (1623–1662) wrote those brilliant Provinciales.

Since the entire life of man is a continuous and unbroken relation of freedom and moral law, it is therefore impossible for there to be any action that is not commanded as a duty or forbidden as evil. Consequently, the idea of legalism that actions neither explicitly permitted nor forbidden by the law are morally indifferent is proven to be entirely erroneous. Legalism here forgets that duty encompasses the whole life of moral freedom, that duty always consists of two elements—the universal and the personal—and that the personal cannot be expressed universally. Starting from these two elements, we can understand that even what is called morally permissible is not something unrelated to the moral law, but has its moral value only in relation to the moral law. The person ought to act in accordance not only with the universal moral law, but also with himself in particular, insofar as he does not violate the general canon of ethics; whether human beings recognize or do not recognize the moral value of his actions, they will at least recognize that these actions are morally permissible.

From the concept of the morally permissible, which appears more commonly in the actions of aesthetics, two theories arose, both false, concerning the relation of the aesthetic to the moral. The first theory was held by the ancient Manichaeans and Montanists, and today by the Pietists, who reject all worldly pleasures of an aesthetic kind, such as theaters, music, dance, gymnastics, the viewing of images, and so on. The second theory is held by the so-called orthodox (ORTHODOX) protesters, who regard these things as morally indifferent.[3] The error of both theories lies in this: the first understands morality as a denial of nature, while the second regards the worldly aesthetic as unrelated and irrelevant to ethics and conscience, whereas, as we observed above, no action can be considered morally indifferent. Concerning aesthetic actions, which can contribute to the development of the human being, it is necessary to examine whether these are morally permissible and do not destroy the normal relation of our persons either to the universal moral law or to its particular manifestation in relation to our neighbor. because it is possible for an action to be morally permissible when only my relation to the moral law is taken into account, and on the other hand for the same action not to be permissible if my relation to my neighbor is also taken into account. Here especially the word of the Apostle Paul applies: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable” (1 Cor. 6:12). From this it is evident that there are cases in which we ought, even though we are entitled to do something, to refrain from it for the sake of the brothers, and other cases, conversely, in which we ought to do something that we could otherwise have refrained from doing.

On Moral Condescension.

This question of so-called moral condescension illuminates both the negative and positive aspects, both of which Paul proclaims: in the first case he declares that I will never eat meat again, lest I make my brother stumble (1 Cor. 8:13), even though he himself considers the foods that are eaten not unclean and profane; In the second arrangement, the circumcision of his co-worker Timothy, so that he might not scandalize those from among the Jews, even though he believed that circumcision has no power now that grace has come.

At this point one might justly observe that through such condescension on our part toward the weak, not only are we ourselves disturbed in our normal development, but we also strengthen them in their delusion. This objection is resolved by Christian love, which imposes upon us the duty to care for the bodily and spiritual development and improvement of our neighbor, even to the point of sacrificing our own good for his sake. Acting contrary to the spirit of this evangelical condescension are the Jesuits, who, for the easier spread of their preaching among the pagans, permit them to mix religious and moral elements from their former religions with Christianity, which is utterly absurd. From what has been said above concerning the universal imperative meaning of the law and its fulfillment in different ways by individual persons, the true meaning of the evangelical counsels is also understood, by which theologians have always meant certain means that are not imposed upon all as duties, but are recommended only to the one who wishes them for the easier attainment of his destiny (Matthew 19:21). “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions,” etc. (Matt. 19:21).[4] «Now concerning virgins, I have no command from the Lord; “ I give my opinion, as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy, etc.” The true meaning of such means is challenged on the one hand by Protestants who either reject them entirely or interpret them as duties because of the persons who accept them, and on the other hand by the Latin Church, which accepts, like the Orthodox, the distinction between duties and counsels and regards those who follow the latter as being in a canonical state of perfection (status perfectionis), yet assigns to the counsels such great value and significance that it derives from this the false teaching concerning works of supererogation (opera supererogatoria). “But we have made them without complexity.”[5] (Luke 19:10).

On Duties

What is duty?

Duty is a moral obligation that demands its fulfillment from the one who has undertaken it.

From where do duties arise?

From the agreement between two or more persons, which obliges those who have entered into the agreement to fulfill the obligations they have undertaken on account of the mutual concession of their own rights, which flow either from natural law or from moral law or from civil law.

Are these duties absolute or relative?

Relative. because they undergo alteration.

What are absolute duties?

Those that do not undergo alteration, those that flow from the moral law and have catholic and eternal force.

On the Conflict of Duties

What is a conflict of duties?

A conflict of duties is the obligation that arises at the same time to fulfill two or more duties that mutually exclude or even oppose one another.

From where do conflicts of duties arise?

From the presence of two or more laws or social contracts that obligate the contracting party; because within one and the same law a conflict of duties cannot exist; in the moral and natural law especially, a conflict of duties is absolutely impossible.[6]

(1) Note. Some moral philosophers divide duties into negative and positive, proceeding from the prohibitions and prescriptions of the law. But a prohibition does not impose a new duty that is not already present in the prescription. For in the prescription, love your neighbor as yourself, the commandment “do not hate him” is also contained. Therefore, “do not hate your neighbor” does not impose a new duty, as does love your neighbor. Love your neighbor is an obligation indicating action on behalf of one’s neighbor. the commandment “do not hate your neighbor” does not impose an obligation requiring action, but rather the denial of action. Consequently it indicates neutrality, but neutrality is not a duty; duty is only that which expresses action. The commands and prohibitions of the Mosaic law pursue one and only one purpose, which is the love of God and neighbor. Our Lord Jesus Christ summed up the spirit of the law in two affirmative commandments, without formulating any prohibitive commandment. “You shall love God and your neighbor.” Therefore, negative duties do not exist. Duty and prohibition are contradictory.

Because both the natural law and the innate moral law are so ordered that not even one conflict arises among these duties; therefore a conflict of duties is impossible. In the simultaneous appearance of different duties arising from different laws or agreements, those of the moral and natural law are more authoritative, because these have absolute validity and are neither limited nor do they lose their force from the assumption of the observance of new laws and new duties, because in the new agreement the validity of the moral and natural law is presupposed intact. A conflict of duties cannot arise between civil law and moral law when the civil law is founded upon the principles of the moral law. Where the moral law reigns, a conflict of duties cannot exist.

On Right

What is right?

Right is the end of the law.

What is divine right, or moral right?

The end sought by the moral law.

What is natural right?

The end sought by the natural law.

What is civil right?

The end sought by the civil law.

On the Just and Righteousness.

What is just and what is unjust?

To live according to law and to render to each his own (quique tribuere) is just, but to live contrary to law and not to render to each his own is unjust.[7]

What is righteousness?

The firm and unchanging disposition toward the establishment of what is just, of truth, of the beautiful, of the good, of ethics.[8]

On Virtue.

What is virtue?

The voluntary, firm, and unwavering observance of the moral law by the morally free person, that is, the identification of his free will with the divine will, the divine law, which he wills as his own law, as an innate law, as the law of his intellect.

On Conscience.

What is conscience?

Conscience is the moral power within us that judges our moral actions according to the moral law written in our hearts.

According to this, conscience ought to be the impartial judge who pronounces on the quality of our actions.

Is conscience infallible?

No, because sin, which darkened the soul’s powers in man, also darkened conscience; and this darkening makes conscience fallible.

What is born from this darkness?

From this darkness arises the distinction between an enlightened and a darkened conscience. The enlightened conscience—that which has been illumined by the light of revelation—is regarded as a right or good conscience, since it has been freed from darkness and judges reliably what is good and what is evil; its judgments are right and good. But the conscience that has not been illumined, since it has not cast off the darkness of sin that has darkened the soul’s faculties, is regarded as an erring or mistaken conscience.

(1) “Conscience is like an angel and messenger of God,” and whatever it says, it does not say this of itself, but in a certain manner on behalf of God, like the herald who proclaims the command of a king. Hence conscience has binding power. “Strictly speaking, the eternal law alone—that is, the will of God—is the measure of morals and the rule of virtue; but this does not prevent conscience from also being called a rule according to common usage, insofar as it presents to man and applies to his actions the eternal law of God” (Neophytos Vamvas).

NOTE. Conscience, self-awareness, and consciousness are synonymous when they refer to ethics. In Sacred Scripture, “conscience” sometimes means people’s judgments about the morality of their own actions, and sometimes their feelings and dispositions. (John 8; Acts 23.)[9]

(2) Acts 23. “I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.”

What does this discernment produce?

This distinction gives rise to other subdivisions characteristic of conscience, arising from the degree of illumination—that is, of deliverance from darkness through the light of truth—or from the degree of darkening of the soul’s faculties by the darkness of sin and delusion.

How many principal distinctions do we recognize?

We recognize the following principal distinctions: (1) the weak conscience; (2) the narrow or timid conscience; (3) the broad conscience; (4) the doubtful conscience; (5) the strict and scrupulous conscience; (6) the sensitive conscience; and (7) the insensitive or hardened conscience.

What do we call a weak conscience?

We call a weak conscience the conscience of a person who is not fully developed and is unable to enter into the spirit of the law, and who is disturbed or even led astray by the supposed transgression of the law (1 Corinthians 8:7).

What is called a narrow or timid conscience?

A narrow or timid conscience is the name given to the conscience of a person who doubts the moral value of every action and wavers between fear and confidence about carrying out any particular action; those who have a narrow conscience are people who are undeveloped and fixated on the letter of the law.

What Is Called a Broad Conscience

A broad conscience is the name given to the conscience of one who is excessively confident in the moral value of his actions and who departs from the moral principles of the law through delusion, thinking that he is supposedly fulfilling the spirit of the law. Those who have a broad conscience are people who are incompletely developed and imperfectly formed, as well as those who are entirely unformed.

What is a doubtful or uncertain conscience

A doubtful or uncertain conscience is the conscience that wavers—

(1) When, for example, some people eat food sacrificed to idols.

(4) If, for example, on the day of Sunday or a feast, it is permissible to save one’s harvest from heavy rain.

(8) These are those who think that for the sake of the feast they behave indecently, or that amusements, dances, and other such things are appropriate during feasts.

wavering from ignorance concerning whether some action is lawful or unlawful (¹).

What Is a Strict or Scrupulous Conscience?

A strict or scrupulous conscience is a fearful conscience that is troubled out of ignorance and in matters where no transgression of the law exists. The strict or scrupulous conscience is almost the same as the narrow conscience (²).

What Shall We Call a Sensitive Conscience?

We call a sensitive conscience one that is aroused even by the slightest perceived transgression of the moral principles of the law, through vivid feelings.

What Is Called an Insensitive or Hardened Conscience

An insensitive or hardened conscience is called the conscience that is not aroused even by the transgression of the totality of the moral principles of the law, but remains quiet and rests in sin.

How Does the Deluded Conscience Differ from the Hardened Conscience

The deluded conscience is led astray concerning the truth of good or evil actions, and approves what are regarded as good through delusion; but the insensitive or hardened conscience approves evils with full knowledge of their opposition to the divine law. Those who have not been illumined by the light of truth and have not been given over to evil with full knowledge have a deluded conscience, but those who have been illumined by the light of truth and have turned to the darkness of sin have a hardened conscience—as do those who have not been fully illumined.

In What Forms Conscience Manifests Itself in Moral Actions

Conscience, according to the degree of illumination by the light of truth and the spiritual development of the person, manifests itself at the moment of conceiving any moral idea either as approving and encouraging, or as disapproving and dissuading. From this, however, its judgment is as correct and true as the illumination from the light of truth is greater, and as perfect—

(1) Concerning what is righteous or fitting or right or good. (2) When, for example, someone who is fasting is afraid to eat meat. (3) When, for example, on a certain day of fasting he ate in ignorance. These people cling tenaciously to vice and never wish to return to virtue; and they repel not only those who pursue virtue, but also those who dare to speak out on its behalf. (Chrysostom.)

Further development. Accordingly, the conscience can undergo transformations from the lesser to the greater and from the inferior to the proper, and from delusion to truth, and consequently can condemn and disapprove what it had already approved as good; the conscience that judges and evaluates an action already performed is called the subsequent or reproving conscience; but if the recognition and evaluation occur at the beginning of the performance of the action, it is called the concurrent or prohibitive conscience; and if before the commencement, the antecedent and counseling conscience.