Summa I-II, Q1, A8. Also Providence.

Started by Mono no aware, March 27, 2018, 05:52:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mono no aware

I have two questions.  The first is about a passage in the Summa concerning man's last end, which St. Thomas calls happiness (and I am assuming that by "happiness" he means the beatific happiness of heaven).

QuoteMan's last end is happiness; which all men desire, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 3,4). But "happiness is not possible for animals bereft of reason," as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 5). Therefore other things do not concur in man's last end.

The only problem I see here is that the Catholic Church has established that there's an "age of reason," whereupon a human can be said to possess reason.  Prior to that age, a human has either an insufficient level of reason or, in the case of newborns and infants, can be accurately called "bereft of reason."  I mean, let's face it, an infant is just a babbling mess.  But baptized infants are said to share in the happiness of heaven, so if not having reason disqualifies animals from heaven, how would it not disqualify infants?  I suppose it could be said that reason is somehow "supplied" when the infant dies, sort of like how in the Islamic paradise everyone becomes their "ideal age"—elderly people are taken back in time to their early thirties, and those who died young are fast-forwarded to the adult they would've been had they lived.  Is something similar the case in the Thomistic scheme: that an infant in heaven is given the full reason he or she would've achieved had they lived, sort of in the same way that a person's will in heaven is no longer free and wholly conformed to the will of God?

My second question is about divine providence in Thomistic thought.  Would it be accurate to say St. Thomas believed that everything that happens is in accordance with God's will, either active or permissive?  If evil occurs, for example, it's only because God permits it in order to bring about a greater good.  Therefore everything that happens, even evil, no matter how prolific, happens in accordance with God's will in order to achieve the greatest possible good, since God could will nothing other.  (And the greatest possible good includes God demonstrating his mercy and justice).  My question here is whether this idea is in line with St. Thomas' own views in the Summa (citations appreciated).

Gracias.



An aspiring Thomist

As regards your first question, humans have a rational nature unlike animals. It is proper for us to develop into reasoning beings. Human babies are rational animals. It is perfectly in accord with the nature of a baby to develop the ability of reason, so for a baptisms baby who dies, it is fitting that God would grant it reason upon death. A similar question comes up with abortion too.

As to your second question, St. Thomas would say that God permits evil for a greater good but not for the greatest good. I might get citations tomorrow.

Daniel

1.) I think what he's saying is that the intellect naturally wants to know Truth (i.e. God), and the will naturally wants to love the Good (i.e. God). It is impossible to be "happy" if those two things go unfulfilled. (At the bottom, he defines "happiness" as the acquisition of the end.) So men and angels are "happy" only when they know and love God.

Non-rational creatures have no intellect and no will, so they can neither know God nor love God. So they can never be "happy".

St. Thomas and Aristotle say that the human soul has reason all along, as part of her nature, even before she reaches the "age of reason". She can't use her reason until she reaches the age of reason. But she does have reason.

2.) I don't know. But I am pretty sure that St. Thomas would not say that God must try and "achieve the greatest possible good" or that "God can will nothing other" than the greatest good.

Chestertonian

you must not have spent much time around infants... they are far from "babbling messes" their little brains are studying connections between patterns their little brains are hard at work learning about their environments from the time they are born, perhaps even still in the womb.  age of reason refers to an age of moral development where a child can be held accountable for their sins and can judge right from wrong, which is normally 7.  a lot of theories of child development talk about a shift in self regulation around this time so the science is pretty consistent with the church in this area

an argument could be made that infants are less capable of happiness in the beatific vision because their lives stopped at an earlier stage of development, but let's not compare children below the age of reason to animals

"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"

Mono no aware

At the end of time, when the heavens and the earth pass away, and every immortal soul is at its ultimate end in either heaven or hell, would it not have to be concluded that everything that previously transpired was for the greatest possible good?  Otherwise there would've been a greater possible good that could've happened, and God opted not to have it.  I admit that this may not be the Thomistic view.  I got this notion from QMR, who was certainly no Thomist.  But I figured a Thomist would agree.  Even if billions and billions of souls end up in hell suffering for all eternity, that would still be part of the greatest possible good, since it displays God's perfect justice.  St. Thomas does not hold to this?

Chestertonian, I understand that those little brains of infants are hard at work.  But they have no reason.  If an infant has reason, then so does a chimp.  Can an infant pray?  You can instruct an infant, "pray, young man," but will he?  No, he will not.  So when you say, "Holy Innocents, pray for us," surely the souls of the Holy Innocents in heaven do not react in the same way that an infant would if you asked it to pray for you.  Something has changed.

Chestertonian

can an infant pray...well i suppose it depends on if youthink language is necessary for prayer...prayer is an act of uniting yourself to God.  by virtue of their baptism, infants must have the capacity to do this in some way, even if it is nonverbal and you can't observe it.  God knows and that is enough, because it's not a conversation i was invited to overhear

i remember when our daughter was born with an inoperable congenital heart defect, we knew we were going to lose her and we sang a lot of hymns.  i guess i figured her short little life should be filled with as much happiness and music as possible.  i baptized her moments aftershe was born so this newly baptized soul was returned to her mothers arms after a short while..i remember my wife wouls say prayers and rock her and she would open her eyes and smile at the sound of her mother's voice...we sang the salve regina, and other hymns, and she smiled.  I have to think that was her little way of delighting in the Lord.  she fell asleep to the sound of her mom and dad singing together, and i would imagine she must have woken up to even more beautiful music in heaven
"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"

Mono no aware

#6
Greetings, Chestertonian.  That's a touching story, and please accept my condolences on your loss.  I actually agree with you that language is not necessary for prayer, as I certainly accept the existence of what is termed "mystical" or "contemplative" prayer, where the soul yearns for God without concepts.  But for intercessory prayer, I think you would need to have a rational comprehension of the intention being prayed for.  Again, though, I accept that it could be the scenario in heaven that reason is "supplied" to the souls of infants by God.

I may've earned your disapproval by my inappropriate summation of an infant as "a babbling mess."  I hereby retract it.  But an infant has surely not reached the age of reason; far from it.  We do not assign to infants any rationality.  I don't mean to shunt you aside, but I do want to get down to what St. Thomas believed on this one.  He certainly believed that baptized infants go to heaven.  But he also seems to have believed that reason is a requisite for the beatific happiness.  I'm wondering how that gets squared.

Since I have your attention, though, I just want to throw in with the posters on the other thread who've encouraged you to write.  As far as the keyboard goes, you are sometimes DK redux, but in terms of your insights and your sense of humor, you are in the top tier of this forum.  You once mentioned having an unfinished novel.  I wouldn't recommend trying to complete a novel in your situation, but I think writing a short story could be therapeutic for you.  I, for one, would like to read a Chestertonian fiction.  The SD user, that is.  Not the author of Father Brown.  You have a lot more doubts to work out than your namesake did.



Non Nobis

#7
There's a "Catechism [aka Catechetical Instructions] of St. Thomas Aquinas" in which he goes through the Creed and explains each article. In the 11th article, On the Resurrection of the Body, he says:

QuoteThe Age of the Risen Bodies.--All will rise in the condition of perfect age, which is of thirty-two or thirty-three years. This is because all who were not yet arrived at this age, did not possess this perfect age, and the old had already lost it. Hence, youths and children will be given what they lack, and what the aged once had will be restored to them: "Until we all attain the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ."

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1225-1274,_Thomas_Aquinas,_Catechismus,_EN.pdf

Since before the Resurrection we won't have our bodies (including our brains) our intellects won't depend on the age of our physical brain.  And surely in heaven, even before the Resurrection, God will provide what is lacking so that we can know Him spiritually no matter the age at which we died.

FYI only:  Here's what wikipedia says about this writing from St. Thomas.

QuoteThe catechetical instructions of Saint Thomas Aquinas were used generally throughout the 13th and 14th centuries as manuals and textbooks for priests and teachers of religion. "The Explanations of St. Thomas," wrote Spirago, "are remarkable for their conciseness and their simplicity of language; they are especially noteworthy because the main parts of the catechetical course of instruction are brought into connection with one another so that they appear as one harmonious whole." The influence of these works is especially prominent in the "Roman Catechism" which the Council of Trent ordered written for parish priests and for all teachers of religion. Many of the explanatory passages in both works are almost identical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism#The_Catechetical_Instructions_of_St._Thomas_Aquinas
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

Non Nobis

Quote from: Pon de ReplayAt the end of time, when the heavens and the earth pass away, and every immortal soul is at its ultimate end in either heaven or hell, would it not have to be concluded that everything that previously transpired was for the greatest possible good?  Otherwise there would've been a greater possible good that could've happened, and God opted not to have it.  I admit that this may not be the Thomistic view.

St. Thomas says this:

Quotehttp://newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article6
Question 25. The power of God
A6. Could He make better what He makes?
...
Objection 3. Further, what is very good and the best of all cannot be bettered; because nothing is better than the best. But as Augustine says (Enchiridion 10), "each thing that God has made is good, and, taken all together they are very good; because in them all consists the wondrous beauty of the universe." Therefore the good in the universe could not be made better by God.
...
Reply to Objection 3. The universe, the present creation being supposed, cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to things by God; in which the good of the universe consists. For if any one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed; as if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody of the harp would be destroyed. Yet God could make other things, or add something to the present creation; and then there would be another and a better universe. 

I went back to a previous thread where this was discussed by INPEFESS, myself, etc.
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=16134.220

In one post I said:

Quote from: Non Nobis
Let me make the analogy of Beethoven creating music (replace with your favorite "practically perfect" human creator).  Someone might reasonably (even if with some exaggeration) say even of a small but exquisite piece, "it's perfect, I wouldn't change a note". Now, Beethoven COULD but WOULD NOT create a piece by throwing rocks backwards over his head at the piano. But he COULD and WOULD have created the 9th symphony if God had inspired him to choose that in the past.

I think there is no "best of all possible worlds" that God would always choose out of His wisdom.  God's wisdom and choice are one and create a world that is perfect in itself; given that it was created, it couldn't have created better.  But no world can be utterly fitting in every possible respect to God's infinite wisdom and goodness; it would need to be as good as God Himself.

It's not denigrating God's wisdom to say He would have created a different universe if He had so chosen.  His wisdom and choices are not bound by some infinite number of possible finite good worlds that are out there, that He chooses among, and must find "the best". He doesn't choose a world because it is the best, it is as good as the goodness He wants to share, always perfect in itself.  His glory is not diminished by creating a lesser but perfect world. Creation has no impact on His goodness.

But since God's motive in creating is to share His goodness, I think that in a world that is "perfect in itself" there would be intellectual creatures who can share that goodness in a marvelous way.  I can't keep Christ out of these considerations...

In a following post I quoted Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange on this issue:

Quote from:  Garrigou-Lagrange   God: His Existence and His Nature, Vol II
    God could have chosen a better world, but He could not have arranged its elements better than those of the present world. Refuting in advance the theories of Leibniz and Malebranche, St. Thomas (Ia, q. 25, a. 5) wrote as follows: "Some think that the divine power is restricted to this present course of events through the order of the divine wisdom and justice, so that another world could not come into existence. But since the power of God, which is His essence, is nothing else but His wisdom, it can indeed be fittingly said that there is nothing in the divine power which is not in the order of divine wisdom; for the divine wisdom includes the whole potency of the divine power. Yet the order placed in creation by divine wisdom, in which order the notion of his justice consists, is not so adequate to the divine wisdom that the divine wisdom should be restricted to this present order of things. Now it is clear that the whole idea of order which a wise man puts into things made by him is taken from their end. So, when the end is proportionate to the things made for that end, the wisdom of the maker is restricted to some definite order. But the divine goodness is an end exceeding beyond all proportion things created. Hence the divine wisdom is not so restricted to any particular order that no other course of events could happen." Leibniz considered this problem too much as a problem of mathematics in which there is a fixed proportion between the different elements; he did not sufficiently take into account the end itself of the creative act, that is, the infinite goodness which manifests itself in the communication of its riches; he failed to understand the import of these words of St. Thomas: "The divine goodness is the end which exceeds beyond all proportion created things."
     Leibniz says further: "Supreme wisdom could not fail to choose the best . . . and there would be something to correct in the actions of God if there were a better way of doing things" (Theod., 8 ). St. Thomas (Ia, q. 25, a. 6 ad ium.) provided an answer in advance for this objection, when he wrote: "The proposition: God can make a thing better than He makes it, can be understood in two ways. If the word 'better is taken substantively, as meaning a better object, this proposition is true; for God can make better the things that exist and make better things than those which He has made. But if the word 'better is taken as an adverb, implying in a more perfect manner, then we cannot say that God can make anything better than He makes it, for He cannot make it from greater wisdom and goodness." His answer to the third objection is as follows: "The universe, the present creation being supposed, cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to things by God, in which the good of the universe consists. For if any one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed as, if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody of a harp would be destroyed." This is tantamount to saying that the world is a masterpiece, but another divine masterpiece is possible. The organism of the plant is less perfect than that of the animal, and yet, granted its parts and the end that it must attain, there could not be a better arrangement of its parts. A certain symphony of Beethoven is a masterpiece without any fault in it; however it does not exclude the possibility of a masterpiece of the same kind or of another order. The holiness of the Apostle Peter does not exclude that of St. Paul; both are infinitely far from the holiness of God. The Incarnation alone represents to us the highest possible union of the divine with a created nature, but the problem remains for the degree of grace and glory of the human soul of Christ; however high the degree, there is still an infinite difference between the intensity of the beatific vision which the soul of Jesus enjoyed and the comprehensive vision which cannot belong to any but the divine nature (Ilia, q. 7, a. 12 ad 2um).
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

Mono no aware

Thank you, Non Nobis.  I only ask for a single clarification.  When St. Thomas uses the phrase, "the most beautiful order given to things by God," he is referring to the way things are ordered in terms of the good that he wills and the evil he permits, is he not?  I would assume yes.  But I just want to be sure.

QuoteQuestion 25. The power of God
A6. Could He make better what He makes?
...
Objection 3. Further, what is very good and the best of all cannot be bettered; because nothing is better than the best. But as Augustine says (Enchiridion 10), "each thing that God has made is good, and, taken all together they are very good; because in them all consists the wondrous beauty of the universe." Therefore the good in the universe could not be made better by God.
...
Reply to Objection 3. The universe, the present creation being supposed, cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to things by God; in which the good of the universe consists. For if any one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed; as if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody of the harp would be destroyed. Yet God could make other things, or add something to the present creation; and then there would be another and a better universe. 

Non Nobis

Quote from: Pon de Replay on March 29, 2018, 02:45:38 PM
Thank you, Non Nobis.  I only ask for a single clarification.  When St. Thomas uses the phrase, "the most beautiful order given to things by God," he is referring to the way things are ordered in terms of the good that he wills and the evil he permits, is he not?  I would assume yes.  But I just want to be sure.

QuoteQuestion 25. The power of God
A6. Could He make better what He makes?
...
Objection 3. Further, what is very good and the best of all cannot be bettered; because nothing is better than the best. But as Augustine says (Enchiridion 10), "each thing that God has made is good, and, taken all together they are very good; because in them all consists the wondrous beauty of the universe." Therefore the good in the universe could not be made better by God.
...
Reply to Objection 3. The universe, the present creation being supposed, cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to things by God; in which the good of the universe consists. For if any one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed; as if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody of the harp would be destroyed. Yet God could make other things, or add something to the present creation; and then there would be another and a better universe. 

Yes.  The Crucifixion and the Resurrection capture that reality. Happy Easter!
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

james03

Free Will is the prime directive.  I actually disagree with Thomists that hell was created to manifest God's Justice.  I believe it comes down to Free Will.  The Greater Good includes allowing for Free Will.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"