Thomas' teleological approach to reality is nowhere more evident than in his insistence on the principle that ". . . all human actions must be for an end."⁽⁴³⁵⁾ This principle has been discussed in detail in the first chapter of our investigation in terms of the doctrine of natural appetite as related to the good as a principle of order. It remains in this chapter to isolate that specific type of purposeful activity, namely, rational action, determining the ontological bases for its not attaining its ultimate end, in other words, to lay the metaphysical foundations for the radical defectibility of created action.

NECESSARY LOVE AND LOVE OF FREE OPTION

To situate this work it will suffice to relate various levels of appetition discussed in chapter one to different types of love found in the intelligent creature as these regard seeking the latter's ultimate end. The first level of love of the ultimate end might be called an ontological love rooted in the nature of the creature. Such love, although it seeks itself or its own good, at the same time seeks its ultimate end; as Thomas maintains the creature seeking its proper good, which is natural to itself, may be said to love the ultimate end with an implicit natural love. Such appetition, in fact, involves a love of the ultimate end to a greater degree than it does a love of the being itself, just as a part naturally loves the whole more than itself. He describes this first level of love wherein the ultimate end is sought implicitly as the common good of all being:

Consequently, since God is the universal good, and under this good both man and angel and all creatures are comprised, because every creature in regard to its entire being naturally belongs to God, it follows that from natural love angel and man alike love God before themselves and with a greater love. Otherwise, if either of them loved self more than God, it would follow that natural love would be perverse.⁽⁴³⁶⁾

The alternative suggested here by Aquinas is impossible, since it would have to be a love implanted in the creature by its author. Moreover, this ontological love presupposes only a knowledge of the end sought commensurate with the nature of each being. If the being is incapable of knowledge, the finality rooted in its nature by the First Cause will suffice to justify its being called an ontological love of the ultimate end. If, on the other hand, the being is capable of knowledge, its ontological love tends toward the supreme Whole more than itself instinctively or by a spontaneous elan, and not because it knows the latter. It is due solely to the fact that it loves necessarily whatever is its good of nature, allowing it to be called an `ontological love-of-nature.'⁽⁴³⁷⁾

This type of primary appetition on the part of the intellectual being is not a free appetition, since it is necessarily implicated in every appetition of any good; the only dominance had by the intellectual being over it is its not willing any good whatsoever. As soon as it does will, however, it necessarily seeks the good as an end. This does not mean that the appetition of the particular good is not free, but the appetition of the ultimate end, the common good of all being, is not freely sought. Such appetition admits a further distinction insofar as it is realized in a simple or composite intellectual being, that is, an angel or human being. This distinction reverts to a previous observation in regard to the proper goods of these respective natures: the angelic nature being simple possesses only a single good of nature, namely, itself or its own good, whereas human nature being composite possesses many goods of nature. Thus, in this primary appetition the angel loves the ultimate end as the common good of all being with an ontological love-of-nature by a natural love of self in the first instant of its existence. Man, on the other hand, seeks the ultimate good implicitly in such appetition by loving any particular good, which good is one of many goods proper to its composite nature.

The next level of tendency in seeking the ultimate good is by an act of free option or free choice.⁽⁴³⁸⁾ Such appetition is proper only to the intellectual being. Besides the natural inclination which necessarily impels the intellectual being to love the supreme Good more than itself, there exists in him a natural inclination to love the ultimate end with an elicited love of free choice. However, this natural inclination or disposition is not a determining one, meaning it does not take away the free character of the election. Through it the intellectual creature is inclined to love God not only as the common good of all, but also insofar as the latter is infinitely separated from all else in the inaccessibility of its own nature. As a Christian philosopher Thomas notes this distinction with regard to the difference of love found in all creatures as they seek the universal good and that found in those creatures who enjoy the beatific vision. He notes: since God's substance as such and as the common good are one and the same reality, all who see his essence directly love it by the same movement of love both insofar as it is distinct from other things and according as it is the common good.⁽⁴³⁹⁾ This same passage applies this knowledge and love to the intellectual being in general with the following difference. Whereas the blessed in heaven, who see the divine essence in this way, cannot not love it, in contrast the intellectual being who sees it not directly, but only through some particular effects which may be contrary to the being's will, can refuse to love God by a love of free option. In other words, it is necessary for the intellectual creature as separated from its ultimate end, and thereby not beholding the divine essence itself, to choose to attain that separated end by its moral actions. In so doing, it does not strive for that end as the common good of all being, as it does when its naturally determined inclinations seek its own good; but it strives toward that end as something to be attained distinct from all else as the source of its beatitude. As an intellectual being separated from its ultimate end, it must choose freely that end by means of its free choice of actions consonant with and suitable to that end. In other words, it must act in a morally good way, subordinating its appetitions to the rule of the ultimate end. Conversely by this same reasoning, the intellectual being is physically free to choose other goods, which may be at variance with its supreme good. In the case of a purely intellectual creature such a choice will always concern a real good, namely, its own nature; but still it would be chosen inordinately. In the case of man, however, other goods than his own good might be sought which are not real goods when considered absolutely in regard to human nature as such.

DEFECTIBILITY OF CREATED FREE OPTION

The next step taken by Thomas in his analysis of the metaphysical roots of moral evil in the free activity of the intellectual being is to note that for rational beings activity as such is not sufficient in attaining the end. Since the natural agent's activity is determined through its natural inclinations, it cannot, except through some chance happening, fail to attain its end. However, the free choice proper to the intellectual being implies the possibility of a voluntary aversion from its ultimate end. Just as in its activity the natural agent demands regulation and direction by the ultimate end, which direction is effected through its natural inclinations, so the rational agent in its moral activity must be directed by that same rule of action, although according to its free nature. Aquinas remarks that "each thing achieves its ultimate end through its own action which must be directed to the end by Him who gives things the principles through which they act."⁽⁴⁴⁰⁾

It is in this capacity of director of all things through their actions toward Himself as ultimate end that Thomas refers to God as the "Ruler of all beings, who is ruled by none other."⁽⁴⁴¹⁾ He rules those beings devoid of knowledge through their natures and intellectual beings through their knowledge. The latter are at once ruled in their actions by the divine rule and are "rulers of themselves,"⁽⁴⁴²⁾ insofar as they submit themselves freely to the direction of the supreme rule. Thomas writes: "If these beings submit to the divine rule in their own ruling, then by virtue of the divine rule they are admitted to the achievement of their ultimate end."⁽⁴⁴³⁾ What is demanded, then, of the intellectual being is that he bridge the gap that exists between himself and the separated good, his ultimate end, doing so through a free submission of his actions to the divine rule. In the case of man there is also a question of submitting his lower appetitions to will through reason; but even this must be informed by the dictates of the divine rule.

If the ultimate root of moral evil in the intellectual being is to be exposed, it is this very defectibility in action, that is, the ability to fail to submit one's action to its proper rule, which needs to be investigated. In so doing one must first eliminate various possible explanations of the cause of defectibility in rational beings, thus arriving at the ultimate ontological root of such defection. In his Compendium of Theology Thomas discusses the manner in which beings are said to attain to goodness in action and considers in turn the precise root of their possible defection. He writes:

The goodness of a creature may also be regarded otherwise than the creature's subsistence in its nature; for the perfection of its goodness is realized in its destiny to its end. And since creatures are to attain their end through their activity, we have still to inquire how creatures may be lacking in goodness from the point of view of their actions, whereby they are destined to attain their end.⁽⁴⁴⁴⁾

In his inquiry into the manner whereby beings can defect in attaining their end through their actions, Aquinas formulates the general principle that any being whose nature can admit of a defect can defect in its action. Thus, by nature incorruptible beings, such as heavenly bodies, cannot defect in their activities when tending toward their ends. The same is true of incorporeal substances, for instance, the angels whose natural power of exercising their proper activity always remains intact; in other words, an angel's natural power of loving itself as a true good is ever present, even in the case of fallen angels. In lower bodies, however, many defects in natural activity may be found as resulting from the corruptions and defects incidental to their natures, for example, the sterility of plants and the birth of monstrosities. Man, of course, insofar as his physical activities are concerned, falls under this type of corruptibility. Since such corruptions are not subject to the control of will, they do not enter directly into the sphere of moral evil.

"There are certain actions," continues Thomas, "whose principle is not nature but will."⁽⁴⁴⁵⁾ It is precisely such action which is our concern. He argues that voluntary action is related to the good as natural action is related to the form by which a thing acts. In other words, just as the form specifies the action of a natural being, that is, one devoid of reason, so the apprehended good specifies the action of an intellectual being. Consequently, just as corruptions may take place in the natural activity only of that being whose form is defectible, so voluntary actions may be deficient only in that being whose will can deflect from its proper end. In conclusion Thomas says: "If the will cannot deflect from its proper end, deficiency in voluntary action cannot occur."⁽⁴⁴⁶⁾

Is there, then, any being whose will in not capable naturally of turning away from its end toward an undue end? Only that being wherein the good willed is identical with the being willing can such be realized: "if the nature of the being that wills is the ultimate end of its will, no deficiency in voluntary action can arise."⁽⁴⁴⁷⁾ Such a being is God alone; only his action is naturally indefectible, that is, impeccable insofar as the end of its volition is identical with the principle of will. All other beings are defectible or peccable, precisely because the good which they strive to attain as their ultimate ends is an external good--ends distinct from their wills. Such beings may defect in action by resting content with a good connatural to them. Such defection occurs when the created will remains fixed on its own good and does not push on to the supreme good.

Thomas has pinpointed the ultimate ontological basis for evil action, placing it in the separation of the finite being from its ultimate end. In other words, due to the non-identification of its principle of appetition and its end, it must attain that end by its striving toward it. In the case of the finite being that very striving, due to its not being determined to one mode of activity but open to many as means toward that end, is liable to defect. Such liability lies within the mystery of human freedom, although it is not essential to freedom as such.⁽⁴⁴⁸⁾ Thomas is very clear about this: such liability does not belong to it as will or power of activity, but only insofar as it is found in a finite being. He writes: "The ability of the will to be directed to evil does not come from the fact of its being from God, but from that of its being made out of nothing."⁽⁴⁴⁹⁾

In other words, the ultimate root of defectibility in a finite will is to be found in its harboring within itself a certain negation or defect: a nothingness of being, which is proper to it as finite being. This finiteness manifests its potential character as a being from nothing, grounding, so to speak, a chasm that exists between the being and its act. As a result the being is not identified ontologically with its ultimate end. One is tempted here to recognize in Aquinas's thought an anticipation of an important twentieth century philosophy, namely, the being and nothingness expounded by Jean Paul Sartre. For him, it is this fissure in being that constitutes its radical ontological/phenomenological `bad faith' in its striving to become `God' by attempting to render its `en soi' and `pour soi' identical.

As mentioned, Thomas insists that this defectibility is rooted in the being's potential nature and not in its active power insofar as the latter does not have within itself the sufficient and immutable principles of its action.⁽⁴⁵⁰⁾ It might be queried whether every finite being has this natural defectibility; in other words, does physical nature as well as human nature admit of this same flexibility vis-à-vis evil. Surprisingly, Aquinas says `no', since physical nature does indeed have within itself in a determined manner the "sufficient and immutable principles of its action." Its necessary inclinations bring it to its ultimate end inasmuch as the actions following from these inclinations are determined to one mode of action. He says this in his De Veritate when discussing the possibility of a created will's being naturally confirmed in good⁽⁴⁵¹⁾: natural confirmation in good is impossible in regard to a free creature whose end is not identified with its being or action and whose nature is not determined to one mode of action. Physical nature, he argues, is determined to a particular good, but intellectual nature is ordered to the good simply; just as the object of the intellect is the universally true, so that of the will is absolutely good. It is due to its radical tendency toward the universal, rather than a particular, that rational nature does not have determined actions, and thus holds itself indifferent to any one or more material actions as such.

On the other hand, if any finite being is ordered to a particular good by a natural determination, its action is naturally indefectible as regards that determined mode of activity, although its power to effect the same might be impeded by reason of some defect in the power or by some chance external cause. Only that intellectual nature, in whom there is present immutably and naturally the very formality of the universal and perfect good, is such as to be naturally indefectible in act: this being is infinite nature alone. Consequently, these two precisions in terms of non-determined activity, on the one hand, and non-identified activity, on the other, allow Thomas to arrive at the ultimate source of moral defection. This is an intellectual nature which is neither naturally determined in regard to its mode of action insofar as it is an intellectual being, nor identified in act with the perfect good or end insofar as it is finite.

Something further might be said about this important contrast between the identified activity of the infinite being and the unidentified activity of the finite intellectual being in terms of the fundamental distinction in both Aristotle and Thomas between potency and act. As found in his De Veritate, Thomas explicitly contrasts the two in this regard:

For God alone is pure act, admitting no admixture of any potentiality, and thus is pure and absolute goodness. But any creature is a particular good, since it has in its very nature the admixture of potentiality, which belongs to it because it is made out of nothing . . . it is impossible for this natural impeccability to be in a creature because of its being made out of nothing.⁽⁴⁵²⁾

Obviously, Aquinas is writing here of an intellectual being, since the question of `impeccability' or `peccability' does not concern irrational beings; hence, although the latter ontologically are composed of potency and act, this fact does not render their actions either peccable or impeccable. Thomas, however, as regards the intellectual creature understands this ontological composition as its most profound differential vis-à-vis the utter simplicity of the infinite being, which simplicity is the transcendental basis for its impeccability. It is this radical potentiality that causes the finite being's actions to be distinct from its nature, thus rendering these actions capable of sharing in the very nothingness of its finite nature. Its being is composed of potency and act insofar as its existence is a received act vis-à-vis its essence. Further, since `operari sequitur esse', finite action is then ontologically defective.

DEFECTIBILITY AS RELATED TO WHAT IS POTENTIAL

IN FREE OPTION

Before applying this ultimate source of defectibility of the intellectual being as regards its volition, a more careful analysis of the relation of the potential to defectibility is called for. According to Thomas, defectibility must be reduced to the order of potential being insofar as it is the subject of the privation, which is evil, concluding that any `evil' capable of befalling or springing from a being must be understood ultimately in terms of the potential character of that being. He maintains in his Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle that it is one and the same thing to say that a being is in potency as to say that it exists as potentially related to the contraries, good and evil. This must be true, since "always in contraries one stands as deficient, which pertains to evil."<sup>(453)</sup> In the existential order as applied to a finite being the most radical of these potencies is the fact that it is `ex nihilo'--its essence stands in relation to its act of existence as potency to act. Hence, its most radical defectibility in this order is its ability to be reduced to that same nothingness through annihilation on the part of the cause of its being. It is to this precise potentiality that Thomas reduces all others in the order of `second act,' that is, of action.⁽⁴⁵⁴⁾

As regards the order of action insofar as it proceeds from potencies rooted in essence, it should be noted that nature as such, both material and immaterial, is indefectible.⁽⁴⁵⁵⁾ The potencies rooted in nature also share in this immutability; thus, intellect and will are indefectible insofar as they share in the substantiality of the being itself. On the other hand, insofar as they are reduced to act, which act is distinct from the powers and the being in question, these powers are said to be able to defect in their actions. Such actions are directed to an end distinct from the being whose actions they are. This multiple chasm existing between the being and its powers, the powers and their actions, and the actions and their end, forms the ontological roots of defective action.

Specifically, one should distinguish in Thomas' philosophy between corruptible and incorruptible reality, relating defectibility to each. Incorriptible beings, which Thomas calls "eternal beings," are by definition indefectible; there cannot, therefore, be found "in them any evil, nor sin, nor any corruption."⁽⁴⁵⁶⁾ The reason offered for denying defection in these beings is that there is potency in them; in this Thomas follows Aristotle's doctrine on heavenly bodies. (This is of no direct concern in our investigation except to note the reason assigned for such). As regards corruptible creatures one must distinguish the question of defectibility between the non-rational and rational beings: the actions of the former insofar as their principles are rooted in matter are defective and their actions may be impeded by some extrinsic force from attaining their proper end.

This does not contradict, however, what has been said previously about the distinction between physical and moral actions.⁽⁴⁵⁷⁾ This distinction looked to these same actions as being the necessary resultants of the natural inclinations or instincts in these beings. In no way does this imply that these principles, as rooted in corruptible matter, could not become defective nor that their actions could not be impeded from attaining their due end by some chance interference of other causes. On the other hand, the actions of rational beings are defective in a much more profound sense, since as free actions they must be directed toward their proper end by intelligent ordering, not in an arbitrary manner, but according to the rules of action proper to them as free agents. At this point in our argument, only the ontological basis for these rules as related to the potential character of their free agency is of immediate concern.

In his Summa Theologica Thomas points out the distinction required here to appreciate the different areas of action involved in this matter.⁽⁴⁵⁸⁾ When answering an objection relative to the fact that angels, being subsistent forms, allow of no potency in their being and therefore cannot be said to be subject to evil of fault, he distinguishes between "potency in relation to nature" and "potency according to the intellective part" of their being. It is true that there can be no question in an angel of the first type of potency insofar as being subsistent form it possesses its being without the possibility of defect.⁽⁴⁵⁹⁾

In regard, however, to the second type of potency it should be said that the angel insofar as it is an intellectual being can in act turn to this or that object, or better, can turn to a particular object in this or that manner.⁽⁴⁶⁰⁾ Thus, one cannot conclude from their principles of operation being immutable that the activities proceeding from such cannot be defective. As Thomas observes in the De Veritate, it is not a question of mere operations proceeding from immutable principles, but rather of "right" operation proceeding therefrom, which in the case of a being whose power of activity is not identified with its being implies a subjection to a higher rule.⁽⁴⁶¹⁾ It is in this way that even the angelic nature admits of evil, precisely insofar as its intellectual powers, namely, intellect and will, can proceed to act in a defective manner.

The explanation of this defective manner of acting, ontologically speaking, must be postponed at present, except to note that it is the being's power of acting not being identified with its being that accounts for the necessity of a higher rule according to which it must subject its actions. The same, of course, applies to human beings insofar as they are rational. In their case, however, there is a dual regulation, since their lower appetitions are subject to reason as they proceed to act.

As applied specifically to the nature of free will, the question of the defectibility of finite action is discussed by Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentes in terms of an "openness to opposites."⁽⁴⁶²⁾ At the time he is answering an objection which argues that God could not be said to be free from the very fact that "every power that is disposed to opposites is in a manner in potency, since `to opposites' is a species of the contingent possible." In other words, from the objection it would seem that the ability to choose one of two indeterminate objects or modes of action, which has been shown to be characteristic and distinctive of the intellectual nature, would imply a potential element in the will and thus would immediately infer the distinction between will and its action. Before proceeding to confront this apparent dilemma it should be pointed out that it is correctly supposed in the objection that all admit that in God his act is identified with his substance and that in him there is no shadow of potentiality.

Thomas answers with a distinction: "To be open to opposites," he writes, "belongs to a certain power in a twofold manner: in one way, from the side of itself; in another way, from the side of the object."⁽⁴⁶³⁾ The reason for the first manner of being open to opposites is that the being has not yet attained its perfection, which is necessarily true of every finite being in the state of pure nature. There, its appetition implies an imperfection, that is, a certain lack which the being is striving to overcome by the acquisition of further perfection. Since the finite being must, by its very nature as separated from its ultimate perfection or good, strive to attain this perfection through its actions, and since the action proper to a rational being is to move itself toward its end, it follows that the openness found in a finite will toward the means to be chosen does indeed imply an imperfection, a potentiality on the part of the power itself. It implies both a dependence on other finite beings, which is itself an imperfection, and a certain arbitrariness not of independence and transcendence, but of instability and mutability insofar as the will is able to turn toward both good and evil. Such a power is, according to Thomas, a good only after a manner, precisely because it holds itself equally to both.⁽⁴⁶⁴⁾

The other type of openness, that on the side of the object, need in no way imply potentiality or mutability on the part of the power but only infers that the perfect operation of the power depends on neither of the possible choices. This bespeaks the independence of the power over the object or actions in question, manifesting its dominance over those same objects. It does not imply the necessity of choosing either alternative or, in the case of the infinite being, any alternative. It is this latter type of openness that characterizes infinite power insofar as its will is said to be open to all other opposites other than its own nature, since "its end depends on none of these other things, although it itself is most perfectly united to its last end."⁽⁴⁶⁵⁾ In our investigation, it is the first type of openness to opposites that is paramount, forcing us to conclude with Thomas that it "redounds to the imperfection of the power, and potentiality is shown to be in it."⁽⁴⁶⁶⁾

As a Christian philosopher Thomas was attempting to reconcile Aristotle et al with divine revelation in opposition to such Latin Averroists as Siger of Brabant at the University of Paris. Thus, Aquinas was forced to confront such dilemmas as the `openness to opposites' as related to infinite will. Our own investigation is not constrained to tackle a mystery so far beyond human comprehension. For our limited purposes certain ancillary observations will suffice in order to bring the matter into clearer focus for a present day reader without having to fit it into the overall Thomistic framework.

First, one should recall that human freedom like being itself is participated vis-à-vis infinite causality. The fact that it is open to choose good or evil is essential to its being free; but even if this openness is seen as a kind of defect, it should not be read into the transcendental notion of freedom itself as found in the First Cause. Moreover, the latter's causality is an effective causality like its correlative notion, transcendental love. Unlike human love (what he calls `inventive love') which is drawn to things by reason of their apparent goodness, divine love effects goodness in things and in turn loves them for goodness conferred. Thus, infinite action effects finite being which by inherent necessity is defective in varying degrees as regards nature, power, and end. As previously noted, only the latter defect pertains to beings of a higher realm, such as incorruptible beings; but this again is of no direct interest in discussing human freedom in terms of moral evil. In the case of effecting physical evil infinite causality, as has been shown, causes only being and any defect therein is natural and necessary in the finite order of things.

Morality, it should be noted, is essentially a relationship between human action and the rules of reason and divine law: morally correct action conforms to these rules while immoral action/evil does not. None of this pertains, however, to infinite action, which by reason of the fact that it is one with its being both as regards its nature and end, does not allow us to picture it as standing in potency, as it were, in choosing this or that object. This fact highlights the contingent nature of such beings and in no way diminishes the absolute freedom of necessary being. Although the effect of the First Causes's free volition occurs in time and is perceived by us as a series of disparate acts vis-à-vis the objects thus effected, reason tells us that infinite volition is both eternal and totally simple. Beyond these limits, human understanding need not attempt to transgress.

From the above considerations concerning the ontological bases for the natural defectibility of finite will one can appreciate better the next step taken by Aquinas in asserting that "it is impossible for any creature to be capable of adhering to God with an unchangeable will by its own nature, because, being from nothing, it is changeable."⁽⁴⁶⁷⁾ Only that being may be said to be indefectible in whom there is no potentiality, specifically, no potentiality between its being and its act. Only that action which is identified with the end can be said to be naturally inflexible toward evil. Finite being as separated from its last end, its ultimate good, must strive to attain it through action. This action, however, can defect in its operation due to its openness toward the means to be chosen. The ultimate and immutable principles of action are, as Thomas has noted, outside finite being. The ultimate principle of responsible action is the infinite being, which for the created will is "an external good" to be attained by free action in choosing suitable means thereto. Nor is this striving toward its attainment a haphazard series of actions, but actions regulated by the divine rule itself. It now remains to consider the metaphysics of this subordination of finite action to the divine rule.

DEFECTIBILITY AS ROOTED IN THE ONTOLOGICAL

SEPARATION FROM THE ULTIMATE END

Thus far it has been made clear that if finite will is to be `right' in its appetition of proper good(s), it must be subject to the eternal rule by which its actions are to be regulated. This is the ultimate source of the rectitude of moral action, which in a moral senses bridges the gap that threatens to engulf finite action in its own nothingness and to precipitate it headlong into the abyss of non-being and sin.⁽⁴⁶⁸⁾ It now remains to consider the ontological separation of finite action from its ultimate end in terms of the specific rules to which it is ontologically subject by reason of its being finite. In his Commentary on the Divine Names Thomas states that everything which naturally is subject to something will have its good in the fact that it is subject in action, as in being, to that higher being.⁽⁴⁶⁹⁾ Now every finite will is naturally subject to the supreme good; therefore, the good of both the angelic and human wills is to be found in their actions being regulated by the divine will.

In explaining these basic principles reaching down to the roots of evil action Aquinas often makes use of an apt analogy, namely, the artisan and his artifact. If the hand of the artist were thought of as the rule whereby the proper shavings and cuttings were to be made in the wood, it might be said that it would be impossible for that artist to err in the production of his artifact. The reason given is that in this the active power of the artist would itself be the rule of action. As identified with the rule, it could not defect from it, but naturally would tend toward right action. On the other hand, as is the case with finite actions, if the movements of the artist's hand were subject to some higher rule, namely, the plan or preconception in the artist's mind, the resulting artifact could allow for defect insofar as the artist's hand was subject to a higher rule from which it could depart in action.

Applied to voluntary action, the analogy implies the following: if voluntary action should spring from a being whose end is itself, or even from that being whose action is one with its being, then that action is not subject to any higher rule; consequently, it cannot defect. In other words, its action is always morally good. In the case of finite beings, this type of action is impossible, since their actions are subject to a higher end by the fact that their being is not identified with the ultimate end but must seek that end through ordered activity. The most radical subordination is that of the finite vis-à-vis divine law; in humans, however, there is also the subordination of lower appetition to the principle of reason.

In retrospect, this analogy and its metaphysical implications brings out what was said above concerning infinite volition vis-à-vis openness to opposites. Like the supposed artist whose very hand is the rule of his action whereby making any defective action and/or artifact by supposition impossible, the divine artisan being subject to no higher rule must be said to be incapable of defective action.

As discussed previously, the aversion of the will from the ultimate end, or higher rule, exhibits the formality of sin more completely than does the conversion of the will to a mutable good.⁽⁴⁷⁰⁾ Moreover, this latter aspect is peculiar to human sin insofar as the human agent is able to misrepresent the object through a type of consequent ignorance. As such, this aspect of sinful action is not proper to sin in its more generic sense, which is understood as turning away from the ultimate end. For these reasons it seems advisable to investigate further this more radical insubordination of appetite to its higher rule, postponing detailed consideration of the conversive element in human sin when the motive or reason for non-consideration of the rule of reason is discussed.

Thomas analyzes this radical form of insubordination in finite appetition characteristic of every sin in both the De Malo and the Summa Contra Gentes;⁽⁴⁷¹⁾ however, it seems best, for our purposes, to discuss them together. In the former work Aquinas asks whether the sin of the fallen angels was from nature or from will.⁽⁴⁷²⁾ Following his argument one finds that a thing may be said to be naturally evil in a twofold manner: in one way, insofar as its very nature or a proper accident of its nature is evil; in another way, insofar as it is naturally inclined thereto, as men are naturally inclined to be irate and passionate. An angel cannot be said to be naturally evil in either of these two ways: as regards its nature, even after its sin the fallen angel remains perfect in its nature; and secondly, being by nature a simple being it cannot be inclined naturally toward goods not proper to itself. Therefore, by elimination, the angel must be evil due to will and not to nature.

To understand this more fully we look to the second of the works cited wherein Thomas takes up the difficulty resulting from this conclusion.⁽⁴⁷³⁾ This conclusion, he writes, seems impossible because the angel's nature being wholly intellectual, that is simple, cannot suffer any misapprehension concerning the objects of its choice. By a further process of elimination, however, he shows that there cannot be any question of finding any solution to this dilemma by appealing to the various grades of being. In other words, the indefectibility of the celestial bodies cannot explain away the problem, since angels are by definition simple intelligences without bodies. Nor can an appeal be made to the indefectible character of the actions of brutes, since angels being intellectual operate in a free manner and not from nature. Finally, the composite nature of man can offer little help in explaining the difficulty for the very reason that it is composite and to that extent open to a variety of proper goods. Its defectibility properly springs from its ability to choose a relative good in preference to the absolute goods of its nature, and thus err concerning the particular objects of its choice. Another reason given is that the angelic intellect not proceeding by a process of reason can err, as in man, in composing and dividing apprehensions which are contradictory in reality.

Aquinas, therefore, is forced to seek the presupposed defect in some other source, which would account for its insubordination to the higher rule. It should be noted that each of these sources of indefectibility or defectibility are in the order of efficient causality, specifically, that celestial beings are indefectible because their actions proceed by way of efficient causality from principles rooted in nature itself. The same cannot be said of brutes, although their resulting actions should be viewed precisely as the resultants of inclination apart from the fact that these inclinations are actually subjected in a material and corruptible body. Finally, human defection results ultimately from the efficient principle of will, which proceeds to act without the direction of reason as its rule.

By reason of this insight concerning the connection between defective action and the order of efficient causality in beings other than immaterial substances, Thomas proposes as the basis of his solution to this question the principle that just as there is an order in agent causes, so also there is one in final causes.⁽⁴⁷⁴⁾ It may be said, therefore, that a secondary end depends on a principal end, just as a secondary agent depends on a principal agent. And just as evil may result when this insubordination of agents is disregarded, for example, the human will insubordinate to reason, so when a secondary end is not included under the order of the principal end, evil results.

Thomas concludes from this that the insubordination to rule involved in human sin, precisely as human, is due to insubordination of efficient causes, while that in involved in angelic sin is due solely to an insubordination of final causes. The former is based on the fact that the will should efficiently direct the appetitions of the lower appetites by subordinating itself to reason in its actions; on the other hand, the latter insubordination occurs when an angelic will does not consider the end in its action, which action is efficiently directed toward a proper good. In other words, it does not subordinate its own good as an end to the higher or ultimate good as its ultimate end. The will of the angel thus defects finalistically in its appetition and not efficiently. It is in this order of final causality that the angelic will is viewed as defectible by Aquinas; thus, the aforementioned difficulty is resolved. It is this type of sin on the part of the angel which he understands to be sin by willing `inordinately.'

The significance of this analysis as applied to evil action in the human sphere is that angelic sin is a much more serious matter than the failures of humans. The former's sin consists in choosing its own being as an end in itself, which is the highest type of pride. Human action, however, errs on two levels, namely, by reason of an intellect clouded by passion or by departing from divine law, which it has with varying degrees of difficulty inferred from its contemplation of its own nature and the surrounding universe. In other words, human sin does not imply a subordination in the order of final causality or end, in the sense that the sinner would be said to strive toward his own nature as his ultimate end. Rather, the object(s) chosen are mutable things apart from one's own nature, not as ends in themselves but as means to one's highest end, happiness. (This, of course, leaves aside the question of revealed divine law insofar as clarifies and/or extends the natural law.)

Next, we might examine more closely this insubordination of ends, which is proper to angelic sin as an aversion from the ultimate end and consequent to every human conversion to a mutable good. It is to be observed that every will naturally wills what is the proper good for the volitional agent, namely, perfect being itself; it cannot do otherwise. Therefore, in the case of a volitional agent whose proper good is the ultimate end no sin can occur, since this ultimate end is by definition not included under the order of another end. As regards a volitional agent whose proper good must be included under the order of another good, sin may occur in that will. Although there is present in every voluntary agent a natural inclination to seek its own perfection, that natural inclination is not so implanted therein as to order its perfection to another end in such a way as to make it impossible for that creature to defect in attaining the higher end. The reason is that the higher end or good is proper not to that nature, but to a higher nature. It is then left to the agent's choice to order its own proper perfection to a higher end. In fact, this is the difference, according to Thomas, between those agents possessing will and those devoid of it; the former order themselves and their actions to the end and are said to be free in their choices.

Aquinas has returned through this gradual analysis of the ontological basis for sin as sin to the area of natural love and free option mentioned above wherein he expounded the basic metaphysical suppositions underlying these loves. The separate substance, in naturally seeking its own perfection and by loving through natural inclination its own good, cannot naturally, that is, without divine assistance, order its own good to the higher good, since the latter is naturally above it. To recall a former distinction, in seeking its own perfection it can and does naturally love the ultimate end as the common good of all being, but not as distinct from all else after the manner of natural inclination. This would be to tend thereto insofar as the ultimate end is unique and distinct in its own being. Under this aspect the ultimate end is the proper good only in regard to its own appetition.

The angelic sin consists, therefore, in the angel's seeking its own good by a natural inclination without ordering it to the higher good or end precisely as a distinct and unique being apart from all creation. Such is the privation of mode and order: a privation of mode insofar as the separated substance seeks its ultimate good through its own natural means; and a privation of order insofar as it did not subject its love of self to a freely elicited love of the higher good. As Thomas says: "The error in the understanding of the separated substance (was in) not considering the higher good to which its proper good should have been directed."⁽⁴⁷⁵⁾

Aquinas describes this sinful action in a slightly different way when he remarks that the angel "desired only one good, that is, its own";⁽⁴⁷⁶⁾ in other words, it did not will by an act of free option its ultimate end, God, as a distinct and unique good in itself. In contrast to this, human sin is due to the fact that man desires lower goods at odds with the order of reason, but not directly by a kind of refusal and/or rebellion in not submitting himself to the ultimate end. His evil action comes about as a consequence of another type of privation, namely, a privation of species. There is not then in human sin the same malice as that in the sin of the fallen angel; because of this angelic sin is described as a sin of pride whereas that of man as one of passion.

A final observation in this regard is that Thomas views it as a type of non-consideration of the mean of virtue.⁽⁴⁷⁷⁾ This is not to be understood, as in human sin, as an appetition by excess or defect; rather, it is to be seen as meaning that the angel by not subjecting himself to the order of his superior rule gives himself more importance than is proper, while giving God less than is his due: "to whom all should be subject as to the orderer of the primary rule."⁽⁴⁷⁸⁾ In his usually succinct manner Aquinas sums up the matter thus: "The mean was not abandoned due to an excess of passion, but simply due to an inequity under justice, which is concerned with actions."⁽⁴⁷⁹⁾ The reason for having gone into such depth concerning angelic transgression is that through contrasting it with human evil, the latter may be understood more fully both as to its nature and culpability.

We may now move with Thomas into that final source in the physical order of all sinful action, namely, the will, seeking therein the ultimate explanation of the non-consideration of the rules of reason and divine law.