APPENDIX: WHETHER AVERSION FROM THE SUPERNATURAL END CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT AVERSION FROM THE NATURAL END

In classical Thomism as understood by Capreolus, Cajetan, Ferrariensis, Bañez, Alvarez, Lemos, John of St. Thomas, Gonet, Godoy, the Salmanticenses, Billuart, Gotti, Del Prado, and others, it is generally admitted that fallen man cannot be directly averted from his final supernatural end without at the same time being at least indirectly averted from God, his final natural end and the author of nature. Why? Because even the natural law prescribes that God is to be obeyed whatever He commands whether in the natural or in a higher order. From this principle Thomists generally deduce the following conclusions which are rejected by many only because of insufficient grasp of the foregoing principle.

1. Fallen man cannot by his natural powers alone, without restorative grace, love God the author of nature above all things with an effectively efficacious love. This is the express opinion of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 109, a. 3, where he says that, in contrast to the state of incorrupt nature, “man in the state of fallen nature requires for this the help of grace which heals nature,” since, “on account of the corruption of nature, the rational appetite of the will seeks an individual good unless it is healed by grace.” A weakened power cannot exercise toward God the very efficient act of a healthy power unless it is healed. With still greater reason, fallen man cannot observe the whole of the natural law without healing grace. (Cf. Ia IIae, q. 109, 2. 4.)

2. In the state of fallen nature not yet restored, man has less strength to perform a moral good than he would have had in the state of pure nature. Why? Because now man is born with original sin, that is, directly averted from his supernatural end and indirectly averted from his final natural end; whereas, on the contrary, in the state of pure nature he would not have been born directly turned away from his final natural end, but capable of either conversion or aversion in regard to it. St. Thomas affirms this explicitly enough in treating of the “wounds inflicted upon the whole of human nature by the sin of our first parents,” especially the wound of malice in the will whereby the natural inclination to virtue is diminished. (Cf. Ia IIae, q.85, a.3; q.82, a. I ad I.)

3. As the Angelic Doctor asserts, Ia IIae, q. 89, a. 6, with regard to an unbaptized child: “When he begins to have the use of reason . . .  the first thing that occurs to a man as subject for thought is to deliberate about himself. And if he directs himself to the proper end, he obtains through grace the remission of original sin. Again, ad 3: “For the first thing that occurs to a man who attains to discretion is to consider himself as that toward which he should order other things as to an end. For the end is first in intention. And therefore this is the time when he becomes obligated by the positive command of God, who says: ‘Turn ye to Me . . . and I will turn to you’ (Zach. 1:3).” In the De veritate, q. 24, a. 12 ad I, St. Thomas also writes: “As soon as an adult receives the use of free will, if he prepares himself for grace he will have grace”; that is, if he does what in him lies with the help of actual grace, God does not refuse habitual grace nor, accordingly, faith and charity; and He therefore manifests the revealed truths which are entirely necessary for salvation, at least that God is and is a rewarder. This is an admirable form of baptism of desire, without miracle but with the very special help of God and the guardian angle. Then the child should efficaciously love God the author of nature above all things, and this cannot be done without healing grace. But if he does what he can under actual grace, according to St. Thomas, he is justified. Many theologians, however, deny this last conclusion of St. Thomas and Thomists regarding the justification of an unbaptized child. Yet it is not easy to reject it or destroy the principles upon which this conclusion is based. (Cf. above, pp. 197ff.)

4. The fourth consequence of the principle enunciated above is that in the limbo of children the souls of infants who died before receiving baptism, although they do not strictly suffer from the loss of supernatural happiness, yet do not have absolute, perfect natural happiness since they remain indirectly averted from their final natural end on account of unforgiven original sin. But they have “a certain natural beatitude”; cf. De malo, q. 5, a. 3; and they are exempt from any pain of the senses which is inflicted in punishment for a personal conversion to a transitory good; cf. De malo, q. 5, a. 2.

In the supplement to the Summa, q. 89, a. 5 ad 3, we read: “Even children who die before attaining maturity will appear at the last general judgment, not to be judged but to witness the glory of the Judge.” Cf. Hugon, De novissimis, 1927, p. 813. There are other consequences of the foregoing priniples.114

Is it certain that this basic principle is found in the works of St. Thomas? Beyond any doubt, if the texts cited are carefully studied, especially Ia IIae, q. 109, a. 3: “In the state of fallen nature man requires the help of grace healing nature in order that he may love God naturally [as author of nature] above all things.” And again, IIa IIae, q. 10, a. I ad I: “It is not proper to human nature to have infused faith. But it is proper to human nature for the mind of man not to reject the interior instinct and exterior preaching of truth. Hence unbelief is accordingly contrary to nature.” All sin which is directly opposed to the supernatural end is at least indirectly against God as natural end and author of nature, since the natural law already prescribes that God is to be obeyed whatever He commands, whether in the natural order or in a higher order.

The conclusion is therefore contrary to naturalism and laicism: He who withdraws from his supernatural end most assuredly cannot perfectly attain to his natural end. In the present economy of salvation there is a necessary connection between the two orders. As a matter of fact, every man is either in the state of grace or in the state of sin, and if he is in sin, he is directly averted from his final supernatural end and indirectly from his final natural end. St. Thomas comments on Matt. 12:30: “God is the natural end toward which all things tend; therefore he who is not with God must be separated from Him.” Naturalism is, after all, contrary to nature, since it is against God toward whom all nature tends.

Hence Christ declared: “He that is not with Me, is against Me: and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth” (Matt. 12:30). But on the other hand He assured the apostles: “He that is not against you, is for you” (Mark 9:39). Accordingly, those who are already sincerely seeking God do so by the help of grace, as if God were to say to them:

“You would not be seeking me sincerely if in some measure you had not already found Me.” “Not that we are sufficient to think anything [salutary] of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God” (II Cor. 3:5).