Dear Fr. Angelo,

For the first time after numerous failed attempts, I believe I have finally understood the position of the Thomists, and in particular of the Dominican Domingo Báñez, regarding the question of the compatibility of freedom and grace.

Therefore, I kindly ask you to verify the accuracy of my understanding.

1. God gives all men sufficient grace, from which comes the ability for man to choose the good. In other words, man is enabled to choose the good by sufficient grace.

2. However, for some reason, it actually happens that man always chooses evil, and yet he is capable of choosing the good by virtue of sufficient grace.

3. It follows that when man chooses the good, it occurs only by virtue of a further, infallibly efficacious grace granted to him by God (chapter 1).

4. Conversely, when such efficacious grace, by divine wisdom, is not granted to man, he always chooses evil, but chooses it freely; in fact, as already said, he has the capacity to choose the good conferred upon him by sufficient grace, even though for some reason he always opts for evil (chapter 2).

Thank you very much.

M.F.

Priest’s answer

Dear Friend,

1. For the benefit of our visitors, I would like to remind you that this issue was hotly debated between Dominicans and Jesuits in the 16th century.

The terms sufficient grace and efficacious grace were coined at that time, specifically for the purposes of this dispute, but are not found in Sacred Scripture.

The underlying problem of this dispute is the cooperation between God’s saving will and the response of humankind, endowed with free will.

2. Everything begins with God’s saving will expressed in 1 Tim 2:4: “God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth”. 

Through this will, God gives all men the sufficient means to adhere to him through faith.

Sufficient grace, therefore, is not given to discern good from evil. Our reason, or even our conscience, is sufficient for that.

Choosing between good and evil is still on a natural level.

Sufficient grace, on the other hand, is given to adhere to the supernatural order.

3. It is certain that this grace or interior impulse is given to everyone.

This is why theologians call it sufficient grace for salvation.

But this grace can be rejected.

Jesus said: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!” (Mt 23:37).

St. Peter: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the Holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors.” (Acts 7:51).

St. Paul: “Working together, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1).

There is a personal responsibility in refusal, as is evident from Jesus’ words: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes.” (Mt 11:21).

Rather than choosing evil, man can reject the proposal made through an interior and superior illumination.

4. When, however, he accepts the proposal, he accepts it by virtue of an impulse or pull given to him from above. It is, in fact, a matter of adhering to the supernatural order. No one can come to me unless he is led there.

In fact, Jesus said: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him” (Jn 6:44).

5. Through this traction, God gives an impulse to the will and enlightens our mind so that it can adhere, ensuring that what is His gift is also meritorious for the person who has accepted it with his free assent.

Remembering, however, that good will is also the fruit of His grace.

Concerning the existence of this grace that achieves its purpose and which theologians call efficacious grace, Sacred Scripture speaks when it says: “I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees” (Ezekiel 36:27); “So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; It shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11); “For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work” (Phil 2:13).

The obvious meaning of these texts is that the effect of grace derives from divine good pleasure and not from the human will, which is good because God makes it good. Thus, St. Augustine says: “It is true that we can keep the commandments if we want, but only because the will is prepared by God (cf. Prov. 8:35, according to the LXX translation). T-N

When God inspires in us the will and the action, He also gives us the strength to keep His commandments.

6. Biblical testimonies of this efficacious grace include Matthew’s immediate response to the Lord’s call and that of Saint Paul on the road to Damascus.

This highly effective pull on God’s part does not take away freedom, as Calvin argued, but rather moves us to adhere in such a way that what is God’s gift also becomes meritorious on the part of man.

7. The problem remains: why is God’s grace effective in some and not in others?

Ludovico Molina, a Jesuit, said that God gives it because He foresees that man will use it well. This is his so-called “middle science.”

Domingo Báñez, a Dominican, accused him of being semi-Pelagian, because he conditioned God’s generosity on man’s good will.

Molina responded by saying that the Dominicans were Calvinists because they attributed everything to God’s will and predestination.

The Dominicans repeated that God does not take away freedom but effectively stimulates it. Human freedom alone would not have the power to achieve the supernatural order. God must draw it. But He draws it without violence, soliciting assent in much the same way that in the darkness, when a great light is turned on, a lost object is discovered.

8. As the discussion became increasingly heated, Clement VIII established the Congregation de auxiliis divinae gratiae in 1598, which continued its work until 1607.

The Congregation was always opposed to Molina’s doctrine. But it never reached a condemnation.

Until Pope Paul V, in 1607, decreed that the Dominicans could not be accused of Calvinism and the Jesuits could not be accused of Pelagianism.

He allowed each to follow their own school, with the proviso that they would not condemn the other.

9. In light of what I have said, you can verify for yourself that the substance of your thought is correct. However, some expressions need to be corrected.

While pleased with your good will and your insight, I wish you all the best, bless you, and remember you in prayer.

Father Angelo

Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian Portuguese