277 Iz virni znans tv eni članek/ Article (1.01) Bogoslovni vestnik/Theological Quarterly 82 (2022) 2, 277—290 Besedilo pr eje t o/R eceiv ed:08/2021; spr eje t o/ Accep t ed:03/2022 UDK/UDC: 27-184:111.84 DOI: 10.34291/B V2022/02/R os z ak © 2022 Roszak, CC BY 4.0 Piotr Roszak Who Is to Blame for the Sinking Ship? Aquinas on Divine Goodness, Evil and Freedom 1 Koga kriviti za potapljajočo se ladjo? Tomaž Akvinski o božji dobroti, zlu in svobodi Abstract : This pape r pr e se n ts the basic f e a tur e s of A quinas’ the odicy , fir s t indic a- ting some difficulties r eg ar ding the pr oblem of e vil—or e v en a tt emp ts t o im- plic a t e God in e vil —tha t ha v e emer g ed in the w ak e of scien tific achie v emen ts, especially in the field of e v olutionar y biology . Wha t is needed in r esponse t o these challeng es is an appr opria t e vie w of God’ s c ausality , which is analog ous in char act er and does not c ons titut e one of man y c ausalities in the w orld. A c orr ect under s t anding of the r e la tionship be tw een the Fir s t Cause and sec on - dar y c auses sheds ne w ligh t on the deba t e about the Cr ea t or ’ s r esponsibility f or e vil in the w orld. F or Aquinas, God’ s action is f ocused on the g ood of the whole, which is wh y the notion of in t egrity or r ectitude, which w as alr eady pr esen t in P ar adise, e xplains the acciden t al—not in t en tional—pr esence of e vil in the w orld. Ag ains t tha t backgr ound, the paper e xplains God’ s manner of r e - sponding t o e vil as in t erpr e t ed b y Thomas Aquinas, which c onsis ts in c onque - ring e vil with the gr ea t er g ood , its par adigm being the Inc arna tion. F or a Chri - s tian, this is a model e x ample of ho w a man c an c onquer e vil b y s tr eng thening g ood and per sis ting in it thr ough c ooper a tion with gr ace. Keywords : Theodicy , Original Jus tice, Biblic al Thomism, Sec ondar y Causes Povzetek: Pri sp e v ek p ri k az u je gl a vn e zn ači l n o s ti t eo d i cej e T o maž a Akvi n sk eg a. Pri t em najpr ej izpos t a vlja nek a t er e t e ž a v e pri vpr ašanju o zlu – ali celo posk use po v e z o v anja Bog a z zlom –, ki so se poja vile v luči znans tv enih dose žk o v – pr ed - v sem na podr očju e v olucijsk e biologije. K ar je pri odg o v arjanju na t ak šne izziv e potr ebno , je us tr e z en pogled na bo žjo v zr očnos t, ki je analog ičneg a znač aja in ne tv ori le ene od š t e vilnih v zr očnos ti v s v e tu. Us tr e zno r az ume v anje odnosa med Pr vim in drug otnimi v zr oki r azpr a v o o Stv arnik o vi odg o v ornos ti z a zlo na s v e tu os v e tljuje na no v o. Z a T omaž a je bo žje delo v anje osr edot očeno na dobr o 1 Funding de t ails: This public a tion w as made possible thr ough the support of the gr an t fr om the John T emple t on F ounda tion. The opinion e xpr essed in this public a tion ar e those of the author and do not necessarily r e flect the vie w of the John T emple t on F ounda tion. 278 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 k ot celot o. Pr a v z a t o pojem in t egrit e t e ali rectitudo, prisotne ž e v r aju, dobr o pojasnjuje prig odno (naključno) – in ne namerno – prisotnos t zla v s v e tu. Na t ej podlagi prispe v ek pojasnjuje bo žji način odziv anja na zlo , k ot g a in t erpr e tir a T omaž, k ar pomeni zmag o nad zlom z v ečjim dobrim; par adigma t eg a načina je (K ris tuso v o) učlo v ečenje. Z a kris tjana je t o z gled, k ak o lahk o člo v ek pr emag a zlo z okr epitvijo dobr eg a in v ztr ajanjem v njem ob sodelo v anju z milos tjo. Ključne besede : t eodiceja, iz virna pr a vičnos t, biblijski t omiz em, drug otni v zr oki »Many good things would be taken away if God permitt ed no e vil t o e xis t.« Thomas Aquinas, S T I, q. 48, a. 2, ad 3 1. Introduction: The ,Forge‘ of Aquinas F r o m time t o time, sch o l ar s r ed i sc o v er so me o f th e f o r g o tt en tr ea tises o r t o p i cs from the Summa Theologiae and publish them in s t and-alone f orm. During the er a prior t o the prin ting pr ess, the mor al part of the Summa, the passag es r ela- t ed t o virtues and vices, w er e fr equen tly c opied fr om manuscrip ts. Ho w e v er , a some wha t f or g ott en tr ea tise on ,divine g o v ernmen t ‘ in the Summa Theologiae (I, qq. 103 ‒119) s till a w aits its time of r edisc o v er y (P errier 2019). Its import ance or signific ance c an be c onsider ed on both the macr o le v el and the micr o le v el. On the macr o le v el, the tr ea tise ou tlines the fr ame w ork of God’ s r ela tionship t o the w orld, r ejecting deism and poin ting t o God’ s specific w a y of acting in the w orld and its his t or y (T orrijos 2020, 158; Olek so wicz 2020). On the micr o le v el, it addr esses ques tions c oncerning ho w the human per son ma y imit a t e God in His action. Ho w should w e g o v ern in the f ace of the e vil tha t appear s? Shall w e ignor e it, turn our e y es a w a y , figh t ag ains t it, or c oncen tr a t e only on the g ood things? But if God g o v erns the w orld and guides the his t or y of salv a tion, then wh y does e vil app ear in it a t all? F or man y people, the e xis t ence of e vil is a r eason t o aban - don f aith in a mer ciful and pr o viden tial God. P ar ado xic ally , e vil pr o v ok es the ne- cessity not only of theodicy but also an thr opodicy (Son t ag 1981; V odič ar 2017 567; P e tk ovšek 2019), bec ause humans ar e author s of man y evil situa tions. Aw ar e- ness of this r esounds ev en in popular cultur e: a w ell-known P olish sing er and songwrit er , Cz esła w Niemen, sang in 1972, »Oh, strange is this world, W ell, s till it seems, Ther e’ s so f ar so much e vil. And s tr ang e it is tha t since long ag o , Man despises man. /…/ But mos t people ar e of g ood will.« 279 Piotr Roszak - Who Is to Blame for the Sinking Ship? God’ s r e la tionship t o e vil is a singular issue tha t t ouches man y other s. F or St. T h o mas, h o w e v er , th i s i s th e q u es tio n th a t a ff ects n o t o n l y th e g en esi s o f e vi l b u t also the or der in the w orld and the w a y in which God acts in the w orld tha t allo w s e vil t o happen. It is a ma tt er of under s t anding both God’ s r ela tionship t o e vil if ther e is an y a t all, and ho w w e, c alled t o f ollo w God, ar e t o deal with e vil. The pop ular e xplana tions of e vil, which oft en g o as f ar as t o accuse God of it, ar e f or St. Thomas the r esult of our ignor an t and simplis tic vision of the w orld. Using an imag e fr om St. Augus tine, St. Thomas c ompar es the situa tion t o tha t of a man seeing a f or g e who does not kno w its w orkings. He sees in it »many appliances of which he does not understand the use, and which, if he is a foolish fellow, he considers unnecessary. Moreover, should he carelessly fall into the fire, or wound himself with a sharp-edged tool, he is under the impression that many of the things there are hurtful; whereas the craftsman, knowing their use, laughs at his folly. And thus some people presume to find fault with many things in this world through not seeing the reasons for their existence. For though not required for the furnishing of our house, these things are necessary for the perfection of the universe.« (S T I, q. 72, a.1, ad 6) On the basis of this e x t ensiv e quot a tion fr om St. Augus tine, Aquinas c on v e y s an under s t anding of original jus tice in P ar adise (Mr o z ek 2013). Ther e, man w ould use thin gs in acc or dance with their des tin y , wher eas the dr ama of e vil c onsis ts in the disrup tion of this harmon y . In P ar adise, the snak es w ould s till be poisonous (the se r pe n t ’ s v e nom did not e m e r g e as a r e sult of or ig inal sin), but the y w ould not harm man (S T I, q. 72, ad 6). Wha t is necessar y is t o see the whole pictur e and t o pa y a tt en tion t o the ,g ood of the whole ‘ . It demands a cert ain in t ellectual humility t o accep t it. In t er es tingly , Eleonor e Stump uses the imag e of a hospit al tha t, fr om the per spectiv e of an alien, is inc ompr ehensible: people who w alk on their own en t er it and lea v e with crut ch - es. Fr om the outside, one c annot see tha t a per son en t ering the hospit al r equir ed sur g er y (E cha v arria 2017). In this paper I w ould lik e t o dr a w a tt en tion t o a f e w basic f ea tur es of Aquinas’ theodicy , fir s t in dic a ting some difficulties r eg ar ding the pr oblem of e vil—or e v en a tt emp ts t o implic a t e God f or e vil—tha t ha v e emer g ed in the w ak e of scien tific achie v emen ts, especially in the field of e v olutionar y biology (Hofmann 2020; Or - tiz 2022). These obser v a tions will mak e w a y f or a r e flection on fundamen t al issues, such as the divine c ausality as the Fir s t Cause, tha t is not as the c ausality of cr ea- tur es (which oft en seems t o ignor e the c on t empor ary deba t e ar ound divine action making God on e of man y en tities), His r esponsibility f or e vil, and finally whe ther this God’ s me thod of o v er c oming e vil c an be imit a t ed b y us. 280 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 2. Is the First Cause Responsible for Secondary Causes’ Activity? T o borr o w a phr ase fr om C. S. Le wis, our cultur e oft en puts God in the dock. This c an be seen in man y s t a t emen ts in which God is accused of allo wing e vil t o ha- ppen in human lif e, fr om the dea th of a ne wborn child t o an acciden t c aused b y a drunk driver. In one of the articles in the Summa Theologiae , Aquinas analy z es these ar gu- men ts, perhap s making r e f er ence t o curr en t e v en ts of his time, using the e x ample of helpless ob ser v er s of the sinking ship who ask whe ther God is guilty of the f act tha t the ship is sinking or whe ther it is r a ther the c ap t ain who is t o blame. R elying on this m e t aphor , b y analog y , som e ha v e sug g e s t e d tha t God is pr im ar ily r e spon- sible f or it, sinc e e v en acc or ding t o Aris t otle’ s Physics , the one who is the author of the salv a tion is also the perpe tr a t or of the F all, bec ause He cr ea t es such a pos- sibility a t all. Th omas’ ans w er clarifies the sc ope of r esponsibility of the immedi - a t e c ause and God as the Fir s t Cause: »The sinking of a ship is attributed to the sailor as the cause, from the fact that he does no t fulfil what the safety of the ship requires; but God does not fail in doing what is necessary for the safety of all. Hence there is no parity.« (S T I, q. 49, a. 2, ad 3) Aquinas ob ser v es tha t in some sense w e c an alw a y s accuse the cr ea t or of e v - er y thing , jus t as the lumberjack and c arpen t er who built the ship migh t be r e- sponsible f or her sinking. God nev er does evil bec ause He alw a y s acts f or the purpose of the g ood (De w an 2007). E v en if He kno w s e vil, it is thr ough the g ood (f or e x ample, which has not been r ealiz ed) and not dir ectly (ScG I, c ap. 71). Ho w - e v er , the achie v emen ts of modern science, especially those of e v olutionar y biol - ogy , pose other ques tions about the situa tion be f or e tha t of original sin and God’ s r ela tionship t o it (P ar do 2017). If e v olution is the means t o an end, w e c an s till ask wh y God has chosen wha t seems fr om our per spectiv e t o be a cruel manner of cr ea ting the w orld. Gener ally , the pr oblem of ph y sic al e vil in P ar adise c oncerns the pr e se nce of ph y sic al e v il be f or e the appe ar ance of man and his sin tha t dis- turbed the original harmon y . The c oncep t of e v olution r egula t ed b y na tur al selec- tion see ms t o necessit a t e the suff ering of animals, which, a t fir s t glance, c on tr a- dicts the t eaching tha t God is on the side of the w eak and the poor (Mensch 2019). Do dinosaur s which ea t each other c on tr adict the g oodness of God? And, b y c on - tr as t, do a lion and a lamb (or a c a t and a mouse) dw elling t og e ther r epr esen t the vision of P ar adi se tha t w e oft en imagine? The ques tion arises whe ther ther e w as an e xperience of suff ering in the lif e of the fir s t humans or whether it w as an ideal s t a t e, not subject t o e v olution. In the Pla t onic vie w , man has f allen fr om this s t a t e and no w suff er s in the body as he seek s t o fr ee himself F or Aquinas, the s t a t e of innocence (status innocentiae) and the na tur e of lif e in P ar adise ar e not a ma tt er of f air y t ales. His acc oun t r emains e x tr emely r ealis tic, e v en if he w ould accept a spiritual in t erpr e t a tion of original jus tice in P ar adise 281 Piotr Roszak - Who Is to Blame for the Sinking Ship? (Vijg en 2019). It runs c on tr ar y t o the vie w tha t w e ha v e f allen fr om abov e and no w ar e only tr ying t o g e t back ther e. On the Pla t onic acc oun t, our g oal c onsis ts in r eturning t o the same place, P ar adise. But this is not the vision of Chris tian R e v ela tion. The sa v ed per sons ar e not r e turning t o P ar adise, bec ause the y will g o t o hea v en (Doddson 2019). T o summariz e the c onsider a tions c on t ained in Prima Pars, qq. 91 t o 102, in which Aquinas ask s whe ther P ar adise is a ph y sic al place on earth, wha t the body of the fir s t man w as—fr om all this emer g es a cert ain imag e of a man who w as not cr ea t ed in a ,finished‘ s t a t e but r a ther w as subject t o de v elopmen t (Haugh t 2015; P la t o v njak and S v e t e lj 2 0 1 9 ). The sin dis tur b s the or ig inal tr aje c t or y but doe s not r e v er se it. In the s t a t e of original innocence, although the or der tha t r eigned in the s t a t e of innocence has been disrup t ed, the na tur al g oods tha t it or der ed w er e not abolished with the f all (Houck 2020, 65‒68). The f ormula tion fr om Genesis tha t the sub sequen t da y s of cr ea tion bring e v er y thing tha t w as per ceiv ed b y God as , v e r y g ood‘ doe s not sig nif y pe r f e c tion (a s if it w a s not ne c e ssar y t o add an y - thing t o earthly cr ea tion). Ra ther , acc or ding t o the Hebr e w t erm, t o be ,v er y g ood‘ means t o be fill ed i n a pr oper measur e. F or Aqui nas, the e xpr essi on ,v er y g ood‘ a t the e nd of c r e a tion indic a t e s tha t not only par ts of c r e a tion ar e g ood but the univ er se as a whole is g ood as w ell. Ther e f or e, in P ar adise, although ther e w as inequality be tw een people in a cer - t ain r espect in some other aspects, the y w er e equal. This indic a t es tha t ther e w as also a need f or rule among people. This g o v ernance in par adi se seems t o r esem - ble advising and per suasion, but it w ould not neg a t e the necessity of this or der of dependency (Ar guello 2018 , 103). F or Aquinas, this fits with the na tur e of the generatio rerum, in which one g oes fr om an imperf ect s t a t e t o a perf ect s t a t e: m a tt e r is f or t he sa k e of (La tin propter ) f or m , a nd t he f or m f or t he sa k e of pe r f e c - tion (S T I, q. 96, a. 1c). Mor eo v er , the same e xis t ence of dependence (r ela t ed t o inequality and suff ering) origin a t es fr om the or der of pr o vidence, which semper inferiora per superiora gubernat (S T I, q. 96, a. 1 c.; De veritate, q. 5, a. 8, ad 12), and wha t is possessed b y participa tion is subor dina t ed t o tha t which is possessed b y the essence (aestimatio in animals, and prudentia in humans). As with the c ase of passi ons, the subiectio of animals t o man does not imply tha t man ab solut ely d o mi n a t es th em. T o o r d er th em d o es n o t si gn i f y th ei r su p p r ess i o n b u t r a th er th e use of their pot en tial f or a gr ea t er g ood, in which such pot en tial is harmoniz ed with the main g oal of human beings. The idea of or der and God’ s permitting of some e vil it is one of the impo rt an t ar gumen ts in Aquinas’ theodicy (Sanguine tti 1980). Ne v ertheless, the vision of par adise pr esen t ed b y Aquinas is not, in m y opinion, iden tic al t o the ar gumen t tha t the cr ea tion of the w orld thr ough e v olution (with its c onsequences in suff ering , the disappear ance of species, e t c.) w as the only w a y in which God c ould cr ea t e the w orld. Aquinas pr e f err ed the c a t eg or y of con- venientia in or der t o e xplain the de t ails of God’ s cr ea tiv e act (Aus triac o 2019; R o- s z ak 2022). 282 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 3. God’s Responsibility for Evil: Aquinas’ Understanding of Divine Action The solu tion t o dilemmas r eg ar ding e vil r equir es an under s t anding of God’ s w a y of acting as the Fir s t Cause and, a t the same time, as the sour ce of all g oodness. With this in mind, in the ,f or g e ‘ of Aquinas, one c an begin t o slo wly under s t and the functioning of the whole: this imag e r e f er s t o the mutual r ela tionship of t ools, t o the gr asp of the ,purpose ‘ and the mode of oper a tion. The pr oblem, ho w e v er , which a ff ects specific solutions, is the languag e and, abo v e all, the w a y in which w e c ommunic a t e God’ s w or d in our human languag e. It is w orth de v eloping this poin t further . 2 God’ s action in the w orld is fr equen tly per ceiv ed on the same le v el as na tur al e v en ts, tr ea ting Him as if He w er e one of the c auses of this w orld (Dodds 2012). F or man y cen turies, ther e has been a discussion be tw een support er s of equiv oc al, univ oc al, and analogic al pr edic a tion about God (t e V elde 2006, 109–114). Aquinas op t ed f or analogy , in which it c an be seen tha t although w e use the same w or d t o describe tw o diff er en t things (e. g. God is, P e t er is), the w or d means neither the e x act same thin g nor tw o c omple t ely diff er en t things. Ra ther , it means tw o diff e - r en t thin gs tha t ar e analogic all y similar (a similar dissimilarit y). In or der t o gr asp t he t r ut h about G od’ s ac tion in t his w a y , w e ne e d t o de t ac h our se lv e s fr om uni- v oc al human imag es tha t do not t ak e in t o acc oun t the tr anscendence of God ( Ho r v a t an d R o s z ak 2020; S al v ad o r 2021) . T o j u d g e c o rr ectl y ab o u t Go d , w e n eed t o chang e our , t as t e ‘ , f ollo wing Aquinas’ me t aphor: »A per son with a diseased pala t e misjudg es the t as t e of f oods and some- times r ec oils fr om the t as ty but appr o v es the disgus ting , wher eas a per son with a health y pala t e judg es t as t es c orr ectly; so a per son whose a ff ections ar e c orrup t ed b y c on f ormi ty t o w orl dl y th i n gs mi sju dg es th e g ood , whe- r eas a per son whose a ff ections ar e uprigh t and sound, his sense ha ving been r ene w ed b y gr ace, judg es the g ood c orr ectly .« (In Rom., c ap. XII, lect. 1 [nr . 967]) It is w orth while t o e xplor e thr ee poin ts r ela t ed t o God’ s action in the w orld tha t pla y a signific an t r ole in e xplaining the e xis t ence of e vil: (1) the c ausality of the Fir s t Cause , (2 ) it s ac tion f or the g ood of the w hole and the g ood of the par ts and (3) whe ther the w orld c ould ha v e been be tt er cr ea t ed. 2 Ir ena A v senik Naber g oj deals with Aquinas’ e xplic a tion of imag es fr om the c oncr e t e r eality of the w orld f or e xpr essing spiritu al meaning in the t ot ality of under s t anding God’ s basic a ttribut es (A v senik Naber - g oj 2018, 143–147). In her article „F ounda tional Lit er ar y F orms in the Bible “ , Ir ena A v senik Naber g oj e xplains in mor e de t ail the multif arious me anings of biblic al t e x ts of v arious lit e r ar y g e nr e s: »The judg - i ng of i nd i vi du al figur es on th emsel v es w o ul d n ot h a v e gr ea t si gn i fic an ce i n th e s tu dy of th e messag e of the Bible. It is not ther e f or e the ques tion of ›lit er ar y ar cheology‹ on the sear ch f or fr agmen ts but of r ec ognition of ma t erial and spiritual sublimity , seman tic purity and m y s t er y of in tuitions, emotions, t houg h t s and in t e n tions e xpr e sse d b y m ultipur pose c on v e n tional and or ig ina l lit e r a r y c om pone n t s of t e x ts in their harmonious lit er ar y s tructur e.« (A v senik Naber g oj 2019, 856) 283 Piotr Roszak - Who Is to Blame for the Sinking Ship? 3.1 The First Cause and Secondary Causes The under s t and ing of c ausality in Aquinas’ s thinking is shaped b y the Liber de ca- usis, an d w e fin d one of the k e y de fini tions of the F i r s t Cause ther e: causa enim prima dat secundae quod influat super effectum suum (De veritate , q. 6, a. 6c.) And so the r ole of the Fir s t Cau se is neither t o ,r eplace ‘ na tur al c auses nor , c on - tr ar y t o occ asionalis ts, t o elimina t e the c ausality of cr ea tur es making tha t their c ausality w ould be appar en t. Ra ther , thank s t o the Fir s t Cause, the sec ondary c auses c an truly be c auses. It r e flects, e v en mor e, the omnip ot ence of God if He acts b y other s, and not only b y His o wn po w er; on St. Thomas’ s acc oun t, the hi - gher the c ause, the mor e e ff ec ts it e x t ends t o (S T I, q. 65, a. 3c). He e xplains this dependence r e f erring t o one of the issues of the cr ea tion tr ea ty: »For when we have a series of causes depending on one another, it necessarily follo ws that, while the effect depends first and principally on the First Cause, it also depends in a secondary way on all the middle causes. Therefore the First Cause is the principal cause of the preservation of the effect which is to be referred to the middle causes in a secondary way; and all the more so, as the middle cause is higher and nearer to the First Cause.« (S T I, q. 104, a. 2c.) God’ s action does not pr esuppose the e xis t ence of an earlier subject but is al- w a y s a cr ea tiv e action. Ther e f or e, God should not be per ceiv ed thr ough the oppo- sing actions of the cr ea tur es; ins t ead, He cr ea t es with them a cert ain harmon y , although w e ar e oft en inclined t o see the opposit e. As Aquinas a ffirms finis proxi- mus non excludit finem ultimum ( ST I, q. 65, a. 2, ad 2). A t the same time, divine action does not elimina t e the fr eedom of sec ondar y c ause s tha t do not c ompe t e with divine fr e e dom (K e ltz 2019). A lthough no me - t aphor c an fully r e flect this r ela tionship, it c an be help ful t o use a soccer me t aphor . Our a tt emp ts t o disc o v er the action of the Fir s t Cause c annot be a sear ch f or God as one of the elemen ts of this w orld, one of man y . Ra ther , God is lik e a c oach who is pr esen t in the ma t ch but with a r ole tha t diff er s fr om tha t of the pla y er s. The c oach’ s wisdom and t actics ar e pr esen t in the fr ee action and c ooper a tion of the pla y er s with each other . Mor eo v er , normally w e do not see the c oach; he or she is outside of the pla y ing fie ld (i.e ., tr ansce nde n t), but in some c oncr e t e w a y the c oach is pr esen t in all fr ee activities of the pla y er s (R os z ak and Huz ar ek 2019). Will an ybody w a t ching the ma t ch on t ele vision be able t o see the tr ainer ’ s tr ap s in the s y s t em of passes and off side tr ap s if he f ocuses only on na tur alis tic e xplana tions? Analogic ally , each particular science (e. g. ph y sics, chemis tr y , or biology) is able t o sa y much about the ph y siology of a soccer pla y er , e. g. his ana t om y or manner of br ea thing , but theology c an pr o vide a c omple t e pictur e of the whole g ame. So when mor al e vil appear s, c an w e blame God as the Fir s t Cause f or it? Aqui - nas, in tr ying t o e xplain ho w God is r ela t ed t o e vil e v en ts and ho w He is not the c ause of human wr ong doing , off er s a series of imag es, such as a ser v an t who de- via t es fr om the will of his Lor d, or a lame man. God is not the c ause of the lame 284 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 man’ s illness but r a ther of the f act tha t e v en being lame, he is able t o w alk. Aqui - nas is clear in this aspect: »S]in denotes a being and an action with a defect: and this defect is from the crea ted cause, viz. the free -will, as falling away from the order of the First Agent, viz. God. Consequently this defect is not reduced to God as its cause, but to the free-will: even as the defect of limping is reduced to a crooked leg as its cause, but not to the motive power, which nevertheless causes whateve r there is of movement in the limping. Accordingly God is the cause of the act of sin: and yet He is not the cause of sin, because He does not cause the act to have a defect.« (S T I-II, q. 79, a. 2c) Thomas pr esen ts an in t er es ting acc oun t of the r ela tion of the Fir s t Cause t o the other c auses in the section of his c ommen t ar y on R omans wher e he discusses the w or ds from him, through him, and for him in R om 11:36. He analy z es the thr ee La tin pr epositio ns, namely ex, per, and in. Ex indic a t es the cr ea tiv e po w er of God (principium motus), per is about the mode of action (causa operationis), and in manif es ts the r esult (habitudo causae). The sec ond of the pr epositions c orr e- sponds t o Aquinas’ under s t anding of ins trumen t al c ausality tha t is r e flect ed b y tw o e x amples (1) a knif e, which is an ins trumen t tha t is c aused b y a primar y c ause (the cr a ftsman) who himself uses an ins trumen t (i.e., a sec ondar y c ause) t o mak e it (a hammer), and (2) an official acting on behalf of the king; the king himself is the primar y c ause acting thr ough his official who is the sec ondar y c ause (In Rom., c ap. XI, lect. 5, nr . 946). 3.2 The Good of the Whole Aq u i n as’ r easo n i n g ab o u t e vi l mu s t b e u n d er s t o o d wi th i n th e c o n t e x t o f h i s b asi c c on viction tha t the human r ace ’ s de v elopmen t c arries with it a cert ain g ood tha t w ould not e xis t if w e had been c omple t ely f ormed fr om the beginning as c on fir - med in the g oo d (De Veritate , q. 24, a.7c; K adyk alo 2020; K w aky e 2020). The cul - tiv a tion of man’ s fr e e dom t o de v elop his pot en tiality in c oope r a tion with gr ace , is also a kind of a g ood, not a sign of the ab sence of the Cr ea t or , as the r epr esen- t a tiv e s of e x tr e me e v olutionar y the or ie s se e m t o ar gue . A quinas’ s v ie w in this r e - spect oft en r e f e r s t o the ,or der ‘ (ordo), which denot es a cert ain r ela tionship and pr oportion. This poin t in vit es one t o per ceiv e e v er y thing fr om a macr o per spec- tiv e, which r equir es a s y s t ema tic under s t anding. Such a hermeneutic al appr oach is pr ope r t o the olog y as a div ine sc ie nc e tha t pe r c e iv e s the r e ality sub ratione Dei and th a t i s wh y i t d o es n o t mak e u n n eces sar y sci en ce as su ch , al th o u gh th eo l o gy c an in tr oduce a cert ain global or der of a ff air s. In t er es tingly , Aquinas t alk s about this or der in the c on t e x t of P ar adise, when he clearly c on firms tha t in spit e of the idyllic imag es tha t imagina tion pain ts of th a t p l ace, th er e w as i n eq u al i ty th er e, b u t th ese d i ff er en ces (i . e. i n th e b o d y , as some w ould be s tr ong er than other s) did not r esult fr om sin or in firmity . The r e - ason f or them w as r a ther the or der tha t is es t ablished thr ough this inequality and 285 Piotr Roszak - Who Is to Blame for the Sinking Ship? the lov e tha t is gr ea t er when the f a ther/mother lov es childr en than betw een equals, hence »the cause of in equality could be on the part of God; not ind eed that He would punish some and reward others, but that He would exalt some above others; so that the beauty of order would the more shine forth among men. Inequality might also arise on the part of nature as above described, without any defect of nature.« (S T I, q. 96 a. 3) As Agus tin E cha v arria poin ts out, this does not indic a t e tha t Thomas’ s s y s t em is a , theodicy‘ in a Leibnizian under s t anding , or tha t evil pla y s a positiv e r ole (E cha v arria 2013). Ra ther , it indic a t es tha t evil is associa t ed with the good without which ther e w ould be no perf ection of the univ er se. Hence, s tr eng th does not lie on the side of evil, bec ause it is per accidens and not per se tha t it c on tribut es t o the perf ection of the univ er se (Br ock 2018). E vil is not a c ause of g ood, but an opportunity t o r ev eal the good. This good w ould be r ev ealed in the pa tience of the martyr s ev en if evil did not manif es t itself . The k ey poin t of Aquinas’ s r easoning is the notion of ordo: »God and nature and any other agent make what is best in the whole, but not what is best in every single part, except in order to the whole, as was said above. And the whole itself, which is the universe of creatures, is all the better and more perfect if some things in it can fail in goodness, and do sometimes fail, God not preventing this. This happens, firstly, because ›it belongs to Providence not to destroy, but to save nature,‹ as Dionysius says (De Divinis Nominibus IV); but it belongs to natur e that what ma y f ail should sometimes f ail; secondly , because, as Augus tine sa ys (Enchiridion 11), ›God is so powerful that He can ev en mak e good out of evil‹. Hence man y good things would be t ak en aw a y if God permitt ed no evil to e xis t; f or fir e would not be gener at ed if air w as not corrupt ed, nor w ould the lif e of a lion be pr eserv ed unless the ass wer e killed. Neither would a v enging jus tice nor the patience of a suff er er be pr aised if ther e wer e no injus tice.« (ST I, q. 48, a. 2, ad 3.) T h i s d o es n o t i mp l y th e n ecessi ty o f e vi l b u t r a th er th e p o w er o f Go d wh o p er - mits e vil f or the gr ea t er g ood. Thinking ,acc or ding t o the prin ciple of the whole ‘ is char act eris tic of the w ork of the ar chit ect, which St. Thomas r e f er s t o as theo- logians. Aquinas is c on vinced tha t the div er sity of cr ea tur es is bec ause cr ea tion is in t ended t o r e flect the Cr ea t or , but no single cr ea tur e c an of itself r e flect e v er y a ttribut e of the Cr ea t or . In this w a y , God Himself , fr om the beginning , has w an t ed t o in tr oduce perf ection in t o the univ er se and es t ablished cr ea tur es tha t, although imperf ect, c on tribut e t o its perf ection (S T I, q. 65 a. 2 ad 3). 3.3 Can God do Something ,Better‘? Fr om the per spectiv e of the or der of the univ er se, Aquinas dir ectly addr esses the perf ection of God’ s action (W oolar d 2020; P abjan 2018). He specifies in ques tion 25 of the Prima Pars tha t w e c annot claim tha t God c an impr o v e His action as if He c ould act with gr ea t er wisd om or g oodness. Ho w e v er , as t o the r esult, God’ s 286 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 pe r f e ction is not e xhaus t e d in cr e a t e d be ing s, be c ause b y the ir v e r y na tur e , the beings c an alw a y s be be tt er (,impr ov emen t‘ is some thing g ood f or a human being). Ce r t ain unimpor t an t f e a tur e s c ould e xis t in the subje ct in a , be tt e r w a y ‘ . He nce , ac c or ding t o Thom as, if , be tt e r ‘ is in t e r pr e t e d in a noun m e aning , the n G od c an cr ea t e cert ain things be tt er in a cert ain w a y , while in the adv erbial sense it is not possible. It is import an t in this c on t e x t t o dis tinguish be tw een tw o types of g oo - dness tha t c an be a ff ect ed b y the action of God: »The goodne ss of anything is twofold; one, which is of the esse nce of it— thus, for instance, to be rational pertains to the essence of man. As regards this good, God cannot make a thing better than it is itself; although He can make another thing better than it; even as He cannot make the number four greater than it is; because if it were greater it would no longer be four, but another number. /…/ Another kind of g oodness is tha t which is o v er and abo v e the essence; thus, the g ood of a man is t o be virtuous or wise. As r eg ar ds this kind of g oodness, God c an mak e be tt er the things He has made. Ab solut ely speaking , ho w e v er , God c an mak e some thing else be tt er than each thing made b y Him.« (S T I, q.25, a.6) W e c annot sa y tha t ther e e xis ts the bes t w orld out of man y possible w orlds bec ause ther e ar e man y w a y s in which divine wisdom c an be e xpr essed; none of the e ff e cts of God’ s activ ity c an be t ak e n as an ab solut e m e asur e of God’ s actions (P aluch 2003). The aim of the divine action—the glor y of God—will be achie v ed in an y c ase, whe ther with cert ain cr ea tur es or other s, with their beha viour or tha t of other s, and it will be done in a perf ect and in f allible manner (E cha v arria 2012, 530). It is pr obably similar t o a g ame of chess in which it is kno wn in adv ance tha t God will win although the g ame ma y t ak e an y one of a number of diff er en t c our s- es. This particular ,c our se ‘ and the amoun t of e vil pr esen t in the w orld is pr esen t - ed as a c oun t er ar gumen t in man y theodicies, noting tha t God’ s vict or y t ak es place only when w e pr o v e tha t ther e is mor e g ood than bad. Fr om Thomas’ per spectiv e, how ev er , ther e seems t o be another domina ting aspect: the v alue of the fr ee choice of g ood. This fr ee choice r e t ains its v alue e v en if it in v olv es the risk tha t man y will not choose the g ood or e v en tha t no one will choose it. The imag e tha t Aquinas chooses t o e xplain the g ood of the univ er se and the meaning of individual things, diverse in their goodness, is that of a zither, the mu- sic of which w ould be dis turbed e v en if »one s tring w er e s tr e t ched mor e than it should be« (S T I, q. 25, a. 6, ad 3). This r esults fr om the belie f tha t the g ood of the w orld c onsis ts in harmon y and or der , not in equality . Such a s y s t em of the w orld guar an t ees gr ea t er g oodness, and God acts bec ause of it, propter decentissimum ordinem. Aquinas c ompar es this action of God with art when t alking about the artis tr y of God, who aims a t adap ting His w ork t o the bes t solution fr om the per - spectiv e of His in t en tion, e v en if it in v olv es agr eeing t o a lack, jus t as a sa w is made of ir on and not of glass, although the la tt er ma t erial is mor e beautiful (St or ck 2010; R os z ak and Berr y 2021). Achie ving this aim is of prime import ance and God does not allo w a desir e f or c osme tic or superficial beauty t o impede his aim: 287 Piotr Roszak - Who Is to Blame for the Sinking Ship? »Therefore God gave to each natural being the best disposition; not absolutely so, but in the view of its proper end. This is what the Philosopher says (Phys. II, 7): ›And bec ause it is be tt er so , not ab solut ely , but f or eac h one’ s sub s t ance.‹« (S T I, q. 91, a. 3c) 4. How to Fight Evil? Ther e ar e se v er al pr actic al c onsequences f or the Chris tian appr oach t o the e vil tha t c an arise fr om the imit a tion of God’ s actions (Shanle y 2008; Z agz eb sky 2010; P e tk o v šek 2020). 4.1 Fighting Evil by Increasing Good St. Thomas’ s solution t o the ques tion of e vil is based on the me t aph y sics of g ood. Fr om the per spectiv e of his r e flections on the motiv es of the Inc arna tion of the Son of God, Aquinas outlines tw o sets of fiv e r easons. It is signific an t tha t he fir s t lis ts the fiv e r easons of ex convenientia concerning the good as the goal of Chris t c oming in t o the w orld, and then he in tr oduces the r easons based on the e vil situ a tion tha t should be r epair ed. It means tha t the char act eris tic manner of God’ s action is tha t of incr e asing the , dose ‘ of g ood in the w or ld, as oppose d t o c on fr on ting e vil dir ectly and f ocusing upon it. In this w a y , the Chris tian a ttitude mus t be tha t of s tr eng thening and pr omoting the g ood lif e which c orr esponds t o promotio hominis in bono (S T III, q.1, a.2c). When w e look a t the sec ond se t of fiv e r easons f or the Inc arna tion as , the r e - mo v al of e vil‘ , w e find some ob s t acles f or the g ood. Ther e f or e, in or der t o r emo v e those ob s t acles, God giv es His gr ace in the w orld (S T III, q.1, a.2, ad 2). Ne v erthe - less, in all these c ases, God is s till acting f or the purpose of g ood. Aquinas de- scribes this divi ne action, f ocus ed on g ood, thr ough an analogy t o the motion of ma t e r ial thing s, which be ar within the mse lv e s a dy namic f or ce impe lling the m t o move, promotio vel motus suscipientis in accepting the impressio agentis. This per spectiv e also in f orms Aquinas’ acc oun t of the po w er of the sacr amen ts and their r ela tion t o the sanctific a tion of man. 4.2 Restoring Order in Nature through Cooperation with Grace A quinas dr a w s a tt e n tion t o the ordo as one of the e xplana tions of God’ s action. The gr ace gr an t ed t o man leads t o r eg aining the w eb of r ela tionship, enabling man t o mak e an e ff ort be y ond the limit of his na tur e, t o achie v e the g ood of this or der (Colber g 2019). When Aquinas w onder s in Summa Theologiae q. 109 of the Prima Secundae whe ther man c an a v oid sin without the help of gr ace, he ends his e xplana tion with a r e f er ence t o the or der tha t is viola t ed b y sin (Vijg en 2018). Based on the dis tinc- tion be tw een tw o human s t a t es (naturae integrae and corruptae status), Aquinas r ealis tic ally ob ser v es tha t the will of the human per son who is turned a w a y fr om 288 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 God c an be c on tr olled b y r eason, but since it is v er y difficult f or the r eason t o ma- in t ain such a tt en tion, it happens tha t the per son f alls in t o v enial sins. Salv a tion in this situa tion c onsis ts in the will’ s being support ed b y gr ace, which »immedia t ely r es t or es it t o pr oper or der« (S T I-II, q.109, a.8c). As Ma tthe w Lamb s t a t es: »One of the great joys of the beatific vi si on wil l be fi nall y to understand the beauty and wisdom of each and every thing that has occurred in one's life, in the lives of loved ones, and indeed in the whole of hum an history. The blessed will understand why God allowed evil and sin with all the histories of human suffering, and how God’s wisdom and Christ’s redemptive mission transforms that evil and suffering into the glory of eternal bliss. This understanding will be such that even the most insignificant event will be finally intelligible within the beauty of the whole of creation.« (Lamb 2007, 266) 4.3 Perseverance in Good Giv en the f or eg oing outline of ho w God s tr eng thens the or der of g ood, man’ s a tti- tude ma y be per se v er ance, which e xpr esses his support f or the g ood, allo wing it t o w ork and t o chang e him. Man’ s per se v er ance is his means of accep ting tha t in the divine dispensa tion he is t o gr o w o v er time and tha t this is ho w he shall bear fruit (St egu 2020). Tha t is wh y in the P salms man’ s salv a tion is s ynon ymous with trus t in the g oodness of God, and f or Aquinas blasphem y is pr ecisely the denial or the c on tr adiction of this g oo dness. Blasphem y is also r eductionism, which r e - sults in the f act tha t w e no long er see the c ause in the e ff ect. Chris tianity pr oposes tha t the belie v er widen his or her per spectiv e t o see the whole, namely , all the manif es t a tions of g ood (Pla t o vnjak and S v e t elj 2018; Ž alec 2020, 274; 2021, 141). 5. Conclusion God’ s action f or the purpose of g ood t es tifies t o His omnipot ence, which is as- socia t ed with His mer cy . The divine motiv e f or action is not e vil but »admitting people t o participa t e in the in finit e g ood, and this is the final r esult of the po w er of God /.../ in this, abo v e all manif es ts the omnipot ence of God, tha t it belongs t o his fir s t bring ing and giving all g ood« (S T I, 25, a.3, ad 3). It is impossible t o un - der s t and Aquinas’ pr oposal without an import an t dis tinction be tw een tw o kinds of c ausality: primar y and sec ondar y (pr oper t o cr ea tur es), which mak es it pos- sible t o addr ess the ques tion of r esponsibility f or e vil pr operly . The k e y t o under - s t anding Aquinas’ theodicy seems t o be the per spectiv e of g oodness, thr ough which it is possible t o under s t and the pr oper r esponse of man in imit a tion of Chris t, who acts b y enhancing the g ood in the w orld. P oin ting t o the g ood of the whole, r a ther than seeing it thr ough the prism of the particular g ood, is Aquinas’ r esponse, which alw a y s sees the r a tionale f or God’ s action in g oodness (Laz ar o 2014; P e tk o v šek 2018). 289 Piotr Roszak - Who Is to Blame for the Sinking Ship? References Argüello Montenegro, Santiago. 201 8 . La autori - d a d p o l í ti c a y s u e x i ge n c i a d e r a c i o n a l i d a d m e t a fí s i c a e n T o m á s d e A q u i n o. I n : Ru b é n Pe r e d a S a n c h o, En r i q u e A l a r c ó n M o r e n o, A g u s tí n Ec h av a r r í a A n av i t a r t e a n d M i g u e l G a r c í a -V a l d e c a s a s M e r i n o, e d s . Opere et veri- tate: Homemaje al professor Angel Luis Gon- zález, 101 – 11 2. P a m p l o n a : E u n s a . Avsenik Nabergoj, Irena . 201 8 . Podobe resnično- sti, resnice in ljubezni v Svetem pismu in litera- turi [Images of Reality, Truth and Love in the Bible and Literature ]. L j u b l j a n a : S l o v e n s k a a k a d e m i j a zn a n o s ti i n u m e t n o s ti. – – – . 201 9 . T e m e l j n e l i t e r a r n e o b l i ke v Sv e t e m p i s m u [F o u n d a ti o n a l L i t e r a r y F o r m s i n t h e Bi ble ] . Bogoslovni vestnik 7 9 , n o. 4 :8 55 – 875. h tt p s : / / d o i. o r g / 1 0. 3 4 2 9 1 / bv 2 0 1 9 / 0 4 / a v s e ni k Austriaco, Nicanor . 201 9 . A T h e o l o g i c a l F i tti n - g n e s s A r g u m e n t f o r t h e Ev o l u ti o n o f H o m o S ap i e ns . Theology and Science 1 7 , n o. 4 :539 – 550. Brock, Stephen L. 201 8 . D ea d En d s , B a d F o r m : T h e Po s i ti v i t y o f Ev i l i n t h e Summa theologiae . I n : J e ff r e y H a u s e , e d . Aquinas‘s Summa Theologi- ae: A Critical Guide , 2 9 – 4 6 . C a m b r i d ge : C a m - b r i d ge U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s . Colberg, Shawn. 201 9 . D e v e l o p m e n t i n A q u i n a s ’ s T h e o l o g y o f G r a c e a n d t h e R o l e o f S a i n t Au g u - s tin e . Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 1 2, n o. 3: 271–2 8 7 . Crosby, John F. 20 02. I s A l l Ev i l Rea l l y O n l y Pr i v a ti - o n? Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 75 : 1 9 7 – 20 9 . Dewan, Lawrence. 20 07 . St . T h o m a s a n d t h e F i r s t C a u s e o f M o r a l Ev i l . I n : L aw r e n c e D e w a n , e d . Wisdom, Law, and Virtue: Essays in Thomistic Ethics , 1 8 6 – 1 9 6 . N e w Y o r k : F o r d h a m U n i v e r s i - t y Pr e s s . Dodds, Michael. 201 2. Unlocking Divine Action: Contemporary Science and Thomas Aquinas. W a s h i n g t o n , D C : C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y o f A m e r i - ca Press. Dodson, Joseph. 201 9 . S o m e w h e r e o v e r t h e R a i n b o w: H eav e n l y V i s i o n s i n Plato, Cicero, a n d P a u l . I n : J o s e p h R . D o d s o n a n d D av i d E. B r i o n e s , e d s . Paul and the giants of philosophy: reading the apostle in Greco-Roman context, 1 3 4 – 1 45. D o w n e r s , I L : I V P A c a d e m i c . Echavarria, Agustin . 201 2. T o m á s d e A q u i n o y e l p r o b l e m a d e l m a l : l a v i ge n c i a d e u n a p e r s p e c - ti v a m e t a fí s i c a . Anuario Filosofico 45, n o. 3: 521– 5 4 4 . – – – . 201 3 . T h o m a s A q u i n a s a n d t h e M o d e r n a n d C o n t e m p o r a r y D e b a t e o n Ev i l . New Blackfriars 9 4, n o. 10 5 4 : 7 3 3 – 75 4 . – – – . 201 7 . A n a l y ti c T h e o l o g y a n d t h e R i c h n e s s o f C l a s s i c a l T h e i s m : A n I n t e r v i e w w i t h El e o n o r e S tum p . Scripta Theologica 49 , n o. 1 : 8 5 – 9 5. Haught, John. 201 5. Resting on the Future: Catho- lic Theology for an Unfinished Universe . N e w Y o r k : B l o o msb ur y . Henderson, Aaron. 2021 . F a l s e l y I d e n ti f y i n g O r i g i - n al S i n an d P ur e Natur e : C hr i s t o l o gi c al I m p li c a - tion s. New Blackfritars 102, n o. 110 0 :4 7 2– 4 8 5. h tt p s: / / d o i . o r g /10 .1111 / n b f r .1 2 59 0 Hofmann, James R. 2020 . S o m e T h o m i s ti c En c o - u n t e r s w i t h Ev o l u ti o n . Theology and Science 1 8 , n o. 2 :32 5 – 3 4 6 . Horvat, Sasa, and Piotr Roszak . 2020 . I s Re l i g i o n O n l y U ti l i t a r i a n ? Ev o l u ti o n a r y C o g n i ti v e S c i e n - c e o f Re l i g i o n T h r o u g h a T h o m i s ti c L e n s . Theo- logy and Science 1 8 , n o. 3 :4 75 – 4 8 9 . Houck, Daniel. 2020. Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution . C a m b r i d ge : C a m - b r i d ge U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s . Kadykalo, Andrii. 2020 . S c i e n ti fi c a n d T h e o l o g i c a l Re s p o n s e s f o r Ev o l u ti o n a n d B i o l o g i c a l C o m - plexi t y . Scientia et Fides 8 , n o. 2 :35 1 – 3 6 9 . h tt p s :/ / d o i .o r g / 1 0 . 1 2 7 75 / s e tf . 2020 . 02 5 Keltz, Kyle B. 201 9 . A T h o m i s ti c A n s we r t o t h e Ev i l - G o d C h a l l e n ge. Heythrop Journal 6 0, n o. 5: 6 8 9 – 6 9 8 . Kwakye, Ahenkora Siaw . 2020 . C r ea t e d C o - c r ea - t o r , a T h e o r y o f H u m a n B e c o m i n g i n a n Er a o f S c i e n c e a n d T e c h n o l o g y . Scientia et Fides 8 , n o. 2 : 2 85 – 305 . Lamb, Matthew . 20 07 . W i s d o m E s c h a t o l o g y i n Au g u s ti n e a n d A q u i n a s . I n : M . D a u p h i n a i s , B . D av i d a n d M . L e v e r i n g , e d s . Aquinas the Augu- stinian, 2 5 8 – 2 7 9 . W a s h i n g t o n : C a t h o l i c U n i v e r - s i t y o f A m e r i c a Pr e s s . Lazaro Pulido, Manuel . 201 4 . D i o s p e r m i t e e l m a l p a r a e l b i e n : D o s a p r o x i m a c i o n e s d i f e r e n t e s d e s d e l a m e t a fí s i c a d e l s e r d e l b i e n e n S a n t o T o m á s y S a n B u e n av e n t u r a . Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval 2 1 : 9 5 –1 0 3 . Mensch, James. 201 9 . N o n - Us e l e s s S u ff e r i n g . Bogoslovni vestnik 7 9 , n o. 2 :3 1 5 – 32 2. h tt p s: / / d o i .o r g / 1 0 . 3 4 2 9 1 / b v 201 9 /02 / m e n s c h Oleksowicz, Michal. 2020 . D o we n e e d a t h e o l o g y o f s c i e n c e ? Cauriensia: Revista anual de Cienci- as Eclesiásticas 15, n o. 1 5 : 755 – 7 70 . Ortiz, Manuel Cruz. 202 2. Ev o l u c i ó n y r e l a t o : m á s a l l á d e l n e o d a r w i n i s m o y e l d i s e ñ o i n t e l i ge n t e. Scientia et Fides 10, n o. 1 :2 9 – 4 8 . Pabjan, Tadeusz . 201 8 . Św i a t n aj l e p s z y z m o ż l i w y c h ? O d o b r o c i B o g a i p o c h o dze n i u z ł a . K r a kó w: C o p e r n i c u s C e n t r e Pr e s s . Paluch, Michał . 20 0 3 . G o d p e r m i t s t h e e v i l f o r t h e 290 Bogoslovni vestnik 82 (2022) • 2 go o d : T wo d i ff e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e H i s t o r y o f S a l v a ti o n i n A q u i n a s a n d B o n av e n t u r e. Angelicum 8 0, n o. 2 :32 7 – 3 3 6 . Pardo, Antonio . 201 7 . Darwin, la evolucion y la prudencia. P am p l o n a : E uns a . Perrier, Emmanuel. 201 9 . L’Attrait divin: La doctri- ne de l’opération et le gouvernement des créa- tures chez Thomas d’Aquin . T o u l u s e : P a r o l e e t Si le nce . Petkovšek, Robert . 201 8 . Sv o b o d a m e d ž r t v o v a - nj e m i n d a r o v a nj e m [ T h e Fr e e d o m B e t we e n S a c r i fi c e a n d S e l f- g i v i n g ]. Bogoslovni vestnik 7 8 , n o. 1 :3 3 – 5 1 . – – – . 201 9 . T e o l o g i j a p r e d iz zi v i s o d o b n e a n t r o p o - l o š ke k r ize : p r ea m b u l a a p o s t o l s ke ko n s ti t u c i j e V e r i t a ti s G a u d i u m [ T h e o l o g y F a c i n g t h e C h a l - l e n ge s o f t h e M o d e r n A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l C r i s i s: Pr ea m b l e o f t h e A p o s t o l i c C o n s ti t u ti o n V e r i t a - ti s G a u d i u m ]. Bogoslovni vestnik 7 9 , n o. 1 : 1 7 – 3 1 . h tt p s : / / d o i .o r g / 10 . 3 4 2 9 1 / b v 201 9 /01 / p e tk ov s e k – – – . 2020 . O p r av i r azd a l j i : p o g l e d z v i d i k a m i m e - ti č n e t e o r i j e [ O n t h e R i g h t D i s t a n c e : A V i e w f r o m t h e Pe r s p e c ti v e o f M i m e ti c T h e o r y ]. Bogoslovni vestnik 8 0, n o. 2 :2 93 – 320 . h tt p s: / / d o i .o r g / 1 0 . 3 4 2 9 1 / b v 2020 /02 / p e t k o v s e k Platovnjak, Ivan, and Tone Svetelj . 201 8 . A n a t h e i - s m − a n i n c e n ti v e t o d i s c o v e r t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f d i s c i p l e s h i p i n C h r i s ti a n i t y . Bogoslovni ve- stnik 7 8 , n o. 2 :3 75 − 3 8 6 . h tt p s: / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 4 2 9 1 / b v 202 1 /0 4/ p l a t o v nj a k – – – . 201 9 . T o l i v e a l i f e i n C h r i s t ‘ s w ay : T h e a n - s we r t o a t r u n c a t e d v i e w o f t r a n s h u m a n i s m o n human life. Bogoslovni vestnik 7 9 , n o. 3 : 6 6 9 – 6 82 . h tt p s : / / d o i. o r g / 1 0. 3 4 2 9 1 / bv 2 0 1 9 / 0 3 / p l at ov n j ak Rae, Gavin . 201 9 . A q u i n a s , Pr i v a ti o n , a n d O r i g i n a l S i n . I n : Evil in the Western Philosophical Traditi- on , 55 – 7 6 . Ed i n b u r g h U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s . Roszak, Piotr, and John A. Berry . 2021 . M o r a l A s p e c t s o f I m a g i n a ti v e A r t i n T h o m a s A q u i n a s . Religions 1 2, n o. 5 :32 2. h tt p s: / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 3 9 0 / re l 12 0 5 03 22 Roszak, Piotr . 202 2. I m p e r f e c t l y p e r f e c t u n i v e r s e ? Em e r g i n g n a t u r a l o r d e r i n T h o m a s A q u i n a s . HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 7 8 , n o. 3 : 7 1 9 9 . h tt p s: / / d o i .o r g / 10 . 4 102 / h t s . v7 8 i 2 . 7 1 9 9 Salvador Gonzalez, José María . 2021 . T h e fi r s t l e v e l o f St . B o n av e n t u r e ’ s t r a n s c e n d e n t A e - s t h e ti c s: C o n t e m p l a ti n g G o d a s t h e p u r e , p r i m ar y B e i n g . Biblica et Patristica Thorunien- sia 1 4, n o. 3 :2 7 3 – 2 8 5. h tt p s: / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 2 7 75 / b p t h . 202 1 . 01 5 Sanguinetti, Juan Jose . 1 9 8 0 . El c o n c e p t o d e orden. Sapientia 35, n o. 3 7 :55 9 – 5 7 1 . Shanley, Brian J. 20 0 8 . A q u i n a s ’ s E xe m p l a r E t h i c s . The Thomist 7 2, n o. 3 :3 45 – 2 6 9 . Sontag, Frederick . 1 9 8 1 . A n t h r o p o d i c y o r T h e o d i - c y ? A D i s c u s s i o n w i t h B e c ke r ‘ s T h e St r u c t u r e o f E v i l . Journal of the American Academy of Reli- gion 49 , n o. 2 :2 6 7 – 2 7 4 . Stegu, Tadej. 2020 . T h e p a n d e m i c a n d t h e p r o c l a - m a ti o n o f t h e ke r y g m a . Bogoslovni vestnik 8 0, n o. 2 :4 2 5 − 4 32. Storck, Thomas. 2010 . S e e k i n g B ea u t y i n A r t: S o m e I m p l i c a ti o n s o f a T h o m i s ti c St a t e m e n t a b o u t G l a s s S aw s . New Blackfriars 92, n o. 1 0 4 0 : 4 31– 4 42 . Te Velde, Rudi . 20 0 6 . Aquinas on God: The ‚Divine Science‘ of the S u m m a T h e o l o g i a e. A l d e r s h o t: A sh g at e . Torrijos Castrillejo, David . 2020 . D i v i n e f o r e k n o - w l e d ge a n d p r o v i d e n c e i n t h e c o m m e n t a r i e s o f B o e t h i u s a n d A q u i n a s o n t h e D e i n t e r p r e t a ti o - n e 9 o f A r i s t o t l e. Biblica et Patristica Thoruni- ensia 1 3 : 1 5 1 – 1 7 3 . h tt p s: / / d o i .o r g / 10 . 1 2 7 75 / b p t h . 2020 . 0 0 6 Venema, Dennis R., and Scot McKnight . 201 7 . Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture After Genetic Science . G r a n d R a p i d s , M I: B a ke r . Vijgen, Jörgen. 201 8 . T h e C o r r u p ti o n o f t h e G o o d o f N a t u r e a n d M o r a l A c ti o n : T h e Rea l i s m o f St . T h o m a s A q u i n a s . Espirítu 6 7 , n o. 1 55 : 1 2 7 – 1 5 2. – – – . 201 9 . A q u i n a s ’ s Re c e p ti o n o f O r i ge n : A Pr e l i m i n a r y St u d y . I n : M . D a u p h i n a i s , A . H o f e r a n d R . N u tt , e d s . Thomas Aquinas and Greek Fathers, 3 0 – 8 8 . Av e M a r i a , FL : S a p i e n ti a Pr e s s . Vodičar, Janez . 201 7 . Ž i v a m e t a f o r a ko t m o ž n a p o t d o t r a n s c e n d e n c e [ A L i v i n g M e t a p h o r a s a Po s s i b l e P a t h t o T r a n s c e n d e n c e ]. Bogoslovni vestnik 7 7 , n o. 3 / 4 :5 6 5 −5 7 6 . h tt p s: / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 4 2 9 1 / b v 2020 /02 / vo d i c a r Woollard, Geoffrey . 2020 . Re v i e w o f C r ea ti v e Natur e ( p ar t 3 ) . Scientia et Fides 8, n o. 2 :4 0 3 – 421 . Zagzebsky, Linda. 2010 . E xe m p l a r i s t V i r t u e T h e o - r y. Metaphilosophy 4 1, n o. 1 / 2 :4 1 – 5 7 . Žalec, Bojan. 2020 . Re zi l i e n c a , t e o l o g a l n e k r e p o s ti i n o dzi v n a C e r ke v [Re s i l i e n c e , T h e o l o g i c a l V i r t u e s , a n d a Re s p o n s i v e C h u r c h ]. Bogoslovni vestnik 8 0, n o. 2 :2 6 7 − 2 7 9 . h tt p s: / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 4 2 9 1 / b v 2020 /02 / z a l e c – – – . 2021 . Re s o n a n c e a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f h u - man resilience. XLinguae 1 4, n o. 3 : 1 39 − 1 49 .