Ezra SULLIVAN, OP, Habits & Holiness: Ethics, Theology, and Biopsychology. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2021. Pp. 575. $34.95 pb. 1SBN 78-0813233291. Reviewed by Joseph A. BRACKEN, S.J., Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH 45207.

   This book was favorably reviewed already by Wilburn T. Stancil of Rockhurst University in Kansas City, MO. Since the contents of the book are laid out in sufficient detail by Stancil, I will not review them here. Instead I call attention to a summary statement made by Stancil that in my judgment deserves further reflection: “As persons created of body and soul, there is a physiological basis for spirituality and ethical behavior.  Habits and Holiness explains that relation from the Roman Catholic tradition, and I strongly recommend Sullivan’s work.” Yet is the Roman Catholic position on human ethical behavior simply to be identified with the work of Thomas Aquinas in his Summa theologiae, given that Aquinas himself relied heavily on the impersonal philosophy of Aristotle in setting it forth? To his credit, Aquinas recognized that problem but only partly solved it. Aristotle, for example, claimed that everything which changes is moved from potentiality to actuality by an entity other than itself. The sole exception is the alleged Unmoved Mover which alone is Causa sui. Instead, Aquinas counter-argued that the God of Biblical revelation is unmoved in dealing with creatures because God is perfect goodness.  God is not moved to help a creature in pain out of pity for the creature but only as an objective expression of God’s own infinite goodness. Aquinas and Aristotle thus share an emphasis on mind with its attraction to the Good, above all, to God as the Supreme Good for Aquinas. If, instead, the perfection of human and divine nature is to be found in the exercise of free will and freedom of choice, then God is most divine in freely choosing to create the world of creation out of love for creatures as specific individuals rather than simply out of a rational desire to show forth the divine power and goodness in creation as a whole. In the same way, human beings are most free when they choose to love another human being in particular, not out of potential gain either for oneself or for one’s family. John Duns Scotus (and the medieval Franciscan tradition in general) seems to have grasped the value of the individual entity for its own sake rather than as the empirical verification of a universal concept like man or woman. Ultimately, William of Ockham was so focused on the particularity of individual entities that he renounced logical objectivity in favor of nominalism or pure subjectivity.  But in any case the Franciscan tradition deserves equal attention in evaluating the merits of Roman Catholic moral theology.    

Still another way in which the Franciscan tradition survives in contemporary theology is to be found in Scotus’s distinction between essence and existence both in God as infinite being and in creatures as finite beings. For, in God the distinction between essence and existence is nominal, not real. God’s essence is God’s existence and vice-versa.  In creatures as finite beings, however, the distinction is quite real but for the same reason entirely different from God’s own existence and activity as Infinite Being.  Hence, there is no way for finite beings to understand and appreciate the true reality of God’s Being.  The analogy of attribution and the analogy of proper proportionality give human beings better knowledge of what it means to be human but not what it means to be God as Infinite Being.  Between what is Infinite and what is finite there is an infinite gap.  Proof of God’s existence and attributes is humanly available only by way of metaphor, since one simply sets out to “prove” what is already accepted as true by way of personal belief. 

In his Gifford Lectures for 2019-2020, Michael Welker (University of Heidelberg, Germany) raised the same issue about the validity of the classical principle of analogy in classical metaphysics. The mental gap between the Infinite and the finite is so great that an authentic experience of the Divine Spirit can only be inferred from linking it to multiple interrelated workings of the human spirit.  Along the same lines, David McDuffie authored a book entitled Nature’s Sacrament in which he argued that a broader understanding of sacramentality allows Christians to immerse themselves deeper into the world of nature with a deeper sense of awe and respect at God’s handiwork.  Finally, Christian Barrigar published a book entitled Freedom All The Way Up in which he claims that God gave human beings and all sentient creatures grace-filled freedom to deal with one another responsibly in each new situation.       

In brief, then, while I much admire Ezra Sullivan’s careful exposition of habit-forming and holiness as found in the work of Aquinas, above all, in the way that Aquinas’s doctrine has been confirmed by recent scientific research on the same topic, I would not, however, for that reason limit myself to classical Thomism in setting forth the principles of Roman Catholic moral theology. Aquinas was clearly influenced by Aristotle’s more deterministic approach to life in terms of an Unmoved Mover that directly or indirectly moved everything else according to a pre-given plan. Why not instead claim that not only God but also all sentient creatures can in their own way habitually choose to be free and thus responsible for their own decisions.