Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat
p-ISSN 2548-7868, e-ISSN 2548-7558
https://journal.sttsimpson.ac.id/index.php/EJTI/

Volume 9, Number 1, March 2025 (1-16)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46445/ejti.v9i1.862

Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? A Study on Thomas
Aquinas’s Virtues in a Person’s Ethical Decision
Irene Ludji
Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
In this article, I discuss the importance of St. Thomas Aquinas’s infused virtue in living an ethical
Christian life, a critical element of church formation. The research question in this article
answered the importance of infused virtue in understanding the goodness of a person's moral life
as a church member. The method used in this article is a literature study that focuses on the work
of Thomas on acquired and infused virtue ethics. Thomas’s virtue ethics is demonstrated to be a
complete set of ethics, that does not only focus on acquired ethics. Moral and intellectual virtues
are not enough for human beings to achieve the proper purpose of their life by themselves.
Therefore, human beings need the infusion of virtues as a part of God’s grace that will elevate
their understanding of God’s universal moral order. There are three parts to this article, in the first
part of the article, I present a critique of the belief that Christian ethics should rely only on habit
as something that can be acquired through practice. In the second part of the article, I discuss
Thomas’s virtue ethics by briefly introducing his concept of natural law and its relation to virtue.
In the last part of this article, I provide a conclusion on why I think infused virtue matters.
Keywords: Ethics, Acquired Virtues, Infused Virtues, Thomas Aquinas

Article history
Submitted: July 23, 2024

Revised: Jan. 10, 2025

Accepted: Jan. 20, 2025

Corresponding author: Irene Ludji (irene.ludji@uksw.edu)
How to cite this article:
Ludji, I. (2025). Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? A Study on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtues in a Person’s Ethical Decision.
Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat. 9 (1): 1-16. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46445/ejti.v9i1.862
This is an open-access article under the CC BY-SA license
The images or other third-party material in this article are included in the Creative Commons license unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. Suppose material is not included in the Creative Commons license article and
your intended use is prohibited by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use. In that case, you must obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder.

INTRODUCTION
This article discusses the importance of infused virtue as the key to understanding
the goodness of a person’s moral life. St. Thomas Aquinas (will be addressed as Thomas
for the rest of the article) in the second part of his first book, Summa Theologica, discusses
the importance of habit as a part of acquired virtue in moral life. However, he did not stop
there; he thinks that there are virtues that humans cannot obtain by themselves which he
calls theological virtues. Theological virtues can only be infused by God to us as finite
beings. Infused virtue is the key to understanding the goodness of our moral life.
There are different ways to understand habit. Thomas does not think of a habit as
a dull routine. Instead, he thinks of habit as something that we do consciously to achieve
our ends. “A ‘habit’ in Thomas’s sense is a quality in the soul that orders human conduct
in a way that contributes to the human development of the person; habits are developed
human capacities” (Pope, 2002, p. 34). For this reason, Thomas’s ethics is very
teleological concerning it is always leaning towards the end as the purpose of our
existence.
There are several published articles that discuss Thomas’s virtue ethics. First,
Eitel (2023, p. 372) in “Humility, Fear, and the Relationship between the Gifts and
Infused Virtues Thomas Aquinas” discusses humility as an infused moral virtue in
relation to reverence and its development. Second, Stump (2023, p. 1) “Aquinas’s Ethics:
The Infused Virtues and the Indwelling Holy Spirit” explores Aquinas’s claims on infused
virtues and their impact on a person’s moral life (2023, p. 1). Third, Decosimo (2023, p.
323) describes the compatibility of acquired and infused morals in relation to nature and
grace in Christian Ethics. Older publications on the topic discussed in this article include:
first, A Louth (2013, p. 351) who explores virtue ethics in comparison with St. Maximos
the Confessor. Second, Jones (2015, p. 87) who analyzes the connection between human
dignity and virtue ethics. Third, “A Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtue Ethics by
J Budziszewski” by R Hain (2017, p. 538). Fourth, Demaline (2020, p. 1047) discusses
the need for Christian Virtue Ethics in the economic sector. Fifth, Daly (2021, p. 565)
who explores the relation between virtue ethics and human action in general.
Based on previous research it is clear that the discussion on Thomas’s virtues and
its role in a person’s ethical decision can provide an in-depth input on the topic. The
research question addressed in this article is: What is the importance of Thomas Aquinas's
infused virtue in understanding the goodness of a person's moral life? There are three
parts of this article, in the first part of the article, I will present a critique to the belief that
Christian ethics should rely only on habit as something that can be acquired through
practice. In the second part of the article, I will discuss Thomas’s virtue ethics by briefly
introducing his concept of natural law and its relation to virtue. Additionally, I will
explore parts of the Summa Theologica that discuss ethics in relation to virtue (Questions

2

Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat 9(1), March 2025

55-66) and end the analysis by focusing on the importance of infused virtues. In the last
part of this article, I will provide a conclusion on why I think infused virtue matters.
METHOD
This article uses an in-depth literature study to present a discussion on Thomas’s
virtue ethics, parts of the Summa Theologica, especially the Prima Secundae that discuss
ethics about virtue (Questions 55-66), and an analysis of the importance of infused
virtues. An in-depth literature study presented in this article is a systematic literature
review that follows a logical, linear thinking process (Purssell & McCrae, 2020, p. 13).
In the research and writing of this article, materials have been chosen selectively to
describe and analyze the proposed context by comparing, contrasting, and summarizing
resources. Thomas’s virtue ethics in-depth literature study as a method of analysis has
optimally been used by including primer publication and research on the topic. This
research is crucial because it provides an exploration of theory and the practice of the
theory in a person’s ability to make ethical decisions.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Problem with Acquired Ethics
In this part of the article, I discuss the problem of relying only on acquired ethics
in developing a moral life. I present the perspective of two modern Christian virtue
ethicists who support the importance of earned ethics: Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel
Wells. Hauerwas and Wells discuss habit as acquired ethics in different ways, but both
agree that living a virtuous Christian life is mainly about practising what is right and that
this can be achieved only through habituation (forming of habit). Hauerwas (1983, p. 55)
believes that when we want to talk about Christian ethics, we must focus on the practical
dimension of it. “For theology is a practical activity concerned to display how Christian
convictions construe the self and world.” It is our duty as Christians to be different from
the world, and that distinction should be shown through the ethical practice of our daily
life. Therefore, Hauerwas put much of his attention on the development of characters in
practice. To repeat, Hauerwas believed that as Christians, the basis of our way of doing
Christian ethics should not rely on the universal and final cause, but specifically in
practising Christian ethics. Because of his focus on the context, Hauerwas disagrees that
our moral life should be based on the objective moral order given by God.
Admittedly, Hauerwas (1983, pp. 63–64) provides seven reasons why the natural
law cannot be the starting point for Christian ethics. These seven reasons can be classified
into three groups, which are: the problem with the teleological God, one source morality
vs. many source moralities, and the emphasis on the Christian narrative. He thinks that
natural law is not reliable when it comes to the discussion about Christian ethics because
I. Ludji, Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? A Study on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtues …

3

human beings should not be treated only as a means by a God who has a universal plan
for them. Obviously, Hauerwas thinks that there is no such thing as a universal moral
order; instead, we are now living in a fragmented world where every community has their
own moral rules. Because of the fragmented world situation, what we can do is use the
narrative in our community to give meaning to the practice of ethics. Hauerwas (1983, p.
62) states that “there is no point outside our history where we can secure a place to anchor
our moral convictions. We must begin in the middle … we must begin within a narrative.”
For this purpose, Hauerwas thinks that instead of trying to understand the purpose of our
existence through the universal law, we should do it amid history, as where we are now.
By disapproving of natural law as the starting point of ethics Hauerwas
misunderstood the important aspect of Thomas’s approach, which is his ability to think
universally and to interpret our nature using the ontological framework. Human beings
are not merely tools in God’s hands because if we are just tools, it must also mean that
God needed us to be used as tools. God as the first being did not need us; instead, God
created us as beings with self-determinant nature so that we can freely move forward to
God. Conversely, because of the limit of our reason, a different community might come
up with a different source of moralities. However, all the sources of moralities that we
acknowledge with our limited reason are parts of the creation of God and therefore are
united in God. Natural law does not eliminate the importance of our personal or
communal narratives, in contrast, it gives root to our narratives as a part of God’s perfect
and eternal narrative.
Hauerwas (1983) is right to think that the practical aspect of ethics is important,
but he is wrong to believe that it is the only important part. Without discernment of
virtues, ethics that focus only on the practical aspects will fall into legalism, a set of rules
and regulations with no deeper aim. This is why Thomas approaches the concept of virtue
by supporting both acquired and infused ethics. For Thomas, on the one hand, we must
practice and turn the practice into a habit. We must understand the values behind those
practices so that the practice does not become thoughtless routines, but a series of
developed characteristics. On the other hand, we must realize that as finite beings, our
reason and understanding of God’s universal morality is limited. Consequently, we need
the intervention of the Creator to lead us to our determinate ends as creatures.
To this point, I hope I have shown enough evidence on why I think ethics cannot
be based on practical dimension alone, as proposed by Hauerwas. It is not because the
practical side of ethics is not essential, but it is because it is important that we know why
we must be ethical. Just like when an athlete forces her body to practice every day, she
must understand two things: why the practice is essential (the cause) and what is the goal
that she must achieve by exercising every day (the effect). Hauerwas (1983) thinks that
the athlete’s goal of practising does not matter, as long as she is practising. For Hauerwas,
what is important is that the athlete can swim well if she practices well; what is less
4

Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat 9(1), March 2025

important is why she swims at all. On the contrary, for Thomas, questions such as “Why
do we swim? And What is the primary goal of swimming for an athlete?” are basic
questions that must be answered before the swimming practice takes place. Additionally,
Thomas thinks that God did not just create us, some to be an athlete and some to be a
teacher. Instead, God created us as creatures with a particular nature, which an internal
principle to be and to act. We are created for a purpose, and for the fulfillment of that
goal, we must follow the determinant nature that is placed in us by the Creator.
Similar but from a different perspective, Samuel Wells argues that what is
important is not whether an athlete can swim well when she needs to swim. What is
important is the training that she must go through to be able to swim well; certainly, the
process determines the result. The training should include classes in swimming theories,
swimming training, and mentoring in the swimming practice. Wells (2018, p. 75) is
convinced that “ethics is not primarily about the operating theatre: it is about the lecture
theatre, the training field, the practice hall, the library, the tutorial, the mentoring session.”
Habituation and training are the keywords in Wells’ (2018) argument when it comes to
living ethically. Wells uses the Waterloo analogy to show that success in the battle
depends on the character formation of the soldier before the fight. Accordingly, for
Christians, the stage of preparation took place in the practice of worship and other
affiliated religious activities. When Christians are all well trained through the habituation
and continue the practice, they will act according to the habit when facing a moral
dilemma. In developing his argument, Wells (2018) seems to limit the application of
Christian ethics into all the practices that can be predictable. Being ethical is nothing but
repeating the habit that we have been prepared for throughout our life. As a result, ethics
have only one dimension which is the practical dimension where one does something
based on what one acquired in the process of preparation.
The approach that Wells (2018) took can be problematic because of the very fact
that life is unpredictable. In other words, there are moral situations in life, which we
cannot prepare ourself for before they happen to us. Moreover, life should not be a series
of preparations to conduct moral actions. Ethical decisions should not be just a series of
repetition; in contrast, ethical decisions should have context and meaning in each
situation. Thomas agrees with Wells that habituation and training are important in shaping
one’s moral life, but more critical than habituation is the acknowledgment that human
being cannot achieve goodness without the source of good itself, which is God. To think
of ethics solely in relation to habit leaves no room for acknowledgment of God’s role in
our ethical life. Besides, if we acknowledge that God created us for specific purposes,
then we must always provide room for God to intervene in our ethical life. Consequently,
we cannot rely only on acquired ethics to develop a good Christian life. If we think that
Christian ethics is important, then we must acknowledge that focusing on practice and
what we can acquire is insufficient. We ought to keep the balance between habit and
I. Ludji, Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? A Study on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtues …

5

virtue, between acquired ethics and the role of God in enabling human beings to act in
line with the purpose of their existence.
Habit for Thomas is the quality that is “not the very substance of man but a
disposition added to his substance and modifying it” (Gilson, 1956, p. 256). Obviously, a
habit did not exist in itself but added to being with the ability to change the being. “Habits
are not only qualities and accidents, but they are the qualities and accidents which lie
closest to the nature of a thing, and which come closest to entering into its essence and
integrating themselves into its definition.” Virtue and habits that are related to each other
will lead us to a good moral life. When a habit is not related to virtue, it becomes a bad
habit and vice versa. Wells, in his argument, seems to focus only on the development of
good habits, while failing to acknowledge the possibility of a bad habit. In comparison,
from Thomas, we learn that good habit is the habit that will lead us to the fulfilment of
God’s purposes and is also called virtue. A bad habit is taking us away from the purpose
of God and therefore is called vice. To sum up, habit and practice alone are not sufficient
in developing an ethical life.
Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? St. Thomas Virtue Ethics
For Thomas, it is impossible to understand virtue ethics without the understanding
of natural law. Thomas Williams (2015, p. xvi), in Thomas Aquinas’s Disputed Questions
on Virtue, argues that only those who understand the relation between natural law and
virtue will be able to understand Thomas’s virtue ethics. Natural law is the principle or
the starting point when it comes to Thomas’s virtue ethics because it assumes that human
nature is God-given for a particular purpose. Similarly, there is an objective moral order
in the universe with God as the source. Thomas believes acquired virtues operate
exclusively at the ‘command’ of equally active infused moral and theological virtues
(Decosimo, 2023, p. 325). Virtue is needed to support reason in leading our natural law
towards God’s purpose for our existence.
In general, there are 40 questions on virtue and 170 questions on individual virtues
and vices in the work of Thomas (DeYoung et al., 2009, p. 130). It is impossible to discuss
them all in one article. Therefore, what I will do is to present ten questions from the
second part of the first part of Summa Theologia (Prima Secundae) that discuss virtue. I
am relying heavily on the writing provided by Thomas himself in Summa Theologia and
the commentary on virtue ethics written by J. Budziszewski. Admittedly, the purpose of
this part of the article is mainly to restate to understand better Thomas’s elaboration on
virtues. I have classified the ten questions (Question 55-65) in Summa Theologia into four
groups which are: first, the introduction of virtue, second, the types of virtue; third, the
relation between virtues; and fourth, the theological virtues. In each section, I begin by
restating the objections and then move to Thomas’s response to the matter.

6

Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat 9(1), March 2025

The first group, which is the group of questions that discuss the introduction of
virtue, includes question 55, 56, and 63. In question 55, Thomas discusses “Whether
virtue is suitably defined?” and replies to the first objection in article 4 by confirming the
definition of virtue (from Peter Lombard’s Sentences). Thomas's answers in questions 55,
56, and 63 are based on several parts of the Bible, which are 1 Corinthians 2:9, 13:13,
15:56, and 2 Corinthians 12:9. Thomas agrees that virtue is “a good quality of the mind,
by which we live rightly, of which no one makes bad use, which God works in us without
us” (ST I-II, Q 55, A 4, arg. 1).1 There are six objections to this definition of virtue. The
first objection is on virtue as not suitable to be the good quality because if virtue is the
good quality of a person, then virtue must be within the person. The second objection is
based on the argument that ‘good’ has a broader meaning than virtue. The third is a
critique on the relation between reason and virtue, because there is a part of being (besides
reason), that can also have virtue. The fourth is the complaint on the use of the word
righteousness in defining virtue because righteousness is a part of justice, which is only
one type of virtue. Fifth is the objection to the fact that pride and virtue are not equal, and
therefore one cannot have pride and virtue at the same time. When one has pride and
virtue at the same time, it becomes a vice. The sixth is the protest on the statement that
“God brings it about in us, without us” (ST I-II, Q 55, A 4, arg. 6). This statement is
confusing because even the Bible states that only those who believe in God will be
justified.
In answering these objections, Thomas states that to thoroughly understand the
definition of virtue, as presented by Lombard, we must understand the four causes that
appear in the definition of virtue (ST I-II, Q 55, A 4, co). First is the formal cause (the
form that makes a thing a thing), second is the material or exemplary cause (the model of
something that we create), third is the final cause (ends as the goal), and fourth is the
efficient cause (the cause of any cause). “The formal cause of virtue is the good quality
or the good habit. The material cause of virtue must be understood in the third sense,
which is the matter in which it exists, and the answer is in the mind. The final cause of
virtue is always the good end since virtue cannot lead towards the vice. And the efficient
cause of virtue is God” (Budziszewski, 2017, p. 18). Hence, virtue is relevant in that it
allows God's power to be a primer in human action (Swanstrom, 2020, p. 261). Thomas
believes that the definition of virtue as presented by Lombard is better suited in terms of
theological virtue, whereby the statement “God brings it about in us, without us” does not
mean that human beings cannot do anything in the process of the infusion of virtue.
Instead “what St. Thomas writes is that God causes infused virtue in us without our
agentibus–we are not the ones who generate, initiate, drive, or conduct the act” (2017, p.

1

The citation of Summa Theologiae in this article will consistently follows the standard of citation as
mentioned in https://douglasbeaumont.com/2010/09/21/citing-thomas-aquinass-summa-theologiae/

I. Ludji, Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? A Study on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtues …

7

18). Consequently, when Thomas talks about theological virtues as infused virtues, what
he means is that human beings are not the source of these virtues (Decosimo, 2023, p.
327). Obviously, Thomas is not claiming that human beings are expected to be passive in
the process of Divine infused virtues because the process of infused virtue cannot take
place without our consent (ST I-II, Q 55, A 4, ad. 6).
In question 56 article 3, Thomas discusses about “Whether the intellect can be the
subject of virtue?” There are three objections to the discussion. First is that the intellect
cannot be the subject of virtue because the subject of virtue is love, as stated by Augustine.
Second is because virtue is determined as good, the intellect cannot be the subject of
virtue because the subject of good is the appetite or desire. The third is that the intellect
cannot be the subject of virtue because the intellect focusses on the work of reason that
can be seen in science and arts (ST I-II, Q 56, A 3, arg. 1.2.3). Science and arts are
intellectual products that cannot be categorized as good, and therefore intellectual cannot
be the subject of virtue. Thomas answers these objections by stating that because the
subject of virtue is the mind, then the intellect is the subject of virtue (ST I-II, Q 56, A 3,
co). Thomas divides between what he called speculative intellect and practical intellect,
to answer the objections. Speculative intellect is moved by reason, while practical
intellect is moved by prudence. Both types can only be moved by the will, and therefore
the subject of the moral virtue is the will. “Once the end is willed, it is an intellectual
moral virtue which will deliberate and choose the means suited to that end” (Gilson, 1956,
p. 263). The intellect is moved by the will to move towards the proper end. There is a
clear assertion from Thomas when it comes to structured sequence of human moral virtue
(Gui, 2022, p. 2).
In question 63 article 1, Thomas discusses “Whether virtue is in us by nature?”
There are three objections at the beginning of the discussion which are: first, that virtue
is in us by nature, as stated by John Damascene, Anthony, and Jesus, in the New
Testament. Second, that because virtue is closely related to reason and can only be
operated under reason, while reason is a part of our nature, then it can be concluded that
virtue is a part of our nature. Third, that there is a virtue that we naturally have (we have
them since we were born), such as mercy (ST I-II, Q 63, A 1, arg. 1.2.3). Therefore, it
must be that virtue is a part of our nature. In response to these objections, Thomas states
that if something is natural in us, it means that everybody has it. The problem is that not
everybody has virtue; thus, it proves that virtue is not a part of our nature (ST I-II, Q 63,
A 1, co). Thomas believes that the desire towards owning of virtues is located within our
nature but that it is impossible for our natural ability to comprehend virtue by itself.
Virtues cannot reach its proper form in the realm of nature, and therefore there must be
infused virtues that will lift human nature and enable them to see in a clearer sense.
From the first group of questions, we can conclude that God as the efficient cause
put in our nature the ability to reason, and therefore, enable us to acquired certain virtues,
8

Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat 9(1), March 2025

but the perfection of these virtues can only take place with the help of infused virtue.
Infused virtues do not imply the passiveness of human being; instead, it is focused on the
activity of God as the source of theological virtue.
The second group, questions number 57, 60, and 61, discusses the types of virtues.
In question 57, Thomas concludes that there are five intellectual virtues which are
understanding, science, wisdom, art, and prudence. “Intellectual virtues are … habits
which perfect the intellectual power in the apprehension of knowledge, or in the
application of knowledge” (Redpath, 1983, p. 66). Intellectual virtues require
commitment in the cognitive part of a person (Stöpfgeshoff & Bobier, 2020, p. 39). It is
interesting that Thomas includes art in the category of intellectual virtues because when
we think about art, most people will refer it to as the aspect of feeling or appetite, where
people get to ‘enjoy’ the product. In article 3, Thomas defines art as the work of reason
in the form of both operative habit and speculative habit (ST I-II, Q 57, A 3, co). Just like
a scientist is expected to demonstrate facts in her work, without the care of whether the
facts will upset the audience, an art worker is expected to produce truth in the work, no
matter how the art product will make the audience feel. Thomas also includes prudence
in intellectual virtue. By prudence, he meant the “right reason in practice” (recta ratio
agibilium) (Budziszewski, 2017, p. 25). Prudence is the reason that directed acts in the
pursuit of the end.
In question 60 article 1, Thomas talks about “Whether there is only one moral
virtue?” There are three objections to this discussion. All the objections state that there is
only one moral virtue, which is prudence, because every moral act is based on it (ST I-II,
Q 60, A 1, arg 1.2.3). There are more than one moral virtue and Thomas believe that this
is something that is self-evident (Decosimo, 2023, p. 325). Something is self-evident
when the predicate contains in the meaning of the subject. In terms of moral virtue,
Thomas categorizes it as “habits of the appetitive faculty” (ST I-II, Q 60, A 1, co).
Appetitive faculty differs in different species, and therefore moral virtues should be more
than one depending on its relation to the reason of various species. “For St. Thomas there
are three principal moral virtues because there are three appetites which can be directed
by human reason. These appetites are the will, the propelling appetite and the contending
appetite” (Redpath, 1983, p. 68). The three principles of moral virtues are based on the
three appetites that can be directed by human reason, and known as justice, temperance,
and courage (ST I-II, Q 60, A 1, co). Later in question 61, Thomas concludes that it is
these three moral virtues and the intellectual virtue that makes excellent moral virtues or
cardinal virtues.
In question 61 article 2, Thomas discusses about “Whether there are four cardinal
virtues?” There are three objections in this discussion, first is the objection on the number
of the cardinal virtues. Since prudence is the main virtue that controls other virtue, then
there can only be one cardinal virtue. Second is the objection on which virtue should be
I. Ludji, Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? A Study on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtues …

9

categorized as cardinal virtues. Admittedly, based on Aristotle’s explanation, there are
only two virtues, which are the practical reason and the right appetite. The third objection
is about the possibility of having more than four cardinal virtues as the principal virtues
(ST I-II, Q 61, A 2, arg. 1.2.3). Cardinal virtues as the excellent moral virtues should be
understood in the light of the rational good as its formal cause (Gui, 2022, p. 3). Rational
good (rationis bonum) refers to “the ordering of all goods according to the good of reason
itself” (Budziszewski, 2017). Rational good is important in two ways, which is as “respect
to the activity of reason and respect to the activity of bringing something else into rational
order” (Budziszewski, 2017, p. 49). Justice, temperance, and courage belong to the
second category while prudence belongs to the first category.
From the second category of questions, it can be concluded that there are several
types of virtues. The first one is the intellectual virtues, which relies on speculative habit
and can be differentiated into understanding, wisdom, science, art, and prudence. The
second one is moral virtues, which is based on the appetitive aspect of human being. The
appetites include will, propelling appetite, and contending appetite, that leads into three
moral virtues which are justice, temperance, and courage. The third one is the
combination of intellectual and moral virtues, which is the most excellent virtues that
include prudence, justice, temperance, and courage. These four virtues are also known as
the cardinal virtues.
The third group discuss the connection or relation between virtues, which includes
question 58, 59, and 65. In question 58 article 4, Thomas convincingly states that moral
virtues without intellectual virtues are impossible (ST I-II, Q 58, A 4, pr). There are three
objections to this position which are: first, that moral virtue can be without intellectual
virtue because it is possible to have a moral virtue that acts as a part of our inclination
and therefore does not need a reason to operate. Second, that it is possible for people to
pursue virtue and obey God even if they don’t have the ability to reason well. In other
words, one can be not intellectual but understands her purpose as God’s creation. Third,
that our inclination as a part of nature can lead us to do good, even without the help of
reason (ST I-II, Q 58, A 4, arg. 1.2.3). In answering these objections, Thomas states that
it is true that on the one hand, “not every intellectual virtue is necessary for moral virtue”
(Budziszewski, 2017, p. 23). On the other hand, it is impossible for moral virtue to be
conducted meaningfully without the existence of prudence, which is an intellectual virtue.
Prudence refers to the right order of reason that will lead to the final good (Gui, 2022, p.
2).
“The reason why moral virtue cannot exist without prudence is that prudence is
the disposition by which we make good choices” (Budziszewski, 2017, p. 24). To make
a good choice we need our rational ability to direct us in the right way that will lead us to
reach the proper end. Even when we have the right intention to do things, it cannot be

10

Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat 9(1), March 2025

done without reason telling us to do it, and this is the role of prudence as ‘the right reason
in practice’ in moving us towards the proper end.
If moral virtue cannot exist without intellectual virtue, can intellectual virtue exist
without moral virtue? Thomas’s answer is the same, that prudence as the reason in
practice cannot exist without moral virtue. “The reason for this is that prudence concerns
not only with the right reason … but right reason about what is to be done in particular
matters” (Budziszewski, 2017, p. 37). By particular matters, Thomas meant the importance of moving towards our ends or purposes. To put it differently, both moral virtue and
intellectual virtue are working towards the same particular matters as a part of our nature,
which is to fulfil God’s plan through God’s creation.
In question 59, Thomas discusses the question of moral value in relation to
passion. In article 1, he states that moral value is not a passion (ST I-II, Q 59, A 1, co).
The objections include the assumption that moral value is a mean between two passions
and therefore can be categorised as a passion; the fact that because some passions are
vices, there must also be some passions that can be categorized as virtues; and the
definition of pity as the care of being that reflects the passion and therefore can be
categorized as moral virtue (ST I-II, Q 59, A 1, arg. 1.2.3). Thomas answers that moral
virtue cannot be passion because of three reasons. First, moral virtue cannot be a passion
because moral virtue and passion belong to different categories (ST I-II, Q 59, A 1, co).
Moral virtue is a “principle of the movement” while passion is a “movement” of the
appetite. Second, moral virtue cannot be passion because passion falls into the category
of instrumental good, while moral virtue falls into the category of final good (ST I-II, Q
59, A 1, co). Moral virtues must be good in themselves; it cannot include vices. While
passion can be good or bad depends on the reason. Third, moral virtue cannot be passion
because there are some passions that can only be referred to evil, while moral virtue must
always relate to good (ST I-II, Q 59, A 1, co). Therefore, moral virtues cannot be passion.
In question 65 article 1, Aquinas addresses the question of “Whether the moral
virtues relate to one another?” There are four objections, which are: first is that moral
virtues are not connected to each other because when we exercise an act that is based on
certain virtue, we are not obligated also to exercise other virtue for the same act. Second
is that one can have a virtue such as courage, without having the virtue of justice, and
therefore moral virtues are not connected to each other. Third is that because intellectual
virtues are not mutually connected, we can assume that virtues are not mutually related.
Fourth is because moral virtues can only connect to each other under prudence, it is not a
real connection; instead, it is a mutual dependence (ST I-II, Q 65, A 1, arg. 1.2.3). In
response to the objections, Thomas states that “when we speak of the moral virtues, we
must make clear whether we are speaking of fully developed virtues, or incipient and
incomplete virtues” (Budziszewski, 2017, p. 120). In the level of fully develop moral
virtues, it is impossible for them not to be connected to each other. For instance, a person
I. Ludji, Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? A Study on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtues …

11

who is courageous must also be just, if she has fully developed her moral virtues. Moral
virtues that do not relate to each other in its practice falls into the category of incomplete
virtues (Decosimo, 2023, p. 324). For example, a married man who is a cheater with a
kind heart. His kind heart is damaged by his unfaithfulness, and therefore, the virtue is
not connected to each other. Moral virtues are also depending on prudence because it is
prudence that provided the right reason in pursuing the proper end. Admittedly, “all moral
virtues relate to all other moral virtues through their mutual dependence on prudence”
(Budziszewski, 2017, p. 124). From the third category of questions (ST I-II, Q 58.59.60),
we can conclude that moral virtues are related to intellectual virtues only when it is fully
developed. Prudence is necessarily needed in moral virtues, because it provides the reason
to do the right moral action.
Finally, the fourth group includes the discussion of theological virtue as presented
in question 62 and 64. In question 62 article 1, Thomas discussed theological virtues by
asking the question of “Whether there is any theological virtue as virtues that are different
from moral virtues?” There are three objections in this discussion, which are: first, that
the only virtue that exists is acquired virtue and therefore theological virtue as infused
virtue cannot exist. Second, theological virtues reside in God and not in man, hence we
cannot have theological virtues. The third is the objection to the need for theological
virtue. There is no need for theological virtues because their role is the same as the role
of natural law (ST I-II, Q 62, A 1, arg. 1.2.3). In answering these objections, Thomas talks
about the imperfect happiness/natural happiness and the need of the virtue of God for man
to accomplished complete happiness/supernatural happiness (ST I-II, Q 62, A 1, co). This
differentiation is not new to Thomas’s writing, beginning in the first part of Summa
Theologia, Thomas already differentiates between natural and supernatural experience.
When Thomas talks about the possibility and limitation of human knowledge of God, he
differentiates types of lights that include the light of nature (reason), the light of grace
(faith), and the light of glory (seeing Divine essence) (ST I, Q 12, A 5, co). It is only with
the light of glory that, human reason will experience the supernatural Divine essence; just
like it is only through theological virtues that moral and intellectual virtues will reach
complete/supernatural happiness. Theological virtues as the infused virtues depend on the
belief that human beings as the creation of God are always in need of God; there is nothing
we can do that we can do solely with our nature that will lead us to the ultimate ends
(beatific vision).
Under the theological virtues, which are faith, hope, and love, cardinal virtues are
also lifted up to aim for a better good. “Acquired prudence helps us to make good
decisions for the sake of earthly life, such as marriage and education, but infused prudence
helps us make good decisions for the sake of eternal life with God” (Budziszewski, 2017,
p. 74). Additionally, Cardinal virtues can be categorized not only as acquired virtues but

12

Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat 9(1), March 2025

also infused virtues when it is conducted with the acknowledgement of God as the
efficient (the cause of any cause) and final cause.
In the fourth article of question 64, Thomas addresses the question of “Whether
the theological virtues observe the mean?” The main objection states that theological
virtues observe the mean because the good of virtue relies on the ability to observe the
mean (ST I-II, Q 64, A 5, arg. 1). Thomas thinks that the answer to the question of mean
must be approached from two perspectives, which are the perspective of an infinite being,
which is God, and the perspective of a finite being, which is human. For God, theological
virtues should not have any mean or excess because God’s love to us is beyond our
comprehension, while we can never love God in the same way as God loves us (ST I-II,
Q 64, A 4, co). For us, as finite beings, we can only love God as much as we can through
reason, and therefore there is a possibility of meaning in theological virtues due to our
human limitation (ST I-II, Q 64, A 4, co).
From the last category of questions (ST I-II, Q 62.64), where theological virtues
are discussed, we conclude that infused virtues, both theological and cardinal virtues, are
directed to the final good. The integration between virtue and grace is real in theological
virtues. There is no other way to reach supernatural happiness but to live a life that
observes cardinal virtues and theological virtues as infused virtues from God.
Now that we have discussed the ten questions in Summa Theologica (Prima
Secundae) on virtue (questions 55-65), several important points should be made. First is
that human beings are capable of acquiring certain moral virtues through practice,
training, and habituation. However, these moral virtues are not enough to enable us to
reach our final purpose as God created us to be. We need other types of virtues, which
are the theological virtues that include faith, hope, and love. Second is that with the
existence of theological virtues, moral virtues are elevated so that we can see the purpose
of living a moral life clearer. The third is that there are levels in the development of virtue,
which are fully developed virtues and incomplete virtues. Fully developed virtue is shown
through the integrity among virtues, while incomplete virtue is marked by disconnection
among virtues.
How does infusion work and what is the difference between infused moral virtues
and theological virtues? Nicholas Austin (2017, p. 190), in chapter 11 of Aquinas on
Virtue, thinks that the word infusion (infusio) even though useful, has a restricted if not a
narrow meaning. Infusio draws the image of “pouring liquid into a container” (Austin,
2017, p. 190). This image is an analogy, and like any analogy, it refers to both similarities
and differences among them. Austin (2017, p. 190) states that the analogy “succeeds in
conveying the idea that virtues are sheer gifts from God; in other respects, it is a limited
image, as virtue is not much like a pourable liquid.” The image of pouring liquid into a
container did not represent another important part of Thomas’s virtue ethics, which is the
relation between the infused acquired virtues and theological virtues. Jean Porter (1992,
I. Ludji, Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? A Study on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtues …

13

p. 31) in “The Subversion of Virtue,” uses the word “subversion” to explain the process
when theological virtues are infused into human beings, while we already acquired moral
virtues through reason. Subversion strongly suggests that with the existence of theological
virtues, moral virtues will be undermined or sabotaged into a different form of virtues.
This is what it means when Thomas talks about the infusion of moral virtues: moral
virtues cannot exist in themselves after the infusion of theological virtues within human
beings. “Charity cannot function within the individual unless it can operate in and through
intermediate virtues directed immediately towards created goods, which are pursued
under the rubric of components of a life lived in orientation towards God” (Porter, 1992,
p. 31). Infusion of virtue matters the most because it is only through this process that
moral virtues can be arranged towards God’s ends. If acquired moral virtues can be
obtained through habituation, infused moral virtue lifted what used to be only habit, into
the practice of living a meaningful life towards God as the primary good.
CONCLUSION
Theological virtues can only be infused by God to us as finite beings. Infused
virtue is the key to understanding the goodness of our moral life. Infusion of virtue matters
the most because it is only through this process that moral virtues can be arranged towards
God’s ends. Thomas’s virtue ethics is proved to be a complete set of ethics, that does not
only focus on acquired ethics, as what Hauerwas and Wells did. The research question on
“What is the importance of Thomas Aquinas's infused virtue in understanding the
goodness of a person's moral life?” has been answered through a systematic analysis of
Thomas’s writing where it proved that he was able to maintain the balance between
different types of virtues by connecting them through the primary virtue which is love.
Understanding Thomas’s infused virtue is vital to living an ethical Christian life
and critical to church formation. Moral and intellectual virtues are not enough for church
members to achieve the proper purpose of their lives by themselves. Therefore, followers
of Christ need the infusion of virtues as a part of God’s grace that will elevate their
understanding of God’s universal moral order. All in all, Thomas has consistently shown
that human beings, as a part of God’s creation, are always in need to be about God.
Competing interests
I have no competing interests related to the research or writing of this article.

Author contributions
I.L. is the sole author of this research article.

Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

14

Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat 9(1), March 2025

Funding information
This research is privately funded.

Data availability
The data used in this article has been appropriately cited.

Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional
research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder,
agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

REFERENCES
Austin, N. (2017). Aquinas on Virtue. Georgetown University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t89k5h
Budziszewski, J. (2017). Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtue Ethics. Cambridge
University Press.
Daly, D. J. (2021). Virtue Ethics and Action Guidance. Theological Studies, 82(4), 565–
582. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639211055177
Decosimo, D. (2023). Ordering Reasons, Mediating Virtues: How and Why Thomas
Aquinas Affirmed the Compatibility of Acquired and Infused Moral Virtue. Studies
in Christian Ethics, 36(2), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/09539468231154783
Demaline, C. J. (2020). SEC enforcement targets: a Christian virtue ethics perspective.
Journal of Financial Crime, 27(4), 1047–1059. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-032020-0046
DeYoung, R. K., McCluskey, C., & Van Dyke, C. (2009). Aquinas’s Ethics:
Metaphysical Foundations, Moral Theory, and Theological Context. University of
Notre Dame Press.
Eitel, A. (2023). Humility, Fear, and the Relationship between the Gifts and Infused
Virtues in Thomas Aquinas. Studies in Christian Ethics, 36(2), 372–390.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09539468231159041
Gilson, E. (1956). The Christian philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Random House.
Gui, L. (2022). Hierarchies of basic goods and sins according to Aquinas’ natural law
theory.
HTS
Teologiese
Studies
/
Theological
Studies,
78(4).
https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i4.7694
Hauerwas, S. (1983). The peaceable kingdom: a primer in Christian ethics. University of
Notre Dame Press.
Jones, D. A. (2015). Human Dignity in Healthcare: A Virtue Ethics Approach. The New
Bioethics, 21(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1179/2050287715Z.00000000059
Louth, A. (2013). Virtue Ethics: St Maximos the Confessor and Aquinas Compared.
Studies
in
Christian
Ethics,
26(3),
351–363.
I. Ludji, Why Infusion of Virtue Matters? A Study on Thomas Aquinas’s Virtues …

15

https://doi.org/10.1177/0953946813484410
Pope, S. J. (2002). The Ethics of Aquinas. Georgetown University Press.
Porter, J. (1992). The Subversion of Virtue. The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics,
12, 19–41. https://doi.org/10.5840/asce1992123
Purssell, E., & McCrae, N. (2020). How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review.
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49672-2
Redpath, P. A. (1983). The moral wisdom of St. Thomas: an introduction. University
Press of America.
Stöpfgeshoff, A., & Bobier, C. (2020). Thomas Aquinas on the Virtues of Character and
Virtuous
Ends.
The
Review
of
Metaphysics,
74(1),
21–41.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rvm.2020.0050
Stump, E. (2023). Aquinas’s Ethics: the Infused Virtues and the Indwelling Holy Spirit.
New Blackfriars. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbfr.12850
Swanstrom, J. L. (2020). Aquinas and Virtue Acquisition in Secondary Causes. Revista
Portuguesa
de
Filosofia,
76(1),
261–282.
https://doi.org/10.17990/RPF/2020_76_1_0261
Wells, S. (2018). Improvisation: the drama of Christian ethics. Baker Academic, a
division of Baker Publishing Group.
Williams, T. (2015). Introduction to Thomas Aquinas’s Disputed Questions on the Virtues
(A. M. Atkins (ed.)). Cambridge University Press.

16

Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat 9(1), March 2025