Another Distinction

On my wander to and around our local shopping centre, without acknowledging the shops I passed, I spent some time in a phase of meditation on theology. I am sure I would have received a number of glares or brought about some giggles from the mouths of passers by as I, most likely, was talking to myself as normal.
By some roundabout manner, I came to the distinction that must be made between 'per accidens' and 'per se' causes, as this creates a great deal of confusion in the minds of contemporary thinkers. First of all, 'per accidens' causes:

These are causes that do not have a direct or essential link with the effect produced. For instance I could say, the Kenyan built my house. There is nothing in his nationality (his 'Kenyanness') that necessarily shapes bricks into the form of houses. This attribute does not directly actualise some possible outcome. This is 'per accidens' or 'by accident'.
Another example would be, Abraham being the cause of Jacob. Of course, Abraham begot Isaac who in turn was the direct cause (with Rebekah) of Jacob, but Abraham was not involved immediately in the production of the third Patriarch. This is an example of a 'linear' or 'temporal' cause, which is given the appellation of 'per accidens'.
'Per se' causes:

These are causes that directly and essentially have a relation to the outcome. I would be able to say, the builder constructed my flat. It is in the nature and skill of a builder to do such a thing. His occupation will frequently bring about the said effect. It is part of his job specification. This is 'per se' or 'through itself. Also I could say, 'the Kenyan won the race', as an application of a 'per se' cause...
Another example would be, the case of a ball smashing a window. We often would explain such an incident as the ball being kicked by a boy on the grass and then the window becomes cracked after a period of time as the object travels through the air. However, it is more precisely the impact of the ball on the window that causes the breaking of the grass. It must not be conceived in terms of two distinct events. This can be called a 'per se' cause. There is no lapse of time between the cause and the effect.

This is no mere nicety or subtle rhetoric. It is fundamental that we understand these notions to avoid great error. In discussing St. Thomas' arguments for the existence of God, an obvious and much-used rebuttal is that, 'God may have created, but it does not mean He exists just now. He could have fashioned the world, and then left'. The modern philosopher nods his head in approval as Thomas was unable to perceive this evident failure to prove the existence of the deity of Christianity. However this is not what the Angelic Doctor was referring to. We do not merely believe in a God Who creates, but also a God Who sustains and orders in His wisdom , all of creation. In my hand I am holding a pen. Now imagine me using that pen to shift the position of my mobile phone to the end of the desk, where it knocks off a book. For the movement of the book, not only is the nudge of the phone necessary but also the pen which in turn is moved my the hand. There is a link between all three items which are moved by the principle (that is, my hand). I am not simply tossing a pen, which relocates the mobile...and so on. The continued involvement of my hand and the direction it gives, is imperative to the crashing of the book onto the floor. The principle does not solely occupy the position of a first cause, but the first term in the series, upon which the entire set depends. Such is the activity of God.