Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus
Gaudenzio da Brescia (1612–1672)
Reuerendi patris Gaudentij Bontempi, ... Palladium theologicum, seu Tota theologia scholastica in septem tomos distributa. Ad intimam mentem d. Bonauenturae seraphici doctoris ... Tomus quintus, De virtutibus
First published 1676
Bontempi's Palladium theologicum (Lyon 1676) is a complete scholastic theology composed ad mentem D. Bonaventurae, arranged in seven tractatus on the order of the Secunda secundae. This fifth volume, De virtutibus, treats the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity, with their gifts, beatitudes and fruits), the cardinal virtues and their opposite vices, and the states and offices of men (religious and prelates, bishops, princes), including the extensive disputations on contracts, religion, vows, fortitude, temperance and the judicial process. It is a significant example of the Bonaventurian scholastic school and a counterpart to the Thomist manuals of the period.
Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS
Proemium I: Prooemium
Disputatio I: ON FAITH
Quaestio I: What FAITH signifies, and what it is
Quaestio II: What the object of FAITH is
Quaestio III: Whether the object of FAITH is something complex
Quaestio IV: Whether the object of FAITH can be false
Quaestio V: Whether the object of FAITH can be evident scientifically
Quaestio VI: Whether FAITH is concerned with those things which are seen by vision on the way
Quaestio VII: Whether the articles of FAITH are evidently credible
Quaestio VIII: Whether the things to be believed are rightly arranged according to the articles
Quaestio IX: Whether the articles of FAITH have grown over the course of time
Quaestio X: Whether FAITH has grown as regards light
Quaestio XI: Whether Faith has grown in certitude
Quaestio XII: Whether the articles of Faith are to be expounded by some authority which is an infallible teacher, and what it is
Quaestio XIII: What are the marks of the true Church, in which the authority of expounding FAITH resides
Quaestio XIV: What must be believed by the necessity of means
Quaestio XV: What things are to be believed by the necessity of precept
Quaestio XVI: Whether we are bound to confess FAITH, and when
Quaestio XVII: Whether it is lawful to dispute about FAITH, and when
Quaestio XVIII: Whether Faith resides in the Intellect
Quaestio XIX: Whether Faith is perfected by Charity, as by its form
Quaestio XX: Whether it is certain that FAITH remains without CHARITY
Quaestio XXI: Whether, and how, FAITH is a VIRTUE
Quaestio XXII: Whether FAITH is ONE VIRTUE
Quaestio XXIII: Whether FAITH is the first of the Virtues
Quaestio XXIV: Whether FAITH is more certain than any science, or than any intellectual habit
Quaestio XXV: Whether one can know with certainty that he has FAITH
Quaestio XXVI: In whom FAITH is found
Quaestio XXVII: Whether FAITH is a substantial Gift of GOD
Quaestio XXVIII: Whether the difference between FAITH and other acts, natural as opposed to supernatural moral acts, always arises from the object
Quaestio XXIX: On the effects of FAITH
Quaestio XXX: On the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING
Dubitatio I: Whether UNDERSTANDING is a gift of the Holy Ghost
Dubitatio II: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING can coexist with FAITH
Dubitatio III: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING consists in the contemplation of the Creator and of Creation
Dubitatio IV: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING is found in all who have grace, and whether in these alone
Dubitatio V: What is the necessity and utility of the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING
Dubitatio VI: Whether* **the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.
Dubitatio VII: Whether* **to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith
Quaestio XXXI: On the Gift of Knowledge
Dubitatio I: Whether* **KNOWLEDGE** *is a gift of the Holy Ghost
Dubitatio II: Whether knowledge is concerned with Divine things
Dubitatio III: Whether the gift of knowledge is speculative
Dubitatio IV: Whether the third Beatitude corresponds to the Gift of Knowledge: Blessed are they that mourn, etc.
Disputatio II: On Unbelief
Quaestio I: What UNBELIEF is, and what kind of sin it is
Quaestio II: Whether all the works of unbelievers are sins
Quaestio III: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to hear FAITH
Quaestio IV: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to embrace our FAITH, when it has been sufficiently set forth
Quaestio V: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can be compelled to abandon errors or rites contrary to natural reason
Quaestio VI: Whether the rites of unbelievers are to be permitted
Quaestio VII: Whether it is lawful to make agreements with unbelievers about the toleration of their rites
Quaestio VIII: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can retain power over the Faithful, and whether they can be deprived of it
Disputatio III: On Heresy
Quaestio I: What HERESY is
Quaestio II: Whether one who doubts about the articles of FAITH is a heretic
Quaestio III: Whether one who gives merely opinionative assent to an article of FAITH is a heretic
Quaestio IV: Whether, and what, Ignorance excuses from Heresy
Quaestio V: What pertinacity is required for HERESY
Quaestio VI: Whether, for one to be deemed a Heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and a believer
Quaestio VII: Whether the Church can compel heretics to receive the Catholic FAITH
Quaestio VIII: On the other means the Church uses against heretics, by forbidding their Books
Quaestio IX: Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics
Quaestio X: What excommunication is inflicted upon heretics
Quaestio XI: On the other spiritual punishments of heretics
Quaestio XII: On the temporal punishments of Heretics
Disputatio IV: On Hope
Quaestio I: What HOPE is
Quaestio II: What the material object of HOPE is
Question III
Quaestio IV: Whether a certain object is set forth for HOPE, and is hoped for
Quaestio V: Whether Hope is a Virtue
Quaestio VI: Whether HOPE is a Theological Virtue
Quaestio VII: Whether HOPE is at times formless
Quaestio VIII: Whether HOPE arises from merits
Quaestio IX: Whether Hope precedes Charity
Quaestio X: What the proximate subject of HOPE is
Quaestio XI: Whether HOPE remains in the Blessed
Quaestio XII: Whether there is a precept of hoping in GOD
Dubitatio I: UNICA. Would this precept bind one to whom certain damnation had been revealed
Disputatio V: On the Gift of Fear
Quaestio I: Whether FEAR is a Habit distinct from HOPE
Quaestio II: What the object of FEAR is
Quaestio III: Whether worldly Fear is always evil
Quaestio IV: Whether servile Fear is honorable, and a Gift of God
Quaestio V: Whether servile Fear is cast out when grace comes
Quaestio VI: Whether Initial and Filial Fear differ specifically
Quaestio VII: Whether, as Charity grows, Fear diminishes
Quaestio VIII: Whether gratuitous Fear remains in the fatherland
Quaestio IX: Whether Poverty of Spirit corresponds to the GIFT OF FEAR
Quaestio X: On the Effects, and the precept, of the FEAR OF GOD
Disputatio VI: On Despair
Quaestio I: UNICA. Of what power DESPAIR is an act, and what sin it is
Disputatio VII: On Presumption
Quaestio I: What PRESUMPTION is, and what kind of sin
Disputatio VIII: On Charity
Quaestio I: What CHARITY is
Quaestio II: What the object of Charity is
Quaestio III: Whether Charity is properly the friendship of God
Quaestio IV: Whether Charity is a created Habit
Quaestio V: Whether Charity is one special Virtue
Quaestio VI: Whether Charity is of a most special species
Quaestio VII: Whether Charity is the most excellent of the virtues
Quaestio VIII: Whether Charity is the Form of the Virtues
Quaestio IX: Whether besides infused Charity there is another charity, acquired by our own acts
Quaestio X: Whether Charity can be formless
Quaestio XI: Whether CHARITY increases, and how
Quaestio XII: Whether, and how, CHARITY in this life is perfect
Quaestio XIII: Whether Charity can be lost, and how
Quaestio XIV: What is the proximate subject of Charity
Quaestio XV: Whether God alone is to be loved out of Charity, or the neighbor also
Quaestio XVI: Whether Charity is to be loved out of Charity
Quaestio XVII: Whether all gratuitous gifts are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XVIII: Whether irrational creatures are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XIX: Whether a man ought to love himself out of CHARITY
Quaestio XX: Whether a man ought to love his own body out of Charity
Quaestio XXI: Whether sinners are to be loved out of Charity
Quaestio XXII: Whether it is necessary to love enemies out of CHARITY
Quaestio XXIII: Whether we are bound to show the effects of CHARITY toward enemies, and which
Quaestio XXIV: Whether Angels are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XXV: Whether Demons, and the Damned, are to be loved out of CHARITY
Quaestio XXVI: Whether it is fitting that four things to be loved out of CHARITY are enumerated
Quaestio XXVII: Whether God, and the neighbor, are loved with the same habit of CHARITY
Quaestio XXVIII: Whether there is order in CHARITY
Quaestio XXIX: Whether GOD is to be loved more than the neighbor
Quaestio XXX: Whether a man ought out of CHARITY to love God more than himself
Quaestio XXXI: Whether Nature inclines more to loving GOD than to loving ourselves
Quaestio XXXII: Whether a man ought to love himself more than his neighbor
Quaestio XXXIII: Whether the eternal salvation of the neighbor is to be loved more than our own life
Quaestio XXXIV: Whether one neighbor is to be loved more than another
Quaestio XXXV: Whether a Son is to be loved more than a Father
Quaestio XXXVI: Whether a man ought out of CHARITY to love his Mother more than his Father
Quaestio XXXVII: Whether a man ought to love his spouse more than his parents, and Children
Quaestio XXXVIII: Whether the order of CHARITY is considered in the affection, and in the effect
Quaestio XXXIX: Whether the order of CHARITY remains in heaven
Quaestio XL: Whether it is more proper to Charity to love than to be loved
Quaestio XLI: Whether Love is the same as Benevolence
Quaestio XLII: Whether, and whether he can, GOD must be loved in the way with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole mind, and all one's strength
Quaestio XLIII: Whether some measure is to be kept in Divine love
Quaestio XLIV: Whether Charity ought to be enlarged in heaven
Quaestio XLV: Whether it is more meritorious to love an enemy than a friend
Quaestio XLVI: Whether a man, constituted in however small CHARITY, is bound to undergo death for CHRIST
Quaestio XLVII: Whether those having perfect CHARITY are bound to fulfill the things that are of perfection
Quaestio XLVIII: How, and when, the precept of the love of GOD binds
Quaestio XLIX: Whether a man is bound at the first instant of the use of reason to be converted to GOD
Quaestio L: How, and when, the precept of the love of the neighbor binds
Disputatio IX: On the internal effects of Charity, JOY, PEACE, and MERCY
§ I: On Joy
Quaestio I: Whether JOY is an Effect of Charity, and of what kind
Quaestio II: Whether JOY is a virtue
§ II: On Peace
Quaestio I: UNICA. What PEACE is
§ III: On Mercy
Quaestio I: What MERCY is
Quaestio II: Which, and what kind of Virtue, MERCY is
Disputatio X: On the external effects of Charity
§ I: De Beneficentia
Quaestio I: UNICA. What BENEFICENCE is
§ II: On Almsgiving
Quaestio I: Whether to give ALMS is an act of Charity
Quaestio II: Whether the kinds of ALMS are fittingly distinguished
Quaestio III: Whether ALMS is a matter of precept
Quaestio IV: Whether it is a precept, in common necessities, to give superfluities to the poor
Quaestio V: Whether anyone is bound at some time to give alms from things necessary to his state, apart from the extreme necessity of the neighbor
Quaestio VI: Whether alms is owed out of justice to one in extreme need
Quaestio VII: Whether Alms ought to be given from justly possessed goods
§ III: On Fraternal Correction
Quaestio I: Whether FRATERNAL CORRECTION is a matter of precept
Quaestio II: Whether the order of fraternal correction, even in Religious Orders, is a matter of precept, so that the correction first be made in secret
Disputatio XI: On Hatred
Quaestio I: What the object of HATRED is, and what it is
Quaestio II: What, and what kind of sin, hatred is
Disputatio XII: On Sloth
Quaestio I: What ACEDIA is, and what its object is
Disputatio XIII: On Envy
Quaestio I: What ENVY is, and what its object is
Quaestio II: How perverse ENVY is
Disputatio XIV: On Discord, and Contention
Quaestio I: What DISCORD is, and what kind of sin
Quaestio II: What kind, and how great, a sin Contention is
Disputatio XV: On Schism
Quaestio I: What kind of sin SCHISM is
Quaestio II: How great a sin SCHISM is
Quaestio III: What punishments are owed to SCHISMATICS
Disputatio XVI: DE BELLO
Quaestio I: Whether any war can be just
Quaestio II: What conditions are required for a just war
Quaestio III: By whom BELLUM (war) may be waged
Disputatio XVII: On Quarreling, and Sedition
Quaestio I: What RIXA (quarreling) is, and what kind of sin
Quaestio II: What sedition is
Disputatio XVIII: On Scandal
Quaestio I: What, and of how many kinds, SCANDAL is
Quaestio II: Whether SCANDAL is a special sin
Quaestio III: What is to be done, and what omitted, to avoid scandal
Quaestio IV: Whether it is lawful to persuade one resolved upon a great evil into a lesser evil
Disputatio XIX: On the Gift of Wisdom
Quaestio I: What kind of gift WISDOM is
Quaestio II: What is the usefulness, and necessity, of this Gift
Quaestio III: By what means is the GIFT OF WISDOM obtained from God
Quaestio IV: On the illumination that Wisdom brings
Quaestio V: On the spiritual delights of Wisdom
Quaestio VI: How Folly is opposed to Wisdom
Quaestio VII: Whether the seventh Beatitude corresponds to the gift of Wisdom
Disputatio XX: On Prudence
Quaestio I: What PRUDENCE is
Quaestio II: Whether PRUDENCE is a virtue
Quaestio III: Which are the offices of PRUDENCE
Quaestio IV: Who are the participants in PRUDENCE
Quaestio V: How Prudence is acquired, and lost
Quaestio VI: On the parts of the Virtue of PRUDENCE
Quaestio VII: How certain rules of prudence, applicable to the Monastic and Political state, are drawn from the Angelic Hierarchy
§ I: On the Prudence that men bound by solemn vows claim for themselves from the first choir of Angels
§ II: On the Governance of the Prelates of the Church, from the Second Hierarchy of the First Choir, likened to the Dominations
§ III: On the Prudence of Judges, compared with the Virtues, from the second order of the second Hierarchy
§ IV: On the governance of Princes, and similar Powers
§ V: On the Prudence of individuals, from the lowest Hierarchy
Quaestio I: Whether there is one PRUDENCE for all the moral virtues
Disputatio XXI: On the Gift of Counsel
Quaestio I: What the gift of COUNSEL is, and what its office is
Quaestio II: How the GIFT OF COUNSEL orders the mind
Quaestio III: Whether the Gift of COUNSEL remains in heaven
Quaestio IV: Whether the fifth Beatitude corresponds to the Gift of Counsel
Disputatio XXII: On the Vices contrary to Prudence
Quaestio I: On PRECIPITATION
Quaestio II: On INCONSIDERATENESS
Quaestio III: On INCONSTANCY
Quaestio IV: On Negligence
Quaestio V: On the prudence of the flesh
Quaestio VI: On ASTUTENESS
Quaestio VII: On CRAFT (dolus)
Quaestio VIII: On FRAUD
Quaestio IX: On solicitude for temporal things
Quaestio X: On solicitude for the Future
Quaestio XI: On the precepts of PRUDENCE
Disputatio XXIII: On Justice
Quaestio I: Whether Ius (right) is the object of JUSTICE
Quaestio II: What JUSTICE is
Quaestio III: Whether JUSTICE is a special virtue
Quaestio IV: In what subject JUSTICE consists
Quaestio V: Whether JUSTICE is the most excellent of the moral Virtues
Quaestio VI: What kind of sin INJUSTICE is, and how it is committed
Quaestio VII: Whether Judgment is an act of JUSTICE
Quaestio VIII: By what means the public Judgment of a Judge is just
Quaestio IX: In what way private judgment about the neighbor is illicit
Quaestio X: Whether Distributive JUSTICE differs in species from Commutative
Disputatio XXIV: On Restitution
Quaestio I: What RESTITUTION is
Quaestio II: Whether RESTITUTION is necessary for salvation
Quaestio III: Who is bound to RESTORE
Dubitatio I: Whether he is a true cause of loss without whom the loss would still have followed
Dubitatio II: On the indirect causes of loss
Dubitatio III: Whether one who has promised three or four times to restore, and has not restored, is to be absolved before restitution
Quaestio IV: To whom RESTITUTION is to be made
Quaestio V: What ought to be restored
Dubitatio I: Whether the goods of fortune are to be restored in the same way
Dubitatio II: In what manner RESTITUTION is to be made for goods of the body
Dubitatio III: Whether, and how, RESTITUTION of Fame, and Honor, is to be made
Dubitatio IV: On the restitution of goods of the soul
Dubitatio V: When a thing acquired by contract is to be restored
Dubitatio VI: When things acquired by donation ought to be restored
Dubitatio VII: When things acquired by prescription are to be restored
Dubitatio VIII: When a thing acquired as wages for the function of an office is to be restored
Dubitatio IX: Whether the wages of harlotry are to be restored
Dubitatio X: When things acquired by fowling, fishing, and hunting are to be restored
Dubitatio XI: When things acquired by the use of common things are to be restored
Dubitatio XII: Whether things acquired in illicit games are to be restored
Dubitatio XIII: Which things are to be restored on account of finding
Dubitatio XIV: On the restitution of goods impeded by violence, fraud, or evil intention
Dubitatio XV: Whether anyone is bound to restore defrauded customs duties
Dubitatio XVI: What form is to be observed in a just tribute
Quaestio VI: How much is to be Restored
Quaestio VII: When restitution is to be made, and the causes excusing from it
Dubitatio I: Whether entrance into Religion excuses from Restitution
Dubitatio II: Whether cession of goods excuses from restitution
Dubitatio III: On the causes excusing from Restitution on the part of the creditor
Dubitatio IV: On the causes excusing from restitution on the part of the debtor
Dubitatio V: On the causes excusing from Restitution on the part of the public authority
Quaestio VIII: Where restitution is to be made
Quaestio IX: How restitution is to be made
Quaestio X: In what order restitution is to be made
Quaestio XI: What Acceptance of Persons is, and what kind of sin
Quaestio XII: Whether, and how, it is a sin of acceptance of persons to choose the unworthy, or less deserving, for benefices
Quaestio XIII: Whether Acceptance of persons has place in the showing of honor, and reverence
Quaestio XIV: Whether acceptance of persons finds a place in the sentences of Judges
Dubitatio I: Whether a JUDGE can, without the note of acceptance of persons, adhere to the Favor of friends, when the law is doubtful among the Doctors
Disputatio XXV: On Homicide
Quaestio I: What Homicide is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: On homicide from deliberately, insidiously, and treacherously intending it
Quaestio III: Whether one who commands is to be burdened with the same guilt, and punishment as the one who executes
Quaestio IV: Whether an attempt at homicide, and other crimes, is to be punished with the same penalty as the crime consummated
Quaestio V: What are the punishments of voluntary Homicide
Quaestio VI: Whether it is lawful to kill a man with the moderation of blameless defense, for the defense of himself or his goods
Dubitatio I: Whether it is lawful to kill someone to preserve honor, not by fleeing etc.
Dubitatio II: Whether one who is attacked is bound in some case to kill the aggressor
Dubitatio III: Whether it is lawful, in defense of one's own goods, to kill a thief
Dubitatio IV: Whether, in defense of Chastity, it is lawful to kill the Assailant
Quaestio VII: Whether, and how, MONOMACHIA (dueling) is illicit
Quaestio VIII: Whether it is lawful for a Husband to kill a Wife caught in adultery, and a father his daughter, and a brother his Sister, together with the seducer
Quaestio IX: Whether it is lawful to kill oneself
Dubitatio I: Whether it is lawful to shorten our life by mortifications
Dubitatio II: Whether, to avoid a sin or another evil, it is lawful to kill oneself
Dubitatio III: Whether, for the life of the neighbor, it is lawful to give oneself over to death
Dubitatio IV: When we are bound to die for the salvation of souls
Quaestio X: Whether a pregnant Mother may, to save her own life, procure the abortion of the fetus
Quaestio XI: On accidental Homicide
Quaestio XII: Whether a JUDGE can condemn an innocent man to death who has been proven guilty in the trial
Quaestio XIII: Whether Princes can grant license to kill outlaws
Quaestio XIV: On the Restitution owed on account of homicide, or mutilation
Quaestio XV: Whether the mutilation of a limb is ever lawful
Quaestio XVI: Whether it is lawful to imprison or beat another
Disputatio XXVI: On Theft, and Rapine
Quaestio I: What Dominion is
Quaestio II: Whether it is lawful to have private dominion over things
Quaestio III: What THEFT is
Quaestio IV: What quantity is required for mortal sin in Theft
Dubitatio I: What is the grave quantity of theft for Sons, Wives, and Religious
Quaestio V: Whether Theft is mortal when, from many tiny thefts, there supervenes a particle making the thing grave
Quaestio VI: Whether in extreme, or urgent, necessity it is lawful to take what belongs to another
Quaestio VII: On the Thefts of Religious
Quaestio VIII: Whether men can be reduced to slavery, and sold
Quaestio IX: Whether slaves can wrest themselves from their Masters
Quaestio X: Whether it is lawful, by private authority, to recover what is ours
Quaestio XI: On the punishment of Thieves
Quaestio XII: On the restitution of thefts
Disputatio XXVII: On the JUDGE
Quaestio I: Whether power is necessary in a JUDGE
Quaestio II: Whether a JUDGE ought to follow the truth, and therefore be wise
Quaestio III: Whether the acts of a JUDGE who has not a true but only a putative title are valid, such that not even he sins
Quaestio IV: Whether the POPE can subject himself to someone's judgment
Quaestio V: Whether goodness is necessary in a JUDGE
Quaestio VI: On the external purity of the hands of the Judge
Quaestio VII: Whether excommunicated JUDGES sin in judging, and judge invalidly
Quaestio VIII: On the order to be observed by a JUDGE
Dubitatio I: On the mode of proceeding by Denunciation
Dubitatio II: On the mode of proceeding by Accusation
Dubitatio III: On the mode of proceeding by Inquisition
Disputatio XXVIII: On the Accused
Quaestio I: On the bringing of the Accused to the Tribunal
Quaestio II: Whether the Accused is bound to confess a crime half-proven
Quaestio III: Whether an ACCUSED, infamed for one crime, can be interrogated also about others
Quaestio IV: Whether one convicted of a crime can be interrogated about hidden accomplices, of whom there is no infamy
Quaestio V: Whether an Accused, unjustly denying a true crime for which he was to be condemned to a pecuniary penalty, is bound to pay, and whether he is subject to restitution
Quaestio VI: Whether a Reus, unjustly denying the truth, is bound to retract before the end of the Trial, when he is to be condemned
Quaestio VII: Whether, if the Accused is interrogated again, he can give only a relative answer, saying: as I answered
Quaestio VIII: How the ACCUSED ought to conduct himself in the examination, when pressed by the Judge's iniquitous interrogations
Quaestio IX: Whether it is lawful for the ACCUSED to appeal to another Judge
Quaestio X: Whether, and how, the ACCUSED can defend himself
Quaestio XI: Whether the Accused can flee, and how, and when
Disputatio XXIX: ON WITNESSES
Quaestio I: Whether anyone is sometimes bound to bear witness
Quaestio II: Who can be WITNESSES in a trial
Quaestio III: On the Injustice of false Witnesses
Quaestio IV: What penalties are established for false Witnesses
Disputatio XXX: On the Advocate
Quaestio I: Who can, and ought, to exercise this office
Quaestio II: On the sins of a wicked Advocate
Quaestio III: Whether an ADVOCATE is bound on account of light fault
Quaestio IV: Whether an Advocate, engaged by the year, is worthy of his fee in that year in which he did nothing
Quaestio V: Whether an Advocate is bound to defend a Client gratis in grave necessity
Quaestio VI: Whether an Advocate can receive gifts
Disputatio XXXI: On the Notary and the Tabellion
Quaestio I: On the Justice, or Injustice, of the Notary and the Tabellion
Disputatio XXXII: On Contumely
Quaestio I: What Contumely is, and whence it arises
Quaestio II: How a Christian ought to conduct himself when assailed by contumelies
Disputatio XXXIII: On Detraction
Quaestio I: What Detraction is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: Whether detraction is a mortal sin
Quaestio III: Whether it is mortal to reveal a hidden crime to one, or two prudent men, who will keep silent about it
Quaestio IV: Whether material Detraction, which comes from talkativeness, is deadly
Quaestio V: Whether to be silent about a good that has been blackened is mortal
Quaestio VI: On the various cases in which detraction seems to be excused
Quaestio VII: Whether it is ever lawful to defame another with a falsehood, or to open his hidden crime
Quaestio VIII: Whether it is lawful to narrate a crime, notorious in one place, in another, where it is not known
Quaestio IX: Whether it is lawful to open someone's hidden crime to spare him torments
Quaestio X: Whether anyone can defame himself
Disputatio XXXIV: On Whispering, Mockery, and Cursing
Quaestio I: On the malice of Whispering
Quaestio II: On the malice of Mockery
Quaestio III: On Cursings
Tractatus II: E CONTRACTIBUS
Proemium I: Prooemium
Disputatio I: FIRST. On CONTRACTS in general
Quaestio I: What a CONTRACT is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: Whether for the validity of a Contract the intention of contracting, and of binding oneself, is required
Quaestio III: How Error, or fraud, vitiates a Contract
Quaestio IV: How fear voids a Contract
Quaestio V: On conditional Contracts
Quaestio VI: On the obligation that results from a valid Contract
Quaestio VII: Which persons can enter into a Contract, and which cannot
Quaestio VIII: Whether, and when, it is lawful to withdraw from a contract, the other party objecting
Disputatio II: On the acquisition of Dominion over Persons, and other things, through the Division of things Acquired
Quaestio I: By what right the first division, and subjection, of things was made
Quaestio II: On the acquisition of DOMINION over Barbarians
Quaestio III: On the acquisition of DOMINION over irrational creatures
Disputatio III: On Promise
Quaestio I: What a PROMISE is, and how it differs from a DONATION
Quaestio II: Whether a simple PROMISE, once accepted, binds in justice
Quaestio III: Whether a merely internal PROMISE, made to a man, binds
Quaestio IV: Whether an external Promise binds before it is accepted
Quaestio V: Whether a PROMISE binds when made for a base cause
Disputatio IV: ON DONATION
Quaestio I: What DONATION is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: Who can donate, and what
Quaestio III: On the revocations of donations
Disputatio V: On Buying, and Selling
Quaestio I: What EMPTIO (buying), and VENDITIO (selling), are
Quaestio II: Which persons can buy, and sell
Quaestio III: Which things can be sold
Quaestio IV: Of how many kinds is the price of things
Quaestio V: Whether, for certain causes, it is lawful to reduce below the minimum price, or raise above the maximum
Quaestio VI: Whether on account of ceasing profit, or emerging loss, the price can be raised above the maximum
Quaestio VII: Whether it is lawful to sell more dearly above the top price, awaiting payment, than with money paid down
Quaestio VIII: Whether Stocolia and Barocolia (Italian), Stocch (Spanish, MOHATRA) are lawful
Quaestio IX: To what extent Buying, and Selling, in Monopolies is illicit
Quaestio X: Whether the seller is bound to disclose a grave defect of the thing
Quaestio XI: Whether a thing sold, not yet delivered, perishes to the buyer
Quaestio XII: On the rescission of a sale, and purchase, on account of fraud etc.
Quaestio XIII: Whether a sale with a pact of buying back is lawful
Disputatio VI: On the loan and Usury
Quaestio I: What MUTUUM (loan) and USURY are, and why the latter is a sin
Quaestio II: Whether it is USURY to lend so that, when I have need, you lend back to me, or buy from me at a just price
Quaestio III: Whether it is lawful to lend with the pact that the one who receives the loan confer an office, or ecclesiastical benefice
Quaestio IV: Whether it is USURY to receive, beyond the principal, any other gain whatever besides the money
Quaestio V: Whether, and what, the lender can receive on account of danger, and ceasing profit
Quaestio VI: Whether it is lawful to lend wheat, or something else, with the pact that it be restored in the same measure, even if the price has risen at the time of restitution
Quaestio VII: Whether, and how, gain acquired from Usury is to be restored
Quaestio VIII: Whether it is lawful to seek a loan from a Usurer
Disputatio VII: ON CENSUSES (annuities)
Quaestio I: What a Census is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: Whether a Census can lawfully be sold
Quaestio III: From which things a CENSUS can be sold by natural law
Quaestio IV: Until what time a CENSUS can be sold
Quaestio V: What conditions are required for a CENSUS
Disputatio VIII: ON EXCHANGES
Quaestio I: What CAMBIUM (exchange) is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: Whether in petty exchange it is lawful to receive something above the value of the coin fixed by law
Quaestio III: Whether in local exchange, or by letters, when the first Campsor receives, so that he may restore elsewhere, he can gain something
Quaestio IV: Whether CAMBIUM is lawful, when for the Campsor a Procurator of the Campsor answers with the moneys of the Campsor himself
Quaestio V: Whether the said Recambia are lawful only on account of ceasing profit, or emerging loss
Quaestio VI: Whether the solutions, and provisions, that Money-changers receive are lawful
Disputatio IX: On the Contract of Partnership
Quaestio I: In what the CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP consists, and what is required that it be just
Quaestio II: Whether, and how, other contracts can be united with the Contract of Partnership
Quaestio III: Whether the contract by which, for secure capital, some certain gain is received annually is lawful
Disputatio X: On Emphyteusis, Letting, Hiring, and the Feud
Quaestio I: What EMPHYTEUSIS is
Quaestio II: What Locatio (letting) is
Quaestio III: What a FEUDUM (fief) is, and of how many kinds
Disputatio XI: On Testaments
Quaestio I: What a TESTAMENT is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: What solemnity is required for a Testament, closed and open
Quaestio III: Who can, and ought, to make testaments, or be instituted heirs
Quaestio IV: Whether an heir instituted in a testament invalid through defect of solemnity by civil law can pursue the inheritance in the forum of conscience, despoiling the heir succeeding ab intestato
Quaestio V: By what means a Testament is revocable
Quaestio VI: What obligation Heirs instituted by testament undertake
Disputatio XII: On Legacies
Quaestio I: What a Legacy is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: Whether legacies ought to be paid to all those for whom they are made, and how
Quaestio III: Which things can be bequeathed
Quaestio IV: What a Pious, or Privileged, Legacy is
Quaestio V: By what means legacies are caducous, such that the Heir is not bound to pay them
Tractatus III: E RELIGIONE
Proemium I: Prooemium
Disputatio I: FIRST. On RELIGION in general
Quaestio I: What the Virtue of RELIGION is
Quaestio II: Whether Religion is a Virtue
Quaestio III: Whether LATRIA, or RELIGION, is a special virtue
Quaestio IV: Whether RELIGION is a Cardinal Virtue
Quaestio V: How widely the acts of Religion extend
Quaestio VI: Whether RELIGION is necessary
Quaestio VII: Whether true RELIGION ought to be one
Disputatio II: ON DEVOTION
Quaestio I: What Devotion is, and of how many kinds
Disputatio III: ON PRAYER
Quaestio I: What Prayer is
Quaestio II: Of how many kinds is PRAYER
Quaestio III: Whether PRAYER is necessary
Quaestio IV: Whether Prayer is not only petitory, but also satisfactory, and meritorious
Quaestio V: What conditions are required for perfect Prayer
Quaestio VI: What is to be sought in Prayer: where the petitions of the Lord's Prayer are expounded
Quaestio VII: Who ought to pray
Quaestio VIII: Who is to be prayed to
Quaestio IX: For whom one ought to pray
Quaestio X: How one ought to pray
Quaestio XI: On that mode of praying, the Canonical Hours
Dubitatio I: Whether Attention is necessary for the Office to be recited by precept
Dubitatio II: Whether one reciting the Office satisfies by reciting another for it
Dubitatio III: Whether to interrupt the parts of the same Hour
Dubitatio IV: Whether one omitting all the hours of one Day commits more sins
Dubitatio V: Whether one reciting the Divine office in Choir with voice very much lowered, so that he is not heard, satisfies
Dubitatio VI: Whether Canons conversing in Choir are capable of distributions
Dubitatio VII: Whether one who recites the office privately ought to hear himself
Dubitatio VIII: Whether one who says the office with a notable cutting off, or truncating, of syllables satisfies
Dubitatio IX: Whether one who says a great part of the office with the mind not intending to satisfy satisfies
Dubitatio X: What is the gravity of the matter in the omission of a Canonical Hour
Disputatio IV: ON ADORATION
Quaestio I: Whether Latria is in the genus of some virtue
Quaestio II: Whether Latria is distinct from Dulia
Quaestio III: On Sacred places, destined for adorations
Disputatio V: ON SACRIFICE
Quaestio I: What a SACRIFICE is
Quaestio II: What is required that a SACRIFICE be right
Quaestio III: Whether Sacrifice is of natural law
Quaestio IV: Whether besides Sacrifice, first-fruits are to be offered
Disputatio VI: On Tithes
Quaestio I: Whether Tithes are to be paid
Quaestio II: From which things tithes are to be paid
Quaestio III: To whom, and by whom tithes are to be paid
Quaestio IV: Where, and when, Tithes are to be paid
Quaestio V: By what authority the payment of tithes is to be exacted
Tractatus IV: E VOTIS
Proemium I: Prooemium
Disputatio I: FIRST. ON THE VOW
Quaestio I: What a VOW is, and what its conditions are
Quaestio II: What deliberation is required for a VOW
Quaestio III: Whether one promising something to God, and knowing the obligation, yet having the intention of not binding himself, is bound by Vow
Quaestio IV: Whether a Votive promise is made to God alone
Quaestio V: How error, or ignorance, concerning a VOW causes involuntariness
Quaestio VI: Whether fear inflicted makes a Vow invalid
Quaestio VII: Whether a necessary thing can be the matter of a Vow
Quaestio VIII: Whether a VOW is only about some good
Quaestio IX: Whether a VOW is only about a better good, or truly also about a lesser good
Quaestio X: Whether a VOW about a thing that can have a good, and an evil, outcome is valid
Quaestio XI: Whether any obligation arises from a VOW, and what it is
Quaestio XII: Whether the immature are bound by Vows
Quaestio XIII: What, and what kind of, is the power of invalidating VOWS
Quaestio XIV: On the power of the Prelates of Religious to invalidate VOWS
Quaestio XV: Whether a husband can invalidate all the Vows of his wife, beyond the Vow of chastity
Quaestio XVI: Whether a husband can invalidate the Vow of Chastity emitted by his wife without license, the marriage standing, and to be fulfilled then
Quaestio XVII: Whether a Husband can invalidate the Vows of his Wife, emitted without his license, to be fulfilled at the time the marriage is dissolved
Quaestio XVIII: Whether a husband can invalidate the Vows of his wife, emitted before marriage
Quaestio XIX: *Whether the Vows of a wife, made without the license of the husband, revive when the marriage is dissolved.*
Quaestio XX: *Whether a husband can invalidate the Vows of his wife emitted by his license: the Vow of Chastity excepted.*
Quaestio XXI: Whether a husband can revoke the Vow of Chastity of his wife, emitted by his license
Quaestio XXII: Whether a Husband can invalidate the Vows of his Wife, emitted under the preceding dominion of a father, or first husband
Quaestio XXIII: Whether a Wife can invalidate certain vows of her husband, and which
Quaestio XXIV: Whether parents, or Tutors, can invalidate all the Vows of their immature Sons
Quaestio XXV: Whether a Father, and Curator, can invalidate the personal Vows of their adolescent sons
Quaestio XXVI: Which real, or mixed, Vows of adolescents can be invalidated by the father
Quaestio XXVII: To whom the faculty of invalidating the Vows of adolescents, and the immature, belongs
Quaestio XXVIII: Which Vows of servants the Lords can invalidate
Quaestio XXIX: Whether in the Church there is power to dispense from Vows
Quaestio XXX: Whether a cause is required for a dispensation, and which
Quaestio XXXI: Whether, and how, the commutation of Vows is to be made
Quaestio XXXII: Whether commutation requires a cause
Question XXXIII
Disputatio II: SECOND. ON THE STATE OF RELIGION, OR ON SOLEMN VOWS
§ I: On the vows of Religious in common
Quaestio I: In what solemn vows differ from simple vows
Quaestio II: Whether solemn VOWS are necessary for the state of a Religious
Quaestio III: Whether, and how, this state is Holy
Quaestio IV: Whether the three vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience are essential to Religion
Quaestio V: Whether the Pontiff can dispense in solemn Vows
Quaestio VI: Who are to be received into Religion
Quaestio VII: On NOVICES
Quaestio VIII: What is required for profession in Religion
Quaestio IX: Whether, and how, Religious are bound to perfection
Quaestio X: Whence the greater perfection of Religion is to be taken
Quaestio XI: On passing to another Religion
Quaestio XII: Whether the three vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience are essential to Religion
Quaestio XIII: Whether the Pontiff can dispense in solemn Vows
Quaestio XIV: Who are to be received into Religion
Quaestio XV: On Novices
Quaestio XVI: What is required for profession in Religion
Quaestio XVII: Whether, and how, Religious are bound to perfection
Quaestio XVIII: Whence the greater perfection of Religion is to be taken
Quaestio XIX: On passing to another Religion
Quaestio XX: On Religious to be expelled
Quaestio XXI: Whether every Religious is bound to all the counsels
Quaestio XXII: Whether Religious ought to teach, preach, etc.
Quaestio XXIII: Whether Religious ought to labor with their hands
Quaestio XXIV: Whether it is lawful for Religious to transact secular business
Disputatio III: On the Vow of OBEDIENCE
The Seraphic Doctor splendidly illustrates OBEDIENCE under a twofold title, as the school of the Savior, and the ladder of salvation, in Diaeta salut. tit. 3. cap. 2. where he assigns the proofs and the degrees of this heavenly virtue, which obtains its empire by obeying; for the Savior taught it, whether in coming into the world, Ioan. 6. I came down from heaven, not to do my own will: or in remaining in the world, made obedient unto death, Phil. 2. or lastly in going out of it, Not as I will, but as Thou, Matth. 26. He there gathers the degrees of Obedience from St. Bernard; which are: that one be Willing, not recalcitrant, after the example of Paul Act. 9. Simple, not dissembling, after the likeness of the beast of burden Psal. 72. Cheerful, not murmuring, as was Simon of Cyrene Matth. 27. Swift, not putting off till tomorrow, such as Peter and Andrew had, who suddenly left their nets and followed Christ Matth. 4. Manly, not judging, as was the obedience of Peter, ready to be imprisoned with Christ, and to undergo death Lucae 22. Humble, not elated, as the Lord teaches in Luke 17. Say, we are unprofitable servants, etc. Finally let it be Persevering, not discontinuing, even unto death; that by these seven degrees, as by the ladder of Jacob, Heaven may be attained. From these the following question is in large part resolved.
Quaestio I: Whether the vow of obedience is chief among the Religious vows
Whether the vow of obedience is the chief among the Religious vows.
I ASSERT that among the vows Obedience excels in Religion.
It is PROVED from St. Bonavent. ad cap. 1. Regulae Min. That is the most excellent among the vows, whereby the most excellent thing is offered: But in man this is the will; whereas by the Vow of chastity the body, and by the Vow of poverty external goods are offered: Ergo. It is confirmed, for by the Vow of obedience the whole man is consumed as a holocaust; for under it Chastity and Poverty are included. Hence some Religions make profession by promising obedience. It is the argument of John XXII. Extravag. Quorundam, de verb. signif. which the Fathers used, as at B. Bonavent. lib. 2. Phar. cap. 43. and St. Thomas here: Moreover that is more excellent whereby one offers himself, than that whereby he offers his things; but man offers himself by obeying: Ergo.
This vow, however, whereby it is more excellent than the rest, and therewith richer, was at all times harassed by the railings of Heretics; and before all others, from almost the first centuries, the Lampetians dreamed the impious dream that a man, in the worship of God, at the nod of another, renounces his own will; yet they did not think it so evil to promise any vow for another moral end outside the worship of God: Thus walking in darkness they judge perversely, so that what belongs to the service of God is charged with crime, while what is destined to another end is honored by them: This error was followed by the Waldenses, as also by the Beghards and Beguines, as Castro has it, verb. obedientia; finally the rest of the innovators in a body, with Luther at their head, swore to the same heresy. They were refuted by Bellarmine lib. 2. de Monachis, cap. 8. Suarez lib. 10. de voto obedientiae, and other defenders of the truth: Nor indeed can they bring forward any foundation of their error which does not readily collapse for a universal reason: for whatever is in itself good and honest, without doubt becomes better and more honest, while it is placed in a firmer, securer, and immovable state; for this reason, an act elicited from a long-standing habit is more perfect and better than an act from some light disposition, because it becomes more immovable, and proceeds into its act more intensely and more firmly with a stable will; such is that which proceeds from a vow, since it is a state, more stable even than a habit. Who, moreover, will deny that obedience in itself, even when rendered to a man, in the service of God, is good and honest, since for God Christ was made obedient unto death, and was subject to his parents, so that at their nod he even left behind the assembly of the Doctors.
Quaestio II: What obedience is promised in Religion
What obedience is promised in Religion.
NOTE from St. Bonavent. ad cap. 1. Regulae Min. and l. 2. de profectu Religiosi, cap. 39. whom all Theologians imitate with St. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 104. art. 2. ad 1. that obedience and disobedience are twofold. One is called material, or general. The former is the execution of whatever virtue is commanded. The latter is the omission, or transgression, of any precept; nor does it induce any other sin; just as neither does the former induce another virtue. The other is called formal and special, inclining the subject to carry out the commands of superiors as they are commands, and it is a special virtue; just as the opposite disobedience is a special vice, and sin.
THEREFORE only those things that are commanded are the object of this virtue, as St. Bonaventura admonishes lib. 2. Profec. cap. 41. and lib. 2. Pharetrae, cap. 43. and the holy Fathers, D. Thom. quaest. 186. art. 9. and quaest. 104. art. 2. Valentia d. 7. quaest. 8. puncto 1. Azor. tom. 1. lib. 12. cap. 13. quaestio 1. Less. de inst. lib. 2. cap. 46. d. 4. Sanchez tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 1.
St. Bonavent. also INFERS, prima pars, Centil. sect. 18. et opusc. Declaratio term. Theol. that formal disobedience is to be unwilling to obey the command, as it is a command, and that contempt consists in this: So also D. Thom. loc. cit. ad 1.
I ASSERT that under the vow of obedience issued by Religious only the commands of superiors are included. So D. Bonavent. lib. 2. de profec. Relig. cap. 41. D. Thom. quaest. 186. art. 9. whom the rest follow.
It is PROVED by the holy Doctors, because by this vow we subject ourselves to the Prelate to the end of Religious governance: Therefore only that which, at the Prelate's bidding, is put forth to this end, is the object of religious obedience. So Less. lib. 2. cap. 46. d. 4. num. 23. Valent. quaest. 3. puncto 1. and Bass. V. Obed. 2.
AMONG Prelates the supreme is the Roman Pontiff, the Father of the Religious, whom we are bound to obey, especially we Friars Minor, because St. Francis cap. 1. Regulae professes this.
Yet we are NOT bound to obey from the formal motive, because it is commanded; for it is an act of virtue even from the motive of Religion; nor can the Prelate command this internal act. So Sylv. p. 2. quaestio 100. art. 9. Vasquez ibi, num. 5. Lessius cited d. 6. num. 42. Sanch. lib. 1. mor. cap. 13.
They enumerate certain CONDITIONS, that Obedience may be pleasing to God. The first is that it be prompt, as St. Bernardus says lib. de praec. etc.
SECOND, that it be done without complaint, as St. Bernardus says, ubi supra.
THIRD, that it be Cheerful, from the same St. Bernard ad Fratres de monte Dei, as at Tambur. tom. 2. d. 21. quaest. 4. Bass. num. 7.
FOURTH, that it persevere, from St. Benard. ad milites templi, cap. 13. see others touched on above.
These St. Bonavent. rehearses in octo collationib. coll. 3. saying, that the obedience of Religious may be acceptable to God, it ought to be prompt without delay, devoted without disdain, voluntary without contradiction, simple without discussion, persevering without cessation, ordered without deviation of end, joyous without disturbance, strenuous without pusillanimity, and universal without exception. See the holy Doctor loc. cit. and 1. part. speculi disciplinae ad novitios, cap. 4. and 1. part. de Instit. novit. cap. 2. where he dissects the anatomy of obedience item by item, and in Regula novitiorum, cap. 13. where he elegantly weaves the praises and merit of obedience; and de profectu Religiosi cap. 39. et seq. where he distinguishes all obediences and climbs the degrees of true obedience, In Bibliis pauperum, where he heaps up examples of obedience from scripture; and in Pharetra, lib. 1. cap. 43. where he describes it from the Fathers. And in Diaeta salutis, tit. 3. c. 2. where thou shalt peruse splendid things, especially the encomia, and those that animate to obedience. and in formula aurea, cap. 1. where the degrees of obedience: And part. 3. stimuli divini amoris, cap. 11. where wondrous things. And serm. 3. Dom. inf. oct. Epiph. and serm. 3. Epiph. where the conditions of obedience; and ad cap. 4. Eccles. I do not translate these, that you may not each run to the Fountain.
Quaestio III: Whether Religious are bound to obey Prelates in all things
NOTE from St. Bonav. in corp. that the Religious by the vow of obedience adds to himself a new obligation of obeying the Prelates, who for this have a coercive right over those things that we have promised, as Vasq. says prim. 2. disp. 154. cap. 4. Indeed religious are bound in those things which are according to the rule, whether directly, or indirectly, as the holy Doctor says ad cap. 1. Reg. Now the question is: whether they are bound also in the rest.
The FIRST opinion is that they are bound to obey also in those things which are outside, and above, the rule: So Archidiac. cap. Qui iustus, 11. quaest. 3. Abb. cap. super eo de Regular. Praep. c. ad nostram, num. 9. de appell. To this Sanchez lib. 6. cap. 1. num. 14. draws the doctrine of the Seraphic Doctor ad cap. 1. Reg. But the holy Doctor speaks of us not by reason of the vow, but of a precept added of obeying in all things that are not sins.
The SECOND opinion denies that the subject, by reason of the vow, is bound in those things which are outside, or above, the rule. So D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 104. art. 5. ad 3. et quodlib. 10. art. 10. and thirty-five other Doctors, to whom Sanch. lib. 6. cap. 2. subscribes, adducing St. Bonav. here as confessing that he is not well alleged for the former opinion. I add Balthasum V. Obedientia, num. 1.
I ASSERT that the vow of Obedience is restricted within the Rule.
It is PROVED from the holy Doctor first from St. Bernard. de praecepto, cap. 8. where he says: He who makes profession indeed pledges obedience, yet not unlimited obedience, but determined, according to the Rule; nor any other than that of St. Benedict, so that he who presides must know that he may not loosen the reins of his own will over his subjects, but has a measure fixed for him out of the Rule; and thus at last moderate his commands around that only which is established to be right, nor any right thing whatever, but that only which the aforesaid Father instituted, or certainly what is according as he instituted.
HENCE St. Bonavent. elicits the reason in corpore. The Prelate has jurisdiction over the subject, commensurate in correlation with the pledge given in profession: But the subject did not promise every good, nor every Rule, but this Rule or that, and accordingly the good that is in it; otherwise he could be compelled by the Superior to keep all other rules stricter and higher, as St. Bernard argues. Sanchez uses this reasoning with Valentia quaest. 4. puncto 5. Therefore St. Bernardus says: Let not the Prelate command me what I did not promise.
You will OBJECT first from Matth. 24. Jesus says: All things whatsoever they shall say to you, do and observe. Nor does he understand this only of Divine precepts, for in Lucae 9. he says: He that heareth you, heareth me.
The holy Doctor answers that these things are understood of those that pertain to the Chair, and of precepts. In the latter he speaks of those things which the Apostles command by Christ's mandate, or themselves impose for necessary instruction: In the rest, he says, their sayings are not to be despised.
You will OBJECT secondly from Coloss. 3. Sons, obey your parents in all things.
The holy Doctor answers that obedience is owed by precept in those things which are according to the precepts of God and the Church, which the son is gravely bound to carry out; by a new command of the father, especially what pertains to the fourth precept, they are bound to these out of piety. In the rest, however, it is an admonition.
You will OBJECT thirdly, from St. Benedicto in Regula. If the Prelate commands the impossible, it must be attempted. Likewise from St. Hieron. ad Rust. Fear the Prepositus of the Monastery as the Lord; love him as a father; believe whatever he shall say to be wholesome; and judge not the sentence of one greater, whose office it is to obey, and to fulfill commands, Moses saying: Hear, O Israel, and be silent, Numer. 6. And from Hug. in sent. de Obed. Obedience is a virtue which embraces all things enjoined, to be necessarily fulfilled, unless the authority of the Commander stand in the way.
It is answered that they speak of the perfection, not of the necessity, of obedience. So also D. Ignatius in Constitut. Soc. part. 3. cap. 1. §. 23. and part. 6. cap. 1. says, Obedience is to be given in all things, where no manifest sin is seen.
You will OBJECT fourthly. Vows are of equal right: But poverty forbids all ownership of external things. Chastity all delight of the flesh: Ergo Obedience also all proper willing.
The holy Doctor answers that it is not a par; for the object of the will is exceedingly ample, which expands to the transcendent good; therefore it must be restricted to the institute which I take up.
HENCE thou hast that the objects of Obedience vary according to the variety of the Institutes. Thus the order of Minors has joined to the vow cap. 10. Regulae the precept of obeying in all things which are not against God, the soul, or the rule, as the Expositors commonly note, and this from other externals, Lessius lib. 2. de iust. cap. 41. d. 9. num. 77. who says the same of the Rule of the Society as related. Although Sanchez resists num. 16. saying such an institute, so expounded, to be impossible. Wherefore also Corduba, cap. 10. quaest. 2. Sanchez lib. 6. cap. 2. num. 16. Layman. lib. 4. cap. 9. endeavor to reduce both to the common precept.
Yet they are DECEIVED; for in the Rule of the Minors there is an express precept, as the Pontiffs declare, and Sanctes, Politius, Corilianus, and the rest. Indeed the precepts ought to be laid down with discretion in order to the Evangelical perfection, which we have vowed in the Rule. Therefore the precepts must be consonant to natural, divine, and human law, and discreetly coercive, that they may be valid according to the mind of the holy Founder.
Hence the Prelate, and the General, cannot make laws commanding the actions of life; for they must be received by each one to whom they pertain, according to the reg. Quod omnes, de reg. iuris in 6. Nor indeed have the subjects transferred their will to the Prelate, as St. Bonavent. notes in corp. and ad ultimum, for indiscretion is against the soul, and against the rule, which does not intend to burden above one's strength, as St. Bonavent. admonishes the Provincials at the end.
Many indeed say the Pontiff can do this from cap. unic. in principio, de regular. in 6. where Boniface VIII. imposed enclosure on all Nuns.
Others however deny it, because the precept of obeying the Pope arises from profession, which binds this most exalted religion. So Sanchez lib. 6. cap. 12. numero 22. with Oldrado consil. 96. Sylvester V. Religio, quaestio 6. Corduba in Regular. cap. 15. quaest. 2. Lessius lib. 2. de Iustitia, cap. 41. dub. 9. Yet such a decree would bind those who afterward made profession.
If the Rule in the essentials of the vows is not kept, they are bound to return to observance; for without the vows it cannot stand, as Sanchez notes numero 26.
As to the other commanded observances, Sanchez says they are prescribed by custom. He alleges St. Thomas 4. dist. 38. q. 1. art. 4. quaestiunc. 1. ad 5. Carthus. quaest. 2. Azor tract. 1. cap. 11. quaestio 15. Manuelem 2. tract. cap. 95. and others.
The truer opinion however denies that these non-observances can be introduced from any prescription. So Maior dist. 38. quaest. 10. Cordub. in reg. cap. 10. quaest. 15. Anton. cap. Cum causam de elect. numero 14. It is the view of St. Bonavent. in epist. ad Provinciales, where, having gravely set forth the relaxations in buildings, familiarities, costly expenses, wanderings, the idle life of some, and the imprudent dispensing of offices, he subjoins: Although indeed very many are found who are not culpable in any of the aforesaid, yet this malediction involves all, unless by those who do not do these things resistance is offered to those who do them; since clearer than light all the things said above tend to the maximum detriment of our order, and in no way to be dissembled, although to the tepid, and undevout, and those wise according to the flesh, considering the custom, and alleging the multitude, as it were easy and excusable, they may even seem irremediable: Thus the holy General; where he does not say that excuse is gathered from custom, as he says habit, but from prescribed custom, as the learned, and those wise according to the flesh, assert.
The reason of St. Bonavent. is, because the precepts bind from profession, or promise made to God, which, since it binds by divine law, does not admit prescription.
Sanchez answers numero 26. that these precepts are reduced to the vows, as laws annexed. Wherefore they bind only as long as they have the force of law; and this force they lose by prescriptive custom.
But he begs the principle; for since I showed that it pertains to divine law, it is already established that it is not prescribed.
It is confirmed, for the Religions have need of their precepts and observances for the end, and without them they are a scandal, and a mockery.
He presses: dispensations are made.
I say they are not general, and that they are made only for grave causes impending on the end of the Religions at the time.
He presses: these men promised to keep the rule in such a state.
Contrariwise, for if knowingly these things are precepts, if deceitfully he does not promise, while he vows to keep the rule, he promises these also. But if he is ignorant, he is bound to know; and knowing afterward, he ought to betake himself to another rule, where these are kept in this way with impunity, as Angel. says V. relig. n. 32. Corduba in Regul. cap. 2. quaest. 16.
There arises indeed the doubt, whether the General with the Chapter can reform a lapsed rule, and whether the subjects are bound to assent.
Having set aside the various opinions at Sanchez from num 31. the truer is the opinion asserting they can, and it is that of St. Bonavent. epist. ad ministros, et Custodes, in which he orders the reformation of the order, protesting that he will not assent with those resisting. Twenty Doctors follow him with Sanchez numero 35. The reason of the holy Doctor, which the others use, is the one he brings at the end of the letter. For those who have vowed religion assuredly promised the means to the perfection of its institute: But these are the precepts.
Nevertheless the subject would be excused, if he were so infirm that he could not sustain such rigor.
Hence rightly Boniface VIII. cap. unic. in princip. de statu regul. imposed perpetual enclosure on Nuns, even if many had not professed it. The Council of Trent innovates this decree sess. 25. cap. 5. because it imposes no new austerity, but the means to keeping the former one safe and intact. Thus twenty-three Doctors teach ad cap. cit. And it is de fide that this can be done by the Pope.
Quaestio IV: Whether one doubting whether the thing commanded is lawful is bound to obey the Prelate
Whether one who doubts whether a thing commanded is licit is bound to obey the Prelate.
The first opinion holds that he is not bound, nor can he obey. So Adrian, quodlib. 2. part. 2. Vasquez p. 3. disp. 65. cap. 9. Rodriguez p. p. cap. 9.
The opposite opinion is that of Sanchez lib. 6. cap. 3. citing forty-three Doctors, especially D. Bonaventure 2. dist. 39. quaest. 3. ad ult. Add Basaeus V. Obed. num. 12. I defended it p. 2. tract. 1. disp. 27. quaest. 14. et 22.
Diana part. 4. tract. 3. resol. 9. says the prior opinion approves itself to him in the case where the subject fears grave loss to himself or another from obedience. Aragon subscribes 2. 2. quaest. 69. art. 2. Medina prima 2. quaest. 19. art. 6. Henriquez lib. 14. cap. 3. in gloss. lit. X. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 4. dub. 9. num. 77. cont. Sanchez in select. disp. 43. num. 21.
But if the Prelate himself doubts, the subject who knows it is not bound. So Castro Palao tract. 1: disp. 4. part. 14. Sanchez lib. 6. cap. 3. Salas 2. 2. quaest. 21. tract. 8. disp. unic. sect. 26. num. 275. Basaeus num. 13.
I assert with the second opinion that in doubts the subject is bound to stand by the precept of the prelate. This opinion the Holy Doctor upholds also part. . . 1 speculi ad Novit. cap. 4.
It is proved from the Holy Doctor first parte 1. de eccl. Hier. Et in confessionali, cap. 1. partic. 5. from Scripture, Deuter. 17. 2. Paral. 19. et Ezech. 34. where it is ordained that subjects in difficult and ambiguous matters stand by the judgment of the Priest Prelate.
IT IS PROVED secondly from D. Bonaventure in 2. loco cit. et in speculo, by the reason on which all rely. In doubt the condition of the possessor is better, as is had in the rules of law; but in this case possession stands for the Prelate, to whom the subject promised obedience: Therefore. It is confirmed for the Minor. He is in possession, for which there is a presumption of law, against whom fails the burden of proving exemption: but in doubt the superior is presumed just, to whom the subject promised as to one acting in God's stead, cap. quid culpatur in fine 23. quaest. 1. et Basaeus teaches it is defined there, Covarruvias reg. Peccatum, p. p. num. 5. with others. So decreed Leo X. in Mirandula tract. 1. manual. quaest. 26. art. 9.
IT IS CONFIRMED by the Holy Doctor part. 3. Eccl. Hier. multis scripturis Heb. ult. Eccles. 4. where the Holy Spirit exhorts us to entrust ourselves with simple obedience to the commands of Prelates: for they are established as sureties of souls, who are to render an account of them, which is a great consolation for subjects.
YOU OBJECT with Vasquez, that for a right action a determinate practical judgment of conscience is required: but as long as you remain in doubt, you cannot judge that thing licit, nor do you adhere probabilistically, but you still act rashly in uncertainty, exposing yourself to the peril of fault. Nor is the superior in possession of jurisdiction, except by reason of the vow, which surely regards only licit goods. And just as I am not bound to fulfill a vow that I doubt I made, as the Doctors commonly hold with Diana tom. 1. tract. 3. resol. 10. so neither am I bound to the precept of a man. It is confirmed because whose is the precept not to expose even to the peril of mortal fault.
THE HOLY DOCTOR ANSWERS, that a thing first doubtful in speculation, with the precept of the superadded superior — of whom it is well presumed that he aims at justice, prudence, etc. — acquires practical probability for execution, nor is it any longer practically doubtful, since possession stands for the authority of the one commanding, constituted by God to settle doubts. Wherefore I can and ought to determine the judgment, and thus I shall act probabilistically, not rashly. But it is not the same in a doubt of a vow, in which in my uncertainty I find no new something weighing down. But that things are thus is defined in cap. Quid culpatur in fine, 23. quaest. 1. where it is read: A just man, if perchance he even serve under a King, and a sacrilegious man, can rightly make war at his bidding, if what is commanded him either is certainly not against the precept of God, or it is not certain whether it is: so that perhaps the iniquity of commanding makes the King guilty: but the order of serving shows the soldier innocent. So explain Innocent, Hostiensis, John Andrew, Baldus, Abbas Navarrus, and Toletus.
From which text is also defined the case in which soldiers doubt about the justice of the war. Of which I have treated enough in disp. cit. prima secundae. There however I declared that a subject, in doubt about the jurisdiction of the one commanding, is not bound to obey, because possession then stands for liberty. See the Doctors in Sanchez lib. 6. cap. 3.
Quaestio V: Whether all the statutes of Religious Orders bind under sin
Whether all the statutes of Religions bind under fault.
NOTE that there are various Rules: for some, besides vows, add other precepts; and indeed some otherwise of divine and natural law, and these I do not think are enjoined by a distinct law unless the Holy Founder declares himself: but only confirmed them; therefore then there will not be a twofold sin, as Cajetan teaches quaest. 186. art 9. although Valencia disp. 10. quaest. 4. puncto 3. Sanchez lib. 6. cap. 4. num. 7. say there are two malices, insofar as the transgression would be against the vow of obedience.
SOME add new precepts, as the Rule of the Minors. Of these many are imposed on others not by precept, as the Fasts of Advent, abstinence from meats, assistance at Choir, and the like. But the formula of the Rule must be observed. Each indeed has observances of supererogation.
THEREFORE now not all the statutes of Regulars compel under guilt of fault, even if we promise to observe the Rule, as we Minors especially; for the promise must be understood according to the sense of the Rule, and the mind of the Patriarch. So they declare concerning us Nicholas III. Clem. Exiit de verb. signific. in 6. §. in primis, and Clement Exivi §. Cum igitur in primis, de verb. signific. and D. Bonaventure admonished ad cap. 1. Regulae, D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 186. art. 9. Sylvester V. Relig. 1. quaest. 8. dict. 1. et quaest. 13. dict. 5. Vasquez prima 2. disp. 162. cap. 4. Faustus in theol. lib. 6. quaest. 121. Angel. V. relig. n. 28. Sylvius ad locum cit. D. Thom. Basaeus V. Obed. num. 14. Sanchez lib. 6. in praec. cap. 4. The Holy Doctor declares this ad ea verba Reg. cap. 1. Regula fratrum minorum haec est, sanguis Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Evangelium observare, saying, The Rule is promised as it is; but it is certain (he says) that some things are enjoined preceptively, others only admonitorily.
So also in the Rule of the Fathers the Preachers it is said: We do not will to bind under fault. The same in the Rule of the Minims Passarelli reports cap. 25. The same in the Constitutions of the Society, 6. part. cap. 5.
CONTEMPT indeed would be a grave offense, as D. Bonaventure notes in speculo animae, and in the Rule, and D. Thomas art. 9. and others.
Sanchez infers num. 10. that it is mortal not to will to observe the rules, except those which compel under mortal sin; Basaeus subscribes num. 16. because it is to the grave prejudice of Religion, and he himself would be a scandal to others, and would in himself undergo the peril of a grave fall.
It is however arduous to find when, and whence the rules bind under mortal sin. This I discussed in Tract. de Legibus, disp. 5. quaest. 2.
All note that by usage it has already come in, that obedience does not compel under mortal sin, unless it be commanded in virtue of holy obedience, or of the Holy Spirit, as Suarez warns Tom. 3. de Relig. lib. 10. cap. 4.
Truly if the matter be grave, and it be commanded under penalty of divine indignation, or of excommunication, then the Prelate expresses that it is commanded under the lethal, as they commonly concede.
But if the matter be light, it does not compel under mortal sin, even if the precept be added. So Sanchez lib. 1. cap. 4. Suarez lib. 5 1. de leg. cap. 25. Azor tract. 1. lib. 5. cap. 6. quaestio 5. and others among these.
Yet some things light of themselves can be made grave by the consequent harm, or another circumstance, and be commanded under anathema, etc. so Valencia disp. 7. quaest. 5. puncto 6. saying, silence can for this reason be commanded.
Cajetan judges it arduous, V. Praeceptum, to judge of these from mere apparent gravity or lightness, since often some things are grave in the judgment of Prelates which seem light to subjects, as Suarez saw in Tom. 3. de Relig. lib. 10. cap. 4. num. 9. Therefore in part. 9. constit. societ. I. suae, cap. 3. §. 10. it is declared that all things can be commanded which make for the proposed end of the Society, perfection.
Conversely it can happen that the Prelate commands grave things under venial, as Sanchez saw lib. 6. cap. 4. and lib. 1. de matrim. disp. 9. num. 6. Castro de lege poen. cap. 5. docum. 4. Valencia loco cit. Navarrus cap. 23. n. 49. Diana part. 3. tract. 6. resol. 91. and others among these. Pelizarius pursues these at length.
From what has been said you have, that formal disobedience is a most grave sin, as D. Bernard says serm. 46. in Cant.
NOTE however that formal disobedience, which is not to will to obey because of the precept, includes contempt to be expressed in confession. So Suarez de Relig. lib. 3. cap. 28. num. 25. Sanchez lib. 6. cap. 4. num. 8. et 11. Valencia t. 2. disp. 7. quaest. 5. puncto 6. Layman lib. 1. tract. 5. cap. 7. Crousier ad cap. 10. Regul. min. lect. 3. Caspensis tract. 12. disp. 3. sect. 5. Eligius Basaeus V. Obedientia, and V. Contemptus, at the end.
INDEED Suarez adds that such disobedience imports a twofold malice. The first is against religion, and is sacrilege; the second is against Justice, acquired by the prelate in the person of the subject; and this is acquired by a twofold title; for spiritual and dominative jurisdiction is derived upon all the prelates of a Religion from the supreme Pontiff, in virtue of which they can command and found statutes, since they are the ordained pastors of their subjects; besides, the subjection must be considered in which disobedience is committed; for if it be opposed to a special virtue, it will be a special sin; thus he who does not obey a prelate enjoining a fast for a just end will also sin against temperance. Yet it is not the custom to set forth these various species in confessing, and it suffices to express that one did not obey the commanding Prelate, even though the vow enjoined it. It is however necessary, if the penitent be not known to the Confessor, that he set forth his state of solemn or simple vow. This I say on account of those who in the world make a simple vow of obeying their directors, or even sometimes Lords; which vow has a special obligation, which Suarez weighs throughout Chapter 3. For although he to whom this vow binds can obtain its use from the one vowing; properly however he is not his superior; and therefore he who in a doubtful case should wonder whether he was to be obeyed, could not obey; because for him then stands that possession which otherwise would stand for the prelate, if the one vowing were a Religious, who is bound not only in virtue of the vow but also of ecclesiastical subjection: And if indeed a case were given in which the prelate lacked this ecclesiastical jurisdiction, yet his condition would not forthwith be equated to that of one who could obtain it in virtue of a simple vow; because in this vow there is only a promise without the actual handing over of oneself and one's goods under the dominion of anyone; which always intervenes in the making of a solemn vow.