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
Quaestio I: Whether the vow of obedience is chief among the Religious vows
Quaestio II: What obedience is promised in Religion
Quaestio III: Whether Religious are bound to obey Prelates in all things
Quaestio IV: Whether one doubting whether the thing commanded is lawful is bound to obey the Prelate
Quaestio V: Whether all the statutes of Religious Orders bind under sin
Disputatio IV: On the Vow of Poverty
Quaestio I: On the essence of this Vow
Quaestio II: Which Poverty is more excellent
Quaestio III: Whether mendicancy befits Religious Poverty
Quaestio IV: Whether Religious, on account of Poverty, ought to be clothed in mean garments
Quaestio V: Whether austere fare is owed to Religious Poverty
Quaestio VI: How Poverty is violated
Dubitatio I: Whether Prelates can concede to Religious an annual peculium
Dubitatio II: Whether a Religious, having superfluities by license of his superior, is a proprietor
Dubitatio III: Dubitatio III
Dubitatio IV: Whether a Legacy stands for a Religious, as pertaining to him precisely
Quaestio VII: On the penalties, and marks, of a Proprietor
Disputatio V: On the Vow of CHASTITY
Quaestio I: What difference there is between Cloistered, and Clerical, chastity
Quaestio II: From what time the solemn vow of Chastity began to dissolve a subsequent marriage
Quaestio III: Whether one vowing Chastity solemnly dissolves a marriage, whether consummated, or ratified, and by what law, and at what time this began to be done
Quaestio IV: By what law, and at what time, Religious Chastity began to be sealed with cloister
Quaestio V: By what means cloister is violated
Quaestio VI: Whether dispensation can fall upon Religious chastity, and who can dispense in cloister
Disputatio VI: On the Oath
Quaestio I: What an OATH is, and of how many kinds
Quaestio II: Whether it is lawful to swear by GOD
Quaestio III: Whether it is lawful to swear by creatures
Quaestio IV: What is required for an Oath
Quaestio V: Whether, and how, it is a Sin to swear without Truth
Whether, and in what way, it is a Sin to swear without Truth.
I ASSERT first, that an assertory oath in any matter whatsoever, even a very small one, is a mortal sin if it be false, and it can only be excused from mortal sin by a defect of full deliberation. So D. Bonav. question 3, in the body, and to the third objection, whom Cajetan follows, summa, V. Periur. cap. 1. Sotus lib. 8. de Iust. quaest. 2. art. 3. Toletus lib. 4. summa, cap. 21. Couar. cap. variarum, cap. 1. n. 2. and de pactis 1. p. §. 1. Suarez Tom. 2. de relig. lib. 3. de Iur. cap. 4. Sayrus lib. 5. cap. 4. num. 15. and 16. Azor Tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 4. quaest. 1. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 3. Sanchez in summa, lib. 3. cap. 4. num. 6. who says all the others follow him. Nor does any holy end excuse it, nor fear, as Suarez, Sayrus, Sotus, Toletus teach loco cit. Navar. summa, cap. 12. Sanchez loco cit. after D. Thom. art. 3. ad 1. D. Bonavent. quaest. 2. ad ultimum, which he proves, both from the canon in Decr. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 15. de Iureiur. Quod si quis periurat pro vita corporis servanda, quia magis dilexit corpus, quam animam, ieiunet tres quadragesimas; and because perjuring is intrinsically evil, so that it can never be rendered honorable. So Sanchez argues, num. 7. with others.
The FIRST part of the assertion is proved by D. Bonavent. quaest. 5. from D. Augustine serm. 28. and 30. de verbis Apostoli.
SECOND, it is proved by D. Bonav. argument 3, which Valencia, Sanchez, and the rest use: because to bring God as a witness to a falsehood is a great contempt of the Divine truth. For thus God is made either ignorant or wicked, as Bassaeus also urges, V. Iuram. 2. num. 3.
HENCE it follows, first, that the Jurists were not right — whom Angelus reports, V. Periurium, teaching that their opinion is probable — in saying that a false oath told in jest is venial. Rather it is a greater sin, because it is a greater contempt, as D. Bonavent. teaches, ad 3. D. Thom. quaest. 98. art. 3. ad secundum, whom the others follow, as adduced by Sanchez num. 7.
Yet S. Bonaventure and S. Thomas ADD that it can be excused from mortal sin if the oath is sworn in jest, which removes deliberation; for then the jest is not a grave contempt of the Divine truth.
It follows SECOND, that he equally sins mortally if he swears to a matter doubtful and uncertain to himself, because he exposes himself to the danger of speaking falsely and of perjuring himself; indeed he perjures himself by bringing God as a certain witness to an uncertain matter, as Sanchez argues, num. 8. from D. Bonavent. quaest. 1. ad 1. Then, because, as S. Bonaventure says, quaest. 2. ad 1. the Divine truth is rashly brought forward and contemned, while it is called as a certain witness to an uncertain thing.
S. Bonaventure ADDS another reason, loco citato, quaest. 1. ad 3. because that which is sworn is sworn from a culpably erroneous conscience, which in matters of morals does not excuse a wicked deed. See Bassaeus 3. num. 3.
For the truth of an assertory oath it is NOT necessary that the matter be so in fact, but it is sufficient, and necessary, that the matter, prudently considered, be so firmly judged. So S. Bonav. in the cited question, whom Azorius follows, Tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 2. quaest. 5. Valentia disp. 6. q. 7. punct. 3. col. 5. Suarez in the same lib. 3. cap. 5. num. 3. Lessius lib. 2. de Iust. cap. 42. dub. 4. num. 17. Sanchez loco cit. num. 10. Hence he infers, with Valencia col. 11. and D. Bonavent. q. cit. ad argumenta, that one who lightly judges that what he swears is true is not excused from perjury, since he does not sufficiently provide that he swears truly, and it follows as true only by accident. Therefore, even if it be true, he is not excused from mortal sin if the negligence in investigating the truth was grave; but if it was light, the fault will be light also, because such as is the cause, such is the effect, as S. Bonaventure hinted, quaest. 3. ad argumenta, and many affirm with Sanchez num. 14. and with Bassaeus loco cit.
But the OTHER part of the assertion, namely that assertory perjury is excused from mortal sin by indeliberation. It is proved by D. Bonav. quaest. 3. in the body, because the slipperiness of the tongue is great, which often can, through a slip, not follow the command of the will, and render the act non-human, or imperfectly such; Sanchez uses this reasoning at num. 15. So also think D. Thom. art. 3. citato, ad 2. Cajetan there, Sylvester V. Iurament. 2. quaest. 6. Navar. summa, cap. 12. Valencia, Suarez, and others cited above.
I ASSERT second, that a promissory oath, by defect of the concordance of the will to fulfill with the promise uttered — which is called truth of the present — is wicked. So D. Bonav. quaest. 3. body, and to the third, whom Sylvester follows, V. Iuram. quaest. 1. Armilla there, Cajetan 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 7. ad 1. and q. 98. art. 2. and 3. and in summa, under the word Periurium, c. 2. and 3. Sotus 8. de Iust. q. 1. art. 7. and quaest. 2. art. 1. and 3. Navar. in summa, cap. 12. Valencia loco cit. puncto 3. concl. 2. Azor Tom. 1. lib. 11. c. 4. q. 1. Suarez lib. 3. citato, c. 15. Clavis Regia lib. 5. cap. 4. n. 27. Lessius lib. 2. de Iust. c. 42. dub. 4. num. 18. Sanchez loco citato, num. 16. Bassaeus n. 1.
It is PROVED by D. Bonav. argument 3, quaest. 3. and quaest. prima ad 1. because thus the Summa Truth is brought forward as a witness to a known falsehood, and so the gravest injury is inflicted upon God by swearing a lie.
HENCE it follows that one also sins mortally who swears to give a thing which he is in doubt whether he can fulfill: likewise to promise with a doubting mind of fulfilling, or to promise a thing which he believes he cannot fulfill. It is proved by D. Bonavent. quaest. 1. ad 1. because he certainly swears to an uncertain thing, and therefore lies, as I said above concerning the assertory oath, with Sanchez.
The GREATER difficulty is when the truth of the future is lacking, namely, in not giving the promised thing, which one swore with the intention of giving. And indeed, when the matter is grave, all maintain it to be mortal. The question is when it is light, which I shall treat in disp. de Periurio, q. 3.
The FIRST opinion is that it is always mortal. So Valencia disp. 6. q. 7. puncto 3. concl. 3. Gabriel in 3. dist. 39. q. 2. art. 2. concl. 4. Cajetan sum. v. Periurium, cap. 2. Lessius lib. 2. de Iust. cap. 42. dub. 5. num. 25.. Bassaeus 4. num. 3. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 24. Reg. lib. 18. num. 9.
The SECOND opinion distinguishes: if the matter is wholly trifling, it is mortal; but if partial, it is only venial. So Cajetan 1. 2. q. 87. art. 7. dub. 1. Navar. summa, c. 12. n. 10. and c. 18. n. 4. Covarr. lib. 1. variarum lect. c. 1. Philiarc. Tom. 1. p. 2. lib. 3. c. 3. Corduba summa, q. 188. as it seems, Tabiena V. iurare, q. 10. n. 11. Armilla V. Iuram. n. 12. Pedraza praecepto 2. §. 5. But Sayrus lib. 5. cap. 4. expressly, with Sylvius q. 89. art. 3. See Diana part. 4. tract. 4. resol. 70. and part. 5. tract. 5. resol. 4.
The THIRD opinion is that it is only a venial fault, even if that matter be wholly trifling. So Sanchez lib. 3. summae, cap. 4. num. 23. D. Antoninus 1. part. tit. 10. cap. 4. Angelus V. Iuramentum, 5. num. 41. Sylvester V. iuramentum, 4. quaest. 1. Sotus lib. 8. de Iust. quaest. 1. art. 7. dub. 1. Navar. in summa, cap. 12. and cap. 18. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 3. fol. 1061. Azor Tom. 1. lib. 5. cap. 27. quaestio 2. and lib. 11. c. 5. quaestio 3. Enriquez lib. 5. de poenitentia, cap. 20. num. 4. Manuel 1. Tomo summae, c. 192. Peter Ledesma 2. Tom. tract. 11. c. 3. dub. 1. Tolet. lib. 4. cap. 21. Diana part. 2. tract. 15. resol. 25. dragging many along with him, saying the opposite opinion is the more severe one. Sà V. Iuram. num. 7. Suarez de Iurament. lib. 3. cap. 16. from num. 9. and they say it is probable — Alcozet summa, cap. 15. fol. 52. Corduba summa, q. 188. at the end. Tanner. indeed, disp. 5. quaest. 5. dub. 1. says, if the thing is very small, some tiny part of what was promised, the oath is judged to be kept; but if it is the whole thing, it is mortal, because God is called as a witness to a falsehood. Finally he says, as probable, that it is only venial. Bassaeus loco cit. says all are probable.
D. BONAVENTURE seems to me to be with the first opinion. First, because at art. 1. quaest. 3. he places therein the reason for mortality in perjury, because the Divine truth is rashly or falsely brought forward as a witness, and he excuses only by indeliberation. Then, serm. 3. in Decalogum, he places the end of the promissory oath in truth, though ordered to peace, etc. And in speculo animae he asserts universally that there is an obligation of fulfilling in the promissory oath; otherwise he would call the transgressor a transgressor of the precept absolutely, but he would not say that if he sinned only venially, because he holds that a venial sin is not against a precept.
Moreover, in prima parte Centil. sect. 12. after making the division of the oath into Assertory and Promissory, he defines Perjury to be a lie confirmed by oath. Or: Periurium est falsa, vel perversa iuratio. And he calls it perverse from a defect of justice; false from a defect of truth. Therefore he will be a perjurer who does not exhibit what he swore to promise.
I ASSERT that a promissory oath, with the exhibition of anything sworn of light matter failing, is mortal.
It is PROVED first by the argument of D. Bonavent. quaest. 3. That which is the cause that God is brought forward as a witness to falsehood inflicts a grave injury upon God: But the failure of the rendering of the thing, even a very small one sworn, is the cause that God has been brought forward as a witness to falsehood: Therefore. The major is proved from D. Bonavent. locis adductis, because this gravely obstructs the end of the oath, which is to bring faith to the divine testimony; and what gravely repugns the end of the oath is mortal, as Cajetan disputes, 2. 2. quaest. 88. art. 2. and 3.
It is CONFIRMED. For to be the cause that God has testified a falsehood is just the same as to make God be judged to testify falsely: But to be the cause that God testifies a falsehood is certainly a grave injury: Therefore. Hence D. Bonavent. wisely condemns both in the same way, without distinction, from this one chapter, because the Divine truth is contemned. The minor is proved, because since man has brought the Lord into testimony to confirm himself in promises he is about to make, already, as much as lies in him, he renders the testimony of God false, not to say empty.
It is CONFIRMED by Valencia from D. Bonav. because Perjury is against the religion of the oath, whose essence is to take God as a witness to truth: Therefore, the truth being violated, the oath is gravely injured, even if the matter promised by oath is very small; for it makes no difference to the formal reason of the Divine truth whether it is brought forward as a false witness of this or that thing, great or small. Otherwise, if the matter is to be considered, the same will hold in the assertory oath.
It is CONFIRMED second; for only then does the gravity or levity of the matter pertain to the gravity of the sin, when it is the immediate object of its transgression, as is evident in theft, and indeed also in a vow, in which, because its reason stands in the exhibition of that matter made to God, therefore the gravity or levity of the transgression is taken from it, which stands in denying to God that that thing has been transferred to His service; but in an Oath that matter promised to a man is not the matter of an act of religion when the oath is fulfilled: Therefore neither is it the object of transgression. The consequence is proved, because virtue and sin, its contrary contrary to truth, are concerned with the same object. The antecedent is proved by Valencia from D. Thom.
BUT I prove this from D. Bonav. in 4. dist. 38. quaest. 1. at the end, for the promissory oath has as the object of its promise the thing promised to a man, whence that thing promised does not pertain to religion: But a vow regards as its object a thing as sacred to God, and therefore the act is specified by it, or is afterward recognized as specified. Likewise the end of the oath is to establish and confirm the truth by Divine testimony: but the end of a vow is to increase goodness by the exhibition of a new good work. Finally even the means is different, because one swears by God; but one vows by promise. Whence if anyone, while fulfilling what was sworn and promised, should wish to abstract from the circumstance of the divine glory, which redounds from the observance of the oath, and should wish only to execute the work promised, as such a work is, without doubt he would satisfy the oath; provided indeed he made true what he swore: Therefore the thing promised, or the promised act, does not pertain to the virtue of religion: Therefore neither will the opposite deformity be against religion, inasmuch as it is a negation of the exhibition of the thing, but only inasmuch as God has been brought forward as a false witness.
SANCHEZ n. 23. tries to enervate these arguments. He supposes, however, that failing a promise is not properly a lie, but infidelity; because he who promises something, if he has the mind of doing what he promises, does not lie, since he does not speak against what he holds in his mind. Then, because to lie is intrinsically evil, in such a way that it is never lawful: but not to fulfill a promise is sometimes lawful.
Moreover, although he renders the promise false, nevertheless he does not lie, and so neither does he bring God in as a witness to a falsehood, but he is unfaithful under Divine authority. Therefore, although the defect of primary truth, when he promises but his mind does not accord, is a lie; yet the defect of fulfillment is not a lie; and thus although in the former no smallness of matter can be allowed, yet it can be allowed in the latter.
It is CONFIRMED, because while a man is brought in as a witness to a promise, he intervenes only as a witness of a present contract: but with respect to execution he is not brought in as a witness, but in order to lend authority by way of suretyship: Therefore the same must be said of God. Finally, because in any matter gravely evil that is sworn, the first truth of the oath fails, it is always mortal, as if you swear to a homicide without the intention; but to fail a promise of a thing, even venially evil, is no fault: Therefore this truth is not to be considered independently of the matter promised, as happens in the former truth, but just as when the matter is evil there is no sin, so it will be only venial when the matter is licit but light.
YET these reasons are frivolous; for I do not say that he lied in the first truth, if he had the mind of promising; but I say that he lies, while the sworn promise still stands virtually, and he inwardly intends not to fulfill it, and for this concordance he brought God in as a witness; for he did not bring God in as a witness that he then said in his mind what he spoke, but that he would accord in deed, or by the exhibition of the thing, with what was promised; and therefore he brought God in as a witness that he would preserve that conformity of mind and promise up to the exhibition of the thing; and therefore he is a liar as often as in his mind he discordes from the promise; and therefore that malice, which will never be licit, always endures. Nor indeed ought the excision from lying be made, as Sanchez wrongly takes it, alleging a difference, because lying is never lawful; but failing a promise is often lawful: for he ought to take that defect of execution as grounded in the lie of perjury, and thus it will never be lawful, just as lying itself is not lawful.
But what he says of the man who assists as a witness to a contract, and surety of execution, is not to the point, for God, as supreme Lord and searcher of hearts, is brought in as a witness to that truth which in the accord of mind with voice is to endure up to the exhibition, etc.; therefore another contracts this security, and God does not intervene as one from whom the creditor could satisfy himself in the case where the debtor fails, but only that He may be a witness; for it is truly a promissory oath, as all confess. Moreover it is defined by all as Vocatio Dei in testem, as Sanchez confesses lib. 3. cap. 1.
BUT, even should God assist as surety by His authority, still the injury is grave, because whatever authority in the least truth, even materially opposed to fidelity, is taken from God, the reason of Deity is taken away, and He is rendered false.
But what he says of matter gravely evil, which if deceitfully promised makes perjury; but that if evil light matter in the enunciation is not fulfilled, there is no sin — is not to the point; he ought to have compared both under the same reason; and then I say: just as it is no sin not to fulfill an act venially evil that was sworn, so much less to fulfill an act gravely evil.
Nor ought he to pass from an evil act to a good act; therefore it is no sin to fail a promise of a thing venially evil, because this is not legitimate matter of an oath, and therefore it did not obligate at the outset; indeed an injury was inflicted upon God by that oath, because justice is lacking, as I shall say quaest. 6. But a good thing, which we now have at hand, is legitimate matter of an oath; and therefore just as from the truth in the promise it is owed, so also in the exhibition, while that obligation of the accord of intention with the promise endures up to the exhibition of the thing. Therefore, even if he repents having invoked God as a witness, he is still guilty, because the invocation already past perseveres, which cannot not have been.
Moreover, our reasons are not on that account shaken, because he was bound to prove that that exhibition of the matter, not only as it constitutes the act, but as it regards that matter, is the object of religion, so that from thence he might prove that the levity or gravity of the matter increases or diminishes the fault of the violated promise. Note, however, that some very small things are sworn which excuse, as when a Father swears to punish his son; for these things are sworn for terror, or from an inordinate affection of vengeance. See Valencia.
From these things, therefore, it is also deduced that he who swears to do many very small things daily for men sins mortally every day by violating the promise; but not so he who vows very small things daily, because the vow regards that matter as the object of religion. Therefore that very small matter will make a small defect against religion.