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
Quaestio VI: Whether, and what sin, is an OATH made without justice
Quaestio VII: Whether, and what sin, is an OATH lacking judgment
Quaestio VIII: Whether, and how, a custom of swearing is evil
Quaestio IX: When precisely one swearing incautiously from custom sins mortally
Quaestio X: What sin it is to swear dolosely
He NOTES first, from D. Bonaventure in the body, and the end of the question, that one swears deceitfully in two ways. First, when the mind does not accord with the words of the oath. Secondly, when they do not accord with the will of him to whom the oath is given, in that we elude by amphibologies, or by windings of words, although the words and the mind of the swearer accord among themselves.
He NOTES secondly, that the mind is wanting in three ways. First, if you swear with the mind of swearing, and not of giving, and consequently also not of promising; for if you have the mind of promising, you have also the mind of giving, as is gathered from D. Bonaventure, who constituted a single defect from these two. And Valentia notes this disput. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 4. col. 1415. against Sotus lib. 8. de Iustitia, quaest. 1. art. 7. Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 7. Sanchez lib. 3. cap. 6. num. 3. et cap. 10. num. 2. who distinguish these two: to have the mind of promising, but not of fulfilling; and the mind of promising and of fulfilling. And indeed Sanchez cap. 10. num. 5. places this distinction also as the mind of D. Bonaventure art. 3. quaest. 2. because he says, the Church does not compel oaths extorted by fear, because it presumes that they were emitted with the mind of escaping danger, not of fulfilling the oath. But Sanchez does not show this for that reason, because the Holy Doctor presupposes it, absque animo even of obligating himself; nevertheless I judge this mode possible, which is the same according to what was handed down in the preceding question.
The SECOND mode is, if the mind of swearing is absent. The third, if the mind of obligating oneself is absent, even if you wish to swear; yet this mode, which Sanchez posits, suffers some difficulty; for he who wishes to undergo an oath, and knowingly wills it, knowing its bond, seems necessarily to will also the consequence of the bond of obligation. That such a one does not swear, Azor teaches p. p. lib. 11. cap. 4. quaestio 2. Sanchez lib. 5. cap. 11. num. 8. Sylvius quaest. 89. art. 7. quaestio 3. cap. 1. Sylvester V. Iuram. 4. quaestio 20. Bonacina de Iuram. puncto 7. nor does Bassaeus refuse it V. Iuram. 2. num. 2.
Valentia adds a FOURTH mode, when the swearer has neither the mind of swearing, nor of obligating himself by the oath. But this mode too is superfluous, for by the very fact that he does not swear, nor obligates himself by the oath; the will excluding swearing excludes also obligating oneself, which is the effect of the oath.
The FIRST mode indeed makes perjury mortal by the consent of all. So D. Bonaventure in the body, and others cited by Sanchez cap. 4. num. 16. for he truly deceitfully brings forward God as witness.
AS FOR the second mode, some judge it mortal. So Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 7. Armilla V. Periurium, num. 3. Couar. de pactis 1. part. §. 5.
The SECOND opinion is that to utter words sounding an oath, with the mind of not swearing, is then mortal, when that oath concerns false matter, whether of the present, or of the future: Next, if it concerns true matter, and the oath is legitimately required, whether by a Judge, or by a contracting party; but if it concerns true matter, yet is not legitimately required, it is not, he says, mortal, but a simple lie. So Sotus lib. 8. de Iustitia, quaest. 1. art. 7. ad 4. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 7. ad 4. concl. 6. Petrus Ledesma 2. Tom. tract. 11. cap. 3. dub. 6. Lessius lib. 2. de Iustitia, cap. 42. et 43. Suarez tom. 2. de religione Tract. de iuram. lib. 3. cap. 17. and although Sotus speaks of one compelled to swear, yet his reason proves it of everyone not obligated to swear.
The THIRD opinion is that of Valentia 2. 2. d. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 4. toward the end; where, in the case in which one is not obligated to swear, but the oath is unreasonably extorted, he thus distinguishes: If the swearer speaks the truth, then he sins only venially, when he wills to signify that he has the mind of swearing; because it is a lie not pernicious, as the Authors of the second opinion also say; otherwise if he does not will to signify this, but something else disparate; then there is no fault. But if he swears falsely, and wills those external words of the oath to be referred to ratifying false matter, it is mortal. This the Authors of the first opinion teach: but if he does not refer those words to false matter, nor can anyone think this, and take scandal from it; but only uses his right, usurping those words to signify something true in his mind; or he usurps them only materially, willing to confirm nothing by them; it will be only venial. Indeed Sanchez num. 10., following Valentia, adds that it is not even venial, which Soto also holds, when one unjustly compelled usurps those words materially.
AS FOR D. Bonaventure, he seems in quaest. 1. art. 3. to speak only of one truly swearing, without the mind of obligating himself; yet concerning this too he seems to infer consequently, that it is not indeed a true oath, yet it is lethal; for by the very fact that there is the mind of not obligating oneself, there is also present the mind of swearing not truly, but with the mouth only, as Sanchez notes num. 7. cap. 4. Therefore the same seems to be said of both. And quaest. 2. he seems to infer it also of him who is compelled to swear: But in Distinction 38. quaest. 3. in corpore he teaches that even a simple lie, by reason of scandal, can become mortal; much more if it appear confirmed by an oath. Finally, in d. 39. quaest. 3. he excuses one who professes oaths from sole invincible incaution from falsity.
THUS therefore, if the swearer speaks the truth, it will be only venial, unless it is justly required; for then he is bound to swear, and to swear truly, as D. Bonaventure teaches loc. cit. in corpore, so that the sole external utterance of what is false before a judge renders one infamous, as is had in 6. quaest. 1. cap. infames, and D. Thomas also reports it quaest. 98. art. 3. argumento 3. The same is to be said in legitimate contracts. But if he swear falsely, it will be mortal. And thus D. Bonaventure seems to approach the second opinion, and in some degree the last opinion.
I ASSERT first, that words sounding an oath, uttered without the mind of swearing, if they are true (and are not justly required), are a venial fault.
IT IS PROVED from D. Bonaventure loc. cit. quaest. 3. in the last argument, because it is only a superfluous invocation of the Divine name, which is not of itself mortal. Nor is there contempt of the Divine testimony, since God does not then require that honor. For thus it would be mortal, if I were to feign saying a prayer of supererogation, as Sanchez notes num. 9. Nor is any loss brought to the end of the oath, as the authors of the first opinion cry out, because the obligation is observed for the due times of human contracts, of lawsuits, and of decrees, as I said.
I ASSERT secondly, that such words are mortal, when the oath is legitimately required.
IT IS PROVED from D. Bonaventure in the body, because then justice is gravely injured, and the offense of this oath is occasioned.
I ASSERT thirdly, that if the words of the oath fall upon false matter, and cannot be saved by equivocation, they are mortal, since they are ordered to confirming that falsity.
It is CONFIRMED by the Doctors of the first opinion: For that external worship of latria, which sounds an oath, is exhibited to undue matter, namely a false thing. And so it is mortal, just as to exhibit the external worship of latria to idols.
The SAME is proved also of one compelled to swear; for, as D. Bonaventure teaches art. 3. quaest. 2. ad 3. Those things that are evil of themselves cannot become good through fear. For concerning these the Holy Doctor says the Divine precept must be observed: Fear ye not them that kill the body. But rather fear him that can cast both body and soul into hell.
AS FOR the third mode indeed, in which one swears, but deceitfully, without the mind of obligating himself: First, the Abbot cap. si vero, num. 10. holds, when the oath is unjustly extorted, that perhaps in a perfect man it is a venial fault; but in the imperfect, none. But of one swearing of himself, he says nothing. But others then excuse the compelled one when he adds some condition by which the oath be true, as one swearing to a robber that he will give the money (understanding) if he ought.
The COMMON opinion is that in every event it is mortal. So Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 7. ad 4. D. Antonin. 2 part. tit. 10. cap. 6. casu 5. Armilla verb. Iuram. num. 14. et V. Periurium, num. 3. Tabiena V. Iurare, quaest. 11. num. 12. Scotus in 3. d. 39. quaest. unica, art. 3. Nauarr. summa, cap. 12. Couarr. de pactis, p. p. §. 5. num. 3. et 4. Decret. 2. part. cap. 3. §. 5. num. 3. Alcozia sum. cap. 15. fol. 51. Salzedo additione ad regulam, num. 584. Bernardus Diaz, Aragon. 2 2. quaest. 89. art. 7. Less. lib. 2. de Iustitia, cap. 42. dub. 8. num. 42. Suarez de relig. Tract. de Iuramento, lib. 3. cap. 17. num. 10.
OTHERS thus distinguish: If the oath is reasonably required, it is venial; but if unreasonably, and the swearer does not intend to signify to the other that he wills to obligate himself by that oath, there is no sin; but if he wills to signify it, it is venial. So Valentia 2. 2. d. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 4.
Sanchez ADDS num. 6. that he must necessarily be understood, when in that oath there is present the mind of fulfilling the thing promised by the oath (although he himself does not explain it), since if that mind were wanting, he must necessarily say it is a mortal perjury, since he himself holds it to be a true oath, and as such to obligate.
BUT Sanchez did not see that Valentia d. 6. quaest. 7. puncto 4. col. 1415. and quaest. 6. puncto 1. col. 1330. asserts these to be so connected, that if the mind of doing is wanting, the mind of promising is also wanting; and conversely it follows, If he has the mind of not promising, and of obligating himself by the oath, he does not have the mind of fulfilling the thing by the force of that oath. But what someone might say: I swear, but although I do not will to be obligated by this oath, I will give this; such a restriction is per accidens to the oath.
Therefore we, with D. Bonaventure, are bound to assert the same that we asserted of him who swears without the mind of swearing, namely, that it is mortal in an oath justly exacted, with the things said in the preceding question preserved proportionally.
I ASSERT first, that one swearing without the mind of obligating himself sins mortally, if the oath is justly required. So those cited above, and others, with whom almost the whole of Bassaeus subscribes loc. cit.
IT IS PROVED from D. Bonaventure quaestione prima articuli tertii in corpore, because he unjustly deceives his neighbor in a grave matter, and to this end uses, as an instrument of the oath, an external act (for it is not truly an oath, as I shall say in question 13.); he invokes therefore externally the name of God after the manner of an oath, and so gravely abuses the means of naming God vainly under the formula of an oath, mocking God himself, and to the ruin of the human race, for the preservation of whose peace oaths were instituted; and he enervates the faith owed to an oath. Very many use this reason; among whom those are judged to be related in the preceding question for the first opinion.
I ASSERT secondly, that one swearing without the mind of obligating himself (if the oath is unreasonably extorted) sins only venially, if he does not apply the words to confirming a false promise.
IT IS PROVED on the foundation of D. Bonaventure, because this is not an oath, but only a simple lie, as I shall say in question 4. and the same was said in the preceding question, in the first assertion, and then he uses his right, using equivocations. So Sanchez in number 10.
Sanchez, moreover, ADVERTS that one can use amphibolic words from a just cause, not only when they admit several senses of themselves, but also from some circumstance, of place, of time, etc.; indeed, when they render the true sense from the mind of the utterer; as if one denies that he has done something that he did (understanding that it is to be concealed). The same hold Syluest. V. Iuram. 4. quaest. 7. Nauarr. cap. Humana aures 12. quaest. 5. in quaest. 2. num. 12. Valentia 2. 2. d. 5. quaest. 13. puncto ultimo. Salon. 1. 2. quaest. 69. art. 2. controu. 11. in quarta ratione, Tolet. lib. 4. summae, cap. 21. num. 9. Manuel de ordine iudicatio cap. 10. num. 4. et primo tomo summae, cap. 191. num. 7. Philiarch. Tom. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 14. Suarez de Iuram. lib. 3. cap. 11. num. 6. Lessius lib. 2. de Iustitia, cap. 42. dub. 9. num. 48. Sà verbo Iuram. num. 6. Sanchez lib. 3. cap. 6. num. 15. D. Bonauent. passim. Vide Dianam part. 2. t. 15. res. 25. et part. 3. tract. 6. miscell. resol. 30. Although Caietanus 2. 2. quaest. 89. art. 7. Sotus lib. 5. quaest. 6. art. 2. cap. 7. Malder. opusc. de restrict. ment. cap. 4. et 10. Syluius 2. 2 quaest. 89 art. 7. quaestio 3. Azor. tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 4. quaestio 5. Henriq. lib. 6. cap. 19. Layman. lib. 4. tract. 3. cap. 13. Coninch. de act. quatern. lib. 1. d. 10. dub. 3. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 62. art. 2. et quaest. 89. art. 7. say it is perjury, unless the amphibolic words obtain that amphibolic sense from themselves; with whom Bassaeus V. Iuramentum 3. num. 10. hesitates, so that he may proceed more safely, although he grants the opposite opinion probable, which I follow.
He is PROVED from the Holy Doctor on cap. 7. Ioan. where Christ says: Go you up to this festival day; but I go not up to this festival day, and yet he ascended. But that utterance was completely true in the mind of Jesus. I go not up manifestly, and for celebrating the solemnity, or for the passion, but that I may instruct some separately in need of it.
SO many note, from D. Chrysostom homil. 47. in Ioannem post medium Tom. 3.
It is PROVED secondly, from D. Bonaventure in 3. d. 38. dub. 1. where from D. Jerome the amphibology of the Hebrew midwives is praised, because of which God is said to have built houses; and the Holy Doctor calls those midwives most spiritual.
THIRDLY it is proved from D. Bonaventure from Genes. 27. ibidem num. 6. from the deed of Jacob, who feigned himself Esau, and said of himself that he was such and such, and had done what the Father had commanded; and yet he is excused by the Holy Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, and others, whom D. Bonaventure reports loc. cit. et post eum Peterius ibi disp. 5.
SIMILARLY Abraham Genes. 22. going up the mountain to immolate his son, said that he would return with the boy. And Genes. 26. concerning his wife he says she is his sister. And cap. 42. et 44. Joseph says that he is a diviner. And Iudic. 9. Ierunt ligna. And 4. Reg. 10. Jehu said that he wished to worship Baal, which examples the Holy Doctor reports in 3. d. 38. quaest. 2.
It is PROVED fourthly from D. Bonaventure in 3. d. 39. art. 1. quaest. 1. with whom D. Gregory also concurs there lib. 26. moral. cit. and it is reported cap. Humana aures 22. quaest 5. ibi: The ears of men judge our words to be such as they sound outwardly. But the Divine judgments hear them to be such as they are uttered from the depths: Therefore he wills that truth be measured by words in their intrinsic seat from the intention of the utterer, not from the external words alone. The same D. Hilary expressed lib. 4. de Trinitate cap. 5. and it is reported cap. Intelligentia, de verborum significatione there, The understanding of words must be taken from the causes of speaking: Because the thing is not subject to the word, but the word to the thing.
It is PROVED fifthly from D. Bonaventure in 3. d. 38. in dub. litt. num. 4. et 5. et quaest. 1. in corpore, et quaest. 2. ad argumenta. To lie is to go against the mind, and so the reason of the lie stands in the habitude of words to the mind. Therefore whether they are true or false in themselves, it is per accidens; but they are to be considered with respect to the mind of the utterer, and in the deformity of the words with respect to it stands the formal reason of the lie. So also Sanchez num. 15. who again confirms it from D. Bonaventure in the quaest. 2. cited, argumento 6. with Bassaeus num. 10.
In this stands a lie, that words are uttered against the institution of their end; but words were instituted for this, that man express what he bears in mind.
But OUTSIDE of necessity it is not permitted to use amphibologies, which is proved from D. Bonaventure in 3. d. 38. quaest. 2. ad tertium argumentum, because man was made that he might contract with others, and live together economically, and politically; but for this it was necessary that they mutually communicate their own intentions and wills in a human manner; but this is done by words. Wherefore in legitimate contracts and fellowship we ought to use words instituted for that end, to signify candidly to our neighbors our conceptions. On this reason many, cited by Sanchez lib. 3. cap. 6. num. 12. try to prove that it is always true, that never may amphibologies be used; otherwise an approach would lie open to deceits, the commerce of words would be taken away, its assurance, etc.
INDEED, since in the corrupt state we are compelled to live together, and are often assailed by the unjust with questions and malicious speeches, an approach would rather lie open to very many evils than that satisfaction be given to one asking sincerely, with open mind. Therefore cautious prudence is needed. For thus also Christ did not always render oracles at a nod to the Jewish plotters, but with parables rather obscure, by which in several ways he could multiply responses.
From these it is clear, and Sanchez rightly gathers num. 10. that a case can occur in which not only when solicited, but even spontaneously we can rightly use amphibolic sayings, anticipating some evil, or for appeasing a neighbor, for restoring a fame unjustly taken away, etc. The same says Philiarchus de off. Sacerd. tom. 1. part. 2. lib. 3. cap. 14.
The SAME will be in the case in which one guilty has unjustly disclosed his accomplices in the crime, or a witness has unjustly betrayed before the judge a crime of the Accused that was hidden, that he can offer himself to swear that they are not guilty, understanding that they ought not to be disclosed:
So hold Medina lib. 1. summae, cap. 14. §. 33. Navarr. lib. 2. de resti. cap. 4. part. 3. dub. 5. num. 142. Henriquez lib. 5. de Poenitentia, cap. 12. Manuel primo Tomo summae, cap. ultimo. Bannes 22. quaest. 62. art. 2. dub. 8. and there Salonius in controv. 15. saying that Melchior Canus, Mantius, and other most learned men hold the same in their relections. Leonardus lib. 2. de Iustitia, cap. 11. dub. 10. num. 110. Sayrus lib. 11. cap. 4. num. 27. Petrus Ledaesma 1. Tomo, tract. 2. cap. 7. concl. 3. with Sanchez lib. 3. cap. 6. num. 28.
WHENCE I do not see how from the Doctors alleged, Navarr. in summae, cap. 12. num. 8. Sayrus lib. 5. cap. 4. num. 21. Leonardus lib. 2. de iustitia, cap. 42. d. 9. num. 46. it can be brought that it is not permitted to offer oneself to swear, using these amphibologies; but that only with the requisites is it permitted to use them.
From these many things are resolved, namely that it is permitted to use equivocations if we are asked, even in judgment, about a hidden matter, or by a judge not competent, and to deny, understanding that he is not bound; or if one asked whether he comes from such a place, when the plague has been falsely announced, could deny to the guards of the city that he comes from that place, understanding as if it had not happened. See Sanchez, who num. 4. also brings forward that case which they ascribe to the Holy Father Francis, that, being asked on the way by satellites whether a certain guilty one had passed that way, he answered that he had not passed through here, understanding through the sleeves of his garment, in which he held his hands. Likewise this is permitted for saving life, fame, goods, for repelling adversities, for eluding the enemy in a just war, for avoiding ambushes, for a useful work, etc.
I ASSERT finally, that if he refer those words to confirming a falsehood, he sins. See the third assertion of the preceding question, of which the reason is the same.
Now Perjury is a sin graver than homicide, because it is against the honor of God, as I shall say in the last question.