Article — Billuart, Summa Summae · from Schola Thomistica
Whether human laws oblige in conscience?
[The Beghards, Beguines, and Waldenses, also called the Poor Men of Lyons, asserted that sinners indeed were subject to laws, but that the just, that is themselves, were wholly exempt from them. John Hus and Luther afterwards taught that men — by whom they understood ecclesiastical superiors — have not the power to enact obligatory laws, or laws properly so called; so that their ordinances are only directions which anyone may follow of his own accord or reject.]
[Beguardi, Beguinae, et Valdenses, Pauperes Lugdunenses etiam dicti, asserebant, peccatores quidem legibus subjici, sed justos, id est seipsos, ab eis prorsus eximi. Joannes Hus et Lutherus postea docuerunt, homines, per quos ecclesiasticos superiores intelligebant, non habere potestatem leges obligatorias, seu leges proprie dictas, ferendi; ita ut eorum ordinationes non sint nisi directiones quas cuilibet vel sponte sua sequi vel rejicere liceat.]
The question is concerning just laws; for unjust laws are not true laws 1. But four things are required that a law be just: first, on the part of matter, namely that it command nothing per se evil, nor forbid anything per se good; second, on the part of end, that it be for the common good; third, on the part of author, that it enact no law beyond the power committed to it; fourth, on the part of form, that burdens be imposed upon subjects according to the proportion of the forces and faculties which they have. 1 Here q. 96, a. 4, c.
Quaestio est de legibus justis; injustae enim non sunt justae vero leges 1. Quatuor autem requiruntur, ut lex sit justa: primum, ex parte materiae, ut scilicet non praecipiat quod est per se malum, nec prohibeat quod est per se bonum; secundum, ex parte finis, ut sit propter bonum commune; tertium, ex parte authoris, ut non ferat legem ultra potestatem sibi commissam; quartum, ex parte formae, ut onera imponantur subditis juxta proportionem virium et facultatum quas habent. 1 Hic q. 96, a. 4, c.
I say: Every law, civil as well as ecclesiastical, binds in the forum of conscience 2. It is of faith, at least as regards ecclesiastical laws, defined in the Council of Constance against Wycliffe and John Hus, sess. viii and xv, in the bull of Leo X against Luther, and in the Council of Trid., sess. vii, can. 8: « If anyone shall say that the baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or handed down, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord; let him be anathema. » 2 Ibid.
Dico : Omnis lex, tam civilis quam ecclesiastica, obligat in foro conscientiae 2. Est de fide, saltem quoad leges ecclesiasticas, definita in concilio Constantiensi contra Wicleffum et Joannem Hus, sess. viii et xv, in bulla Leonis X contra Lutherum, et in concil. Trid., sess. vii, can. 8: « Si quis dixerit, baptizatos liberos esse ab omnibus sancta Ecclesia praeceptis quae vel scripta vel tradita sunt, ita ut ea observare non teneantur, nisi se sua sponte illis submittere voluerint; anathema sit. » 2 Ibid.
It is proved by the authority of Scripture. And 1° as regards ecclesiastical laws, Matth., XVI, 19, Christ said to Peter: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven. If in heaven, therefore in conscience. Luc., x, 16: He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. But no one doubts that one is bound in conscience to hear Christ and not despise him.
Probatur authoritate Scriptura. Et 1° quantum ad leges ecclesiasticas, Matth., XVI, 19, Christus dixit Petro: Quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis. Si in coelis, ergo in conscientia. Luc., x, 16 : Qui vos audit, me audit, et qui vos spernit, me spernit. Nemo autem dubitat quin teneatur in conscientia audire Christum et ipsum non spernere.
2° As regards civil laws, Paulus, ad Rom., XIII, 1-7. Let every soul be subject to higher powers; for there is no power but from God... Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation... Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience; for therefore also you pay tribute, for they are the ministers of God, serving unto this very purpose. Render therefore to all their debts: tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom. These things are so plain that an escape is opened to none of the heretics. Likewise ad Tit. III, 1, I Petr., II, 13-15, and elsewhere.
2° Quantum ad leges civiles, Paulus, ad Rom., XIII, 1-7. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit; non est enim potestas, nisi a Deo... Itaque qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit; qui autem resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt... Ideo necessitate subditi estote, non solum propter iram, sed etiam propter conscientiam; ideo enim et tributa praestatis, ministri enim Dei sunt, in hoc ipsum servientes. Reddite ergo omnibus debita : cui tributum, tributum; cui vectigal, vectigal. Quae adeo aperta sunt, ut nulli haereticorum effugio locus pateat. Item ad Tit. III, 1, I Petr., II, 13-15, et alibi.
It is proved by reason. 1° Human law, civil as well as ecclesiastical, is derived from the eternal law, from which it has its force and vigor, according to that of Prov., VIII, 15: By me kings reign, and lawmakers decree just things. And as we explained dissert. II. But the eternal law binds in conscience. Therefore.
Probatur ratione. 1° Lex humana, tam civilis quam ecclesiastica, derivatur ab aeterna, a qua habet suam vim et vigorem, juxta illud Prov., VIII, 15 : Per me reges regnant, et legum conditores justa decernunt. Et ut explicuimus dissert. II. Atqui lex aeterna obligat in conscientia. Ergo.
2° Natural law and right reason command that we obey the just mandates of legitimate superiors promulgated for the common good. Therefore we are bound in conscience to obey them.
2° Lex naturalis atque recta ratio jubet ut justis legitimorum superiorum mandatis propter bonum commune latis obtemperemus. Ergo tenemur in conscientia illis obedire.
It is confirmed. The precept of a father toward his children, of a master toward servants, binds in conscience, as the Apostle teaches, Ephes., VI, 1, 5. Therefore the precept of the prince toward subjects.
Confirmatur. Praeceptum patris in liberos, heri in famulos, obligat in conscientia, ut docet Apost., Ephes., VI, 1, 5. Ergo praeceptum principis in subditos.
[Rightly therefore Alexander VII, on 24 September 1665, condemned this proposition, n. 23: « He who breaks the fast of the Church unto which he is bound does not sin mortally, unless he do this out of contempt or disobedience, for instance because he wills not to submit himself to the precept; » and Innocent XI, on 2 March 1679, the following, n. 52: « The precept of keeping feasts does not bind under mortal sin, scandal set aside, if contempt be absent. »]
[Jure itaque Alexander VII, die 24 septembris 1665, damnavit hanc propositionem, n. 23 : « Frangens jejunium Ecclesiae ad quod tenetur, non peccat mortaliter, nisi ex contemptu vel inobedientia hoc faciat, puta quia non vult se subjicere praecepto; » et Innocentius XI, die 2 martii 1679, sequentem, n. 52 : « Praeceptum servandi festa non obligat sub mortali, seposito scandalo, si absit contemptus. »]