Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question I: On the bringing of the accused to the tribunal
First there is need of a valid citation of the Accused, as we have already intimated; otherwise the case will be built upon sand. So the celebrated §. fin. quaest. 31. Gloss on Leg. si accusatoribus, Cod. de accusat.; and it is the common view, as Bossius reports, de citationibus, num. 13.
De deductione Rei ad Tribunal.
Necessaria est primo citatio Rei valida, uti iam insinuavimus, alioqui super arenam aedificabitur causa. Clar. §. fin. quaest. 31. Gloss. in Leg. si accusatoribus, Cod. de accusat. et est communis, ut refert Bossius de citationibus, num. 13.
But there must be against him sufficient proofs, as I shall say below, in order that he may be lawfully cited; otherwise the summoning of the Accused will be unjust, and a mortal sin, as D. Bonav. notes, in speculo animae, cap. 2., and he hints, in apolog. Fratr. Min. quaest. 2.
Debet autem contra eum esse probationes sufficientes, ut infra dicam ad hoc, ut legitime citetur, alioqui erit iniusta Rei advocatio, et peccatum mortale, ut notat D. Bonau. in speculo animae, cap. 2. et innuit in apolog. Fratr. Min. quaest. 2.
Now the Scacc. 8., Guaz as cited by Bictus, quaest. 95., and Menochius, de praesumpt. l. 1. quaest. 88. num. 21., say that one witness is a sufficient lawful indication, likewise the complaint of a wounded man in the article of death, the flight of the Accused together with certain other indications; such that such indications are greater than a simple presumption, and less than a semi-full proof. So P. Elizeus, where above num. 3.
Dicunt autem Scacc. 8. Guaz apud Bictum quaest. 95. et Menochius de praesumpt. l. 1. quaest. 88. num. 21. legitimum inditium sufficiens esse unum testem, querelam vulnerati, in articulo mortis constituti, fugam Rei cum aliquibus aliis indiciis; ita ut talia indicia maiora sint, quam simplex praesumptio, et minora, quam semiplena probatio. Ita P. Elizeus, ubi supra num. 3.
But if a Judge were to condemn someone not cited, the sentence would be invalid, as all say, because this is of natural law, as I said above; and hence it cannot be omitted even by the Prince. But if he condemned one not cited, he would sin mortally, as D. Bonav. teaches, in speculo animae, cap. 2., whom the Arretin. follow, in pract. crim. cap. 1. de Reis, Bouer. p. 2. cap. 34., Nauar. in Man. cap. 25. num. 13.
Quod si Iudex aliquem non citatum damnaret, invalida esset sententia, ut dicunt omnes, quia est iuris naturalis, ut supra dixi, atque adeo neque a Principe potest omitti. Quod si damnaret non citatum, peccaret mortaliter, ut docet D. Bonau. in speculo animae, cap. 2. quem sequuntur Arretin. in pract. crim. cap. 1. de Reis, Bouer. p. 2. cap. 34. Nauar. in Man. cap. 25. num. 13.
Now, if flight is feared, the Accused is wont to be imprisoned. There are three kinds of prisons: the first for custody; the second for torture; the third for punishment, as P. Elizeus has it, tract. 7. quaest. 2. num. 1.
Solet autem, si timetur fuga, Reus carcerari, Tres autem sunt carceres; Primus ad custodiam; Secundus ad torturam; Tertius ad poenam, ut habet P. Elizeus tract. 7. quaest. 2. num. 1.
The prison for custody must be humane; for inhumane prisons are censured by Bossius, tit. de carcere.
Carcer ad custodiam debet esse humanus; nam carceres inhumani vituperantur a Bossio tit. de carcere.
When it is for custody, it must be set forth in the acts, so that he does not thereby incur the legal infamy that follows upon the prison of punishment, as Bouer. notes, cap. 34. Nor indeed should a Religious be imprisoned for every crime, or lightly, because his prejudice is irreparable, as Baldus notes, whom Felin. follows, in C. cum super, de re iudic.; otherwise the Judge will sin mortally, as D. Bonau. teaches, in speculo animae, cap. 2., and he will be bound to restitution, as Nauar. says, in rubr. de iud. num. 83.; whose doctrine, as noteworthy, our Fathers mark, in modo nostro procedendi, cap. 2. in secundo substantiali; although they might have better alleged this as the doctrine of D. Bonaventura.
Quando quidem est ad custodiam debet in actis explicari, ut sic non contrahat iuris infamiam, quae sequitur ad carcerem poenae, ut notat Bouer. cap. 34. Neque vero pro omni crimine, vel leviter debet carcerari Religiosus, quia eius praeiudicium est irreparabile, ut notat Baldus, quem sequitur Felin. in C. cum super, de re iudic. alioqui Iudex peccabit mortaliter, ut docet D. Bonau. in speculo animae, cap. 2. et ad restitutionem tenebitur, sequitur Nauar. in rubr. de iud. num. 83. cuius doctrinam, ut insignem, notant Patres nostri in modo nostro procedendi, cap. 2. in secundo substantiali; cum melius allegare potuissent hanc, ut doctrinam D. Bonaventurae.
Therefore the Judge must first have certainty of the body of the crime, and grave indications must precede; otherwise, if the person be honest, it will be a mortal sin, and he will be compelled to restitution; if a Clerk, excommunication will follow, as the Doctors commonly teach, cited by Clarus, quaest. 28., Farinac. quaest. 27. num. 74., and Ioan. Andreas, in C. si clericus, de sent. excom. in 6.
Debet igitur primo constare Iudici de corpore delicti, et indicia gravia praecedere; alioqui si sit persona honesta, erit peccatum mortale, et ad restitutionem coget; si Clericus, subibit excommunicationem, ut communiter docent Doctores apud Clarum quaest. 28. Farinac. quaest. 27. num. 74. et Ioan. Andream in C. si clericus, de sent. excom. in 6.
This applies much more to Religious, for whom arrest carries a smell of infamy, as Bouer. notes, p. 2. cap. 34.
Hoc multo magis de religiosis procedit, quibus captura infamiam redolet, ut notat Bouer. p. 2. cap. 34.
That one imprisoned cannot justly escape, the following teach: Clarus, quaest. 21., and very many cited by Couar., l. 1. variarum resol. cap. 2., and Angelus, v. fugere; and thus Barthol., Felinus, and Bossius say that one who flees sins mortally.
Non posse autem carceratum iuste aufugere, docent Clarus quaest. 21. et plurimi apud Couar. l. 1. variarum resol. cap. 2. et Angelus v. fugere, et sic fugientem peccare mortaliter dicunt Barthol. Felinus, et Bossius.
But in truth that to flee from prison is not a sin, very many teach, cited by Azor., p. 3. l. 13. cap. 14., and Diana, p. 3. tract. Miscell. 5. resol. 102., saying that one condemned to death can break out of prison; and this is the common opinion, which I maintained in my Tract. de Legibus. And I say the same with Diana, Bonacina, Tanner, and others, even of one condemned to prison for a time: yet a Religious lawfully detained ought to take care lest in fleeing he fall into Apostasy, as Rodriquez admonishes, T. 2. qq. Regul. quaest. 23. art. 6., and Bictus, quaest. 79.
Enim vero e carcere fugere non esse peccatum docent plurimi apud Azor. p. 3. l. 13. cap. 14. Dianam p. 3. tract. Miscell. 5. resol. 102. dicentes, posse damnatum morte confringere carcerem; et est communis sententia, quam ego sustinui Tract. de Legibus. Et hoc idem dico cum Diana, et Bonacina, Tannero, et aliis, etiam de damnato ad tempus carcere: Cavere tamen debere Religiosum iuste detentum, ne fugiens in Apostasiam cadat, admonent Rodriquez T. 2. qq. Regul. quaest. 23. art. 6. Bictus quaest. 79.
From which indeed it follows that the breaker of a prison is not to be held as one confessing, as very many teach with Farinac., quaest. 30. a num. 20. ad 21.; and Bertaz says this opinion, there, is common. See Bictus, quaest. 79. de Reo.
Ex quibus vero sequitur, non esse habendum, ut confessum, carceris effractorem, ut docent plurimi cum Farinac. quaest. 30. a num. 20. ad 21. et hanc opinionem ait Bertaz ibi, esse communem. Vide Bictum quaest. 79. de Reo.