Question I: What homicide is, and of how many kinds

HOMICIDE is thus defined by St. Bonaventure, p. 1. Centil. sect. 31: Homicide is the killing of a man, done by a man. This definition is followed by Ioannes de Anania in the rubric on homicide, num. 1. and others. It is called the killing of a man, to distinguish it from the slaying which is inflicted on brute animals. It is said to be done by a man, to distinguish that killing by which a man is killed by some brute animal. But this definition regards rather the force of the name (as Catterius saw, in the practice, tract. on homicide and assassination, at the beginning) than the essence of the sin, which Fagundez also notices on the fifth precept, chapter 1.

THEREFORE Catterius and the Jurists commonly, as cited by Prosper Farinacius, quaest. 119. Tom. 4., and the Theologians, as cited by Fagundez, loc. cit. from St. Bonaventure's sermon on the ten precepts, cap. 6., define it as prohibited in the 5th precept: It is the unjust killing of a man. Now homicide unjustly done is that which is done by private authority, without the moderation of blameless defense being observed; or by public authority, without due justice and the order of law being observed, as Fagundez observes from St. Bonav. loc. cit. and in 3. dist. 37. dub. 5. lit. et in qq. Of both kinds we must treat.

Homicide is divided in many ways. First into Spiritual and Corporal, by St. Bonav. in the places cited, and by other Doctors of both Laws; on which division Farinac. treats especially, at the place cited, from Jacobus Boulent. in the repertory of the capital law, §. Famos. num. 63. ff. de poenis.

SPIRITUAL homicide is called, first, that by which a detractor unjustly blackens reputation. For in law the detractor is called a homicide, cap. Homicidiorum, de poenit. dist. 2. Second, that by which one hates his neighbor, 1 John 3: He who hates his brother is a homicide. Third, that by which he persuades another to harm his neighbor, for in law both the persuader of evil and the one who holds another in hatred are called homicides, C. Noli putare, de poenit. dist. 1. C. Homicidium. Fourth, that by which each one strives to harm his neighbor in some way, C. Homicidium, de poenit. dist. 2. Fifth, that by which someone denies sustenance to his brother in extreme need, as we have in dist. 86. from Ambrose: Feed him dying of hunger; if you did not feed him, you killed him.

CORPORAL homicide, however, is that by which the body of a man is killed; but spiritual homicide is chiefly that by which one is led to the death of the soul through sin, as St. Bonav. notes in the Confessionale, cap. 2. particula 3.

HOMICIDE, therefore, as it is defined by the Theologians, is a most grievous and atrocious sin, graver than theft and adultery. For the loss of homicide is irreparable, and by it we inflict on a man the greatest of all harms that we can inflict on him; as Socinus proves at large and learnedly, consil. 157. num. 8. lib. 2., with arguments from St. Bonaventure.

THE FIRST argument is: Graver are those sins by which harm is inflicted on the body than those by which harm is inflicted on a man's external goods and possessions; and thus for a single homicide the punishment of death is imposed; not so for a single theft, unless it be clothed with most grave circumstances, as the holy Doctor relates in the Confessionale.

THE SECOND argument, because in the ten precepts of the Decalogue the precept forbidding homicide is placed before the precept prohibiting theft and adultery, as the holy Doctor argues in 3. dist. 37. art. 2. quaest. 2.

THE THIRD; because in the Decretals the Title of homicide is placed before the Title of adultery and theft.

THE FOURTH, because it is easier to dispense with a thief than with a voluntary homicide, as is clear from C. sicut dignum, on homicide, num. 2. fol. 315. Decian. in the tract on crimes l. 9. cap. 17. num. 18. Matfil. in l. 1. num. 3. ff. ad legem Cornel. de sicar. With Socinus, that homicide is graver than adultery, they prove from the text in C. si quid verius, dist. 30. quaest. 2. L. Quamvis and from the circumstances; as in adultery and notorious theft the contrary must be said, as Decius teaches, consil. 65. l. 1.

BUT THE TRUE reason of the whole thesis is, because the harm inflicted by death is irreparable; but the harm from adultery and theft is per se repairable, since it concerns goods more extrinsic, as Fagundez says, cap. 1. num. 3., with St. Bonav.; and surely a man simply values life more than riches, fame, and honor, as the holy Doctor says in 3. dist. 37. art. 2. quaest. 1. in corpore; for it is against the very being of the individual, and against the more intrinsic good.

ALTHOUGH he adds there that fornication is against the due preservation of the species, still the harm inflicted on one's neighbor is less; nor is the damage to the species in one act of adultery so great as in homicide.

HOMICIDE, says St. Bonav. above, with St. Augustine, epist. 54., is taken in a twofold way: for either it is from private authority or from public; and both, if done in an illicit manner, are prohibited, Exodus 20. Deuter. 5. It will be illicit privately, if it be done without the necessity of blameless defense; but public, by a Judge or Prince, if someone is killed against justice. For although Princes are commanded to punish the wicked, even by death, as was said to Moses, Exodus 23: You shall not suffer the wizards to live; yet at the same time it is also commanded that they do not kill the innocent against justice, nor even the guilty in undue ways, as the holy Doctor teaches in 3. at the place cited.

IT IS INDEED NECESSARY for the safety of the commonwealth that robbers, cutthroats, assassins, and traitors be punished; and this power, or this sword of justice, was given by God, as the Apostle says, Rom. 13: Let every soul, that is, every man, as St. Augustine expounds, tract. 105. on John, be subject to the higher powers. If you do evil, fear: for he bears not the sword without cause. For they bear it to repel the evils which run rampant through the world in the body of the commonwealth, as St. Thom. teaches, 2. 2. quaest. 64. art. 1. For as a public member is cut off in the human body so that the safety of the whole body be consulted, so a noxious member of the commonwealth is deservedly removed from the midst, lest it corrupt the whole political body. But then a man is killed by a Judge not as a man, but as a criminal; and therefore out of hatred of malice and zeal for justice he is lawfully and deservedly put to death, as the holy Doctor sets forth in 2. dist. 44. art. 3. quaest. 1. and in 3. dist. 37. dub. 5. litt. and in the little work on the ten precepts, cap. 6., where he subdivides several other ways in which a man is killed privately, of which below.

From what has been said you have that not every killing of any living thing is forbidden, but only of men. Therefore it is lawful to cut plants and herbs, as is said Genesis 1: Behold I have given you every herb, and all trees, that they may be to you for food, and cap. 9: Every thing that moves and lives shall be food for you. And Aristotle acknowledged this too, lib. 1. Politics, cap. 5. and 6. Therefore St. Augustine, lib. 1. on the city of God, cap. 20: With most just ordination the Creator subjected both the life and the death of all living things to our uses. This is proved by the holy Doctor with very many passages of Scripture everywhere. Wherefore he deduces from the places alleged, with St. Thom. art. 1., whom others imitate, that the Manichaeans were senseless and foolish who cried out that by this precept it was forbidden to kill not only brutes but even plants. For all these things were made for the sake of man, for his use, as the Lord declares in the places alleged, and as our holy Doctors argue. Hence, after it was granted to men in Genesis 9. to kill animals, the prohibition of killing man is added, the reason of which the Lord gives: For man was made after the image of God. In what ways it is illicit, and in what ways lawful, to kill a man, I shall set forth below.