Question I: What quarreling is, and what kind of sin

Rixa is derived from Ringor, because it signifies a private fight, such as the fight of dogs, which quarrel (ringunt): Hence it is gathered to have originated from anger.

Riot is therefore, on the part of the aggressor, a mortal sin, as is had in Galat. 5.; but on the part of the one attacked, it can be mortal, if in gravely resisting he goes too far.

It is described by D. Bonaventure in his explanation of Theological terms: Rixa est audax voluntas vindicandi, in iniuriam facti procedens.

Many examples of riots are related by S. Doctor in the Bibliis pauperum, cap. 50. Genes. 26. The shepherds of Gerara quarrelled with Isaac.

Exodus 2. two Hebrews quarrelled, upon whom Moses came, reproving them.

Two women were contending before Solomon 3. Kings, 3.

The Jews contended about Christ John 7.

The Jews were disputing Acts 11. unwilling that the Gentiles be preached to.

The multitude of Iconium was divided, some of whom stood for the Jews, others for the Apostles Acts 14. and another cap. 15. another cap. 19. another cap. 21. another cap. 23.

Here the duel is usually treated of, which is a riot of two by agreement.

On which Caietan writes excellently 2. 2. quaest. 95. art. 8. Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 39. Filliucius tract. 29. cap. 8. Suarez de cens. disp. 23. Bonacina tract. 3. disp. 11. Fagundez in the place to be cited, with Tanner.

It must be asserted, however, that the duel is illicit by the natural law, unless it be necessary to escape death.

It is condemned moreover in the sacred Laws, as appears in cap. Monomachiam, 2. quaest. 5. and cap. Henricus, extra de clericis in duello, and the Council of Trent sess. 25. in the Decree on general reformation, cap. 19. and it is had from D. Augustine in 23. quaest. 1. They are condemned by the Leg. unic. Cod. de gladiatoribus, Lib. 11.

And in our own time Louis XIII, justly acclaimed as the Just, King of France, sanctioned a most severe Law, by which he stamps the duel with the mark of infamy, condemns duelists to death and other penalties, so that he might avert so great an internecine slaughter of the most valiant Dukes and soldiers in his kingdoms.

Most recently also, an offspring worthy of such a father, Louis XIV, with an immense zeal for Justice, adding to his unbent and intrepid spirit the grandeur whereby he is truly proclaimed Great, decreed this same thing by a royal Diploma, and established moreover, beyond the irremissible penalty of the head, the proscription of honors, to be stripped forever of the islands of nobility, those who among nobles have contended in that accursed fight; Nor indeed could a more efficacious remedy be applied to tempering the ebullition of the blood of gallant French brawlers, as the outcome daily proves, than that those who thus pursue glory be buried inglorious, both with the living and with the nobility of posterity. Wherefore that illustrious nation, unable to pour out blood in duelling, sheds it more gloriously in subduing the enemies of the Church far and near.

Nor do duelists truly defend Honor; nay, they hunt ignominy for themselves; they do not rightly repay injuries, since this is not licit privately.

That David in 1. Kings 18. engaged in combat, was for the defense of Divine honor, with the public authority of the King from a divine instinct, as the Gloss also has in cap. Cura suscepi, de pugnatione ordinaria.

They sin gravely, and even those cooperating in a duel are excommunicated. See the Council of Trent; nor are they excused by any custom, as D. Bonaventure notes in speculo animae, cap. 1. for in common all Doctors, Theologians and Jurists have cried out against it, as S. Doctor observes. Wherefore also the Council of Trent excommunicates ipso facto sess. 25. cap. 19. the Lords permitting it, or granting the place, the godfathers, the procurators from counsel, the spectators; and the Bull of Clement VIII. excommunicates those cooperating, even if the duel does not follow; if it did not stand through them, Gregory XIII. excommunicates, yet does not reserve. And so, besides infamy and the loss of Ecclesiastical burial, if they die in the duel, the duelists also incur excommunication reserved to the Pope; if it be done with solemnity, with godfathers and provocative challenges (chartulae), by the proper bull of Pius IV. Add, if the duel be merely private, according to the Bull of Gregory XIII. and Clem. VII. who extend the excommunication of the Council of Trent even to a private duel, as Suarez teaches with Navarre Tom. 5. disp. 23. sect. 3. Tanner disp. 2. quaest. 6. dub. 7. Fagundez in 5. praecept. lib. 5. cap. 8. num. 5 and it is of the latae sententiae.

The same penalties others cooperating incur. Now therefore the excommunication, even if not reserved by Gregory, is certainly reserved by Pius and Clement; Yet they can be absolved by Religious in Rome, and outside Italy. See Fagundez num. 5. on this more has been said in prima secundae, tract. de actib. human. disput. 17. quaest. 10. ad propos. 2. according to the Decree of Alexander VII.