Question V: Whether goodness is necessary in a judge

SOME of the SECTARIORS have dared to say that a Praelatum in mortal sin loses jurisdiction: which error I have often refuted, and it is condemned in the Council of Constance sess. 8. art. 15. et sess. 15. art. 3., and it is plain from Matth. 23: Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari, even to the impious.

SOME say, however, that a Iudicem judging in mortal sin sins mortally; So Alens. 3. part. quaest. 40. memb. 3.

ON the other hand, as to Ecclesiastics, D. Thom. 4. dist. 19. quaest. 2. art. 2. quaest. 2., Paludanus ibi quaest. 3. art. 3., Sylvester V. correctio, quaest. 16. Hence that saying of Ioan. 8: Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in eam lapidem mittat, where the S. Doctor says: The law was written on stone on account of the hard of heart: now the Lord wrote on the ground, because he was seeking fruit. Let the law therefore be fulfilled, but should the adulteress be stoned by those who are to punish her? This is the voice of justice; let the sinner be punished, but not by sinners; and he alleges D. Augustinum tract. 33: Ad signandum ergo, quod legis praevaricatores non sunt digni ad iudicandum alios, ideo se sic inclinavit, et scripsit, as truly Anselmus says; Quantum est de ordine iustitiae non sunt digni punire, vel accusare, those who are in sin, especially when the sin is notorious, because then those judging and accusing give scandal.

WHEN, however, the sin is hidden, then the one judging or accusing sins, because he knows himself to be in sin and yet does not purge himself. And therefore such judges act perilously, thus judging when they know themselves to be in sin.

The OPPOSITE opinion, however, is that no Iudicem sins by judging in mortal sin. So D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 33. art. 5. et quaest. 60. art. 2., Caietanus, Salonius, Aragonius, and Bannes ibi, Sotus lib. 3. de Iust. quaest 4. part. 1., Petrus Nauar. lib. 2. de restit. cap. 4. part. 4. dub. 4. num. 455., Martin Nauar. in Rubric. de Iud. num. 42. Sayrus vero Lib. 12. cap. 13. makes certain distinctions. They speak, however, of external Judgment.

The same hold Valentia quaest. 4. puncto 2.; Tannerus vero disp. 4. quaest. 4. num. 16. distinguishes, alleging others, among whom also Alensem loco cit., as recorded by Sylvestrum, V. Iud. §. 12. So also Bassaeus V. Iudex, num. 12., Lugo de Iust. disp. 37. sect. 2., Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 60. art. 2. et alii.

I ASSERT first, with D. Bonavent., that a Iudicem in mortal and scandalous sin, in handing down a sentence, even a just one, sins mortally. So D. Bonau., D. Thom. art. cit., Caietanus, and all the others cited, among whom some say it is per accidens by reason of justice, which is interpreted as contempt.

The RATIO of D. Bonavent., used by the others, is that from it arises the scandal of others, and justice passes into contempt; but this happens especially when a Iudex is besmirched with the same crimes that he punishes in others.

I ASSERT second, that a Iudex in hidden mortal sin sins in some way. So judge among the Doctors, even of the second opinion, Caietanus, Sotus, Valentia, Martinus Nauarrus, and Sayrus, saying that he sins venially, because he does not exercise the act of justice from the inclination of justice. It is proved by the S. Doctor from 6. Sap., with those words of Rom. 2: In quo alium iudicas, te ipsum condemnas.

S. Bonavent. ADDS something further on account of the danger, because an impious man is easily corrupted into judging unjustly, especially by affections, gifts, etc.