Doubt IV: Whether, in defense of chastity, it is lawful to kill the assailant

LICITUM — that a young man, or a woman, may kill an assaulter of her chastity, when she cannot otherwise defend herself, even if the assaulter be a cleric or a Religious — is affirmed by very many, as gathered by Fagundez in Quintum praeceptum, Lib. 5. cap. 3. num. 24. So Tolet. Lib. 5. summae cap. 6.; Lessius tom. 1. Lib. 2. dub. 12. num. 76.; Sylvester V. homic. 1. quaest. 5. num. 9.; Petrus Navar. Lib. 2. de restit. cap. 3. num. 393.; Fatinac. tract. 4. quaest. 125. de homic. tit. 14.; Baldus in Leg. ut vim, ff. de Iust.; Decius there, num. 32.; and it is clear from the text in L. 1. §. item, Decius ff. ad Legem Cornel. de sicar.: the Divine Adrianus responded that he who slew one offering violence to him for the violation of himself or of his own is to be let go, and the Gloss there; Alberici L. 1. num. 17. Cod. Unde vi.; Iodocus in pract. cap. 80.; Bossius tit. de homicid. num. 81.; Hugolin. de censur. part. 2. cap. 11.; Iacobus Ayrerius de homic. necessitate, part. 1. num. 135.; Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 64. art. 7. quaeritur 9.; Rodriquez in sum. tomo 1. cap. 220. num. 14.; Diana part. 5. Tract. 4. resol. 36., where he says it is the common opinion.

FALLITUR however, together with Tanner Tom. 3. disp. 4. quaest. 8. dub. 4. num. 68., when he says that D. Augustinus doubted in this matter Lib. 1. de lib. arb. cap. 5.; for S. Augustinus seems to grant it only on account of the danger of consent, because then the soul would perish; and S. Bonaventura holds the same with him, serm. 6. Decalogi.

AT Toletus loco cit. and Sylvest. §. 8., with Fagundez, say that, the danger of consent being removed, one can refrain from killing and endure that injury, which will be doubled before God for a crown; but these two say it is safer to kill, if one can; yet more piously does the Seraphic Doctor admit it only, with D. Augustino, when the danger to the soul from the peril of consent is imminent; so also Bassaeus V. Homic. 1. num. 21.