Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question III: Whether it is mortal to reveal a hidden crime to one, or two prudent men, who will keep silent about it
The FIRST opinion is assertive. So Salonius, and Bannes 2. 2. question 73, article 2 — the former in controversy, the latter indeed in doubt 1 — and others, as at Sayrus book 11, chapter 6, number 12; Bonacina On Controversies, disputation 4, question 4, part 3; Malderus 2. 2, tract 7, chapter 1, doubt 4; Vega, Summa, vol. 2, chapter 8, case 12; Azorius vol. 3, book 5, chapter 9, question 2. D. Bonaventure seems so, loc. cit., in the Mirror of the Soul, chapter 1. So Valentia on question 73, p. 2, doubt 1; Suarez, Tomus 4, disputation 34, section 1; Filliucius, Tomus 2, tract 10, chapter 3, number 90; Molina, Tomus 2, disputation 29; Fagundez book 8, chapter 2, number 24; Sayrus book 11, chapter 6, number 11; Bassaeus, s.v. Detractio, 1. number 11, who says this is the common opinion.
An sit mortale revelare crimen occultum uni, vel duobus viris prudentibus, qui id tacebunt.
PRIMA opinio est assertiva. Ita Salonius, et Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 73. art. 2. ille in controversia; hic vero dub. 1. et alii apud Sayrum l. 11. cap. 6. n. 12. Bonacina de controv. disp. 4. quaest. 4. p. 3. Malder. 2. 2. tract. 7. cap. 1. dub. 4. Vega Summa t. 2. cap. 8. casu 12. Azor. t. 3. l. 5. cap. 9. quaestio 2. Videtur D. Bonav. loc. cit. in speculo animae, cap. 1. Sequitur Valentia ad quaest. 73. p. 2. dub. 1. Suarez Tomo 4. disp. 34. sect. 1. Filliuc. Tomo 2. tract. 10. cap. 3. num. 90. Molina Tomo 2. disp. 29. Fagundez l. 8. cap. 2. num. 24. Sayrus l. 11. cap. 6. num. 11. Bassaeus, v. Detractio 1. num. 11. qui ait esse communem sententiam.
The OPPOSITE opinion seemed probable to Diana, p. 1, tract 17, resolution 22, citing Lessius book 2, chapter 11, number 7; Cajetan 2. 2. question 73, article 2, dist. 1; Pererius, Nauarre, book 2, chapter 4, number 335. To these Reginaldus may be added, Tomus 2, book 2, chapter 4, number 75, and others, from whom Diana deduces, resolution 24, that the hearer is not bound to correct that detractor; and Corduba also may be added, question 2, conclusion 2.
OPPOSITA sententia probabilis visa est Dianae p. 1. Tract. 17. resol. 22. alleganti Lessium l. 2. cap. 11. num. 7. Caietanum 2. 2. quaest. 73. art. 2. dist. 1. Perrum Nauar. l. 2. cap. 4. num. 335. His addere potest Reginaldum Tom. 2. l. 2. cap. 4. num. 75. et alios, ex quo deducit Diana resol. 24. non teneri audientem corrigere detractorem illum, et adduci etiam Cordubam quaest. 2. conclus. 2.
I ASSERT with the former opinion, which holds that it is a mortal sin to lay open a hidden crime even to one or another prudent man.
ASSERO cum priori sententia, asserente, esse peccatum mortale crimen occultum patefacere etiam uni, vel alteri prudenti.
It is PROVED by S. Bonaventure, because the order of fraternal correction is commanded; and it commands that you do not bring before two, even prudent, superiors for amendment before secret correction. That this order is commanded I have shown in the Treatise on Charity, Disputation on fraternal correction.
PROBATUR a S. Bonav. quia ordo correctionis fraternae est praeceptus; is autem praecipit, ne duos, etiam prudentes suppositos, ad emendationem adducas ante correctionem secretam. Hunc autem ordinem esse praeceptum, ostendi Tract. de Charitate Disput. de correctione fraterna.
It is PROVED secondly, for rash judgment about anyone is mortal, even if one single person lose his good opinion of him; and that there is parity is proved from James 4: He that detracteth from his brother, or judgeth his brother, detracteth from the law, and judgeth the law.
PROBATUR secundo, nam iudicium temerarium de aliquo est mortale, etiamsi unus solus amittat bonam aestimationem de illo, et quod sit paritas probatur ex 4. Iacobi. Qui detrahit fratri, vel iudicat fratrem, detrahit legi, et iudicat legem.
Bonacina ANSWERS, denying the parity, because the judge ascribes a perhaps false sin, and so infers a grave injury.
RESPONDET Bonacina, negando paritatem, quia iudicans adscribit peccatum forte falsum, et ideo gravem infert iniuriam.
AGAINST: then to reveal a true crime is not mortal in its genus, if done indiscreetly? At last, because, as our Father Marinus used to say, greater loss is inflicted when it is told to a few prudent men than to many others who are not reckoned prudent; and Fagundez teaches so, number 24; Sayrus loc. cit. This also ceases in the disputation on Restitution.
CONTRA: ergo revelare crimen verum, non est ex genere mortale, si indebite fiat? Tandem, quia, ut dicebat P. Marinus noster maius damnum infertur, dum dicitur paucis prudentibus, quam aliis multis, qui prudentes non reputantur, et docet Fagundez num. 24. Sayrus loc. cit. Hoc desinit etiam disput. de Restitutione.