4. On the Indirectly Voluntary

1. Ricardus, an innkeeper, lest his tavern be deprived of the great concourse of guests, supplies abundant wine to drunkards asking for it, although he foresees that many of them will become drunk and quarrel. He is moved by reason of customary profit, and sometimes by reason of preventing blasphemies; nor does he think that he offends in this. He also easily admits into his inn men uttering impious or obscene conversations, nor does he rebuke them, because, he says, he is not held by reason of his office to be solicitous about their manner of acting.

2. Nemesius on a certain day offers 20 asses by way of payment to Caius, a porter carrying a certain bundle to his inn. The porter asks 25 asses. Nemesius denies that he will give him anything more, although that man, furious, breaks out into imprecations and blasphemies.

Q. 1. What is the indirectly voluntary? 2. Does Ricardus sin gravely by serving wine to those who will become drunk, for the sole reason of customary profit? 3. Does he sin gravely by doing this to prevent the blasphemies of the drunkards? 4. Does he sin gravely by not preventing the impious and obscene conversations of the guests? 5. In the second case, ought Nemesius to have given the aforesaid five asses, although not owed, in order to prevent the blasphemies of the porter?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 32, 33, 34. To the second, negatively, generally and speaking in itself. The reason is that the innkeeper is not held to prevent, with grave damage to himself, the sins of drunkenness and quarrels which guests are accustomed to admit; for charity does not urge with so great an inconvenience. But hardly any tavern is found in which some guests are not accustomed to become drunk, and afterwards to mix in some quarrels. Therefore, if the innkeeper denies wine, the guests will go to other drinking shops, in which abundant drink is served to them; and therefore he himself will undergo great damage, and uselessly. Generally and in itself: for if it is not a question of sins of this sort foreseen confusedly, but is a question of some particular case, namely of a certain drinker already near drunkenness, who asks for more drink, it cannot here be served. The reason is that in a particular, determined, and certain case, only slight damage would have to be undergone by him in order actually to prevent a determined and certain sin. Except if, from other extrinsic circumstances, grave damage would still have to be undergone by him, or graver sins would follow. Elbel 17; L. 1, 2, n. 69.

To the third, negatively. The reason is that, of two evils, the greater must be prevented when both cannot be prevented.

To the fourth, affirmatively, if there is grave scandal of others and he could easily prevent it. The reason is that he is held only by the general reason of charity, which does not oblige with grave damage. But a grave inconvenience in practice is not lacking, as was just said in the response to the first for the case of the drunkenness of guests.

To the fifth, negatively, if he has paid the customary and just price. The reason is that, since similar cases often occur, an occasion would be given to wicked men to blaspheme more and more, and grave damage would have to be undergone by pious men. G. 7, 8, 9; I. M. 35, 36, 337, 434.