7. On the Voluntary from Fear

1. Sempronius, a priest dressed in lay clothing, passing through places of heretics most hostile to Catholics and especially to priests, omits the recitation of the breviary and eats meat on prohibited days lest he be recognized. But when afterwards he had been recognized, and was driven by fear of death to eat meat on Friday, he obeys, saying repeatedly that the Church, as a pious mother, does not urge the obligation of her law with so great an inconvenience.

2. Liborius, a servant, guarding the house while the master is absent, is attacked at night by a thief, who with drawn dagger demands money from him. But since Liborius has no money of his own, he takes 100 lire belonging to the master and hands them over to the thief, that he may preserve his life unharmed. But the poor man is not yet freed from extreme straits. For the money handed over is not enough for the thief, who threatens death to the servant unless he opens to him the place where the money chest of the master is hidden. Liborius again obeys, that he may escape death.

Q. 1. Does fear cause the involuntary and excuse from sin? 2. Can Sempronius be excused in each case? 3. Can Liborius likewise be excused in each case from sin and from restitution?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 59-62. To the second, affirmatively in the first case, because positive law does not urge with very grave inconvenience. Negatively in the other case, because negative law does not cease, even when very grave inconvenience stands. Moreover, in the case it is a matter of avoiding scandal and of contempt of Religion.

To the third, affirmatively in the first case, because the master is reasonably presumed to consent in so great a danger of life. Affirmatively also in the second case, because the cooperation of the servant in the damage of the master is merely material, which, although it is rather proximate, is nevertheless sufficiently excused when very grave necessity stands. - G. 17, 18; I. M. 59, 62, 1414.