Chapter II — The lax propositions of the casuists

I. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 1, no. 102: “It must be said … that he does not sin mortally who in mortal sin begins the form of a sacrament, provided that before the utterance of the last essential part he be in the state of grace; and whatever Aversa and others say to the contrary.”

II. Fr. Matthew de Moya in his Select Questions, Vol. I, tract 4, Miscellany, question 2, § 3, nos. 13 and 14: “There is no reason why, on account of fear, at least of death, it should not be lawful to use simulation of this kind in all the sacraments. Hence if a heretic (not out of hatred of the faith) should threaten death to a priest unless he consecrated all the bread present in the market, he could utter the words of consecration without the intention of consecrating, without any sin against religion or justice, and without any stain of lying.”

III. John Sánchez in his Select Disputations, disputation 44, no. 6: “Nor is it an objection that some adore such bread as consecrated: for it will be material idolatry, which the priest in that case is not bound to avoid.”

IV. Fr. Jerome Llamas in his Method, part 1, chapter 1, § 5, and part 2, chapter 2, § 11, in Leander of the Most Holy Sacrament, part 1, tract 1, disputation 6, question 8: “For the administering of other sacraments, nay even of the sacred Eucharist to be given to others, we do not believe that the precept of contrition obliges: because he who administers a sacrament in mortal sin does not place an obstacle to grace … therefore it is not a new fault, since he who gives the sacrament is not the one receiving it.” Granados in the same place reputes this opinion probable.

V. Torrecilla, Vol. II, Sum, tract 4, disputation 1, chapter 4, no. 5: “An infant in the mother's womb is capable of baptism, even if no part of him come forth, provided water can be introduced there.”

VI. The same in the same place, disputation 10, chapter 7, no. 3: “It is no sin not to receive the sacrament of confirmation, even in one who can conveniently do so, unless he omit it out of contempt. Nor is he to be judged to contemn it, unless he not receive it either because he holds it of small moment, or unworthy of himself, or as childish.”

VII. The same in the same place, chapter 3, no. 8: “By necessity of the sacrament it is not required in confirmation that the unction be made with the bishop's finger: for it suffices for validity that it be made with some instrument.”

VIII. Fr. Dominic Viva in his Course of Theology, part 5, question 3, article 2, no. 6: “I answer with the common opinion in Diana … that it is not mortal to be unwilling to receive that sacrament of confirmation, contempt and scandal being cut off. Nay, from Trullench and Henríquez, against Navarrus, in Coninck, not even venial, since nowhere is there a precept concerning receiving it.”

IX. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 1, doubt 3, no. 395, question 71: “What besides is to be noted concerning the necessity of confirmation? ANSWER. That there was formerly an ecclesiastical precept that confirmation be received, Dicastillo here gathers, no. 105, from various councils and the sayings of the holy Fathers. But he rightly teaches at doubt 10, with the common opinion, that this precept has now ceased through desuetude.”

X. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, Book 3, On Confirmation, chapter 3, § 4, no. 2: “Nevertheless the same men do not sin, neither mortally nor venially, if, apart from contempt or something similar, they neglect it when occasion is given: because concerning this no precept appears — which is the opinion of Suárez against Cajetan and some others … thinking it to be venial. Whence credence is not to be given to Leander … who draws Suárez to himself, as though granting that it is venial.”

XI. Sylvester, under the word Eucharist 3, § 1: “It seems mortal in such an article (of death) for one contemning, and therefore neglecting, to communicate … but because the taking of the Eucharist is not of necessity of salvation, but from the statute of the Church, therefore it is truer that this is not mortal, where negligence alone is the cause.”

XII. Fr. Paul Layman, Book 5, tract 4, chapter 5, no. 4: “A sick man a little before, say eight or ten days, communicated, when he was well, thinking nothing of the danger of death: then …”

“then he is not bound to communicate again, having fallen into sickness.”

XIII. Fr. Didacus Nuño Cabezudo, part 3, On St. Thomas, question 72, article 8, doubt 1: “The faithful have no divine precept of receiving the sacrament of confirmation. … No precept has been laid down by the Church concerning the sacrament of confirmation. … Speaking of itself, it is not a sin, even venial, to be unwilling to receive this sacrament.”

XIV. Fr. Matthew de Moya in his Select Questions, Vol. I, tract 4, Miscellany, On the Sacraments, question 11, no. 7: “Whence is easily dissolved the foundation of those asserting that it is a venial sin, on the ground that it is a certain spiritual prodigality to deprive oneself of so great a fruit of this sacrament (of confirmation) when a man can conveniently receive it. Which reason indeed proves too much, and therefore nothing.”

XV. The same in the same place, no. 11: “From the fact that no precept of confirmation is given, speaking of itself, they infer that its omission is not venial. … Therefore from the fact that no precept is given forbidding the reception of orders without confirmation preceding, it is similarly inferred that it is not venial to receive them before confirmation.”

XVI. The Fathers of Salamanca, tract 1, chapter 7, point 2, no. 107: “Nay, if he hear a sacramental confession only in mortal sin, provided he have the purpose of confessing, or of making an act of contrition, before he utter the words of absolution (he does not sin mortally), as Henríquez and Diana say.”

XVII. Fr. Leander, tract 7, disputation 9, question 6: “But I answer with a distinction. For if a particle (in the words of consecration) be omitted out of formal contempt, it will be mortal to omit it: because contempt formally is to set oneself directly against a superior's precept, which is mortal. But if it be omitted out of material contempt, namely because the precept is concerning a light matter, then it will not be mortal to omit it.”

XVIII. The same in the place cited, disputation 7, question 6: “In the case in which a husband should threaten death to his wife unless she communicate, that thus he might cast off a suspicion against her: then indeed she will be very well able to simulate that she receives the Eucharist, just as she can simulate that she confesses sacramentally, since in that case she can very well without the crime of lying use equivocation: therefore the priest also can simulate that he puts the host into her mouth.”

XIX. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, On the Eucharist, no. 546, § 4: “Suárez, Vásquez, Sá, Marchant, Nuño, de Lugo, Diana, Dicastillo, Aversa, John Sánchez, Gobat, Pellizarius, Leander teach — on this almost all agree, says Moya, tract 4, question 6, § 1, citing very many — that a priest is not bound by this precept if, having opportunity of a confessor, he has not confessed out of malice: because although he sin more gravely, nevertheless in positive precepts the argument from the lesser to the greater, or to the like, does not hold, as de Lugo with the common opinion says in his Moral Answers, Book 4, doubt 47, no. 5. But Trent speaks of him who, necessity urging, celebrated without previous confession. But if there was opportunity of a confessor, there was no urgent necessity of celebrating without previous confession. Therefore neither then will he be bound to confess as soon as possible. This opinion is probable.”

XX. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, Book On the Method of Communicating, chapter 1, § 6, no. 50: “In a case of doubt whether some words of a law import an obliging precept or a counsel, the Doctors lay down as a certain rule that they are to be reputed counsels and not precepts: and the reason is, that since the law is grave and burdensome, it is always to be understood in the kinder part for the subjects. Add that in doubt the condition of the possessor is the better. Therefore in doubt whether a law be obliging or not obliging, the condition of human liberty is the better, which is immune from such an obligation.”

No. 51: “Thirdly, because it is desirable, as Navarrus earnestly desires, that no one be obliged by lawgivers to sin, it helps to diminish human laws obliging under precept, lest by so great a multitude of precepts we be made worse than the Hebrews. Wherefore it is also worth while to diminish this precept of which we treat (of confessing as soon as possible).”

XXI. The same Tamburini in the place cited, § 7, no. 56: “Concerning a layman there is no difficulty: for it is enough if he elicit it immediately before the taking itself: and because the taking, or eating, is substantially done when we swallow the food or send it down, but not while it is in the mouth, when the taking is only inchoate, therefore I think it most probable that it suffices that the act of contrition be made when the most sacred host is held in the mouth. So Ilsung, de Lugo, On the Eucharist, disputation 13, no. 20, Hurtado On the Eucharist, disputation 8, and others.”

XXII. The same in the same place, no. 59: “Although some with Layman assert that a priest defiled with mortal crime offends mortally if he hold out the Eucharist to the faithful, nevertheless some deservedly deny it, as Vásquez, whom de Lugo cites and follows, disputation 8, On the Sacraments in Common, section 2, because then the priest does not confect the sacrament but only dispenses what is consecrated, for which so great worthiness is by no means required. And the same is of a deacon, when by the priest's special commission he holds out the sacred Eucharist to others: since then he does not confect but only dispenses. If therefore that is probable, how much more probable will it become that it is not a mortal fault merely to touch?”

XXIII. Fr. Leander, tract 7, disputation 7, question 30: “Whether a priest who in the very action of sacrificing recalls a mortal sin, or perhaps commits it, is bound afterwards by force of the said precept to confess as soon as possible? I answer probably that he is not bound by that precept, because the Council spoke of a priest who, necessity urging, celebrated without previous confession — that is, of a priest who, compelled by necessity, did not send confession before, ere he approached to celebrate the Sacrifice: for this those words previous confession clearly signify, that is, confession before Mass; but not of a priest who in celebrating commits a sin, or recalls one. Therefore however much he then consecrate and communicate without confession, he will not be bound afterwards to confess as soon as possible. So Vásquez, disputation 108, chapter 3, no. 10; Sayre; Diana.”

XXIV. The same Leander in the same place, question 32: “If a priest is poor, and lives on the accustomed alms of the Mass, there is truly found in him a bodily necessity, which is sufficient for celebrating without previous confession.”

XXV. Fr. Tamburini, On the Method of Communicating, Book 1, chapter 1, § 10, no. 71: “Whether there be a case in which a man can communicate without confession, and even without contrition, and consequently in mortal sin? … So kindly are the bowels of the Lord's mercy that he does not disdain sometimes to excuse our obstinacy. For I find one case or another in which a man can take the most pure communion in sin without sin.”

XXVI. The same in the place cited, no. 72: “For from the aforesaid it is established that a priest who, the Mass having been begun in good faith, recalls himself guilty of a mortal fault, ought to elicit an act at least of what he reckons contrition. But now if he cannot, or find that act very difficult to himself, what shall he do? He cannot confess, he is by no means able to be contrite, to leave the Sacrifice begun is most difficult on account of the infamy resulting to him. What therefore remains to be extorted from a soul so affected? I judge it probable, from the opinion of some, that this man will not sin mortally if with such a conscience of mortal sin, and with such sorrow as he can then elicit, he continue the Mass, consecrate, and communicate. So Vásquez, On the Eucharist, disputation 207, chapter 1, no. 34; Hurtado, disputation 9, On the Eucharist, difficulty 1; de Lugo, On the Sacraments, disputation 9, section 1, no. 8. The reason is, because the precept of communicating worthily does not seem to bind the faithful so strictly as to compel a priest with so great disgrace to himself to depart from the sacred rite begun. But then such a priest will not acquire grace, yet nevertheless will not sin.”

XXVII. The same Tamburini in the same place, no. 73: “And the same will be of a layman who, being now about to receive the holy synaxis before the linen cloth, and unable under any pretext to remove himself, recalls a mortal sin and cannot be contrite. So there: for the reason is equal. Let the scrupulous, and those always timid of mind, note this doctrine.”

XXVIII. The same, Book 3, On the Method of Celebrating Mass, chapter 1, § 5, no. 15: “If a man, being a procurator that a hundred Masses, for example, be celebrated, which Masses in this city are wont to be said for, say, two hundred julii — if a man, I say, by his own industry should send or go to another city, where within the time demanded they may be said for a hundred julii — for I think it not improbable that such a procurator can retain for himself the other hundred. The reason is that a parity can be taken from a servant who by extraordinary industry (for to the ordinary and moral he is obliged by his very service) by his own labour buys things for less than they are commonly worth in the market: for he can retain what is over, as the fruit of his own industry. In a like manner therefore in our case.”

XXIX. Fr. Dominic Viva in his Tract on proposition 9 of Alexander VII, no. 8: “Besides, if the collectors of alms for Masses be priests, and Masses to be celebrated are not delivered to them, but they bear themselves as laymen who take care of the celebration of the Masses, they will be able, from Navarrus, Córdoba, and Tamburini, probably against Pellizarius and Soto, Book 9 On Justice, question 3, to take a moderate wage for their labour out of what is given for the Masses, since this seems lawful by the law of nature.”

XXX. Fr. La Croix, Book 4, no. 1341: “The Pontiffs know that the opinion which denies an obligation of this kind (of interior attention) is defended; and yet, though they easily could, they do not contradict it. Therefore they acknowledge that that law is not certain: therefore neither does it oblige; but our liberty is in possession against it.”