Chapter — Concina, Compendium
Chapter II — An inventory of propositions which seem lax
I. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, book II on the Decalogue, chapter 1, number 9, writing of faith, premises a doctrine by which he reduces to nothing the precepts of all three theological virtues. I think (says he) that the Faithful are never of themselves and directly obliged to believe the aforesaid mysteries either implicitly or explicitly, by force of the necessity of a precept of faith ... The reason of the first assertion is that, as we have said ... no precept ever obliges unless it be determinate. For since it cannot pass into execution except as determinate, it is not considered to be practically complete.
At number 10 he proceeds further, to destroy the special precept of charity. Our opinion is confirmed, first, from Azor, who teaches that the precept of charity obliges then only when we are bound to be justified, and have no other way by which we can be justified: because this precept does not seem to oblige except as a means of justification, or as a disposition to it. Thus he. From which I gather that the like can be said of the act of faith, and consequently of the act of hope, as I shall again intimate below when I treat of hope, chapter 2, § 1, and of charity, chapter 3, § 2, number 2, referring myself thither.
II. It must now be seen what he writes of the precept of charity in the place cited by himself. He reports, at number 1, the various opinions of the Doctors in these words: The Doctors labor in assigning the time at which the Faithful is bound by obligation to elicit a positive act of love toward God; and they assign various times, as various as are the wits of men. The first time which some assign is the beginning of the use of reason. The second, the end of life. The third, the whole of life taken indeterminately, so that at least once in it God be loved. The fourth, all feast days, on which we ought specially to be free for God. The fifth, the time at which an adult receives Baptism. The sixth, the time at which one receives the Eucharist. The seventh, when perchance martyrdom is undergone. The eighth, when you receive a great benefit from God. The ninth, when you hear someone blaspheming against God. The tenth, when you are pressed by a grave temptation, especially of hatred of God, with danger of consent, unless you turn yourself to God through love.
The doctrine of Azor pleases me, who teaches that this precept of charity was imposed for the sake of the justification of the ungodly man: therefore it obliges then only when the ungodly man, because the Sacrament of Penance is not at hand, has no other way by which to justify himself, except by eliciting an act of contrition, which always in some manner at last involves an act of love of God loved above all things. Consequently, then, and indirectly, by reason of their justification, the Faithful are obliged to an act of charity. See above, chapter 1, § 1, number 50, where the same manner of speaking pleased me regarding the precept of the act of faith and of hope: for by the things there said this doctrine of Azor will be confirmed, and the times just assigned in the preceding number can be impugned.
It is confirmed: because although the common opinion teaches that there is a special precept of loving God in those words, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and elsewhere; yet Doctors not ignoble teach that this precept is not special, to be fulfilled at a special time, but general, imbibed in all the precepts; just as the second precept, of the love of the Neighbor, is not special, but contained in the precepts of the Decalogue; for on this account it is said: On these two commandments — that is, on the love of God and of the Neighbor — dependeth the whole law and the Prophets; and: He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and: Love is the fulfilling of the law. For if he who keeps the commandments loves, and he who loves keeps them, then the one of these is contained in the other; and consequently the precept of charity will oblige only indirectly, and by reason of another.
Probable, therefore, and utterly safe, is the opinion of those who deny that the Faithful, at the beginning of the use of reason (so Castropalao with Azor, Valentia, Sanchez, Suarez, Coninck, cited by the same) or at the end of life (so the same author there, number 9, with Azor and Sanchez, cited by the same) are obliged to turn themselves to God by loving him: for to posit an obligation of this kind, which certainly rests on no solid foundation, is nothing else than to instill scruples — not indeed into the unlearned, for these advert less to such an obligation, but into the more learned, etc.
III. Patritius Sporer, treatise II on the first precept of the Decalogue, chapter 5, number 31, transcribes according to his custom the opinion of his Fr. Tamburini, and of the Authors whom Tamburini alleges, and explains it at greater length, and, so far as can be done, champions it. "Probable" (he says) "has that opinion hitherto always seemed to me, that that precept never obliges of itself as to an explicit act of the love of God above all things; but that it is satisfied by the voluntary observance of the commandments, and the exclusion of all sin for God's sake, as many grave Doctors teach in Tamburini. The reason is that, on the one hand, he who wills for God's sake to observe all his commandments, and for no thing to offend him by sinning, truly loves God above all things, at least implicitly and virtually, and with his whole heart negatively ... And on the other hand, the obligation of any precept — and that a grave one, under mortal sin — is not to be asserted without a certain foundation. No certain and pressing foundation, however, can be brought forward that the precept of love ever obliges of itself to a formal and explicit act of the love of God, as will be evident on weighing the foundations commonly adduced.
"One chief foundation is the great commandment itself, the affirmative precept of charity: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart — which surely must oblige at some time to its own proper act, lest it be in vain. We acknowledge and venerate the most divine commandment, and we desire for ourselves its exercise, and that most frequent, in all things. Yet no reason or authority proves that it is a special precept, to be fulfilled of itself, by obligation, at some special time; nay, with the Doctors reported, it can most probably be said to be a general precept, imbibed in all the precepts, so that it is abundantly satisfied by implicit acts of the love of God, contained in the voluntary observance of the commandments for God's sake, as has been said.
"2. By altogether the same reason, the other precept of charity also — Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself — is not special, to be fulfilled obligatorily of itself at some special time by some internal elicited act of love toward the Neighbor (for when would this be?); but it is a general precept imbibed in all the precepts of God regarding the Neighbor; and it is abundantly satisfied when one wills to keep the precepts of God regarding the Neighbor, and, occasion given, in fact keeps them, abstaining from all hatred, offense, and injury, and, when there is need, exhibiting the external works of charity.
"3. Another new and more pressing foundation is furnished by the very first proposition among those prohibited and condemned under Alexander VII in the year 1665, running thus: A man is at no time of his life whatever bound to elicit an act of faith, hope, and charity by force of the divine precepts pertaining to those virtues. So the condemned proposition. But no mention is here made of a formal explicit act of the love of God above all things; and it seems altogether to suffice that the precept of charity often obliges of itself, at least insofar as it is negative, as in the cases set down above, even though it never oblige as affirmative ... Therefore our opinion ought to be considered the less condemned.
"4. But behold, most recently, in the year 1679, a most pressing foundation, in my judgment, was set down by Innocent XI. Among several propositions condemned as scandalous and pernicious in practice, he also placed these three in order: Whether he sins mortally who should elicit an act, etc. ... Here I give my conquered hands, out of reverence and obedience to the sacred apostolic See."
IV. Fr. Castropalao, treatise 6, disputation 1, point 4, number 9: Fifthly, others assert that, danger of death pressing, even if you be not conscious of mortal sin — nay, even if, being conscious of it, you confess it sacramentally — you are obliged to love God above all things ... I confess that this obligation is sufficiently probable, and always to be counseled in practice; but it is not altogether certain, if you are not conscious of mortal sin: for Azor and Sanchez reject it. Through charity, says the Angelic Doctor, we attain the last end, and are joined to God. When the moment of separation from this world, and of conjunction with God, is at hand, are we not commanded to elicit an act of love, which is the means by which we are in very deed coupled to God?
V. The same, in the place cited, number 9: Seventhly, others say that this precept obliges, first, when martyrdom must be undergone, or some other excellent and difficult work undertaken: because it is expedient then to strengthen the soul in the service of God. But I, while I acknowledge the fittingness, disapprove the obligation. The Christian, then, when the tyrant threatens death, and death itself is imminent, is not bound to produce an act of charity, by which he may love both God and the tyrant, and confirm and strengthen himself to undergo the agony and the monstrous torture? It will be fitting, but it will not be necessary?
VI. The same, in the place cited, number 10: By this obligation, then, I judge that every adult is bound not every year, as pleased Peter de Ledesma — for this is too hard, and rests on no firm foundation — but a few times in his life ... And I should count a delay of three years grave. Is it too hard to love, in the sweet embraces of friendship, once each year, God our parent, provider, preserver, redeemer, and benefactor?