Chapter — Concina, Compendium
Chapter I — First, the condemned propositions are recounted; then those which seem lax
I. Innocent XI condemned the following theses:
If you act with due moderation, you can without mortal sin be saddened over someone's life, or rejoice over his death; seek it and desire it with an inefficacious affection, not indeed from displeasure at the person, but on account of some temporal advantage.
It is licit, with an absolute desire, to wish for the death of one's father — not indeed as an evil to the father, but as a good to the one wishing it — because, namely, a rich inheritance will fall to him.
A servant who, with bowed shoulders, knowingly helps his master climb through windows to ravish a virgin, and many times abets him in this, carrying the ladder, opening the door, or cooperating in some similar way, does not sin mortally, if he does this from fear of notable detriment — for instance, lest he be ill-treated by his master, lest he be looked upon with fierce eyes, lest he be expelled from the house.
II. "Coninck believes that no fear whatever makes it licit to paint an idol, or to make a priestly vestment at the request of an Infidel ... But I believe that it can be excused by a most grave fear, if these things are not demanded of you in contempt of Religion, and there is no scandal in your not scorning them. For the fabrication of an idol, and the painting of a concubine, are not intrinsically evil, but can often be rendered honest." Castropalao, treatise 6, disputation 6, point 12, number 7, page 434.
III. "Of the sculpture or painting of an idol there is a doubt: and indeed it is licit, when idolatry is neither sought nor feared; but when it is feared, I say that he sins against Religion who furnishes it without a most urgent loss. This is proved both from the law of charity, and because every virtue obliges that all occasions of violating it be avoided. But if I cannot myself refuse to furnish the idol without grave and proportionate loss, I do not sin in giving it." Hurtado de Mendoza, on the second part of the Second Part, disputation 66, section 6, § 181, in Diana, coordinated edition, Tome 7, treatise 5, resolution 64.
IV. Fr. Antonino Diana, Tome 7, coordinated edition, resolution 9, number 6, frees from the sin of scandal women using superfluous and excessive adornment. "But I" (he says) "think that there is no sin, even if the adornment were superfluous and excessive, provided it be according to the custom of the country." Does the custom of the country, then, prevail over the Gospel which prohibits such superfluity?
V. That women's cosmetics, and the exquisite adornments of face and head, hold a middle nature, removed both from honesty and from malice, Lessius writes, book 4 On justice, chapter 4, doubt 14, number 114. "Finally, to paint the face, and to apply various colors to it, is not evil of itself, but indifferent." But the divine Scriptures cry out against ornaments and allurements of this kind. He answers: "Those Scriptures either contain an exhortation, since they have no word of precept ... or certainly it was expedient at that time, for the edification of the Heathen, that this be commanded." Place cited, number 114.
VI. Caramuel, in his Theologia Praeterintentionalis, Tome II, precept 6, question 8, chapter 2, case 2, writes the following conclusions: "First. Servants can, with the knowledge that she is a prostitute or a concubine, minister foods at table — not only common foods, but also warm ones, and season food that provokes to Venus, and make ready a private bed." At number 297 he praises for his opinion Azor and Diana, and adds: "I have advisedly spoken not only of common foods, because I know that there is altogether greater difficulty if there were such foods as would excite Venus — for then, according to certain Theologians, servants would have to desist from such service, lest they cooperate indirectly toward illicit Venus. But we, the more prudent, believe that even such foods can be seasoned without fault." Is it licit, then, to incite Venus? To cook foods that kindle it? And is Caramuel to be held the more prudent for teaching these things? But hear the reason he brings forward. Such foods can be eaten without fault even by one who foresees the future pollution, provided he is prepared not to give consent: therefore the foods can be seasoned and ministered. Let this suffice to have pointed out, that it may be detested.
"Second. They can make the bed for their master and his mistress without venial fault," consonant with Azor, whom Diana cites.
"Third. It is not a mortal sin to procure for one's master and his concubine, about to have intercourse, a lodging, or to prepare a bed better than usual, or to strew it with flowers."
"Fourth. It is not a sin to hire a mistress into one's master's house, even though you foresee that she will sin in it."
VII. Fr. Tommaso Tamburini, book V on the Decalogue, chapter 1, § 4: "If my friend wishes me to carry little gifts and the like — namely incitements of shameful love — which he himself sends to his concubine, can I carry them without sin? The answer was absolutely negative: because on the one hand this action, though otherwise indifferent, is conjoined with the sin of the friend and of his concubine; and on the other hand there is no excusing cause, drawn from servitude (for this he grants to servants) or from another detriment, as we suppose. Nor indeed, if there is some modest blush of shame, does this seem regularly to be of such moment as sufficiently to excuse. I confess, however, that if such a friendship were of great value to you, and you truly feared to lose it, you could be excused: because then a just fear of notable detriment is added."
The same, number 30: "Can those who by office carry litters on their shoulders, or drive carriages, licitly, hired for a price, bring a girl to a lascivious young man? Answer: I say they cannot. Nor does the reason of servitude excuse this: for these are not servants or subjects; nor does the loss of gain excuse it, because this is quite small. I have, however, one point from Navarrus, from which something more benign can probably be gathered. From these things," he says, "there seems to be gathered a reason for defending many from sin, at least deadly sin — provided, as in the case proposed, the sin does not please them, and they perform the aforesaid services for some good end — for instance, because they render what belongs to their office, or for a just wage. For although these offices and services are very much conjoined with sin, they are not, nevertheless, in themselves and by their own nature sins; and therefore they can be separated from the sin by a different and separate end. Thus he." Note that phrase: of their office, or for a wage.
VIII. Fr. Antonino Diana, Tome 7, coordinated edition, treatise 5, resolution 48: "Is it licit, for some just cause, to lend a bedchamber to someone asking it for fornication; or to let a house to a prostitute, even if, on account of the circumstance of the place, someone should commit a sin; or if the prostitute, hiring that house, should do great harm to honest women neighbors? On this case I was once asked; for a certain most noble man was insistently seeking his friend's house for the purpose of fornicating. But if he had denied him this, he would have fallen into most grave harm. He asked whether he would sin by doing this. And I answered in the negative: because without a proportionate loss to himself he could by no means deny this; and to lend a bedchamber is not, from its object, intrinsically evil, but indifferent, and is ordered to evil only from the depraved intention of the one abusing it. Therefore, etc. And thus Merolla teaches this same opinion most recently, in specific terms."
"Hence it is inferred, a fortiori, against Navarrus, chapter 17, that it is licit, for a just cause, to let a house to a prostitute — even if, on account of the circumstance of the place, someone should commit a sin, which he would by no means perpetrate if that place were not granted to him, by reason of its situation, etc. — or if the prostitute, hiring that house, should do great harm to honest women neighbors."
The same Diana, resolution 50: "Is it licit to give a gift to a judge's mistress, that she may intercede with him, since she herself would go to speak with the judge, and it is mortal by reason of scandal, since she exposes herself to a most vehement danger of sinning? Sanchez, most recently, answers in the negative ... But I judge the affirming opinion no less probable, if the business is grave, and you see that the judge is not favorable to you, but you hope that through the mistress's intercession he will become well-disposed, and no other way appears by which you could bend him to preserve your right: because you are not asking for something which she herself could not licitly furnish. For although by that intercession the judge and the mistress foster a shameful love, this you do not intend, nor are you the cause of any harm. All these things Castropalao teaches, Tome I, treatise 6, point 15, number 2."
The same, resolution 42: "I have adduced Francesco Merolla in his moral-theological disputations, Tome I, disputation 2, where he speaks thus. From these things it is gathered what must be said of coachmen who carry a prostitute from one place to another, when they know that she seeks that place in order to sin. For these are regularly excused from sin: because there is a cause of not losing the gain which they procure from that ministry. So he, and I."
IX. Fr. Patritius Sporer, treatise 5 on the fifth precept of the Decalogue, chapter 1, section 3, number 92: "Without doubt painters sin mortally, regularly speaking, who paint very filthy and obscene things; and much more actors representing such very filthy things ... But I say 'regularly speaking': for in a rare case, if the necessity of the painter or actor were so great that he needed such gain for food, clothing, or some other necessary thing, certain Doctors, with Tamburini, permit it once or twice, until another means of livelihood should occur — provided there be absent the mortal danger of impure venereal delight." This opinion is more than lax, as will be said in its place. For according to these Theologians, regularly speaking, very filthy and obscene scandal is not licit. But if food, or clothing, or something of the kind presses, then a very filthy scandal will be honest, until another means of livelihood occurs.