Declaration and Sincere Protestation of Fr. Daniele Concina

Since I have learned with great distress that there are some who have believed and accused me of having, as it were, disparaged in my Christian Theology many pious, learned, and approved Writers, especially of the illustrious Society of Jesus, I am altogether bound by this declaration and justification to advise my readers and to render them certain that I never had it in mind to inflict any injury, even the least, upon the Society of Jesus, so worthy of praise, concerning which (as I signified in the first volume, page 124) I have always written and spoken with the reverence that is fitting; wherefore, if anyone should find in it a word, or a manner of speaking, or anything else whatsoever that should conflict with this my judgment, all of it I revoke and disavow. I did indeed refute, as a private theologian, certain opinions of some Authors, as well of the Society as of other Regular Orders; but nevertheless I wished nothing other than to refute the opinions themselves, not to defame the Authors, whose mind and intention I have always excused. And if anyone recognizes that I have erred in impugning them, I renew the protestation which I made in the proem of the first and of the ninth Volume, namely, that I would submit my judgment, whatever it be, to the judgment of another wiser than I. These things premised, I come to relate, so far as I know them, the heads of the objections.

I. The first head is that I attribute without foundation to some Writers of the Society certain opinions lax beyond measure: namely the following. In Tome I, page 65, book 2 of the Summa, chapter III, number 21, to Father Sánchez: That in practice absolution is never, or most rarely, to be denied on account of ignorance of Christian doctrine; because ignorant rustics do not conveniently have a Teacher, nor can the Confessor instruct them — whereas he in fact said: and the Confessor can instruct them. (a) In Tome II, page 4, to Father Moya: that no one is obliged, out of the things necessary for preserving his own state, to give alms to the poor, even if they be in extreme necessity — whereas this opinion is merely reported, not maintained, by Father Moya. So too in Tome III, page 117, concerning the vow of not gaming, to Father La Croix: (b) If you have vowed to redeem the loss of time — whereas he said, if you have willed: by which change of a word the sense of the doctrine reported by me as belonging to this Author in that place is altered. The error in these three opinions arose, as anyone can judge, either from a fault of the printer or from the weakness of my eyesight — in no way from malice of will.

Moreover, since I did not have so much leisure as always to consult the Casuists one by one, and after I had consulted some one principal among them — say Leander, or the Salmanticenses — I followed these in citing the rest, hence it came about that wrongly, yet not by my will, I numbered certain learned Writers of the Society among the Authors of certain opinions which are lax: namely, in Tome II, page 165, Father Sánchez, for the opinion which says that a duel is lawful for avoiding danger to life, honor, or fortune; in Tome IV, page 408, the same, for the opinion that the sight of the shameful members is not a grave sin; on page 444, Escobar and Lessius, for lightness of matter in the genus of lust. All these, and whatever other lax opinions anyone should find in my Theology not truly and undeservedly attributed to any Author whatsoever — as would have happened against my will — I thus protest, and publicly declare that I revoke.

Indeed, in Tome III, pages 390 and 436, I said that Father Tamburini had taught proposition 25 concerning Oaths, condemned by the Venerable Innocent XI: for so I judged could be inferred from his words. Nevertheless, if to anyone my argument shall seem of no weight, this assertion too I revoke. Let there also have the weight of which it is worthy the Writing found in the Biblioteca Angelica and published in Tome IX, page 586, by force of which I assert in the same place that Father Suárez considered probable the opinion concerning Confession between absent persons by letter, condemned by Clement VIII; in which matter I submit myself to the just criticism of others.

II. The second head regards the expressions which I use after relating lax opinions, and certain censures which I append, calling them, for example, false, full of scandal, erroneous inventions, monsters, monstrous paradoxes, anti-evangelical, etc. — against the decree, as it is objected to me, of Innocent XI.

The declamations and censures are to be referred only to those opinions upon which, unless I am mistaken, I judge them to fall — not likewise to the Authors. Wherefore if anyone should find in my Theology a censure unjustly attributed to any opinion, or an invective discourse, declamation, or expression which should offend any catholic Author, I wish it to be held as revoked.

I believed, moreover, that the decree of Innocent XI, comprehending those propositions which are still controverted on this side and that among Catholics, was to be understood of the propositions which are freely disputed in the catholic Schools, not however of those which this or that private Doctor might defend. But if the mind of the Venerable Pontiff be otherwise, I wish to be held as revoked whatever shall be judged contrary to the mind of the supreme Pastor. And to this point, I think, may be referred what Father La Croix says, Book I, number 199, page 16: If anyone, however, should call some opinion improbable, or light, at least in the more common sense, it is not a censure ... nor if he should call it lax in the more common sense.

III. The third head has its foundation in the Indices of words. It is objected to me that they were artfully composed, in that Writers of the Society are cited only as authors of the opinions which I reject, not likewise of those which I approve — though for the latter I had cited these same Writers in the body of the books; and contrariwise, that no place is given in the Indices to the Dominican Writers whom in the body of the books I sometimes cited as defenders of lax opinions.

I frankly confess that the Indices were not compiled by me; wherefore nothing can be imputed to me as a fault. I see, however, that there are cited in them, with the highest praise, Alberto de Albertis, Bellarmine, Cárdenas, Colombière, Comitoli, Cornelius a Lapide, Elizalde, Emerico de Bonis, Pallavicino, Suárez, Terill — Authors of the Society; and on the other hand, with little honor, Candido and López, Dominicans. Nevertheless I do not wish to defend the defects of the Indices, and therefore I confess and confirm that the Writers of the Society — among whom Sánchez, Lessius, Tamburini, Viva, etc. — are pious and learned, and defend many true opinions, as I related in the body of the work, and this ought to have been indicated in the Indices in their proper places; and in these, if it seems to anyone that any lax opinion is falsely attributed to any Writer, let him know that I consider it something to be expunged.

IV. The fourth head is that at the beginning of each treatise I prefix a List of propositions which I pronounce worthy of condemnation; in which it is objected against me that I have anticipated the judgment of the Church.

It was never in my mind to erect the tribunal of a Censor, but only, as a private Theologian, to offer my judgment, such as it is, since in doing so I was following in the footsteps of the gravest Doctors. Thus Francolini, in the little work entitled Frangolinus Vindicatus, in the second chapter, draws up a list of propositions from the works of Merbes, Juvenin, and Genet, upon which he fixes the mark of Rigorism. But if anyone should disapprove this method, or should find propositions undeservedly enrolled in the number of those which I call worthy of condemnation, I am prepared to revoke and expunge them.

V. The fifth head is that throughout the whole course or work of my Theology I have always striven with great zeal that the Writers of the Society should appear as the authors of condemned propositions.

I think, however, that the praises which I deservedly bestowed upon the Venerable Cardinal Bellarmine, upon Toledo, Pallavicino, etc., sufficiently defend me. I did indeed reject certain opinions of certain Casuists, but it was not my mind to vituperate those learned and pious Writers, whom I greatly venerate, and whom I have used in the Judgments and doctrines of my Theology, but — as Theologians are accustomed to do — to refute them; and if anyone shall demonstrate that I have been in the wrong in impugning them, I will freely confess my error.

VI. The sixth and gravest head is that there are contained in my Theology things which are gravely injurious to approved Writers. Three examples are adduced. The first is that, speaking in Tome II, page 139, of the secret correction commanded in the Gospel, I subjoin: Those who contend that evangelical discipline stands whole in a better or more efficacious manner if, the order of fraternal correction being neglected, the delinquent is straightway denounced to the Prelate — these assuredly presume to correct the Gospel.

The second example is in Tome II, page 101, where, defending the position that Beneficed clerics are prohibited by divine law from making a testament in favor of their blood-relations, and objecting to myself the dispensations which they sometimes obtain from the supreme Pontiffs, I answer with St. Bernard: Many things the supreme Pontiffs grant either deceived by falsehood or overcome by importunity. In which answer there is objected against me a want of reverence toward the supreme Pontiffs. Far be from me this impiety. I brought forward this answer because — it being supposed that Beneficed clerics are prohibited by divine law, and not by ecclesiastical law only, from making a testament in favor of their blood-relations — I did not know how to find a better answer; and if anyone shall judge that it accords ill with reverence toward the supreme Pontiffs, I reject and abominate it.

The third example is in Tome VIII, page 390, where I assert that Nuns, in exacting the dowry and the life-pension of those whom they receive, sometimes commit the sin of simony. It is objected against me that by this doctrine I condemn even the sacred Congregation, which grants the faculty and imposes the payment of the dowry. The practice of the sacred Congregation is most just, for it supposes that the Monastery labors under poverty and cannot bear all its burdens; under which title, as the Council of Trent prescribes, it imposes the payment of a dowry — which, if the contrary were evidently established, it would not impose. And within these limits is to be understood whatever I have there discoursed concerning the simony of Nuns; in which if anyone shall find an error, I am prepared to revoke it.

VII. In the seventh head it is objected that I have related whatever Pascal, Wendrock, Henry of St. Ignatius, and Vincent Baron have written falsely and slanderously against the illustrious Society — of all which Writers certain works have been condemned.

Yet I can testify with certainty that I have copied out no opinion from these Authors; and if anyone should find one, let him know that I revoke it. This I wish to observe: that neither Montalte nor Wendrock resolves cases of conscience; that I have impugned certain opinions of Henry of St. Ignatius; and that Vincent Baron I have scarcely, if at all, read.

For the rest, if I have sinned in anything, if any reproach, imposture, contumely, or injury of any other kind whatsoever has fallen from my pen — assuredly against my intention — I frankly retract it all, I delete it, I disavow it, I detest it.

Fr. Daniele Concina, of the Order of Preachers.

For what remains, benevolent Reader, take this golden Compendium, maturely wrought from the choicer doctrine, and devour it, digest it, and convert it into your own juice and blood. And take, moreover, in fair and good part our diligence, which we have applied in the very highest degree. For first, so far as it could be done, care has been taken that the typographical errors with which the earlier edition swarmed should not appear again and give you trouble. And since we understood that a book so exceedingly useful would be handled by nearly all who are devoted to the Church, we have reduced it to a more convenient form, and have adorned this our edition with larger type and more elegant paper. Finally, that nothing may be wanting to the completeness and perfection of this Compendium, there will be added a fifth volume, comprising a synopsis of the things done by the Author and various eulogies of so great a Man, exhibiting a most abundant index of matters, and filled with certain small theological gifts which agree excellently with Concinian principles and may be of incredible profit to all Confessors. Farewell, and enjoy.