CHAPTER III: ON THE DUEL

A duel in general is the fight of two or of a few among themselves; more strictly, the fight of two or several equal in number, from a preceding agreement concerning place, time, and weapons, with danger of killing, mutilation, or wound.

A duel is 1° public or private, according as it is done by public authority or not; 2° solemn or simple, according as it is done before witnesses, or with these omitted.

477. Principles. - I. A duel undertaken by public authority is licit if it is done for the common good, for example, that war may be brought to an end; otherwise, if it is commanded or permitted for other causes. The reason of each is evident.

II. A duel undertaken by private authority can never be licit. The reason is that it is repugnant 1° to natural right, since God has given to none of men direct dominion over his own life or another's, nor over members outside the case of defense against an actual aggressor; 2° to Canon Law, as is clear from Trent,¹ where the duel is called: "A detestable usage, introduced by the contrivance of the devil."²

478. You will resolve. - 1° It is not licit to accept a duel even for averting ignominy; because it is repugnant to reason to use that cruel means with evident danger to one's own life or that of a neighbor, indeed also of eternal salvation, on account of an end not necessary or even useless. True estimation, praise, and honor are not placed in the vain opinion of this world, whose wisdom is foolishness with God.³

2° It is not licit for a military man to accept a duel, even if for this reason he must yield an office necessary for the sustenance of himself and his own. The reason follows from what has been said: for the killing of another by private authority is never licit, except against an actual aggressor with moderation of blameless defense; but one provoking to a duel is not an actual aggressor.

3° It is not licit to undertake a duel on this law, that, when one has been wounded or when a certain number of blows has been completed, the fight cease; 1° because even in this there is the greatest danger of a lethal wound; 2° because Clement VIII, Constitution Illius vices, 1592, § 5, also forbade this; 3° because this kind of duel creates scandal and furnishes occasion for fatal duels.

4° It is not licit to undertake a duel, even with public authority acceding, for knowing the truth, for proving innocence, or for ending a private lawsuit; because it is not a means ordered to these ends.⁴

5° But it is licit to fight in a duel for mere defense, even accepting weapons from the adversary, if death is intended by him, or the loss of goods is going to follow unless the fight is accepted, and there is not another way of escaping this danger; but not to go from agreement to another place, even if death is intended for you in the case in which you would not immediately go to another place; - nor to appoint another determined time for defense; because then there would be a duel properly so called. Cf. Vind. Ed. 2. T. I. p. 317.

6° Those do not enter into a duel properly so called, and consequently do not incur the penalties inflicted on duelists, who, becoming inflamed with sudden anger on account of injury, provoke each other to a fight and immediately engage; because it is more truly a brawl, but not a duel, which ought to be done from agreement of place and time. And for the same reason, on account of an unforeseen meeting of this sort, the aforesaid penalties are not incurred, although the fighters from the same impulse of the brawl immediately betake themselves together to some suitable place.¹ - S. C. C., Oct. 5, 1744. - Scav.

See the five propositions concerning the duel condemned by Benedict XIV in the year 1752, in the Bull Detestabilem, p. XXVI.