ARTICLE I: On Duel

Definition. Duel in general is a fight of two or a few among themselves. In the stricter sense, DUEL is a fight of two or several equal in number, from a previous agreement concerning place, time, and weapons, with danger of killing, mutilation, or wounding.

In this matter, two things are essential: that the fight happen from agreement, and that the fighters use lethal weapons by which at least a grave wound can be inflicted, constituting an action gravely sinful. Duel, as it is prohibited by the Church, supposes danger of a grave wound. It does not seem to be essential that a space of time intervene. For some can from agreement at once take up arms (Lehmkuhl, Cas. consc., n. 521).

Hence, it is not a duel, but a brawl, when two from impulse of anger challenge themselves to a fight and immediately engage. Likewise excluded are fights unfitted for inflicting grave harm, such as those which happen with rods or a light staff (III, 401).

Division. Duel is distinguished as public or private, according as it is undertaken by public or private authority; solemn and simple, according as it is had either before witnesses, or, as they call them, seconds, or with these omitted.

A true duel and a fictitious duel could also be distinguished. A duel is feigned if provocation and acceptance are simulated, or if certain hope is present that the duel will truly be impeded, or if one fights for form's sake, without any danger of a wound. Those who undertake a fictitious duel indeed do not incur censures, but are not excused from sin, with the Constitution Detestabilem of Benedict XIV standing, and because of the reason of scandal (Genicot, I, 382). See what is to be said n. 747.

746. Principles. I. A duel undertaken by public authority is licit if it happens from a grave cause, on account of the common good. A grave reason is that on account of which David fought with Goliath, for ending a war with lesser shedding of blood. But this or a similar case excepted, a prince would sin mortally by permitting a duel, for example for ostentation, for spectacle, for vengeance, for ending a lawsuit, etc.; because in these circumstances there would be a tending to an evil end, or to a good end through a disproportionate and illegitimate means (Bouvier, de Decal., c. 5, a. 5).

Thus therefore ordeals, judgments of God, formerly commonly in force, are illicit, even if they were prescribed by public authority.

747. II. A duel undertaken by private authority can never be licit. The reason is because it is repugnant: 1. To natural right, since it is a usurpation of dominion over life and death, which belongs to God alone. - Even if it is admitted that in a private duel only danger of killing or wounding is present, natural right will always deny that such evil means can be used, which directly arise from the duel, and only in the estimation of fools can restore wounded honor. 2. To canonical right, from the constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs and from Trent (Sess. 25, c. 19), gravely admonishing: "Let the detestable abuse of duels, introduced by the devil's fabrication, so that through the bloody death of bodies he may gain the ruin of souls, be utterly exterminated from the Christian world."

Specifically Alexander VII condemned this second proposition: "A knight challenged to a duel can accept it, lest he incur a mark of timidity among others." Nevertheless since certain ones have existed who would pronounce duels licit at least in certain circumstances, namely: if one not accepting would be deprived of office and support, or would have to lack perpetually the hope of promotion otherwise due and deserved by him; - or if one accepting a duel or provoking to it knows certainly that the fight is not about to follow, as being about to be impeded by others; - or if a leader and military officer accepts a duel from grave fear of loss of reputation and office; - or if someone accepts in order to preserve fortunes with honor, when by another remedy their loss cannot be driven off; or in the case where no tribunal had been constituted, or justice was openly denied by the magistrate; - Benedict XIV, in the Bull Detestabilem of the year 1752, rejected, condemned, and prohibited all these assertions as false, scandalous, and pernicious (III, 400; 1. El. qq. ref., n. 97). Cf. the Letter of Leo XIII, Pastoralis officii, 12 Sept. 1891.

From these things conclude: 1. It is not licit to undertake a duel with this law, that when one is wounded the fight ceases; because, besides scandal, there is danger of a lethal wound. The Constitution Illius vices of Clement VIII, 17 Aug. 1592, also stands in the way.

2. Academic duels are prohibited. For in them the definition of duel is verified. A difficulty indeed can be moved from the fact that in academic duels danger of a grave wound is judged excluded; but the response is that the contest is nevertheless so instituted that of itself a grave wound can be inflicted. It is answered especially that the Church truly and properly equates these duels with lethal duels. For to the question of the Bishop of Breslau, who in a supplicatory libellus had set forth all things more minutely, the S. C. C. (9 Aug. 1890) responded: Duelists of this kind and their seconds are irregular from infamy of law. From which it follows: students dueling, committing the measure, are struck by the same penalties, to be cited below, and commit the same sin as others, for example soldiers, who from agreement fight among themselves with danger of killing. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 23, p. 242.²

3. It is licit to fight with an enemy, if he, determined to kill you or to take away from you things of great moment, from insolence concedes to you arms for defending yourself; for then it is true and legitimate defense: provided you cannot avoid the fight.

4. Likewise, one challenged to a duel can licitly respond: "I, as a Christian, cannot accept a duel; nevertheless I am prepared to defend myself against unjust aggressors."

748. The penalties established against duelists are the following: 1. Excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, which is extended to any accomplices whatsoever, as will be said n. 1330. - 2. Proscription of all goods, which penalty nevertheless is no longer in force, and perpetual infamy and therefore irregularity. - 3. Privation of ecclesiastical burial, if the duelists die in the conflict itself, although before death they had given signs of penitence (cf. n. 1387, 2; cf. also Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 12).

Note. Spanish law decrees penalties against duelists, art. 439-447; likewise the Austrian Criminal Code.