Section — Marc, Institutiones Morales
§ 2. On the Mode of Acting in the Concurrence of Precepts
- When several precepts concur, it is asked whether satisfaction can be made to them by one act; or at least at the same time, by diverse acts.
PRINCIPLES. I. By one act satisfaction can be made at the same time to several precepts, if they fall upon the same matter, on account of the same end. Thus, for example, if a feast of precept falls on a Sunday, it is enough to hear one Mass. He who is obliged to the Hours by reason of order and benefice is held to recite them only once. The reason is, because then by one act the whole is placed which is prescribed by the diverse laws; and therefore he who violates two precepts of this kind commits only one sin (I, 166; H. Ap., II, 31).
Except: 1. If the matter concerns justice, in which equality of thing to thing is always attended to; and therefore when the matter is multiplied, the payment also must be multiplied: for example, if from damage inflicted you owe a hundred, and from purchase also a hundred, by giving a hundred once you do not satisfy, as is evident. 2. If something else is clear concerning the mind of the one prescribing, if from usage or circumstances the Superior is judged to will the fulfillment of his precept through distinct acts. Thus, for example, to a fast owed from a vow and from sacramental penance satisfaction is generally not made through one fast, because from usage the mind of the confessor is judged to be different (III, 309).
- II. At the same time, by diverse acts, satisfaction can be made to diverse precepts, provided that one act does not impede the other. The reason is, because generally, when some thing is prescribed, diversity of times is not required.
Thus, for example, it is lawful for you, at the same time, to hear Mass prescribed on a feast and to recite the Hours, or other prayers to which you are held from a vow or sacramental penance. But if a confessor has prescribed to a penitent to hear two Masses on the same day, this is to be understood of Masses to be heard successively, not at the same time. For such is presumed to be the intention of the confessor, unless something else shall have been expressed. But he to whom the confessor has prescribed to hear Mass on each day for a month satisfies when on Sunday he has been present at one Mass. For it is reasonably presumed that the confessor did not will to oblige him to two Masses on the same day, unless he expressed this (H. Ap., XVI, 57). But if the penitent has done nothing concerning these things, he would commit a twofold sin, as Lehmkuhl observes, I, n. 247, at the end.
- IT IS ASKED. What is to be done in the concurrence of two incompatible precepts?
Resp. Other things being equal, the greater must be observed before the lesser, which then ceases to oblige. Hence there prevails: 1. the negative over the affirmative; and therefore it will not be lawful to steal in order to aid the poor; 2. the natural over the positive, and the divine over the human; and so Mass must be omitted on a feast, lest one gravely sick be deserted; 3. the law of a Superior, for example, of the Pope, over the law of an inferior, for example, of a Bishop; 4. ecclesiastical law over civil; 5. that founded upon the stricter virtue, for example, justice, over that founded upon a less strict virtue, for example, charity; whence he who cannot both give alms and pay a debt is held to abstain from alms (cf. n. 30).
We said other things being equal; because account must always be taken of other circumstances which perhaps command either that the order be inverted, or change the case. Thus the poor person in extreme necessity must be succored before you pay a debt to a creditor not staying in the same necessity, which nevertheless would have to be done from justice. Thus also viaticum cannot be given to one dying under the species of wine, although this latter thing is ruled by ecclesiastical right alone, etc. Cf. Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 38, p. 149 ff.