Article II. On the Mode of Satisfying the Obligation of Law

Although for satisfying a law the intention of fulfilling the precept is not required, and much less the intention of obtaining the end of the precept, nevertheless the intention of doing that which is commanded is required, if the law is affirmative; but not if it is negative, or indeed affirmative, but of such a kind that through it the simple effect of some action is intended, and not the action itself. The reason for the first is that, for satisfying, material obedience suffices, as theologians speak, namely, to place the action which is commanded. The reason for the second is both because, as the axiom taken from the Angelic Doctor has it: The end of the precept does not fall under the precept; and because by the simple fulfillment of the precept the end intended by the legislator is sufficiently obtained. But the reason for the third is that, since law is imposed upon men, its fulfillment ought to be a human action. Finally, the reason for the fourth and fifth is that then the legislator intends nothing except either the omission of a work, or only the material placing of the effect, for example, restitution, which even one who is sleeping is able to make. - Cf. St. Thomas, 1-2, q. 100, art. 9. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 162, 163, 164, and 165.

You Will Resolve. 1st. He satisfies who hears Mass, not knowing that it is commanded on this day, or who indeed knows the obligation, but intends only here and now to satisfy devotion, with the intention of hearing another Mass.

2nd. But he does not satisfy who places the work of a vow or oath while expressly intending not to satisfy; for it depends on the will of the one promising that such an obligation remain.

3rd. He does not satisfy who, wholly coerced, is present at Mass; for such an act, on account of the defect of will, is not human. It is otherwise if someone is induced only by fear, as, for example, a servant by fear of his master, a child by fear of his mother, etc.

4th. He satisfies who sins in the very fulfillment of the law, provided the act is honorable in itself and evil only from an extrinsic circumstance, so that the substance of the thing commanded is placed; because the precept commands only the substance of the act, not the mode. Hence he satisfies who, while he hears Mass, is occupied with thoughts of vain glory or lust. Yet satisfaction is not made to the precept of confession or communion by sacrilegious confession or communion, because then the very substance of the commanded act, that is, confession destructive of sins, or communion which spiritually feeds the soul, is not placed. This is also clear from proposition 14 condemned by Alexander VII: "He who makes a confession voluntarily null satisfies the precept of the Church," and from proposition 55 condemned by Innocent XI: "The precept of annual communion is satisfied by a sacrilegious eating of the Lord." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid. - See Can. 861, 907.

Question 1. Can several precepts be fulfilled by one act?

Response. Affirmatively, if these precepts fall upon the same matter and on account of the same intrinsic motive, as the fast of a vigil falling in the Ember days; but otherwise if they fall upon the same matter indeed, but on account of a diverse motive, as fasting owed from penance and from ecclesiastical law. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 166.

Question 2. Can diverse precepts be fulfilled at the same time by diverse acts?

Response. Affirmatively, if those acts are associable, that is, if they can be placed as they are required, because then the whole is placed which is required. Thus while hearing Mass you can recite the canonical Hours or discharge an imposed penance, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 166.

Question 3. Does the obligation cease for one who has not satisfied at the determined time?

Response. Affirmatively, if the determination of the time was made for ending the obligation. Thus, for example, if you did not fast on the day of a vigil, you indeed sinned, but you are freed from the law, because fasting is a burden affixed to the day itself. But otherwise it must be said if the time was not determined except for soliciting or urging the obligation. Thus he is not freed from the obligation of receiving the Eucharist who did not receive it in paschal time. Cf. St. Alphonsus, de secundo praec. Decal. n. 220; and de Euchar. n. 297. See below n. 342, Q. 1. - Cf. Can. 859, § 4.

Question 4. What must be done in the concurrence of two unassociable precepts?

Response. The greater must be observed before the lesser, which then ceases to oblige. But a natural precept prevails over a merely positive precept; a divine precept prevails over a human one; an ecclesiastical over a civil one, etc.

You Will Resolve. 1st. If you owe 100 coins to Titius, and you vow to restore them, by one act you satisfy two obligations, namely, of justice and of vow. Likewise a beneficed Priest vowing faithfully to recite the Hours satisfies a triple obligation by one recitation.

2nd. If from a vow and from a penance imposed by the confessor you are held to hear Mass, you do not satisfy each obligation if you are present at a single Mass on Sunday. Except unless the confessor imposes a work otherwise commanded.

3rd. Nor can you hear several Masses imposed upon you by a confessor at the same time, while they are being celebrated simultaneously on several altars, because such is not to be presumed to have been the intention of the confessor.

4th. He who is held to hear Mass on individual days from penance for one month satisfies by hearing one on Sunday, because it is reasonably presumed that the confessor did not wish to oblige the penitent to hear two Masses on the same day, unless he expressed this. - St. Alphonsus, Hom. Apost. n. 31.