Article IV. On Force or Violence

Force or violence is coercion which is brought upon someone by an extrinsic and free cause, his will resisting. But the will is said to resist when, both exteriorly, that is, by the aid of means extrinsic to itself, for example, by prayers dissuading, by threats deterring, by repelling force with force, etc., and interiorly, that is, in itself and by an interior affection, it resists as much as it can.

Acts elicited by the will can in no way be forced, because, as St. Thomas says: "it is against the account of the act of the will itself that it be forced or violent." But the other acts extrinsic to the will, whether they are completed by the external powers, or by the internal powers as by phantasy and the sensitive appetite, if they are posited from absolute violence, are not voluntary, and therefore not sinful; but if from violence in a certain respect, they are more or less voluntary according to the greater or lesser difficulty of resisting, or according to the greater or lesser affection with which one suffers force. Cf. St. Thomas, 1-2, q. 6, art. 4. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 17 and 18.

In canon law.

§ 1. Acts which a person, whether physical or moral, posits from extrinsic force, which cannot be resisted, are held as not done (Can. 103).

You Will Resolve. 1st. A woman who resists in every way the violence which is brought upon her sins in no way, even if intercourse occurs; because no one sins wholly unwillingly.

2nd. Women suffering force sin gravely if, through faintheartedness or vain fear, for example, of offending the aggressor, etc., they do not resist as much as they can, even with the danger of consent excluded, because while they resist less than is fitting, they equivalently consent to the violation of themselves, and cooperate in the crime of another.

But if you ask whether this resistance ought to be so great that it reaches even to crying out, a distinction is needed: if there is present proximate danger of consent, the woman is bound to cry out, despising whatever damage the aggressor threatens to her, because formal sin must absolutely be avoided. But with this danger excluded, again a distinction must be made: if the aggressor does not seek intercourse, being content only with touches and other things of this sort, then, according to St. Alphonsus, it is very probable that there is not such an obligation, even if fear of a damage less than death is cast upon her. The reason is that such an obligation cannot arise either by reason of preserving virginity, which by hypothesis remains intact, or by reason of charity, which does not oblige with so great an inconvenience. But if intercourse is sought, then, according to the same holy Doctor, the opinion which holds that a violated woman is not bound to cry out, while fear of death stands, is not lacking in probability, but only speaking speculatively; for practically it scarcely seems possible that this woman would not consent to venereal delight. Cf. St. Alphonsus, on the fifth precept of the Decalogue, n. 368; on the sixth precept of the Decalogue, n. 430.

3rd. Sometimes resistance wholly absolute and continuous against inflicted coercion is not required, namely when on the one hand it would be useless, and on the other hand there is question of a less dangerous matter. Thus martyrs led to pagan temples did not sin, although they walked. But in every case resistance must be made as much as is required for averting the danger of scandal, or injury to religion.

The things established in these two chapters concerning the human act receive splendid confirmation from those things which the new Code decrees concerning delicts, or external violations of law to which a canonical sanction has been added.

Question 1. On what things does the imputability of a delict depend?

Response. The imputability of a delict depends on the malice of the delinquent, or on his fault in ignorance of the violated law or in omission of due diligence; wherefore all causes which increase, diminish, or remove malice or fault, by that very fact increase, diminish, or remove the imputability of the delict (Can. 2199).

§ 1. Malice here is the deliberate will of violating the law, and to it there is opposed, on the part of the intellect, defect of knowledge, and on the part of the will, defect of liberty.

§ 2. Once an external violation of law has been posited, malice in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proved (Can. 2200).

Namely, such is the fault to be imputed as is the deliberate will of violating the law; defect of knowledge diminishes the account of the voluntary according to the measure of ignorance, just as defect of liberty also diminishes actual imputation; in equal manner omission of diligence flows into fault. These things notwithstanding, once an external violation of law has been posited, the deliberate will of violating the law, or malice, is supposed, unless the contrary is proved. Therefore the subjective elements of a delict are discretion of mind and liberty of will; when these are lacking, there cannot be given an intention of committing a delict, or the foundation of imputability.

Question 2. Who are, and who are presumed to be, incapable of delict? In what manner does voluntary and involuntary drunkenness stand toward the imputability of a delict? In what manner weakness of mind?

Response. § 1. Those are incapable of delict who actually lack the use of reason.

§ 2. Those habitually insane, although sometimes they may have lucid intervals, or in certain reasonings or acts may seem sane, are nevertheless presumed incapable of delict.

§ 3. A delict committed in voluntary drunkenness is not devoid of some imputability, but this is less than when the same delict is committed by one who is fully master of himself, unless, however, drunkenness was sought expressly for perpetrating or excusing the delict. But when the law is violated in involuntary drunkenness, imputability is wholly absent if the drunkenness takes away the use of reason entirely; it is diminished if only in part. The same is to be said of other similar disturbances of mind.

§ 4. Weakness of mind diminishes the imputability of a delict, but does not wholly remove it (Can. 2201).

This canon is an application of the preceding one to various cases, and first indeed to those lacking the use of reason, who cannot intend a delict and therefore are simply incapable of it. For how shall he be constituted guilty who does not know what he is doing? By equal reason the habitually insane are presumed incapable of delict; they should rather be cared for and pitied than punished, c. 14, C III. 9. Drunkenness stands in diverse ways toward the imputability of a delict, which certainly will not be lacking when the drunkenness was voluntary, although it is less than when a man is fully master of himself, unless the drunkenness was directly sought for perpetrating the delict. Involuntary drunkenness indeed removes fault; weakness of mind does not remove the use of reason, but plainly diminishes it and liberty, and thus imputability.

Question 3. Does ignorance affect the imputability of a delict?

Response. § 1. The violation of an unknown law is in no way imputed if the ignorance was inculpable; otherwise imputability is diminished more or less according to the culpability of the ignorance itself.

§ 2. Ignorance only of the penalty does not remove the imputability of the delict, but diminishes it somewhat.

§ 3. Those things which are established concerning ignorance are also valid concerning inadvertence and error (Can. 2202).

This canon is an application of canon 2199 to defect of knowledge, which is opposed to imputability. For if ignorance of the violated law is inculpable, the very fact of violation is inculpable. But if, however, ignorance of the law is culpable, the violation will be culpable; and indeed the culpability of the latter follows the culpability of the former. Ignorance only of the penalty leaves the violation of the law intact; and therefore in no way removes imputability. But since such a violation does not carry with it contumacy against the punishing authority, imputability is diminished. Nevertheless a sinner of this sort has posited the cause of some punishment.

Question 4. Is imputability diminished from the omission of due diligence?

Response. § 1. If someone violates a law from omission of due diligence, imputability is diminished according to a mode to be determined by a prudent judge from the circumstances; but if he foresaw the matter and nevertheless omitted the cautions for avoiding it which any diligent man would have employed, the fault is proximate to malice.

§ 2. A fortuitous case which cannot be foreseen, or which when foreseen cannot be met, exempts from any imputability (Can. 2203).

If, therefore, some unjust damage occurs which could and ought to have been foreseen by the one omitting diligence, the infliction of damage is imputable according to the measure of the diligence omitted. The law directly obliges me to avoid voluntary violation; indirectly it also obliges lest from my action there follow the same damage which would follow from voluntary violation. And hence omission of diligence is imputable, as, for example, in homicide arising from omitted diligence of taking care lest it be done by the action. It belongs to the judge to determine the mode by which imputability is diminished.

But if the agent foresaw the matter and neglected it, his fault is proximate to malice. Thus the Most Holy Eucharist is to be guarded under faithful custody with keys employed, lest a sacrilegious hand extend itself to it for carrying out wicked things; the fault of a priest foreseeing such a sacrilege, yet omitting diligence by employing cautions lest the crime occur, is proximate to the fault of deliberate violation of the law, or malice.

Of the unknown there is no desire, nor imputability; wherefore it is not imputable to anyone that which followed by chance from his action, and which was neither foreseen nor could have been foreseen.

Question 5. What is the influence of passion upon the imputability of a delict?

Response. Passion, if it has been voluntarily and deliberately excited or nourished, rather increases imputability; otherwise it diminishes it more or less according to the diverse heat of passion; and it wholly removes it if it precedes and impedes every deliberation of mind and consent of the will (Can. 2206).

In these circumstances the influence of passion upon imputability is varied. If passion has been deliberately excited and nourished, it increases affection and hence the voluntary; if it has not been such, it is not in the full power of man; wherefore according to the greater or lesser heat it is less or more voluntary; indeed it can be that it not only precedes every consent of the will and deliberation of the mind, but also simply impedes it, in which case it removes imputability.

You will resolve. - 1st. Lesser age, unless something else is established, diminishes the imputability of a delict, and by so much the more the nearer it approaches to infancy (Can. 2204).

The reason is that in minors there is not that perfect reason, by defect of which full malice seems to be absent from their crimes. Cf. Clement XIII, Quemadmodum, n. 5. And the nearer age approaches to infancy, by so much the less must the delict be held imputable. Hence, in children, much is usually left which in others of more advanced age human laws say must be more severely corrected, as c. 2, X, V. 23. On account of the defect of the age in which the excess was committed, rigor is to be tempered by mildness.

2nd. § 1. Physical force which takes away every faculty of acting wholly excludes a delict.

§ 2. Grave fear also, even only relatively grave, necessity, indeed even grave inconvenience, for the most part wholly remove a delict, if there is question of merely ecclesiastical laws.

§ 3. But if the act is intrinsically bad, or tends toward contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority or toward damage of souls, the causes spoken of in § 2 indeed diminish the imputability of the delict, but do not take it away.

§ 4. The cause of legitimate defense against an unjust aggressor, if due moderation is preserved, wholly removes a delict; otherwise it only diminishes imputability, just as also the cause of provocation does (Can. 2205).

Concerning force the matter is clear: it removes the foundation of imputability.

The reason for the second paragraph lies in this, that ecclesiastical laws and other human laws do not oblige with great inconvenience, unless the act is intrinsically bad, or tends toward contempt of the faith, etc. Certainly the excuse of necessity does not extend itself to freeing someone from the obligation of not blaspheming, of not perjuring; wherefore also the reason for the third paragraph is clear. But the fourth paragraph is evident from this, that he who so defends himself in no way sins, provided that he does not exceed the limits of just defense.