The Positions Compared: Charity and the Vices Against It

A. Mortal of its kind; venial only from an imperfect act or slight matter

• St. Thomas (II-II, q. 36, a. 3)
• Merkelbach (n. 952)
• Noldin (n. 338)
• Billuart: “both from indeliberation of act, and from lightness of matter, as if it be about some slight good of the neighbor” (On hatred of God and of the neighbor;…, n. 10)

B. In practice more often venial than mortal

• Prümmer: “In practice envy by itself alone is rarely a mortal sin” (n. 422)
• Wouters: “more often it is venial” (n. 314)

A. Every scandal is mortal of its own nature

• Bontempi: “is mortal of its own nature” (Question II: Whether scandal is a specia, n. 1)

B. Grave or light according to the sin it occasions

• Noldin: “will ordinarily be grave or light according as it furnishes an occasion of sinning gravely or lightly” (n. 104)

A. A mortal sin from its genus

• Prümmer: “a mortal sin from its genus” (n. 434)

B. Of itself venial, disposing to mortal

• Marc: “sin per se venial, but disposing proximately to mortal sin” (n. 372)

C. Grave only when a grave duty is left undone

• Vermeersch (n. 487)
• Sabetti-Barrett (n. 145)

A. To refuse a fitting satisfaction, or leave the enemy to the judge, is a sin (of itself grave)

• St. Alphonsus, as Prümmer reports him (n. 574)
• Merkelbach: “do not accept a fitting satisfaction” (Pastoral, Q. V)
• Marc: “of themselves gravely” (n. 500)

B. Not strictly forbidden, though dangerous

• Vermeersch: “strictly speaking, we are not forbidden not to accept an offered satisfaction and to pursue a juridical action for injuries. Yet this is dangerous” (n. 88)
• Prümmer: “rather strict” (n. 574)

A. Weighed by the hatred and the scandal, as the older authors weighed it

• Prümmer (n. 575)

B. The mere omission will rarely be grave today

• Vermeersch: “the mere omission of the signification of love will rarely today be able to be condemned as grave” (n. 95)

A. Hatred of enmity toward God is the gravest of sins from its genus

• Prümmer: “on account of special circumstances sometimes some other sin can be graver than hatred of God” (n. 564) — “from its genus”
• Merkelbach (I, n. 945)
• Noldin — named on this side in the fuller entry

B. Enmity and abomination toward God do not differ in species

• Marc: “do not differ in species” (n. 475)

C. The gravest is the hatred of God as forbidding sin and punishing it

• Concina: “by which the will detests God insofar as he prohibits sins and inflicts punishments” (III, diss. IV, ch. II, n. I)

A. No precept of charity toward oneself alone binds gravely

• Noldin: “there is no precept which from charity of self alone obliges under grave matter” (n. 70)

B. The obligation is grave

• McHugh-Callan: “The obligation is grave” (n. 1562)
• Prümmer: “gravely wounds charity toward himself” (n. 388)

A. It is a sin to give one's life for a neighbor's

Also named on this side: Hurtado, as Bontempi reports (Whether a man ought to love himsel, n. 9).

B. It is lawful (to yield the plank in shipwreck)

• Wouters (n. 525)

A. Always mortal in the aggressor

• St. Thomas: “for it is not without mortal sin that one inflicts harm on another even if the deed be done by the hands” (II-II, q. 41, a. 1)

B. Venial when slight

• Merkelbach: “if it does not exceed measure, as also a very light fight, it is venial” (I, n. 954)
• McHugh-Callan: “frequently only a venial sin” (n. 1430)

A. Unlawful once the need ceases

• St. Thomas: “as soon as the need ceases, it is no longer lawful to fight on a holy day” (II-II, q. 40, a. 4)
• Merkelbach (II, n. 276)

B. Not a mortal sin without need, if Mass is heard

• Bontempi: “It is nevertheless not a mortal sin, outside necessity, to fight on a feast day, provided Mass is heard” (By whom war may be waged, n. 12)

A. Decent dancing can be free of all sin, an innocent pastime

• Sabetti-Barrett: “can easily also be free of every sin” (n. 191)
• McHugh-Callan (n. 1457)
• Spirago: “In the art of dancing there is nothing evil or reprehensible” (VII. OCCASIONS OF SIN)

B. To be shunned, or attended rarely

• St. Alphonsus: “never on any account to dance” (True Spouse, ch. XXIV)
• Vermeersch: “a true Christian should abstain” (n. 132)
• Wouters (n. 470)
• Prümmer: “more rarely” (n. 615)

A. Illicit of themselves, for the lust they incite

• Prümmer: “are wont greatly to incite to lust and therefore are illicit” (II, n. 697)
• Merkelbach: “from which signification or indecency they can scarcely be freed” (Pastoral, Q. VI)

B. Their malice is in the danger only, judged case by case

• Wouters (n. 470)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “consists only in danger” (n. 190)

A. Mortal to introduce it where it is not the custom

• Marc: “are not excused from mortal sin” (n. 516)
• Noldin: “authors teach by common consent” (n. 107)

B. Mortal only for the upper breast; venial to bare the arms or breast moderately

• Merkelbach: “or introduce such a custom” (Pastoral, Q. VI)

C. Custom excuses nothing: grave even where it is the custom

• Concina: “Several more recent writers defend this nakedness of the bosom as innocent of grave fault, if it be according to the custom of the country. Hence I judge this opinion false, improbable, and lax” (III, diss. IV, ch. IV, n. XVII)

A. Grave only in extreme necessity, or a very notable inversion without reason

• Merkelbach: “is not mortally evil unless there is question of extreme necessity; - or unless it is very notable and is done without any reason” (I, n. 915)

B. Grave in grave or extreme necessity

• Marc: “if it is a question of grave or extreme necessity, contains grave sin” (n. 484)

C. Grave when the necessity is grave or extreme AND the inversion notable

• Wouters: “extreme or grave necessity” (n. 573)

A. Ordinarily a sin among members of one community: the common signs may not be denied

• Prümmer: “ordinarily it is sin if two students of the same seminary, or two religious of the same convent” (n. 576)
• Concina: “is a duty, which cannot be neglected with deliberate mind without grave fault” (III, diss. III, ch. IV, n. IV)
• Billuart: “a scandal to him and to others” (Whether enemies are to be loved from…, n. 8)

Also named on this side: Fagundez and Suarez, as Bontempi reports (Whether we are bound to show the e, n. 12).

B. Often only light; rarely grave today

• St. Alphonsus, as Sabetti-Barrett reports him (n. 174)
• Noldin: “the cause of enmity is light” (n. 83)
• Vermeersch: “two nuns, because of a moderate quarrel, break off communication for some days” (n. 88)
• Merkelbach: “it seems too general, what some say without restriction, that a religious who after ten days does not wish to speak to a confrere is not to be absolved” (I, n. 897)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “is not grave” (n. 174)

A. Never lawful (Innocent XI condemned the contrary)

• Bontempi (How, and when, the precept of the, n. 3)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “a wife cannot desire the death of her husband from the fact that she is unjustly badly treated by him” (n. 170)
• Concina: “Never, then, is it licit either to rejoice over, or to wish, evil to one's neighbor — and much less to oneself” (III, diss. III, ch. IV, n. VIII)

Also named on this side: Navarre, as Bontempi reports (How, and when, the precept of the, n. 3).

B. Lawful, as wishing a good to oneself

Also named on this side: Sà, Azor, Sancius, Palaus and Bassaeus, as Bontempi reports (How, and when, the precept of the, n. 3).

A. Yes, gravely, from what is superfluous to one's station

• St. Alphonsus, as Marc reports him (n. 488); Marc: “St. Alphonsus affirms, with the more common opinion”
• Prümmer: “a grave obligation of sometimes giving alms from goods superfluous to status” (n. 594) — “at least extrinsically probable”
• Merkelbach: “Indeed also probably in common necessity” (I, n. 931)
• Marc: “St. Alphonsus affirms, with the more common opinion” (n. 488)
• McHugh-Callan: “as it appears, is also grave” (n. 1238)
• Wouters: “if he proposed never, or scarcely ever, to give alms except to one constituted in grave necessity” (n. 533)
• Concina: “those rich are damned, unless they come to their senses, who do not fulfill the precept of almsgiving” (III, diss. III, ch. VII, n. XV)
• Billuart: “never gave alms, or proposed never to give out of what is superfluous to status in common necessities, would not seem excusable from mortal sin” (Whether to give alms is a matter of…, n. 23)

B. A grave obligation is not proved

• Noldin: “since the opinion affirming a grave obligation is not certain, but only probable, it cannot be established” (n. 92) — with St. Antoninus, St. Thomas
• Vermeersch: “a grave obligation is not proved, although it is affirmed by many” (n. 105)

C. Controverted

• Sabetti-Barrett: “it is controverted among the Doctors” (n. 177)

A. Unlawful: serving a prostitute, carrying a master to his mistress, letting a house for a brothel

• Concina: “it is in no way licit to serve or minister to a prostitute at all” (III, diss. IV, ch. IV, n. XXVI)

B. Lawful for a just cause

Also named on this side: Laymann, Tamburini, Sporer and Caramuel, as Concina reports (III, diss. IV, ch. IV, n. XXVI); Sanchez, Azor, Diana, Vasquez, Castropalao, Tamburini, the Salmanticenses, Sporer, as Concina reports (III, diss. IV, ch. IV, n. XXVIII).

A. Abomination can touch the person himself, and is then mortal of its kind

• Noldin: “which is referred to the very person of the neighbor, is from its genus a mortal sin” (n. 100)
• Wouters: “excludes one's neighbor from common charity” (n. 542)
• Bontempi: “by which we abominate someone as unworthy of our friendship” (What the object of hatred is, and, n. 2)
• Billuart: “ex genere suo mortal sin” (On hatred of God and of the neighbor;…, n. 3) — “rarely mortal”

B. Abomination regards the quality, not the person; turning from the person is enmity

• Merkelbach: “when there is question of a person it is called hatred of a quality” (I, n. 944)
• Vermeersch: “Hatred of abomination does not affect the person himself but his malice” (n. 88)

A. Jurisdiction does not remain in schismatics

• St. Thomas: “does not remain in heretics and schismatics” (II-II, q. 39, a. 3)

B. It may be lost; the Church has let it remain in the Oriental churches

• McHugh-Callan: “may be lost through schism” (n. 1374)

Also named on this side: a middle opinion, as Bontempi reports (What punishments are owed to schis, n. 13).

A. Withdrawal from obedience to the Pope

• Prümmer: “pertinacious withdrawal from the obedience due to the Supreme Pontiff” (n. 509)

B. Withdrawal from obedience and from communion with the members

• St. Thomas: “to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy” (II-II, q. 39, a. 1)

C. Properly, those who set up or follow new churches

• Marc: “who boldly establish or follow new Churches” (n. 1317)

D. No joining of a schismatic body is required

• McHugh-Callan: “does not necessarily include affiliation with some schismatical body or the setting up of such a body” (n. 1364)

A. Authority, a just cause, a right intention

• St. Thomas (II-II, q. 40, a. 1)
• Marc (n. 750)
• Billuart: “legitimate authority of declaring war, just cause and right intention” (On war, n. 5)

B. Third: a morally certain right

• Noldin: “A morally certain right” (n. 353)

C. Third: the due mode of waging war

• Sabetti-Barrett: “the due mode of waging war” (n. 277)

A. A morally certain right is required

• St. Alphonsus, quoted by Wouters: “can scarcely ever seem just if it is inferred from things merely probable and not certain” (n. 751)
• Noldin (n. 353)
• Wouters: “can scarcely ever seem just if it is inferred from things merely probable and not certain” (n. 751)
• Marc: “they are not to be heard who think that for offensive war either greater probability or equal doubt suffices” (n. 750)
• McHugh-Callan: “Some moralists believe that a high degree of probability” (n. 1395)
• Billuart: “because in doubt, especially of such moment, the safer part must be chosen” (On war, n. 15)

B. A probable or more probable right suffices

• St. Alphonsus, as Noldin reports him (n. 353)

A. No scandal before those so wicked or so upright that no one is moved

• St. Alphonsus, as Marc reports him (n. 506)
• Marc: “that no one is moved to sin” (n. 506)

B. Only if certain they will not be weakened: even the very good may fall

• McHugh-Callan: “If he is certain that the witnesses will not be weakened morally on his account” (n. 1462)
• Bontempi: “many do not excuse doing works in the face of the perfect which inflame; for even these fall, as David” (Whether scandal is a special sin, n. 28)

A. A wholly right act placed without sufficient cause can be scandal

• Wouters: “and is placed without sufficient cause” (n. 546)

B. Only what is less right; a good act without appearance of evil is not scandal given

• Noldin: “is not properly scandal given” (n. 105)

A. Never lawful (unless the lesser evil is contained in the greater)

• Prümmer: “Negatively, unless that lesser evil is virtually included” (n. 611)
• Bontempi: “the first opinion” (Whether it is lawful to persuade o, n. 4) — “is the more probable”
• Concina: “The more probable opinion, and the true one to me, denies it: since it is never licit to counsel an evil, however small” (III, diss. IV, ch. III, n. XVII)

B. Lawful only for an evil of the same species

• Noldin (n. 113)

C. Lawful whatever the species

• St. Alphonsus, as Sabetti-Barrett reports him (n. 185)
• Marc: “whether this lesser evil which is advised is of the same species or of a diverse species” (n. 509)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “does not seem necessary” (n. 185)

D. Lawful when the lesser is contained in the greater or falls on the same person

• Vermeersch (n. 128)

A. Immediate cooperation, even material, is unlawful (save sometimes in goods of fortune)

• Merkelbach: “even merely material, is illicit” (I, n. 489)

B. Lawful for a grave cause

A. Lawful to servants

• St. Alphonsus, as Prümmer reports him (n. 621)
• Prümmer (n. 621)

B. Unlawful

• St. Alphonsus, as Wouters reports him (n. 564)
• Wouters (n. 564)
• Marc (n. 518)
• Concina: “It is likewise forbidden to carry love letters containing base things” (III, diss. IV, ch. IV, n. XXIV)

C. Unlawful if the letters are shameful; lawful for a cause if they only arrange a meeting

• Sabetti-Barrett (n. 196)

A. Any single attribute of God suffices as the motive

• Noldin: “constituted not only by the accumulation of all perfections, but also by each single attribute of God, whether absolute or relative” (n. 55)

B. God's goodness as the sum of all His perfections

• St. Alphonsus, as Wouters reports him (n. 364)
• Wouters: “that this goodness is composed of all God's perfections” (n. 364)
• Marc: “is not some particular attribute of God” (n. 465)
• Merkelbach: “some divine perfection abstracted from the rest” (I, n. 876)

A. By deeper rooting in the subject, not by addition

• St. Thomas: “charity can by no means increase by addition of charity to charity” (II-II, q. 24, a. 5)
• Merkelbach: “not indeed by addition of charity to charity” (I, n. 867)
• McHugh-Callan: “in that it becomes more deeply rooted” (n. 1124)

B. By the addition of degrees

• Bontempi: “The TRUE opinion of the Theologians, however, is that charity is increased by the addition of degrees” (Whether charity increases, and how, n. 4)

A. Only through a more fervent act; each act disposes

• St. Thomas: “charity does not actually increase through every act of charity, but each act of charity disposes to an increase” (II-II, q. 24, a. 6)
• Merkelbach: “not that every act of charity in fact increases it, but that this is done only through an intense act” (I, n. 870)

B. Every meritorious act increases it at once

• Bontempi: “this augmentation is made immediately after meritorious acts” (Whether charity increases, and how, n. 44) — “the common opinion of the Theologians”

C. Every act merits it; the increase owed to remiss acts is deferred to glory

• McHugh-Callan: “Every act of charity, even the less fervent, contributes to an increase” (n. 1126)
• Billuart: “Every act of charity, even remiss, whether elicited or imperate, merits de condigno the increase of charity” (On the Subject, Cause, Increase, and…, n. 19)

A. Without limit in this life

• St. Thomas: “it is not possible to fix any limits to the increase of charity in this life” (II-II, q. 24, a. 7)
• Merkelbach: “Charity can be increased without end, as was defined in the Council of Vienne” (I, n. 868)
• McHugh-Callan: “as long as a person lives here below, he may continually grow in charity” (n. 1128)

B. Only to a limited term

• Bontempi: “the supernatural disposition” (Whether charity can be increased w, n. 1)

A. Necessary as a means (for the sinner without the sacrament, and at some times in life)

• Prümmer: “after habitual charity has been obtained, at some times in life” (n. 561)
• McHugh-Callan: “The act of charity is also necessary as a means of salvation to all adults” (n. 1604)

B. Not necessary as a means in the New Law, except hypothetically

• Merkelbach: “in the present economy of the New Law it is not necessary by necessity of means” (I, n. 971)
• Noldin: “except in defect of a sacrament” (n. 58)
• Marc: “except hypothetically” (n. 469)
• Vermeersch (n. 75)
• Wouters (n. 517)

A. Due of itself at the end of life, even for one in grace

• Prümmer: “Thus the by far more probable opinion” (n. 563)
• Merkelbach (I, n. 972)
• Marc: “Most probably” (n. 472)
• Wouters: “if the precept did not then urge, it would never urge” (n. 519)
• Billuart: “It obliges per se at the end of life” (On the precept of charity, n. 20)
• Concina: “When the moment of separation from this world, and of conjunction with God, is at hand, are we not commanded to elicit an act of love” (III, diss. II, ch. II, n. IV) — against Castropalao
• Vermeersch: “as many wish” (n. 74)

B. Only for one in mortal sin who cannot receive the sacrament

• Noldin: “this obligation exists only for those who are in mortal sin and cannot receive the sacrament” (n. 59)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “because a special precept is not established, even though the contrary opinion is much more common” (n. 167)

A. No obligation at once, nor soon after justification by attrition

• Prümmer: “today has been abandoned by all” (n. 563)
• Noldin: “cannot be demonstrated by any probable argument” (n. 59)

B. A long delay in mortal sin, months, breaks the precept

• Merkelbach: “those do not satisfy this precept who remain for a long time in the state of mortal sin, or are justified only with imperfect contrition” (I, n. 971)
• Marc: “for months” (n. 473)
• McHugh-Callan: “a delay beyond four or five months according to some authors would be notable” (n. 1598)

A. There is a natural love of friendship toward God

• Bontempi: “The true opinion therefore is, that a twofold love of God is given, certainly of friendship” (Whether besides infused charity th, n. 4)

B. In the natural order there would be benevolence, not friendship

• Merkelbach: “there would have been no equality nor friendship between God and us, although nevertheless on each side there would have been love of benevolence” (I, n. 854)
• Vermeersch: “in the natural order, love between God and man would not have been a love of friendship” (n. 71)

A. Mortal sin expels it physically, as its contrary

• St. Thomas (II-II, q. 24, a. 12)
• Merkelbach: “not only meritoriously, but also physically and efficiently expels it” (I, n. 873)
• Billuart: “is true of acquired habits, but not of infused habits, such as charity is” (On the Subject, Cause, Increase, and…, n. 49)

B. Morally only: charity fails as God withholds His influx

• Bontempi: “grace and sin are opposed morally, not physically” (Whether charity can be lost, and h, n. 45)

A. Lawful from a motive of virtue

• St. Thomas: “if a man of his own accord offer himself for that purpose, this belongs to the perfection of charity” (II-II, q. 26, a. 5, ad 3)
• Merkelbach: “often permits and advises him to expose his life” (I, n. 909)
• Noldin: “he can licitly prefer the life of the neighbor for preserving even an equal or inferior person” (n. 77)
• Marc: “can per se, and from the motive of virtue, immolate his own life for preserving another's” (n. 482)
• Vermeersch: “we can per se, but are not bound to” (n. 84)
• Prümmer: “loves the good of virtue more than bodily good” (n. 580)
• McHugh-Callan: “At least, it is more probable that this is lawful” (n. 1169)
• Bontempi: “in order to God” (Whether a man ought to love himsel, n. 12)

Also named on this side: Azor, Soto, Victoria and Tanner, as Bontempi reports (Whether a man ought to love himsel, n. 10).

B. Unlawful: it exceeds the rule

Also named on this side: Durandus, Richard, Gabriel, Paludanus and Bellarmine, as Bontempi reports (Whether a man ought to love himsel, n. 8); Hurtado, as Bontempi reports (Whether a man ought to love himsel, n. 9).

A. She is bound to undergo it

• Marc: “A mother is bound to undergo a dangerous operation so that the infant can be extracted and baptized” (n. 483)
• Bontempi (Whether the eternal salvation of t, n. 1)

B. Bound in principle, almost never to be imposed

• Prümmer: “almost never is a strict obligation to be imposed on her” (n. 583)

C. Not bound while the baptism is uncertain

• McHugh-Callan: “if it is uncertain that the baptism can be administered” (n. 1166)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “A mother is not bound to undergo danger of life so that her offspring may be baptized, when it is uncertain whether it will survive for baptism” (n. 170)

D. Not bound: evil is not to be done that good may come

• Concina: “A pregnant mother who is unable to give birth is not bound to suffer a deadly cutting of the womb, that the child enclosed in the womb may be baptized: because evils are not to be done that goods may come” (III, diss. III, ch. III, n. XIV) — with St. Thomas

Also named on this side: Sancius and Sà, as Bontempi reports (Whether the eternal salvation of t, n. 3).

A. He must be helped even with great inconvenience (not at the cost of life)

• Merkelbach: “under grave sin, with notable proper temporal detriment” (I, n. 909)
• Noldin: “with great inconvenience indeed, yet not with danger to life or of an almost equal good” (n. 79)
• Marc: “he must be helped with great inconvenience” (n. 483)

B. No one is bound with grave harm

• Prümmer: “no one is bound to assist neighbor with grave harm, because he is not even bound to preserve his own bodily life with great harm” (n. 584)

C. With great, but not the greatest, inconvenience

• Sabetti-Barrett: “with a great inconvenience indeed, but not with the greatest, such as the donation of a great sum of money would be even for a rich man” (n. 169)

A. Parents first only in extreme necessity

• Prümmer: “in extreme necessity, namely, if there is question of danger of life” (n. 581)
• Merkelbach (I, n. 914)
• Vermeersch (n. 86)
• McHugh-Callan (n. 1181)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “more probably” (n. 169)

Also named on this side: Cajetan and Valencia, as Bontempi reports (Whether a man ought to love his sp, n. 1).

B. Also in quasi-extreme necessity

• Marc: “if the necessity is extreme, or quasi-extreme, on both sides” (n. 484)

C. Also in grave necessity

• Wouters: “In extreme or grave necessity parents are to be preferred to spouse and children” (n. 573)

Also named on this side: Tanner, as Bontempi reports (Whether a man ought to love his sp, n. 1).

D. Parents first outright

• Concina: “First of all are to be preferred father and mother; then wives and children. Wives are to be preferred to parents only as regards habitation and a more tender love” (III, diss. III, ch. III, n. XV)
• Billuart: “Speaking absolutely, however, the father in necessity is to be preferred to the son” (What order is to be kept in the love…, n. 13)

A. All are bound, at least indirectly, to some honorable labor

• Noldin: “there exists a universal precept of labor for the human race” (n. 67)
• Marc: “the obligation of laboring and of embracing a certain state of life” (n. 476)

B. Not every man is strictly obliged to labor

• Prümmer: “that every man is not strictly obliged to labor” (n. 569)

A. Lawful in principle without hatred, though rarely expedient

• Prümmer: “it does not seem to be sinful to go to a judge” (n. 574)
• Noldin: “in practice this must altogether be dissuaded” (n. 84)
• Merkelbach: “it is difficult that someone seek public vengeance from a judge from pure love of justice” (I, n. 898)
• Vermeersch: “Yet this is dangerous” (n. 88)

B. Not when a fitting satisfaction is offered: remission is to be urged

• St. Alphonsus, quoted by Prümmer: “In practice I have never dared to absolve any of those who said that they had spared their enemies, but had wished justice to have its place” (n. 574)
• Bontempi: “remission is to be urged, especially if he is to be punished by death, mutilation, etc.” (Whether we are bound to show the e, n. 19)
• Concina: “Absolutely, it is wiser to remit all things” (III, diss. III, ch. IV, n. VII)
• Billuart: “this can scarcely happen without some appetite for vengeance” (Whether enemies are to be loved from…, n. 15)

A. Unlawful to wish that a wayfarer sin

• Merkelbach: “it is illicit to desire for any wayfarer that he be damned or that he sin, because this is simply evil” (I, n. 889)

B. Not unlawful to wish that God permit a fall, for an awakening

• McHugh-Callan: “it does not seem unlawful to wish that God permit a person to fall into sin, as a means to a spiritual awakening” (n. 1144)

A. Never a proximate or certain danger

• Prümmer: “expose himself to a certain danger of sinning” (n. 580)
• Marc: “unless the danger by some reason becomes remote” (n. 482)
• McHugh-Callan: “to the certain and proximate danger of sin for the sake of another’s spiritual progress” (n. 1163)

B. A proximate danger made remote by remedies

• Merkelbach: “rendered remote” (I, n. 907)
• Noldin: “it is permitted to expose oneself to proximate danger of sinning, with remedies nevertheless applied against sin” (n. 77)

C. Even when a fall is otherwise very probable, armed with the means

• St. Alphonsus, as Sabetti-Barrett reports him (n. 170)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “when a fall is otherwise very probable” (n. 170)

D. Not even a probable danger

• Concina: “you are not bound — nay, you ought not — to expose yourself to a probable danger of sinning” (III, diss. III, ch. III, n. XIV)

A. Each will love himself more intensely

• St. Thomas: “a man will love himself more than even his better neighbors, because the intensity of the act of love arises on the part of the person who loves” (II-II, q. 26, a. 13)
• Merkelbach: “appreciatively and intensively, ourselves more” (I, n. 915)
• McHugh-Callan: “each loves self with a more intense love” (n. 1182)

B. Each will rejoice as much in his neighbor's good as in his own

A. Yes, nature inclines us to love God more than ourselves

• St. Thomas: “not only man, so long as his nature remains unimpaired, loves God above all things and more than himself, but also every single creature, each in its own way” (II-II, q. 26, a. 3)
• Bontempi: “But our question concerns appreciative love” (Whether nature inclines more to lo, n. 27)

B. No

Also named on this side: Coninck, as Bontempi reports (Whether nature inclines more to lo, n. 1).

A. A lower motive (mercy, kindness) suffices

• Noldin: “to satisfy this precept it is not required that works of beneficence toward the neighbor be done from the motive of charity, but it suffices that they be done from another lower motive, for example, mercy, kindness” (n. 72)

B. Charity's motive is needed, at least virtually

• McHugh-Callan: “The motive of charity is absent, therefore, when one loves only one’s friends, when one is kind to others out of pity” (n. 1582)
• Bontempi: “If anyone loves anyone, but does not love him for God's sake, he has not Charity” (Whether God, and the neighbor, are, n. 13)
• Prümmer: “is licit per se, provided it is not disordered” (n. 570)
• Concina: “Certain authors of a more benign turn deny it; but their opinion is false” (III, diss. III, ch. III, n. IV)
• Billuart: “is not the love of charity” (Comprising all that concerns charity…, n. 17)

A. Only from goods superfluous to one's station

• Prümmer: “Thus the opinion today is common” (n. 593)
• Noldin: “from goods simply superfluous” (n. 91)
• St. Thomas: “is a matter not of precept but of counsel” (II-II, q. 32, a. 6)

Also named on this side: Cajetan, Sanchez, Navarre, as Bontempi reports (Whether anyone is bound at some ti, n. 2).

B. Even from goods necessary to one's state

• Merkelbach: “indeed even from things necessary to one's state, when this can be done without grave inconvenience” (I, n. 930)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “approaches extreme necessity” (n. 176)
• Bontempi: “nor is it true, as Diana says, that the rich have a right to live splendidly in their own state at so great damage and misery to the poor” (Whether anyone is bound at some ti, n. 7)
• Concina: “Not only out of superfluities, but even out of what is necessary to the becomingness and seemliness of their state” (III, diss. III, ch. VII, n. XVI) — “the more common opinion”
• Billuart: “we are bound under mortal sin to relieve him from some way out of things necessary to status” (Whether to give alms is a matter of…, n. 18) — “more common”

Also named on this side: Paludanus, Victoria, Cano, Valencia and Tanner, as Bontempi reports (Whether anyone is bound at some ti, n. 2).

A. The fiftieth part of the revenue beyond one's station suffices

• St. Alphonsus, as Ballerini reports him (Gury-Ballerini)
• St. Alphonsus, quoted by Merkelbach: “and a proportionally smaller part if the income is enormous” (I, n. 931)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “it seems more probable that it is enough” (n. 177)
• Wouters: “for the circumstances of his time” (n. 534)
• Konings: “if individual rich persons spent that quantity on the poor, it would already be sufficient for meeting common necessities” (n. 285)
• Bucceroni: “this precept does not oblige all in solidum, but commonly all the rich” (n. 411)

B. No certain figure can be given

• Prümmer: “Nothing certain can be answered in this question” (n. 595)
• Noldin: “seems to lack a solid foundation” (n. 91)
• McHugh-Callan: “other moralists believe that today the amount cannot be fixed mathematically” (n. 1253)
• Concina: “are enclosed within no certain limit” (III, diss. III, ch. IX, n. IV)

C. A part rising with capacity, as taxes do

• Vermeersch: “in the age of St. Alphonsus they rather diminished the same proportion” (n. 108)

A. The rich are not bound to give all their superfluities

• Wouters: “that doctrine is not sufficiently proved” (n. 534)
• Marc: “The rich are indeed not bound to distribute the whole of what is superfluous” (n. 488)
• Noldin: “are not to be accused of sin” (n. 91)
• Billuart: “is not held straightway to give everything superfluous to status, but he can reserve it” (Whether to give alms is a matter of…, n. 22)

B. All superfluities are to be given

• Concina: “Christ commands, and the Fathers inculcate, that all superfluities be distributed” (III, diss. III, ch. IX, n. IV)
• Vermeersch: “assign all, at least, of the revenues which are left over to pious works” (n. 108)

A. Owed in justice

• Bontempi: “I ASSERT, with this opinion, that alms are owed to one in extreme indigence out of justice” (Whether alms is owed in justice to, n. 4)

B. Owed in charity and general justice, not commutative

• Prümmer: “the obligation of giving alms is properly an obligation of charity and of general justice, but not of commutative justice” (n. 589)
• McHugh-Callan: “restitution is the giving back to another of what strictly belongs to him” (n. 1240)

Also named on this side: Soto, Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, as Bontempi reports (Whether alms is owed in justice to, n. 1).

A. Only from her own goods

• Bontempi: “a married woman cannot make alms from the goods of her husband, but only from her own” (Whether alms ought to be given fro, n. 18)

B. Moderate alms from the household, even without his consent

• Merkelbach: “in our regions, without consent, she can give moderate, not extraordinary” (I, n. 932)
• Marc: “and this even if the husband were unwilling, because custom grants her this right” (n. 489)
• Prümmer: “were too greedy and did not wish to give due alms” (n. 596)
• Vermeersch: “A wife, as such, can, in our regions, give moderate alms” (n. 107)

A. When profit is doubtful and harm is not feared, correction must be made

• Merkelbach: “if correction is doubtfully going to profit but certainly not going to harm, it must be done” (I, n. 938)
• Concina: “When it is doubted whether the correction will bring forth more evil than good, one must abstain from it. But if the doubt is not of a greater evil, but only of the profit, correction must be made” (III, diss. III, ch. X, n. XVIII)
• Billuart: “If it be doubted whether it will profit, and it is certain it will not harm, it is to be applied” (Whether fraternal correction is a…, n. 10)

B. In doubt of profit one is not bound

• Noldin: “In doubt whether it will profit, admonition should be omitted” (n. 96)
• Marc: “in doubt whether it will be profitable or harmful, you are not bound” (n. 493)

C. Great hope, a greater probability, of amendment is required

• Wouters: “That there be great hope of fruit” (n. 538)
• Sabetti-Barrett: “some hope, indeed a greater probability, of amendment” (n. 179)

A. No strict obligation on a private man, whatever the law

• Noldin: “A strict obligation of admonishing the neighbor does not exist in a private man, whether the neighbor sins against the natural law or against positive law” (n. 98)
• Prümmer: “Equals who are private men are commonly not bound to warning” (n. 603)

B. Bound for the natural (or divine) law; probably not for a human law

• Wouters: “it quite probably does not oblige” (n. 540)
• Merkelbach: “according to many it is probable that private persons are not bound to instruct others as regards material sins committed only against positive law (divine or human)” (I, n. 941)
• Vermeersch: “there is at least a light obligation of warning him who materially violates that law” (n. 113)

C. Bound even for a human law

• St. Alphonsus, as Marc reports him (n. 496); Marc: “Yet the affirmative opinion is more probable and more common”

  In his first edition the negative seemed to him more probable; he lists the question among those on which he changed his mind (Elenchus quaestionum reformatarum, q. 5; Theologia moralis II, n. 36).

• Marc: “Yet the affirmative opinion is more probable and more common” (n. 496)
• Concina: “If the invincible ignorance be only of ecclesiastical law, the precept presses even then” (III, diss. III, ch. X, n. VIII)

A. Lawful when it promises better amendment

• Noldin: “is more easily and efficaciously obtained through the superior” (n. 97)
• Wouters: “it suffices that this seem more expedient” (n. 539)
• Vermeersch: “by denouncing he does not sin” (n. 116)
• St. Thomas: “in so far as the prelate is a private individual who is able to be of more use than others” (II-II, q. 33, a. 8)
• Billuart: “is pious, discreet, spiritual, not bearing rancor or hatred against the subject” (On the order of fraternal correction, n. 8)

Also named on this side: St. Antoninus, Gerson, Sylvester and the theologians of the Society, as Bontempi reports (Whether the order of fraternal cor, n. 2).

B. The Gospel's order binds: witnesses before the superior

• Bontempi: “IT MUST BE ASSERTED, with this opinion, that in fraternal correction the order of the Gospel is to be observed by commandment” (Whether the order of fraternal cor, n. 10)
• Concina: “Rarely, however — nay, most rarely — is this correction better performed by the Prelate” (III, diss. III, ch. X, n. XXV)

A. No obligation to amend before correcting

• St. Thomas: “and in this respect he may be competent to find fault with others for committing sin” (II-II, q. 33, a. 5)
• McHugh-Callan: “there does not seem to be any obligation of correcting self before correcting others” (n. 1281)
• Noldin: “is not exempted from the obligation” (n. 96)
• Merkelbach (I, n. 943)
• Concina: “Sinners, then, just as they are bound to corporal almsgiving, are likewise bound to spiritual” (III, diss. III, ch. X, n. XI)

B. He ought first to amend, or abstain

• Marc: “if he is a public sinner, ordinarily he ought to abstain from correction” (n. 492)
• Bontempi: “First make yourself fit, that you may be able to correct another” (Whether fraternal correction is a, n. 8)

A. At once speculative and practical

• St. Thomas: “wisdom as a gift, is not merely speculative but also practical” (II-II, q. 45, a. 3)
• Merkelbach: “at once speculative and practical” (I, n. 922)

B. Primarily speculative

• McHugh-Callan: “Primarily, Wisdom is speculative” (n. 1612)

C. Practical

• Bontempi: “the gift of Wisdom, however, is practical” (On the spiritual delights of wisdo, n. 14)

A. The precept commands appreciative, not intensive, love

• Concina: “It is agreed among all that this precept does not command intensive love” (III, diss. II, ch. III, n. IX)
• Billuart: “He does not sin against the precept of charity who loves his neighbor with a more intense love, whether natural or supernatural, than God” (Whether God is to be loved from…, n. 7) — “The more common opinion”

B. It is a sin to love a creature more intensely than God

Also named on this side: some of the Louvain theologians, with Peter Soto, as Billuart reports (Whether God is to be loved from…, n. 7).

A. Sorrow at another's good as lessening one's own is envy, a sin

• St. Thomas
• Marc — named on this side in the fuller entry
• Billuart — named on this side in the fuller entry
• Concina (XII, diss. I, ch. I, n. XLV)

B. No fault, when it immediately causes my own evil

Also named on this side: Tamburini, as Concina reports (XII, diss. I, ch. I, n. XLV).

A. Against charity only

• Prümmer: “against charity, but not against that virtue which is injured by the scandalized person” (II, n. 608)
• Noldin: “through indirect scandal one sins only against charity” (n. 104)
• Merkelbach: “probably against charity alone” (I, n. 960)

B. Also against the virtue the other is led to break

• St. Alphonsus, as Prümmer reports him (II, n. 608)
• Wouters: “against many” (n. 548)

A. Among the sins against charity

• Prümmer (n. 617)

B. In the treatise on sins

• Merkelbach (I, n. 489)

A. Under charity

B. Better under justice

• Merkelbach: “are better considered in the treatise on Justice” (I, n. 955)
• Prümmer: “by war not only charity but also justice is usually violated” (n. 604)

A. Against liberality (prodigality), venial

• Noldin: “a vice of prodigality against liberality” (n. 66)

B. Against charity to oneself; unlawful without a grave reason

• McHugh-Callan: “is not lawful, however, unless there is a proportionately grave reason” (n. 1576)

A. Against the virtue the principal agent injures, and against charity

• Merkelbach: “a sin against the virtue which is injured by the sin of the principal agent” (I, n. 489)

B. Against charity

• Noldin: “the precept of charity” (n. 118)
• Vermeersch: “judged that charity alone is wounded” (n. 132)

A. An act of charity

• Marc: “The desire of POSSESSING GOD is an act of charity” (n. 468)
• Vermeersch: “is practically an act of charity” (n. 71)
• Prümmer: “the love of noble concupiscence” (n. 558)

B. Charity when for His glory; hope when for one's own beatitude

• Wouters: “but the desire of possessing God on account of attaining one's own beatitude is an act of hope” (n. 364)
• Noldin: “imperfect charity” (n. 54)
• Concina: “a love of chaste concupiscence” (III, diss. II, ch. V, n. XI)

C. Charity may elicit it, subordinated to itself

• Merkelbach: “provided it is subordinated to it” (I, n. 879)

A. In the will

• St. Thomas: “the concupiscible cannot be the subject of charity” (II-II, q. 24, a. 1, ad 1)

B. In the concupiscible part of the rational appetite

• Bontempi: “it is in the concupiscible part, as Hope is in the Irascible” (What is the proximate subject of c, n. 3)

C. In understanding, affections and will

• Spirago: “love to be an act of the understanding, the affections, and the will” (III. THE PRECEPT OF THE LOVE OF GOD)

A. Six

B. Five

• St. Alphonsus, as Wouters reports him (n. 329)
• Noldin (n. 350)
• Wouters (n. 329)

C. Another list

• Sabetti-Barrett: “Torpor, wandering of the mind, nausea in prayer, etc.” (n. 145)

A. Five

B. Four

• Marc (n. 369)
• Vermeersch (n. 474)

C. Another list

• Sabetti-Barrett: “detraction, calumny, whispering, contumely, etc.” (n. 143)
• Bontempi (n. 9)

A. Probably of one species: the evils wished need not be named

• Merkelbach: “are probably of the same species” (I, n. 947)

B. The evil wished may add a new sin

• McHugh-Callan: “he who out of hatred wishes the death of his neighbor, adds the guilt of murder to hatred” (n. 1317)

A. Need not be confessed as such

• Merkelbach: “these sins always injure another precept or virtue” (I, n. 888)

B. Must be declared when expressly intended

• McHugh-Callan: “It is necessary to declare a want of charity to self, if one has expressly intended such a sin” (n. 1578)

A. No certain time can be fixed

• Prümmer: “except that an act of charity must be elicited more often than every five years” (n. 563)
• Noldin: “it must not be said that they are obliged to this either each week, or each month, or each year” (n. 59)
• Vermeersch: “What son asks how often he must actually demonstrate his affection toward his parents?” (n. 74)
• Billuart: “But how often and when, is uncertain” (On the precept of charity, n. 21)

B. Several times a year

• Merkelbach: “more probably: several times, at least three or four times a year” (I, n. 972)

C. Once a year is safe

• Sabetti-Barrett: “the opinion of those who oblige to it only once a year can safely be held” (n. 167)

D. Once a month

• St. Alphonsus, quoted by Marc: “the opinion of those who require it once a month is more pleasing to me” (n. 472)
• Spirago: “can scarcely be exempt from mortal sin” (III. THE PRECEPT OF THE LOVE OF GOD)

E. Continually: the question is not to be put

• Concina: “Those disputations proceed from the brain of men, not from the holy Scriptures, which command a continued and perennial love” (III, diss. II, ch. IV, n. X)

A. Private men are rarely bound

• Billuart: “since these conditions are rarely found all together, rarely also are private men held, at least under grave sin, to fraternal admonition” (Whether fraternal correction is a…, n. 14)

B. The duty is often neglected: amendment is rare for want of correctors

• Concina: “Rare is the amendment of offenders — not so much on account of their malice, as on account of the defect of correctors” (III, diss. III, ch. X, n. XVIII)

A. Zeal is sometimes a name of envy

• Prümmer: “sometimes is also called livor, zeal, jealousy” (n. 421)

B. Zeal is set apart from envy

• St. Thomas

A. Wandering after unlawful things

• St. Thomas: “wandering after unlawful things” (II-II, q. 35, a. 4, ad 2)

B. About illicit things in spiritual exercises

• Noldin: “about illicit things in the exercise of spiritual matters” (n. 350)

C. Only in the exercise of spiritual things

• Wouters: “in the exercise of spiritual things” (n. 329)

A. There is a praiseworthy contention

• St. Thomas: “in keeping with the persons and the matter” (II-II, q. 38, a. 1)
• Concina: “Acrimony must never be poured out upon persons, but only, with due sparingness, upon errors” (III, diss. IV, ch. II, n. VII)

B. Contention is only against the truth

• Bontempi: “against the truth, aimed at attacking it” (What sin contention is, and how gr, n. 1)

A. Scandal taken from a good act through ignorance or weakness

• Prümmer (n. 606)
• Concina: “the scandal of the little ones — of those who sin either from ignorance or from mere weakness — rarely occurs. For men commonly sin from malice, and so the scandal is pharisaical” (III, diss. IV, ch. IV, n. XX)

B. The scandal given: what arises from active scandal

• Bontempi: “that which arises from the Active Scandal of another” (What scandal is, and of how many k, n. 8)
• Vermeersch: “If it is connected with active scandal, it is called scandal of the little ones or of the weak” (n. 120)

A. Formal is cooperation that shares the sinner's intention

• Noldin: “St. Alphonsus (n. 63) presents another notion of formal cooperation” (n. 117)

B. Also what by its nature carries the malice of the principal act

• Vermeersch: “Others call this immediate material cooperation” (n. 129)

A. Heart = intention of the will, mind = intellect, soul = lower appetite

• St. Thomas (II-II, q. 44, a. 5)

B. Heart = will, soul = understanding, mind = affections

• Spirago: “with the will” (II. THE TWO COMMANDMENTS OF CHARITY)

C. Heart = intellect and affection (Hebrew usage)

• Vermeersch: “Among the Hebrews, the heart signifies intellect and affection” (n. 73)

D. Synonyms for the one thought

• Merkelbach: “synonymous significations of the one thought” (I, n. 974)