spondet, se nullum habere ei, qui petit panem commodatum: quia nullum habet, quem commendare possit, de quo solo ille interrogat.) Et idem dicit Card. n. 73. de pecunia petita, si domino sit necessaria." Card. diss. 19. n. 48. cum Suar. et Lug. de Poenit. disp. 23. Sess. 4. n. 74. who thus teach, (he who has one loaf necessary for himself may truly answer that he has none for him who seeks bread as a loan, because he has none which he can give him, concerning which alone he interrogates.) And the same Card. says, n. 73, concerning money sought which is necessary for the master." Liguori teaches that a man from whom money is asked as a loan, may deny that he has any, if that denial is at all capable of being understood. Some Doctors do not go so far as Liguori in this, but he is the approved, -the canonized,—the invocated, and yet he affirms that a man may say that he has not money when the contrary is the fact. In the Bible there is a woe denounced against him "who loveth and maketh a lie." "Quæritur 5. an famulus ex jussu domini possit negare, ipsum esse domi. Card. diss. 19. n. 75. admittit, ipsum posse figere pedem in lapidem, et respondere, Non est hic; quia non est restrictio mentalis: sed huic non assentior, si alter nullo modo possit id advertere. Potius concederem, eum posse dicere, Non est hic, scilicet non in hac janua, vel fenestra; vel (ut ait Tourn. Mor. tom. 1 pag. 689.) Non. est hic quatenus videri possit. Item ait Carden, posse cum respondere, Egressus e domo est, intelligendo in præterito; non enim tenemur, ait cum Less. ut supra, respondere ad mentem interrogantis, si adsit justa causa. Secus, si ille rogetur, an hoc "It is asked 5-Whether a Servant, by the order of his Master, can deny that he is at home. Card. diss. 19. n. 75. admits that he can feign his master's foot on the step, and answer, He is not here, because it is not mental restriction, but to this I do not assent, if the other can by no means understand that. RATHER 1 WOULD CONCEDE that he can say, HE IS NOT HERE, THAT IS TO SAY, NOT IN THIS DOOR OR WINDOW, or (as Tourn. Mor. tom. 1. pag. 689.) HE IS NOT HERE SO AS THAT HE MAY BE SEEN. Also, Carden says, that he can answer that he has departed from the house, by understanding a departure which took place in some time past. FOR WE ARE mane dominus egressus sit, ut Croix lib. 1. p. 1. n. 184. Sic etiam Card. n. 72. ait de viro nobili, qui est in lecto, posse respondere famulum, eum esse remotum a consortio, ut ex usu loquendi solet intelligi." "Quær. 6-An assumendi ad gradum doctoratus possint jurare cum æquivocatione conditionem requisitam non veram, scilicet, vacasse se tot annis illi scientiæ etc. si tales sint æque idonei ac alii doctores. Vide Tamb. Dec. lib. 8. cap. 2. § ex n. 11. qui affirmat, et justam causam ait tunc esse sic jurandi, ne repellantur qui jam digni sunt. Sed quidquid sit de hoc, probabile magis mihi videtur non pejerare doctorandos Neapoli, qui more solito scribunt manu propria in suscipiendo matriculas: Dico con giuramento essere il primo anno istitutista ec. cum revera id non sit. Ratio, quia verbum illud giuro, sive dico con giuramento, ut supra diximus dub 3. n. 136 cum Salm. c. 2. n. 24. Bon. Sanch. Suar. de se non est juramentum, nisi præcedat interrogatio de juramento; sed hæc interrogatio Neapoli vel omnino non fit de vero juramento, sed tantum de NOT BOUND, he says, with Lessius as above, TO ANSWER TO THE MIND OF HIM THAT INTERROGATES, IF THERE IS A JUST CAUSE. Otherwise, if he is asked, whether this morning the master may have departed from the house, as Croix. lib. 1. p. 1. n, 184. Thus also Card. n. 72. says concerning a noble man who is in bed, that the servant can answer that he is out, to wit, that he is removed from society, as according to the usual mode of speaking, it may be understood." "It is enquired 6-Whether they who are about to assume the Doctor's degree, can swear with equivocation the requisite condition though not true, viz. that he was devoted for so many years to that science, etc., if such be as fit as other Doctors. Vide Tamb. Dec. lib. 8. cap. 2. ex n. 11. who affirms it, and says that there would be a just cause of thus swearing, lest those who are now worthy might be rejected. But whatsoever may be the case concerning this, it appears sufficiently probable to me, that those who take Doctors' degrees in Naples, do not perjure themselves, who in the usual manner subscribe with their own hand in receiving matriculation, dico con giuramento essere il primo anno istitutista, etc., WHEN IN POINT OF FACT THAT MAY NOT BE. The reason is, because that word giuro (I swear), or dico con giuramento (I declare with an illa scriptione materiali, quæ ex usu communi videtur non apprehendi ut verum jura mentum." oath): as we have said above, dub. 3. n. 136. cum Salm. c. 2. n. 24. Bon. Sanch Suar. is not of itself an oath, unless the interrogation concerning an oath precedes it, but this interrogation in Naples either altogether is not made, or* is not made concerning a true oath, but only concerning that material subscription, which, according to common use, appears not to be taken as a true oath." Thus Liguori justifies the practice of subscription in a non-natural sense, or, in fact, he establishes the principle that a man according to use, may subscribe a declaration which is not true in point of fact! "Quær. 7.-An possit quis licite coram notario asserere, se accipere pecuniam, quam vere non recipit. Affirmat eum posse Tamb. ibid. n. 20. et 23. sensum impropriando, scilicet jurando, pecuniam se pro accepta habere, vel accipere, qui certus sit moraliter, alterum brevi pecuniam sibi fore soluturum. Et videtur probabile ex communi usu loquendi." "It is enquired 7-Whether any one may lawfully assert before a notary, that he received money which truly he did not receive. Tamb. ibid. n. 20. et 23. affirms that he can, by impropriating the sense, to wit, by swearing that he has or receives money before he actually did accept it who may be morally certain that another will pay it to him in a short time. And it appears probable, according to the common use of speaking." If a man is asked for money, that man may deceive and equivocate by saying, "Oh that I had it," "I would delight to have it." The man possesses the money, yet he does no wrong in thus equivocating." EQUIVOCATION AND MENTAL RESERVATION. Such are only EXCLAMATIONS and not positive denials! "Quær. 8. an liceat jurare "It is inquired 8-Whether aliquid falsum, addendo tamen it is lawful to swear any false *The words "vel non fit," of which this is the translation, were omitted by an oversight on the part of the printer. G submissa voce, circumstantiam veram. Affirmat Hurtad. et Prado cum aliis ap. Salm. c. 2. n. 136. contra Torre, qui dicunt, quod, ut locutio sit vera, sufficiat, ut exterius concordet conceptui mentis, sive nutibus, sive voce submissa explicetur, et per accidens sit, ut alter non audiat. At melius Salm. n. 138. id admittunt, si tamen aliquo modo possit ab altero precipi illa submissa prolatio, licet ejus sensus non percipiatur: secus, si omnino alterum lateat." thing by adding in a subdued tone the true circumstances? Hurtad affirms that it is, and Prado, with others ap. Salm. c. 2. n. 136. against Torre, who say that as the declaration is true, it suffices that it may accord exteriorly with the conception of the mind, or by signs or an under voice may be explained, though per accidens, it may happen, that the other does not hear it. But better Salm. n. 138. admits that, if in any manner, that under toned expression is capable of being understood by the other person, although that sense may not be perceived, otherwise: if the other altogether lies hid." The important question now comes, if the Romanist can equivocate of his own accord, and though not asked. Liguori having noticed the opinion of a Doctor who says that he can not, give his own judgment in the following words: Having quoted the opinion of other Doctors as to the unlawfulness of swearing with equivocation, without a just cause, and noticed Sauches' view which he holds to be the most probable one, that he who thus swears only commits a venial offence; he closes his observations on this subject by stating, that while formal simulation is unlawful, material simulation for a just cause is lawful. His words are: "Simulatio vero materialis, scilicet cum quls aliquid agit, non intendens deceptionem alterius, sed aliquem suum finem; hæc est licita cum justa causa." "But material simulation, to wit, when any one does any thing, not intending to deceive another, but only to accomplish some end of his own; this is lawful where there is a just cause." If there is the slightest possibility of the simulation being understood, when the mental restriction is not purely mental, then such a line of conduct is absolutely lawful. I would now briefly advert to the principles of Liguori on equivocation, by recalling some of the examples which he gives. 1.—A Confessor may swear that he has no knowledge of a circumstance which was made known to him in the confessional! This perjury is reconcilable with his conscience by various modes of equivocation, some of which are as follows: He knows the circumstance as Minister of Christ, or as God,* not as man. He is considered as God in the confessional, as man out of it. Therefore out of the confessional he is unacquainted with the circumstance. Again, the Confessor swears, "I know not the circumstance." Within his own mind he says, I have not a knowledge which can be revealed, or is useful for that purpose. Therefore, he may swear that he has no knowledge whatever of the circumstance. If asked whether he * Dens, in his chapter on the Seal of the Confessional, says, that a Confessor may deny even with an oath, that he knows a sin which was revealed to him in the confessional; the reason he assigns is as follows.-Because such Confessor is interrogated as man and answers as man; but now he knows not that as man, although AS GOD HE KNOWS IT," Tom. vi. n. 160. For this he quotes the authority of the Angelic Thomas. |