Manuale Theologiæ Moralis (vols. 1-3)

Tome 1. 13th ed. 2. 13th ed. 3. 12th ed. PDF p. 1750: Table of Contents begins. See citation in: "[Duty & manner of voting, conditions for voting for unworthy candidates](https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=208)" PDF pp. 993, §604: " *De electione indigni deputati.* " PDF pp. 529-30 (§§8-9) on ©, *ius auctoris:* > Omnes quidem docent, esse purum putidumque furtum, si quis clam alteri surripit manuscripta aut artifacta aut inventa nondum publici iuris facta, quia legitimus dominus est rationabiliter invitus propter grave damnum et gravem iniuriam ipsi illatam. Sed quando manuscriptum iam est typis impressum, aut si inventum (vulgo *Patent* ) iam est divulgatum, disputant theologi, num nova impressio libri sine licentia auctoris facta vel imitatio inventi sit contra *ius naturale* et ad restitutionem obliget. Nonnulli negant, quia opus semel evulgatum iam fit bonum commune, quod ab omnibus licite occupari potest[Ita præsertim. [Bucceroni, *Theol. mor.* I, n. 878](https://archive.org/details/institutionesthe00bucc_0/page/n362/mode/2up); aliqualiter etiam Morres, *De iust.* I, n. 24; Vermeersch, *De iust.* n. 246 sqq.]; sed communior et verior sententia affirmat, cum restrictionibus tamen a lege positiva indicatis. > All teach, indeed, that it is pure and putrid theft if one secretly steals other manuscripts, artifacts, or artifacts not yet published, because the legitimate owner is reasonably unwilling on account of the serious damage and serious injury inflicted on him. But when the manuscript is already printed, or if the invention (commonly known as a *Patent* ) has already been divulged, theologians debate whether a new printed book without the author's permission or an imitation of the invention is contrary to *natural law* and there be an obligation for restitution. Some deny it, because once the work has been divulged, it has become the common good, which can be lawfully occupied by all[cf. esp. [Bucceroni, *Theol. mor.* I, n. 878](https://archive.org/details/institutionesthe00bucc_0/page/n362/mode/2up); somewhat Morres, *De iust.* I, n. 24; Vermeersch, *De iust.* n. 246 sqq.]; but the more general and truer opinion affirms it, with the restrictions indicated by the positive law. PDF pp. 647-9 on *De procuratione abortus* , which includes a §§ on indirect abortion, and inducing parturition (" *acceleratio partus* "). * * * [Prümmer, O.P., vol. 1](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7244) pp. 247-8 ([PDF](https://isidore.co/calibre/get/PDF/7244) pp. 285-6) reference on " *Materia gravis* " says: > “Mortal sins *ex toto genera suo* ('from their entire genus') do not admit of slight matter” is to be understood thus: **any fully voluntary matter of these sins is a grave disorder and hence a grave sin**. And yet these sins become venial *by the imperfection of the act* , when namely full advertence or full consent are lacking. So, e.g., semi-deliberate lascivious thoughts are venial sins, as also are acts *secundo-primi* of blasphemy. > “Peccata ex toto genera suo mortalia non admittunt parvitatem materiæ” intelligendus est ita: quælibet materia plene voluntaria istorum peccatorum est gravis deordinatio ac proinde grave peccatum. Attamen ista pecca evadunt venialia *ex imperfectione actus* , quando scil. deficit plena advertentia vel plenus consensus. Sic e. gr. semideliberatæ cogitationes lascivæ sunt peccata venialia, sicut etiam actus secundo-primi blasphemiæ. Prümmer, O.P., gives the example of *furtum* (theft) as a sin that is not mortal *ex* toto *genera suo*. Theft is only mortal *ex genera suo* because the theft of something of little value could never be a mortal sin, even if it is stolen with full advertence of the will.