PART II

SPECIAL MORAL THEOLOGY (Continued)

Question II

THE DUTIES OF ALL CLASSES OF MEN (THE MORAL VIRTUES)

1626. After the theological virtues, which offer to God the services of faith, hope and charity, and which direct man to his Last End, follow the cardinal or moral virtues, which perfect the actions and passions of man, and make of them means for tending to the Last End. Of these four virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance), prudence is ranked first, as being the director of the others.

Art. 1: THE VIRTUE OF PRUDENCE

(_Summa Theologica_, II-II, qq. 47-56.)

1627. Definition.--All the definitions of prudence are in substantial agreement, and from them we may formulate a detailed definition as follows: “Prudence is the virtue that consults well about the means to be used for leading a good life and applies the knowledge acquired through consultation to particular contingencies as they arise.”

(a) Thus, prudence consults well, for its office is to study ways and means to right conduct, and to arrive at a sound judgment in spite of various uncertainties or unknown factors. Of the two practical virtues of the intellect, namely, art and prudence, the former deals with the application of right reason to cases in which there are, for the most part, certain and determinate ways of arriving at the end in view (e.g., the rules of logic or grammar, the methods of music or sculpture); while the latter has to do with the application of right reason to cases in which the ways of obtaining the end in view are not certain or determinate (i.e., the infinitely varied questions of lawfulness or unlawfulness that present themselves in concrete and particular situations).

(b) Prudence studies the means to a good life; and hence we do not consider a man as generally prudent, if he consults well for this or that particular good end, but not for the general end of leading a good life. Nevertheless, prudence falls short of the Gift of Wisdom, for prudence is concerned with human good, wisdom with divine good.

(c) Prudence applies knowledge to the direction of conduct, for the purpose of the practical virtues of the intellect is to guide the activities and productions of man according to the light of right reason. It should be noted, however, that whereas the application of knowledge is intrinsic to prudence, it is extrinsic to art; for prudence includes in its very essence a determination of the will to goodness, but not so art. Hence, a painter is not the less skilled in his profession if he voluntarily fails to exercise it or exercises it badly, but a person skilled in moral science is imprudent if voluntarily he fails to use his knowledge or uses it amiss. The sin against art is not to know; the sin against prudence is either not to know what one should know or not to apply rightly what one does know.

1628. The Objects of the Act of Prudence.--(a) Prudence is concerned, not with speculative truth (i.e., with those things that are known for the sake of knowledge), but with practical truth (i.e., with those things that are known for the sake of use). It aims, not to investigate and discover what is the nature of virtue, but to guide man so that he may become virtuous and practise virtue. It should be noted, however, that the acts of the speculative reason, although they do not belong to prudence itself, are like other acts subject to the direction of prudence; for in pursuing speculative studies one should use good judgment as to the subjects to be considered, the time, place, manner, etc., of study.

(b) Prudence is not concerned with necessary truths and first principles of morality, but with their application to contingent and particular cases, just as a physician is called on to cure, not a universal or abstract man, but the particular and individual man before him. But since one cannot well apply that of which one is ignorant, the prudent man must be acquainted both with the general rules of right living and with the particular things to which his knowledge is to be applied. He lacks prudence, therefore, who from vincible ignorance does not know a general principle (e.g., that too much drink is bad), or a case to which that principle should be applied (e.g., that the quantity of drink before one is too much).

1629. It is customary to distinguish a twofold object of a virtue, namely, the material object (i.e., the kind of activity the virtue perfects, whether in the field of knowledge, or of action, or of production) and the formal object (i.e., the special viewpoint of goodness from which the material object is considered).

(a) The material object of prudence embraces individual human actions performed under choice and freely (_agibilia_). (b) The formal object of prudence is the right deliberation, decision, and direction (_recta ratio_) to be given to human actions, with a view to the observance of the golden mean.

1630. Necessity of Certitude.--Prudence, being an intellectual virtue, must have certainty (see on the Certain Conscience, 640 sqq.). But with regard to particular contingencies (e.g., whether Balbus ought to marry Caia) there are various kinds of certainty.

(a) There is the certainty of knowledge based on a generalization from experience of what happens in the majority of cases (e.g., that persons well mated by reason of birth, age, dispositions, etc., marry successfully). This kind of certainty belongs to moral science.

(b) There is also a certainty of knowledge based on the indications in a particular case (e.g., that Balbus and Caia appear to have congenial dispositions and a mutual affection that will make their marriage a success). This is the certainty of opinion, and while it may suffice as a rule for conscience (see the Systems of Conscience, 672 sqq.), events do not always verify its predictions. Hence it is said: “The thoughts of mortal men are fearful and our counsels uncertain” (Wis., ix. 14).

(c) There is finally the certainty of practical truth, which consists in harmony with a good will. This is the certainty that is proper to prudence, for this virtue is not a matter of reason alone. Hence, even though a matter properly decided on should not take place or should fail of the purpose intended (e.g., if the marriage of Balbus and Caia is prevented or turns out badly), it remains that prudence was not deceived in its decision, for that decision when made was according to right reason and a good will (see 578).

1631. Relation of Prudence to the Other Moral Virtues.--(a) Prudence does not direct the moral virtues to their own proper ends; for the knowledge of those ends comes from synteresis, or moral understanding (i.e., the natural perception of the first principles of right and wrong), while the inclination to those ends is from the moral virtues themselves. Prudence does not deal with first principles, nor is it an inclination towards particular ends. Hence, it is the intellectual virtue of synteresis that directs the moral virtues through the dictate that right reason must be followed, that moderation must be observed, that the passions of anger, pleasure, sorrow, etc., must be so regulated that both extremes of excess and defect will be avoided.

(b) Prudence directs the moral virtues to the ways and means by which their ends are to be attained; for the regulation of things particular and variable, such as ways and means, pertains to prudence. Synteresis is concerned with necessary principles, and the moral virtues give a uniform and steady inclination to follow the mean of right reason, but neither the one nor the other can indicate how principles are to be applied or how inclinations are to be put in practice. Hence, it is the work of moral science to determine what or how much anger, pleasure, sorrow, etc., is moderate for the average case; but prudence has to decide this for a particular case here and now (see on Conscience, 575). Without prudence bravery becomes foolhardiness, temperance degenerates into fanaticism, and mercy changes to weakness.

1632. Prudence, indeed, directs the acts of all the virtues, ruling the virtues inferior to it (i.e., art and the moral virtues), and serving the virtues that are its superiors (i.e., the speculative intellectual virtues and the theological virtues).

(a) Thus, in exercising the intellectual virtues through study, contemplation, art, etc., one would go sadly astray if one did not consult prudence as to the time, manner, and method of performing these acts. Hence, a housewife who spent too much time in meditation would neglect her domestic duties.

(b) In exercising the theological virtues, through acts of faith, hope, and charity, there is also need of prudence, for it is not possible to continue in these acts without interruption, since there are times when other acts of virtue have to be attended to, and also times for repose. Thus, a person who goes about giving alms to the poor at hours when he is supposed to be at work for which he receives pay, is not prudent in his charity, since he does not choose the right time to exercise it.

1633. The Exercise of Prudence.--The acts that belong to prudence are those that one needs in order to direct one’s conduct to that moderation which is the end of virtue. They are three: deliberation, decision, direction.

(a) Hence, in the first place, prudence takes counsel on, and deliberates about, the ways and means; (b) after ways and means have been discovered, it passes judgment (see 575) on their suitability (e.g., that restitution should be made at such a time, in such a way, in such an amount, etc., or that moderation in eating and drinking requires that this or that amount be taken, that this or that kind of food be avoided, etc.); (c) finally, but chiefly, prudence gives the command that what has been decided on be carried out, whether this be the quest of certain things that are advantageous or the avoidance of certain things that are dangerous.

1634. Qualities of Prudence.--The qualities that should characterize prudence are carefulness and confidence.

(a) Carefulness is a watchful attention given to deliberation and judgment enabling one to act with readiness and decision when the moment for action has arrived. Its necessity for prudence is clear, for one does not counsel or judge well unless one has a matter at heart, is anxious about its success, and devotes to it serious study and vigilance; nor does one direct well if there is hesitation and delay instead of promptness in performing what has been decided on. In a word, one should be quick in execution, but slow in deliberation. Hence the admonition of St. Peter to be prudent, and to be attentive to prayer as a preparation for a good life and for the judgment (I Peter, iv. 7). An example of carefulness is St. Paul, who was solicitous about all his churches (I Cor., xi. 28), ever inquiring about their condition, their progress, their needs, etc.

(b) Confidence, as a quality of prudence, is a reliance on judgments carefully formed which excludes worries and undue hesitations. This is necessary as a balance to carefulness; for while it is true that absolute certainty is not to be expected in forming decisions about courses of action (the future event and also many present things bearing on it being unknown to us), it is also true that overcarefulness blinds the judgment and paralyzes decision. In the character of Hamlet Shakespeare pictures the man who is imprudent through excess of caution.

1635. The Parts or Kinds of Prudence.--As the divisions of parts correspond with the divisions of wholes, we should note that there are three kinds of wholes: a subjective, an integral, and a potestative whole.

(a) A subjective whole is one that is present as to its entire essence and all its power in each of the parts. This kind of whole is found in the genus, each of whose species partakes of the entire nature and energy included in the generic concept, just as the mode of being and of acting expressed by the term “animal” is found fully in dogs, cats, horses, and so on with the other kinds of animals.

(b) An integral whole is one that is not present in all its fullness either of essence or of power in the single parts. This kind of whole is found in a finished composite made up of heterogeneous units, such as a house; for neither walls, nor roof, nor foundation, nor any other single portion of the building is a complete house or has all the uses of a house, but if any one of them is lacking the house is not integral or complete.

(c) A potestative whole is one that is present in all its essence, but not in all its power in each single part. This kind of whole is exemplified in an active principle functioning through diverse faculties, such as the soul which thinks, wills, perceives, accomplishes by means of mind, will, sense, and bodily organs. The soul is present in its entirety in each of these, since it is a simple substance, but in one it exercises one power, in another a different power, in none of them all its powers.

1636. It is customary to speak also of the integral, subjective and potestative parts of a moral virtue. (a) Thus, the quasi-integral parts of a virtue are those functions without which its act is not perfectly performed; and with which it is more perfect. (b) The subjective parts are the species into which the virtue is divided. (e) The quasi-potestative parts are certain subsidiary or annexed virtues which have to do with the secondary acts of a principal virtue, as not having the full efficacy of the latter.

1637. Integral Parts of Prudence.--The integral parts of prudence, considered as a cognitive virtue or as an index of the right means, are those acts which enable one to have knowledge and to acquire knowledge. (a) Thus, the acts requisite for the possession of knowledge about ways and means are the memory of the past and the understanding of the present situation. (b) The acts requisite for the acquisition of new knowledge are docility, by which one learns from others, and quickness of perception, by which one discovers for oneself.

1638. The integral parts of prudence, considered as an operative or a preceptive virtue--that is, as the counsellor and director of life and behavior--are the acts without which one cannot make good use of knowledge as applied to conduct.

(a) Thus, knowledge of general principles must be applied to particular affairs, and this supposes that one knows how to reason correctly, how to infer the particular from the general, how to put facts together. Even those who are not skilled dialecticians have a certain amount of natural logic, and are able to make good use of data or premises in drawing conclusions about their obligations, and thus to make a prudent application of what they know.

(b) Knowledge gained through deliberation has to be effectually made use of; that is, the reason must impose its judgment carefully formed, must determine the line of action to be followed, must properly dispose the means in view of the end. This requires that a person should so direct his future acts as means to the end he has in view that they will be good in themselves (foresight or providence) and in their circumstances (circumspection), and that he will be guarded against external impediments that might hinder him, steering clear of both Scylla and Charybdis (caution): “The prudent man considereth his steps” (Prov., xiv. 15). Examples: Titus wishes to help the poor, and decides on certain methods of raising the money that are dishonest and disedifying. Balbus wishes to induce Caius to go to church, and therefore shows him marks of friendship, not reflecting that these acts of friendship, on account of the character of Caius, will arouse only haughtiness or suspicion. Claudius, in order to practise mortification, resolves on a fast, but also makes up his mind to visit certain friends who will try to make him break his resolution. Sempronius resolves to provide well for his family and also for certain deserving charities, but he fails to insure his property, to invest his money well and to make a will, with the result that neither his family nor the poor are provided for as he had intended. Titus lacked foresight, Balbus was not circumspect, Claudius and Sempronius were incautious.

1639. The Subjective Parts or Species of Prudence.--Prudence in general is the right direction of human actions to their ends; and hence there will be as many different kinds of prudence as there are different kinds of ends of human actions. But the division of ends will be into the particular good of the individual and the common good of the multitude, and thus there are the two species of individual or personal prudence and social prudence.

(a) Individual prudence is the right management of his own acts by the individual, with a view to his personal uprightness.

(b) Social prudence is the right management of the acts of others or of self, with a view to the general welfare of a society.

1640. Social prudence in turn is subdivided in accordance with the two classes of society, the perfect and the imperfect, into political and domestic prudence. (a) Political prudence is the right administration of the affairs of a larger multitude, such as the State. (b) Domestic prudence is the right administration of the affairs of the family.

1641. Political prudence, according to usage, often has or may bear an unfavorable and evil signification. Hence, as we are considering now the virtue of prudence, we should remark that political prudence here is something very different from political methods or practices that are wise in evil, but not in good, though often called prudent (see 1651, 1674 sqq.). Examples: (a) Evil forms of government, such as tyranny, oligarchy, or mob rule, cannot be said to have the virtue of political prudence, no matter how successful they may seem, for they do not rule in the interests of the people at large, and this interest is the very beginning and end of true social prudence. (b) Evil practices in the regulation of government or of political parties--such as employment of foul means to maintain the interests of the State, corruption, bribery, intimidation, used for the purpose of winning the election of a ticket or candidate--cannot be honored with the name of prudence, but should rather be called Machiavellism and dishonest politics.

1642. Prudence exercised for the benefit of the nation as a whole should be found, not only in rulers, but also in private citizens. We may distinguish, then, the following kinds of prudence:

(a) in those who conduct the affairs of the nation there should be governmental prudence or statesmanship. Of rulers prudence in the highest degree is expected; for the chief function of prudence is to direct actions, and the heads of States must direct not only their own actions but those of great bodies of men. Scripture speaks of prudence and justice as the two virtues that are especially needed in a prince (Jer., xxiii. 5);

(b) in those who direct the defense of the nation against its enemies there should be military prudence, for bravery has to be guided by wisdom: “A wise man is strong, and a knowing man, stout and valiant, because war is managed by due ordering, and there shall be safety where there are many counsels” (Prov., xxiv. 5, 6);

(c) in subjects there should also be political prudence, for, as they are rational beings and members of society, they should willingly rule their acts according to the law and should fulfill their own particular offices with a view, not only to their own individual good, but to the good of the whole community.

1643. Utility of Prudence for Society.--Hence, we see that none of the virtues is selfish or concerned exclusively with the good of individuals. (a) Thus, prudence, as just said, is political and domestic as well as individual; (b) justice is legal (i.e., towards society) as well as commutative (i.e., towards individuals); (c) even temperance (e.g., avoidance of drunkenness) and courage (e.g., defense of public safety) pertain to the common good and are commanded in laws of the State.

1644. Prudence attends chiefly to good morals, but it attends also to other goods that benefit human life.

(a) Thus, personal prudence directs one, not only to seek after virtue, but also to seek after lawful conveniences and to shun such things as are embarrassing or undesirable. Hence, the prudent man acts so as to avoid offense and to gain the good will of others; he studies the dispositions of those with whom he lives, so as to live peaceably, etc.; he protects himself against the attacks and snares of the unfriendly (cfr. Acts, xxiii. 6; Matt., xxii. 17).

(b) Domestic prudence provides not only for the virtuous lives of the members of the household, but also for their health and happiness, food and clothing, and other necessities and lawful pleasures (Luke, xii. 42).

(c) Political prudence is exercised, not only in the regulation of the conduct of the people through good laws, but also in the promotion of their welfare, peace, prosperity, and contentment.

(d) Military prudence provides for religion and good morals, by appointing chaplains, giving opportunity for religious exercises, insisting on discipline and military virtues, etc.; but it also looks after the interests of the individual men, the efficiency of all branches of the service, preparedness of the fighting forces, etc.

1645. Neither should practical prudence or practicality (i.e., the knowing what to do and how to do it) be identified with merely material pursuits, since it is a quality that pervades all human activity, from the lowest to the highest, from the manual to the intellectual, from the temporal to the spiritual. Just as there are unpractical mechanics and business men who are not skilled at their work, so also there are practical students and church people who do their own work well and get good results.

1646. The Potential Parts of Prudence.--As was explained in 1636, the potential parts of a virtue are certain annexed virtues, usually inferior ones, that have to do with the secondary acts of a virtue to which they are subordinated. The principal act of prudence is direction, its secondary acts are deliberation and decision (1633). Hence, we have the following potential parts of prudence:

(a) wise deliberation (_eubulia_), which is a habit of debating with oneself according to correct methods the means to be employed for virtuous choice;

(b) wise decision, which is an habitual state of the mind which makes it ready to draw right conclusions about the means to be chosen for virtuous conduct.

1647. Wise deliberation and wise decision differ from prudence, which is wise direction, and they are subject to it just as counsellors are subject to a commander. But is it possible for these three virtues to exist apart?

(a) If there is question only of natural dispositions to these virtues, they may exist apart. Thus, we find that certain persons have an imagination ready to discover ways and means; that others are not so inventive, but are remarkable for common sense in choosing the most suitable means; and that still others are so inclined to some virtue that they will promptly make use of means that tend to it. The first class are readily listened to in deliberations, the second in decisions, while the third are usefully employed in executing matters that suit their natural bent (e.g., the naturally generous in dispensing alms).

(b) If there is question of the virtues themselves, they do not exist apart; for a man is not prudent if he does not deliberate as he should (e.g., if he searches for evil means to effect his good purpose), or if he does not decide as he should (e.g., if he concludes to prefer evil means to the good ones his deliberation had shown him), or if he does not direct his actions as he should (e.g., if he neglects to carry out what he had decided on as a necessary duty or performs it in a careless or improper way). True prudence, then, is wise in deliberation, in decision, in direction. A good man may be excused if he is not resourceful, or if he lacks sound judgment in worldly matters, but one who is imprudent in the matter of a virtuous life is not a good man.

1648. The Persons Who Possess Prudence.--Political prudence, if understood of the ability to rule well, is not found in all persons, not even in all the good.

(a) Thus, those who are imprudent in their own affairs are not fitted to rule, and hence a man who is unjust, or intemperate, or cowardly, lacks political prudence: “If one knows not how to govern his own house, how will he be able to take care of the Church of God?” said St. Paul in discussing the qualifications of prelates (I Tim., iii. 5). He who does not know how to obey well does not know how to rule well.

(b) Those who have infused prudence on account of the state of grace are not necessarily fitted to govern, for even children have the grace of prudence through Baptism and there are many grown-up persons of saintly lives who are not a success in office and administration. Thus, Pope Celestine V, though a most holy man, resigned from the Papacy, because he felt himself unequal to the task of ruling in troublous times.

(c) Those who have acquired prudence through reason and experience, and who are therefore just, temperate and strong, are morally well fitted in natural endowments to rule. He who has learned to obey well is prepared to learn to rule well.

1649. Political prudence pertains to subjects as well as to rulers, although not in the same manner.

(a) Thus, rulers in the civil community should have political prudence in a supreme degree, or statesmanship, so that they may be able to discharge well the function of sovereignty entrusted to them, whether as legislators by deliberating wisely and choosing suitable laws, or as judges by correctly interpreting and applying the law, or as executives by maintaining the government and enforcing its laws.

(b) The citizens who exercise the power of suffrage should be gifted with no small degree of political prudence: they should be loyal to the institutions, laws, and welfare of the country, able to form a good judgment about men and measures that are the issues in a campaign, and ready to vote according to conviction rather than prejudice or personal interest.

(c) The people can also exercise political prudence when obeying the laws, as when they act from a sense of duty and as rational beings, not unwillingly or blindly; for thus they rule themselves as freemen and enlightened beings, deliberating and deciding with themselves how they may cooperate for the common good and directing their acts according to law.

1650. The principles just given concerning political prudence will apply also, due proportion being observed, to domestic prudence.

(a) Hence, it is the duty of those who have authority over a family or a similar community to cultivate domestic prudence, without which they cannot discharge rightly the duties of their position of parent, rector, superior, manager, etc. Confessors and directors of souls need especially to be prudent; for even though a priest is thoroughly grounded in the principles of a moral system of conscience and in the teachings of ascetical theology, he will have to be guided by prudence in making use of his knowledge, so as to apply it well in the great variety of cases that will come before him, and to decide what will be most useful for the spiritual welfare of each individual subject.

(b) It is the duty of those who elect or appoint others to positions of authority (such as the positions of guardian, teacher, superintendent, etc.) to be assured beforehand of the fitness of the person chosen as regards prudence, namely, that he is devoted to the welfare of those whom he will rule, that he has acquired sufficient knowledge and experience, and that his habits are temperate, resolute, just.

1651. Relations between Prudence and Other Virtues.--In the preceding paragraphs the possession of prudence has been joined with the moral virtues. Hence the question presents itself: Can one who lacks the moral virtues possess prudence?

(a) Evil prudence, which chooses ways and means well adapted to some nefarious scheme, and imperfect prudence, which means and judges well but does not strongly resolve, are of course found in sinners. Evil prudence is called after the virtue, because it is a counterfeit of the latter’s goodness, but it is more properly named astuteness or cunning. Its sinfulness is strongly expressed in Rom., viii. 6, which declares that the prudence of the flesh is death. Imperfect prudence is also sinful, for it permits a right judgment to remain ineffectual and is thus recreant to conscience. Examples of evil prudence are the unjust steward mentioned in the Gospel (Luke, xvi. 1), who was wise enough to cheat his master and serve his own interests, and artful swindlers who know how to lure their victims and then escape without detection. Instances of imperfect prudence are persons who deliberate well on the means to overcome assaults of temptation or to escape occasions of sin, but whose resolutions never last.

(b) Indifferent prudence is resourceful in finding ways to accomplish purposes that are good, but that are not necessarily referred to moral aims. Thus, certain men seem to have an uncanny instinct in business or industry of hitting on the methods that lead to success and of acting at the right time, and a similar fact is observed in the fields of science, medicine, art, etc. This kind of ability of knowing and doing the right thing is variously described as insight, discrimination, tact, and is variously explained as luck, genius, industry, etc. But, morally speaking, it is neither virtuous nor sinful, since we find, for example, that men endowed with business acumen or a practical sense of the uses of some art or science devote their talents sometimes to good, sometimes to evil, according to the difference of their characters.

(c) Good prudence is that which in thought and in act functions well with regard to the means for leading a good life. It is only this prudence that receives the name of virtue; and, since it is clear from its concept that it supposes a good life, we must conclude that the virtue of prudence is not found in sinners. It may happen, therefore, that a man is most sagacious in managing temporal affairs, or most skillful in administering the spiritual interests of others, and withal most imprudent, because he neglects his own salvation.

1652. Sins that Cause One to Forfeit the Virtue of Prudence.--(a) Infused prudence is lost by any and every act of mortal sin, whether the sin be against the knowledge had through faith or the knowledge had through reason. (b) Acquired prudence is lost by repeated acts of mortal sin opposed to the knowledge had through reason, but not by one sole act. Thus, a person who through experience and practice has become prudent in overcoming past vices, loses this prudence if he disregards the lessons of the past and exposes himself to the old dangers of mortal sin (see 138).

1653. We may sum up as follows regarding sinners and the possession of the virtue of prudence:

(a) sinners guilty of venial sin only have infused prudence, and also the habit of natural prudence, if they have acquired it by their own efforts;

(b) sinners guilty of mortal sin against supernatural light (e.g., those who sin against faith or hope) have not the infused virtue of prudence, though they may have the acquired virtue;

(c) sinners guilty of habitual mortal sin against natural light (e.g., those who are accustomed to sin against temperance or justice) have neither the infused nor the acquired virtue of prudence. Even one mortal sin, though it will not take away the inclination of the habit of prudence, will deprive one of the perfection of the virtue of prudence, for which it is required that in every act there be a judgment agreeable to a good will.

1654. The Virtue of Infused Prudence in Those Who Are in the State of Grace.--(a) Infants in the state of grace through Baptism possess this virtue in an habitual, but not in an actual manner--that is, on account of their sanctification they have the power, but on account of their want of reason they have not the use of the power.

(b) All adults in the state of grace have this virtue both habitually and actually, as far as the need of salvation requires its exercise. Grace enables them either to perceive what they should do to live well, or to seek counsel from the better instructed and to distinguish between good and bad advice.

(c) Some adults in the state of grace have good judgment in a superior degree and are able to direct not only themselves but others, and to deliberate and decide rightly, not only in matters necessary for salvation, but in all kinds of affairs pertaining to the direction of human life.

1655. Can the Acquired Virtue of Prudence Exist in Young People?--(a) If there is question of a formed habit of prudence, the virtue is not in the young, but in those who are advanced in years. Acquired prudence is originated by deliberation on particular cases and by habit, and these are not had without experience and time. Hence, this virtue is to be looked for in the elderly, both because the passions that disturb calm deliberation are no longer so impetuous in them, and because their years have taught them many lessons and given them the opportunity to acquire fixed ways of acting: “In the ancient is wisdom, and in length of days prudence” (Job, xii. 12; cfr. III Kings, xii).

(b) If there is question of a formative prudence, this is found in the young, for they deliberate and decide at times with judgment and firmness, and, if such acts are frequently repeated, they will eventually proceed from a settled moral inclination. It is necessary, therefore, that the moral training of the young begin early, that instruction, counsel and direction be given them by parents and other guides, so that the way of virtue may be made more easy. The young are in duty bound to listen frequently, willingly and reverently to the admonitions of their elders, and hence the modern tendency of youth to act as critics of morals is as foolish as it is presumptuous.

1656. Is There Such a Thing as an Instinctive or Native Prudence?--(a) If we speak of the knowledge of universal principles of right and wrong which are applied by prudence, those principles that are most general are known naturally (i.e., even without instruction or inference), but not so the less general principles that follow from them (see 320 sqq.). Broadly speaking, therefore, one might say that prudence is natural, for in respect of its first principles it has a natural evidence; but it is more correct to say that knowledge of first principles belongs to intuitive reason or understanding, which is also called synteresis in reference to practical truths (see 145), and which is a gift of nature.

(b) If we speak of the particular knowledge of virtuous aims that is presupposed to prudence, one may possess naturally a right judgment about those aims, inasmuch as the right objectives of human life are not variable but determinate, and accordingly may be the centers of attraction to nature, which is drawn to the invariable and determinate, as is seen in irrational creatures. In fact, certain persons are by nature disposed to certain virtues (e.g., temperance), and readily form accurate judgments as to what concerns these virtues. Broadly speaking again, we may say that prudence is natural in the sense that nature disposes some persons to judge rightly about moral ends.

(c) If we speak of the particular knowledge concerning ways and means to fulfill virtuous purposes, there is no natural knowledge of this kind, for the ways and means to moderation are infinitely varied according to the differences of affairs, persons, and circumstances. And since prudence strictly understood is concerned, not with universal principles or the ends of virtues, but with individual cases and the particular means to be employed, it follows that in the strict sense prudence is not natural. But just as we find that some men are better fitted by nature to judge correctly in speculative matters, so also some persons are superior to others in the ability to reason about practical cases and the means conducive to morality.

1657. The Growth and Decay of Prudence.--(a) As repeated acts form a habit of prudence, so do repeated acts strengthen prudence already formed, especially when the chief act of prudence (i.e., the command that things wisely deliberated on be performed) is often brought into play. Even infused prudence is augmented and perfected by use and practice: “Strong meat is for the perfect, for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil” (Heb., v. 14).

(b) As prudence consists primarily in a dictate which applies the reason’s knowledge to the control of will and conduct, this virtue is corrupted chiefly by passion. We see that those who are swayed by pleasure or pain lose sight of the true motive of choice and action, and do not issue to themselves the order which prudence and their better judgment inspire. Thus, lust deceived even the elders of the people (Dan., xiii. 56), and bribes blind even the prudent (Exod., xxiii. 8). Nature enables a man to judge rightly about the universal principles of right and wrong; but, when judgment is to be given about particular lines of action, “as a man is, so he judges,” the licentious man judging for pleasure, the cowardly man for neglect of duty. Hence, the moral virtues must be united with prudence, else it perishes.

(c) As prudence presupposes a fund of general moral principles, forgetfulness is an impediment to this virtue; yet not so that every loss of memory which deprives one of arts and sciences will also take away prudence. For, while art and science consist entirely of knowledge, prudence has also a moral element derived from a right inclination of the will towards goodness, and its chief office is the utilization of principles in practice. The virtuous man will continue to follow prudence, even though he has forgotten its theory or rules, guiding himself by good habits formed or by the counsel of those wiser than himself.

1658. The Gift of Counsel.--The Gifts of the Holy Ghost supplement the theological virtues by ministering to them; but they supplement the moral virtues, of which prudence is the first, by aiding and perfecting them. The Gift that corresponds directly to prudence is Counsel, for both are concerned with the direction of human acts, prudence directing by the standard of human reason and counsel by the Holy Ghost Himself.

1659. Definition.--Counsel is defined as “an infused habit which makes the soul prompt to receive and act upon the enlightenment offered by the Holy Ghost about the means to be chosen with a view to its own eternal salvation.”

(a) Counsel is different from the virtue of wise deliberation spoken of in 1646; for, while the virtue enables one to do good in a human manner and from one’s own motion (e.g., by seeking advice, by making inquiries, etc.), the Gift enables one to do good in a superhuman manner and under the motion of the Holy Ghost (i.e., by hearkening to the advice offered by God).

(b) Counsel is different also from the charism of good counsel, which makes certain persons remarkable as advisors or directors. Thus, Mathathias when dying said to his sons: “I know that your brother Simon is a man of counsel; give ear to him always, and he shall be a father to you” (I Mach., ii. 65). St. Antoninus of Florence was so successful in guiding those who came to him with their difficulties that he was called “Antoninus of the Counsels.” The Gift is intended to benefit its possessor, and it is therefore had by all the just; but the charism is for the benefit of others, and is freely bestowed according to the will of God only on certain individuals who have a special mission of directing or assisting their neighbors.

1660. Subject-Matter of Counsel.--The subject-matter of the Gift of Counsel embraces all that pertains to salvation, both the things that are necessary and are commanded and the things that are not necessary and are only counselled.

1661. The Gift of Counsel may direct one at times to courses that are singular and extraordinary. But, since the Apostolic rule is that one should not believe every spirit but should prove the spirits whether they are from God (I John, iv. 1; I Thess., v. 21), persons who feel called to unusual kinds of life should submit their ideas to the judgment of the Church: “Arise and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do” (Acts, ix. 7).

1662. The Beatitude and Fruits that Correspond to the Gift of Counsel.--(a) Counsel directs one to all the means that are useful for the attainment of life eternal, but especially to acts of mercy, for, as St. Augustine remarks, without mercy shown to others we cannot be freed from our own evils. Cognate to Counsel, therefore, is the Fifth Beatitude: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt., v. 7).

(b) Counsel is practical, and hence its ultimate result will be action of some kind. The acts which its farseeing view puts especially into exercise are acts of mercy, and acts of mercy have sweetness and agreeableness when accompanied by a sympathetic love of the afflicted and a cheerful and generous service of their needs. There belong to mercy, then, the two delightful acts or fruits of the Spirit mentioned in Gal., v, 22, and called goodness (i.e., internal benevolence) and kindness (i.e., external beneficence).

1663. The Sins Against Prudence.--There are two classes of sins opposed to prudence. (a) Manifestly opposed to it are those sins that consist in a want of the acts or conditions requisite for prudence. These may be called sins of imprudence or sins that offend prudence by way of non-use. (b) Seemingly allied with prudence are those sins that consist in a wrong application of the acts or conditions of the virtue. These may be called sins of pseudo-prudence, or sins that offend against prudence by way of abuse. We shall speak first of imprudence and then of pseudo-prudence.

1664. Kinds of Imprudence.--There are three kinds of imprudence. (a) Negatively considered, imprudence is nothing more than the absence of prudence, and it is not necessarily a sin. Thus, children and young people through no fault of their own are negatively imprudent, though of course their lack of prudence may be traced back to original sin.

(b) Privatively considered, imprudence is the failure to have the habitual prudence that one is bound and able to possess. This failure is due to the fact that one has taken no pains to educate oneself through study, sermons, instructions, etc., so as to be able to act prudently when the occasion arises. Privative imprudence is therefore reducible to the sin of negligence, although negligence itself, as being opposed to carefulness (1634), is also against prudence, as we shall see.

(c) Contrarily considered, imprudence is the voluntary omission of some act or condition demanded by prudence (as when one is so taken up with amusements that one makes no effort to deliberate on an important matter or deliberates with undue haste), or the voluntary commission of an act exclusive of an act or condition of prudence (as when one expressly contemns deliberations or decides to act against the rules of prudence). This kind of imprudence is a mortal sin when it leads away from things necessary for salvation; otherwise it is a venial sin.

1665. Sinfulness of Imprudence.--Is imprudence a general sin, that is, a sin which is included in every kind of sin?

(a) Imprudence is not included in every kind of sin in the sense that it forms a part of the very nature of every kind of sin; for, just as prudence has its own special acts (i.e., to direct according to reason), distinct from those of other virtues, so has imprudence its own special defects that do not belong to other kinds of sin.

(b) Imprudence is included in every kind of sin in the sense that everyone who sins acts imprudently in sinning; for, just as one does not act virtuously unless prudence directs one, so one does not act sinfully unless there is some defect in the deliberation, or decision, or direction given by reason.

1666. It should be noted that, while the defects against deliberation, decision, and direction are so many different kinds of imprudence, they do not form species of sin distinct from the motivating sin if they are all directed to one evil purpose. Hence, if a person has deliberated badly, decided badly, and directed badly in the matter of striking a priest, he needs to confess but one sin, namely, that of laying sacrilegious hands on a cleric.

1667. The Sin of Haste.--The sin of haste or precipitancy passes over or hurries over the processes of deliberation that ought to precede action; it devotes little or no attention to memory of past experiences, understanding of present conditions, or conjecture of future possibilities; it does not give to a question the proper amount of study or of consultation. It is of two kinds, ordinary and rash.

(a) Ordinary precipitancy results from a strong inclination of the will or of the passions, as when a person speaks in anger before he has thought of the serious consequences of his words, or marries without reflection, or purchases an article the worth of which he does not know, or agrees to something about which he is in the dark, etc. Both Holy Writ and popular proverbs strongly condemn this sin.

(b) Rash precipitancy results from contempt of the law, as when one so despises an ordinance as to violate it without the slightest hesitation or reflection. This sin pertains to pride as well as to imprudence. In various censures the word “rashness” or “temerity” is used as here given, as when excommunication is pronounced against rash violators of the law.

1668. The Sin of Thoughtlessness.--The sin of thoughtlessness or inconsideration is a neglect or contempt of the means of arriving at a wise decision. It is a failure, therefore, to make use of right understanding, which looks well at the particular case before it and studies and measures it in the light of first principles.

(a) He is guilty of thoughtlessness, then, who fails to do what he can to judge rightly about his duty; nor is he excused if he leaves the whole matter to God, for it is temptation of God to expect that He will provide when man does not do his own part (Prov., iv. 25).

(b) He is not guilty of thoughtlessness who has not the opportunity of judging, or who lacks sufficient knowledge, or who is taken unawares; nor is he guilty of temptation of God, if in such difficulties he commits all to Providence. Thus, when various nations were gathered together to fight against Juda, King Josaphat prayed: “As we know not what to do, we can only turn our eyes to Thee” (II Par., xx. 12). And Our Lord promised special help to the disciples for cases of need when they were unable to help themselves (Matt., x. 19).

1669. The Sin of Inconstancy.--The sin of changeableness or inconstancy is committed when, owing to anger, jealousy or other inordinate passion, the reason repudiates things that had been rightly decided on and fails to act on judgments that had been rightly made (Is., xxxvii. 3). From inconstancy result incontinence (i.e., instability in the face of pleasure) and effeminacy (i.e., instability in the face of sadness).

1670. Causes of the Sins of Haste, Thoughtlessness, and Inconstancy.--(a) Every inordinate desire brings on these sins by diverting the mind from a good to an evil object. Experience shows that the avaricious, the ambitious, the angry, the jealous, etc., do not listen to reason, but act imprudently: “Where envying and contention is, there is inconstancy” (James, iii. 16).

(b) Desire of pleasure, especially of venereal pleasure, is most fatal to prudence by extinguishing the judgment of reason. The intellect is immaterial and is occupied with abstract truth, whereas sensual delights are immersed in the material and sensible. Hence, carnal sins are more injurious to prudence than spiritual sins. The sensual man not merely does not listen to reason, but he does not even hear it. Venus steals away the reason, said Aristotle, and this truth is well exemplified in King Solomon.

1671. The Sin of Negligence.--The sin of negligence is opposed to carefulness or diligence, and consists in the failure of the reason to direct properly an act, or some circumstance of an act, to which one is obliged.

(a) Negligence is a general sin in the sense that it has no special matter of its own, such as a passion to be moderated (as is the case with temperance and fortitude) or an action to be regulated (as is the case with justice). The acts of reason should extend to every kind of matter, and hence a person may be negligent (and likewise inconstant, thoughtless, hasty) with reference to any kind of action or passion.

(b) It is properly a special sin, as being the opposite of carefulness, which is a special act of prudence.

1672. Negligence is distinct from the following sins: (a) from laziness and lukewarmness, which are defects of the external act, while negligence is a defect of the internal act (see 1326, 1327); (b) from sins of omission, which pertain to external acts and are results of negligence, and are opposed to some other virtue than prudence (e.g., negligence in paying debts is against justice); (c) from inconstancy, which fails to command an act to which one is bound, as though one were impeded, while negligence fails because there is a want of promptness in the will. The inconstant man is easily diverted from his course; the negligent man is slow in getting under way.

1673. The Sinfulness of Negligence.--(a) It is a mortal sin when some act or circumstance necessary for salvation is omitted on its account (e.g., when a debtor puts off from day to day the payment of a bill, and in consequence causes a great injury), or when it proceeds from contempt or preference of the creature to God. (b) It is a venial sin when the act or circumstance omitted is not necessary for salvation (e.g., when a judge causes a slight injustice by reason of his procrastination), or when it proceeds from a want of fervor.

1674. False Prudence.--So far we have considered the sins of imprudence; now we shall speak of the sins of false prudence, which turn to wrong objects the acts that prudence employs for good, or which use inordinately the care that prudence employs in moderation. Thus, there are several kinds of imitation-prudence.

(a) Prudence is in love with the good of virtue as the end of life; the prudence of the flesh is in love with some pleasure or utility, and makes this good the center of attraction for all its acts.

(b) Prudence deliberates and judges about good and lawful means for its end; astuteness deliberates and judges how it may make use of evil means, and it employs trickery and fraud to perform what it decides on.

(c) Prudence is chiefly concerned about the spiritual, but its concern is not excessive; solicitude for temporal things or for the morrow is more anxious about the things of this world, or is unduly anxious about spiritual things.

1675. The prudence whose end is bad is the sin of those Who counsel, judge, and direct well as to the means for securing temporal goods which they have made the supreme purpose of their lives. This sin is given the one general name, “prudence of the flesh,” from Rom., viii. 6, where the aspirations of the flesh are contrasted with the aspirations of the spirit. But it is also sometimes distinguished according to the different kinds of created things in which false prudence puts its desire, or according to the different kinds of allurements to such created goods.

(a) Thus, those who aim chiefly at internal goods (i.e., bodily pleasures, health, etc.) are said to have the prudence of the flesh, while those who long mostly after externals (such as fine clothes, jewelry, estates, etc.) are said to have the prudence of this world: “The children of this world are more prudent in their generation than the children of light” (Luke, xvi. 8).

(b) We may also divide prudence about a wrong end into earthly, animal and devilish, according to the threefold source of temptation, as was explained above in 1623.

1676. Sinfulness of the Prudence of the Flesh.--(a) If prudence of the fiesh be understood in its stricter meaning as designating the condition of those who make the things of this world the be-all and the end-all of existence, it is a mortal sin; for it is impossible that one should have two last ends or serve two masters whose interests are opposite: “The wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be” (Rom., viii. 7).

(b) If prudence of the flesh be taken in a less strict sense as signifying the behavior of those who make God the supreme end of their lives, but who in some affair plan shrewdly for a particular end that does not entirely square with right reason, it is then a venial sin. An example is a host who is very practical in buying supplies and making all the arrangements for a banquet at which the guests will conduct themselves with too much hilarity.

(c) If prudence of the flesh be used in a wide or improper sense as signifying the care of the body and other temporal things for the sake of a good end, it is not sinful, but virtuous. Thus, a person who is careful about his diet in order that he may conserve his health and be enabled to work more efficiently and fruitfully, is virtuously prudent. The use of the term “prudence of the flesh,” for these last two cases is inaccurate and misleading.

1677. Astuteness, Trickery and Fraud.--The prudence whose means are bad is the sin of those who skillfully plan and carry out wicked ways and methods of securing some desired end, even though it be a good end.

(a) The planning of wicked means through which some design can be successfully achieved is the sin of astuteness, and the persons who are well-fitted for such things are known as schemers and plotters. The counsel of the Jews against Christ (Matt., xxvi. 3-5) and the bribery of the sepulchre guards (Matt., xxviii. 12-14) are examples of astuteness.

(b) The carrying out of astute plans may be done either by violence or by stealth; but, as evil loves to hide itself and to pose as good lest its success be endangered, schemers usually resort to trickery and fraud. Lord Bacon’s essay on “Dissimulation” is a good description of the method of worldly policy.

1678. Trickery in general is the secret employment of sinful means with the view to impose on others and thus gain some advantage one has in mind. Hence, it has a wide application and includes fraud as well as other uses of unlawful means. But trickery may be distinguished from fraud as follows:

(a) trickery is the execution of an astute plan by words calculated to deceive or circumvent another person. Words are the chief means of communication between men, and hence trickery is more usual than fraud. Examples of trickery are the artful traps prepared for Our Lord by the Pharisees when with apparent respect they asked His views about the condemnation of the adulteress (John, viii. 3 sqq.) and the payment of tribute (Matt., xxii. 17), their purpose being to obtain evidence that He spoke against the Law;

(b) fraud is the execution of astute plans by means of dishonest actions, as when a person cheats by not observing the rules of a game, or defrauds by selling inferior goods, or imposes on others by passing himself off as their friend, etc.

1679. Trickery may be used for good as well as evil ends, and thus St. Paul disowns the practice of persuading men to embrace the Faith by appealing to their prejudices or by toning down the Gospel: “We renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s consciousness in the sight of God” (II Cor., iv. 2).

1680. The gravity of the sins of astuteness, trickery and fraud depends on the character of the object, end and circumstances. (a) Thus, on account of the object the sin is grave when the means chosen are very bad (e.g., serious calumnies), venial when the means are slightly evil (e.g., lies about unimportant matters); (b) on account of the end the sin is mortal when one intends to perpetrate a serious offense (e.g., clever ruses to get into a house in order to rob it), venial when the purpose is not so bad (e.g., cheating at cards in order to win a small sum); (c) on account of the circumstances the sin is made mortal by some grave defect or disorder in the act resulting from the condition of time, place, person, etc. Thus, there might easily be great scandal if a person of authority were known to lie habitually, as it suited his interests.

1681. Solicitude.--Another form of spurious prudence is solicitude, that is, an inordinate carefulness about temporal things or about the future. Its sinfulness appears from the following considerations.

(a) Our Lord condemns solicitude: “Be not solicitous therefore saying: ‘What shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed?’ ... Be not solicitous for the morrow, for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” (Matt, vi. 31, 34).

(b) Solicitude seeks temporal things without the moderation that reason requires, does not duly esteem the spiritual, and does not confide in Divine Providence. Without any human care God bestows upon man the gift of life itself, provides for the animals and plants, directs the whole inanimate creation, and it is therefore unreasonable to fret and fume over the temporal things of one individual as if God were unable or unwilling to see to them (Matt, vi. 25 sqq.).

1682. Cases of Unlawful Solicitude about Temporalities.--(a) Solicitude is sinful on account of the things sought if one makes temporal things the end of life, as when a person follows religion purely as a business matter, for the sake of the living and worldly advantages this secures.

(b) Solicitude is sinful on account of the immoderate desire of obtaining some good, when one pursues the temporal with such avidity that the spiritual is made to suffer, as when a person devotes so much time and thought to business, politics, society or science that religion is more and more set aside in his life: “The cares of this world choked up the word” (Matt., xiii. 22).

(c) Solicitude is sinful on account of the immoderate fear of losing a temporal good, when one is deterred from religion by the thought that fidelity to virtue means the sacrifice of the necessaries of life. Examples of this immoderate solicitude are persons who never attend church or contribute to religion, lest they lose time or money, or who practise race-suicide to escape the burden of supporting a family.

1683. Cases of Lawful Solicitude.--(a) When the end is a genuine temporal good, moderate solicitude is not only lawful but is a duty dictated by prudence. Thus, a man who labors industriously and who saves, spending economically for the support of himself and his dependents and the upkeep of his home and business, is prudent in the true sense of the word, provided he is not too much absorbed in money-making or too anxious about financial affairs: “Work must be attended to, but worry must be banished” (St. Jerome).

(b) When the end is a spiritual one, moderate solicitude is also a duty. Thus, St. Paul was solicitous for his Churches (II Cor., xi. 28), Timothy for the Philippians (Phil., ii. 20); those who have charge as almoners should be solicitous for the goods given for the poor, etc.

1684. Cases of Unlawful Solicitude about the Future.--(a) Solicitude is unlawful on account of the end that is intended, when one makes temporal things one’s god, and is therefore perturbed about the future, as when a person has set his heart upon obtaining some honor by fair means or foul, and is restless and disturbed in mind lest it escape him.

(b) Solicitude is unlawful on account of immoderate desire, when one seeks for more than one should, as when a person who has sufficient means busies himself about too many things and deprives himself of peace and health in order to be wealthier in the future.

(c) Solicitude is unlawful on account of the unsuitability of the time, when one anticipates the season for care, as when a farmer worries during planting season about the harvest, and during harvest time about the next planting. Those who willingly occupy and disquiet themselves with forebodings of dire calamities that are uncertain (e.g., the imminent destruction of the world) or of evils that cannot be prevented (e.g., their death), are also guilty of sinful solicitude.

1685. Cases of Lawful Solicitude about the Future.--(a) When the end is a lawul temporal good, moderate solicitude about the future is good, for providence for the future is a part of prudence (see 1654). Scripture praises the ant which gathers its food in the summer against the winter (Prov., vi. 6). Joseph stored up a reserve of grain (Gen., xii. 34 sqq.); Our Lord appointed Judas to act as treasurer for Himself and His followers (John, xii. 6); the Apostles kept for future expenses offerings made from the sale of fields (Acts, iv. 34, 35). (b) When the end is spiritual, reasonable solicitude is also good, and this is seen in the conduct of the early Christians who gathered alms in advance that they might have the means to bestow assistance during a famine which had been predicted (Acts, xi. 27 sqq.).

1686. False Prudence and Avarice.--The sins of false prudence are caused chiefly by avarice. (a) They are sins in which reason plays a great part, though it is not put to a good use; and hence they do not naturally spring from carnal vices or cowardice, which obscure reason. Avarice, on the contrary, reasons much on how it may get and keep; it is shrewd, cunning, deliberate, foresighted. (b) They are sins that have recourse to stealth and secrecy, and thus are unlike pride, vainglory, and anger, which incline to display and openness. But avarice puts utility above considerations of glory or revenge, and prefers to be without fame or to bear with slights rather than lose profits.

1687. Commandments of Prudence.--Prudence is not expressly commanded in the Decalogue, but there are precepts concerning this virtue in other parts of Scripture.

(a) Prudence is not enjoined in the Decalogue, because the ten commandments are concerned with those ends of virtue that are manifest to all, whereas prudence is about the means to practise virtue.

(b) Prudence is commanded in many places of Scripture: “Get wisdom and with all thy possession purchase prudence” (Prov., iv. 7); “Walk in the ways of prudence” (ibid, ix. 6); “Purchase prudence, for it is more precious than silver” (ibid, xvi. 16); “Be ye prudent as serpents” (Matt., x, 16); “Speak the things that become sound doctrine, that the aged men be sober, chaste, prudent” (Tit., ii. 1, 2); “Be prudent and Watch in prayers” (I Peter, iv. 7).

Art. 2: THE VIRTUE OF JUSTICE

(_Summa Theologica_, II-II, qq. 57-60.)

1688. After prudence follows justice. This virtue regulates human actions and renders to others their due, and so it has preeminence over fortitude and temperance, which govern the passions and make man virtuous as regards his own acts only and not as regards his neighbor. The logical order, then, is that justice should precede fortitude and temperance.

1689. Nature of Justice.--In God justice is an attribute in virtue of which He so treats His creatures that they can have no well-founded complaint against Him: “His own justice supported Him. He put on justice as a breastplate” (Is, lix. 16, 17). In man it is goodness towards God or towards neighbors; and it is called in Scripture by various names, such as “justice,” “equity,” “truth,” “righteousness.”

(a) In a wide sense, justice signifies the general virtue of holiness, or the collection of all the virtues, as when Our Lord says: “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice (i.e., holiness)” (Matt., v. 6). Holiness, as a supernatural life communicated to the soul, is also called justice or justification: “The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in Him” (Rom., iii. 22).

(b) In a strict sense, it signifies the special moral virtue that consists in a firm purpose of the will to give to everyone his due or right: “Love justice, you that are judges of the earth” (Wis., i. 1); “If in every deed you speak justice” (Ps. lvii. 2). In its strict sense the word “justice” is hereafter used.

1690. Definition of Right.--Right signifies originally that which follows a straight course or does not deviate from the true standard, as in the expressions “right ahead,” “to be in the right.” But in moral matters right has the derived meaning of that which is good, proper, suitable; and in general it is of two kinds, objective and subjective, the former being the foundation of the latter.

(a) Objective right is that which is prescribed by law, or it is the law itself as the rule and standard of what ought to be done, especially in the relations of men towards one another. In this sense there is a twofold right, natural and positive, according as reason itself or free will imposes a law (see 286, 296).

(b) Subjective right is that relationship introduced between men by reason of the laws governing their conduct one to another, which gives to one an authority to exercise certain capabilities (active right, right properly so-called), and imposes on another the necessity of respecting that authority (passive right, duty).

1691. Right properly so called is defined as the moral power of doing or possessing something.

(a) It is a moral power, that is, a power created by the moral law giving one a true title and forbidding others to interfere with its enjoyment and use. It is not a physical power, for might does not make right; on the contrary, he who has moral power is sometimes hindered from exercising it by another who has physical power. Nor is it a mere legal power, or capacity to act validly and within human law, but an ethical power that enables one to act licitly before God and conscience.

(b) It is a power to do (e.g., to labor) or to have (e.g., to own land). The former includes also the moral power to forbear action (e.g., to rest on Sunday), to require that another act (e.g., pay what he owes me), or that he forbear action (e.g., keep off my property); while the latter includes also the power to acquire, to use, to transfer, etc.

1692. Divisions of Right.--(a) By reason of its source, or of the law from which it springs, a right is either natural (e.g. the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), positive-divine (e.g., the right to receive the Sacraments), positive-human (e.g., the right of parishioners that Mass be said for them by their pastor, the right of citizens to vote and to be voted for). (b) By reason of its term, or of the power which it confers, a right is strict (legal) or non-strict (moral). One has a strict right when something is due one, because it is one’s own by a proper and exclusive title (e.g., the right to life and property). One has a non-strict right when something is due one, only because it is something common that is to be distributed and one is a deserving member of the community (e.g., the right to receive an appointment from the government), or because virtue (e.g., the right to receive gratitude for benefits shown) or the perfection of virtue (e.g., the right to be treated with liberality or affability or friendship by others) requires it.

1693. Natural rights are subdivided as follows:

(a) in respect of their object, some rights are absolute, as being based on nature alone (e.g., the right of a child to support from its parent arises from natural origin); or they are relative, as being based on nature in its relation to concrete and contingent facts (e.g., the right of an owner to private possession of his land arises from the nature of land, which was made to serve man, and from the contingent fact that it cannot serve man as a rule without private ownership);

(b) in respect of their source, some rights are innate, that is, they are had from birth by the very fact of human nature (e.g., the right of life in the newborn child); others are acquired, that is, obtained in course of time through some contingent fact. Thus, titles to goods of fortune which the owner is the first to possess (original titles) are obtained by occupation and accession; titles to goods obtained from others (derivative titles) are obtained through prescription, inheritance, contract;

(c) in respect to their firmness, some rights are alienable, that is, they are such as may be renounced or superseded lawfully, since they are not obligatory (e.g., the right to marry, the right to drink alcohol); while others are inalienable, that is, not subject to renunciation or deprivation, as being obligatory (e.g., the right to repel temptation, the right to serve God).

1694. Signs by which Strict and Non-Strict Rights May Be Distinguished.--(a) That to which one has a strict right belongs to one as one’s own, and hence it must be determinate or determinable. The right of a beggar to receive some assistance from someone is not a strict right, since it cannot be urged against any particular thing or any individual person; but the right of a creditor is a strict right, since it can be urged against the debtor for a definite amount.

(b) That to which one has a strict right is owed in justice, and hence it may be enforced by legal means, or in case of need by physical force. The right of a child not to be slighted in the distribution of presents made by its parents, the right of a person who has had a falling out with another that the latter shall accept advances for a reconciliation, and the right of a benefactor that the beneficiaries show signs of gratitude, are not strict rights, because they cannot be enforced in courts of justice, but the right of a laborer against his employer is a strict right, since it can be vindicated by legal means. It should be noted that a strict right is one that is granted as a proper, exclusive and enforceable power by any law, whether natural or positive, and hence the fact that human law will not vindicate a right (e.g., the right arising from a contract naturally good, but legally not defensible, the right of a parent to his child’s respect) does not prove that the right is not strict.

1695. A strict right to have or to own is either _in re_ or _ad rem_. (a) A right _in re_ (real or complete right) is the right to that which one already lawfully has as one’s own (e.g., the right that Caius has to the wages paid him by Balbus). (b) A right _ad rem_ (personal or inchoate right) is the right to that which one is entitled to obtain as one’s own (e.g., the right that Caius has to receive the wages promised him by Balbus).

1696. Legal Enforcement of Strict Rights.--(a) The right _in re_ authorizes recourse to a real action (_actio in rem_), that is, to a suit against the thing itself, no matter where it be or by whom it be held, as when one sues to recover one’s property through the ejectment of a wrongful possessor; for the thing is immediately and juridically bound to him who has the right, as being his own.

(b) The right _ad rem_ enables one to enforce one’s claim by a personal action (_actio in personam_), that is, to bring a suit against a definite person on whom one has a claim by reason of contract, domestic relationship, fiduciary position, etc., as when one sues for recovery on account of the non-fulfillment of the conditions of a compact.

1697. The right _in re_ to property is either perfect or imperfect.

(a) A perfect right (right of full dominion) is that which enables one to exercise all the prerogatives of ownership, that is, to dispose at will of an object (e.g., to sell, lend, give away, etc.), to use it (e.g., to occupy a house, to make alterations in it, to tear it down, etc.), and to exclude others (e.g., to put a fence about one’s property to exclude the public).

(b) An imperfect right (right of partial dominion) is had when one is restricted as to the right of the disposition of one’s goods, for example, when one is forbidden to sell; or when one has the right of disposition without the right of use, for example, when one is forbidden on account of the vows of religion to use property one owns (radical dominion); or when one has the right of use without the right of disposition, for example, when one is forbidden to make permanent alterations in a house one occupies as tenant (indirect or useful dominion); or when one has the other rights of ownership but lacks the right of exclusion, for example, when one may not exclude a neighbor’s flock from grazing in one’s pasture (ownership subject to servitude).

1698. The Subject of Justice, or the Faculty of the Soul in Which It Exists.--(a) Justice is not in the intellect, for we are not called just because we know a thing rightly, but because we act rightly; (b) nor is it in the sensitive appetite, since a sense faculty does not apprehend the relations between rights and duties; (c) hence, justice is in the rational appetite or will.

1699. The Objects or Subject-Matter of Justice.--(a) The material object of justice (i.e., all those things with which it deals) is remotely the external things which are the objects of exchange and distribution among men, and proximately the actions by which they are exchanged or distributed.

(b) The formal object of justice (i.e., that which it principally intends in dealing with its material object) is that the rights of others, or their inviolable moral power of doing, having or acquiring, may be respected. Justice thus differs from charity. For charity is owed also to self, justice only to the neighbor; charity considers the neighbor as he is one with self and gives him what belongs to self, while justice considers the neighbor as he is distinct from self and gives him what belongs to him.

1700. Since justice is shown not to self but to another, it is not so fully-realized when two persons are in some sense one.

(a) Parent and child are especially one, since the child is from the parent and a part of the parent, and hence the natural obligations that spring from their special relationship pertain to the virtue of filial and paternal piety, which is not strictly justice, but obliges more strictly on account of the greater rights involved. But obligations that spring from relationships that are common (e.g., from a contract between a father and his son) pertain to strict justice; for in these relationships they treat with one another, not as father and son, but as man and man. Employer and employee may also be considered as one, inasmuch as the latter is the agent or instrument of the former, and the same conclusions may therefore be applied to them.

(b) Husband and wife are less perfectly one than parent and child and than master and servant, for neither is descended from the other, and neither is servant to the other. But since they form one conjugal society and the husband is head of the wife, they owe one another stricter obligations than if they were strangers to one another, although those obligations partake less rigorously of the character of justice.

1701. Division of Justice.--Justice is divided according to the rights it respects into legal and particular. (a) Legal justice (observance of law) is that which is owed by the individual, whether he be ruler or subordinate, to the community of which he forms a part, or to the law and the common good of the entire body. (b) Particular justice (fairness) is that which is owed to the private good of an individual.

1702. Is legal justice a distinct and separate virtue, or only a general condition found in all virtues?

(a) Practically speaking, legal justice is a general virtue, inasmuch as its desire of promoting the common good will impel a man to observe all the laws and to practise other virtues than justice, such as fortitude and temperance. The law commands us to perform the actions of the courageous man, of the temperate man, of the gentle man, and hence, as Aristotle says (_Ethics_, lib. V, cap. 2), legal justice is often regarded as the supreme virtue, the summary of all virtue, more glorious than the star of eve or dawn.

(b) Essentially, it is a distinct virtue, for it alone moves a man primarily and directly to respect the rights of the common good as being that greater whole of which the individual is but a part. It differs even from patriotism and filial piety (for these are moved by one’s own debt to the source of one’s life) and from obedience (for legal justice seeks the welfare of the community even in things that are not commanded).

1703. Comparison of Legal and Particular Justice.--(a) Particular justice partakes more of the nature of justice, for there is a greater distinction or separation between the party who has an obligation and the party who has a right, when the latter is an individual, than when the latter is a whole of which the former is a part. A distinctive characteristic of justice, as said just above, is that it takes account of the independence or “otherness” of those between whom it exists, so much so that only in a metaphorical sense can we speak of justice when only one person and nature is in question (e.g., justice between man and his soul, body, powers).

(b) Legal justice is a more perfect virtue than particular justice or filial piety, since it seeks a higher object (that is, the common good as such) and is more voluntary.

1704. Is the right which the community has to receive from the goods of its members one of legal or one of particular justice?

(a) The right of eminent domain (i.e., the right which the State has over the goods of private persons when they are necessary for the common good) is a right of legal justice, for even without compulsion the citizen should be willing to contribute what is necessary for the community of which he is part.

(b) The right of the members of a government to receive compensation for their services is a right of particular justice, for there is an implicit contract between the rulers and the State that the former will serve the interests of the latter and that the later will pay the expenses of the former, as if both parties were private individuals (see 1708).

1705. Distributive and Commutative Justice.--On account of the inequality or equality of the individuals between whom it exists, particular justice is subdivided into distributive and commutative, which are distinct species of justice.

(a) That the distinction is well-founded is proved by the fact that this justice--that is, relations towards particular persons--is either the relation of whole to part or of part to part. The former relations are governed by distributive justice, which is defined as the virtue that inclines the ruler, as the representative of the community, to portion out the public goods (e.g., money, honors, offices) and burdens (e.g., taxes), not according to favoritism or personal likes, but according to merits and abilities; the latter relations are governed by commutative justice, which is defined as the virtue that inclines the individual to pay to other individuals what is their due, whether the rights be personal (e.g., the right to reputation) or real (e.g., the right to wages or price). Commutative justice receives its name from the fact that it is oftenest called for in commutations (i.e., in exchanges, such as buying and selling).

(b) That the distinction of particular justice into distributive and commutative is specific appears from the fact that the main characteristics of justice (viz., debt owed another and equality between payment and debt) are found in each of these kinds of justice in a way proper to itself. There is a debt in commutative justice when a thing is owed another because he has an individual right to it and it is already under his dominion; there is a debt of distributive justice, when a thing is owed another because he has a community interest in it and a right that it be entrusted to him in view of his merits or abilities.

1706. Thus, the equality observed in commutative justice is arithmetical, or of quantity (e.g., if a horse is worth $100, it is just to pay $100 for it); the equality observed in distributive justice is geometrical, or of proportion (e.g., if one who had an average of 90% in a civil service examination receives a position that pays $90, it is just to give another whose average was 80% a position that pays $80). An indication of the specific difference between distributive and commutative justice is that the same individual may be just in private matters and unjust in public matters. Example: Titus, an office-holder, pays his personal debts faithfully, but he appoints only his friends, whether they be worthy or unworthy, to important honors.

1707. Corrective Justice.--Corrective (i.e., vindicative or punitive) justice is a virtue inclining a public person or a superior, such as a ruler, magistrate, or judge, to inflict on evil-doers penalties adequate to their faults. It is not to be confused with just vengeance or retaliation, which is the virtue that moderates in a private person the desire for punishment of an offense against self, and which is not justice strictly speaking, either commutative or distributive, but only a potential part of justice (as stated below in Article 6).

(a) Thus, corrective justice is elicited by commutative justice, for a punishment is inflicted by a judge in order that there may be equality between the satisfaction made by the evil-doer and the debt owed to another on account of the offense. It aims at redressing an unfairness by taking away so much from the offender and adding so much to the party offended, that both will stand in the same position as before. If the person punished accepts the penalty in the same spirit, he also practises commutative justice.

(b) Corrective justice may be commanded by legal justice, for the judge may intend the punishment for the sake of the common good, as well as of the individual who has been injured.

1708. Different Species of Justice in One Act.--Different species of justice may be present in one and the same act. (a) The same act may be elicited by one kind of justice and commanded by another kind of justice (see 56 sqq.), as in the examples given just above of vindicative justice. (b) The same act may be elicited by two kinds of justice, as when a debt is owed both in virtue of commutative and of distributive justice. Some think an example of this is found in the payment of government employees, for payment is made by distribution from common funds (distributive justice), and it is owed for services contracted for (commutative justice). But it seems more correct to say that wages for services given the community are due in commutative justice rather than in distributive justice; for in the former justice equality is between what is given and what is received, in the latter between the proportion received by one and the proportion received by another, and government salaries should be paid on the basis of value received in service (see 1704, 1755, 1767).

1709. The Object of Justice.--The function of a moral virtue is to direct according to moderation all those things that are subject to the free will of man, and can be regulated by reason, namely, the actions of man and the external things of which he makes use.

(a) The actions of man can be understood either in a wide sense, so as to include both those internal affections that are accompanied by notable bodily changes (the passions, such as anger, sadness), and those actions that do not so strongly act upon the body (operations). Every virtue has for its object action in the wide sense, for virtue is defined as a habit that makes the agent good and his action good; but not every virtue has action in the strict sense for its object, since the virtues of fortitude and temperance regulate, not the operations, but the passions.

(b) Operations are of two kinds, namely, internal, by which men do not communicate with one another (such as thoughts and desires), and external, by which men communicate with one another. These latter either have to do with external things (such as land, houses, money, produce, etc.), and we then have such operations as loan, sale, lease and other contracts, or no external thing is introduced, and we have such operations as honor, praise, calumny, etc. All the moral virtues have to do with the internal operation of choice, for virtue is a good election of the will; but there is this difference between justice and the other moral virtues, that fortitude and temperance merely dispose the intellectual appetite for a good choice by the regulation they give to the sensitive appetite, while justice has for its proper act to choose well the means for moderating external operations. As for external operations themselves, these are the objects of justice, but not of the other two moral virtues.

1710. The purpose of the other moral virtues is to regulate man in himself; for the passions that are moderated by fortitude and temperance (such as fear and desire) affect primarily their subject and not other persons. The purpose of justice, on the contrary, is to regulate man in his relations to others; for external operations and things directly affect others, either helping or injuring them, But both the passions and external operations have effects and consequent ends that give them new relationships, and hence we may distinguish between the primary object to which a virtue tends directly, and the secondary object to which it tends only indirectly on account of the effects of the primary object.

(a) The primary object of justice is external operations and external things; the primary object of fortitude and temperance is the passions, for justice seeks the good of others, whereas fortitude and temperance seek the good of the agent.

(b) The secondary object of justice is the passions, whenever its principal object cannot be easily regulated without regulation of the passions. Thus, when lust urges to the injustice of adultery or avarice to the injustice of denial of payment due, justice calls on the virtue of temperance or liberality, as the case may be, to moderate the passion opposed to it. Similarly, the secondary object of fortitude and temperance may be external operations, whenever the effect on the subject of the principal object (i.e., the passions) has reactions in reference to other persons. Thus, if fear is moderated by fortitude and desire by temperance, these virtues have external consequences such as combat against evil, abstinence from food or drink that belongs to others; but if anger is immoderate, it may lead to unjust attack, and if desire is immoderate, it may lead to the injustice of theft of food or drink.

1711. The Golden Mean of Virtue.--The golden mean of virtue is not the same in all the moral virtues (see 154).

(a) Thus, fortitude and temperance regulate the passions for the benefit of their subject, that he may avoid in them the extremes of excess and defect. Hence, the middle way they follow must be determined by reason from a consideration of the subject and his circumstances (the mean of reason), and so will vary with different subjects and with individual cases. Thus, in the matter of temperance it is an old saying that what is one man’s meat is another man’s poison. It would be absurd to say, therefore, that there is only one middle way of temperance, and that all persons must conform to the same rule as to quality and quantity of food and the time and manner of eating and drinking. On the contrary, the rule here must suit the subject, and that will be moderate which agrees with the health, appetite, duties, manner of life, etc., of the person.

(b) Justice, on the contrary, regulates external operations for the benefit, not of the subject, but of other persons whom they affect, in order that the subject in dealing with others may avoid inequality, which means excess on one side and defect on the other side. Hence, the middle way of justice is discovered by reason from a consideration of external things or acts owed to other persons (the mean of reason and of the thing), and so it does not vary with the circumstances of the subject. If the real value of a horse is $100--it makes no difference whether the seller be a prince or a peasant, whether the buyer be rich or poor--the just payment will be $100. Excess will be unfair to the buyer, deficiency to the seller.

1712. Though the mean of justice is determined, not by reference to the person who acts, but by reference to some external thing, it may be that this external thing cannot be evaluated without consideration of the person to whom justice is owed.

(a) In distributive justice this is always the case, for the mean of the thing in distributions consists in equality between relative proportions of distributions and relative merits or abilities of persons to whom distributions are made. Hence, distributive justice must consider the conditions of the person to whom it is owed as compared with the conditions of other persons, in order to observe equality by giving proper shares to all.

(b) In commutative justice, this is sometimes the case, namely, when the condition of a person who has been offended (e.g., that he is a ruler) increases the debt of satisfaction that is owed him; for the mean of the thing in commutative justice is equality between the payment and the debt.

1713. Is observance of the mean of the thing sufficient to make an act just, no matter what may be the dispositions of the subject?

(a) If there is question of material justice, the reply is in the affirmative, for a virtue is said to be exercised materially when its mean is observed. The mean of fortitude and temperance cannot be observed without reference to the condition of the subject (e.g., he is not brave who undertakes a difficult task that is beyond his strength); but the same is not true of justice (e.g., he is just who pays the last penny of a debt though the payment was beyond his means and required a sacrifice).

(b) If there is question of formal justice, the reply is in the negative, for a virtue is said to be exercised formally (i.e., from a virtuous habit) when the motive of the subject and the circumstances are agreeable to reason. Thus, he who performs deeds of valor purely out of vainglory exercises fortitude materially, not formally; and likewise he who pays his debts faithfully, merely in order to avoid the penalties of the law, exercises justice materially but not formally.

1714. Comparison of Justice and the Other Virtues.--The differences between particular justice and the other moral virtues are, therefore, the following:

(a) justice is for the good of another, the other virtues for the good of the agent himself;

(b) justice deals with external actions and things, the others with the passions;

(c) justice follows a mean of the thing, the others a mean of reason;

(d) justice is had materially without any suitability to the circumstances of the agent, not so the other virtues.

1715. While justice is inferior to the theological and intellectual virtues (see 156, 157, 1028), it is superior to most of the moral virtues that perfect the sensitive or the intellectual appetite. The superiority of justice to fortitude, temperance, and the annexed virtues, such as mercy (see 1207), is seen from the following reasons.

(a) Legal justice is greater than those other virtues, for, while they pursue the private good of their subject, it seeks the public good. “Great is the splendor of justice,” says St. Ambrose (_De Officiis_, lib. I, cap. 28), “which is born for others rather than for itself, and which aids society and the community. It holds high position, that all may be subject to its judgment, that it may bestow assistance, not refuse responsibility, take upon itself the dangers of others.” Moreover, since the law commands us to perform the actions of the courageous man, of the gentle man and of the temperate man, legal justice, as Aristotle says (_Ethics_, lib. V, cap. 2), is often regarded as the supreme virtue, the summary of all the virtues, more glorious than the star of eve or dawn.

(b) Private justice is also greater than those other virtues, since it perfects a nobler power of the soul (viz., the will), and seeks the good, not only of its own possessor, but also of others. Justice too is impartial or blind as between persons, demanding satisfaction, even though a debtor be a monarch, and granting redress, even though an injured party be the humblest or most undeserving of mankind. An indication that justice is nobler than regulation of the passions is seen by Aristotle (_Ethics_, lib. V, cap. 4) in the fact that it is more difficult and rarer: “Many people are capable of exhibiting virtue at home, but incapable of exhibiting it in relation to their neighbor. Accordingly, there seems to be good sense in the saying of Bias, that ‘office will reveal a man,’ for one who is in office is at once brought into relation and association with others. As then the worst of men is he who exhibits his depravity both in his own life and in relation to his friends, the best of men is he who exhibits his virtue, not in his own life only, but in relation to others; for this is a difficult task.”

1716. Two virtues of the sensitive appetite that appear more excellent than justice are courage and liberality, but in reality justice is nobler than they.

(a) Thus, courage seems to be better, because it is more essential to the common good in time of great danger; but in reality justice is more useful to the community, for at all times, whether in peace or in war, it is justice that preserves unity and contentment among the people and promotes courage and devotion to the public welfare.

(b) Liberality seems to be better than justice, because it gives more than is due, while justice gives only what is due. But, on the other hand, justice is of more general advantage, since of necessity liberality must be exceptional and shown only to comparatively few, while justice must be exercised continually and must be shown to all; justice is also more necessary, for one must be just in order to be liberal, and not vice versa, since no one is praised as generous unless he first pays the debts of justice; finally, although liberality gives more than is due and may thus be a greater private benefit, justice without liberality is more serviceable to the common interest than liberality without justice.

1717. Two virtues of the will which some authorities hold to be more important than justice are the virtues of religion and mercy.

(a) The virtue of religion has a nobler object, since it regulates the worship owed to God, while justice regulates the things owed to man; and its obligation is stricter even than that of legal justice.

(b) The virtue of mercy, which is a rational inclination of the will to relieve the suffering or misfortune of others, is held to be greater than justice, because to relieve the distress of the community or of an individual indicates greater perfection than to pay merely what is due to another.

1718. Virtues may be compared, not only from the viewpoint of the objective excellence which they have from their own natures (whereby they are unequal and rank according to the greatness of their objects), but also from the viewpoint of the subjective participation of them in the souls of their possessors.

(a) In a certain sense, all the virtues are equal in their possessor, since all of them alike are related to charity as their perfection (see 1118), and all of them increase or diminish in like proportions with the growth or decline of grace, which is their root (see 745).

(b) In a certain sense, too, the rank of the virtues may depart from the order of the dignity of their objects. For the facility and promptitude of exercise of an infused virtue does not depend formally on the infused virtue itself, but on subjective conditions, such as natural inclination or custom, or on a special gift of God (see 135, 136); and hence it may happen that a saint shows greater excellence and enjoys greater renown in an inferior than in a superior virtue. Thus, Abraham was singular in faith, Moses in meekness, Josue in bravery, David in fervor and devotion (Ecclus., xlv-xlviii), and St. Joseph is praised as “a just man” (Matt., i. 19).

1719. Injustice.--Just as the word “justice” is taken in a wide sense for holiness or the collection of all the virtues, and in a strict sense for a special cardinal virtue, so likewise the word “injustice” is taken widely as a synonym for any transgression, iniquity, or sin (“He sendeth rain upon the just and the unjust,” Matt., v. 45), but strictly for violation of the special virtue of justice (“Hear what the unjust judge saith,” Luke, xviii. 6). It is of this latter injustice that we now speak.

1720. Species of Injustice.--Injustice is of two kinds. (a) Legal injustice is a special vice that moves one to despise the common good or to act against it intentionally. Thus, if one steals or overeats merely to gratify a passion for money or for food, there is a certain condition of legal injustice, inasmuch as one violates a law; but if one does these things also or solely to injure the common good, there is a special sin of legal injustice, to be declared in confession. (b) Particular injustice is a special vice against the private good of others that moves one to seek for more than is one’s share, or to desire more of the benefits and less of the burdens than equality appoints. Examples: To sell above the just price or buy below the just price (commutative injustice); to show favoritism in the distribution of public offices or burdens, as when a person in authority showers public benefits on his unworthy relatives or friends, and overburdens with taxes those who are not his friends (distributive injustice).

1721. The Theological Species of Legal and Particular Injustice.--(a) From its nature injustice is a mortal sin, for it is an attack on a very great good, namely, the peace and security of society; the very foundations of orderly community life are shaken when injustice is done either to common or to private rights. Moreover, acts of injustice (unlike sins of mere passion), if the matter is serious, offend against charity, the life of the soul; for charity “envieth not, dealeth not perversely” (I Cor., xiii. 4); while injustice injures the neighbor and leads to hatred, quarrels, and separations. Hence, the Apostle says of injustice: “Do not err: neither adulterers, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God” (I Cor., vi. 10); and Our Lord, speaking of justice, says: “If you would enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matt, xix. 18).

(b) From want of sufficient advertence in the subject (see 173 sqq.), or from smallness of matter in the object (see 172), a sin of injustice may be only venial. Thus, if one takes money that belongs to another on account of vincible ignorance due to slight negligence, or if one takes only a small amount that does no serious injury, the injustice is venial.

1722. Rule for Determining the Gravity of Sins of Injustice.--The rule for judging whether the matter of a sin of injustice is great or small, is the quantity of injury it inflicts, or the degree of reasonable unwillingness of the offended person to suffer the injustice; for sins against the neighbor are culpable precisely on account of and in proportion to the harm they do to others. Hence, since every injustice offends either the public or private good, or both, the following acts of injustice are gravely sinful:

(a) mortal sin is committed when injury is done to a private right in a matter of such great moment that the person offended is reasonably and gravely unwilling to sanction the injustice (e.g., cases of calumny, adultery, incendiarism). But if the injury itself is small and the party offended is nevertheless gravely unwilling to suffer it, only venial sin is committed against justice, but there may be a mortal sin done against charity, as when one steals a worthless trinket, knowing that the owner is so unreasonably attached to it that the loss will almost break his heart or will provoke in him violent anger, profanity, etc.;

(b) mortal sin is also committed when injury is done to a public right in a matter so important that the community is with good reason gravely averse to the commission of the injury. This happens when the common good is directly attacked, as when a citizen rebels against lawful government, or when the peace and security of the community is imperilled because of injury done to a private person, as when one steals a sum that is considerable from a wealthy person, even though the latter will not seriously feel the loss. Hence, an injury to a private person that does not seriously harm him may seriously harm the community, and be gravely sinful on account of the disastrous consequences to social order that would follow if such an injury were not gravely forbidden.

1723. Moral Species of Legal and of Particular Injustice.--These are distinguished according to the main classes of objects or rights that are injured or offended (see 199). Hence, there are the following four kinds of injustice:

(a) injuries to spiritual rights or goods, whether natural or supernatural (e.g., superstition, idolatry, simony);

(b) injuries to internal goods of soul (e.g., lies) or of body (e.g., murder, mutilation);

(c) injuries to external goods, whether incorporeal (e.g., calumny) or corporeal (e.g., theft, fraud).

1724. Accidental Forms of Injustice.--There are also many accidental forms of injustice, that is, variations that do not of themselves change the moral species (see 200).

(a) Thus, as to its manner, injustice is done either positively, by action (e.g., by stealing from an employer), or negatively, by omission (e.g., by allowing another to steal from one’s employer). In both cases the same kind of injustice is committed; for example, he who permits theft is just as much a thief as if he had stolen himself.

(b) As to its consequences for the injured person, injustice is either merely injurious or injurious and damaging, according as a strict right is violated without loss (e.g., adultery from which no child is born), or with loss to the injured party (e.g., adultery from which a child is born). The character of the sin is the same in both cases, but in the latter case restitution is due (cfr. 1199, 1200). The loss (_damnum_) that results from violation of a strict right (_injuria_) may be in internal goods (such as salvation, life, health, sanity of mind) or in external goods (such as reputation, money, property).

(c) As to its consequences for the party who does the injury, injustice is either profitable to him (as in the case of unjust taking) or unprofitable (as in the case of unjust damage). The moral species is the same in either case, for the fact that the unjust person gains by his injustice does not make the injury greater, and the fact that he does not gain does not make the injury less.

1725. Injury is not suffered by one who knows and wills an act that is done contrary to his right (Rule 27 of the Decretals), for such a one cedes his right. Hence, if a man looks out with a smile while neighborhood boys take apples from his orchard and the latter take this as permission, no injustice, material or formal, is done. But the legal maxim needs interpretation, for the following two conditions are necessary in order that there be a surrender of right:

(a) the party who consents must be able to surrender his right, since, if he is not able to do so, his cession is invalid. Hence, one who kills a person asking for death is unjust to God and to the State; one who commits adultery with a woman whose husband gives permission is unjust to the marriage state and the lawful children; one who strikes a cleric who waived his privilege of canon (_privilegium canonis_) is unjust to the clerical state; one who takes property from a ward with the latter’s consent, is unjust to the estate, since the ward has no authority to alienate it. Many of the martyrs, it is true, wished to lose their lives at the hands of persecutors, but this meant only that they consented to the will of God, not that they consented to their own murder by the tyrants, for they had not the right to give the latter dominion over their lives;

(b) the party who consents must really will to yield his right, and hence, if there is error, fraud, fear or violence, the cession is of no effect. Thus, a buyer who through ignorance takes a defective article or pays an exorbitant price, a workman who through necessity accepts less than a living wage, or a man who yields his purse to a burglar at the point of the revolver, does not surrender his rights, since true consent is wanting. Similarly, when one follows the counsel of Christ not to resist spoliation (Matt., v. 40) or when a saintly person rejoices over injury done him (Heb., x. 34), the intention is not to surrender rights to the unjust, nor to approve their conduct, but to practise heroic virtue by patience, humility, forgiveness, etc.

1726. Internal Injustice.--Does internal injustice (i.e., the intention of injuring another) make an external action unjust?

(a) If the intention makes the external act to be a violation of a strict right, it also makes the external act unjust. Thus, to take a book from another’s room is of itself an indifferent action, for there may be, no violation of right (e.g., when the intention is to borrow), or there may be such violation (e.g., when the intention is to steal).

(b) If the intention does not make the external act a violation of strict right, even though that act be harmful to the other party, it does not make the external act unjust. Hence, if the other party has no strict right against the external act (e.g., Titus sees the house of Balbus on fire, but he is not hired to take care of Balbus’ property, and he gives no alarm in order that the house may burn down) or if the agent has a strict right to perform the external act (e.g., Claudius, a judge, condemns Sempronius, according to law, but his chief intention is the harm he will inflict on the latter), the unjust intention does not make the external act unjust. But in these cases sin, and even grave sin, is committed against charity.

1727. Judgment.--Judgment, or the right determination of what is just and due to others, is the proper act of the virtue of justice, and hence Aristotle (_Ethics_, lib. V, cap. 7) declares that people take their disputes to a judge as to justice personified. Judgment is either public or private. (a) Public judgment is passed by a judge who has the authority to compel disputing parties to abide by his decisions. (b) Private judgment is passed by individuals without public authority concerning the morals or conduct of others.

1728. Since judgment is an act of virtue, it is lawful, and we find that both in the Old and the New Testament men have been appointed with authority to judge others. Thus, God ordered that judges be chosen in all the cities of Israel (Deut., xvi. 18); St. Paul declares that the judge is the minister of God (Rom., xiii. 4), and from Apostolic times tribunals have been set up in the Church. But certain conditions are required for moral goodness, both in those who ask for judgment and in those who pass judgment.

(a) Thus, those who seek judgment must be actuated by proper motives and must conduct themselves in a virtuous manner. Our Lord in Matt., v, teaches that it is better to suffer temporal loss rather than to contend in judgment from a motive of revenge to the prejudice of one’s spiritual good, and St. Paul condemns the Corinthians because they gave scandal by reason of their lawsuits before heathen tribunals and had recourse to frauds and injuries in their litigation (I Cor., vi. 1 sqq.).

(b) Those who pass judgment must have a good intention, must proceed according to law, and must decide according to prudence. If the first condition is wanting, judgment is unjust or otherwise sinful, according as the judge chooses against the right or is merely prompted by some human motive (such as hatred, anger, vainglory, avarice); if the second condition is lacking, judgment, if public, is usurped or illegal, if the third condition is not had, judgment is rash. But it should be noted that the Church has condemned the teaching of Wicliff that office and authority are forfeited by sinners (Denzinger, 595, 597).

1729. First Condition of Righteous Judgment.--The first condition of righteous judgment is that the purpose of the judge be just and sincere. But is it possible for judgment to be righteous if the judge is a bad man--that is, if he is in the state of mortal sin?

(a) If the sin of the judge is public, and judgment is given against a sin of the same character (e.g., if a notorious thief passes sentence on another thief), serious scandal is given; for justice is discredited and an occasion offered for criticism of authority and for lawlessness. But if the sin is not of the same character as the one condemned (e.g., if a notorious thief passes sentence on a murderer), the scandal is not grave in so far as justice is concerned.

(b) If the sin is not public, it is clear that no scandal is given; and if the judge is moved by the duty of his office and by zeal for justice to condemn even the same kind of sin of which he himself is guilty, he commits no sin whatsoever in so doing (cfr. 1280). But he is guilty of hypocrisy if he uses the opportunity to pretend a personal righteousness which he does not possess. It is this that Our Lord reprobated in the Pharisees, who, although guilty of many and grave crimes, wished to put to death an adulteress in order that they themselves might thus shine as immaculate. The words, “Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone” (John, viii. 7), condemn hypocrisy in judges, though they do not require that a judge be free from all sin. But though sinners may act against sin as lawmakers, prosecutors, judges, jurymen, police, etc., they should be admonished by their office to reform themselves according to the words of St. Paul: “In judging another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou dost the same things which thou judgest” (Rom., ii. 1).

1730. Second Condition.-The second condition of righteous judgment is legality, if there is question of judgment in court.

(a) Thus, the judge must have public authority, for, just as laws cannot be made except by public authority, neither can they be interpreted except by the same authority (Rom., xiv. 4). Hence, proceedings that are not held in the proper place, at the proper time, or in the manner prescribed by law are void, and the same is true if a court has not jurisdiction over the parties or over the subject-matter in controversy.

(b) The judge must administer justice according to the law and the usual method observed in courts, since his office is to interpret, not to make law or custom (_jus dicere, non facere_). His opinions as precedents may affect the development and growth of law, and hence he is especially bound to be faithful to general principles that are binding on him. If a statute in its operation is found to impede the just disposition of controversies, judges perform a public service by indicating this to those who have authority to regulate procedure. If the application of a law would work injustice, no judge can in conscience pronounce sentence according to that law; but there are many cases recognized in jurisprudence in which courts of equity afford relief to rights that cannot be defended or protected in courts of law, and in cases of this kind the judge should be guided by recognized principles of natural justice and the rules of his court.

1731. Third Condition.--The third condition of righteous judgment is that the sentence or decision be prudent or well-founded. Thus, in a judicial process the facts of a case must be examined and the rules of evidence be observed in judging the meaning of the facts. Since rash judgment is a sin committed, not only externally and in public, but also and especially internally and in private conclusions formed about the character or deeds of others, and since it is one of the commonest of sins, it will be well to explain its nature somewhat fully.

(a) It is an internal sin, and so it differs from external acts against the neighbor; but calumny, detraction, and unjust sentence are its outward expressions.

(b) Rash judgment is an internal sin of decision in which something is affirmed or denied mentally about a neighbor, and so it differs from a mere representation or thought. This distinction is important for scrupulous persons who think that mere suggestions against others that flash through their minds are rash judgments. These suggestions are a very common temptation, and, if repelled, are an occasion of merit; they become sinful only when entertained with pleasure.

(c) Rash judgment is a decision unfavorable to another in matters of character or honor. Thus, it differs from favorable decisions (as when without reason one holds that another is virtuous or has extraordinary merit), and from unfavorable decisions on matters other than character or honor (as when one concludes that a neighbor is mentally or physically deficient, and these defects are not connected with depravity nor considered as ignominious), and from unfavorable decisions that relate to sin but are not personal (as when one thinks that an expression used by an ignorant man is blasphemous, but passes no judgment on the state of conscience of the man).

(d) Rash judgment is a decision that expresses conviction, and not mere supposition. Thus, it differs from the prudential attitude by which one assumes for the sake of security that a stranger is to be distrusted, since he may be dishonest.

(e) Rash judgment is a certain conviction or judgment, that is, one which holds its own view as true and certain and does not consider the opposite of its view as worthy of consideration. Thus, it differs from doubt (that is, a state in which the mind is suspended between the unfavorable view and its opposite, and does not incline to one more than the other), from suspicion (that is, a state in which the mind inclines to the unfavorable view, but does not assent to it as being either probable or certain), and from opinion (that is, a state in which the mind assents to the unfavorable view as being probably true, but admits that it may be untrue). These various forms of mental reaction were treated in 654 sqq.

(f) Rash judgment is rash, that is, a belief based on insufficient authority, or an inference that is really groundless or not well drawn from premises. Thus, if one judges that one’s neighbor is a thief, because this was told one by an honest and well-informed person, the judgment is prudent; but, if one judges this on the word of a person who is unreliable or who has no knowledge of the facts, the judgment is imprudent. Again, if one judges that it is certain that one’s neighbor is a thief, because one has evidence that removes all doubt, the judgment is prudent; but if the evidence is merely probable, an opinion based on it is prudent, but a judgment based on it is imprudent. It is not rash to hold that the majority of mankind are lost, or that the present generation is not as good as the generation that preceded, if one has good reasons for such beliefs; but a sweeping and all-inclusive pessimism in such matters is unwarranted.

1732. The reasons for a judgment may be sufficient for something else, but insufficient for the judgment actually formed.

(a) Thus, they may be reasons sufficient for judging that one kind or degree of sin has been committed, but insufficient as regards another kind or degree of sin. For example, if one breaks the lock of another’s desk, there is an argument for willful trespass, but this alone does not prove larceny or the intent to steal.

(b) They may be sufficient for doubt and insufficient for suspicion, sufficient for suspicion and insufficient for opinion, or sufficient for opinion and insufficient for judgment.

1733. Rash Judgment.--Opinion, suspicion, and doubt are also rash, if there is no sufficient reason to warrant them.

(a) Thus, if there are no probable reasons for an unfavorable opinion, it is rash to form such an opinion. For example, the mere fact that two men have frequent and whispered conference together does not make it likely that they are plotting evil.

(b) If there are no sufficient reasons for inclining towards an unfavorable opinion or for suspending all assent, suspicion and doubt are rash. For example, the mere fact that a man enters a house when the owners are absent is no reason to suspect him of dishonest purposes, or even to have doubts, if he is of good reputation and enters the house in daylight and in a usual way.

1734. Sinfulness of Rash Judgment.--Rash judgment strictly understood, then, is a firm assent of the mind, based on insufficient data, and given to the view that a neighbor is or has been guilty of sin.

(a) From its nature this sin is mortal, for it consists in a contempt for, and an injury to, what is regarded as one of the chief goods of man, namely, the favorable opinion of him that is entertained by others. It is denounced in Scripture as an injury to the law itself (“He that judgeth his brother judgeth the law,” James, iv. 11), and as meriting condemnation (“Judge not, and you will not be judged, condemn not and you will not be condemned,” Luke, vi. 37).

(b) From the imperfection of the act or from the lightness of the matter rash judgment may be only a venial sin, as when unfounded suspicions arise in the mind without advertence to their sinfulness, or when one rashly judges in some small matter (e.g., that another person stole a pin or a cent).

1735. Rash judgment is not mortally sinful in an individual case unless the following conditions are present:

(a) there must be perfect deliberation, that is, full advertence to the judgment itself and to its sinfulness and gravity (see 175). There is no full advertence to the sinfulness and gravity of the judgment, however, if one does not perceive at least in a confused manner that one is deciding in one’s mind without sufficient reason that one’s neighbor is guilty of serious sin, and is thereby doing the latter a great injury. But it is not necessary that the rash judgment continue for a considerable time, for the malice depends on the evil done, not on the length of time it has lasted;

(b) there must be serious rashness, for the sinfulness of the judgment rests on its rashness. Hence, if one judges a sin to be certain which is very probable or almost certain, there is no great imprudence and therefore no serious sin;

(c) there must be grave injury and contempt, for in these the malice of rash judgment consists. Hence, if one judges that another is a drunkard and neither the latter person nor others in the same place regard drunkenness as very dishonorable, there is no great harm done. Similarly, if one judges that some indeterminate individual of a multitude or group is a rascal, or that a stranger whom one sees on the street late at night is out on an evil errand, or that an unknown party seen from a distance is on his way to a disreputable meeting, it does not seem that there is great injury done; for one does not greatly resent lack of esteem in others to whom one is not known.

1736. Rules on Perfect Advertence to Rashness of Judgment.--(a) There is perfect advertence when one actually perceives that the reasons for one’s unfavorable judgment are very insufficient; (b) there is perfect advertence when one virtually perceives the serious insufficiency of the reasons, that is, when one could and should perceive it, but is vincibly blind to it (see 30, 31) on account of some passion wilfully indulged, such as hatred or envy of the person judged. In these cases one judges with negligence and precipitancy in a serious matter (see Imprudence).

1737. Rules on Insufficiency of Reasons for Unfavorable Judgments.--(a) Those authorities for sin are not sufficiently trustworthy whose reliability is of inferior worth (e.g., because they are enemies of the person against whom they speak, or calumniators, or gossipers, or of bad reputation, etc.), or whose story does not merit the credence they claim for it (e.g., because the person against whom they speak is known as upright). If both the authorities for a story and the person against whom they speak are equal in good qualities, there is sufficient reason for doubts, but nothing more.

(b) Those arguments for sin are not sufficient which create for what is concluded only a slight presumption (see 658), that is, which offer facts that are never, or seldom, or not necessarily causes or effects or indications of sin. Thus, it is rash to judge that a mature man and woman conversing together in a dignified manner and in a public and open place are discussing obscene matters; or that a respectable person whose face is flushed, or whose hand trembles, or who slips on the street, has been imbibing too freely; or that a man climbing into a second story on a frequented highway and in broad daylight is a burglar. This rule may be expressed in other words by saying that reasons for drawing unfavorable conclusions are insufficient when in view of the circumstances and time, place, persons, deed, etc., no prudent person would consider the conclusions as warranted.

1738. Rules on Gravity of Matter in Rash Judgments.--(a) From the nature of the thing ascribed to the other person, only judgments that mortal sin has been committed are grave matter; for only mortal sin is in itself a grave reproach.

(b) From the circumstances of persons or acts, rash judgment of mortal sin may be only venial; for it sometimes happens that certain kinds of serious sins are not considered very ignominious in certain persons or conditions. Thus, in some places it is considered honorable for soldiers or students to have wounded adversaries in duels; some persons of a rough kind are proud of their proficiency in blasphemy or obscenity; where drunkenness is common, it is not considered as very disgraceful.

(c) From the circumstances of persons or acts, rash judgments of venial sin or of what is not sin at all may be mortal; for to those from whom much is expected slighter defects may be causes of great disgrace. Thus, it is very dishonoring to the parties concerned to think that a prelate is an habitual liar, that a nun visits too often, that a public official is illegitimate or stupid or afflicted with syphilis, and therefore unworthy of his position.

1739. The Moral Species of the Sin of Rash Judgment.--(a) It is a sin against justice, because it infringes the strict right of the neighbor that he be not judged guilty of evil without sufficient reason, and that he be not held worthy of contempt until he has clearly forfeited the right to respect. It is true that judgment as here taken is an internal act, and that it was said above that only external acts form the subject-matter of justice; but internal acts that are referred immediately to external acts, as concupiscence tends to lust and anger to injury, may be classed with these external acts. Hence, internal judgment naturally leads up to external judgment, and so it pertains to justice, just as the desire to steal is unjust and the desire to make restitution is just.

(b) It is a sin against charity, because it does not practise benevolence (“Charity thinketh no evil,” I Cor., xiii. 5), and is usually associated with ill-will or envy. He who judges rashly does not love his neighbor as himself, for he does not observe the rule not to do to others what he would not have done to himself.

1740. The moral species of rash judgment is not changed according to the species of sin attributed to another (such as heresy, dishonesty, impurity), and these circumstances of the rash judgment need not be mentioned in confession.

1741. The Moral Species of Rash Opinion, Suspicion and Doubt.--Do the conclusions given above on the theological species of rash judgment apply also to rash opinion, suspicion, and doubt?

(a) Some theologians answer in the affirmative, and argue that the same grave injury and contempt of the neighbor is found in these sins as in rash judgment, and that Scripture makes no distinction between the one and the other. On the contrary, they say, murmurings, detractions, and hatreds are caused oftener by doubts, suspicions, and opinions, since firm and certain judgments are not so often formed; and moreover there is no one who would not prefer to be judged certainly guilty of fornication than to be doubted or suspected of more heinous crimes, such as incest or sodomy.

(b) Other theologians answer in the negative, and argue that suspicion and doubt do not inflict a severe harm, since they stop short of firm decision of the mind and so are incomplete injuries which diminish rather than take away the esteem due to another. But the defenders of the affirmative reply that, while opinion, suspicion and doubt are incomplete as regards assent, they are not incomplete as regards deliberation and consent, and so can be mortally sinful, as is seen in the case of doubts against faith (see 840 sqq.).

(c) Still other theologians hold that rash opinions, suspicions and doubts are from their nature mortal sins on account of the arguments for the first opinion, but that in actual experience they are usually venial on account of the imperfection of the act (since on account of human frailty doubts, suspicions, or evil opinions of others can easily arise before they are noticed), or the lightness of the matter (for there is rarely one of these mental states without some reason that seems to be at least approximately a justification). But it seems likely that rash judgments themselves are seldom mortal sins, since the conditions for mortal sin are not often realized in them.

1742. The Chief Reasons for Rash Conclusions about the Character of Others.--(a) A first reason is that the person who draws the conclusion is bad himself. Evil-doers are very prone to suspect others of evil, for sin seems so delightful to them that they think others must find the same pleasure in it: “The fool when he walketh in the way, since he himself is a fool, esteemeth all men fools” (Eccles., x. 3).

(b) A second reason is that the wish is often father to the thought. Thus, if one hates or envies another or is angered against him, even trifles light as air will suffice to make one judge him guilty of sin. Just as love blinds an infatuated lover to the sins or crimes of the object of his affection, so does prejudice give a distorted vision that can see nothing but evil in the object of its dislike.

(c) A third reason for rash views unfavorable to others is long experience in dealing with human nature. Thus, old men sometimes become not merely cautious, which is reasonable, but unduly suspicious. Similarly, those who have encountered many trials or disappointments in life often become cynical and misanthropic, and to them the actions of all their fellowmen appear either evil or at least spoiled by an evil purpose.

1743. Rash Doubts.--Doubt about the probity of others is sinful, when there are no sufficient reason for it; for example, it would be unreasonable to suspend judgment about a man of excellent reputation because a well-known calumniator had spoken against him. But a doubt may be reasonable, as when a person has had a good reputation for honesty but a reliable witness declares that he is dishonest. In such a case should one decide for the innocence or for the guilt of the party called into doubt, or should one suspend judgment on the matter?

(a) It is not lawful to interpret reasonable doubts in a sense unfavorable to another person, for this would amount to rash judgment, since the reasons are sufficient for doubt but not for decision. Hence, it would be wrong to believe that a person of good repute was a thief, because another person of good repute said so.

(b) It is lawful to suspend judgment in case of reasonable doubts, if there is no obligation of deciding one way or the other, for in so doing one does no injury either to one’s own intelligence (since the doubt is reasonable) or to the honor of another person (since, as supposed, there is no obligation of judging positively in his favor). Just as there is no duty of making acts of love of our neighbor on every occasion, neither is there a duty of deciding doubts to his advantage on every occasion, or of having any opinion about him whatever. Some authors do not admit this, but the common teaching is against them.

(c) It is not lawful to suspend judgment, but the reasonable doubt must be resolved in a favorable sense, if there is an obligation or a wish to decide one way or the other; otherwise one would decide in an unfavorable sense and be guilty of rash judgment. This is what is meant by the well-known maxim that doubts about the character of a neighbor should be settled in favor of the neighbor. Hence, if one were in serious danger of forming a rash judgment and could not otherwise overcome the temptation, a suspension of judgment should give place to favorable judgment. It is true that one may be frequently in error by thus judging well of mankind, since man is inclined to evil from his youth (Gen., viii. 21) and the number of fools is infinite (Eccles., i. 15). But it is a less evil to fall into the speculative error of taking a bad man for good than by adopting another course to fall into the practical error of becoming bad oneself by violating a law of prudence, justice and charity; and it is less harmful that many sinners should receive more credit than they deserve, than that one just man should be deprived of the good opinion that belongs to him. Pseudo-Ambrose (Apol. ii, David, c. 2, n. 5) says that those who judge others rashly often become worse by this act than the persons they judge; and St. Thomas remarks that favorable opinions of others harm no one, whereas unfavorable opinions are a wrong to innocent persons.

1744. The interpretation of doubts in a favorable sense does not mean that one may not take into consideration the possibility of danger or deception and use remedies or precautions. This course is not rash judgment, for even when one judges that another person is good, one knows that the judgment is possibly wrong, and therefore cannot be entirely relied on for external guidance.

(a) It is lawful, therefore, to act as if one did have a bad opinion of another when there is a possibility of harm that must be guarded against. Thus, a father may forbid his children to keep company with other children, for these latter may be corrupt; an employer may keep his money under lock and key, because servants may be dishonest; a traveller may carry weapons, because the inhabitants among whom he travels may be treacherous. Even though appearances are favorable, one may be on one’s guard, for appearances are often deceptive.

(b) It is not lawful, however, to protect oneself or others in such a needlessly conspicuous or offensive manner as to sadden or defame the other party against whom one takes the precautions. Thus, it would be unjust and uncharitable to go about ostentatiously locking safes and drawers whenever a certain person appeared, for this would be equivalent to saying that he was a thief.

Art. 3: THE SUBJECTIVE PARTS OF JUSTICE: COMMUTATIVE AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

(_Summa Theologica_, II-II, qq. 61, 62.)

1745. The Three Species of Justice.--The subjective parts of a virtue are those that partake of its essence and that are the subordinate species into which it may be distinguished, as prudence is divided into individual, domestic and political (see 1639). There are three species of justice, and their division is taken from the threefold relation that exists in a whole.

(a) Thus, legal justice directs the parts to respect the rights of the whole, and it is exercised by all those who promote the common good of a society by fulfilling well the duties which pertain to their position and rank in the society.

(b) Distributive justice regulates the whole in reference to the parts, and it is exercised by all those who seek for such a distribution of the common things of a society as accords with the inequalities of merit and ability of the members. Hence, distributive justice is found not only in the heads of a state, or family, or other body, but also in the subordinates who are content with the fair distributions made by the heads.

(c) Commutative justice orders the relations between the parts, and it is exercised by all who practise fair dealing with their equals, that is, by states with states, families with families, societies with like societies, individuals with individuals; or with those who act as their equals, as when a society acting as a moral person makes a contract with one of its members as another moral person.

1746. Resemblance between Distributive and Commutative Justice.--The general likeness between distributive and commutative justice may be summed up as follows:

(a) they have the same remote matter, since both alike are concerned with external things, persons or works. Thus, things such as goods of fortune may be distributed by the community to its members, or may be exchanged by individuals between them; labors to be performed may be assigned by the community or may be agreed on by private persons through contract;

(b) they have the same general form, since both alike seek to impress equality on the matter with which they deal, by rendering in these things to every one his due, and by making man’s actions towards his neighbor to follow the mean of reason and of the thing (see 1711).

1747. The Special Differences between Distributive and Commutative Justice.--(a) They differ in their proximate matter, that is, in the operations by which use is made of external things, persons or works; for while distributive justice acts through distribution (or division), appointment, or assignment among many, commutative justice acts through exchange, or transfer from one to another between two persons.

(b) They differ in their special form; for distributive justice seeks equality and the golden mean, according to proportion, while commutative justice seeks the same according to quantity (see 1712). Distributive justice does not treat parties as equals, but gives to each one according to his personal worth--to the more deserving the superior positions and high salaries, to the less deserving the inferior positions and lower salaries. Commutative justice, on the other hand, treats the parties as equal, and decrees that debts must be paid and injuries repaired, even though payment or reparation must be made by a good man to a bad man, and that the recompense must equal the difference created between the parties by the debt or the injury.

1748. Commutations of Commutative Justice.--There are various kinds of commutations or exchanges used by commutative justice, but they do not create new species of justice, since they are only accidental modes of the act of giving the equivalent of what one receives. They are classified as follows:

(a) involuntary commutations, which are those in which reparation is made for the use against the will of another of the things, persons, or works that pertain to him. Thus, the property of another is used unlawfully by secret theft and by open robbery; the person of another is injured by murder and wounds; the honor of another by secret calumny and detraction, by open false testimony and contumely; the rights of another to persons are used unlawfully by adultery with his wife, by seduction of his servant, and the like;

(b) voluntary commutations, which are those in which compensation is made for a benefit that one derived with the owner’s consent from something that was his, or in which one gives or returns to another what is his. They include the various forms of contracts, or agreements between two parties in which the consent of both to the same proposal is externally manifested and obligation is produced to abide by the terms of agreement.

1749. Forms of Contract.--The chief forms of contract are the following:

(a) gratuitous contracts, which are those that confer advantage on only one of the contractants, or those in which no payment or compensation for his acts or goods is made to one party by the other party. They include unilateral contracts, which produce obligation on one side only (e.g., a promise, gift, testament), and bilateral contracts, which produce obligation on both sides. The bilateral contracts are also known as bailments, or understandings whereby a thing or business is transferred from one person to another in trust, on condition that a return will be made to the owner, They include the following contracts: loans, in which return must be made of the identical things borrowed (_commodatum_), or of a thing similar in kind (_mutuum_); deposit, in which a thing must be returned after safekeeping (_depositum_); an agency, in which one conducts the business of another with the obligation of making returns, either from express contract (_mandatum_) or from imputed agreement (_negotiorum gestio_). In _commodatum_ and _mutuum_ the advantage is had by the bailee, in the other three by the bailor;

(b) onerous contracts of certain event, which are those that confer an advantage on both parties, and in which the thing agreed on is certain and definite. They include contracts in which one party transfers ownership to the other (e.g., buying and selling, barter, loan at interest, contracts for annuities, stocks and bonds) or useful dominion (e.g., lease of property, contractor’s agreement, hire of labor), and contracts in which both parties transfer rights to a moral person of which they are the members (partnership);

(c) onerous contracts of uncertain event, which are those that confer advantage on both parties, but in which the thing agreed on is contingent and uncertain. Examples are insurance, wager, gaming contracts, lottery, and stock market speculation;

(d) subsidiary contracts, which are those that are made in order to give security to principal contracts to which they are annexed or for whose sake they are made. Such are guaranty and surety, pledge and pawn, and mortgage.

1750. The Equality Sought by Commutative Justice.--The equality in quantity sought by commutative justice means that in involuntary transactions the offender must suffer a punishment equal to the injury he offered or must pay a recompense equal to the damage he caused, and that in voluntary transactions one must give the equal of what one receives. But this can be understood in two ways.

(a) Thus, equality may be taken for identity in species, in the sense that the same kind of thing must be taken or returned (e.g., a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth). This kind of equality will do in some instances, as in cases of exchange of goods, but as a rule it would not be fair to both parties. Thus, if a subject strikes a ruler, he is not sufficiently punished if he receives the same kind of blow, for the injury to the ruler is greater on account of his office; when a man steals a cow or a sheep, he is not sufficiently punished if he restores what he took, for he would suffer no loss and the community whose peace he had offended would go without satisfaction (Exod., xxii. 1); if one gives one’s cow for another’s cow, or if a shoemaker trades his products for the clothes made by a tailor, the exchange may be unfair, since the thing given on one side may be better than that given on the other side.

(b) Equality may be understood as identity in value, in the sense that the thing taken or returned has the same quantity of goodness or excellence as the thing received, no matter how they differ in species. This kind of equality must be observed as a rule both in involuntary and voluntary transactions. Thus, for injury done to merchandise payment is made in money, or vice versa. If equality in value is not possible, because the good for which one owes is on a higher plane than the good which one is able to give, it seems that justice requires one to approximate equality as far as possible, and hence mayhem or defamation should be compensated for by the goods of fortune (see 1802 and 2090).

1751. Restitution.--Justice not only commands that one pay or give back what is due in voluntary transactions, but also that one repair injury which one has caused in involuntary transactions. But the four acts of payment, restoration, satisfaction, and restitution must not be confused.

(a) Thus, payment is the lawful bestowal by one person on another person of something of value in return for some other thing of value. It is clear that payment differs from satisfaction and restitution, since it supposes no act of injustice done.

(b) Restoration is the return to another of his property of which one had just possession, as when a borrower gives back to the lender, or a depositee to the depositor. This also differs from satisfaction and restitution, since it is a voluntary transaction (see 1792, 1796).

1752. Differences between Satisfaction and Restitution.--(a) They differ as to their principle or cause, since satisfaction is due for injury to honor, restitution for injury to goods by unjust detention or unjust damage. Hence, a person who has dishonored another (e.g., by disrespect) is bound to satisfaction; a person who has injured another (e.g., by destroying his goods) is bound to restitution; a person who has both injured and dishonored another (e.g., by adding insults to robbery) is bound to restitution and satisfaction.

(b) Satisfaction and restitution differ as to their term or object, since satisfaction is chiefly concerned with the person to whom amends must be made (as by apology), while restitution is chiefly concerned with the thing which must be given back in itself or in its equivalent.

1753. When Restitution Is Due.--Restitution is the act by which one places another in renewed possession or ownership or chance of ownership of that which is owed to him because it is his by reason of a strict right _in re_ or _ad rem_; in other words, it restores the equality that existed before an injury was done to the goods of another.

(a) Thus, restitution is not due for violation of virtues other than justice, because these virtues are not concerned with strict obligations and rights. Repentance and satisfaction are due for all sins, but they are not the same thing as restitution. Hence, one is not bound to restitution if one refused to help with alms a person in extreme need, or if, not being obliged to it by office, one neglected to extinguish a fire or to prevent a robbery. These are sins against charity, not against justice.

(b) Restitution is not due for violations of virtues that pertain to justice but do not confer strict rights, and hence it is only a violation of commutative justice that entails the obligation of restitution. Thus, if one has been surly or ungrateful, no legal right has been violated and no restitution is due.

1754. Does Distributive Injustice Oblige to Restitution?--(a) If only distributive injustice is committed (e. g., if a parent gives his children all necessaries but shows special favor to those that are less deserving), there is no duty of restitution, for there is no strict claim to special favors. (b) If commutative injustice accompanies the distributive injustice (e.g., if a ruler acts against his agreement to give the best position to the person who passes the best examination), there is a duty of restitution, for there is a strict claim to rights under contract.

1755. Distributive Justice and the Violation of Strict Rights.--Injustice in distribution is frequently accompanied by injustice in transaction on account of some strict right violated, and hence by reason of the latter injustice there will be a duty of restitution (see 1708, 1808).

(a) Thus, distributive injustice is accompanied by violation of a strict right of society when an unfair distribution is contrary to agreement made with the community (e.g., when one is appointed or paid especially to make fair distributions, or the law or contract expressly imposes this obligation), or when it causes harm to the community which one is bound _ex officio_ to prevent (e.g., when one appoints as public physician or surgeon a person who is entirely unfitted for the post).

(b) Distributive injustice is accompanied by violation of a strict right of an individual when it is against contract (e.g., when a person undertakes to select the best statue or portrait presented in a contest, but chooses one that is inferior), or when it inflicts loss on a private person (e.g., when a tax assessor requires more than is due from some persons, or an examiner admits to a school which receives only a limited number an unworthy candidate and thus excludes a worthy one, or a board rejects a worthy candidate as unworthy).

1756. Commutative Justice and Unfair Awards of Prizes.--Unfair awards of prizes in competitions are not violations of commutative justice unless the following conditions are present:

(a) the promise of award must be given as a contract binding in justice, for if the promisor intends only to bind himself in fidelity, the promisee obtains no strict right. Hence, an unfair distribution is not against commutative justice if a competition has not the character of a real contest or of an onerous compact to reward the person who surpasses his rivals, but is rather an opportunity to compete for the free bounty of the promisor (e.g., if the organizer of an entertainment offers a prize for the prettiest baby), or an encouragement to useful industry (e.g., a first prize for the best garden in a neighborhood). On the contrary, if the promise is part of an onerous contract, the promisor is bound in justice and the promisee obtains a strict right. This is the case when the competition has the character of a real contest, in which the contestants must undergo special labor, preparation, expense or trouble, etc., in order that the award be given to the most meritorious;

(b) the thing promised as subject of award must be the prize, and not merely a claim or right to be considered for the prize. Hence, if an examination is held in order that a number of worthy persons may be listed for future vacancies in offices or dignities, the person who passes as most worthy has no strict right to be given an office or dignity, but only to be considered for it.

1757. Has a person who passes as most worthy in an examination held in order to fill a vacant post a strict right to receive the post?

(a) According to the common opinion he has a strict right, because there is at least an implicit contract to the effect that the position will be given to the most worthy, since the examination is competitive.

(b) According to some authorities he has no strict right, because public positions are not to be regarded as rewards of merit, and the examination is not part of a contract but is only a means used by a superior to assist him in acting according to distributive justice. Nevertheless, even in this opinion an unjust award is a sin, and at times a grave sin, against distributive justice, and may accidentally be joined with commutative injustice (see 1755).

(c) Under the civil service method, or merit system, of appointment, the appointing official is bound by law to observe the rules of the civil service commission. The usual procedure is for the commission to submit the names of the three persons highest on the examination list. Position on the list is determined by competitive examination plus preferential points for veterans, experience in jobs, etc. (On the whole the preferential system does not seem to involve any injustice to those who do not receive the preference.) One of the three must be chosen for the first vacancy; for the second vacancy the remaining two, together with the next highest eligible, are proposed. Grave injustice against distributive justice would be done in not proceeding according to the legal method, and some degree of injustice might be done to an eligible who is illegally removed from a list, passed over, etc. Of the three highest eligibles no one has a strict right to the vacant post, but solely the right to be seriously considered.

1758. What should be said of a superior who would promote undeserving persons to ecclesiastical benefices?

(a) As regards guilt, it is a mortal sin to confer a benefice on one who is unworthy, or even (when there is question of a benefice to which the care of souls is attached) on one who is less worthy (see Canon 459, Sec. 1).

(b) As regards restitution, there is an obligation of reparation to the community, when it is made to suffer loss, and of compensation to an individual who is passed over in spite of his strict right (see three preceding paragraphs).

1759. The Obligation of Restitution.--(a) The obligation is both of natural and divine law. Reason itself dictates that everyone should receive his due, and revelation expressly commands restitution, as when it declares that he who has injured his neighbor’s field or vineyard must restore according to the damage done (Exod., xxii. 5).

(b) The obligation is both of means and of precept, for without restitution the offender does not obtain pardon from God (Ezech., xxxiii. 13 sqq,; Tob., ii. 20 sqq.). Hence, one who has seriously injured his neighbor cannot be saved unless he actually makes restitution, if he is able, or intends to make restitution when possible, if here and now he is not able to do so. A debtor who makes no effort to make restitution (e.g., one who refuses to deny himself luxuries, to curtail his expenses, to leave restitution money in his will), cannot be said to have a sincere intention of fulfilling his duty. But it is not true that a person who dies in venial sin on account of restitution neglected must remain in Purgatory till all the restitution is made; for this would make the punishment depend on the negligence of the heirs or on accident.

(c) The obligation is grave if the damage (absolute or relative) and the fault were both grave, for restitution is an obligation of strict justice (see 1753); the obligation is light if both the damage and the fault were light, for the injury then is light.

1760. Duties of Confessors about the Obligation of Restitution.--(a) As to confession, the penitent is obliged to mention the number of sins committed against the duty of restitution, if there have been many acts of intention not to pay (see 202 sqq.); but as a rule those who have for a long time continued in sinful neglect of the duty of restitution have committed only one sin thereby, or else they do not apprehend their duty of mentioning the distinct internal acts, and hence confessors are advised not to question overmuch about this.

(b) As to absolution, the penitent lacks true contrition if he is under a serious obligation to make restitution and is wilfully opposed to the performance of this duty at all or at the proper time. Such a one may not be absolved. But the confessor should not admonish a penitent of the duty of restitution, if the penitent is in good faith and the admonition would only do harm. If the obligation of restitution is only light, absolution may not be refused, and prudence will often advise that no admonition about the obligation be given.

1761. There are a number of situations possible when damage done is grave and culpability slight.

(a) Thus, the damage may be entirely involuntary, as when the offender could not foresee it and did not wish it (e.g., Sempronius commits a venial sin by speaking harshly to Claudius, whom he likes, but the latter is so depressed at this that he commits suicide). In this case there is clearly no obligation of restitution.

(b) The damage may be voluntary only interpretatively, as when the offender could not foresee it, but would have willed it had he foreseen it (e.g., Sempronius is glad when he learns that Claudius committed suicide, but would be much surprised if he knew that a harsh word of his caused it). In this case according to some there is a grave duty of restitution, because internal guilt and external damage are present; but others, with greater probability, deny the duty of restitution, for the damage was not caused by the internal sin of hate, which is not effective of itself, nor by the external harsh word, which was an occasion rather than a cause (see 1447, 1763).

(c) The damage may be voluntary directly, as when the offender wills it in itself (e.g., Titus steals a considerable sum from Balbus, but he is invincibly ignorant and thinks that the wealth of Balbus makes the sin only venial), or the damage done is voluntary indirectly (e.g., Caius is guilty of slight carelessness in guarding his cattle, and they get into a neighbor’s garden and cause great damage to crops; Caius foresaw some damage, but he could not have foreseen the actual grave damage that was done). About these cases there are various opinions, which will be given in 1765.

1762. The Roots of Restitution.--The roots or sources of restitution are usually reduced to two, according to the following two general kinds of injury inflicted on others:

(a) unjust damage, which is the loss inflicted, on the goods of another, without advantage to the offender, as in murder or incendiarism;

(b) unjust possession, which is the loss inflicted on another by the possession of his goods without his consent or against his will, to the advantage of the offender, as when a murderer steals from his victim, or an incendiary gets the insurance from the house he destroyed.

1763. Unjust damage that obliges to restitution is only an act (or omission) that is both injurious (being a guilty violation of another’s strict right) and productive of loss. Hence the following conditions:

(a) the act must be objectively unjust, a contravention of a strict right _in re_ or _ad rem_ (see 1695 sqq.), for example, stealing or keeping back the wages due an employee. But it is objectively unjust to deprive another of a non-strict right (e.g., the right of a beggar to an alms) by unjust means, such as force, fraud, calumny, etc. If a neighbor is not hindered from his strict right and unfair means are not employed, there is no objective injustice (e.g., when a merchant improves his place of business and thus draws away customers from a rival merchant);

(b) the act must be efficaciously unjust or the true cause of the loss which another suffers, for one is not responsible for what does not proceed from one’s act. An act is not efficaciously unjust, therefore, if it is only the occasion of damage (e.g., Titus steals and Balbus imitates him; Claudius steals, and on account of circumstantial evidence not arranged by Claudius, Sempronius is arrested and sentenced to prison), or if it is only a _conditio sine qua non_ (e.g., Caius gives whisky to Julius, who needs its stimulation to nerve himself for a crime), or if it is only an accidental cause (e.g., Titus steals a small sum of money from a miser, and the latter, to the great surprise of Titus, becomes insane);

(c) the act must be subjectively unjust, that is, culpable and imputable; for one is not bound to satisfy for acts that are inculpable or not imputable (see 97 sqq.). There must be either theological culpability, that is, the intention to harm another, which is sinful before God (e.g., he who purposely sets fire to his neighbor’s barn), or juridical culpability, that is, carelessness which causes injury to the legal right of another (e.g., he who lights a fire near his neighbor’s buildings and by his absent-mindedness permits the buildings to catch fire).

1764. Some Causes That Remove or Diminish Theological Culpability.--(a) Mental derangement or passion (e.g., great fear or anger) may make an injurious act unintentional and so take away natural liability for restitution (see 40 sqq.), but the civil law does not always admit the excuse, and after sentence the offender is bound to pay.

(b) According to some authorities, error about the extent of the harm that is being done, if invincible, excuses from restitution for damage that was not apprehended, as when a thief throws a gem into the ocean, thinking that it is only an imitation gem. But the offender would be held for the entire loss, if sentenced.

(e) Error about the person injured, even though invincible, probably does not excuse from restitution, if the intention was to harm a class (e.g., Sempronius intends to kill Balbus, because the latter is a policeman, but by accident he kills another policeman) or an individual (e.g., Caius intends to kill Titus and by mistake kills Claudius, the twin-brother of Titus).

(d) Error about the thing injured, even though invincible, probably does not excuse from restitution, if the intention was to do damage (e.g., Julius puts poison in a plate in order to kill his neighbor’s dog, but the cat takes the poison and is killed).

1765. Restitution for Damages That Are Only Venially Sinful but Seriously Harmful.--(a) When one injurious act is committed (as when through slight carelessness one sets fire to one’s neighbor’s chicken coop), some deny, but others affirm, the duty of restitution, while still others distinguish according to the full or only partial advertence to the sinfulness of what is done. Of those who hold for restitution, some think that all the damage should be repaired, since all was caused; but others think that it suffices to repair part, since the culpability was limited.

(b) If several injurious acts, which taken singly are slight but taken together are serious, were done to the same person (e.g., a waiter breaking dishes at various times while working for the same proprietor), restitution is due as soon as the sinner realizes the amount of harm he has caused; but it is disputed whether the obligation is grave or light. If the injuries were done to different persons (e.g., a boy breaking windows in many houses in the neighborhood), there is more probably only a light obligation.

1766. Restitution on Account of Law for Damages That Are Only Juridically Culpable.--(a) Before sentence of court there is no obligation of restitution, for it would be too heavy a burden to impose this in view of the absentmindedness of so many persons and the numerous distractions one encounters.

(b) After sentence of court there is an obligation of restitution, for the law which gives the court a right to impose it is reasonable, since juridical fault is often accompanied by theological fault, and moreover men will thus be led to a greater prudence in the care of their own goods and in respect for those of others.

1767. Restitution on Account of Contract for Damages That Are Only Juridically Culpable.--(a) Express contract obliges to restitution even for light fault (i.e., the omission of precautions taken by the more prudent), or most light fault (i.e., the omission of precautions taken by the most prudent only), or, if so stipulated, for no fault at all.

(b) Implied contract perhaps also obliges to restitution for juridical fault, for it seems that equity requires one to make good the losses caused by the absence of a care which the contract took for granted. Thus, if the advantage is with the bailor alone (e.g., gratuitous deposit), ordinary care is expected and the bailee is not held in danger to prefer the bailor’s goods to his own; if the advantage is with both parties (e.g., onerous deposit or loan), it seems that more than ordinary care is demanded and that usually the obligor may give preference to his own goods.

1768. Restitution for Careless Discharge of Fiduciary Duties, as in the Case of Physicians, Lawyers, Spiritual Advisers.--(a) If there was theological fault, restitution is due, unless the injured party took the risk upon himself. (b) If there was only juridical fault, it seems there is no natural duty of restitution, since no injustice was done; but a court may oblige to damages.

1769. Two Cases in Which Culpability Seems Doubtful.--(a) When one has inculpably done or omitted something from which damage to another can be foreseen, and one has now become aware of the danger (as when Balbus lights a fire on his own property and sees that a change of the wind makes this fire dangerous for his neighbor’s barn), one must prevent the damage, if this can be done without equal or greater damage to oneself; otherwise one must make restitution.

(b) When one has culpably done or omitted something from which damage to another was foreseen, but has tried, though in vain, to prevent the damage after the cause was placed, restitution is due if the cause was physical (e.g., Claudius gave poison to Titus, and then moved by remorse gave an antidote, but Titus died), since the party who set the cause in operation is responsible; but if the cause was moral (e.g., Balbus ordered a gunman to beat up Caius, but withdrew the order, and the gunman on his own responsibility then assaulted Caius), restitution is not due when the revocation ends one’s influence upon the damage that ensues.

1770. Three Kinds of Unlawful Possessors.--The second root of restitution mentioned above (1762) is unjust possession, which includes the acceptance or the retention of another person’s goods against the latter’s will. There are three kinds of unlawful possessors:

(a) the possessor in good faith, who is one that has been invincibly ignorant of the unlawfulness of his possession, but now learns his error (e.g., a buyer who discovers that the horse he purchased did not belong to the seller but was stolen property);

(b) the possessor in doubtful faith, who is one that has serious reasons for fearing his possession is unlawful (e.g., the buyer of a horse learns that the seller is known to have sold some stolen property, or that the price he charged for the horse was remarkably small);

(c) the possessor in bad faith, who is one that knows his possession is unjust (e.g., a buyer who purchases a horse which he knew had been stolen by the seller).

1771. Obligations of the Possessor in Good Faith in Reference to the Property Itself.--(a) If the property is still in his keeping, he is generally obliged to return it to the owner, for a thing calls for its owner. An exception would be the case in which the possessor can not return the property to the owner without a greater loss to his own property.

(b) If the property has perished, the possessor is generally obliged or not to restitution according as he has been enriched or not by the property; for one person should not be enriched at the expense of another, but property perishes to its owner.

(c) If the property is in possession of a third party to whom the possessor transferred it, he is generally obliged or not to restitution to the third party, on the latter’s dispossession, according as he has been enriched or not by the third party’s goods; for if he received nothing for the goods, he is clearly bound to nothing, but if he received payment, he must indemnify the buyer who is evicted for lack of title.

1772. Obligations of the Possessor in Good Faith in Reference to the Fruits of the Property.--(a) He must restore the fruits of the thing itself that are in existence, for the thing fructifies to its owner. Hence, he should restore to the owner the natural fruits (e.g., the fruit on the owner’s trees) and the civil fruits (e.g., the money received from hire of the owner’s horse).

(b) He must restore the fruits of the thing itself which are not in existence, but from which he has been enriched (e.g., the net profit from last year’s crops which the possessor has in the bank).

(c) He is not obliged to restore the fruits of his own labor or industrial fruits (e.g., the extraordinary interest derived from the owner’s money through the good judgment and energy of the possessor), nor the fruits that he consumed without enrichment (e.g., the vegetables he gave away or wasted).

1773. Rights of the Possessor in Good Faith in Deducting Expenses.--(a) He may deduct for all expenses that have benefited the owner, that is, for all the money he spent in necessary or useful ways in preserving or caring for the property. (b) He may not deduct for expenses that have not benefited the owner, or which the owner would not have reasonably authorized, such as special beautification of the property. But he may take away such adornments added by him as can be removed without injury to the property.

1774. Obligations of the Possessor in Bad Faith in Reference to the Property Itself.--(a) If the property is still in his keeping, he must return it to the owner, for a thing calls for its owner. But if the actual possessor had the property from the thief and could not restore it to the owner without serious loss to himself, it is held by some that he could return it to the thief in order to recover his money.

(b) If the property has perished or restitution of it has become impossible, he must compensate the owner, even though he has not been enriched, unless the goods would have perished equally with the owner; for he is then the efficacious cause of the loss. The same principle may be applied to damages through deterioration. The civil law often holds the thief responsible, no matter how the goods perished in his hands.

(c) If the property is in possession of a third party who bought it in bad faith from the possessor in bad faith, the seller is not bound to restitution to his purchaser on the purchaser’s eviction, unless there was agreement to that effect; for he who buys, knowing that there is no good title, buys at his own risk.

1775. Obligation of the Possessor in Bad Faith in Reference to the Fruits of the Property.--(a) He must restore the natural and civil fruits, even though the owner would not have obtained them from the thing, but he may keep the industrial fruits.

(b) He must make restitution for the profits lost and the losses suffered by the owner through the unjust deprivation of his property, for these are damages of which the possessor was the unjust and efficacious cause.

1776. Obligations of the Possessor in Doubtful Faith Who Began Possession in Good Faith (Supervening Doubt).--(a) If he does not culpably neglect attempts to settle his doubt, he becomes a possessor in good faith. If the doubt is settled against him, he must restore (1771); if the doubt continues, he may retain possession and prescribe (i.e., acquire ownership through long exercise of ownership rights), for presumption favors the possessor, but he must he willing to restore, should another appear as the rightful owner.

(b) If he culpably neglects attempts to settle the doubt, he becomes a possessor in bad faith. If the doubt is settled against him, he must restore (1800), at least for the time during which his culpability was grave; if the doubt continues and its settlement is impossible through his fault, it seems that he should share ratably with another claimant according to the strength of the respective claims; if the doubt continues and there is no other claimant, it seems that he may act on the principle that presumption favors the possessor.

1777. Obligations of the Possessor in Doubtful Faith Who Began in Bad Faith (Antecedent Doubt).--(a) If the property came to the possessor in doubtful faith without legal title (e.g., by violence), he has the obligations of one in bad faith, for presumption favors the former possessor.

(b) If the property came to him by legal title (e.g., by gift or sale), but from a former possessor of doubtful or suspected faith (e.g., one who seemed to have the property through theft), he must attempt to settle the doubt. Should the doubt nevertheless continue, some think he should divide it with another probable claimant, but others believe he may retain all.

(e) If the property came to him by legal title and from a former possessor in good faith, he must attempt to settle the doubt; but if the doubt remains in spite of his inquiries, he may retain the property in good faith, as long as matters continue in the same state.

1778. Cooperators and Restitution.--Restitution is owed for cooperation in injustice when the cooperator becomes at least partially an unjust and efficacious cause of damage to another. It should be noted that this cooperation may be of a limited kind, as when it extends only to the mode of the damage, or when it is not indispensable to the commission of the injury.

(a) Thus, he who cooperates only as to the mode of injury is probably liable only for that damage which he added to the substantial damage. Thus, if Balbus intended to steal $10, and Claudius persuaded him to steal $20, it seems that the influence of Claudius extended only to the amount of $10.

(b) He who cooperates, but whose assistance is not necessary, is bound to restitution as a cooperator, since he is an unjust and efficacious cause of damage. Thus, if Caius steals for Sempronius, knowing that, should he refuse, Mercurius would carry out the orders of Sempronius, the readiness to steal on the part of Mercurius does not excuse Caius or make his act any less harmful.

1779. Positive cooperators in injury are bound to restitution when their act is the unjust and efficacious cause of the damage. The principal cases of positive cooperation are the following:

(a) a mandator is a superior who explicitly or implicitly commands an inferior subject to commit an act of injustice, as when a father bids his son to steal. The mandator bids another to act in his name, and therefore he is the principal and not the accessory or secondary cause of injury. He must indemnify both the victim and the agent for losses he caused them; but he is not liable if he effectively recalled his mandate before the damage was done;

(b) an advisor is one who through instruction or persuasion induces another person to commit an injury which is not done in the name of or for the benefit of the advisor himself. He must make restitution both to the person whose injury he recommended and to the person to whom he gave the advice for the damages he brought upon them. Those who give wrong advice in good faith, or who recall their advice before the damage is done, are generally excused from responsibility. Bad example does not seem to be equivalent to bad advice, and he who recommends a lesser evil only because he wishes to prevent a greater one is not an efficacious cause of the lesser evil (see 1502, 1503);

(c) an implicit advisor (_palpo_) is one who by flattery, excuse, blame, ridicule or other such indirect means leads another to commit injustice against a third party. The implicit advisor is bound to restitution for damages caused or reparation denied through his fault;

(d) a protector or encourager (_receptans_) is one who knowingly and willingly bestows upon a malefactor, as such, security or comfort, in order that the latter may do injury with greater confidence or omit restitution for evil already done. He is bound to restitution for the unjust damage or retention of property caused by him;

(e) a consenter is one who gives his vote, decision, or approval to injustice, or denies it to justice. He must recall his consent to iniquity before evil results from it, and he must make restitution for damages that depend on his conduct;

(f) a partaker in injustice is one who gives assistance in the commission of injustice, positively and physically, by sharing in the injury or in some previous or subsequent act naturally connected with it. If he is a cooperator in unjust damage, he must indemnify the injured party; if he is a cooperator in unjust retention of property, he must give back to the owner the stolen goods received by him (1774).

1780. Negative cooperators are those who by their silence or inaction permit an injury to be done or to go unrepaired. They are bound to restitution for the damages caused by them; but it seems that _per se_ at least they are not bound to restitution for bribes taken by them or fines lost through their fault. Their responsibility for damages supposes the usual conditions, namely: (a) they must be the efficacious causes of damage, and hence if their silence or inaction is involuntary, or if outcry or resistance would be useless they are not responsible; (b) they must be unjust causes, that is, there must be an obligation to act owed by reason of strict right, contract, or implied contract. Examples are confessors who culpably neglect to give penitents needed spiritual advice, parents who permit damage to be done by their children who have not the use of reason, voters who absent themselves and thus cause damage they were bound by contract to prevent, owners of animals who sinfully permit their beasts to ravage the fields of another person, doorkeepers who allow thieves to enter a house under their charge, collectors who permit bills to go unpaid. But if the obligation is owed by reason of some other virtue than commutative justice (e.g., one is bound only in charity to turn in a fire alarm when one notices a fire, if one is not the custodian of the house), one sins, and at times gravely, by inaction; but there is no duty of restitution.

1781. The Circumstances of Restitution.--By the circumstances of restitution are understood the persons by whom and to whom compensation is to be made, the things to be restored, the manner, time and place of restitution.

1782. The persons bound to make restitution are all those who singly or cooperatively commit injustice. But when several commit injustice together, the following kinds of causes of the injustice must be distinguished:

(a) the causes are equal when there is no subordination among the cooperators; they are unequal when one is a principal upon whom the others depend as secondary causes or instruments (e.g., when one hires thieves to steal for one);

(b) the causes are considered as total causes of the injury when they are principal causes, or equal but indispensable cooperators, or conspirators; and perhaps also if they are sufficient causes (e.g., Caius and Sempronius each fire at a neighbor’s cow and each inflicts a mortal wound), or if the thing damaged is either not divided (such as a vineyard) or indivisible (such as a painting). In other causes cooperators are considered as partial causes of the injury.

1783. Cooperators in damage are bound to restitution either _in solidum_ or _pro rata_.

(a) Thus, they are bound _in solidum_ (i.e., jointly and severally) for all the loss when they are total causes of the damage, But the principal cause is bound absolutely, the secondary or equal cause only conditionally, that is, the principal must pay all the restitution himself, the others must pay all only when the principal or other associates fail to do their duty.

(b) They are bound _pro rata_ (i.e., each one according to his share) when they are only partial causes of the damage. The obligation of restitution _in solidum_ should not be imposed, if it is uncertain, or if the cooperator is in good faith and the admonition would only produce harm.

1784. The order of restitution among cooperators in injury is according to the priority of the obligation of one to that of another, in the sense that one is obliged to pay all and the other is obliged only in the former’s default. This order of priority in obligation is in force when many cooperators are bound _in solidum_ and when they cooperated in different ways (e.g., one as possessor, another as advisor, another as performer, etc.). The order generally given by moralists is as follows:

(a) the possessor is bound first of all, since he has the goods of another and the goods call for their owner;

(b) the cooperators are bound next in the following order: the originator (such as a perpetrator acting in his own name, or a mandator); the perpetrator acting in the name of another; the others who aided the commission of the act (such as advisors, flatterers, etc.); those who did not prevent or resist injustice.

1785. The obligations of cooperators when restitution in full is made by one of their number, or when condonation of debt is made to one of their number, are as follows: (a) if restitution was due _pro rata_, the other cooperators must indemnify their associate who paid all, or must pay their shares to the injured party who gave condonation only to one of their group;

(b) if restitution was due _in solidum_, payment by or condonation to a principal cause frees the secondary causes; but payment by or condonation to a secondary cause does not exempt a principal cause, and the latter is still held either to the secondary cause or to the injured party, as the case may be; payment by or condonation to an equal cause does not exempt the other equal causes.

1786. The person to whom restitution must be made is the person whose strict right has been violated, or, in his absence, it is society. But the following cases should be distinguished:

(a) when the injured person is known for certain and his right is certain, restitution should be made to the injured person or his representatives or successors, or, if this is not possible, to charitable or pious causes;

(b) when the injured person is entirely unknown, if the one who is the cause of the loss is in good faith, his obligations are those of a possessor in good faith; but if he is in bad faith, the common opinion is that he is bound, at least from customary law, to make restitution by giving to the poor or to religion;

(c) when the injured person is partly unknown, the person who is the cause of the loss should make restitution to the best of his ability. If the doubt extends to only a few persons (say four or five), any one of whom may be the injured person, restitution should be divided in the best way possible among these persons; if the doubt extends to many, but the injured persons were only a few, it seems that restitution may be made by giving to charity or religion either in the place of the injury or elsewhere; if the doubt extends to many, and the injured persons were many inhabitants of the locality, restitution must be made if possible to the injured parties themselves, otherwise to some public cause of the local community.

1787. Order of Preference Among Creditors.--The natural order of preference is to be shown to creditors when the debtor is unable to pay them all.

(a) Those who have a right _in re_ (e.g., those whose property is held by the debtor) have precedence over those who have only a right _ad rem_ (e.g., those who are creditors from contract).

(b) Creditors from onerous contract or delinquency, it is generally admitted, have priority over creditors from gratuitous contract.

(c) Creditors from delinquency and creditors from onerous contract, according to what seems to be the common opinion, are equal in rights and should be settled with _pro rata_.

(d) Debts that are certain have priority over debts that are uncertain, according to some; others deny this, but admit that the uncertain debts need be paid only in proportion to their probability.

(e) Creditors who are certain are by some preferred to creditors who are uncertain; but others think that payment to the poor, in place of the unknown creditor, is the latter’s presumed will, and that it has an equal standing with debts owed to known creditors.

(f) Poor creditors have no just claim to preference over rich creditors; but charity dictates that, when the poor creditor is in distress, he should be given the preference.

(g) Earlier creditors have a preference over later creditors in a real claim, but it is disputed whether this holds also in a personal claim.

(h) The creditor who asks for a settlement sooner has a preference, if the petition is made juridically, and perhaps also if it is made privately.

1788. The order of preference among creditors according to civil law is generally as follows: (a) proprietary creditors (i.e., those whose property is held by the debtor); (b) privileged creditors (i.e., those whose debts have a special urgency, such as judicial expenses, doctors’ bills, wages for hired help, living costs, etc.); (c) hypothecatory creditors (i.e., those who have claims against the property of the debtor, in the form of liens, mortgages, etc.); (d) common creditors (i.e., all those who are paid after the previous creditors have been satisfied). American law contains provisions in regard to dispositions of property made during the four months before bankruptcy is tiled, so as to protect the creditors of a person who is insolvent. The property of a bankrupt is placed in the hands of an assignee and allowance is made for the debtor’s needs and perfected liens (i.e., charges legally made upon property for debt). The property is then subject to levy by the creditors as follows: maintenance expenses, legal fees, costs of administration, wages of workmen, taxes, debts having priority under Federal or State law.

1789. The “Thing” to Be Restored.--(a) In case of unjust possession, the identical object must be restored, if it has an individual value; otherwise it may be restored in its equivalent. (b) In case of contract, the identical object must be restored, if that is the agreement (e.g., in loan of a chattel, or deposit), otherwise it may be restored in its equivalent (e.g., in loan of money).

1790. The “Amount” of Restitution in Certain Cases.--(a) When an Object Had Various Values During the Time of Its Possession in Bad Faith.--If the change was from an internal cause and was for the better (e.g., the calf stolen by a thief has become a cow), the return must be made in the improved state; if the change was from an internal cause, and was for the worse but would have happened in any case (e.g., the cow taken by the thief has become old), return must be made in the actual state; if the change was from an internal cause and for the worse, which would not have happened had the object remained with the owner (e.g., a cow taken by a thief has become lame on account of the thief’s carelessness), return must be made also for the deterioration. If the change was from an external cause (e.g., the wine taken by a thief has risen and declined in value several times), it seems that practically nothing more can be imposed by way of restitution than the value the object had when taken.

(b) When Unjust Damage has been Done.--If the damage was caused positively, the injured person must be indemnified entirely, if the damage was caused negatively, the injured party should be indemnified more or less according to the reasonable expectation he had of the gain of which he was deprived.

1791. The “Manner” of Making Restitution.--The general rule is that it should be made in such a way that the injury will be repaired and the injured person indemnified for his loss. Generally speaking, there is freedom of choice as to various forms in the modes of restitution. Thus, it may be made publicly or secretly, directly or through an intermediary, positively (by payment) or negatively (by cancellation of a debt). It may even be made without the knowledge and intention of the parties. (a) Thus, the injured party may be compensated, even though he is unaware that he was cheated or that he is being paid back; (b) the offender may restore, even though he does not know he is doing so (e.g., if he pays while intoxicated), and probably even though he has no express intention of doing so (e.g., if he makes a present of $10, and then remembers that he owed damages to the amount of $10).

1792. Second Restitution.--Natural law must be applied to certain cases in which restitution sent through an intermediary perishes on the way through no fault of the debtor. (a) If the debt is owed on account of possession in good faith, the debtor is not bound to a second restitution. (b) If the debt is owed on account of contract, the goods perish to the owner. Thus, if the contract was one of loan, the loss must be borne by the lender; if it was one of sale, by the seller. (e) If the debt is owed on account of delinquency, there is an obligation to a second restitution, unless the injured party assumed the risk of transmission. It is held as probable that the choice of the confessor as intermediary for restitution has the consent of the injured party, and hence that, if the restitution perishes on the way through chance or the fault of a third party, there is no duty of second restitution.

1793. The “Time” When Restitution Must Be Made.--(a) Internal restitution, or the purpose of restoring, must be made at once, that is, as soon as one adverts to the necessity of this resolve. (b) External restitution, or the fulfillment of the resolution, must be made at the first suitable opportunity.

1794. Unjust Refusal to Make Restitution or Pay Bills.--(a) Those who unjustly refuse to make restitution or to pay their bills at the proper time are guilty of mortal or venial sin according to the damage their refusal causes to the creditor. (b) They are not worthy of absolution if there is serious bad faith on their part, as when they have many times broken their promises, or when they refuse to pay even the part or installment which is within their power. (c) They are bound to additional damages for the losses caused by the unjustifiable delay.

1795. The “Place” Where Restitution Must Be Made.--(a) He who is a debtor on account of injury must make restitution at the place where the thing would be were it not for the injury. (b) He who is a debtor on account of possession in good faith should notify the owner where the property is, but he is not obliged to bring it to the owner. (c) He who is a debtor on account of contract must abide by the agreement, or by the statutes that regulate the contract. Thus, in this country the place of delivery in sales is according to law the seller’s place of business or his residence.

1796. Burden of Expense or Loss When Restitution Is Sent to the Place of the Creditor.--(a) If the obligation of restitution arises from injury, the debtor is generally bound to pay the transportation and to stand the loss when the goods perish in transit. (b) If the obligation arises from contract, the expenses and losses must be borne according to the agreement.

If nothing was stipulated, it seems equitable that the expenses of transportation be borne by the party who benefits or who requested the contract. According to the Sales Act in the United States, the seller is the loser when goods perish in transit, if a place of delivery had been agreed on; but the buyer is the loser when in pursuance of the contract the goods had been delivered to a carrier for transmission to the buyer (see 1888 d).

1797. The Causes That Excuse Temporarily from Restitution.--These causes can be reduced to two, namely, physical and moral impossibility. (a) Physical impossibility exists when the debtor has not the means to pay and cannot secure them; and it excuses as long as it continues. One who is bankrupt is excused from restitution during the continuance of his insolvency; if he later becomes able to pay, it seems to some that the civil declaration of bankruptcy according to the law of the country releases him from further payment, unless his bankruptcy was fraudulent or due to culpable neglect. (b) Moral impossibility exists when the debtor has the means, but cannot pay immediately without incurring a loss of a higher order (e.g., if he pays the small sum of money, he will lose his own excellent reputation), or without suffering a greater loss in his own goods of the same order (e.g., if he pays the money, he will be reduced to starvation), or without surely bringing on a far greater evil than delay of restitution to the creditor or a third party (e.g., if a stolen weapon is returned to its owner, he will commit suicide or murder).

1798. The Causes That Excuse Permanently from Restitution.--These causes can also be reduced to two general ones, namely, the cessation of the object and the termination of the obligation through the act of the creditor, or of the debtor, or of authority.

(a) Thus, the cessation of the object releases from the duty of restitution whenever the object perishes to its owner, as when it is lost by a possessor in good faith who has not been enriched by it, or even by a possessor in bad faith, if it would have been lost equally by the owner (see 1771, 1774).

(b) The termination of obligation through the act of the creditor occurs when the creditor freely and lawfully excused the debtor from payment. In some cases condonation may ordinarily be presumed, either on account of the affection of the creditor for the debtor (e.g., in case of debts owed by children to their parents) or on account of the familiar relationship between the parties and the smallness of the debt (e.g., in case of appropriation by servants or employees of some unimportant articles not kept under lock and key), or on account of the indigence of the debtor and the smallness of the damage (e.g., in case of trifling harm to goods of a wealthy person, if there was no great malice and the debtor is very poor).

(c) The termination of obligation is also effected by equivalent payment, which in certain cases is made by payment of the creditor’s creditor, or the cancellation of an equal debt owed the debtor by the creditor, and perhaps also by a gift made the creditor by the debtor and equal in value to the debt. Occult compensation by the creditor is the secret taking by him of what he is entitled to when the debtor will not give it of his own accord. This is lawful when the debt is certain, other means of recovery impossible, and the compensation not injurious; but it covers restitution, and hence the creditor cannot accept another payment from the debtor.

(d) The termination of obligation is also effected by the act of competent authority. Thus, judicial declaration frees from the duty of restitution a person who has lawfully and in good faith received certain goods as damages or award; prescription (see 1875) gives a clear title to property held by adverse possession over a certain number of years, and it frees from the duty of payment, at least in certain cases (though not in the United States); papal composition for good reasons exempts from their obligation those who owe restitution to pious causes or to church property injured by them.

1799. Condonation of the domestic thefts of wives and children of the family cannot be presumed in all cases (see 1903).

(a) Thus, if the things stolen are articles of food and drink (or tobacco), and were consumed by the members of the family, there is no duty of restitution, since the father or husband is then unwilling, not so much that these things should be taken, as that they should be taken furtively.

(b) If the things taken do not fall under the class of eatables and are still in the possession of the thief, they should be restored. Hence, if a son steals money from his father in order to have the means for debauchery, he must give back that money.

(c) If the things taken were not eatables, but were of great value and have been consumed or alienated, it will depend on circumstances whether restitution is obligatory or not. Thus, if the father thinks much of the son who took the money and the family does not miss it much, condonation may perhaps be taken for granted; but if the son is not on good terms with his father, or if the theft is very harmful to the family, restitution may be due.

1800. Excuse from Restitution on Account of Doubtfulness of Obligation.--(a) One who doubts positively and in good faith whether or not he did damage to another is excused from restitution if the doubt is about the fact of the damage (e.g., whether his competitor lost business) or about his own culpability (e.g., whether he circulated a calumny about his competitor); he is probably held to restitution _pro rata_ of the doubt, if the doubt is about the responsibility of his culpable act for the damage that followed (e.g., whether his calumny or the poorness of the competitor’s wares caused the falling off in business); he is probably held to only his share, if the doubt is whether his culpable act was responsible for the whole or only a part of the damage (e.g., whether his calumny caused all the damage, in view of the fact that others were also spreading calumnies).

(b) One who doubts positively and in good faith whether the restitution owed by him has been paid (e.g., whether his fellows in calumny have paid their portions of restitution, whether he has paid a bill for goods or services received) is held to full payment by some, to part (_pro rata_) payment by others, to nothing by others. Some moralists think the presumption favors the creditor, others that it favors the debtor, others that it favors neither and that a compromise is the right solution.

1801. Doubt does not excuse restitution in the following cases: (a) when it is merely negative and the presumption is against the doubter (e.g., when a person knows that he purchased and received goods, but does not know whether or not he paid for them, and has no reason to think he did pay); (b) when it is in bad faith, that is, knowingly or intentionally produced (e.g., when two men simultaneously fire at a neighbor’s cow, knowing that it will thus become impossible to determine the author of the damage).

1802. Special Cases.--There are some special cases of restitution for negative injury in thwarting another’s prospects, or for positive injury to goods of fortune, of body, of soul, or of spirit.

(a) For Frustration of Another’s Good.--Restitution is due for keeping another from a good to which he has a strict right (e.g., an office to which he has been chosen, property for which he has paid), or for using force, fraud, bribes, or other unjust means to keep another from a good to which he has a non-strict right (e.g., a position for which he has made application, a gift which another contemplates bestowing on him). The amount of restitution should be calculated according to the previous probability of success on the part of the injured party and the permanent results of the injury.

(b) For Injury Done to Goods of Fortune.--Private injuries are spoken of elsewhere (see 1762 sqq.), and now we consider only injuries that are in some way public. Commutative injustice entailing restitution to the community is committed by damage to public property, breach of contract made with the community, unjust means employed to prevent the government from obtaining its dues, unjust cooperation in any of the aforementioned acts; commutative injustice entailing reparation to individuals is committed when the transgression of a law places an undue burden on a fellow-citizen (e.g., when one unjustly escapes military or jury service and causes a substitute to be called who would not have been called otherwise, or when one unjustly evades one’s taxes and thereby certainly causes the taxes of others to be raised). If a tax law is just, it obliges in conscience, but whether as penal or preceptive, whether in virtue of legal or commutative justice, is a much debated question; and hence the question of sin and of restitution due is not easily settled. Impossibility or a general and admitted custom excuse from restitution (see 2637 sqq.).

(c) For Injury Done to Goods of Body or Personal Goods.--According to one view no restitution is due for merely personal injuries, since the damage cannot be repaired by a good of the same kind as that which was taken away (e.g., the murderer cannot give back life to his victim); but according to another view restitution is due for these injuries, since justice requires that every kind of damage be repaired as far as possible (see 1751 and 2090).

1803. Restitution for Various Kinds of Damage Done to Persons.--(a) For Bodily Injury by Unjust Homicide or Mutilation.--The offender (or his heirs) is obliged to restitution to the victim (or his heirs or dependents) for spiritual loss (such as death without the Sacraments), probably for personal loss (such as pain, facial disfigurement), and for real losses due to the injury (such as hospital expenses, loss of support by the widow and orphans). The spiritual loss is compensated by spiritual goods, such as suffrages for the departed, the personal loss by compensation suited to the circumstances (e.g., money employment), the real loss by payment of medical expenses, loss of time, support lost by dependents, etc. The offender is not liable for damages of which he is not the unjust cause (e.g., the alms that will be lost by poor persons on account of homicide, since they have no strict right to the alms), or the efficacious cause (e.g., the pay that will be lost by creditors on account of homicide, for as a rule the slayer cannot foresee this), nor for damages which the injured person clearly condones.

(b) For Bodily Injuries by Fornication or Adultery.--In case of fornication the offender owes restitution to the person seduced and also at times to the latter’s parents, and both sinners are bound to support their illegitimate child. The form of the compensation will depend much on circumstances, but in general it should be either marriage with the person seduced or some kind of pecuniary compensation. It should be noted that a promise to marry, even though it is canonically valid, gives no action to enforce marriage, but even an invalid engagement gives rise to action for unjust material damages, such as loss of chance to marry or loss of money spent in view of the marriage (see Canon 1017). In case of adultery the guilty party or parties are bound to make restitution to the injured husband if an illegitimate child is being reared at his expense, and also to the legitimate children for injuries to their strict rights, as in the diminished inheritance received from their parents on account of the illegitimate child. A child is not obliged to accept the word of his mother that he is illegitimate, but if he is certain about his illegitimacy, he may not take that to which he is not entitled. In restitution for fornication or adultery, care must be taken to preserve the good names of all the parties concerned.

(c) For Injuries of Soul.--In case of unjust and efficacious damage to physical goods (e.g., when one by fraud or force administers to another drugs or intoxicants that take away the use of reason or self-control, when a professor neglects his office of teaching or teaches error), restitution is certainly due for any material damages that result, and probably for the personal injury alone. In case of damage to spiritual goods, by inducement to commit sin or by dissuasion from good, restitution is due when the influence exerted was unjust (e.g., by fraud, force, threats), not when it was merely uncharitable (e.g., by advice, persuasion, request, example). Restitution for spiritual damage may be made negatively, that is, by removal of the unjust influence; but if a person who was seduced has in consequence become a hardened sinner, it seems that restitution should be made positively, that is, by counsels, requests, prayers to God, and other prudent means calculated to recall the injured party to a life of virtue.

Art. 4: THE VICES OPPOSED TO COMMUTATIVE AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

(_Summa Theologica_, II-II, qq. 63-78.)

1804. The Vice Opposed to Distributive Justice.--Favoritism (i.e., acceptance of persons, partiality) is defined as “a species of injustice which moves one to distribute the common goods or burdens of society, not according to merit or fitness, but according to some other and impertinent standard.”

(a) The common goods include offices, honors, functions, while the common burdens include taxes, contributions, and penalties.

(b) The common goods of which we now speak are those that belong to society and that must be portioned out to its members justly. Hence, there is no question of goods that belong to private persons, which the owners are not obliged to give to others unless it be in virtue of charity or liberality. A rich man is not guilty of acceptance of persons, if he bestows his largesses on those who are less in need or less deserving, but more acceptable to himself; and God is not unjust when he gives unequal graces to those who are equally sinners (Matt., xx. 14, 15).

(c) The right standard of just distribution is merit or fitness, as when an applicant is appointed to the post of teacher or superior on account of good character and knowledge. Any other standard which leaves merit and fitness out of consideration is unjust, as when a public official selects for offices or honors, not those who have worked the hardest or who give the most promise, but those who have more money or who are related to himself.

1805. The Sinfulness of Favoritism from Revelation.--In Holy Scripture favoritism is reproved (“How long will you judge unjustly and accept the persons of the wicked?” Psalm lxxi. 2), and impartiality is praised (“Thou art a true speaker and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man, for Thou dost not regard the person of man,” Matt., xxii. 16; “Masters, know that the Lord both of servants and you is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with Him,” Eph., vi. 9). Distributive justice is commanded in many passages of Holy Writ (“Consider not the person of the poor, nor honor the countenance of the mighty; but judge thy neighbor according to justice,” Levit. xix. 15; “There shall be no difference of persons, you shall hear the little as well as the great, neither shall you respect any man’s person,” Deut., i. 17; “Thou shalt not accept persons nor gifts,” Deut., xvi. 19; cfr. James, ii. 1 sqq.).

1806. The Sinfulness of Favoritism from Reason.--Favoritism transgresses a divine command and substitutes personal will for right in the treatment of subjects by superiors. Hence, it is morally evil, for disobedience is sinful in the high as well as in the low, and violation of rights is unjust whether the rights be of the community or of the individual.

1807. The Gravity of the Sin of Favoritism.--(a) From its nature, favoritism is a mortal sin; for it is a form of injustice (see 1746), and indeed it is no less damaging than commutative injustice (e.g., theft) and is often accompanied by the latter. (b) From its matter and from the lack of deliberation or consent it may be venial. Thus, if favoritism is shown in a trifling matter (e.g., in conferring a post that is unremunerative and unimportant) or in a small degree (e.g., in preferring an applicant who is only slightly less worthy), there is only venial injustice.

1808. Distributive injustice is also frequently accompanied by commutative injustice.

(a) Thus, a first class of common goods that are distributed are those intended primarily for the common good, and only indirectly and secondarily for the good of individuals, such as public offices, dignities, and benefices. He who distributes these offices unfairly, by appointing unworthy persons, or by appointing the less worthy when he is under contract to appoint the more worthy, violates commutative justice and is held to restitution to the community; but the worthy or more worthy persons slighted had no strict right, and hence no restitution is due them, unless there was a compact with them or unjust means were used to exclude them (see 1755).

(b) A second class of common goods are those that are intended primarily for the benefit of individuals, such as a fund created for the relief of the destitute or afflicted or pensions set aside for those who have deserved well of society. He who distributes these goods unfairly is guilty of commutative injustice against private persons, since the goods were destined for them, and they had a right _ad rem_ to the goods, and hence to these persons restitution is owed.

1809. Favoritism in Spiritual Matters.--(a) Partiality in granting favors is sinful, and gravely so when the matter is serious. Examples are the grant to the unworthy of the power of Orders or of jurisdiction, the concession of permissions and dispensations to one’s friends that are denied to others. (b) Partiality in imposing burdens is also sinful, as when a prelate issues an onerous command, and grants exemption to his friends. But if the thing commanded is obligatory already by reason of law, it should be observed in spite of the favoritism of the prelate.

1810. Who is to be considered as more worthy for appointments in spiritual matters?

(a) The more worthy person is the one who will better serve the common good in the office. Hence, the more pious or the more learned man is not necessarily the more worthy, for another may have greater industry, influence, executive ability, initiative, prudence, experience, etc., and so be better suited to fill the position. But no person should be considered as worthy of spiritual offices unless his moral character is good, and excellence in temporal things does not compensate for negligence in spiritual matters.

(b) The more worthy person is the one who is more available when the appointment has to be made. Hence, the one who is better gifted for the office is not necessarily the more worthy, for another may be better known and it may be impossible to make investigations and comparisons at the moment.

1811. Opinion of the Applicant or Appointee about His Own Fitness.--(a) The applicant need not think that he is worthy or the most worthy; indeed, according to St. Thomas, it would be presumptuous for him to think so highly of himself, and he would thus become unworthy. It suffices, then, that the applicant have in mind only to try for the office, leaving the decision about fitness to the examiner or appointer.

(b) The acceptor who feels that he is unworthy or less worthy is not guilty of injustice; for he is not the judge of his own abilities and may rely on the judgment of those who appoint him. Moreover, he can trust to divine grace and his own efforts to make up for any deficiency or inferiority of which he is conscious. But it seems that, if the appointee were absolutely certain that his appointment was unjust, he would be bound to surrender his office, if this were possible.

1812. Favoritism in Secular Matters.--Do the conclusions in reference to ecclesiastical offices apply also to secular offices?

(a) In both cases distributive justice is violated by favoritism, for the standard followed is not merit or fitness, and thus the more worthy persons are injured. The opinion that civil society has dominion of public offices and therefore the right to distribute them at will, without regard to the merits or fitness of persons selected, is not probable; for civil rulers, like spiritual rulers, should consider themselves as ministers and dispensers only (I Cor., iv. 1), and even if they had dominion over offices, they would be bound to use that power for the benefit of the public for whom they rule.

(b) In both cases also commutative justice is violated in some instances, the offense being either against society or against individuals (see 1755, 1808). Thus, an official who appoints a subordinate knowing that he will oppress and rob, is responsible and bound to restitution to the victims as being a cooperator in injustice.

1813. Favoritism in Marks of Esteem or Honor Shown to Others.--(a) There is no favoritism if honor and esteem are shown to those who deserve it on account of their virtue or position. Hence, it is not unjust but just to show special marks of veneration to holy persons, and even to those who are not holy, but whose authority or age deserves respect (such as rulers and prelates, parents and aged men).

(b) There is favoritism if honor and esteem are shown to those who have no genuine claim to it on account of goodness or rank. Thus, wealthy men are worthy of special respect on account of goodness when they employ their riches in useful ways, or on account of preeminence in the community in rank, ability, influence, etc., and he who shows special courtesy or attention to the wealthy for reasons such as these is not a respector of persons. But if mere wealth is worshipped, sinful favoritism is shown, as when a villainous rich man is honored and a worthy poor man is despised, or well-dressed persons are conducted honorably to comfortable seats in church and good persons whose attire is poor are treated with contempt (James, ii).

1814. Favoritism in Judges (Umpires, Arbitrators) and the Like.--(a) In the course of a trial there may be favoritism in matters left to the judge’s discretion. This does not happen, however, when the discretionary power is intended for the judge’s own benefit (e.g., when on a free day he decides to hear one side rather than the other), but when it is meant for the benefit of the litigants (e.g., when he grants to one side a longer time for preparation of its case than to the other side and for no reason pertinent to the matter at issue).

(b) In the sentence pronounced there is favoritism, if the decision is not based on the merits of the litigants, but on extraneous considerations, such as the fact that one of the parties is a friend or relative of the judge or arbitrator, or belongs to the same political party or business, etc.: “It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to decline from the truth of judgment” (Prov., xviii. 5). If the arguments are about evenly balanced on both sides, it would be favoritism to decide in favor of one against the other. Alexander VII condemned the proposition that a judge may take money in such a case of doubt to decide for one party (Denzinger, n. 1126).

1815. The Vices against Commutative Justice.--These vices can be classified under two general heads: (a) the vices committed in involuntary commutations (see 1748), which include deeds against the person (such as homicide, mutilation, imprisonment) and against property (such as theft and rapine), and unjust words, whether spoken during judicial process (by judges, advocates, witnesses, etc.), or outside of judicial process (such as contumely, detraction, etc); (b) vices committed in voluntary commutations (see 1748), which include fraud and usury.

1816. Homicide.--Life destroyed is either that of an irrational being (i.e., of a plant or beast) or of a rational being. In the latter case we have homicide, which is defined as follows: “an act or omission of a human being that is the efficacious cause (see 1763) of the death of a human being.” A parent who denies his child the food, remedies or climate which it needs and which he can afford commits homicide by omission; a physician who practises abortion commits homicide by act. The following distinctions of homicide have a bearing on its substantial morality (i.e., its lawfulness or unlawfulness):

(a) in reference to the intention, homicide is either voluntary or involuntary, and voluntary homicide is intended either as a punishment or as a defense;

(b) in reference to the slayer, homicide is either the act of a public or of a private person, of a cleric or of a layman;

(c) in reference to the person slain, homicide is either the killing of one who is guilty or of one who is innocent, either the killing of a neighbor or of self (suicide);

(d) in reference to the manner, homicide is either direct or indirect, according as the action from which death results is from its nature (_finis operis_) productive of death or of some other effect. Thus, it is directly homicidal to practise embryotomy (i.e., the destruction of the vital organs of a fetus) or abortion (i.e., the ejection of a fetus at a stage of development when it is unable to live outside the mother), but it is not directly homicidal to give a pregnant woman remedies necessary for her life, although harmful to the fetus; for the object or purpose of the former is to kill, of the latter to cure.

1817. Other distinctions of homicide have a bearing on its added or accidental malice.

(a) A new species of sin is added to that of injustice when other virtues are offended against. Thus, the virtue of piety is violated when the victim is a person to whom the slayer owed special respect and devotedness, as in parricide, regicide, fratricide, uxoricide; the virtue of religion is offended when murder is committed in a church.

(b) An aggravating circumstance is added by the greater deliberation with which the homicide is planned, or the greater treachery or cruelty with which it is executed (e.g., assassination, death by starvation). Some circumstances, however, may be morally indifferent, such as the fact that the victim is killed by one kind of poison rather than another.

1818. The Killing of Animals (or Vegetation).--(a) In itself, the killing of animals is not sinful; for animals are made for the use of man. Hence, it is lawful to kill, not only harmful animals, such as those that prey on human beings or breed pestilence or destroy property, etc., but also other animals, when their death is necessary for some good purpose, such as the provision of food, clothing or medicine for man.

(b) In its circumstances, the killing of animals may be sinful, and even gravely sinful, as when one kills the animals of one’s neighbor (Exod, xxii. 10, 11), or hunts against the law, or injures society by prodigal destruction of animal or plant life, or kills animals in cruel ways. The skinning of animals alive, in order to secure finer-looking furs to satisfy the vanity of women, is an inhuman barbarism of the worst type that should be reprobated by everybody.

1819. When Homicide Is Lawful.--Killing of human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment); for just as it is lawful to amputate a gangrenous member which threatens to destroy the body, so is it lawful to remove from human society by death an individual who menaces the safety of the community. (b) It is lawful when the safety of an individual demands that he kill an unjust aggressor (self-defense); for a man owes his first duty to his own life in such a case, and the aggressor in making a deadly attack voluntarily assumes the risk of being killed. It is more correct, however, to say here that it is lawful to defend one’s life with resultant death to the offender (as will be explained below, in 1826, 1828, 1834).

1820. Arguments for the Lawfulness of Capital Punishment.--(a) Scripture.--In the Old Testament the death sentence was prescribed for certain more serious crimes, such as murder (“whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed,” Gen., ix. 6); in the New Testament Our Lord recognizes that the power of a judge to sentence to death comes from above (John, xix. 10), and St. Paul declares that princes do not wield the sword without reason, but act as ministers of God when they punish evil-doers (Rom., xiii. 4).

(b) Tradition.--The Church has always taught the lawfulness of capital punishment and rejected contrary errors, as in the case of the Waldensians condemned by Innocent III.

(c) Reason.--The State has both the duty and the right to promote the common good and to defend it against its enemies, whether by war against external foes or by coercive measures against internal disturbers of the peace. Now, the experience of all the centuries and of all countries has shown that, generally speaking, the lives of law-abiding persons and the general peace are not sufficiently protected unless the supreme penalty be appointed for certain crimes.

1821. Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted, therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means.

(a) Thus, a general suspension of the capital punishment is lawful in a community whose members are peaceful and not inclined to violence or other crimes subversive of law and order. Whether such ideal conditions exist today may be doubted, and indeed some countries that abolished the death penalty have found that this proved an incentive to crime and they were forced to restore the former laws.

(b) A particular exemption from capital punishment is lawful, when there are good reasons recognized by law for commutation or clemency. This has been the practice of governments throughout history, and is justified when it furthers the common welfare, or at least shows mercy to a deserving individual without harm to society. But a judge has to condemn when the law and the facts call for condemnation, and the authority in whom the pardoning power is vested has to use his power prudently, lest he encourage lawlessness.

1822. It is not morally lawful to put criminals to death unless the following conditions are present:

(a) the crime must be external and of such a character that the public welfare requires the supreme punishment, either on account of the enormity of the act (e.g., murder), or on account of its danger (e.g., sleeping at one’s post in time of war). Further, the crime must be certain and sufficiently established, for, since the punishment should fit the offense and the law presumes innocence until guilt is proved, no one should be sentenced to death except for a serious and certain crime. The Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law;

(b) the sentence of death and its execution should be performed by those who have public authority for these acts and in the manner required by law. For capital punishment is a means of self-defense used by society, and its use pertains there fore to the representatives of society. Moreover, if private individuals exercised this function, accused persons would not receive the consideration of their rights or the opportunity of defense due them, and the public peace would be overthrown by murders of revenge committed in the name of justice.

(c) the penalty should be carried out in a humane and Christian manner, as is manifest. The convicted man should be allowed time and opportunity to make his peace with God and, if possible, to say farewell to relatives. Slow and agonizing forms of killing are of course entirely wrong, no matter how wicked the criminal who is being executed. The American law and other laws do not permit a pregnant woman to be executed until she has delivered her child.

1823. Unlawful Killing of Offenders.--The killing of offenders is, therefore, unlawful in the following cases:

(a) when the offense is not serious or fully deliberate (e.g., involuntary manslaughter), or when it has not been sufficiently established (e.g., if it is not certain that the supposed victim of murder is dead or that he died from a homicidal act). In civilized countries today the law inflicts capital punishment only for the most serious crimes, and the State has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before the punishment can be decreed. But in the past death was often the penalty for horse- or sheep-stealing, or even smaller offenses, and in times of excitement men have sometimes been sentenced to death without a fair trial;

(b) when the sentence of death is not pronounced or executed legally. Those who lynch the perpetrators of heinous crimes are often in good faith, especially if the processes of the law are too slow or uncertain, but since they act without authority, their deed is really murder. The same is true of a husband who kills his wife taken in adultery, of the relative of a seduced girl who kills the seducer, of an officer of the law who unnecessarily or without authorization kills a man sentenced to death when the latter is trying to escape. The State has the right, though, to declare a notorious malefactor outlawed, and thus to give to private citizens the right to take him dead or alive, or to kill him on sight; but it is clear that the exercise of this right is a dangerous remedy and one to be used sparingly;

(c) when the mode of killing or the circumstances are repugnant to Christian feeling. Today capital punishment is generally inflicted in a humane manner, but history records many cruel forms of execution, as when men were hanged, drawn and quartered, or burned at the stake, or put to death amid the jeers and curses of the populace.

1824. Is Tyrannicide Lawful?--(a) If the ruler is a tyrant in act (that is, one who has a lawful title to rule but who abuses his authority), it is not lawful to kill him on account of his misdeeds or crimes, since the subject has not the authority to act in the name of the nation (Rom., xiii. 1 sqq.; I Peter, ii. 18). In case of self-defense, however, as when the tyrant unjustly makes a personal attempt on the life of a citizen, the latter has the right to kill. The Council of Constance condemned the doctrine of Wycliff that every subject has the right to assassinate a tyrannical prince, a doctrine that would make the position of every ruler unsafe, since there are always persons who think they are victims of persecution. The nation, however, has the right to depose or even to execute a wicked ruler, for government is given to rulers for the benefit, not for the destruction, of the common good.

(b) If the ruler is a tyrant in title (that is, a usurper), it is not lawful to kill him, when he has already obtained peaceful possession; for here again it cannot be said that the killer would have the authorization of the nation. If, however, the tyrant has not obtained possession but is struggling for it, his status will not be that of ruler but of public enemy, and it will be lawful to kill him as an act of war, provided the conditions of a just war are present (see 1384).

1825. Judges and Executioners in Canon Law.--According to the law of the Church (Canon 984, nn. 6, 7), those who pass the death sentence as judges and the executioners and their immediate and voluntary helpers become irregular (i.e., incapable of lawfully receiving Orders or of exercising their powers). The reasons for this ancient discipline are chiefly two:

(a) clerics are the ministers of Christ, and therefore they should be like their High Priest, whose sacrifice they offer at the altar. Now Christ “when He was reviled, did not revile, when He suffered, He threatened not, but delivered Himself to him that judged Him unjustly” (I Peter, ii. 23). Hence, it is unbecoming that clerics should condemn to death or kill their fellow-men, even criminals;

(b) clerics are the ministers of the New Testament, and therefore they should conform themselves to its spirit of mildness. The divine law itself declares that a bishop should not have private quarrels or inflict blows (I Tim., iii. 3), but the church law goes further and declares that a cleric should not even act as public judge or executioner in capital cases. The Old Testament inflicted corporal punishments and death, and hence we read that its priests and levites put sinners to death with their own hands (Exod., xxxii. 28; Num., xxv. 7, 8; I Kings, xv. 33; III Kings, xviii. 40; I Mach., ii. 24), but the law of Christ contains no sentences of death or of bodily chastisement.

1826. The Right of Self-Defense.--The second case of lawful homicide mentioned above (1819) is the killing of an unjust aggressor, not intended by the slayer, but consequent on his defense of his life against the aggressor. This right of self-defense is granted by natural law itself, and has been denied by but few moralists.

(a) Thus, nature inclines man to prefer his own life to that of another, other things being equal, and therefore it authorizes him to defend his life even at the cost of an aggressor’s life. Even the brute animals are armed by nature to defend themselves against attack.

(b) The natural law also permits one to perform an act from which two effects will follow, one good and the other bad, provided the good effect alone is intended and there is a sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect (see 104). In the present case the killing of the aggressor is an evil, while the protection of the innocent party is a good; but it is only the protection that is intended, and the killing is not an extreme measure in view of the greatness of the good that is at stake.

1827. The right of self-defense is also sanctioned by human laws. (a) Thus, church law recognizes this right in the words of Innocent III: “All laws permit one to repel force by force, but the defense must not be immoderate, nor exercised from desire of revenge.” According to the Code (Canon 985, n. 4) irregularity arises from voluntary homicide, but this does not include the case of lawful self-defense, although a provisional dispensation must be asked for. A cleric has the right of self-defense, as well as a layman. (b) Civil law also has always admitted the right of a person assailed by another to defend himself, even by killing the assailant, if there is no other alternative.

1828. Conditions for the Exercise of This Right.--(a) The assault must be a true aggression (i.e., an act of violence threatening the life of the person assaulted) and unjust (i.e., an attack made without public authority); (b) the resistance must be true self-defense (i.e., an act used to ward off attack or to make the assailant powerless) and moderate (i.e., the person attacked must not use more force than necessary and he must not intend to kill the assailant).

1829. The person who is killed must be a true aggressor, for otherwise the slayer is himself the aggressor and guilty of unjustifiable homicide. Killing is therefore unjust in the following cases:

(a) when the opponent is not using true violence, as when he merely prays and hopes that you may die or be killed;

(b) when he is not using actual violence, as when he is disarmed or helpless, or when he has only threatened to kill you in the future, or to bring you to the gallows by his testimony or vote.

1830. Must one wait, then, until the aggressor has actually attacked, before using self-defense? (a) One need not wait until physical aggression has started (e.g., until the adversary has fired a shot or struck a blow); otherwise self-defense would very often be futile. (b) One should wait until moral aggression has been shown before proceeding to defense; that is, the other party must perform some external act which according to the judgment of a prudent person at the time and place is one with the act of physical aggression, as when an angry man reaches for a gun or knife, or a desperado advances in a threatening manner.

1831. The aggression must also be unjust or contrary to the right of the person attacked. (a) Thus, if the aggression is just, it is not lawful to kill the aggressor. Hence, it is not lawful to kill an officer of the law who is making an arrest, or guarding a prisoner, or leading him to execution. (b) If the aggression is not just, self-defense is lawful. It makes no difference whether the aggression is formally unjust (e.g., when the aggressor attacks you because he wishes to wreak revenge, or because he fears you), or only materially unjust (e.g., when you are a stranger to the aggressor, but he is drunk, or a dope fiend, or a maniac). Similarly, a son may defend himself against his parent, a subject against his superior, a layman against a cleric, an adulterer against the injured husband, a calumniator against the person calumniated; for authority or personal injury suffered does not give these persons the right to inflict by private authority the punishment of death.

1832. Self-defense must be merely a protection of self against future evil and not a punishment of the aggressor for past attacks, for capital punishment belongs to society, not to private persons. Hence, if an aggressor has taken to flight, or has been disarmed, or knocked senseless, or has begged for mercy, it is not permissible to kill him.

1833. Self-defense must be moderate, for injury or the death of a human being is a thing that should be avoided when possible. (a) Thus, the person attacked must not reply with force at all, if this is possible. He should escape, or call a policeman, or throw the weapon out of the window, etc., if these means will suffice. Some authors excuse from flight those who would suffer disgrace if they ran away from danger, such as those who are pugilists or professional fighting men. (b) The person attacked should use only such force as is necessary, if force must be employed. Thus, if the aggressor can be made helpless by the use of gas, permanent bodily harm should not be done him; if he can be subdued with the fists, knife or pistol wounds should not be resorted to; if wounds will suffice to hold him at bay (e.g., by blackjacking), killing should not be resorted to. In the heat of a fight, however, the person assailed sometimes unintentionally goes beyond what moderation requires.

1834. The intention of the person who uses force to repel an unjust aggressor must be good. (a) Thus, as his end he must intend only the preservation of his own life and look upon the death of his neighbor as a misfortune. (b) As the means to this end he must intend only to stop the attack that is being made, not to bring on the death of the aggrcssor. Those who are commissioned by public authority to put a human being to death (e.g., the public executioner or soldiers in time of war) may intend these homicides, since they are means to the common good; but the death of one private person is not a means to the good of another private person, and hence it should not be directly aimed at.

1835. The mind of the person who defends himself against the unjust aggressor must also be free from sinful dispositions, such as hatred and revenge; otherwise he sins against charity. Our Lord reprobated the teaching of the Scribes that it is lawful to return injury for injury in a revengeful spirit, and declared that one should prefer to receive a second blow rather than return a blow for the sake of revenge (Matt., v. 38 sqq.; cfr. also Rom., xii. 19).

1836. When Self-Defense Is Obligatory.--Self-defense is sometimes an obligation. (a) Thus, it is an obligation, if the only factors considered are the life of the guilty aggressor and the life of the innocent person who is assailed; for the life of the innocent should not be sacrificed for the guilty, and charity indicates that the first duty of the person attacked is to himself. (b) It is an obligation, if, on account of circumstances, the person attacked owes it to others to preserve his life--for example, if he is the father of a dependent family, or a public official whose life is very necessary for the welfare of the community, or whose office it is to resist those who menace public security. This is true from the viewpoint of society also, for the world needs the good men it has, while there are too many wicked men already.

1837. Sometimes self-defense is not obligatory. (a) Thus, it is merely optional, when no duty to others commands self-defense and a divine counsel invites one to omit it (see 1169). Hence, if the assailant is certainly in mortal sin, while the person assailed is certainly in the state of grace, it would be very commendable to die rather than kill the assailant, in order to grant him time for repentance. But a case of this kind is rather theoretical than practical, for how could one be sure that the assailant would profit by the opportunity allowed him of doing penance? At any rate, the sacrifice is optional, for the aggressor is either formally unjust, and hence not in extreme spiritual need, or only materially unjust, and it will be uncertain whether he is in spiritual need or whether, if he is in such need, the respite will be used by him (see 1165 sqq.). (b) Self-defense is unlawful according to some, if the life of the assailant is necessary for the common good, and the life of the person assailed is not necessary. But this would be a very rare case.

1838. Defense of Neighbor’s Life.--The principles on defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor, even at cost of the latter’s life, may be applied to the life of an innocent third party.

(a) Thus, it is necessary to defend the innocent person, even if the aggressor has to be killed, when one is bound to give this protection by natural duty (e.g., because the innocent person is one’s child or father and the aggressor is not a relative), or by contract (e.g., because one is a hired bodyguard or policeman).

(b) It is lawful to defend the innocent person, even if the aggressor has to be killed, and even though there is no duty of nature or contract to give this protection (Exod., ii, 12). But it is disputed whether it is also necessary to do this. The affirmative opinion calls attention to the extreme bodily need of the innocent party, the negative to the extreme spiritual need of the aggressor. It is not necessary to risk one’s life in order to protect the life of the innocent party, unless the public safety is in peril, or one has undertaken this obligation (see 1169).

1839. A private individual may defend life at the cost of the life of an unjust aggressor, because he is obliged or permitted to protect the life that has more of a claim on him. He may also defend certain other most important goods that belong to him or to his neighbor, even if need be at the cost of the unjust aggressor’s life, because the common good is more valuable than the life of the aggressor, and the defense of those goods is bound up with the common good. Thus, if it were not permissible to defend valuable property even to the extent of killing a burglar, criminals would be encouraged, peaceful citizens would be at a disadvantage, and the public security would greatly suffer. Among the goods now spoken of are goods of fortune and goods of body. It is not always obligatory, however, to exercise the right of extreme self-defense (e.g., in case of violation, provided no consent is given the deed).

1840. Defense of Goods of Fortune Against an Unjust Aggressor.--(a) If the attack is equivalent to an attack on life (e.g., the aggressor wishes to take the last loaf from a starving man or the plank from a drowning man), or if it seems to be an attack on life (e.g., the burglar enters a room as if he meant to kill), the killing of the unjust aggressor is not unlawful, as is clear from the previous paragraphs.

(b) If the attack is made on goods of fortune only, but they are of great value and actually possessed, the question is disputed. According to some, killing in this case is unlawful, because life is more valuable than property; but the common opinion is that killing is lawful, both because Scripture excuses the person who kills the nocturnal robber (Exod., xxii. 2), and because the public safety is at stake and therefore justifies extreme measures.

(c) If the attack is made only on goods of fortune, and they are not yet possessed (e.g., a legacy one hopes to obtain) or have only a small value (e.g., one gold piece), killing is unlawful; for there is no proportion between external goods that are only hoped for or that are of minor importance and the life of a human being. Pope Innocent XI condemned the teaching that one may use homicidal defense to protect a coin or the prospect of receiving an office.

1841. Defense of Bodily Purity Against an Unjust Aggressor.--(a) If the attack is equivalent to an attack on life, or seems to be an attack on life, self-defense even by killing is lawful, and hence it may be permissible to kill one who is attempting rape.

(b) If the attack is on bodily purity only, but _per actum consummatum luxuriae_, the question is controverted. One opinion is that killing may not be resorted to, for the aggressor cannot take away purity of soul, and the purity of body that he violates is less good than life. The opposite opinion holds that killing may be employed in self-defense, since bodily purity has a higher value than even notable goods of fortune, especially as violation is usually accompanied by spiritual damage or disgrace of family, etc.; and the public interest demands that such outrages be sternly suppressed on account of the strong inclination of many persons to commit them.

(c) If the attack is on bodily purity only, and _per actum non-consummatum luxuriae_ (e.g., _per osculum vel amplexum_), killing is not justified, but other means of defense, such as blows or wounds, may be used.

1842. Defense of Bodily Integrity Against an Unjust Aggressor.--(a) If the attack is equivalent to an attack on life (e.g., if the aggressor intends to mutilate or wound, but there is danger that he will kill), defense even with resultant killing is lawful.

(b) If the attack is not equivalent to an attack on life, but is very notable (as when a principal member will be lost or the person horribly disfigured), some authorities claim that defense which would cause the aggressor’s death is unlawful, because death is too heavy a price to pay for wounds. But against this it may be argued that the loss of limbs or organs is more serious than the loss of money, and, in some respects, is more damaging than violation. The civil law gives a person the right to protect himself in body and limbs, even by killing the assailant when absolutely necessary.

(c) If the attack menaces only a minor detriment (e.g., a black eye or bloody nose), certainly killing is unjustified. But the person attacked may hit harder and oftener than the assailant, if he is able, so that the latter may beware of him another time.

1843. Defense of Honor or Reputation.--When honor or reputation is unjustly attacked, the more perfect course is to bear the injury patiently and to pardon the offense, according to the teaching of Christ. But it is not sinful to defend honor and reputation, just as it is not sinful to defend life, limbs and property. How far may one go in defense of honor or reputation against an unjust aggressor?

(a) If the aggression is merely in words (as when the offender calls the other party a liar, or says that he is illegitimate), it is not lawful to use violence, at least such as would cause death; for there are other and less drastic means of defense that suffice (e.g., to answer the allegations, or even to retort the same epithets against the aggressor), and, unless the violence of even justifiable resentment were restrained, the world would be filled with disorder and homicidal violence. Innocent XI and Alexander VII condemned the doctrine that one may kill in order to prevent the spread of calumny.

(b) If the aggression is in deeds (as when the offender slaps the other person or throws mud or rotten eggs at him), it is not lawful to kill; for here also defense can be made in other ways (e.g., by bringing the aggressor before the court for punishment, or, if this cannot be done, by returning slap for slap, etc.). Innocent XI rejected the proposition that it is lawful to kill the aggressor who gave one a blow and then fled. It is only when the aggressor is continuing his attack, and imperilling the innocent party in life or limb, that the latter may repel the extreme force by extreme force.

1844. Killing of the Innocent.--So far we have spoken of the killing of malefactors and unjust aggressors, which under certain conditions is not sinful. The next subject is the killing of the innocent, that is, of those who are neither malefactors nor unjust aggressors worthy of death.

(a) The killing of the innocent by human authority, if it is done directly and intentionally, is always sinful, whether the cause be a private individual or society. But since God is the Master of life and death, He could command the death of an innocent person, as was done when he bade Abraham to sacrifice his son (Gen., xxii. 12).

(b) The killing of the innocent, if it is indirect and unintentional, is not sinful when there is a serious reason for performing an act from which the killing results; for it is lawful to perform an act from which two effects follow, if the good is intended but the evil only permitted, and there is a sufficient justifying reason (see 103 sqq.).

1845. Unlawful killing of the innocent is a most heinous crime.

(a) It is an injury to the rights of God over human life, and is forbidden in the Fifth Commandment of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exod., xx. 13). To judges the special command was given: “The innocent and just person thou shalt not put to death” (Exod., xxiii. 7). The man-slayer destroys the image of God, a crime so detestable that in Scripture God declares that He will revenge the blood of man, even though shed by a beast (Gen., ix. 5; Exod., xxi. 28).

(b) It is a most grave sin against the individual, for it deprives him of his chief natural good and the means of securing and enjoying many great spiritual goods. If the person killed desired or asked for death, no injustice is done to him, since he waived his right, but uncharitableness is committed, since the neighbor’s life should be loved, and the uncharitableness is greater according as the person is more worthy of love. Scripture numbers murder among the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance (Gen., iv. 10, ix. 5).

(c) It is an outrage against society, for such killing unduly deprives the community of one of its members, causes scandal and disturbs the peace. Hence, the law has always inflicted the severest punishment on slayers of the innocent.

1846. Since the end does not justify the means, the following ends do not justify the direct and intentional killing of innocent persons:

(a) the public good does not excuse, for example, if an enemy were to threaten destruction against a city unless it put to death an innocent person who dwelt in its borders. The criminal on account of his lawlessness is an obstacle to the common good, but the law-abiding citizen promotes the common good and it would be harmful to the public peace if he could be put to death without any fault of his own. The State is for the citizen, not the citizen for the State. But if the common safety depended on the sacrifice of one man’s life, charity and patriotism would require this man to make the sacrifice spontaneously (see 1169); that is, he should deliver himself to the enemy, and were he to refuse, it seems the community would have the right to deliver him. Similarly, it is not lawful to kill hostages, even though the enemy has broken faith, or killed one’s subjects;

(b) the private good of other individuals does not excuse; for example, it is not lawful to kill a maniac lest he do harm to those around him, at least unless the conditions of unjust aggression are fulfilled. Similarly, it is not lawful to kill a woman with child, in order to baptize the child;

(c) the private good of the individual himself does not excuse; for example, it is not lawful to shoot or poison those who are mortally wounded or suffering from an incurable disease, or who are old and helpless, in order to spare them suffering. But one may give a person at the point of death a medicine that may hasten the end, if there is good hope that it will cure him and other remedies are futile, for the purpose is not to kill but to cure (see 2485). It is lawful also for embalmers to puncture the heart or sever an artery of a person who seems to be dead, if there are certain signs of his death, for the purpose is not to kill this person, but to free his friends from fear that he is buried alive.

1847. Indirect or Unintentional Killing of the Innocent.--Indirect and unintentional killing of the innocent is lawful (1872) only when there is a reason of sufficient gravity (i.e., one of a value proportionate to the life of the innocent person).

(a) The public safety is such a sufficient reason. Thus, in time of war it is lawful to attack a city, even though the death of many non-combatants will result, or to charge the enemy, even though innocent persons have been placed by the latter as a shield to his front ranks.

(b) Private safety from death is not a sufficient reason, if it does not compensate for the loss, or if it is secured unlawfully (see 104). Thus, if Balbus cannot escape from an unjust aggressor without running down and killing an unbaptized infant or a man whose life is very necessary for the community, the temporal life of Balbus does not compensate for eternal life lost by the infant in the first instance, and the mere private good of Balbus does not compensate for the public good sacrificed in the second instance. Again, if Caius cannot escape from drowning without pushing a shipwrecked companion from the only plank which is insufficient for both, or if Sempronius who has been sentenced to death for crime cannot escape execution unless he kills his guard, the means of securing safety are unlawful.

(c) Private safety from death is a sufficient reason, if it compensates for the loss and is secured lawfully. Hence, if the life of the innocent person is only of equal importance, self-defense against an unjust aggressor by means of flight that will involve the innocent person’s death does not make one guilty of homicide (e.g., Titus is speeding in his car in order to escape a pursuer bent on murder and he cannot avoid hitting and killing a cripple who crosses the road). If self-defense is conducted by means of attack, one may use violence against the aggressor (e.g., one may shoot at him, although an innocent person whom he is using as a shield will be killed), but not against the innocent person (e.g., one may not shoot at the innocent person in order to deprive the aggressor of his shield, nor may one hold the innocent person before one in order that he receive the assailant’s bullet).

1848. Destruction of the Unborn.--(a) Direct and intentional destruction of this kind is unlawful and is known as feticide, when the fetus is killed within the womb, or abortion, when a non-viable fetus is expelled from the womb. It is not abortion to hasten the birth of a viable fetus (i.e., one which is about six or seven months old and can live outside the womb), since the child can be kept alive, but grave reasons are required to make it licit, since it presents a risk to the child’s life. But to deliver or expel a non-viable fetus is abortion. Every direct abortion is regarded by the Catholic Church as murder and is penalized with the censure of excommuuication (Canon 2550, Sec. 1). It might be argued that the direct killing of what is surely a human being is murder, but when does the fetus become a human being? The ancient theory of Aristotle, followed by St. Thomas and most medieval authors, maintains that the embryo did not become human until some time after conception, an opinion that still has great probability physically. Others maintain that animation is simultaneous with conception. Since we do not know the exact moment of animation, the moment of conception must be accepted in practice as the beginning of human life. Probabilism is ruled out in this instance, for there is no doubt about the law and its application: we must not directly kill what is probably a human being. Accordingly, abortion is considered to be murder. Hence, even in the case of a girl who has been raped--although it is a probable opinion that measures may be taken to remove the semen from-her body--it would be gravely sinful to give any treatment which would abort an impregnated ovum.

(b) Indirect and unintentional killing, or rather permission of death, is not unlawful in such a case, when there is a proportionately grave reason, such as the life of the mother. Thus, it is permissible to give the mother a remedy necessary to cure a mortal disease (e.g., medicinal drugs, baths, injections, or operations on the uterus), even though this will bring on abortion or the death of the fetus; for the mother is not obliged to prefer the temporal life of the child to her own life. But the baptism of the child must be attended to, for its salvation depends on the Sacrament, and the eternal life of the child is to be preferred to the temporal life of the mother, if the conditions of 1166 are verified.

(c) Contemporary moral opinion considers that in tubal pregnancies (ectopic gestation) the tube itself is in a pathological condition long before rupture of the tube, as experts in obstetrics teach, and hence can be excised as a diseased organ of the human body. As such, the excision of such a tube would be in itself a morally indifferent act and, granting verification of the other conditions for the principle of double effect, could be licitly performed. (For a history of the moral question, medical testimony and full argumentation see Chapter X of _Medical Ethics_ by Charles J. McFadden, O.S.A.) Some theologians, however, believe that the tube cannot be removed unless it can be proved in each case that a pathological condition, placing the woman in danger of death, exists. The first view is accepted as sufficiently safe to be followed in practice. (See Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., _Morals in Politics and Professions_, p. 118.)

1849. It is unlawful positively to kill the mother in order that the unborn child may be saved or baptized. When a caesarean section offers the sole chance of saving the mother’s life, it is permitted. It is seriously doubtful whether a mother is morally obliged to undergo the operation in situations where a threat to her life exists. In this case, if baptism in the uterus is possible without increasing the danger to the mother’s life, it should be attempted. When a caesarean section does not offer any chance of saving the mother’s life, but will directly contribute to her death, the operation should not be performed. One must await the death of the mother and then observe the norm of Canon 746; “Immediately after the death of a pregnant woman, a caesarean section should be done in order that the fetus may be baptized.” The procedure to be followed is outlined in medical-ethics books. (See McFadden op. cit., pp. 244 ff.)

1850. Direction in Cases of Doubt, Ignorance, or Error.--(a) In case of doubt, if there are positive and solid reasons for believing that an operation performed to save a woman’s life will not be destructive of the life of a fetus, the operation seems lawful; for in doubt, the woman, as the certain possessor of life, has the presumption.

(b) In case of ignorance or error (e.g., when a penitent asks whether a certain operation is permissible, or a surgeon in good faith performs an operation that is not lawful), either a truthful answer should be given to questions, or silence should be observed when an admonition would only be harmful (e.g., if to require the Caesarean operation from a dying mother would have no other result than to make her die in bad faith instead of good faith).

1851. Canonical Penalties for Homicide and Abortion.--(a) Homicide, if voluntary, produces irregularity (Canon 985, n. 4) and subjects the guilty party to exclusion from legitimate ecclesiastical acts or to degradation from the ecclesiastical state (Canon 2354). Moreover, a church is violated by the crime of homicide (Canon 1172). (b) Abortion of a human fetus, when the effect is produced, brings irregularity on those who procure it and also on the cooperators (Canon 985, n. 4). Moreover, those who procure abortion effectively, the mother not excepted, incur excommunication _latae sententiae_ reserved to the Ordinary, and, if clerics, they are to be deposed (Canon 2350).

1852. Suicide.--Suicide, or the killing of oneself, is, like homicide in general, of various kinds.

(a) Thus, in reference to the intention, it is voluntary or involuntary, according as it proceeds from knowledge and choice, or as it is committed without realization of what is done or without the intention to produce death. Examples of involuntary suicide are a person who is temporarily insane on account of impending calamity and drowns himself, and a person who, attempting to frighten another by pretending to hang himself, actually strangles to death. It would be a mistake to say that no person who commits suicide is free, but no doubt a large percentage of those who kill themselves are not responsible for their act.

(b) In reference to the mode, suicide is direct, if that which is done tends from its nature to the death of the person who does it (e.g., firing a pistol into one’s brain); it is indirect, if that which is done tends from its nature to another end (e.g., to struggle with a criminal who is firing a revolver). Direct suicide is committed in many ways, all of which can be reduced to positive (e.g., the eating or drinking of deadly poison) and negative (e.g., the refusal to eat or drink anything).

1853. The difference between direct and indirect suicide is also explained as follows: (a) direct suicide is an act or omission that has but one effect, namely, death (e.g., taking deadly poison); (b) indirect suicide is an act or omission that has two effects, one of which is the peril of death. This peril of death is certain, if death always follows (e.g., jumping from the roof of a skyscraper); proximate, if death usually follows (e.g., jumping from a third- or fourth-story window); remote, if death now and then follows (e.g., jumping from a second-story window).

1854. Sinfulness of Suicide.--Voluntary and direct suicide is always a most grave sin, if committed without due authority (i.e., the command of God).

(a) It is a grave injury against the rights of God, for it usurps His authority, refuses Him the service He desires, spurns the gift He has bestowed, dishonors the image of God (Gen., ix. 6), and destroys the property of God: “Thou, O Lord, hast the power of life and death” (Wis., xvi. 13).

(b) It is an offense against society, for the community has a right to be benefited by the lives of its members, and to receive a return for the protection and assistance it affords them. Moreover, death by suicide is usually felt as a great sorrow and disgrace by the relatives of the departed, and it has a demoralizing effect on many persons of suggestible minds. The fact that the death of this or that man is not felt as a loss by a family or the State, but rather as a relief, is no argument; for if suicide were left to human decision, how many fatal mistakes would be made (see 460)! Persons valuable to society would rashly kill themselves, fearing in a mood of depression that they were worthless; others who could contribute nothing in material ways would destroy themselves and deprive their fellow-men of an example of fortitude, or at least of the opportunity of showing charity and mercy to the needy.

(c) Direct and voluntary suicide is a sin against the deepest natural inclination, for self-preservation is called the first law of nature (see 298), and also against that love of self which charity requires (see 1136 sqq.). Since charity to self is more obligatory than charity to the neighbor, suicide is a more serious sin than other forms of homicide. Nor is it excused by the desire of some good for self. The suicide does not better himself by his act, for, since he has not fulfilled his trust in this life, what can he expect in the next life? He escapes the lesser evils of physical miseries or moral temptations, but he incurs the greater evils of physical death and of moral cowardice and defeat, to say nothing of his punishment in the hereafter.

1855. Cooperation in Suicide.--Cooperation in suicide has the guilt of unlawful homicide. (a) Thus, those who incite, advise, command, or assist another to commit suicide are guilty of moral murder. (b) Those who carry out together a suicide pact are guilty both of suicide and of moral murder.

1856. Permission or Authorization to Commit Suicide.--(a) Divine authority could command or permit suicide, since God has the power over life and death. But whether God has ever done this is uncertain. Some argue for the affirmative from the death of Sampson, who pulled down the house upon himself saying: “Let me die with the Philistines” (Judges, xvi. 30), and of Razias who killed himself to escape ill-usage (II Mach., xiv. 37 sqq.), and from the acts of certain female martyrs who from love of God or from the desire to preserve chastity rushed to their deaths. But others think that invincible ignorance may explain these cases. The act of Sampson may also be understood as indirect suicide lawfully committed for the public good of his country.

(b) Human authority, according to some authors, could authorize a condemned malefactor really guilty of a capital crime to execute himself; for, they argue, there is little difference between opening one’s mouth to swallow poison administered by an executioner and taking it with one’s own hands, as was done by Socrates. Others deny that God has given the State the authority to order suicide, and they declare that it is both unnecessary and inhuman to force a condemned man to be his own executioner. Still others believe that the State could command self-execution, at least in necessity, but that such a punishment is so strange, cruel and unnatural that it should be avoided; for, if it is shocking to ask a father to execute his child, much more shocking would it be to ask a man to kill himself. The argument is inconclusive which says that because it is lawful to perform an act preparatory for death, but which is indifferent and would never cause death (such as opening the mouth for poison), it is also lawful to perform the act which inflicts death (such as taking the poison).

1857. Indirect Suicide.--Indirect suicide is committed when one is the cause of an act or omission, indifferent in itself, but from which one foresees as a result that one’s life will be lost or notably shortened, This kind of “suicide” is lawful when and if the conditions for a case of double effect are present--in other words, if there is a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect (see 103 sqq.). The following reasons are considered sufficient:

(a) the public good, for the welfare of society is a greater good than the life of an individual. Eleazar is praised because he exposed himself to death in order to deliver his people (I Mach., vi. 43 sqq.). It is not sinful, then, but rather obligatory for a soldier to advance against the enemy or to blow up an enemy fortification, though it be certain that his own death will result; nor is it wrong for a pastor to go about ministering to his flock during a pestilence, though it be certain that he will fall a victim to the plague. Explorers and experimenters may also risk their lives for the advancement of science;

(b) the good of another suffices for indirect suicide, when he is in extreme spiritual need. Indeed, there may be an obligation of charity to risk one’s life for the salvation of a soul (see 1166). Hence, it is lawful to go as a missionary to a country whose climate is so trying that strangers die there after a few years;

(c) the higher good of self (i.e., the good of virtue) justifies indirect suicide, when there is an urgent reason for exercising a virtue in spite of the peril of death. Thus, for the sake of charity a shipwrecked passenger may yield his place in the life-boat to his parent, wife, friend, or neighbor; for the sake of faith, one may refuse to flee in time of persecution (see 1006), or may refuse and should refuse to take food or drink offered as a mark of idolatry; for the sake of chastity a virgin, at the peril of her life, may jump from a high window or resist the assailant, although it does not seem that this is obligatory if no internal consent will be given to the rape; for the sake of justice, a criminal in the death house who has an opportunity to escape from prison, may decide to remain and be executed, or a malefactor condemned to die by starvation may refuse to take food secretly brought him; for the sake of mortification, one may practise moderate austerities, as by fastings, watchings, scourgings, hair-shirts, etc., which sometimes shorten life, though generally they lengthen it;

(d) the preferable temporal good of self suffices, that is, one may risk the danger of death to escape another danger that is more likely to happen or more terrible. Thus, a man in a burning building may leap from a high window, even though death from the fall is almost certain, for death by burning is more terrible; a prisoner who is about to be tortured to death may make a break for liberty if he sees a chance of escape, for death is more certain if he remains. On the same principle, one may engage in hazardous but useful occupations, such as working on high buildings, or as a diver or miner, for it is better to live a shorter time with employment and the necessities of life, and to be of service to the public, than to live a longer time without these advantages. But a worker should not undertake dangerous tasks for which he is unfitted or unprepared, and the employer is bound to safeguard the lives of the workers.

1858. The same reasons are not sufficient in all cases. (a) Thus, the greater the risk of death, the more serious the reason required. Hence, to save the money one has it might be lawful to jump from a second-story window, but not from a higher window when the fall would most likely kill one. (b) The more immediate the danger of death, the more serious the reason required. Thus, to save money one might lawfully enter a quarantined house, but the risk would not be permitted if the house were tottering in an earthquake. (c) The more notable the shortening of life, the greater the reason needed to permit it. Thus, if the practice of a certain mortification or labor reduces the expectancy of life for a few years, a lesser reason suffices than if it reduces the expectancy for ten or more years.

1859. Indirect suicide is unlawful and has the guilt of self-murder when the reason for risking death is frivolous or insufficient or sinful.

(a) Examples of insufficient reasons are found in the cases of persons who engage in occupations or actions that are very dangerous to life or limb but of little public or private value, as when for the sake of performing a feat a man walks a tight-rope, pricks himself with pins and needles, or puts his head into a lion’s mouth. But if the performer is very skillful and has no other means of livelihood, it seems that he may exercise his art for the sake of entertainment.

(b) Examples of sinful reasons for risking death are found in persons who abbreviate their lives by over-eating, drunkenness, habitual indulgence in strong spirits, or immoderate passion of any kind; and also in those who refuse to make use of the ordinary means for the preservation of health (see 1566 sqq.) or of the ordinary remedies against disease (see 1571). It is not necessary that one be anxious to live long (see 1063), but it is obligatory to use the normal means for the preservation of life, and those who notably neglect these means are guilty of indirect suicide.

1860. Is it suicidal to refuse a surgical operation pronounced necessary for life?

(a) If the operation is likely to be successful and there is no good reason for refusing it, it seems that one may not refuse it without the guilt of indirect suicide, although one might be excused on account of good faith.

(b) If the success of the operation is doubtful, or if there is a good reason for refusing, one who refuses is not guilty of suicide. Among the good reasons are spiritual ones (e.g., modesty, the fear of falling into blasphemy or despair under the pain are given by some writers) and temporal ones (e.g., the poverty that would be brought upon the patient’s family or the hardship that would result for the patient himself).

1861. Canonical Penalties for Suicide.--(a) Those who attempt suicide are irregular _ex delicto_ (Canon 985, n. 5). (b) If they die, they are not given ecclesiastical burial unless they gave signs of repentance before death (Canon 1240, n, 3), and, if they recover, they are subject to various penalties (Canon 2350, Sec. 2). (c) If it is doubtful whether a person committed suicide, or was responsible, the doubt is decided in his favor, provided no scandal is likely.

1862. Accidental Homicide.--Accidental homicide is that which happens without any direct purpose to kill. But the following cases should be distinguished:

(a) when the homicide is not voluntary, either in itself or in its cause (see 35, 94), that is, when the slayer had no intention to kill and could not foresee that death would result from his act or omission;

(b) when the homicide is voluntary only in its cause, inasmuch as the person who kills is guilty of negligence in a lawful thing, or of something unlawful, and death results from the negligence or from that which is unlawful, although there was no direct wish to kill.

1863. The Case of One From Whose Lawful Act or Omission Homicide Accidentally Results.--(a) If this person was not guilty of negligence, he is not responsible for the resultant homicide, since it was not voluntary, either directly or indirectly. Thus, if a man who was said to be dead, but who knows nothing about the report, calls at his home and his wife drops dead on seeing him, he is not responsible for her death.

(b) If the person in question was negligent, he is guilty of homicide in a greater or less degree according to the seriousness of his neglect. Thus, a sane man who flourishes a loaded revolver in a crowded room is responsible if the revolver goes off and kills someone present; but a nurse who leaves a sick room for just a moment with the result that her patient falls out of bed and is killed, is only slightly responsible at the most, if there was little reason to expect what happened.

1864. The Case of One From Whose Unlawful Act or Omission Homicide Accidentally Results.--(a) If this person was not negligent and his conduct was not dangerous to the lives of others, he is not guilty of homicide; for the death that ensued was not voluntary, either directly or indirectly. Thus, if a thief is driving away carefully with a stolen automobile and a reckless pedestrian gets in front of the car and is killed, the driver is guilty of theft, but not of homicide.

(b) If the person in question was not negligent but his conduct was nevertheless dangerous to the lives of others, he is guilty of homicide; for the death that followed was voluntary indirectly, since he could have foreseen the homicide and should have avoided the conduct. Thus, if a person strikes lightly a pregnant woman and she suffers an abortion, or if one who is not a surgeon tries to mutilate an innocent person and kills him, he is responsible for the death, since the acts committed remained dangerous to life, no matter how careful the offender may have been to avoid killing.

1865. Moral and Legal Guilt.--The law may hold one responsible for homicide, even though there is no theological guilt (see 1766 sqq.). (a) Thus, one may be held responsible for the consequence of acts only juridically negligent, as when an automobilist while driving at a speed unreasonable in law, but not in fact, kills a pedestrian. (b) One may be held responsible for acts committed by those subject to one’s care or control, as when a man keeps a dog loose not knowing that it is vicious and it kills a neighbor’s child, or when he illegally lends his car to a minor, thinking the latter is a good driver, and the minor carelessly runs down a person in the road.

1866. Bodily Injuries.-Injustice is done not only by destroying the life of a human being, but also by harming him in his rights to bodily integrity or well-being. The chief bodily injuries are the following:

(a) mutilation, which deprives a person of limbs or members, without inflicting death;

(b) wounding, which by an act of violence (such as a stab or blow) breaks the continuity of the body, or impairs its strength or beauty;

(c) enfeeblement, which impairs or destroys the health, strength, or comfort of the body in unlawful ways (e.g., by deprivation of necessary food, sleep, fresh air, by communication of infection, by beating, hazing, etc.);

(d) restraint, which hinders the lawful exercise of the bodily powers (e.g., by holding a person against his will, by chaining him to a post, by locking him in a room).

1867. Mutilation. In general, any kind of act which injures or impairs bodily integrity is called mutilation. In the strict sense, mutilation is any cutting off, or some equivalent action, through which an organic function or a distinct use of a member is suppressed or directly diminished. Accordingly, three distinct types of mutilation are possible: (a) when a part of the body with a distinct function is excised; (b) when a distinct organic function is totally suppressed, without excision of the organ; (c) when the function is directly lessened or partially suppressed.

1868. Morality. (a) Liceity. The basic principle governing the morality of mutilation is: Man is not the master of his own life, but only the custodian. Accordingly, neither is he master of his own body. Thus, Pope Pius XII, speaking of the “Surgeon’s Noble Vocation” (_The Catholic Mind_, Aug. 1948, pp. 490 ff.), declared: “God alone is Lord of the life and integrity of man, Lord of his members, his organs, his potencies, particularly of those which make him an associate in the work of creation. Neither parents, nor spouse, nor the individual in question may dispose of them at will.”

As steward, man has duties toward his body, its health and welfare, according to the norms of reason and the divine law, so that it may be a means of his attaining life with God. Acting in accord with these norms and the end of life, it may become necessary and licit for man to mutilate his body in order to safeguard health or to save his life. The principle expressing the morality of mutilation, known as the principle of totality (Pius XII, _Nous vous saluons_, AAS 45-674), may be formulated: Man may licitly mutilate his body only insofar as this is expedient for the good of the whole. In fact, such mutilation is often obligatory, since one must use ordinary means to protect his life and health, and since the part is for the whole. Thus, one would be bound to undergo an operation for appendicitis in order to save one’s life.

Although an organ be not diseased, it may under certain circumstances be removed. Thus, a surgeon operating for hernia may remove a healthy appendix, should the danger of adhesions be foreseen that would require a later operation. Nor is it necessary that there be a “present” danger. The words of Pope Pius XII, that mutilations are permissible when required “to avoid ... serious and lasting damage” (AAS 44-782), are suggestive of the liceity of prophylactic operations. (See medical-ethics texts for special cases, such as lobotomy, thalamotomy, experimentation, etc.)

The problem of mutilation involved in organic transplantation for the benefit of a neighbor is highly controverted at the present time, Pope Pius XII discussed the legality of corneal transplants from the dead to the living (_The Pope Speaks_, Autumn, 1956, pp. 198 ff.), but he did not touch the matter of transplants from living bodies. In this controversial matter, the following principles seem to be clear:

1) Mutilation for the good of the neighbor cannot be justified by the principle of totality, for the subordination implied in the principle is characteristic of a physical, not a moral, not even the Mystical, body.

2) Minor mutilations, such as skin grafts or blood transfusions, are certainly permissible. The speculative basis is still a matter of dispute.

3) It is solidly probable extrinsically that organic transplantations may be permitted, possibly out of charity and for a proportionate reason. Some contend, however, that the act of mutilation involved is intrinsically evil and can not be justified by the extrinsic motive of charity.

Mutilation is lawful by public authority in punishment of a criminal; for if the state has the right to inflict death for serious crime, much more has it the right to indict the lesser punishment of mutilation. The expediency, however, of exercising the right must be judged in terms not only of punishment, but also of prevention of crime. Mutilation has no necessary connection (apart from special circumstances) with deterring criminals from further crime.

(b) In other cases mutilation is unlawful; for just as man is not the master of his life, neither is he the master of his limbs, and he commits a wrong against God, society, and the individual if he destroys parts of his body when neither public good nor private safety demands that this can be done. Thus, mutilation of a criminal performed by private authority is unlawful. Hence, a husband may not mutilate a man who has broken up his home.

Mutilation of an innocent person that it not necessary for his bodily safety is unlawful. Even spiritual good is not a sufficient reason; for example, one may not castrate oneself in order to escape temptation, for this operation does not take away passion, and, moreover, there are spiritual means which suffice against temptation. When Our Lord says that one should cut off a hand or foot that causes scandal (Matt.,