Chapter XL: Part II: SPECIAL MORAL THEOLOGY (Continued) (3)

(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);