Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 62 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de restitutione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. | We must now consider restitution, under which head there are eight points of inquiry: |
| Primo, cuius actus sit. | (1) of what is it an act? |
| Secundo, utrum necesse sit ad salutem omne ablatum restitui. |
(2) Whether it is always of necessity for salvation to restore what one has taken away? |
| Tertio, utrum oporteat multiplicatum illud restituere. | (3) Whether it is necessary to restore more than has been taken away? |
| Quarto, utrum oporteat restitui id quod quis non accepit. | (4) Whether it is necessary to restore what one has not taken away? |
| Quinto, utrum oporteat restitui ei a quo acceptum est. |
(5) Whether it is necessary to make restitution to the person from whom something has been taken? |
| Sexto, utrum oporteat restituere eum qui accepit. |
(6) Whether the person who has taken something away is bound to restore it? |
| Septimo, utrum aliquem alium. | (7) Whether any other person is bound to restitution? |
| Octavo, utrum sit statim restituendum. | (8) Whether one is bound to restore at once? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 62 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod restitutio non sit actus iustitiae commutativae. Iustitia enim respicit rationem debiti. Sed sicut donatio potest esse eius quod non debetur, ita etiam et restitutio. Ergo restitutio non est actus alicuius partis iustitiae. | Objection 1: It would seem that restitution is not an act of commutative justice. For justice regards the notion of what is due. Now one may restore, even as one may give, that which is not due. Therefore restitution is not the act of any part of justice. |
| Praeterea, illud quod iam transiit et non est, restitui non potest. Sed iustitia et iniustitia sunt circa quasdam actiones et passiones, quae non manent, sed transeunt. Ergo restitutio non videtur esse actus alicuius partis iustitiae. | Objection 2: Further, that which has passed away and is no more cannot be restored. Now justice and injustice are about certain actions and passions, which are unenduring and transitory. Therefore restitution would not seem to be the act of a part of justice. |
| Praeterea, restitutio est quasi quaedam recompensatio eius quod subtractum est. Sed aliquid potest homini subtrahi non solum in commutatione, sed etiam in distributione, puta cum aliquis distribuens minus dat alicui quam debeat habere. Ergo restitutio non magis est actus commutativae iustitiae quam distributivae. | Objection 3: Further, restitution is repayment of something taken away. Now something may be taken away from a man not only in commutation, but also in distribution, as when, in distributing, one gives a man less than his due. Therefore restitution is not more an act of commutative than of distributive justice. |
| Sed contra, restitutio ablationi opponitur. Sed ablatio rei alienae est actus iniustitiae circa commutationes. Ergo restitutio eius est actus iustitiae quae est in commutationibus directiva. | On the contrary, Restitution is opposed to taking away. Now it is an act of commutative injustice to take away what belongs to another. Therefore to restore it is an act of that justice which directs commutations. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod restituere nihil aliud esse videtur quam iterato aliquem statuere in possessionem vel dominium rei suae. Et ita in restitutione attenditur aequalitas iustitiae secundum recompensationem rei ad rem, quae pertinet ad iustitiam commutativam. Et ideo restitutio est actus commutativae iustitiae, quando scilicet res unius ab alio habetur, vel per voluntatem eius, sicut in mutuo vel deposito; vel contra voluntatem eius, sicut in rapina vel furto. | I answer that, To restore is seemingly the same as to reinstate a person in the possession or dominion of his thing, so that in restitution we consider the equality of justice attending the payment of one thing for another, and this belongs to commutative justice. Hence restitution is an act of commutative justice, occasioned by one person having what belongs to another, either with his consent, for instance on loan or deposit, or against his will, as in robbery or theft. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud quod alteri non debetur non est, proprie loquendo, eius, etsi aliquando eius fuerit. Et ideo magis videtur esse nova donatio quam restitutio cum quis alteri reddit quod ei non debet. Habet tamen aliquam similitudinem restitutionis, quia res materialiter est eadem. Non tamen est eadem secundum formalem rationem quam respicit iustitia, quod est esse suum alicuius. Unde nec proprie restitutio dicitur. | Reply to Objection 1: That which is not due to another is not his properly speaking, although it may have been his at some time: wherefore it is a mere gift rather than a restitution, when anyone renders to another what is not due to him. It is however somewhat like a restitution, since the thing itself is materially the same; yet it is not the same in respect of the formal aspect of justice, which considers that thing as belonging to this particular man: and so it is not restitution properly so called. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod nomen restitutionis, inquantum importat iterationem quandam, supponit rei identitatem. Et ideo secundum primam impositionem nominis, restitutio videtur locum habere praecipue in rebus exterioribus, quae manentes eaedem et secundum substantiam et secundum ius dominii, ab uno possunt ad alium devenire. Sed sicut ab huiusmodi rebus nomen commutationis translatum est ad actiones vel passiones quae pertinent ad reverentiam vel iniuriam alicuius personae, seu nocumentum vel profectum; ita etiam nomen restitutionis ad haec derivatur quae, licet realiter non maneant, tamen manent in effectu, vel corporali, puta cum ex percussione laeditur corpus; vel qui est in opinione hominum, sicut cum aliquis verbo opprobrioso remanet homo infamatus, vel etiam minoratus in suo honore. | Reply to Objection 2: In so far as the word restitution denotes something done over again, it implies identity of object. Hence it would seem originally to have applied chiefly to external things, which can pass from one person to another, since they remain the same both substantially and in respect of the right of dominion. But, even as the term "commutation" has passed from such like things to those actions and passions which confer reverence or injury, harm or profit on another person, so too the term "restitution" is applied, to things which though they be transitory in reality, yet remain in their effect; whether this touch his body, as when the body is hurt by being struck, or his reputation, as when a man remains defamed or dishonored by injurious words. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod recompensatio quam facit distribuens ei cui dedit minus quam debuit, fit secundum comparationem rei ad rem, ut si quanto minus habuit quam debuit, tanto plus ei detur. Et ideo iam pertinet ad iustitiam commutativam. | Reply to Objection 3: Compensation is made by the distributor to the man to whom less was given than his due, by comparison of thing with thing, when the latter receives so much the more according as he received less than his due: and consequently it pertains to commutative justice. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 62 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit necessarium ad salutem quod fiat restitutio eius quod ablatum est. Quod enim est impossibile non est de necessitate salutis. Sed aliquando impossibile est restituere id quod est ablatum, puta cum aliquis abstulit alicui membrum vel vitam. Ergo non videtur esse de necessitate salutis quod aliquis restituat quod alteri abstulit. | Objection 1: It would seem that it is not necessary to restore what has been taken away. For that which is impossible is not necessary for salvation. But sometimes it is impossible to restore what has been taken, as when a man has taken limb or life. Therefore it does not seem necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken from another. |
| Praeterea, committere aliquod peccatum non est de necessitate salutis, quia sic homo esset perplexus. Sed quandoque illud quod aufertur non potest restitui sine peccato, puta cum aliquis alicui famam abstulit verum dicendo. Ergo restituere ablatum non est de necessitate salutis. | Objection 2: Further, the commission of a sin is not necessary for salvation, for then a man would be in a dilemma. But sometimes it is impossible, without sin, to restore what has been taken, as when one has taken away another's good name by telling the truth. Therefore it is not necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken from another. |
| Praeterea, quod factum est non potest fieri ut factum non fuerit. Sed aliquando alicui aufertur honor suae personae ex hoc ipso quod passus est aliquo iniuste eum vituperante. Ergo non potest sibi restitui quod ablatum est. Et ita non est de necessitate salutis restituere ablatum. | Objection 3: Further, what is done cannot be undone. Now sometimes a man loses his personal honor by being unjustly insulted. Therefore that which has been taken from him cannot be restored to him: so that it is not necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken. |
| Praeterea, ille qui impedit aliquem ab aliquo bono consequendo videtur ei auferre, quia quod modicum deest, quasi nihil deesse videtur, ut philosophus dicit, in II Physic. Sed cum aliquis impedit aliquem ne consequatur praebendam vel aliquid huiusmodi, non videtur quod teneatur ei ad restitutionem praebendae, quia quandoque non posset. Non ergo restituere ablatum est de necessitate salutis. | Objection 4: Further, to prevent a person from obtaining a good thing is seemingly the same as to take it away from him, since "to lack little is almost the same as to lack nothing at all," as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 5). Now when anyone prevents a man from obtaining a benefice or the like, seemingly he is not bound to restore the benefice, since this would be sometimes impossible. Therefore it is not necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, non dimittitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum. | On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. ad Maced. cxliii): "Unless a man restore what he has purloined, his sin is not forgiven." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod restitutio, sicut dictum est, est actus iustitiae commutativae, quae in quadam aequalitate consistit. Et ideo restituere importat redditionem illius rei quae iniuste ablata est, sic enim per iteratam eius exhibitionem aequalitas reparatur. Si vero iuste ablatum sit, inaequalitas erit ut ei restituatur, quia iustitia in aequalitate consistit. Cum igitur servare iustitiam sit de necessitate salutis, consequens est quod restituere id quod iniuste ablatum est alicui, sit de necessitate salutis. |
I answer that, Restitution as stated above (Article [1]) is an act of commutative justice, and this demands a certain equality. Wherefore restitution denotes the return of the thing unjustly taken; since it is by giving it back that equality is reestablished. If, however, it be taken away justly, there will be equality, and so there will be no need for restitution, for justice consists in equality. Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in quibus non potest recompensari aequivalens, sufficit quod recompensetur quod possibile est, sicut patet de honoribus qui sunt ad Deum et ad parentes, ut philosophus dicit, in VIII Ethic. Et ideo quando id quod est ablatum non est restituibile per aliquid aequale, debet fieri recompensatio qualis possibilis est. Puta, cum aliquis alicui abstulit membrum, debet ei recompensare vel in pecunia vel in aliquo honore, considerata conditione utriusque personae, secundum arbitrium probi viri. | Reply to Objection 1: When it is impossible to repay the equivalent, it suffices to repay what one can, as in the case of honor due to God and our parents, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14). Wherefore when that which has been taken cannot be restored in equivalent, compensation should be made as far as possible: for instance if one man has deprived another of a limb, he must make compensation either in money or in honor, the condition of either party being duly considered according to the judgment of a good man. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod aliquis potest alicui famam tripliciter auferre. Uno modo, verum dicendo et iuste, puta cum aliquis crimen alicuius prodit ordine debito servato. Et tunc non tenetur ad restitutionem famae. Alio modo, falsum dicendo et iniuste. Et tunc tenetur restituere famam confitendo se falsum dixisse. Tertio modo, verum dicendo sed iniuste, puta cum aliquis prodit crimen alterius contra ordinem debitum. Et tunc tenetur ad restitutionem famae quantum potest, sine mendacio tamen, utpote quod dicat se male dixisse, vel quod iniuste eum diffamaverit. Vel, si non possit famam restituere, debet ei aliter recompensare, sicut et in aliis dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: There are three ways in which one may take away another's good name. First, by saying what is true, and this justly, as when a man reveals another's sin, while observing the right order of so doing, and then he is not bound to restitution. Secondly, by saying what is untrue and unjustly, and then he is bound to restore that man's good name, by confessing that he told an untruth. Thirdly, by saying what is true, but unjustly, as when a man reveals another's sin contrarily to the right order of so doing, and then he is bound to restore his good name as far as he can, and yet without telling an untruth; for instance by saying that he spoke ill, or that he defamed him unjustly; or if he be unable to restore his good name, he must compensate him otherwise, the same as in other cases, as stated above (ad 1). |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod actio contumeliam inferentis non potest fieri ut non fuerit. Potest tamen fieri ut eius effectus, scilicet diminutio dignitatis personae in opinione hominum, reparetur per exhibitionem reverentiae. | Reply to Objection 3: The action of the man who has defamed another cannot be undone, but it is possible, by showing him deference, to undo its effect, viz. the lowering of the other man's personal dignity in the opinion of other men. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod aliquis potest impedire aliquem ne habeat praebendam, multipliciter. Uno modo, iuste, puta si, intendens honorem Dei vel utilitatem Ecclesiae, procuret quod detur alicui personae digniori. Et tunc nullo modo tenetur ad restitutionem vel ad aliquam recompensationem faciendam. Alio modo, iniuste, puta si intendat eius nocumentum quem impedit, propter odium vel vindictam aut aliquid huiusmodi. Et tunc, si impedit ne praebenda detur digno, consulens quod non detur, antequam sit firmatum quod ei detur; tenetur quidem ad aliquam recompensationem, pensatis conditionibus personarum et negotii, secundum arbitrium sapientis; non tamen tenetur ad aequale, quia ille nondum fuerat adeptus et poterat multipliciter impediri. Si vero iam firmatum sit quod alicui detur praebenda, et aliquis propter causam indebitam procuret quod revocetur, idem est ac si iam habitam ei auferret. Et ideo tenetur ad restitutionem aequalis, tamen secundum suam facultatem. | Reply to Objection 4: There are several ways of preventing a man from obtaining a benefice. First, justly: for instance, if having in view the honor of God or the good of the Church, one procures its being conferred on a more worthy subject, and then there is no obligation whatever to make restitution or compensation. Secondly, unjustly, if the intention is to injure the person whom one hinders, through hatred, revenge or the like. In this case, if before the benefice has been definitely assigned to anyone, one prevents its being conferred on a worthy subject by counseling that it be not conferred on him, one is bound to make some compensation, after taking account of the circumstances of persons and things according to the judgment of a prudent person: but one is not bound in equivalent, because that man had not obtained the benefice and might have been prevented in many ways from obtaining it. If, on the other hand, the benefice had already been assigned to a certain person, and someone, for some undue cause procures its revocation, it is the same as though he had deprived a man of what he already possessed, and consequently he would be bound to compensation in equivalent, in proportion, however, to his means. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 62 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sufficiat restituere simplum quod iniuste ablatum est. Dicitur enim Exod. XXII, si quis furatus fuerit bovem aut ovem, et occiderit vel vendiderit, quinque boves pro uno bove restituet, et quatuor oves pro una ove. Sed quilibet tenetur mandatum divinae legis observare. Ergo ille qui furatur tenetur restituere quadruplum vel quintuplum. |
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not sufficient to restore the exact amount taken. For it is written (Ex. 22:1): "If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep." Now everyone is bound to keep the commandments of the Divine law. Therefore a thief is bound to restore four- or fivefold. |
| Praeterea, ea quae scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt, ut dicitur ad Rom. XV. Sed Luc. XIX Zachaeus dicit ad dominum, si quem defraudavi, reddo quadruplum. Ergo homo debet restituere multiplicatum id quod iniuste accepit. |
Objection 2: Further, "What things soever were written, were written for our learning" (Rm. 15:4). Now Zachaeus said (Lk. 19:8) to our Lord: "If I have wronged any man of any thing, I restore him fourfold." Therefore a man is bound to restore several times over the amount he has taken unjustly. |
| Praeterea, nulli potest iuste auferri id quod dare non debet. Sed iudex iuste aufert ab eo qui furatus est plus quam furatus est, pro emenda. Ergo homo debet illud solvere. Et ita non sufficit reddere simplum. | Objection 3: Further, no one can be unjustly deprived of what he is not bound to give. Now a judge justly deprives a thief of more than the amount of his theft, under the head of damages. Therefore a man is bound to pay it, and consequently it is not sufficient to restore the exact amount. |
| Sed contra est quia restitutio reducit ad aequalitatem quod inaequaliter ablatum est. Sed aliquis reddendo quod accepit simplum, reducit ad aequalitatem. Ergo solum tenetur tantum restituere quantum accepi | On the contrary, Restitution re-establishes equality where an unjust taking has caused inequality. Now equality is restored by repaying the exact amount taken. Therefore there is no obligation to restore more than the exact amount taken. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod cum aliquis iniuste accipit rem alienam, duo sunt ibi. Quorum unum est inaequalitas ex parte rei, quae quandoque est sine iniustitia, ut patet in mutuis. Aliud autem est iniustitiae culpa, quae potest esse etiam cum aequalitate rei, puta cum aliquis intendat inferre violentiam sed non praevalet. | I answer that, When a man takes another's thing unjustly, two things must be considered. One is the inequality on the part of the thing, which inequality is sometimes void of injustice, as is the case in loans. The other is the sin of injustice, which is consistent with equality on the part of the thing, as when a person intends to use violence but fails. |
| Quantum ergo ad primum adhibetur remedium per restitutionem, inquantum per eam aequalitas reparatur, ad quod sufficit quod restituat tantum quantum habuit de alieno. Sed quantum ad culpam adhibetur remedium per poenam, cuius inflictio pertinet ad iudicem. Et ideo antequam sit condemnatus per iudicium non tenetur plus restituere quam accepit, sed postquam condemnatus est, tenetur poenam solvere. | As regards the first, the remedy is applied by making restitution, since thereby equality is re-established; and for this it is enough that a man restore just so much as he has belonging to another. But as regards the sin, the remedy is applied by punishment, the infliction of which belongs to the judge: and so, until a man is condemned by the judge, he is not bound to restore more than he took, but when once he is condemned, he is bound to pay the penalty. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum, quia lex illa determinativa est poenae per iudicem infligendae. Et quamvis ad observantiam iudicialis praecepti nullus teneatur post Christi adventum, ut supra habitum est; potest tamen idem vel simile statui in lege humana, de qua erit eadem ratio. |
Hence it is clear how to answer the First Objection: because this law fixes the punishment to be inflicted by the judge. Nor is this commandment to be kept now, because since the coming of Christ no man is bound to keep the judicial precepts, as stated above (FS, Question [104], Article [3]). Nevertheless the same might be determined by human law, and then the same answer would apply. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Zachaeus id dixit quasi supererogare volens. Unde et praemiserat, ecce dimidium bonorum meorum do pauperibus. | Reply to Objection 2: Zachaeus said this being willing to do more than he was bound to do; hence he had said already: "Behold... the half of my goods I give to the poor." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod iudex, condemnando, iuste potest accipere aliquid amplius, loco emendae, quod tamen, antequam condemnaretur, non debebat | Reply to Objection 3: By condemning the man justly, the judge can exact more by way of damages; and yet this was not due before the sentence. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 62 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis debeat restituere quod non abstulit. Ille enim qui damnum alicui infert tenetur damnum removere. Sed quandoque aliquis damnificat aliquem ultra id quod accepit, puta cum aliquis effodit semina, damnificat eum qui seminavit in tota messe futura; et sic videtur quod teneatur ad eius restitutionem. Ergo aliquis tenetur ad restitutionem eius quod non abstulit. | Objection 1: It would seem that a man is bound to restore what he has not taken. For he that has inflicted a loss on a man is bound to remove that loss. Now it happens sometimes that the loss sustained is greater than the thing taken: for instance, if you dig up a man's seeds, you inflict on the sower a loss equal to the coming harvest, and thus you would seem to be bound to make restitution accordingly. Therefore a man is bound to restore what he has not taken. |
| Praeterea, ille qui detinet pecuniam creditoris ultra terminum praefixum videtur eum damnificare in toto eo quod lucrari de pecunia posset. Quod tamen ipse non aufert. Ergo videtur quod aliquis teneatur restituere quod non abstulit. | Objection 2: Further, he who retains his creditor's money beyond the stated time, would seem to occasion his loss of all his possible profits from that money, and yet he does not really take them. Therefore it seems that a man is bound to restore what he did not take. |
| Praeterea, iustitia humana derivatur a iustitia divina. Sed Deo debet aliquis restituere plus quam ab eo accepit, secundum illud Matth. XXV, sciebas quod meto ubi non semino, et congrego ubi non sparsi. Ergo iustum est ut etiam restituat homini aliquid quod non accepit. | Objection 3: Further, human justice is derived from Divine justice. Now a man is bound to restore to God more than he has received from Him, according to Mt. 25:26, "Thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed." Therefore it is just that one should restore to a man also, something that one has not taken. |
| Sed contra est quod recompensatio ad iustitiam pertinet inquantum aequalitatem facit. Sed si aliquis restitueret quod non accepit, hoc non esset aequale. Ergo talis restitutio non est iustum quod fiat. | On the contrary, Restitution belongs to justice, because it re-establishes equality. But if one were to restore what one did not take, there would not be equality. Therefore it is not just to make such a restitution. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quicumque damnificat aliquem videtur ei auferre id in quo ipsum damnificat, damnum enim dicitur ex eo quod aliquis minus habet quam debet habere, secundum philosophum, in V Ethic. Et ideo homo tenetur ad restitutionem eius in quo aliquem damnificavit. | I answer that, Whoever brings a loss upon another person, seemingly, takes from him the amount of the loss, since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 4) loss is so called from a man having "less"* than his due. [*The derivation is more apparent in English than in Latin, where 'damnum' stands for 'loss,' and 'minus' for 'less.' Aristotle merely says that to have more than your own is called 'gain,' and to have less than you started with is called 'loss.'] Therefore a man is bound to make restitution according to the loss he has brought upon another. |
| Sed aliquis damnificatur dupliciter. Uno modo, quia aufertur ei id quod actu habebat. Et tale damnum semper est restituendum secundum recompensationem aequalis, puta si aliquis damnificet aliquem diruens domum eius, tenetur ad tantum quantum valet domus. Alio modo damnificat aliquis aliquem impediendo ne adipiscatur quod erat in via habendi. Et tale damnum non oportet recompensare ex aequo. Quia minus est habere aliquid virtute quam habere actu. Qui autem est in via adipiscendi aliquid habet illud solum secundum virtutem vel potentiam. Et ideo si redderetur ei ut haberet hoc in actu, restitueretur ei quod est ablatum non simplum, sed multiplicatum, quod non est de necessitate restitutionis, ut dictum est. Tenetur tamen aliquam recompensationem facere, secundum conditionem personarum et negotiorum. | Now a man suffers a loss in two ways. First, by being deprived of what he actually has; and a loss of this kind is always to be made good by repayment in equivalent: for instance if a man damnifies another by destroying his house he is bound to pay him the value of the house. Secondly, a man may damnify another by preventing him from obtaining what he was on the way to obtain. A loss of this kind need not be made good in equivalent; because to have a thing virtually is less than to have it actually, and to be on the way to obtain a thing is to have it merely virtually or potentially, and so were he to be indemnified by receiving the thing actually, he would be paid, not the exact value taken from him, but more, and this is not necessary for salvation, as stated above. However he is bound to make some compensation, according to the condition of persons and things. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum et secundum. Nam ille qui semen sparsit in agro nondum habet messem in actu, sed solum in virtute; et similiter ille qui habet pecuniam nondum habet lucrum in actu, sed solum virtute; et utrumque potest multipliciter impediri. | From this we see how to answer the First and Second Objections: because the sower of the seed in the field, has the harvest, not actually but only virtually. In like manner he that has money has the profit not yet actually but only virtually: and both may be hindered in many ways. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod Deus nihil requirit ab homine nisi bonum quod ipse in nobis seminavit. Et ideo verbum illud vel intelligitur secundum pravam existimationem servi pigri, qui existimavit se ab alio non accepisse. Vel intelligitur quantum ad hoc quod Deus requirit a nobis fructus donorum, qui sunt et ab eo et a nobis, quamvis ipsa dona a Deo sint sine nobis. | Reply to Objection 3: God requires nothing from us but what He Himself has sown in us. Hence this saying is to be understood as expressing either the shameful thought of the lazy servant, who deemed that he had received nothing from the other, or the fact that God expects from us the fruit of His gifts, which fruit is from Him and from us, although the gifts themselves are from God without us. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 62 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non oporteat restitutionem facere semper ei a quo acceptum est aliquid. Nulli enim debemus nocere. Sed aliquando esset in nocumentum hominis si redderetur quod ab eo acceptum est; vel etiam in nocumentum aliorum, puta si aliquis redderet gladium depositum furioso. Ergo non semper est restituendum ei a quo acceptum est. | Objection 1: It would seem that restitution need not always be made to the person from whom a thing has been taken. For it is not lawful to injure anyone. Now it would sometimes be injurious to the man himself, or to others, were one to restore to him what has been taken from him; if, for instance, one were to return a madman his sword. Therefore restitution need not always be made to the person from whom a thing has been taken. |
| Praeterea, ille qui illicite aliquid dedit non meretur illud recuperare. Sed quandoque aliquis illicite dat quod alius etiam illicite accipit, sicut apparet in dante et recipiente aliquid simoniace. Ergo non semper restituendum est ei a quo acceptum est. | Objection 2: Further, if a man has given a thing unlawfully, he does not deserve to recover it. Now sometimes a man gives unlawfully that which another accepts unlawfully, as in the case of the giver and receiver who are guilty of simony. Therefore it is not always necessary to make restitution to the person from whom one has taken something. |
| Praeterea, nullus tenetur ad impossibile. Sed quandoque est impossibile restituere ei a quo acceptum est, vel quia est mortuus, vel quia nimis distat, vel quia est ignotus. Ergo non semper facienda est restitutio ei a quo acceptum est. | Objection 3: Further, no man is bound to do what is impossible. Now it is sometimes impossible to make restitution to the person from whom a thing has been taken, either because he is dead, or because he is too far away, or because he is unknown to us. Therefore restitution need not always be made to the person from whom a thing has been taken. |
| Praeterea, magis debet homo recompensare ei a quo maius beneficium accepit. Sed ab aliis personis homo plus accepit beneficii quam ab illo qui mutuavit vel deposuit, sicut a parentibus. Ergo magis subveniendum est quandoque alicui personae alteri quam restituendum ei a quo est acceptum. | Objection 4: Further, we owe more compensation to one from whom we have received a greater favor. Now we have received greater favors from others (our parents for instance) than from a lender or depositor. Therefore sometimes we ought to succor some other person rather than make restitution to one from whom we have taken something. |
| Praeterea, vanum est restituere illud quod ad manum restituentis per restitutionem pervenit. Sed si praelatus iniuste aliquid Ecclesiae subtraxit et ei restituat, ad manus eius deveniet, quia ipse est rerum Ecclesiae conservator. Ergo non debet restituere Ecclesiae a qua abstulit. Et sic non semper restituendum est ei a quo est ablatum. | Objection 5: Further, it is useless to restore a thing which reverts to the restorer by being restored. Now if a prelate has unjustly taken something from the Church and makes restitution to the Church, it reverts into his hands, since he is the guardian of the Church's property. Therefore he ought not to restore to the Church from whom he has taken: and so restitution should not always be made to the person from whom something has been taken away |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. XIII, reddite omnibus debita, cui tributum, tributum; cui vectigal, vectigal. |
On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 13:7): "Render... to all men their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod per restitutionem fit reductio ad aequalitatem commutativae iustitiae, quae consistit in rerum adaequatione, sicut dictum est. Huiusmodi autem rerum adaequatio fieri non posset nisi ei qui minus habet quam quod suum est, suppleretur quod deest. Et ad hanc suppletionem faciendam necesse est ut ei fiat restitutio a quo acceptum est. |
I answer that, Restitution re-establishes the equality of commutative justice, which equality consists in the equalizing of thing to thing, as stated above (Article [2]; Question [58], Article [10]). Now this equalizing of things is impossible, unless he that has less than his due receive what is lacking to him: and for this to be done, restitution must be made to the person from whom a thing has been taken. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quando res restituenda apparet esse graviter noxia ei cui restitutio facienda est vel alteri, non ei debet tunc restitui, quia restitutio ordinatur ad utilitatem eius cui restituitur; omnia enim quae possidentur sub ratione utilis cadunt. Nec tamen debet ille qui detinet rem alienam, sibi appropriare, sed vel reservare ut congruo tempore restituat, vel etiam alibi tradere tutius conservandam. | Reply to Objection 1: When the thing to be restored appears to be grievously injurious to the person to whom it is to be restored, or to some other, it should not be restored to him there and then, because restitution is directed to the good of the person to whom it is made, since all possessions come under the head of the useful. Yet he who retains another's property must not appropriate it, but must either reserve it, that he may restore it at a fitting time, or hand it over to another to keep it more securely. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod aliquis dupliciter aliquid illicite dat uno modo, quia ipsa datio est illicita et contra legem, sicut patet in eo qui simoniace aliquid dedit. Talis meretur amittere quod dedit, unde non debet ei restitutio fieri de his. Et quia etiam ille qui accepit contra legem accepit, non debet sibi retinere, sed debet in pios usus convertere. Alio modo aliquis illicite dat quia propter rem illicitam dat, licet ipsa datio non sit illicita, sicut cum quis dat meretrici propter fornicationem. Unde et mulier potest sibi retinere quod ei datum est, et si superflue aliquid per fraudem vel dolum extorsisset, tenetur eidem restituere. | Reply to Objection 2: A person may give a thing unlawfully in two ways. First through the giving itself being illicit and against the law, as is the case when a man gives a thing simoniacally. Such a man deserves to lose what he gave, wherefore restitution should not be made to him: and, since the receiver acted against the law in receiving, he must not retain the price, but must use it for some pious object. Secondly a man gives unlawfully, through giving for an unlawful purpose, albeit the giving itself is not unlawful, as when a woman receives payment for fornication: wherefore she may keep what she has received. If, however, she has extorted overmuch by fraud or deceit, she would be bound to restitution. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod si ille cui debet fieri restitutio sit omnino ignotus, debet homo restituere secundum quod potest, scilicet dando in eleemosynas pro salute ipsius, sive sit mortuus sive sit vivus; praemissa tamen diligenti inquisitione de persona eius cui est restitutio facienda. Si vero sit mortuus ille cui est restitutio facienda, debet restitui heredi eius, qui computatur quasi una persona cum ipso. Si vero sit multum distans, debet sibi transmitti quod ei debetur, et praecipue si sit res magni valoris, et possit commode transmitti. Alioquin debet in aliquo loco tuto deponi ut pro eo conservetur, et domino significari. | Reply to Objection 3: If the person to whom restitution is due is unknown altogether, restitution must be made as far as possible, for instance by giving an alms for his spiritual welfare (whether he be dead or living): but not without previously making a careful inquiry about his person. If the person to whom restitution is due be dead, restitution should be made to his heir, who is looked upon as one with him. If he be very far away, what is due to him should be sent to him, especially if it be of great value and can easily be sent: else it should be deposited in a safe place to be kept for him, and the owner should be advised of the fact. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod aliquis de hoc quod est sibi proprium debet magis satisfacere parentibus vel his a quibus accepit maiora beneficia. Non autem debet aliquis recompensare benefactori de alieno, quod contingeret si quod debet uni alteri restitueret, nisi forte in casu extremae necessitatis, in quo posset et deberet aliquis etiam auferre aliena ut patri subveniret. | Reply to Objection 4: A man is bound, out of his own property, to succor his parents, or those from whom he has received greater benefits; but he ought not to compensate a benefactor out of what belongs to others; and he would be doing this if he were to compensate one with what is due to another. Exception must be made in cases of extreme need, for then he could and should even take what belongs to another in order to succor a parent. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod praelatus potest rem Ecclesiae surripere tripliciter. Uno modo, si rem Ecclesiae non sibi deputatam, sed alteri, sibi usurparet, puta si episcopus usurparet sibi rem capituli. Et tunc planum est quod debet restituere ponendo in manus eorum ad quos de iure pertinet. Alio modo, si rem Ecclesiae suae custodiae deputatam in alterius dominium transferat, puta consanguinei vel amici. Et tunc debet Ecclesiae restituere, et sub sua cura habere ut ad successorem perveniat. Alio modo potest praelatus surripere rem Ecclesiae solo animo, dum scilicet incipit habere animum possidendi eam ut suam, et non nomine Ecclesiae. Et tunc debet restituere talem animum deponendo. | Reply to Objection 5: There are three ways in which a prelate can rob the Church of her property. First by laying hands on Church property which is committed, not to him but to another; for instance, if a bishop appropriates the property of the chapter. In such a case it is clear that he is bound to restitution, by handing it over to those who are its lawful owners. Secondly by transferring to another person (for instance a relative or a friend) Church property committed to himself: in which case he must make restitution to the Church, and have it under his own care, so as to hand it over to his successor. Thirdly, a prelate may lay hands on Church property, merely in intention, when, to wit, he begins to have a mind to hold it as his own and not in the name of the Church: in which case he must make restitution by renouncing his intention. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 62 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non teneatur semper restituere ille qui accepit. Per restitutionem enim reparatur aequalitas iustitiae, quae consistit in hoc quod subtrahatur ei qui plus habet et detur ei qui minus habet. Sed contingit quandoque quod ille qui rem aliquam subtraxit alicui non habet eam, sed devenit ad manus alterius. Ergo non tenetur ille restituere qui accepit, sed alius qui rem habet. | Objection 1: It would seem that he who has taken a thing is not always bound to restore it. Restitution re-establishes the equality of justice, by taking away from him that has more and giving to him that has less. Now it happens sometimes that he who has taken that which belongs to another, no longer has it, through its having passed into another's hands. Therefore it should be restored, not by the person that took it, but by the one that has it. |
| Praeterea, nullus tenetur crimen suum detegere. Sed aliquando aliquis restitutionem faciendo crimen suum detegit, ut patet in furto. Ergo non semper tenetur ille qui abstulit restituere. | Objection 2: Further, no man is bound to reveal his own crime. But by making restitution a man would sometimes reveal his crime, as in the case of theft. Therefore he that has taken a thing is not always bound to restitution. |
| Praeterea, eiusdem rei non est multoties restitutio facienda. Sed quandoque multi simul aliquam rem surripiunt et unus eorum eam integre restituit. Ergo non semper ille qui accepit tenetur ad restituendum. | Objection 3: Further, the same thing should not be restored several times. Now sometimes several persons take a thing at the same time, and one of them restores it in its entirety. Therefore he that takes a thing is not always bound to restitution. |
| Sed contra, ille qui peccavit tenetur satisfacere. Sed restitutio ad satisfactionem pertinet. Ergo ille qui abstulit tenetur restituere. | On the contrary, He that has sinned is bound to satisfaction. Now restitution belongs to satisfaction. Therefore he that has taken a thing is bound to restore it. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa illum qui rem alienam accepit duo sunt consideranda, scilicet ipsa res accepta, et ipsa acceptio. Ratione autem rei tenetur eam restituere quandiu eam apud se habet, quia quod habet ultra id quod suum est, debet ei subtrahi et dari ei cui deest, secundum formam commutativae iustitiae. Sed ipsa acceptio rei alienae potest tripliciter se habere. Quandoque enim est iniuriosa, scilicet contra voluntatem existens eius qui est rei dominus, ut patet in furto et rapina. Et tunc tenetur ad restitutionem non solum ratione rei, sed etiam ratione iniuriosae actionis, etiam si res apud ipsum non remaneat. Sicut enim qui percutit aliquem tenetur recompensare iniuriam passo, quamvis nihil apud ipsum maneat; ita etiam qui furatur vel rapit tenetur ad recompensationem damni illati, etiam si nihil inde habeat; et ulterius pro iniuria illata debet puniri. Alio modo aliquis accipit rem alterius in utilitatem suam absque iniuria, cum voluntate scilicet eius cuius est res, sicut patet in mutuis. Et tunc ille qui accepit tenetur ad restitutionem eius quod accepit non solum ratione rei, sed etiam ratione acceptionis, etiam si rem amiserit, tenetur enim recompensare ei qui gratiam fecit, quod non fiet si per hoc damnum incurrat. Tertio modo aliquis accipit rem alterius absque iniuria non pro sua utilitate, sicut patet in depositis. Et ideo ille qui sic accepit in nullo tenetur ratione acceptionis, quinimmo accipiendo impendit obsequium, tenetur autem ratione rei. Et propter hoc, si ei subtrahatur res absque sua culpa, non tenetur ad restitutionem. Secus autem esset si cum magna sua culpa rem depositam amitteret. | I answer that, With regard to a man who has taken another's property, two points must be considered: the thing taken, and the taking. By reason of the thing taken, he is bound to restore it as long as he has it in his possession, since the thing that he has in addition to what is his, should be taken away from him, and given to him who lacks it according to the form of commutative justice. On the other hand, the taking of the thing that is another's property, may be threefold. For sometimes it is injurious, i.e. against the will of the owner, as in theft and robbery: in which case the thief is bound to restitution not only by reason of the thing, but also by reason of the injurious action, even though the thing is no longer in his possession. For just as a man who strikes another, though he gain nothing thereby, is bound to compensate the injured person, so too he that is guilty of theft or robbery, is bound to make compensation for the loss incurred, although he be no better off; and in addition he must be punished for the injustice committed. Secondly, a man takes another's property for his own profit but without committing an injury, i.e. with the consent of the owner, as in the case of a loan: and then, the taker is bound to restitution, not only by reason of the thing, but also by reason of the taking, even if he has lost the thing: for he is bound to compensate the person who has done him a favor, and he would not be doing so if the latter were to lose thereby. Thirdly, a man takes another's property without injury to the latter or profit to himself, as in the case of a deposit; wherefore he that takes a thing thus, incurs no obligation on account of the taking, in fact by taking he grants a favor; but he is bound to restitution on account of the thing taken. Consequently if this thing be taken from him without any fault on his part, he is not bound to restitution, although he would be, if he were to lose the thing through a grievous fault on his part. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod restitutio non ordinatur principaliter ad hoc quod ille qui plus habet quam debet, habere desinat, sed ad hoc quod illi qui minus habet suppleatur. Unde in his rebus quae unus potest ab alio accipere sine eius detrimento, non habet locum restitutio, puta cum aliquis accipit lumen a candela alterius. Et ideo quamvis ille qui abstulit non habeat id quod accepit, sed in alium sit translatum; quia tamen alter privatur re sua, tenetur ei ad restitutionem et ille qui rem abstulit, ratione iniuriosae actionis; et ille qui rem habet, ratione ipsius rei. | Reply to Objection 1: The chief end of restitution is, not that he who has more than his due may cease to have it, but that he who has less than his due may be compensated. Wherefore there is no place for restitution in those things which one man may receive from another without loss to the latter, as when a person takes a light from another's candle. Consequently although he that has taken something from another, may have ceased to have what he took, through having transferred it to another, yet since that other is deprived of what is his, both are bound to restitution, he that took the thing, on account of the injurious taking, and he that has it, on account of the thing. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod homo, etsi non teneatur crimen suum detegere hominibus, tenetur tamen crimen suum detegere Deo in confessione. Et ita per sacerdotem cui confitetur potest restitutionem facere rei alienae. | Reply to Objection 2: Although a man is not bound to reveal his crime to other men, yet is he bound to reveal it to God in confession; and so he may make restitution of another's property through the priest to whom he confesses. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod quia restitutio principaliter ordinatur ad removendum damnum eius a quo est aliquid iniuste ablatum, ideo postquam ei restitutio sufficiens facta est per unum, alii non tenentur ei ulterius restituere, sed magis refusionem facere ei qui restituit, qui tamen potest condonare. | Reply to Objection 3: Since restitution is chiefly directed to the compensation for the loss incurred by the person from whom a thing has been taken unjustly, it stands to reason that when he has received sufficient compensation from one, the others are not bound to any further restitution in his regard: rather ought they to refund the person who has made restitution, who, nevertheless, may excuse them from so doing. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 62 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7 [ << | >> ]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod illi qui non acceperunt non teneantur restituere. Restitutio enim quaedam poena est accipientis. Sed nullus debet puniri nisi qui peccavit. Ergo nullus debet restituere nisi qui accepit. | Objection 1: It would seem that restitution is not binding on those who have not taken. For restitution is a punishment of the taker. Now none should be punished except the one who sinned. Therefore none are bound to restitution save the one who has taken. |
| Praeterea, iustitia non obligat aliquem ad hoc quod rem alterius augeat. Sed si ad restitutionem teneretur non solum ille qui accepit, sed etiam illi qui qualitercumque cooperantur, augeretur ex hoc res illius cui est aliquid subtractum, tum quia sibi multoties restitutio fieret; tum etiam quia quandoque aliqui operam dant ad hoc quod aliqua res alicui auferatur, quae tamen ei non aufertur. Ergo non tenentur alii ad restitutionem. | Objection 2: Further, justice does not bind one to increase another's property. Now if restitution were binding not only on the man who takes a thing but also on all those who cooperate with him in any way whatever, the person from whom the thing was taken would be the gainer, both because he would receive restitution many times over, and because sometimes a person cooperates towards a thing being taken away from someone, without its being taken away in effect. Therefore the others are not bound to restitution. |
| Praeterea, nullus tenetur se periculo exponere ad hoc quod rem alterius salvet. Sed aliquando, manifestando latronem vel ei resistendo, aliquis periculo mortis se exponeret. Non ergo tenetur aliquis ad restitutionem propter hoc quod non manifestat latronem, vel non ei resistit. | Objection 3: Further, no man is bound to expose himself to danger, in order to safeguard another's property. Now sometimes a man would expose himself to the danger of death, were he to betray a thief, or withstand him. Therefore one is not bound to restitution, through not betraying or withstanding a thief. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. I, digni sunt morte non solum qui faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus. Ergo, pari ratione, etiam consentientes debent restituere. |
On the contrary, It is written (Rm. 1:32): "They who do such things are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, but also they that consent to them that do them." Therefore in like manner they that consent are bound to restitution. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad restitutionem tenetur aliquis non solum ratione rei alienae quam accepit, sed etiam ratione iniuriosae acceptionis. Et ideo quicumque est causa iniustae acceptionis tenetur ad restitutionem quod quidem contingit dupliciter, directe scilicet, et indirecte. Directe quidem, quando inducit aliquis alium ad accipiendum. Et hoc quidem tripliciter. Primo quidem, movendo ad ipsam acceptionem, quod quidem fit praecipiendo, consulendo, consentiendo expresse, et laudando aliquem quasi strenuum de hoc quod aliena accipit. Alio modo, ex parte ipsius accipientis, quia scilicet eum receptat, vel qualitercumque ei auxilium fert. Tertio modo, ex parte rei acceptae, quia scilicet est particeps furti vel rapinae, quasi socius maleficii. Indirecte vero, quando aliquis non impedit, cum possit et debeat impedire, vel quia subtrahit praeceptum sive consilium impediens furtum sive rapinam; vel quia subtrahit suum auxilium, quo posset obsistere; vel quia occultat post factum. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [6]), a person is bound to restitution not only on account of someone else's property which he has taken, but also on account of the injurious taking. Hence whoever is cause of an unjust taking is bound to restitution. This happens in two ways, directly and indirectly. Directly, when a man induces another to take, and this in three ways. First, on the part of the taking, by moving a man to take, either by express command, counsel, or consent, or by praising a man for his courage in thieving. Secondly, on the part of the taker, by giving him shelter or any other kind of assistance. Thirdly, on the part of the thing taken, by taking part in the theft or robbery, as a fellow evil-doer. Indirectly, when a man does not prevent another from evil-doing (provided he be able and bound to prevent him), either by omitting the command or counsel which would hinder him from thieving or robbing, or by omitting to do what would have hindered him, or by sheltering him after the deed. All these are expressed as follows: |
| Quae his versibus comprehenduntur, iussio, consilium, consensus, palpo, recursus, participans, mutus, non obstans, non manifestans. | "By command, by counsel, by consent, by flattery, by receiving, by participation, by silence, by not preventing, by not denouncing." |
| Sciendum tamen quod quinque praemissorum semper obligant ad restitutionem. Primo, iussio, quia scilicet ille qui iubet est principaliter movens; unde ipse principaliter tenetur ad restituendum. Secundo, consensus, in eo scilicet sine quo rapina fieri non potest. Tertio, recursus, quando scilicet aliquis est receptator latronum et eis patrocinium praestat. Quarto, participatio, quando scilicet aliquis participat in crimine latrocinii et in praeda. Quinto, tenetur ille qui non obstat, cum obstare teneatur, sicut principes, qui tenentur custodire iustitiam in terra, si per eorum defectum latrones increscant, ad restitutionem tenentur; quia redditus quos habent sunt quasi stipendia ad hoc instituta ut iustitiam conservent in terra. | It must be observed, however, that in five of these cases the cooperator is always bound to restitution. First, in the case of command: because he that commands is the chief mover, wherefore he is bound to restitution principally. Secondly, in the case of consent; namely of one without whose consent the robbery cannot take place. Thirdly, in the case of receiving; when, to wit, a man is a receiver of thieves, and gives them assistance. Fourthly, in the case of participation; when a man takes part in the theft and in the booty. Fifthly, he who does not prevent the theft, whereas he is bound to do so; for instance, persons in authority who are bound to safeguard justice on earth, are bound to restitution, if by their neglect thieves prosper, because their salary is given to them in payment of their preserving justice here below. |
| In aliis autem casibus enumeratis non semper obligatur aliquis ad restituendum. Non enim semper consilium vel adulatio, vel aliquid huiusmodi, est efficax causa rapinae. Unde tunc solum tenetur consiliator aut palpo, idest adulator, ad restitutionem, quando probabiliter aestimari potest quod ex huiusmodi causis fuerit iniusta acceptio subsecuta. | In the other cases mentioned above, a man is not always bound to restitution: because counsel and flattery are not always the efficacious cause of robbery. Hence the counsellor or flatterer is bound to restitution, only when it may be judged with probability that the unjust taking resulted from such causes. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non solum peccat ille qui peccatum exequitur, sed etiam qui quocumque modo peccati est causa sive consiliando, sive praecipiendo, sive quovis alio modo. | Reply to Objection 1: Not only is he bound to restitution who commits the sin, but also he who is in any way cause of the sin, whether by counselling, or by commanding, or in any other way whatever. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod principaliter tenetur restituere ille qui est principalis in facto, principaliter quidem praecipiens, secundario exequens, et consequenter alii per ordinem. Uno tamen restituente illi qui passus est damnum, alius eidem restituere non tenetur, sed illi qui sunt principales in facto, et ad quos res pervenit, tenentur aliis restituere qui restituerunt. Quando autem aliquis praecipit iniustam acceptionem quae non subsequitur, non est restitutio facienda, cum restitutio principaliter ordinetur ad reintegrandam rem eius qui iniuste est damnificatus. | Reply to Objection 2: He is bound chiefly to restitution, who is the principal in the deed; first of all, the "commander"; secondly, the "executor," and in due sequence, the others: yet so that, if one of them make restitution, another is not bound to make restitution to the same person. Yet those who are principals in the deed, and who took possession of the thing, are bound to compensate those who have already made restitution. When a man commands an unjust taking that does not follow, no restitution has to be made, since its end is chiefly to restore the property of the person who has been unjustly injured. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod non semper ille qui non manifestat latronem tenetur ad restitutionem, aut qui non obstat, vel qui non reprehendit, sed solum quando incumbit alicui ex officio, sicut principibus terrae. Quibus ex hoc non multum imminet periculum, propter hoc enim potestate publica potiuntur, ut sint iustitiae custodes. | Reply to Objection 3: He that fails to denounce a thief or does not withstand or reprehend him is not always bound to restitution, but only when he is obliged, in virtue of his office, to do so: as in the case of earthly princes who do not incur any great danger thereby; for they are invested with public authority, in order that they may maintain justice. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 62 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8 [ << | >> ]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non teneatur aliquis statim restituere, sed potius licite possit restitutionem differre. Praecepta enim affirmativa non obligant ad semper. Sed necessitas restituendi imminet ex praecepto affirmativo. Ergo non obligatur homo ad statim restituendum. | Objection 1: It would seem that a man is not bound to immediate restitution, and can lawfully delay to restore. For affirmative precepts do not bind for always. Now the necessity of making restitution is binding through an affirmative precept. Therefore a man is not bound to immediate restitution. |
| Praeterea, nullus tenetur ad impossibile. Sed quandoque aliquis non potest statim restituere. Ergo nullus tenetur ad statim restituendum. | Objection 2: Further, no man is bound to do what is impossible. But it is sometimes impossible to make restitution at once. Therefore no man is bound to immediate restitution. |
| Praeterea, restitutio est quidam actus virtutis, scilicet iustitiae. Tempus autem est una de circumstantiis quae requiruntur ad actus virtutum. Cum igitur aliae circumstantiae non sint determinatae in actibus virtutum, sed determinabiles secundum rationem prudentiae; videtur quod nec in restitutione sit tempus determinatum, ut scilicet aliquis teneatur ad statim restituendum. | Objection 3: Further, restitution is an act of virtue, viz. of justice. Now time is one of the circumstances requisite for virtuous acts. Since then the other circumstances are not determinate for acts of virtue, but are determinable according to the dictate of prudence, it seems that neither in restitution is there any fixed time, so that a man be bound to restore at once. |
| Sed contra est quod eadem ratio esse videtur in omnibus quae sunt restituenda. Sed ille qui conducit opera mercenarii non potest differre restitutionem, ut patet per illud quod habetur Levit. XIX non morabitur opus mercenarii tui apud te usque mane. Ergo neque in aliis restitutionibus faciendis potest fieri dilatio, sed statim restituere oportet. | On the contrary, All matters of restitution seem to come under one head. Now a man who hires the services of a wage-earner, must not delay compensation, as appears from Lev. 19:13, "The wages of him that hath been hired by thee shall not abide with thee until the morning." Therefore neither is it lawful, in other cases of restitution, to delay, and restitution should be made at once. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod sicut accipere rem alienam est peccatum contra iustitiam, ita etiam detinere eam, quia per hoc quod aliquis detinet rem alienam invito domino, impedit eum ab usu rei suae, et sic ei facit iniuriam. Manifestum est autem quod nec per modicum tempus licet in peccato morari, sed quilibet tenetur statim peccatum deserere, secundum illud Eccli. XXI, quasi a facie colubri fuge peccatum. Et ideo quilibet tenetur statim restituere, vel petere dilationem ab eo qui potest usum rei concedere. | I answer that, Even as it is a sin against justice to take another's property, so also is it to withhold it, since, to withhold the property of another against the owner's will, is to deprive him of the use of what belongs to him, and to do him an injury. Now it is clear that it is wrong to remain in sin even for a short time; and one is bound to renounce one's sin at once, according to Ecclus. 21:2, "Flee from sin as from the face of a serpent." Consequently one is bound to immediate restitution, if possible, or to ask for a respite from the person who is empowered to grant the use of the thing. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod praeceptum de restitutione facienda, quamvis secundum formam sit affirmativum, implicat tamen in se negativum praeceptum, quo prohibemur rem alterius detinere. | Reply to Objection 1: Although the precept about the making of restitution is affirmative in form, it implies a negative precept forbidding us to withhold another's property. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod quando aliquis non potest statim restituere, ipsa impotentia absolvit eum ab instanti restitutione facienda, sicut etiam totaliter a restitutione absolvitur si omnino sit impotens. Debet tamen remissionem vel dilationem petere ab eo cui debet, aut per se aut per alium. | Reply to Objection 2: When one is unable to restore at once, this very inability excuses one from immediate restitution: even as a person is altogether excused from making restitution if he is altogether unable to make it. He is, however, bound either himself or through another to ask the person to whom he owes compensation to grant him a remission or a respite. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod cuiuscumque circumstantiae omissio contrariatur virtuti, pro determinata est habenda, et oportet illam circumstantiam observare. Et quia per dilationem restitutionis committitur peccatum iniustae detentionis, quod iustitiae opponitur, ideo necesse est tempus esse determinatum, ut statim restitutio fiat. | Reply to Objection 3: Whenever the omission of a circumstance is contrary to virtue that circumstance must be looked upon as determinate, and we are bound to observe it: and since delay of restitution involves a sin of unjust detention which is opposed to just detention, it stands to reason that the time is determinate in the point of restitution being immediate. |